Studia Patristica - Papers Presented at the Eighteenth International Conference on Patristic Studies Held in Oxford 2019: John Chrysostom Through ... and History (11) (Studia Patristica, 114) 9789042945982, 9789042945999, 9042945982

Citation preview

STUDIA PATRISTICA VOL. CXIV

Papers presented at the Eighteenth International Conference on Patristic Studies held in Oxford 2019 Edited by MARKUS VINZENT Volume 11: John Chrysostom through Manuscripts, Editions and History Edited by GUILLAUME BADY and CATHERINE BROC-SCHMEZER

PEETERS LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, CT

2021

STUDIA PATRISTICA VOL. CXIV

STUDIA PATRISTICA Editor: Markus VINZENT, King’s College London, UK and Max Weber Centre, University of Erfurt, Germany

Board of Directors (2019): Carol HARRISON, Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, Faculty of Theology and Religion, University of Oxford, UK Mark EDWARDS, Professor of Early Christian Studies, Faculty of Theology and Religion, University of Oxford, UK Neil MCLYNN, University Lecturer in Later Roman History, Faculty of Classics, University of Oxford, UK Philip BOOTH, A.G. Leventis Associate Professor in Eastern Christianity, Faculty of Theology and Religion, University of Oxford, UK Sophie LUNN-ROCKLIFFE, Lecturer in Patristics, Faculty of Divinity, University of Cambridge, UK Morwenna LUDLOW, Professor, Theology and Religion, University of Exeter, UK Ioannis PAPADOGIANNAKIS, Senior Lecturer in Patristics, Department of Theology and Religious Studies, King’s College London, UK Markus VINZENT, Professor of the History of Theology, Department of Theology and Religious Studies, King’s College London, UK Josef LÖSSL, Professor of Historical Theology and Intellectual History, School of History, Archaeology and Religion, Cardiff University, UK Lewis AYRES, Professor of Catholic and Historical Theology, Department of Theology and Religion, Durham University, UK John BEHR, Regius Chair in Humanity, The School of Divinity, History, Philosophy & Art History, University of Aberdeen, UK Anthony DUPONT, Research Professor in Christian Antiquity, Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies, KU Leuven, Belgium Patricia CINER (as president of AIEP), Professor, Universidad de San Juan-Universidad Católica de Cuyo, Argentina Clayton JEFFORD (as president of NAPS), Professor of Scripture, Seminary and School of Theology, Saint Meinrad, IN, USA

STUDIA PATRISTICA VOL. CXIV

Papers presented at the Eighteenth International Conference on Patristic Studies held in Oxford 2019 Edited by MARKUS VINZENT Volume 11:

John Chrysostom through Manuscripts, Editions and History Edited by GUILLAUME BADY and CATHERINE BROC-SCHMEZER

PEETERS LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, CT

2021

© Peeters Publishers — Louvain — Belgium 2021 All rights reserved, including the right to translate or to reproduce this book or parts thereof in any form. D/2021/0602/148 ISBN: 978-90-429-4598-2 eISBN: 978-90-429-4599-9 A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. Printed in Belgium by Peeters, Leuven

Table of Contents Guillaume BADY – Catherine BROC-SCHMEZER Introduction .........................................................................................

1

Maria KONSTANTINIDOU The Double Tradition of John Chrysostom’s Exegetical Works: Revisions Revisited..............................................................................

5

Manon DES PORTES Ethica Titles over Centuries: An Approach to the Transmission of John Chrysostom’s Homilies on John .................................................

27

Pierre AUGUSTIN D’Érasme à Field : Apport et limites des éditions et traductions des Homélies de Jean Chrysostome Sur l’Épître aux Philippiens............

55

Marie-Ève GEIGER Two Examples of the Collaboration between Henry Savile, Jacques Sirmond and Fronton du Duc .............................................................

81

Catherine BROC-SCHMEZER Are Chrysostom’s Homilies on Hannah a ‘Series’? ........................... 101 Nathalie RAMBAULT Où et quand l’Éloge des martyrs égyptiens de Jean Chrysostome (CPG 4363) a-t-il été prononcé? ......................................................... 121 Anthony GLAISE Studying the Quod Christus sit Deus (CPG 4326): A New Perspective about Chrysostom’s Polemical Works? ............................................... 131 Guillaume BADY En quête des premières attestations du surnom ‘Chrysostome’ ......... 143 Julien ALIQUOT À propos de Χρυσόστομος et d’autres anthroponymes tirés de στόμα ................................................................................................... 161

Abbreviations AA.SS AAWG.PH AB AC ACL ACO ACW AHDLMA AJAH AJP AKK AKPAW ALMA ALW AnalBoll ANCL ANF ANRW AnSt AnThA APOT AR ARW ASS AThANT Aug AugSt AW AZ BA BAC BASOR BDAG BEHE BETL BGL BHG BHL

see ASS. Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen Philologisch-historische Klasse, Göttingen. Analecta Bollandiana, Brussels. Antike und Christentum, ed. F.J. Dölger, Münster. Antiquité classique, Louvain. Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum, ed. E. Schwartz, Berlin. Ancient Christian Writers, ed. J. Quasten and J.C. Plumpe, Westminster (Md.)/London. Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen âge, Paris. American Journal of Ancient History, Cambridge, Mass. American Journal of Philology, Baltimore. Archiv für katholisches Kirchenrecht, Mainz. Abhandlungen der königlichen Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Berlin. Archivum Latinitatis Medii Aevi (Bulletin du Cange), Paris/Brussels. Archiv für Liturgiewissenschaft, Regensburg. Analecta Bollandiana, Brussels. Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Edinburgh. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Buffalo/New York. Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, ed H. Temporini et al., Berlin. Anatolian Studies, London. Année théologique augustinienne, Paris. Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, ed. R.E. Charles, Oxford. Archivum Romanicum, Florence. Archiv für Religionswissenschaft, Berlin/Leipzig. Acta Sanctorum, ed. the Bollandists, Brussels. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments, Zürich. Augustinianum, Rome. Augustinian Studies, Villanova (USA). Athanasius Werke, ed. H.-G. Opitz et al., Berlin. Archäologische Zeitung, Berlin. Bibliothèque augustinienne, Paris. Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, Madrid. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, New Haven, Conn. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd edn F.W. Danker, Chicago. Bibliothèque de l’École des Hautes Études, Paris. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, Louvain. Benediktinisches Geistesleben, St. Ottilien. Bibliotheca Hagiographica Graeca, Brussels. Bibliotheca Hagiographica Latina Antiquae et Mediae Aetatis, Brussels.

VIII BHO BHTh BJ BJRULM BKV BKV2 BKV3 BLE BoJ BS BSL BWAT Byz BZ BZNW CAr CBQ CChr.CM CChr.SA CChr.SG CChr.SL CH CIL CP(h) CPG CPL CQ CR CSCO

CSEL CSHB CTh CUF CW DAC

Abbreviations

Bibliotheca Hagiographica Orientalis, Brussels. Beiträge zur historischen Theologie, Tübingen. Bursians Jahresbericht über die Fortschritte der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, Leipzig. Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, Manchester. Bibliothek der Kirchenväter, ed. F.X. Reithmayr and V. Thalhofer, Kempten. Bibliothek der Kirchenväter, ed. O. Bardenhewer, Th. Schermann, and C. Weyman, Kempten/Munich. Bibliothek der Kirchenväter. Zweite Reihe, ed. O. Bardenhewer, J. Zellinger, and J. Martin, Munich. Bulletin de littérature ecclésiastique, Toulouse. Bonner Jahrbücher, Bonn. Bibliotheca sacra, London. Bolletino di studi latini, Naples. Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten Testament, Leipzig/Stuttgart. Byzantion, Leuven. Byzantinische Zeitschrift, Leipzig. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, Berlin. Cahiers Archéologique, Paris. Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Washington. Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio Mediaevalis, Turnhout/Paris. Corpus Christianorum, Series Apocryphorum, Turnhout/Paris. Corpus Christianorum, Series Graeca, Turnhout/Paris. Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina, Turnhout/Paris. Church History, Chicago. Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, Berlin. Classical Philology, Chicago. Clavis Patrum Graecorum, ed. M. Geerard, vols. I-VI, Turnhout. Clavis Patrum Latinorum (SE 3), ed. E. Dekkers and A. Gaar, Turnhout. Classical Quarterly, London/Oxford. The Classical Review, London/Oxford. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, Louvain. Aeth = Scriptores Aethiopici Ar = Scriptores Arabici Arm = Scriptores Armeniaci Copt = Scriptores Coptici Iber = Scriptores Iberici Syr = Scriptores Syri Subs = Subsidia Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Vienna. Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae, Bonn. Collectanea Theologica, Lvov. Collection des Universités de France publiée sous le patronage de l’Association Guillaume Budé, Paris. Catholic World, New York. Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, ed. J. Hastings, Edinburgh.

Abbreviations

DACL DAL DB DBS DCB DHGE Did DOP DOS DR DS DSp DTC EA ECatt ECQ EE EECh EKK EH EO EtByz ETL EWNT ExpT FC FGH FKDG FRL FS FThSt FTS FZThPh GCS GDV GLNT GNO GRBS

IX

see DAL Dictionnaire d’archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie, ed. F. Cabrol, H. Leclercq, Paris. Dictionnaire de la Bible, Paris. Dictionnaire de la Bible, Supplément, Paris. Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects, and Doctrines, ed. W. Smith and H. Wace, 4 vols, London. Dictionnaire d’histoire et de géographie ecclésiastique, ed. A. Baudrillart, Paris. Didaskalia, Lisbon. Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Cambridge, Mass., subsequently Washington, D.C. Dumbarton Oaks Studies, Cambridge, Mass., subsequently Washington, D.C. Downside Review, Stratton on the Fosse, Bath. H.J. Denzinger and A. Schönmetzer, ed., Enchiridion Symbolorum, Barcelona/Freiburg i.B./Rome. Dictionnaire de Spiritualité, ed. M. Viller, S.J., and others, Paris. Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, ed. A. Vacant, E. Mangenot, and E. Amann, Paris. Études augustiniennes, Paris. Enciclopedia Cattolica, Rome. Eastern Churches Quarterly, Ramsgate. Estudios eclesiasticos, Madrid. Encyclopedia of the Early Church, ed. A. Di Berardino, Cambridge. Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, Neukirchen. Enchiridion Fontium Historiae Ecclesiasticae Antiquae, ed. Ueding-Kirch, 6th ed., Barcelona. Échos d’Orient, Paris. Études Byzantines, Paris. Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, Louvain. Exegetisches Wörterbuch zum NT, ed. H.R. Balz et al., Stuttgart. The Expository Times, Edinburgh. The Fathers of the Church, New York. Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, Berlin. Forschungen zur Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte, Göttingen. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments, Göttingen. Festschrift. Freiburger theologische Studien, Freiburg i.B. Frankfurter theologische Studien, Frankfurt a.M. Freiburger Zeitschrift für Theologie und Philosophie, Freiburg/Switzerland. Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller, Leipzig/Berlin. Geschichtsschreiber der deutschen Vorzeit, Stuttgart. Grande Lessico del Nuovo Testamento, Genoa. Gregorii Nysseni Opera, Leiden. Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, Cambridge, Mass.

X GWV HbNT HDR HJG HKG HNT HO HSCP HTR HTS HZ ICC ILCV ILS J(b)AC JBL JdI JECS JEH JJS JLH JPTh JQR JRS JSJ JSOR JTS KAV KeTh KJ(b) LCL LNPF L(O)F LSJ LThK LXX MA MAMA Mansi MBTh

Abbreviations

Geschichte in Wissenschaft und Unterricht, Offenburg. Handbuch zum Neuen Testament. Tübingen. Harvard Dissertations in Religion, Missoula. Historisches Jahrbuch der Görresgesellschaft, successively Munich, Cologne and Munich/Freiburg i.B. Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte, Tübingen. Handbuch zum Neuen Testament, Tübingen. Handbuch der Orientalistik, Leiden. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, Cambridge, Mass. Harvard Theological Review, Cambridge, Mass. Harvard Theological Studies, Cambridge, Mass. Historische Zeitschrift, Munich/Berlin. The International Critical Commentary of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, Edinburgh. Inscriptiones Latinae Christianae Veteres, ed. E. Diehl, Berlin. Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae, ed. H. Dessau, Berlin. Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum, Münster. Journal of Biblical Literature, Philadelphia, Pa., then various places. Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Berlin. Journal of Early Christian Studies, Baltimore. The Journal of Ecclesiastical History, London. Journal of Jewish Studies, London. Jahrbuch für Liturgik und Hymnologie, Kassel. Jahrbücher für protestantische Theologie, Leipzig/Freiburg i.B. Jewish Quarterly Review, Philadelphia. Journal of Roman Studies, London. Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period, Leiden. Journal of the Society of Oriental Research, Chicago. Journal of Theological Studies, Oxford. Kommentar zu den apostolischen Vätern, Göttingen. Kerk en Theologie, ’s Gravenhage. Kirchliches Jahrbuch für die evangelische Kirche in Deutschland, Gütersloh. The Loeb Classical Library, London/Cambridge, Mass. A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, ed. P. Schaff and H. Wace, Buffalo/New York. Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, Oxford. H.G. Liddell and R. Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, new (9th) edn H.S. Jones, Oxford. Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, Freiburg i.B. Septuagint. Moyen-Âge, Brussels. Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua, London. J.D. Mansi, Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, Florence, 1759-1798. Reprint and continuation: Paris/Leipzig, 1901-1927. Münsterische Beiträge zur Theologie, Münster.

Abbreviations

MCom MGH ML MPG MSR MThZ Mus NA28 NGWG NH(M)S NIV NKJV NovTest NPNF NRSV NRTh NTA NT.S NTS NTTSD OBO OCA OCP OECS OLA OLP Or OrChr OrSyr PG PGL PL PLRE PLS PO PRE PS PTA PThR PTS PW QLP QuLi RAC RACh

XI

Miscelanea Comillas, Comillas/Santander. Monumenta germaniae historica. Hanover/Berlin. Mediaevalia Lovaniensia, Louvain. See PG. Mélanges de science religieuse, Lille. Münchener theologische Zeitschrift, Munich. Le Muséon, Louvain. Nestle-Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th edition, Stuttgart. Nachrichten der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. Nag Hammadi (and Manichaean) Studies, Leiden. New International Version. New King James Version. Novum Testamentum, Leiden. See LNPF. New Revised Standard Version. Nouvelle Revue Théologique, Tournai/Louvain/Paris. Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen, Münster. Novum Testamentum Supplements, Leiden. New Testament Studies, Cambridge/Washington. New Testament Tools, Studies and Documents, Leiden/Boston. Orbis biblicus et orientalis, Freiburg, Switz., then Louvain. Orientalia Christiana Analecta, Rome. Orientalia Christiana Periodica, Rome. Oxford Early Christian Studies, Oxford. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, Louvain. Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica, Louvain. Orientalia. Commentarii editi a Pontificio Instituto Biblico, Rome. Oriens Christianus, Leipzig, then Wiesbaden. L’Orient Syrien, Paris. Migne, Patrologia, series graeca. A Patristic Greek Lexicon, ed. G.L. Lampe, Oxford. Migne, Patrologia, series latina. The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, ed. A.H.M. Jones et al., Cambridge. Migne, Patrologia, series latina. Supplementum ed. A. Hamman. Patrologia Orientalis, Paris. Paulys Realenzyklopädie der classischen Alterthumswissenschaft, Stuttgart. Patrologia Syriaca, Paris. Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen, Bonn. Princeton Theological Review, Princeton. Patristische Texte und Studien, Berlin. Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, ed. G. Wissowa, Stuttgart. Questions liturgiques et paroissiales, Louvain. Questions liturgiques, Louvain. Rivista di Archeologia Cristiana, Rome. Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum, Stuttgart.

XII RAM RAug RBen RB(ibl) RE

Abbreviations

Revue d’ascétique et de mystique, Paris. Recherches Augustiniennes, Paris. Revue Bénédictine, Maredsous. Revue biblique, Paris. Realencyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche, founded by J.J. Herzog, 3e ed. A. Hauck, Leipzig. REA(ug) Revue des études Augustiniennes, Paris. REB Revue des études byzantines, Paris. RED Rerum ecclesiasticarum documenta, Rome. RÉL Revue des études latines, Paris. REG Revue des études grecques, Paris. RevSR Revue des sciences religieuses, Strasbourg. RevThom Revue thomiste, Toulouse. RFIC Rivista di filologia e d’istruzione classica, Turin. RGG Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, ed. Gunkel-Zscharnack, Tübingen RHE Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique, Louvain. RhMus Rheinisches Museum für Philologie, Bonn. RHR Revue de l’histoire des religions, Paris. RHT Revue d’Histoire des Textes, Paris. RMAL Revue du Moyen-Âge Latin, Paris. ROC Revue de l’Orient chrétien, Paris. RPh Revue de philologie, Paris. RQ Römische Quartalschrift, Freiburg i.B. RQH Revue des questions historiques, Paris. RSLR Rivista di storia e letteratura religiosa, Florence. RSPT, RSPh Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques, Paris. RSR Recherches de science religieuse, Paris. RTAM Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale, Louvain. RthL Revue théologique de Louvain, Louvain. RTM Rivista di teologia morale, Bologna. Sal Salesianum, Roma. SBA Schweizerische Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft, Basel. SBS Stuttgarter Bibelstudien, Stuttgart. ScEc Sciences ecclésiastiques, Bruges. SCh, SC Sources chrétiennes, Paris. SD Studies and Documents, ed. K. Lake and S. Lake. London/Philadelphia. SE Sacris Erudiri, Bruges. SDHI Studia et documenta historiae et iuris, Roma. SH Subsidia Hagiographica, Brussels. SHA Scriptores Historiae Augustae. SJMS Speculum. Journal of Mediaeval Studies, Cambridge, Mass. SM Studien und Mitteilungen zur Geschichte des Benediktinerordens und seiner Zweige, Munich. SO Symbolae Osloenses, Oslo. SP Studia Patristica, successively Berlin, Kalamazoo, Leuven. SPM Stromata Patristica et Mediaevalia, ed. C. Mohrmann and J. Quasten, Utrecht.

Abbreviations

SQ SQAW SSL StudMed SVigChr SVF TDNT TE ThGl ThJ ThLZ ThPh ThQ ThR ThWAT ThWNT ThZ TLG TP TRE TS TThZ TU USQR VC VetChr VT WBC WUNT WZKM YUP ZAC ZAM ZAW ZDPV ZKG ZKTh ZNW ZRG ZThK

XIII

Sammlung ausgewählter Quellenschriften zur Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte, Tübingen. Schriften und Quellen der Alten Welt, Berlin. Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense, Louvain. Studi Medievali, Turin. Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae, Leiden. Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta, ed. J. von Arnim, Leipzig. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Mich. Teologia espiritual, Valencia. Theologie und Glaube, Paderborn. Theologische Jahrbücher, Leipzig. Theologische Literaturzeitung, Leipzig. Theologie und Philosophie, Freiburg i.B. Theologische Quartalschrift, Tübingen. Theologische Rundschau, Tübingen. Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament, Stuttgart. Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, Stuttgart. Theologische Zeitschrift, Basel. Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Lancaster, Pa. Theologische Realenzyklopädie, Berlin. Theological Studies, New York and various places; now Washington, DC. Trierer theologische Zeitschrift, Trier. Texte und Untersuchungen, Leipzig/Berlin. Union Seminary Quarterly Review, New York. Vigiliae Christianae, Amsterdam. Vetera Christianorum, Bari (Italy). Vetus Testamentum, Leiden. Word Biblical Commentary, Waco. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, Tübingen. Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, Vienna. Yale University Press, New Haven. Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum, Berlin. Zeitschrift für Aszese und Mystik, Innsbruck, then Würzburg. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, Giessen, then Berlin. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins, Leipzig. Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, Gotha, then Stuttgart. Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie, Vienna. Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche, Giessen, then Berlin. Zeitschrift für Rechtsgeschichte, Weimar. Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche, Tübingen.

Introduction Guillaume BADY, Lyon, France – Catherine BROC-SCHMEZER, Lyon, France

Shall we continue to call Chrysostom ‘Chrysostom’? What do we really know about the prolific author who was born in Antioch, became bishop of Constantinople in 398 and died in exile in 407? All the contributions of this volume deal with manuscripts, editions, textual history, and other aspects related to the preparation of critical editions. Their authors participated in the two-session workshop intitled ‘Chrysostomica and Pseudochrysostomica, from textual history to a reassessment of traditions’, at the Eighteenth International Conference on Patristic Studies in Oxford, August 20-21, 2019. In the context of current Chrysostom studies, where many publications use new scholarly tools for analysing Chrysostom’s texts, the present contributions, dedicated to a more traditional, centuries-old way of proceeding, might seem somewhat old-fashioned, like a ‘Paleostom’ versus a ‘Neostom’. Indeed, for decades we have all been using the traditional, Chrysostom’s text, as one reads in the Patrologia Graeca; what could be called ‘Mignostom’ is still nowadays the foundation of almost all studies, including the ones in this volume. No matter how suspiciously we conceive this printed text, we consider it trustworthy enough to go on quoting it, except when we deal with the series on Pauline Letters and, at most, check Field’s edition. We use it simply because it is convenient and because it is the main text reproduced in the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. But we all know that this is a shaky foundation. It remains, then, urgent to continue the task of looking for and establishing the most possible ancient state of the texts for the majority of his treatises and homilies, since the critical editions which are now available represent only a small part, not the most representative, of his work.1 Indeed, the more we can go back and get closer to the ‘authentic’ text, the more convincing the new way of studying Chrysostom will be. Editing the texts is a way to furnish a more secure ground to all types of investigations. Moreover, even by doing this traditional editing work, we find ourselves making discoveries and reassessing what was taken for granted before. Indeed, the workshop aimed to give significant examples of how much textual criticism 1 See Catherine Broc-Schmezer, ‘Comment l’image de St Jean Chrysostome évolue au gré de l’édition de son œuvre dans la collection des Sources Chrétiennes’, in Stavros Zoumboulakis and Pierre Salembier (eds), Sources Chrétiennes. Ἑλληνική καί λατινική συμβολή στόν εὐρωπαϊκό πολιτισμό, Apport grec et latin à la culture européenne (Athènes, 2019), 91-114, 108-9.

Studia Patristica CXIV, 1-4. © Peeters Publishers, 2021.

2

G. BADY – C. BROC-SCHMEZER

and history can change the way we represent John Chrysostom’s works, or John Chrysostom himself. The first and the last articles are general, whereas the others deal with precise texts. Although the texts analysed, the methods employed and the points of view used by the authors are different, it appeared during the workshop that the articles are fully complementary and that they provide an opportunity for thinking about questions of method and suggest new ways of examining the data for the next editors of Chrysostom’s texts as well as for commentators. Maria Konstantinidou shows that the phenomenon of double textual recension, well known for certain sets of homilies, is attested to in a much larger number of Chrysostom’s works than has been noticed until now. Significantly enough, in the various texts which were scrutinized, the most elaborate recension bares the same characteristics, which tends to prove that it is the result of a single, very large-scale undertaking aiming to produce a new edition of Chrysostom’s works. Could it have been led by someone such as Theodore Daphnopates in the 10th century? However one answers the question, this contribution brings another essential element to methodical examination and interpretation of the manuscript traditions. It confirms a paradoxical outcome: the less eloquent and the rougher the text is, the more genuine it proves to be; in other words: the truer ‘Chrysostom’ is the less ‘Chrysostomic’! This must be kept in mind when we want to study John Chrysostom’s ‘style’. Manon des Portes addresses the question of the ethica: the signs in the manuscript margins which indicate the beginning of the moral part of the homilies with the letters ἠθ, for ἠθικόν, often with a specific title. In the Homilies on John, this usage is very old since it is attested in Syriac as early as the 6th century, even if it is only systematized in the most recent manuscripts. It even seems that, insofar as it was a deliberate design of Chrysostom himself to endow his exegetical homilies with a relatively distinct moral part, ethica reflect or concretize the author’s intention. However, the printed editions, only the first of which mentioned them, gradually ceased to do so because of their secondary status, varied origins and multiple variants. Nonetheless, they do help to elucidate the relations between some manuscripts. We are invited, then, to pay more attention to these signs which are more authentic and less ‘marginal’ than we once considered them. The editorial process is also studied by Pierre Augustin. After working directly on the original documents of the editors, he traces the nonlinear progression of the editions of the Homilies on Philippians, from the 16th to the 19th century: first, Erasmus, Donato and Meusel, who only knew the ‘rough’ recension; then, Savile and Montfaucon, thanks to the work of Nobili, were able to publish – and, concretely, impose on readers until today – the ‘smooth’ recension; in the end, Field returned paradoxically to the first text. The appendices, which provide the identification of the manuscript sources and the list of editions and Latin translations from Erasmus to Field, support a demonstration

Introduction

3

remarkably consistent with the first two contributions and illustrate the ways Chrysostom’s work has been shaped and reshaped in modern times. Marie-Ève Geiger highlights the role of Henry Savile and, above all, that of Fronton du Duc and Jacques Sirmond, at the very beginning of the 17th century, in the princeps edition of homilies 3 and 4 In principium Actorum. Indeed, the Englishman was the first to publish homily 3, but he could only do so thanks to his correspondence with Fronton. The Frenchman, who published homily 4 a few years later, was not merely a follower of Savile – far from it. Another key role is also played by Jacques Sirmond, who discovered the texts and manuscripts in Rome and in Genoa. Catherine Broc-Schmezer challenges the traditional belief that the homilies On Hannah, which Chrysostom preached between Easter and shortly after Pentecost, constitute a ‘series’. By examining, first, the reasons why John should have paid so much attention to the mother of Samuel, unlike any Church Father before or after him, and second, by scrutinizing the literary and historical connections between them, she comes to the conclusion that the five extant homilies are not a unified ‘series’, but form, together with two other lost homilies, two groups, which cannot have been preached by the same preacher at the same moment and in the same conditions. Anthony Glaise shows that, whereas in the oldest manuscripts, the Quod Christus sit deus was copied among texts dating mainly from the first years of Chrysostom’s activity in Antioch, and had the title in its short version (Demonstration against the pagans, that Christ is God), in the more recent manuscripts, it was copied in groups of texts containing polemical works, almost always immediately after or before the Discourses against the Judaizing Christians, with an extended title: Demonstration against the Jews and the pagans, that Christ is God. This shows that the text was then perceived as belonging to the anti-Judaic polemic. The article underlines, then, that the concatenation of texts is an important element when establishing the history of a text. After her own edition of the homily On the Egyptian Martyrs, Nathalie Rambault goes a step further, since, by trying to identify who the martyrs were, when they were persecuted and who brought them to Constantinople, she found new evidence which demonstrates that the homily was most probably delivered in Constantinople, in the autumn of 401, and that the relics might have been brought by the famous Tall Brothers. Moreover, this discovery allows us to better understand the paradoxical praise of Alexandria which is given in the course of the homily. Finally, Guillaume Bady questions the very name of John ‘Chrysostom’. Seeking the origin of this epithet, he first examines how the bishop of Constantinople was named in ancient times, and discovers a number of other titles and images, such as the lyre, until the development of the current designation in the manuscripts from at least the 9th century on: τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν

4

G. BADY – C. BROC-SCHMEZER

Ἰωάννου ἀρχιεπισκόπου Κωνστανινουπόλεως τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου. More surprisingly, the epithet ‘Chrysostom’ or the allusion to golden words seems to have been first applied, either in a laudatory way or by antiphrasis, to John’s enemies. However, the appellation ‘Chrysostom’ is rare in general, even in epigraphic sources – as is confirmed by an additional note of Julien Aliquot – or in the other famous case of Dio of Prusa. After the first Latin reference to this name given to John in the 6th century, Guillaume Bady investigates the Greek sources from the 5th century to John of Damascus in the 8th. A look at other eastern languages confirms the relatively late diffusion of this name. In its own way, each of these contributions reveals an aspect of the everevolving shaping of John Chrysostom as a historical, religious and literary figure though the centuries. And while we search for unnoticed clues, reassess our predecessors’ investigations and establish new critical texts, we ourselves participate in this fashioning and, in a certain way, rewrite John of Constantinople’s legacy, both clarifying and modifying what we mean by ‘Chrysostom’. We are very grateful to all the contributors of the workshop, including Emilio Bonfiglio and Mark Huggins who participated in the discussion, as well as to Julien Aliquot who contributed afterwards. We would like also to thank Markus Vinzent and the colleagues who reviewed the papers with expertise and kindness, as well as Gerhard Schmezer and Matthew Jarvis for their assistance with the English parts of this volume.

The Double Tradition of John Chrysostom’s Exegetical Works: Revisions Revisited Maria KONSTANTINIDOU, Democritus University of Thrace, Komotini, Greece1

ABSTRACT This paper addresses the issue of a double manuscript tradition, evidence for which is found in most of St John Chrysostom’s exegetical works. One of these recensions has been traditionally viewed as a deliberate revision of the other – deemed more ancient – one. It is suggested that the second recension represents an undertaking by a single person or scriptorium that affected all these works. The lack of modern critical editions of most of Chrysostom’s exegetical works hinders the task of identifying the homilies involved and complicates any further investigation of the two recensions. Nonetheless, by utilizing the critical apparatuses in the existing editions, it is still possible to draw valuable conclusions both regarding the works involved and, less accurately, regarding the nature of the revisions. This paper is primarily concerned with studying the interventions of the reviser(s) and determining whether they follow a pattern across John’s exegetical works (in which case it would be possible to attribute them to the same source). Ultimately, the aim is to investigate the purpose and aims of such a project.

Since the early printed editions of Chrysostom’s work, scholars highlighted the presence of a double manuscript tradition in some of his exegetical works. Such cases have been pointed out as early as Savile and Field,2 who observed that the witnesses of texts they were editing (such as the Homilies on Acts and those on Ephesians) were clearly divided in two distinct groups, with variances that went beyond routine scribal errors and corrections. They also noticed that one of the two traditions transmitted what they perceived to be a more polished 1

I wish to thank the editors for their very useful and insightful remarks and corrections. Henry Savile, Τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἰωάννου ἀρχιεπισκόπου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου τῶν εὑρισκομένων τόμο[ι], 8 vol. (Eton, 1610-1612), and Frederick Field, Sancti patris nostri Joannis Chrysostomi archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani Interpretatio Omnium Epistularum Paulinarum per homilias facta, 7 vol. (Oxford, 1845-1862). The history of the editions of Chrysostom’s exegetical works on the New Testament is repeatedly recorded by most studies on their double tradition. Most recently, see Andrew M. Devine, ‘The Manuscripts of John Chrysostom’s Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. A Preliminary Study, a Critical Edition’, The Ancient World 20 (1989), 111-25, 123-4 for the Homilies on Acts. The editorial course of all the sets of homilies has been very similar, as they have been treated as a group from Savile to Field. 2

Studia Patristica CXIV, 5-26. © Peeters Publishers, 2021.

6

M. KONSTANTINIDOU

version of the texts in question. Unregulated by modern editorial rules and methods, they usually preferred the polished one over the other, rougher version of the text. More often, editors showed preference not for the smooth tradition as a whole, but for several of its readings, eventually producing an eclectic text. As new editions were emerging and more manuscripts were studied, the number of homilies identified as having a double tradition increased only marginally, leaving a large part of already edited Chrysostom’s work unaccounted for, as far as their double recension was concerned. Other early scholars sporadically mentioned the phenomenon, offering no further evidence or proof of their claim for a double tradition or its character. A shift in attitude in the twentieth century meant that a number of studies (each dealing with a single group of homilies) focusing specifically on the issue of double recensions in Chrysostom’s works emerged. Since then, their conclusions are cited in relevant bibliography, often in passing and usually to highlight the need for modern critical editions of the works involved. Modern studies routinely acknowledge the phenomenon as independent occurrences in different sets of homilies and they debate over the date, the authenticity and the priority of a second tradition when producing a critical edition. A number of logical and plausible explanations have been put forth as to why a second manuscript tradition emerged in a specific set of homilies, but lack of further evidence reduces them to speculations. Research usually focuses on determining the origin of these double traditions individually for each work.3 Scholars often assumed a parallel course, or even a common mechanism behind them (e.g. stenographers publishing less heavily edited version of some text, or people from Chrysostom’s circle occasionally reediting earlier versions of some works), but not a common source (e.g. the same stenographer or the same person from Chrysostom’s circle editing all of the works involved). In this paper I will investigate cases of Chrysostom’s works so far known to survive in a double manuscript tradition and identified as such in modern studies, and explore the possible extent of this phenomenon by suggesting possible additions to the list. Most editors and scholars agree that these two traditions differ sufficiently enough to qualify as two separate recensions: a short, more ancient one, and a slightly longer one and more recent, as well as to the character of the longer recension. I will also argue that all the longer recensions (or most of them) share common characteristics, pointing to a single source, a medieval reviser, perhaps around the tenth century, and in any case much later than Chrysostom’s times. These later versions of so many of Chrysostom’s 3 It is indicative that in his entry on ‘John Chrysostom’ in the 1913 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia, Baur mentions no less than four such instances in a single paragraph with no hint of possible connection between them: Chrysostom Baur, ‘John Chrysostom’, Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 8 (New York, 1913), 453-7, 456.

The Double Tradition of John Chrysostom’s Exegetical Works

7

works are the result of a concerted attempt to edit and publish his exegetical homilies on the New Testament and possibly the ones on the Old Testament too, a vast project even by modern standards. To the best of my knowledge, no study so far has considered the possibility that these occurrences are actually connected to each other representing an orchestrated attempt to revise a corpus of Chrysostom’s exegetical works and not individual incidents, unrelated to each other.4 There has also been no effort to investigate and determine the extent of the phenomenon, that is how many more works exhibit a two-fold tradition.

1. Revisions in works known to have a smooth recension The first half of the twentieth century saw a small number of studies specifically addressing the issue of double recensions in individual Chrysostom’s sets of exegetical homilies. The number of works studied systematically and proved to have a double recension, of which one is the revision of the other are:5 – The 55 Homilies on Acts, the double tradition of which has been examined so far more than any other. It all started with two dissertations at the University of Michigan by Sharon Finch and Edgar Smothers, followed by a number of relevant articles.6 Smothers was set to prepare a critical edition, which he never completed and his student, Francis Gignac, took on the task.

4 Having said that, Bady calls attention to a probable textual ‘normalization’ of Chrysostom’s whole work (in the fashion that classical texts were rewritten) in the ninth and tenth century during the rewriting from uncial to minuscule: Guillaume Bady, ‘La tradition des œuvres de Jean Chrysostome, entre transmission et transformation’, REB 68 (2010), 149-63, 152. 5 In this study, homilies on the same New Testament books are treated as sets, for the sake of practicality, but also because the contents of the manuscripts involved indicate that ancient scribes and editors (of both recensions) treated the homilies as groups and not individually. If anything, the high level of group uniformity attests to a more recent (rather than ancient) division of the two recensions. Thus, for the purpose of this particular research it is not necessary to indulge in the deconstructionist approach often favored by studies with a historical and factual focus studying, for instance the date and sequence of the preaching of homilies as well as the process of later publication. I am, however, aware of manuscripts preserving only parts of a group (especially when there are too many homilies to fit in one volume), or homilies in different order and the implications that this may have for the history of the text’s transmission. 6 Sharon L. Finch, Codex Michiganensis and the Text of St. John Chrysostom’s Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, unpublished dissertation (University of Michigan, 1933), and Edgar R. Smothers, The Twofold Tradition of St John Chrysostom’s Homilies on Acts, unpublished dissertation (University of Michigan, 1936). Soon after that, Smothers published an article summarizing his findings: id., ‘Le texte des Homélies de saint Jean Chrysostome sur les Actes des Apôtres’, RSR 27 (1937), 513-48. He followed up almost twenty years later, while preparing the critical edition of the homilies: id., ‘Toward a Critical Text of the Homilies on Acts of St John Chrysostom’, SP 1 (1957), 53-7.

8

M. KONSTANTINIDOU

The latter published a series of articles from 1970 to 1998, but he never got to produce a critical edition either.7 – The 88 Homilies on the Gospel of John.8 As with the Homilies on Acts, the double tradition of the homilies on John was studied first at the University of Michigan. Harkins began by examining a single manuscript of the smooth recension for his dissertation, as well as two Latin translations transmitting the revised text. The three witnesses together were sufficient to establish a separate recension. By the time he wrote his last article on the subject in 1966, he had studied eighty witnesses in preparation of the critical edition; like the edition of the Homilies on Acts, this too was never completed.9 – The 6 Homilies on the Letter to Titus.10 Their double recension is a somewhat later finding, studied in detail in three dissertations, the first published in 1979. The homilies were eventually edited twice in 1992 and 2006, although they produced very different texts. – The 3 Homilies on the Letter to Philemon. They were included along with the Homilies on Titus in two of the three studies mentioned above and were edited in an eclectic text in 1992.11

7 Francis T. Gignac, ‘The Text of Acts in Chrysostom’s Homilies’, Traditio 26 (1970), 30815; id., ‘Messina, Biblioteca Universitaria, Cod. Gr. 71 and the Rough Recension of Chrysostom’s Homilies on Acts’, SP 12 (1975), 30-7; id., ‘Codex Monacensis Graeca 147 and the Text of Chrysostom’s Homilies on Acts’, in Thomas Halton and Joseph P. Williman (eds), Diakonia: Studies in Honor of Robert T. Meyer (Washington, DC, 1986), 14-21; id., ‘The New Critical Edition of Chrysostom’s Homilies on Acts: A Progress Report’, in Jürgen Dummer (ed.), Texte und Textkritik: Eine Aufsatzsammlung (Berlin, 1987), 165-8; id., ‘Evidence for Deliberate Scribal Revision in Chrysostom’s Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles’, in John Petruccione (ed.), Nova & Vetera. Patristic Studies in Honor of Thomas Patrick Halton (Washington, DC, 1998), 209-25. A relevant article by a different author summarized the bibliography up to that point: A.M. Devine, ‘The Manuscripts’ (1989), 111-25. 8 Harkins is the author of all three studies on the Homilies on John: Paul W. Harkins, The Text Tradition of Chrysostom’s Commentary on John, unpublished dissertation (University of Michigan, 1948); id., ‘The Text Tradition of Chrysostom’s Commentary on John’, TS 19 (1958), 404-12, and id., ‘The Text Tradition of Chrysostom’s Commentary on John’, SP 8.1 (1966), 210-20. A fourth study had a focus on the text of John in the homilies: Justin Taylor, ‘The Text of St. John Chrysostom’s Homilies on John’, SP 25 (1993), 172-5 and, lately, Marie-Émile Boismard and Arnaud Lamouille, Un Évangile pré-johannique, 3 vol., Études bibliques 17-18, 24-25, 28-29 (Paris, 1993, 1994, 1996). 9 P.W. Harkins, ‘The Text tradition’ (1966), 210-20. 10 Blake Goodall, The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Letters of St. Paul to Titus and Philemon. Prolegomena to an Edition, Classical Studies 20 (Berkeley, 1979); Wendy FickPradels, Les Homélies de Jean Chrysostome sur les Épîtres à Tite et Philémon, unpublished thesis (Université des Sciences Humaines de Strasbourg, 1992) and Maria Konstantinidou, St John Chrysostom’s Homilies on the Letter of St Paul to Titus: A Critical Edition with Introduction and Notes on Selected Passages, unpublished thesis (University of Oxford, 2006). Unlike the other two, Goodall never edited the text; and although Fick-Pradels printed an eclectic text, they all agree that there is a double recension, one of which represents later revisions. 11 B. Goodall, The Homilies (1979) and W. Fick-Pradels, Les Homélies (1992).

The Double Tradition of John Chrysostom’s Exegetical Works

9

In accordance with the findings of the early editors, two recensions have been identified for each set of homilies: a rough one and a smooth one. Scholars largely agree that the smooth recension is a deliberate revision of the rough one.12 In all cases there are several manuscripts representing a slightly longer and ‘improved’ version of the text giving out a deliberate editorial effort. Although earlier editors were inclined to print the smooth recension, at least eclectically, for stylistic reasons, later scholars tend to acknowledge the rough one as the ‘original’ and, therefore, preferable. Part of the debate was based on an assumption that they are both ancient, not long after Chrysostom’s times and that the smooth one is a more polished version of the rough one in view of publication, eliminating shortcomings of oral delivery.13 Other theories include the existence of two separate antique editions, shorthand notes taken from two separate deliveries of the same homilies, two different stenographers taking notes from the same delivery, a revision by Chrysostom’s own hand, and a revision by someone close to him.14 However, in all four sets of homilies mentioned above, there is a consensus that the smooth recension is a later, deliberately revised version of the rough one. Moreover, for all four sets of homilies there are numerous manuscripts of both recensions. This means that all these revised versions found their way into 12 F.T. Gignac, ‘Evidence’ (1998), 210 adopts the theory put forth in E.R. Smothers, The Twofold Tradition (1936), 167-74, on a rough revision by stenographers which was later revised to a higher standard. B. Goodall, The Homilies (1979), 49-61, also accepts this theory, which seems to become established since then. An account of all the proposed theories can be found in James D. Cook, Preaching and Popular Christianity: Reading the Sermons of John Chrysostom (Oxford, 2019), 31-49. He sees the rough recension as the initial publication deriving from stenographers’ notes and reflecting elements of oral delivery, whereas the smooth one is the efforts of scribes (of unspecified date), who felt that they needed to correct discrepancies due to orality. 13 Quite a few scholars thought that the rough recension text is of inexcusably low quality for a master orator like Chrysostom, and that the revisions were a much-needed improvement. I disagree and Harkins did too: ‘As I see it, the sermons were more vigorous the way they were originally delivered, and the rewriting process weakened them; the abrupt transitions of Family A, for instance, were deliberate, artistic, and effective; the substituted words of Family B have often destroyed a very dramatic and forceful effect. It seems more intrinsically possible that Chrysostom, one of the outstanding orators of all time, would have preached in the sinewy style of Family A’: P.W. Harkins, ‘The Text Tradition of Chrysostom’s Commentary on John’ (1958), 412. For a summary see E.R. Smothers, The Twofold Tradition (1936), 32-46, where he reports all theories on the smooth and rough recensions up to his time. G. Bady, ‘La tradition’ (2010), 156-7, who gives six possible explanations for the revisions, assumes an early date for the revised version despite the admission that the text may have been normalized in later times. He also suggests the reintroduction of the homily in the liturgical context as the driving force for the revisions. 14 For a brief overview see also F.T. Gignac, The New Critical Edition (1987), 167. Until now, the sole focus of such a discussion has often been to determine what text should be printed in an edition. See for instance Smother’s conclusions in his thesis. Clearly, early editors, including scholars of the early twentieth century were concerned about reconstructing the text closest to what Chrysostom envisaged to publish, whether it was oral or written or both if the two traditions were ‘equally primitive’; E.R. Smothers, The Twofold Tradition (1936), 32.

10

M. KONSTANTINIDOU

systematic manuscript production side by side with the rough ones; and that they represented more than a solitary scholar polishing his own copy. The large numbers of surviving manuscripts of both traditions also implies that the rough recensions were more than a working draft produced by stenographers’ notes; they were meant for publication and they circulated widely. Despite the existence of several studies on double manuscript traditions, the lack of cross references among them is remarkable. It appears that each scholar was aware of, or considered relevant, only studies on the same set of homilies that they were examining. Having said that, the Michigan group (Finch, Smothers, Harkins and Gignac) were familiar with each other’s research but none of them took into account the work previously done on other sets of homilies. Moreover, Finch and Smothers both knew of Baur’s work and findings; so did Gignac and Harkins, who were both Smother’s students. The latter is the only one referring – albeit superficially – to Finch’s work, but they are both writing on the same set of homilies. Findings from the Homilies on Acts are not used in the studies on the Homilies on John and vice-versa. Although they were all studying the same issue, in different works of the same author, at the same institution, they did not attempt to connect the two cases; nor did Goodall several decades later, when he documented the same phenomenon for the Homilies on Titus and Philemon. The first one to mention such cases together in a single study (although without offering evidence or further elucidating) was Baur, who vaguely implied an early date for revised editions in several works.15 Harkins investigated Baur’s statements (calling them ‘a strongly felt but unproved conviction’) and for the first time brought together the then existing bibliography on Chrysostom’s double recensions.16 However, neither assumed any connection among these cases and Harkins did not initially challenge Baur’s dating of the revisions back to Chrysostom’s times. Recently, more of this bibliography (and substantially updated) has been summarized by Guillaume Bady in an article of 2010.17 Since then, studies increasingly mention that ‘a number of Chrysostom’s works have been transmitted in two different recensions’,18 also without further investigating a possible connection among them. 15 Chrysostome Baur, ‘L’entrée littéraire de Saint Chrysostome dans le monde latin’, RHE 8 (1907), 249-65. Baur also lists possible revisions of this kind for several other sets in his entry on ‘John Chrysostom’ (1913), 456, including the Sermons and Homilies on Genesis, those on Acts and on Matthew and the Commentaries on Galatians. He generally mentions that they were ‘as preserved by stenographers’, ‘probably from a later edition’ or that the text ‘probably comes to us from the hand of a second editor’. But he offers no further explanation to justify his comments; nor did he ever publish more on the subject. 16 P.W. Harkins, The Text Tradition (1948), 168-70. 17 G. Bady, ‘La tradition’ (2010), 149-63. 18 J.D. Cook, Preaching and Popular Christianity (2019), 34.

The Double Tradition of John Chrysostom’s Exegetical Works

11

1.1 The nature of the revisions19 In the studies focusing on the revisions, scholars have identified different types of separatory readings, distinguishing the long from the short manuscript tradition. No linguistic analysis of the revisions has been attempted so far. Instead, classification focuses on their content, as well as their exegetical and stylistic function in the text. A comparative study of separatory readings in the four sets of homilies seem to have common characteristics. Examining the categories put forth in one set, the acquainted reader is inevitably led to the conclusion that they also apply to the other sets. To begin with, in all four sets, revisions fall in two broad categories: a) Longer revisions: these are sizeable additions and expansions on words, phrases, narrations or ideas. They range from 5-6 words and up to a couple of lines. Any longer intervention is probably just a fault of the text (e.g. a lacuna or a missing folio). They cannot be attributed to scribal errors (such as homoioteleuton or homoioarchon). All these revisions added up result to a text that is substantially lengthier compared to that of the rough recension, eventually producing what became known also as the ‘longer’ recension; and b) Shorter revisions, which include omissions, additions or substitutions of one to three or four words. They were mainly meant to improve the text stylistically or in terms of clarity, sometimes unsuccessfully or unnecessarily. These too are variations that cannot be explained by usual scribal errors; on the contrary, they demonstrate deliberate interference and one can grasp the reviser’s rationale even behind their less effective attempts. They are transmitted alongside the longer revisions by the same families of manuscripts. One of the scholars to classify the types of revisions of the smooth recension was Gignac.20 In this particular article, his evidence comes solely from the Homilies on the Acts, which is a bulky set. He also relies on Smothers and Finch’s works, both of whom attempted to analyse the nature of the revised version, but not systematically. Apart from Gignac, Goodall also gives a list of general conclusions regarding the revisions in the Homilies on Titus and Philemon, two much shorter sets.21 He, too, analyses and classifies samples of revisions. For the Homilies on John, we rely on Harkins, who does not make an explicit attempt to classification.22 It is worth noting that, unlike the early 19

In this section I will focus on the four sets of homilies (on Acts, John, Titus and Philemon) for which we have modern studies and/or editions, as well as readily available material to compare. 20 F.T. Gignac, ‘Evidence’ (1998), 212-25. He also gives a classification of revisions concerning the New Testament quotations in the Homilies on Acts in id., ‘The Text of Acts’ (1970), 310-5. 21 B. Goodall, The Homilies (1979), 60-1. 22 It is mainly in his dissertation, where he discusses the types of revision, but not strictly classifying them; P.W. Harkins, The Text Tradition (1948), 72-101. He presents a very generally phrased list of these types in id., ‘The Text Tradition’ (1958), 412.

M. KONSTANTINIDOU

12

editors, those scholars – Harkins, just like Gignac and Goodall – are unimpressed by the effectiveness of the revisions. They all believe that the reviser’s interventions are not only doubtfully improvements stylistically, but often plainly wrong. There are, of course, instances, where the revisions restore minor issues in the rough recension. The lists/classifications put forth by Gignac and Goodall mainly concern the longer revisions. Although each one focuses on different characteristics, they reach conclusions consonant to each other, despite them studying different sets of homilies. Again, however, neither Goodall cites Gignac and his predecessors, nor Gignac (in his later papers) cites Goodall. 1.1.1 The longer revisions In the following list, I have merged the types suggested by Gignac and Goodall, and further supplemented them. There can be numerous approaches in categorising the revisions and the list below is by no means exhaustive. However, the following list of types of revisions is reasonably inclusive: – The smooth recension expands on the original text, adding factual corrections and explanations on the New Testament text, or other biblical narrations included in the homilies. They involve details and further information on prosopography, genealogy, geography, chronology and other historical aspects in biblical narrations. Several such cases can be found in all four sets, not always successful. In Homily 3 on Titus (PG 62, 676.5-7), both recensions cite the Epimenides paradox. The rough recension does not name its creator: καὶ τίς καὶ πόθεν ἐστὶν ὁ εἰρηκὼς, ἀναγκαίον εἰπεῖν πρὸς ὑμᾶς. Ἔχει δὲ οὔτως ἡ ὑπόθεσις. The reviser rectifies this by attributing it to Epimenides: Ἐπιμενίδης οὖν ἐστιν ὁ εἰρηκὼς. Κρὴς καὶ αὐτὸς ὤν· ἀλλὰ πόθεν κινούμενος͵ ἀναγκαῖον εἰπεῖν τὴν ὑπόθεσιν πρὸς ὑμᾶς· ἔχει δὲ οὕτως. – The revised text offers definitions of words or clarification on their meaning. They are usually relatively short, sοmetimes resembling dictionary entries, sometimes etymological or – not unusually – paretymological. Gignac cites such an example from Homily 21 on Acts (PG 60, 167.8-12), where the smooth recension adds to the word μαθηταῖς mentioned in the rough one: Μαθητὰς δὲ καλεῖ, καὶ τοὺς μὴ τελοῦντας εἰς τὸν χορὸν τῶν δώδεκα.23 – The revisions sometimes clarify on – what the reviser perceives as – dubious, confusing or elusive passages, or expands on ones with very condensed meaning. Revisions of this type often result in too obvious additions to a perfectly clear text. For instance, in Homily 4 on Acts (PG 60, 41.52-42.44), the reviser expands on the word θερισμός in the text of Matthew 9:37: Ὁ μὲν θερισμὸς πολὺς, οἱ δὲ ἐργάται ὀλίγοι. Ὥστε αὐτὸς ἐπέβαλε τὸ δρέπανον πρότερος. Αὐτὸς γὰρ ἀνήγαγεν εἰς οὐρανοὺς ἀπαρχὴν, τὸ ἡμῶν προσλαβών. Διὰ τοῦτο καὶ θερισμὸν τὸ τοιοῦτον καλεῖ. 23

F.T. Gignac, ‘Evidence’ (1998), 220.

The Double Tradition of John Chrysostom’s Exegetical Works

13

– The last two categories are often provided as part of a question-and-answer scheme. The reviser inserts a question, serving as a connective to secure smooth transition between the preceding text and his explanation (in this case a definition or clarification). Moreover, in cases of existing, pre-revision questions, the reviser alters the text that serves as an answer, but keeps the question intact. For instance, in Homily 26 on Acts (PG 60, 197), after the lemma, the rough recension asks Ποῖον ἐκεῖνον λέγει καιρόν; Πάντως τὸν ἐφεξῆς. And the smooth recension continues: Ἀλλ’ ἐνταῦθα μὲν οὕτως, ἀλλαχοῦ δὲ ἑτέρως. – They often repeat key words or phrases from the preceding sentence, which they go on to explain. This is similar to the previous one, only in this case it is not the definition of an unusual/difficult word, but an explanation of what Chrysostom means by using that word. It may be terms of special meaning in their context (like παρρησία or φιλοσοφία), or clarifications of whom a pronoun (αὐτός) refers to or an adverb (ἐκεῖ), or even a word/phrase slightly remoted in the text. These clarifications are often unnecessary or self-evident. Such an example comes from the second Homily on Titus (PG 62, 673.39-41): Ὅταν οὖν πεῖσαι μὴ δυνηθῇς, μὴ διάταττε τούτοις, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπιστόμιζε εἰς τὴν τῶν ἄλλων ὠφέλειαν. Τί οὖν τὸ κέρδος, εἰ ἀνυπότακτοί εἰσι; The smooth recension for fear that the reader will not make the connection that some people being ἀνυπότακτοι (insubordinate) is a result of a failed attempt to persuade (as mentioned at the beginning of the previous sentence: ὃταν οὖν πεῖσαι μὴ δυνηθῇς) and it is seen as an independent statement, repeats the phrase (ὅταν μὴ πείθωνται) to enhance the clarity of the argument. Thus, it transmits: Ὅταν οὖν πεῖσαι μὴ δυνηθῇς, μὴ διάταττε τούτοις, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπιστόμιζε εἰς τὴν τῶν ἄλλων ὠφέλειαν. Τί οὖν τὸ κέρδος ὅταν μὴ πείθωνται, ἢ καὶ ἀνυπότακτοί εἰσι; – The reviser sometimes makes an attempt at stylistic improvement and enhancement of the rhetorical character of certain passages. This includes additions of admonitions and audience addresses, or as Gignac puts it ‘adding sermonizing expansions’. For instance, in the first Homily on Philemon (PG 62, 707.22-5), the rough recension transmits πῶς εὔκολον ἡ ἀρετὴ and the smooth one adds καὶ πολλὴν ἔχον ὠφέλειαν πῶς ἐργῶδες ἡ κακία ἡμεῖς δὲ τὸ οὕτως ἐλαφρὸν ἀποφυγόντες διώκομεν τὸ μολύβδου βαρύτερον. – The reviser may misunderstand (or completely misses) quotations or other arguments and corrects his text accordingly. Inversely, he sometimes identifies the author or the source of a quotation, especially when the same source has been quoted earlier; e.g. φησὶν ὁ ἅγιος (Paul, who was mentioned earlier) to whom the reviser attributes a quotation which is in fact from another book of the New Testament. Sometimes the reviser feels that an argument has not been adequately supported or explained, only because he has not understood it. He therefore adds an explanation that helps the argument fit into his own perception. For instance, in Homily 52 on Acts

14

M. KONSTANTINIDOU

(PG 60, 362.44-9) the smooth recension, narrating Paul’s trial in front of Lysias, emphasizes that the witnesses are called in front of Lysias and not in front of the tribunal (τότε καλεῖ αὐτῶν τὴν μαρτυρίαν, oὐκ ἐπὶ τοῦ δικαστηρίου ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ τοῦ Λυσίου). Instead, the reviser corrects that they are called not in front of Lysias’ tribunal, but also in front of Festus, who is mentioned in a different episode (oὐκ ἐπὶ τοῦ δικαστηρίου δὲ τοῦ Λυσίου τοῦτο ποιεῖ μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ Φήστου). – Of special interest is the type of revisions, where the biblical quotations in the rough recension are collated by the reviser with New Testament manuscripts. Several studies suggest that the reviser(s) undertook the task to align the New Testament quotations in the homilies with a New Testament text-type. Such systematic interventions have been shown in the Homilies on Titus, the ones on the Acts, and on John.24 All three studies provide many examples on their respective texts and they conclude that the revisions clearly purport to align New Testament quotations in the homilies with a particular New Testament text-type and all of them point, not surprisingly, towards the Byzantine one. As far as the latter ones are concerned, Taylor even suggests the possibility of having a separate manuscript tradition of New Testament text revisions (resulting in a triple MS tradition of the Homilies on John) and implies that it also applies to the Homilies on the Acts.25 – Goodall very accurately comments that sometimes there is no apparent reason for a revision. Indeed, this seems to be the case. A common example is the addition of the phrase καὶ τοῦτο ποιοῦσιν ἐπειδὴ instead of ἐπειδὴ. Another one from Homily 43 on John (PG 59, 254.2) is expanding ὡς δὲ ὀψία ἐγένετο attested by the rough recension to οἱ δὲ τοῦ διδασκάλου ἀπολειφθέντες ὡς ὀψία ἐγένετο, adding a well-known and self-evident piece of information that does not contribute to the meaning of the text. It appears that all four smooth recensions exhibit such types of revisions. One may add many more sub-categories or they may choose to make a different categorization, but this does not diminish the fact that such revisions across the five sets of homilies give out a strong sense of common provenance. Gignac states that ‘countless other examples fall under the general heading of the perennial tendency of editors and scribes to try to improve the style of the author’.26 Some of these countless examples I would like to focus on next.

24 F.T. Gignac, ‘The Text of Acts’ (1970); Maria Konstantinidou, ‘Opting for a Biblical Text Type: Scribal Interference in John Chrysostom’s Homilies on The Letter to Titus’, in Hugh A.G. Houghton and David C. Parker (eds), Textual Variation: Theological and Social Tendencies? (Piscataway, 2008), 133-48, and J. Taylor, ‘The Text’ (1993), 172-5. 25 Ibid. 173. 26 F.T. Gignac, ‘Evidence’ (1998), 224.

The Double Tradition of John Chrysostom’s Exegetical Works

15

1.1.2 The more casual revisions Regarding the shorter interventions, this is a list of some quite common ones. They are all found in abundance in our four sets. – The reviser adds or substitutes interchangeably (and without any discerning pattern) words introducing quotations or indirect speech. The words (and their derivatives) most commonly involved in such cases are: λέγει (or λέγων), φησί (or φασίν), γράφει (or γράφων), ἐπάγει, or combination of them: οὕτως ἐπάγων φησίν. These words, often in short phrases, are either added to the text of the rough recension, or they replace synonyms: e.g. another word standing out among the revisions because of its frequency is δείκνυσι/δεικνύς, used to underline the value of Paul’s quotations as proofs in Chrysostom’s arguments. It follows a quotation or narration in expressions such as ἐντεῦθεν γὰρ δείκνυται ὅτι. – Markers of locations in quotations, with words such as ἐνταῦθα, πρότερον, ἀλλαχοῦ; e.g. γράφων ἀλλαχοῦ ὁ ἅγιος or προσέθηκεν ἐνταῦθα. One of the most common ones, πάλιν, is used both as connective with the previous quotation and in order to assert that what follows is by the same author or in the same work. – Phrases that enhance the rhetorical character and orality: e.g. πῶς; ἄκουε/ μάνθανε, εἰπέ μοι. – Particle substitutions or additions are also common, but of course this holds true for most revisions. addition of γὰρ, οὖν, δὲ, μὲν, ὅτι, μὲν, use of δὲ instead of γὰρ etc. – Random additions of a single or two words, superfluous in terms of meaning and usually self-evident. They are often pronouns used explanatory to structural parts of the sentence. E.g. referring to God who is merciful, the rough recensions reads ὁ οἰκτιρμοὺς τοσούτους ἐπιδειξάμενος (Homily 1 on II Corinthians, PG 61, 385.58) and the smooth recension adds εἰς ἡμᾶς (towards us), an obvious clarification. – The reviser adds common emphatic phrases, which include: οὐ μόνον ... ἀλλὰ; οὐχ ἁπλῶς ... ἀλλὰ, εἰκότως, διὰ τοῦτο, μᾶλλον, οὕτως and other used less frequently. – Totally unnecessary ones, typically replacing words with synonyms and stylistically equivalent ones. Words commonly replaced are κύριος, ἅγιος and θεός with pronouns αὐτός, ἐκεῖνος as well as σαφῶς with φανερῶς, ἄνθρωπος for ἀνήρ and vice versa. Many of the shorter revisions are common alterations expected from any editor and they do not give out clues as to the reviser’s identity. Assessing each one individually does not add to our ability to trace its source nor to identify that source with that of other similar revisions. What turns these shorter revisions into evidence supporting a common origin for the recensions that transmit them, is their collective presence and their frequency.

M. KONSTANTINIDOU

16

These types of shorter revisions are also found in all four smooth recensions of the Homilies on the Acts, John, Titus, Philemon. Taking into account the frequency, length, content and common vocabulary of the revisions, I believe it is becoming clear that all four are the product of a single project, be that by a single person, or more probably a team. The power of this argument lies more on the accumulation of such revision in each work, rather than the evaluation of individual cases. Apart from their character and language, revisions of different sets also converge in their date and frequency. Gignac mentions that the revisions affect up to 17% of the text in some Homilies on the Acts.27 I calculated a similar number (more like 15%) for the Homilies on Titus and Philemon. 1.2 The date of the revisions Most of the scholars who identified a second tradition believe it to be a much later revised text (except for Smothers, who also thinks it was revised, albeit in Chrysostom’s times or not long after that).28 This applies to the Homilies on the Acts, on John, on Titus and Philemon. Of the sets that are known to have been revised, I only had access to a full list of revisions in the Homilies on Philemon and Titus, which I have personally edited. Goodall places them confidently in the tenth century, based on the uniformity in the text-type of tenth and eleventh-century manuscripts.29 This date is further supported by internal evidence of the revised version. I present an example from Homily 6 on Titus. As part of the exegesis on the Epistle mentioning Titus’ travel to Nicopolis, in order to join Paul, the rough recension says that it is a city in Thrace (ἡ δὲ Νικόπολις τῆς Θρᾴκης ἐστί) (PG 62, 696.29-30). The smooth recension transmits a reading saying that Nicopolis is in in fact in Macedonia, not Thrace (πόλις ἡ Νικόπολις τῆς Μακεδονίας ἐστί). The reviser is known to factually correct the rough recension, but which of the two readings is actually correct? This may have to do with the division and naming of the particular areas at the time the archetype of α (the family transmitting the smooth recension)30 was written. We know of an administrative change that took place in the ninth century and involves the names Macedonia and Thrace for a certain region.31 27

F.T. Gignac, ‘Evidence’ (1998), 225. E.R. Smothers, The Twofold Tradition (1936), 167-74. 29 The argument is that both recensions are remarkably pure up to the fourteenth century for both the Homilies on Titus and on Philemon. It is unlikely that the smooth recension (or the rough for that matter) would have remained so pure in the tenth and eleventh centuries had the revision taken place long before that. See B. Goodall, The Homilies (1979), 49-61. 30 Sigla from the edition of M. Konstantinidou, St John Chrysostom’s Homilies (2006). 31 Theophanes (Chronographia 475.22) mentions a monostrategos in Thrace and Macedonia active in 801/2. A ninth century seal of Leo, spatharios and tourmarches of Macedonia (Georgios 28

The Double Tradition of John Chrysostom’s Exegetical Works

17

Before that administrative change, therefore Nicopolis was indeed a city of Thrace, whereas after the ninth century, in the times of the reviser, it was part of Macedonia. Therefore, it is probable that the scribe of α refers to the same Nicopolis, but corrects Thrace to Macedonia, because this was the division during his times. We could use this passage to assign the ninth century as a terminus post quem for the production of the revisions. Gignac (but not Smothers) also places the revisions of the Homilies on Acts in medieval times.32 Harkins does not give a date for the Homilies on John.33 However, for the same set, Taylor implies a date earlier than the eleventh century although he sees two stages of revisions, the first one as early as the seventh century. They all reach these conclusions individually, without referring to each other’s work.34 Dating, therefore, further supports a common provenance of the revisions. The task to date the revisions could benefit immensely from translations of the texts in other languages. Although thorough examination of the published manuscripts is overdue, the little evidence available so far does not seem to oppose a later date for the revisions. The well-studied Syriac tradition of the homilies on John indicates that early Syriac translations of the text (fifth-sixth century) are closer to the rough recension.35 A sixth/seventh-century Syriac Zacos and Alexander Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals [Basel, 1971], I no. 2147), shows that Macedonia was first a tourma of Thrace. Niketas Choniates (Historia, 6.22-4) calls Adrianople one of the richest and strongest poleis of Macedonia. A thirteenth century historian, Georgius Acropolites (Annales 13.52-61), lists many Thracian poleis as located in Macedonia: see Alexander P. Kazhdan, The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium (Dumbarton Oaks, 1986), II 1261-2. 32 In ‘The Text of Acts’ (1970), 314, F.T. Gignac argues that the smooth recension carries New Testament readings of the Byzantine text-type that were inserted in the medieval times. 33 In his article, ‘The text tradition’ (1958), 54, P.W. Harkins cites Brown’s translation, who proved that the Greek Catena on Acts only transmits the rough recension, thus further supporting a later date for the smooth one, although not more specifically dating it. He also argues ‘a pari from the priority of the shorter and “rougher” recensions in the Sermons on Genesis and the Homilies on Acts’, that the rough recension is prior to the smooth one: P.W. Harkins, The Text Tradition (1948), 173-4. 34 J. Taylor, ‘The Text’ (1993), 172-5, supports the theory of two-stage revisions in the Homilies on John. In this study that mainly attempts to rectify an early Oriental-Syriac text of the Gospel, he studies seven manuscripts. He identifies a long and a short version of the text. Some of the witnesses preserving the longer one transmit a further revised version. The oldest witness of the first stage is a sixth-seventh-century Syriac translation, while the second stage does not survive in a manuscript earlier than the eleventh century. Taylor does not cite Harkin’s work on Chrysostom’s text of John. 35 A detailed but not complete study of the Syriac tradition on the homilies on John has been published in M.-É. Boismard and A. Lamouille, Un Évangile pré-johannique (1993-1996). The issue is much more complex and rather inconclusive research, which is further complicated by the fact that the editors of the Syriac translations use the term ‘long text’ for Greek and Syriac manuscripts (on the grounds that they do not have two large lacunae) that actually include Harkins’ both long and short recensions. Be that as it may, both Boismard’s and Childers’ studies (about two separate stages of revisions in the Greek text) reach the same conclusion: the revisions

18

M. KONSTANTINIDOU

fragmentary manuscript of the Homilies on Titus also shows no knowledge of the revisions. The same holds true for a Bulgarian collection of Chrysostom ethica from the tenth century.36 Unfortunately, very little work has been done on this domain. Manuscripts in Latin and Oriental languages are rarely taken into account even in the most recent critical editions, and when they are consulted they are used selectively and sporadically. Such translations, preserved in manuscripts considerably older than the Greek ones, can be crucial witnesses. It is evident from Field’s apparatuses that Latin translations and scholia often transmit revisions. It is important to map the presence of the smooth recension in Latin translations of all types, as it will offer clues regarding their date and later reception. 2. Other works showing evidence of revisions (but without a modern critical edition or relevant study) If all evidence points to a common source for these five sets of homilies, one inevitably wonders what the extent of such a project would have been. Early editors did not always consult enough manuscripts to ensure that both traditions were represented and instances of double traditions were sometimes left unnoticed. Their accounts, therefore, are not reliable and one needs to do primary research. The obvious place to start is the rest of Chrysostom’s exegetical works, particularly those on the New Testament. So far, we have identified a total of 152 homilies as having a double recension. Apart from these, other works are known to have a double recension, but without having earned studies dedicated to this specific matter:37 – The 33 Homilies on the Letter to Romans,38 of the type that we are examining in this paper (Harkin’s smooth recension) are not known to the extant early Syriac translations and are possibly later than the sixth century. For a summary of Boismard’s theory and Childers’ analysis see Jeff W. Childers, ‘The Syriac Evidence for the ‘Pre-Johannine Text’ of the Gospel: A Study in Method’, in David G.K. Taylor (ed.), Studies in the Early Text of the Gospels and Acts, Texts and Studies 1 (Birmingham, 1999), 64-7. 36 Aneta Dimitrova, ‘The Greek Versions of Chrysostom’s Commentaries on Acts and the Epistle to Titus in the Chrysorrhoas Collection’, Palaeobulgarica 40.3 (2016), 29-42. 37 We also know of double traditions in 8 Sermons and 67 Homilies on Genesis. See below, p. 23 footnote 52. 38 I am grateful to Peter Montoro of the University of Birmingham, who made available to me a copy of his undergraduate dissertation, The Lemmata of the Romans Homilies of John Chrysostom as a Text-Critical Source: A Preliminary Investigation, unpublished undergraduate dissertation (University of London, 2018). He has also generously discussed with me his findings from his research on the text of Romans in Chrysostom, where he proves that the Homilies on Romans is indeed one that has been revised. J. Legée has also edited Homily 8 on Romans, along with prolegomena on the whole set: Jaqueline Legée, Saint Jean Chrysostome: 10 homélies sur l’Épitre aux Romains, unpublished dissertation (Université Toulouse – Le Mirail, 1986).

The Double Tradition of John Chrysostom’s Exegetical Works

19

– The 24 Homilies on the Epistle to Ephesians,39 – The 16 Homilies on Philippians. Pauline Allen40 points out the possibility of a double recension in these homilies, which was already spotted by early editors. Pierre Augustin confirms this in his contribution in this volume.41 Although we know of their double manuscript tradition, the lack of specific studies or of a modern critical edition for these works, does not allow us to identify individual revisions, and to further determine their characteristics and classify them, date them, or trace their source. With the two traditions not distinguished from each other in, either a direct study of their manuscript tradition, or in a consistent critical apparatus, it is not possible to determine which portions of the homilies constitute revisions, or if they align with the revisions as we know them from our four sets of homilies. The methodology for a task of such magnitude is determined by the availability of material. Unless one is determined to collate – at least partially – several manuscripts of these works (since we do not know which manuscripts transmit either recension), we need to turn to the existing editions, with the hope that the witnesses used represent both traditions and that the readings of each were sufficiently recorded in the apparatus. It is, therefore, fair to conclude that determining the extent of the revisions in Chrysostom’s works is particularly challenging. Going meticulously through the apparatuses of such a long set of texts is by itself a sizeable project; the task is even more daunting because, for most of them, there is no modern critical edition. Older editions take into account few manuscripts – if more than one –, they often do not identify their sources or record their readings systematically. The task is further hindered by the fact that all previous editors produced an eclectic text, mixing readings from the rough and the smooth recension usually with preference for the smooth one. As a result, many of the longer interventions, the revisions that involved addition of several words, were printed in the text. These are exactly the type of entries in an apparatus that would alert us about a second recension: lengthy additions (or omissions) by a certain group of manuscripts. But in early, non-systematic apparatuses, such as Savile’s for example, it was much more likely to record a variant reading or an addition than an omission. Therefore, if the addition made it into the main text, an important variation between sources would not have been recorded. Even if it had been recorded, it is of importance that the variations are treated at a 39 Mentioned by F. Field, S.P.N. Joannis Chrysostomi… interpretatio, vol. 4 (1852), iii. Codices A (Monacensis gr. 353, tenth century), B (Paris, Coislin 75, eleventh century) and F (Vaticanus gr. 551 of the tenth century) represent the smooth recension, with multiple long additions and shorter ones of the type that we know. 40 Pauline Allen, John Chrysostom, Homilies on Paul’s Letter to the Philippians, Writings from the Greco-Roman World 36 (Atlanta, 2013), xxxiii. 41 See below, p. 55-79.

M. KONSTANTINIDOU

20

phrase or sentence level. For when they are broken down to a one-word (or to a few-words level), they can become hard to combine and, thus, to identify as longer revisions. Thankfully, gone are the days when the smooth recensions were preferred as ‘more polished’ and motivated editors to mix their readings with the text of the rough ones. Scholars of the twentieth century manifested the superiority of the rough recensions as the original. Both prospective editors of the Homilies on the Acts, Smothers and Gignac, were planning an edition of the rough recension only. In 1957 Smothers announced the resumption of his editorial work on the critical edition of the Homilies on the Acts.42 He revealed that he had been hard at work preparing the edition of the rough recension, which he considered superior and he was exclusively collating manuscripts representing the shorter text. Forty years later, Gignac, who took over the edition decided to collate manuscripts from both traditions, but stated that most of the revisions of the smooth recension will be largely eliminated also from the apparatus.43 Had their edition been published, it would still have been of little use for the study of the revisions. Thus, a modern edition is not necessarily more useful for our research, not directly concerned with the reconstruction of the original text. Sometimes an apparatus that records somewhat systematically even one manuscript of the smooth recension is enough to determine whether we are dealing with yet another case of the same types of revisions. The current situation of available critical editions renders the task of investigating a double tradition almost impossible. Among the available editions (the four sets of homilies excluded), only Field records readings somewhat systematically and provides a critical apparatus, although it is not always reliable and, of course, he examines far fewer manuscripts than are now known to us. Being the only material of this kind available to the modern scholar, we may still turn to his editions for evidence of revisions in other works of Chrysostom. Apart from the homilies studied above, he has edited all the homilies on the New Testament and the ones on Matthew. A relatively superficial examination of his apparatuses may offer evidence for the existence, or not, of a second recension. I have studied somewhat random, extensive passages from different homilies from the remaining sets of homilies on the New Testament from Field’s editions. In doing so, I searched for variations recorded in the apparatus that matched the characteristics of the longer revisions listed above, transmitted systematically by one or more manuscripts. After establishing that there is sufficient evidence for a second recension, I went on to confirm that revisions of the shorter type are also present, transmitted by the same witnesses and

42 43

E.R. Smothers, ‘Towards a critical edition’ (1957). F.T. Gignac, The New Critical Edition (1987), 168.

The Double Tradition of John Chrysostom’s Exegetical Works

21

appearing approximately with the same frequency as the ones studied above (affecting around 15% of the text). I did not examine all the readings systematically and my research incorporated only a small portion of the texts involved. Moreover, it is hard to determine the frequency of revisions with a serious claim to accuracy. However, the downsides of a sample examination are countered by the distinctive nature of the longer revisions. Having familiarized oneself with the character of our known revisions, the recognition of traces of such activity is unmistakable. All of the following homilies seem to have two distinct manuscript traditions:44 – The 33 Homilies on the Letter to Romans: A longer recension is transmitted by at least two manuscripts (D and E). These are codd. Paris. gr. 1016 and 734 respectively, both eleventh century.45 – The 44 Homilies on the First letter to Corinthians: Manuscript C (Paris. gr. 739, eleventh century) is often followed by Aretinus’ Latin translation. E (Paris. gr. 740, twelfth century) transmits some of the revisions (possibly by contamination) and so does a corrector of A (Oxford, New College, codex no. 77, twelfth century).46 Further investigation is needed for both of these manuscripts. – The 30 Homilies on the Second letter to Corinthians: The manuscript that clearly transmits revisions is D (Vindob. theol. gr. 75, fifteenth century). The revisions transmitted are quite frequent, clearly of the character studied above and it contains both longer and shorter ones. – The 6 Commentaries on the Letter to Galatians: There are revisions easily spotted and consistently transmitted by manuscripts E (Vindob. Lambec. 140, sixteenth century) and F (Ven. Marc. II 178, eleventh century) together with the Latin scholia. Baur also includes them in the revised sets of homilies.47 – The 12 Homilies on the Letter to Colossians: They share manuscripts with the Homilies on Philippians, including manuscripts with the revised version. Revisions are found in Field’s manuscripts B (Paris. gr. 743, eleventh century), C (British Library, Burney 48, eleventh/twelfth century) and H (Mosq. Synod. gr. 101, AD 993), one of the oldest dated specimens of the revisions. – The 11 Homilies on the First letter to Thessalonians and the 5 on the Second: Both sets are treated together by Field, as they are included together 44 The sigla used for the homilies on Pauline letters as well as for the Homilies on Matthew are from Field’s editions: F. Field, S.P.N. Joannis Chrysostomi … interpretatio (1845-1862) and id., Sancti Patris Nostri Joannis Chrysostomi archepiscopi Constantinopolitani Homiliae in Mattheaeum, 3 vol. (Cambridge, 1839). 45 For this and the following sets of homilies, it will take a much more meticulous examination of the manuscripts readings to determine their exact relationship with each other, as well as with the smooth and rough recensions. 46 Contamination taking place between traditions in the twelfth century corroborates B. Goodall, The Homilies (1979), 49-61 in his argument regarding the date of the revisions. 47 C. Baur, ‘John Chrysostom’ (1913), 456.

22

M. KONSTANTINIDOU

in the manuscripts that he consulted. Noticeable revisions are transmitted by codices B (Paris. gr. 743, eleventh century) and K (Monac. gr. 377, eleventh century), often Savile agreeing with their readings. – The 18 Homilies on the First letter to Timothy and 10 on the Second: K also transmits the revised version of the Homilies on Timothy I and II. It is the same manuscripts that preserves the revised version of the Homilies on Thessalonians, Titus, Philemon and Hebrews. For the Homilies on Timothy II, apart from K, manuscript Β (Paris. gr. 743) also has the smooth recension and possibly Savile used a witness with revisions. – The 34 Homilies on Hebrews, where the revisions come mainly from two manuscripts, K and Q (Marc. App. II 178, codex F of the Commentaries on Galatians), where K is again the Munich 377 which transmits the revisions found in Timothy and Titus and Philemon. The 90 Homilies on Matthew: Contrary to the works mentioned so far, the case of Matthew is less certain to be part of this revision project. Undoubtedly, there is some editorial activity going on in several manuscripts;48 their variant readings include additions often significant in size and meaning, beyond scribal errors. However, they are not as akin to our known revisions in length and frequency (although they are of similar character), compared to the ones encountered in manuscripts of other sets of homilies. Perhaps the volume of this particular set dictated less frequent interventions in the text. More than a few longer additions are credited to previous editors, who did not identify their sources systematically; is it possible that they used manuscripts of the smooth recension to which Field did not have access? Be that as it may, there is little doubt that these too are a revised set of homilies. It is just harder to identify the nature of the editorial activity with the one we already know from the other sets. The Homilies on Matthew seem to be a special case presenting extra challenges to the aspiring editor. Apart from the formidable length of the text, the longest of all the sets, these homilies survive in over one thousand codices, more than double of the witnesses transmitting the Homilies on John, as indicated by a search in the online database Pinakes (but this is largely due to the length of the work, with multiple volumes required to include all 90 homilies). The frequency and character of revisions is more or less consistent across all these sets of homilies and they are not hard to spot in Field’s apparatuses. 48 Up to homily 44 manuscripts A (Cambridge, Trinity College B.8.4, twelfth/thirteenth century) often followed by B (Cambridge, Emmanuel College I.l.12, eleventh century) seem to transmit the revisions. From homily 44 onwards, it is mainly manuscript G (Cambridge Trinity College B.9.12, eleventh century) that takes over transmitting the smooth recension. According to Pinakes, G also contains the first 44 homilies, but its readings are not recorded for this portion of the text. G’s revisions are closer to the ones known to us from the other sets of homilies, compared to the revisions of A.

The Double Tradition of John Chrysostom’s Exegetical Works

23

It appears that the whole of Chrysostom’s exegetical homilies on the New Testament were revised following a discernible pattern. A total of 243 homilies are found to have a revised recension, which added to the 152 already known to have been revised, amount to 395 (or 485 homilies if we include the Homilies on Matthew). Such a project could have been extended to include the homilies on the Old Testament, and it appears that it did. Of the works available in a modern edition, the Commentary on Isaiah, for instance, has a double manuscript tradition, with revisions of the character discussed above.49 The same holds true for the Commentary on Job and the Homilies on Uzziah.50 The 8 Sermons on Genesis, mentioned by Baur51 as a first (rougher) recension of the corresponding (out of the 67 in total) Homilies on Genesis, also survive in two recensions (in fact three, but it seems that only one of the two ‘revisions’ are of the type described above).52 It is worth noting that Brottier concludes that neither of the revisions can be attributed to Chrysostom, although she does not date them.53 Eventually, our attention should extend to the non-exegetical works. Beyond Chrysostom’s homiletical work, I will mention a few examples here such as the Homilies on St Babylas, the Panegyrics on Martyrs and the treatise On Virginity for which a double recension is also established.54 For the tradition that carries what is considered to be a revised version of the original text, the editor also suggests a date in the ninth-tenth centuries. The same holds true for the treatises To Theodore, for which the editor identifies a second version,

49 Jean Dumortier (ed.), Jean Chrysostome, Commentaire sur Isaïe, SC 304 (Paris, 1983), 22-31. 50 Dieter Hagedorn and Ursula Hagedorn (eds), Johannes Chrysostomos. Kommentar zu Hiob, PTS 35 (Berlin, 1990) and Jean Dumortier (ed.), Jean Chrysostome, Homélies sur Ozias, SC 277 (Paris, 1981), 20-36. 51 C. Baur, ‘L’entrée’, 249-65. 52 Laurence Brottier, ‘Remarques sur trois témoins des sermons Sur la Genèse de Jean Chrysostome (Monacensis gr. 352, Sinaiticus gr. 376, Parisinus gr. 775)’, RHT 27 (1997), 223-37. The readings of M in this article seem compatible with the revisions as we have seen them so far, whereas the ones by manuscripts S and Q are less substantial. The multiple recensions of the Sermons on Genesis are also discussed in ead., ‘Les huit sermons Sur la Genèse de Jean Chrysostome. Les apports d’une nouvelle édition’, SP 29 (1996), 439-50, in Walter A. Markowicz, ‘Chrysostom’s Sermons on Genesis: A Problem’, TS 24 (1963), 652-64 and in the edition of the text: L. Brottier (ed.), Jean Chrysostome. Sermons sur la Genèse, SC 433 (Paris, 1998). 53 L. Brottier, ‘Remarques’ (1997), 237. In this set of sermons, a fifth/sixth-century Armenian translation with no traces of the longer tradition does not support the idea that the two recensions were published simultaneously. 54 Nathalie Rambault (ed.), Jean Chrysostome, Panégyriques de martyrs, tome I, SC 595 (Paris, 2018), 91-9; Margaret A. Schatkin (ed.), Jean Chrysostome, Sur Babylas, SC 362 (Paris, 1990), 73; and Herbert Musurillo (ed.), Jean Chrysostome, La virginité, SC 125 (Paris, 1966), 77-86, where the two recensions are labeled ‘la tradition théologique’ (for the rough recension) and ‘la tradition de la vulgate’ (for the smooth recension, preserved in the majority of the manuscripts).

24

M. KONSTANTINIDOU

which he believes was produced at a later stage.55 A recent edition of the homilies On David and Saul with very detailed prolegomena also reveals a second recension with revisions in at least one branch of the tradition.56 On the other hand, in the treatise On Priesthood, the editor did not identify a double recension and the apparatus points to no such direction.57 3. The volume of the task This was a preliminary examination of the topic. Almost the entirety of Chrysostom’s exegetical homilies seems to have been part of a larger project to revise and publish his works. The next step should be to examine the feasibility of a full-blown study of the double recensions. The fact that so few of Chrysostom’s works have been treated with a critical edition in modern times is no source for optimism, especially with two of them (editions of Homilies on John and on Acts) having been repeatedly announced and not having appeared almost a century later. This is indicative of how one may underestimate the size of such a study. With the lack of critical editions, one needs to turn to the primary sources, the manuscripts. The task is much more disheartening. The manuscripts involved in a project for Chrysostom’s exegetical works on the New Testament alone are 2998 according to the online database Pinakes. One should begin examining each manuscript, with the purpose of assigning them to either the smooth or the rough recension. Even without fully transcribing and collating every single one of them, one can still draw conclusions from examining the primary witnesses. From the four well-studied sets of homilies, it is clear that both recensions are well attested among early manuscripts and this continues well into the later ones. Once we can determine which recension each manuscript transmits, we can subsequently draw further valuable conclusions studying these manuscripts’ format, their provenance and their distribution across the centuries. If we examine such a large number of manuscripts the statistical advantage will be tremendous, as we will be able to escape the ‘law of small numbers’ that largely distorts conclusions. Further study of the manuscripts will elucidate the reception of these revisions, but also of the rough recension in later times. The popularity that the revisions seem to have enjoyed imply a professional task which produced multiple copies, or perhaps that they became more available or more popular 55 Jean Dumortier, ‘La tradition manuscrite des traités à Théodore’, BZ 52 (1959), 265-75, 271. This is the main study for the Greek manuscript tradition. He then went on to edit the text in Jean Dumortier (ed.), Jean Chrysostome, À Théodore, SC 117 (Paris, 1966). 56 Francesca Barone (ed.), Iohannis Chrysostomi, De Davide et Saule homiliae tres, CChr. SG 70 (Turnhout, Leuven, 2008), xlvii-liv. It seems that sub-family δ of the manuscript tradition carries revisions of the type found in Chrysostom’s exegetical homilies. 57 Anne-Marie Malingrey, Jean Chrysostome, Sur le sacerdoce, SC 272 (Paris, 1980), 26-40.

The Double Tradition of John Chrysostom’s Exegetical Works

25

than the rough recension. If the revisions were indeed produced as late as the tenth century, then perhaps we could even find some of the original codices. Even without full transcriptions of the manuscripts or any aspiration for producing complete critical editions, the volume of witnesses is unmanageable by conventional means: almost 3000 codices to (partially) transcribe, collate, identify and classify their revisions. In tackling and assessing this vast amount of manuscripts, modern technology needs to come to our aid. The means available towards this aim, as well as their effectiveness and the demand to design new tools (or adjust existing ones to match our needs) is the subject for a whole different study. At the same time, one must also turn to the indirect textual evidence which has so far provided valuable help with dating the recensions. Translations of Chrysostom’s works in other languages will greatly advance our knowledge of the text’s history as mentioned above. However, not only are such translations often neglected, but they also present the editor with a haunting task, involving thousands of manuscripts in numerous languages. Furthermore, many of the witnesses involved have not always been easily available, whereas some are not even systematically catalogued. It goes without saying that we also need to examine the eclogae, the catenae and other relevant collections quoting Chrysostom’s exegesis. Is it possible that someone like Daphnopates, who produced his Eclogae, this work of ‘true tenth century encyclopedism’,58 undertook such a project?59 We can picture a scriptorium, possibly in Constantinople, during that period of intense philological activity. Chrysostom’s works would have been an obvious choice for the patron of such a project: a legend, with the bulkiest work among the fathers. A large team of scribes and editors would have been hard at work day and night and a network of scholars active to provide at least one copy for each work. It surely took a long time, maybe even more than Montfaucon’s twenty years, to complete the edition of all of Chrysostom’s exegetical works. The cost would have been immense, dozens of codices required, apart from all the hard work, and few patrons could have afforded it; perhaps the patriarchate of Constantinople, or the Emperor himself. Maybe these codices were meant to end up as a reference copy permanently placed in the patriarchal library, as envisaged by Reynolds and Wilson60 or maybe multiple copies were produced for further distribution.

58 Kazhdan’s own entry ‘Daphnopates, Theodore’, in Alexander P. Kazhdan (ed.), The Oxford Dictionary (1986), I 588. 59 I wish to thank Prof. Stratis Papaioannou for his input on this, he was the first to suggest Daphnopates as the mastermind behind such a project. 60 Leighton D. Reynolds and Nigel G. Wilson, Scribes and Scholars: a Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature (Oxford, 19913), 61-2.

26

M. KONSTANTINIDOU

A rough estimate of the manuscripts studied so far shows that up to a quarter of the codices preserving Chryosostom’s exegetical works (mainly dated between the tenth and twelfth centuries) transmit the revised version. Regardless of how the true story behind this vast endeavour goes, the second recension of Chrysostom’s work managed to secure its transmission and survival on a par with the original text. It is impossible to know the full extent of this project before a thorough examination of the entirety of the witnesses, or at least a considerable increase in modern critical editions. Both are daunting tasks, but with the help of modern technology and collaborative work in that direction such a project is now appropriate.

Ethica Titles over Centuries: An Approach to the Transmission of John Chrysostom’s Homilies on John Manon

DES

PORTES, Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3, France

ABSTRACT John Chrysostom’s commentary In Iohannem consists of eighty-eight homilies and was transmitted through more than three hundred known manuscripts. Most of the witnesses containing either the whole series, or the first or second part of the series, also make mention of titles that were given to the hortatory part of each homily – the ethicon. For example, at the beginning of the ethicon of the third homily, the text in the margin reads Περὶ ἐλεημοσύνης, ‘About alms’ and in homily 45 Ὅτι ἡ τῆς ἀναστάσεως καὶ κρίσεως μνήμη τὰς ἀτοποὺς ὁρμὰς ἐκκόπτει· καὶ περὶ εἱμαρμένης καὶ ὅτι ἐγγὺς τὸ τέλος, ‘That remembering the resurrection and judgement cuts out improper impulses; about fate and that the end is near’. These titles are not laid out in the same way nor mentioned systematically in the witnesses. The introduction and first part of this paper will present a corpus of manuscripts, whether or not there are ethica titles and the various ways the ethica titles are displayed. Is it possible to determine their origin? One can determine at least their earliest occurrence in the witnesses. Moreover, in order better to understand the making of John Chrysostom’s work, the second part will explore ancient clues that, from the outset, the hortatory part of his homilies were identified as distinct from the exegetical part. A complementary approach shows that later editors seem to have considered that ethica titles were due to a redactional intervention, and not worth printing. Moreover, these titles sometimes differ from one manuscript to another. Through examples and short analyses, the third part of the paper aims to answer two more questions: what are the main variations? Can specific families of manuscripts be distinguished through the titles of the ethica? This paper draws preliminary conclusions about our study of ethica titles in a sample of manuscripts.

Purpose of the research My PhD research aims at understanding better the manuscript tradition of John Chrysostom’s eighty-eight Homilies on John. Since there are more than three hundred witnesses, and Jacques-Paul Migne1 and previous editors have taken into account only a dozen, a new critical edition is needed. This requires J.-P. MIGNE, Patrologiae cursus completus, vol. 59 (Paris, 1863). Homilies 1-88 on the Gospel of John can be read in PG 59, 23-482. I refer to this text by giving the column number followed by the line number, like in ‘64.28’ (beginning of ethicon 7 at column 64, line 28). 1

Studia Patristica CXIV, 27-54. © Peeters Publishers, 2021.

M. DES PORTES

28

first to disentangle and sort out the manuscript tradition. So far (in August 2019), I have examined a portion of these more than three hundred witnesses: first, by checking the contents of about seventy witnesses that I could access on microfilms, online or in various places I was able to travel; I sometimes found out that a catalogue registers some manuscript as an In Iohannem codex, when its actual contents are John Chrysostom’s series In Genesim, or a much shorter and different version of the commentary on John sometimes identified as Commentarius breuis. Then, I probed the contents thanks to two collations, in order to discern families of manuscripts. Most of the time, Chrysostom’s homilies are divided in two parts, exegesis and parenesis: a commentary comes first and explains the Scripture; an exhortation (ethicon) follows and ends the preaching. As one can see in figure 1, in the left margin of manuscript Barocci 210, f. 56v, the letters ηθ (that stand for ἠθικόν) signal where the parenetic part of the seventh homily begins. The scribe has written the title given to the parenesis in the upper margin, after repeating the abbreviation ηθ and indicating the number of the homily: ηθ ζ περὶ τοῦ μὴ περιεργάζεσθαι ἀλλὰ πιστεύειν τοῖς ὑπὸ τῆς γραφῆς εἰρημένον (correct reading in all other witnesses: εἰρημένοις) καὶ μνημονεύειν τῶν οἰκείων ἁμαρτιῶν, i.e. ‘ethicon 7: ‘About not to investigate thoroughly, but to trust what is said by the Scripture and remember one’s own sins’. The abbreviation ηθ is used in almost every manuscript and shows where in homilies the ethical parts begin. My first collation is that of the ethica titles and the line where the ethicon begins, referring to Migne’s column and line numbers. I have collated forty witnesses in this way. My second collation is the very end of the exegesis and the very beginning of the parenesis (see the boxed piece of text in figure 1), an average of eight lines per homily. Thirty-nine manuscripts have had this collation made entirely, as well as Savile’s2 and Boismard and Lamouille’s editions.3 This double collation aims to illuminate to what extent the ethica titles, which are paratextual elements, were considered by scribes as fully part of the text they were copying. Indeed, if the results of both collations match, it is likely that marginal titles were transmitted as faithfully as the homilies themselves and were considered to be as important as Chrysostom’s work. These collations also aim to check the manuscript families that Paul W. Harkins4

Henry Savile, Τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἰωάννου Χρυσοστόμου τῶν εὑρισκομένων τόμος βʹ (Eton, 1613), 555-931. 3 Marie-Émile Boismard and Arnaud Lamouille, Un Évangile pré-johannique, 3 vol., Études bibliques 17-18, 24-25, 28-29 (Paris, 1993, 1994, 1996). 4 Paul W. Harkins, The Text Tradition of Chrysostom’s Commentary on John, unpublished dissertation (University of Michigan, 1948); see also id., ‘The Text Tradition of Chrysostom’s Commentary on John’, TS 19 (1958), 404-12, and id., ‘The Text Tradition of Chrysostom’s Commentary on John’, SP 8.1 (1966), 210-20. 2

Ethica Titles over Centuries

Fig. 1 – Oxford, Bodleian Library, Barocci 210, 56v.

29

30

M. DES PORTES

established in the 1940s and M.-E. Boismard and A. Lamouille in the 1990s, and to clearly identify the various recensions of the Homilies on John. For now, without being exhaustive, I shall make some deductions from a limited study of ethica titles and the separation point between exegesis and parenesis. Part One will trace a history of the presence of ethica titles in manuscripts of the Homilies on John. This will enlighten us on the value given to these titles by copyists. It will then be interesting to notice the discrepancy between a strong assertion, by some scribes and maybe the author himself, of the distinctiveness of the ethical parts of homilies, and the omission of this distinctiveness by later editors of the work. Finally, I will analyze the first collation that I have carried out, that of the ethica titles and the line where the parenesis begins, giving examples and noting some common traits. This will provide an opportunity to see whether clear groups of manuscripts emerge from this collation and if they agree with the results of my second collation, that of the texts of the homilies.

Corpus of manuscripts and editions collated My study is based only on manuscripts containing either half, or the entire series of 88 homilies. The manuscripts containing only a few homilies In Iohannem, among a collection of varied homilies or works, are not included in this presentation. The following list of thirty-nine manuscripts and two editions serves as index siglorum and gives the estimated century when the codex was copied and tells which homilies it contains. These witnesses were chosen because they were accessible and ancient (9thth 11 century), or they belonged to a place whose manuscripts In Iohannem I examined exhaustively, such as the libraries of Rome and Saint-Petersburg. That is why among ancient witnesses, 12th- to 16th-century witnesses and some incomplete witnesses are part of this study. Exhaustivity was the aim concerning the Vatican Library, Oxford libraries and the microfilms of Athonite manuscripts visible in Thessaloniki, but has not yet been reached. We know of eleven 9th- to 11th-century witnesses containing the whole series (and six 12th- to 18th-cent.); in this study, six have been collated. 9th cent. Vinf: Vatican, B.A.V., gr. 2400 – scriptio inferior (parts of homilies 1-42), no titles A: Paris, B.N.F., gr. 705 (1-88) 9th-10th cent. ‫מ‬: Moscow, G.I.M., Synod. gr. 92 (Vlad. 72) (1-86)

Ethica Titles over Centuries

31

10th cent. P: Patmos, Saint John the Theologian’s monastery, gr. 128 (1-88) I: Vatican, B.A.V., gr. 539 (47-88) E: Vatican, B.A.V., gr. 540 (51-88) S: Vatican, B.A.V., gr. 2328 (2-46) Vsup: Vatican, B.A.V., gr. 2400 – scriptio superior (23-33, 38-41) L: Vatican, B.A.V., Barberinianus gr. 581 (1-46) U: Vatican, B.A.V., Urbinas gr. 21 (41-88) B: Vatican, B.A.V., Palatinus gr. 32 (1-48) ‫ב‬: Mount Athos, Batopediou 311 (3-63) K: Mount Athos, Koutloumous 32 (1-45) ‫ד‬: Mount Athos, Megistes Lavras Δ75 (47-88) ‫ל‬: Mount Athos, Megistes Lavras Δ76 (1-46) ‫ס‬: Moscow, G.I.M., Synod. gr. 80 (Vlad. 78) (41-88), no titles 11th cent. Q: Paris, B.N.F., Coislin 72 (1-88) Sin1: Sinai, Saint Catherine’s monastery, gr. 369 (1-44) Sin2: Sinai, Saint Catherine’s monastery, gr. 370 (45-88) Va538: Vatican, B.A.V., gr. 538 (1-50) Va543: Vatican, B.A.V., gr. 543 (45-88), title only for homily 76; indicates beginning of ethica. J: Vatican, B.A.V., gr. 545 (1-88) Y: Vatican, B.A.V., gr. 1921 (1-88) Va2004: Vatican, B.A.V., gr. 2004 (50-88) Barb: Vatican, B.A.V., Barberinianus gr. 564 (1-44) D17: Rome, Biblioteca Vallicelliana, D 17 (1-44) Ba309: Mount Athos, Batopediou 309 (1-46) Ba314: Mount Athos, Batopediou 314 (66-88), titles only for homilies 67 and 73; indicates beginning of ethica. Ba315: Mount Athos, Batopediou 315 (67-88) Mag: Oxford, Magdalen College, gr. 1 (1-46) Bar: Oxford, Bodleian Library, Barocci 210 (1-46) Bur: London, British Library, Burney 47 (1-45) 11th-12th cent. SP110: Saint-Petersburg, B.A.N., RAIK 110 (72-85) 12th cent. Va537: Vatican, B.A.V., gr. 537 (46-88) Va544: Vatican, B.A.V., gr. 544 (45-88) SP668: Saint-Petersburg, R.N.B., Φ. 906, 668 (5-34), only one title by original scribe (homily 6); indicates beginning of ethica.

32

M. DES PORTES

13th cent. Ang72: Rome, Biblioteca Angelica, gr. 72 (1-45) 16th cent. Va1783: Vatican, B.A.V., gr. 1783 (1-30) Cas: Rome, Biblioteca Casanatense, gr. 199 (54-86) Ross: Vatican, B.A.V., Rossianus 720 (1-50) 17th cent. Sav: critical edition by Lord H. Savile, 1610 (1-88) 20th cent. B&L: critical edition by Marie-Emile Boismard (& Arnaud Lamouille) 19931996 – 32 homilies partly edited (6, 8, 11-13, 16-23, 23B-35, 36-42), no titles. Sixteen of these homilies comprise part of, or all of the excerpt chosen for my second collation. Variant lessons follow B and K. I. Ethica titles in manuscripts 1. In minuscule manuscripts: signs of separation between exegesis and parenesis, and titles There are ethica titles in thirty-eight of the thirty-nine manuscripts I have collated for this presentation, although three manuscripts have only one or two titles written by the original scribe (Va543, Ba314 and SP668). Over centuries, to sketch it roughly, scribes mainly used three ways of laying out the page when writing the ethica titles. The first layout is that of 9th- to 11th-century manuscripts: the margin chosen to write the title varies, as does the consistent usage of an ethicon title. For instance, in the Athonite manuscript Koutloumous 32 (10th cent.), comprising homilies 1 to 45 On John, the title is written fifteen times in the top-margin like in figure 2 (ethicon 19,5 in manuscript K), three times in the bottom margin and twenty-five times in the side margin like in figure 3 (ethicon 18.6 in K). 5 As one can read on K, 129r, the ethicon of the nineteenth homily starts at Migne 122.51 with the words μὴ τοίνυν ἀναξία… and – in K – its title is ὅτι δεῖ κεχρῆσθαι τὸν πλοῦτον τοῖς πένησιν· καὶ ὅτι μέγα τὸ κληθῆναι χριστιανόν· καὶ δὴ ἐπαξίως τῆς ὁνομασίας ἡμᾶς πολιτεύεσθαι, i.e. ‘That one must use their wealth for the poor; and that it is a great thing to be called a Christian; and certainly to behave worthily of this name’. 6 The ethicon of the eighteenth homily in K, 123v, starts at Migne 118.44 with the words ἐντεῦθεν οὖν καὶ ἡμεῖς διδαχθῶμεν, a reading slightly different from Migne’s text and after omitting the sentence of lines 118.40-3. The title here written is Ὅτι πᾶς καιρὸς ἐπιτήδιος (sic) εἰς θεῖαν ἀκρόασιν καὶ ὅτι δεῖ φεύγειν τὰς βλαβερὰς συντυχίας, ‘That every moment is appropriate for listening to divine teachings and that one must flee harmful circumstances’.

Ethica Titles over Centuries

Fig. 2 – K (Mount Athos, Koutloumous 32), 129r.

33

34

M. DES PORTES

Fig. 3 – K (Mount Athos, Koutloumous 32), 123v.

Ethica Titles over Centuries

35

Three times, no title has been written; as for the last title, checking the microfilm again will be necessary. This exemplifies that in old manuscripts, the title seems to have been written as close as possible to where the ethicon begins in the page: P and E (10th cent.) have every ethicon title in the side margin; in I, Vsup, B and ‫( ב‬10th cent.), the title position alternates between the top margin, bottom margin and side margin. This also applies to 11th-century manuscripts like Q, Va538, Y, Va2004, Barb, D17, Ba315, Mag and SP110. In Parisinus gr. 705 (9th cent.), one can even see titles in the inside margin (the closest to the binding) and between the columns. Manuscripts from the 10th to the 13th century often have their ethica titles set in a steadier way: all of them would be written in the top margin like in figure 4 (ethicon 107 in Sin1) or sometimes in the bottom margin, except for one or two titles in some codices. In my corpus, ‫מ‬, Sin1 and Sin2, Va544, S, L, U, Ang72, Ba309, Bar and Bur observe this setting. Many of them would also use red ink for the ηθ sign and the title. To all appearances, the neater the manuscript, the steadier the layout of titles and the more frequent the use of red – or gold – ink. The layout style in the 16th century seems less systematic than in past centuries and may depend on the model copied. While Va1783 and Ross have their ethica titles written in the top margin or side margin, thus in various places, Va537 and Cas have a characteristically late presentation: the ethicon title is integrated into the column, as a part of the text rather than as paratext, as in figure 5.8 Two facts show how important these ethica titles have been considered: first, when they were not written by the original scribe, they have sometimes been added by readers, like in SP668; then, when an ethicon is excerpted from the work and copied by itself in a collection of various homilies, like in figure 6,9 the ethicon title often acts as a title per se for the new homily thus produced.

7 As the sketch shows, ethicon 10 begins at Migne 76.66 and its title is περὶ τοῦ μηδὲν ἐκ τοῦ ἁγίου βαπτίσματος ὠφελεῖσθαι τοὺς μὴ καλῶς βιοῦντας, i.e. ‘That nothing from the holy baptism is helpful for those who do not live a good life’. 8 The title written before the ethicon begins reads: Ὅτι ἡ ἀρετὴ πνευματικὴ θυσία ἐστὶν· καὶ ὅτι ἡ φιλαργυρία ἀπὸ κενοδοξίας ἐστί: καὶ ὅτι τρίτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἐπιθυμία· ἢ γὰρ φυσικὴ, ἢ καὶ ἀναγκαῖα, ἢ οὐδ’ έτερον:- In the margin, the ἠθκὸν number is οδʹ, 74 and, de facto, in almost all manuscripts, the seventy-fourth ethicon is entitled this way. 9 The whole title in red reads: ἠθικὸν ξβʹ· ἐκ τοῦ βʹ τοῦ κατὰ ἰωάννην ὅτι τὸ πενθεῖν ἀμέτρoς (sic) ἐπὶ τοῖς νεκροῖς ἀπιστοῦντoν (sic) ἐστι τῇ ἀναστάσει καὶ ὅτι ὑπὲρ τὸν νεκρὸν (sic) διδόναι χρὴ ἐλεημοσύνην καὶ προσφορᾶν· λόγος τοῦ χρυσοστόμου μβʹ, i.e. ‘Ethicon 62 from the second [book] on [the Gospel] according to John, that mourning the dead excessively suits non-believers in the resurrection and that one must give alms and offerings for the dead; 42nd speech of Chrysostom’. This sentence is indeed the ethicon title most often copied in the margin alongside the sixty-second homily on John.

36

M. DES PORTES

Fig. 4 – Sin1 (Sinait. gr. 369), 67r.

Ethica Titles over Centuries

Fig. 5 – Cas (Rome, Bib. Casanatense, gr. 199), 84r. Picture published with the kind permission of the Biblioteca Casanatense.

37

38

M. DES PORTES

Fig. 6 – Oxford, Bodleian Library, Holkham gr. 9, 140v, chart., 16th cent.

Ethica Titles over Centuries

39

2. In one witness written in uncials The palimpsest manuscript Vaticanus graecus 2400 enables us to date the mentioning of ethica further back than minuscule manuscripts. Its scriptio inferior was written in uncials in the 9th century (Vinf) and its scriptio superior was copied in minuscule in the 10th century (Vsup). Both are copies of Chrysostom’s Homilies on John. The scriptio superior consists of homilies 23-33 and 38-41 and has ethica titles in the side margin in red-inked minuscules. Contained in folios 1-48, the scriptio inferior corresponds to parts of homilies 1, 3-6, 8-15, 18-27, 36-39 and 41-42, in a very disorganised order.10 Eight of these fragments comprise the transition between exegesis and parenesis (that of homilies 1, 8, 10, 13, 23, 26, 36, 39). Ultraviolet light clearly shows that the scribe started a new paragraph at the point where the parenesis begins in other witnesses and wrote, next to this point, the usual ηθ signal. No ethicon title, however, was revealed by ultraviolet light upon examination of the margins around these points and in the rest of the pages. Since ethica titles are more frequently written in more recent manuscripts, and were not found in the margins of the one uncial witness we have for the Homilies on John, it may be tempting to ascribe them to 9th-century scribes because they are found in 9th-century minuscule witnesses such as A (Paris. gr. 705). However, thanks to the works of Jeff Childers,11 it has become certain that ethica titles are a very ancient paratext, at least in some oriental versions and maybe in the Greek transmission of the text as well. Indeed, there are specific titles for the ethical parts in the Syriac witnesses of the Homilies on John as early as the 6th century. The thirty-nine witnesses examined in this study show that, the more recent Greek manuscripts are, the more systematically they have ethica titles. However, editions show the opposite trend: the latest editors somehow forgot the separation between exegesis and parenesis, as well as the traditional presence of ethica titles. Are later editors more faithful or less faithful to the original Homilies on John? What clues do we have of the existence of distinct ethical parts in John Chrysostom’s actual preaching?

10 Fortunately, the manuscript has been described with details and the order of the scriptio inferior, somehow established by S.J. Voicu, Codices Chrysostomici Graeci, vol. VI, Codicum Civitatis Vaticanae partem priorem (Paris, Turnhout, 1999), 260-2. 11 Jeff W. Childers, The Syriac Version of John Chrysostom’s Commentary on John. Mêmrê 1-43, CSCO 651-2 (Louvain, 2013). As editor of the Homilies on John in Syriac, J.W. Childers has noticed marginal ethica titles in the Syriac manuscripts similar to those we can see in the Greek.

40

M. DES PORTES

II. Ethica titles before and after manuscript witnesses 1. Would setting apart the ‘ethical part’ be Chrysostom’s project? Beyond the apparatus surrounding the beginning of parenetic parts in manuscripts, two textual elements suggest that John Chrysostom himself may have elaborated bipartite homilies and clearly separated the exegetic and the ethical moments. The first one is another type of paratext, a monitum, found in some witnesses of exegetical series. The other one is an idea expressed in several homilies by Chrysostom. Some manuscripts explicitly attest a kind of ethical program, in the foreword written ahead of several tables of contents listing the ethica titles, at the beginning of exegetical series12. It is given in the first folio of P, which is one of the oldest witnesses of the full series of homilies On John (10th century). Its layout is sketched in figure 7. First, a title introduces the table of contents, inside some light pyle: Τάδε ἔνεστιν ἐν τῇδε τῇ θείᾳ καὶ ἱερᾷ βίβλῳ :~ Ἑρμηνεία τοῦ κατὰ Ἰω ἁγίου εὐαγγελίου :~ Τῶν ἐν τῇ βίβλῳ ταύτῃ ἠθικῶν ἡ δύναμις :~ The following are contained in this divine and sacred book: Commentary on the holy Gospel according to John. The meaning of the moral parts found in this book:

Then the monitum is written under a dotted line: Ἐπειδὴ ἔθος ἦν τῷ μακαρίῳ Ἰωάννῃ μετὰ τὸ ἑρμηνεῦσαι τὸ παρ’ αὐτοῦ προτεθὲν εὐαγγελικὸν ῥητὸν εἰς ἠθικὰ καταπαύειν τὸν λόγον, ἀναγκαῖον ἐνόμισα τὰ παρ’ αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ ἠθικῷ κατὰ πλάτος εἰρημένα ἐν συντόμῳ πρόταξαι· ἵνα ἔχῃ ὁ βουλόμενος ἀπόνως καὶ ἐν συντόμῳ εὑρίσκειν τὴν διάλυσιν13 τοῦ παντὸς ἠθικοῦ:~ Since it was the habit of blessed John, after he had interpreted the word of the Gospel he had proposed, to put an end to his speech with moral reflections, I found it necessary to present concisely what he develops with greater amplitude in the moral part, so that he who desires it can find without difficulty and concisely the solution of the whole moral part.

12 Among others, some witnesses containing the monitum ahead of the table of the ethica titles: – Witnesses of the Homilies on John: Mount Athos, Megistes Lauras Δ76 (10th cent.), Patmiacus 128 (10th century), Medic. Plut. 8. 4 (11th cent.), Vat. gr. 541 (14th cent.), Mosq. Synod. gr. 86 (Vlad. 76) (14th cent.). – Witnesses of the Homilies on Mathew with a monitum: Medic. Plut. 8. 5 (11th century), Sinait. gr. 364 and 366 (12th and 11th cent.). – Witness of the Homilies on Romans with a monitum: Paris. gr. 1016A (14th cent.). – Witness of the Homilies on the Epistle to Philippians with a monitum: Vat. gr. 1654 (10th cent.). 13 Better reading in Medic. Plut. 8. 4, f. 1r: … ἔχῃ ὁ βουλόμενος τὴν δύναμιν τοῦ παντὸς ἠθικοῦ ἀπόνως καὶ ἐν συντόμῳ εὑρίσκειν, ‘… he who desires it can find the meaning of the whole moral part without difficulty and concisely’.

Ethica Titles over Centuries

Fig. 7 – P (Patmos, gr. 128), 1r.

41

42

M. DES PORTES

Even when there is no proper monitum ahead of the table, the phrases ἐν συντόμῳ or ἐν ἐπιτομῇ and τῶν ἠθικῶν ἡ δύναμις are recurrent in the titles, like in the 10th-century Moscow manuscript Synod. gr. 88 (Vlad. 74), in the sentence introducing the pinax: τῶν ἠθικῶν ἡ δύναμις ἐν συντόμῳ. Then comes the list of ethica titles, with their number and, sometimes, the biblical verse used as a title for the homily. This foreword suggests that the scribes, by listing the ethica titles at the beginning of the book and enabling readers to go straight to them, help to transmit a characteristic of John Chrysostom’s, in whose preaching ethical matters would have required a specific and distinct moment. But if ever the preacher himself was not keen on emphasizing the switch from exegesis to parenesis, at least considering his preaching as bipartite is obviously a tradition to which scribes obediently refer in the monitum and observe by writing ethica titles. Not only do scribes speak about Chrysostom’s homiletic structure, but also the preacher’s words, in a metatextual way. According to the text as it reads in Migne’s edition, at least six homilies of John Chrysostom mention an ‘ethical’ ending of his preaching. For instance, the last lines of the sixteenth homily commenting the Epistle to the Romans14 (PG 60, 364.32-49) read: Ἄρα ὑμῖν δῆλα γέγονε τὰ εἰρημένα, ἢ πολλῆς ἔτι δεῖται τῆς σαφηνείας; Ἐγὼ μὲν οἶμαι τοῖς προσεσχηκόσιν εὐσύνοπτα εἶναι· εἰ δέ τινας διέλαθεν, ἔξεστι καὶ ἰδίᾳ συντυχόντας ἐρωτῆσαι καὶ μαθεῖν. Διὰ γὰρ τοῦτο καὶ εἰς μακρότερον ἐξήνεγκα τοῦ λόγου τὴν ἐξήγησιν, ἵνα μὴ ἀναγκασθῶ, διατεμὼν τὸ συνεχὲς τῆς ἀκολουθίας, λυμήνασθαι τὴν σαφήνειαν τῶν λεγομένων. Διὸ δὴ καὶ ἐνταῦθα καταλύσω τὸν λόγον, οὐδὲν περὶ τῶν ἠθικωτέρων ὑμῖν διαλεχθεὶς, ὅπερ ἔθος ἡμῖν ποιεῖν, ὥστε μὴ πάλιν ἐπισκοτίσαι τῇ μνήμῃ τὰ πλήθη τῶν λεγομένων. Ὥρα δὴ λοιπὸν καταλῦσαι εἰς τὸ προσῆκον τέλος, κατακλείσαντας τὸν λόγον, τὴν δοξολογίαν τοῦ τῶν ὅλων Θεοῦ. Κοινῇ τοίνυν ἀναπαυσάμενοι ἡμεῖς τε οἱ λέγοντες, ὑμεῖς τε οἱ ἀκούοντες, ἀναπέμψωμεν αὐτῷ δόξαν, ὅτι αὐτοῦ ἡ βασιλεία καὶ ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. Ἀμήν. Is then the speech made plain to you? Or does it still want much in clearness? I think indeed that, to those who have been attending, it is easy to get a clear view of it. But if it has slipped anybody’s attention, you can also meet in private, ask questions and understand. And this is why I have continued longer upon the explanatory part of the discourse, that I might not be compelled to break off the continuity of the context, and so spoil the clearness of the statements. And for this cause too I will bring my discourse to a conclusion here, without saying anything to you on the more immediately practical points (τῶν ἠθικωτέρων), as I generally do, lest I should make your memories obscure by saying so much. It is time now to come to the proper conclusion, by shutting up the discourse with the doxology to the God of all. Let us then both pause, me that am speaking and you that are hearing, and offer up glory to Him. For His is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen.15 14 I owe this and the following references to Gilberte Astruc-Morize, whose personal unpublished notes and drafts I was able to read in I.R.H.T., Paris, in January 2019. My research on the monitum too was inspired by her notes. 15 Excerpt from Chrysostom: Homilies of the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle to the Romans, trans. J. Walker, J. Sheppard and H. Browne, revised by George B. Stevens (slightly changed by me), Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series 11 (Buffalo, NY, 1889), 835-6.

Ethica Titles over Centuries

43

This ending comes after ten paragraphs (according to the text partition in Migne) of Scripture explanation, which is long and unusual for a Chrysostom’s homily; no wonder, then, that the preacher would stop speaking, thus leaving out the ethical talk and renouncing his ‘habit’ (ἔθος). The end of the last homily In Genesim evokes as well the need for the συνήθη παράκλησιν, the ‘usual’ ethical moment or exhortation, in order to let the audience remember and imitate the just who have been evoked. A few lines coming before the doxology say: Πρὸς γὰρ τὸ τέλος τοῦ βιβλίου φθάσαντες ἐβουλήθημεν ἅπαν σήμερον τελέσαντες τὸ βιβλίον, οὕτω καταπαῦσαι τὸν λόγον, καὶ τὴν συνήθη παράκλησιν ὑμῖν προσαγαγεῖν, ὥστε μεμνῆσθαι τῶν εἰρημένων, καὶ ζηλοῦν τῶν δικαίων τούτων τὴν ἀρετὴν, τὴν περὶ τοὺς ἀδικοῦντας ἀνεξικακίαν, τὴν περὶ τοὺς ἐπηρεάζοντας μακροθυμίαν, τὴν σωφροσύνην τὴν ὑπερβάλλουσαν. (PG 54, 579.13-580.4) Having reached the end of the book, we wanted, after completing the book today, to thus conclude our speech and offer you the customary exhortation, to remind of the words and emulate the virtue of these righteous people, their forbearance of the wrongdoers, their long-suffering in the face of abuse, their extraordinary self-control.16

And a short parenesis follows. Elsewhere, Chrysostom comments on the way Paul organises his letters with a first, dogmatic, part followed by a second, parenetic, moment. When commenting on Galatians 5:13, he says: Ἐνταῦθα λοιπὸν δοκεῖ μὲν εἰς τὸν ἠθικὸν ἐμβαίνειν λόγον, πάσχει δέ τι καινὸν, καὶ ὅπερ οὐδὲ ἐν μιᾷ τῶν ἄλλων ἔπαθεν Ἐπιστολῶν. Πάσας γὰρ διαλαμβάνων εἰς μέρη δύο, καὶ τὰ μὲν πρῶτα περὶ δογμάτων, τὰ δὲ ἔσχατα περὶ βίου διαλεγόμενος, ἐνταῦθα εἰς τὸν ἠθικὸν ἐμπεσὼν λόγον, πάλιν ἀναμίγνυσι τὸν δογματικόν. (PG 61, 669.35-41) Henceforward he appears to move into the moral discourse, but something new occurs to him, which does not occur in any other of his Epistles. For all of them are divided into two parts, and in the first he discusses doctrine, in the last he discusses life, but here, after having entered upon the moral discourse, he again mixes with it the doctrinal part.17

John Chrysostom shows himself to be very conscious of such bipartite compositions, here and in other loci.18 This could contribute to weaken the hypothesis that the separation between exegesis and ethicon in Chrysostom’s homilies is artificial and owing to scribes’ editorial work.

16 Excerpt from Saint John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis 46-67, trans. Robert C. Hill (slightly changed by me), FC 87 (Washington, DC, 1992), 278. 17 Excerpt from Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, trans. Gross Alexander (slightly changed by me), Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series 13 (Buffalo, NY, 1889), 39. 18 For instance, in the tenth and twentieth homilies on Romans, in PG 60, 479.38-41 and 599.29-35.

44

M. DES PORTES

2. How the editors little by little failed to mention the ‘ethical part’ Editors of Chrysostom are inconsistent in how they consider the presence of ethica titles in the manuscripts. Hieronymus Commelinus first edited the Homilies on John in Heidelberg in 1603.19 While his edition of the series of homilies on Paul’s epistles makes mention of the break between exegesis and parenesis, thanks to the word ΗΘΙΚΟΝ written as an intermediate title,20 Commelinus does not mention them when editing the Homilies on Matthew and on John. The Greek text column and its parallel Latin translation are continuous from the beginning to the end of the homily and they never switch to a new paragraph. There are landmarks in the text, though, thanks to letters A to E running along each column. Nevertheless, the difference between Commelinus’ edition of the commentaries on the Epistles and that of Matthew and John keeps us wondering. Commelinus based his edition of Chrysostom’s Pauline commentaries on the 1529 Verona edition of these texts, in which exegesis and ethicon are separated the same way, with the word ἠθικόν ahead of a new paragraph consisting of the ethical part.21 He thus seems to have imitated the editorial choices of his model, but he did not extend them to his edition of the series on the Gospel. Henry Savile’s 1610 edition of the works of John Chrysostom takes into account the paratext in the manuscripts on which it is based. First, the separation point between exegesis and parenesis is pointed out thanks to a new paragraph and the word ethicon in capital letters in the margin just next to it (see figure 8). In the book photographed here, a reader has annotated the text in the margins and underlined some sentences. No title is written in the margins of the exegetical series. Nevertheless, at the end of the fourth volume of Savile’s edition, after all the New Testament commentaries, tables of contents of the ethica give a title for the parenetic part of each homily. The pinax of the ethica of the Homilies on John, whose beginning22 appears in figure 9, lists eightyeight titles, as expected. The first half (titles 1-46) reveals titles similar to those 19 H. Commelinus, Expositio perpetua in Nouum Jesu Christi Testamentum, 4 vol. (Heidelberg, 1603). I have examined this edition at the Bibliothèque Mazarine, Paris. 20 Almost all of Commelinus’ printed exegetical series of Chrysostom on the Epistles integrate the commentary/exhortation separation, but in various ways. For instance, in the volume containing the commentaries on Romans and on 1st and 2nd Corinthians, the words ΗΘΙΚΟΝ and MORALE in capital letters interrupt the Greek and Latin text columns just before the ethical part of the homily begins, for each homily on Romans, from the thirty-fourth homily on, for 1st Corithians and for each homily, along with an ethicon title in Latin, for 2nd Corinthians. 21 Τοῦ ἁγίου Ιωάννου τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου εἰς πᾶσας τὰς Παύλου τοῦ ἀποστόλου ἐπιστολὰς ἀκριβεστάτη, καὶ χρυσῆ ἀληθῶς, καὶ θεῖα ἑρμηνεία. Divi Joannis Chrysostomi in omnes Pauli apostoli epistolas accuratissima, vereque aurea, & divina interpretatio, 4 vol., ed. Bernardino Donati (Verona, 1529). 22 As one can read in figure 9, Savile’s table of contents is entitled ΤΩΝ ΕΙΣ ΤΟΝ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΝ ΗΘΙΚΩΝ ΠΙΝΑΞ, ‘table of the ethical parts on John’.

Ethica Titles over Centuries

45

we find in most witnesses and shows, thanks to various readings that only they have in common, that manuscript Mag (Oxford, Magdalen College, gr. 1) influenced the editors not only in terms of the text, but also of the paratext. However, the second half of ethica titles in Savile’s book are different from any series of titles I have seen to date, to the extent that I question whether the editors may have invented them. Bernard de Montfaucon23 used Commelinus and Savile’s editions to build his own text of the Homilies on John, which was printed in 1728, alongside a Latin translation. Like Commelinus, Montfaucon disregarded the break between exegesis and parenesis: there are no ηθ signs in the margins and no new paragraphs for the beginning of the ethical part, as is visible in figure 10. Indeed, in that page containing part of the seventh homily, the usual beginning of ethicon 7, with the words ταῦτ’ οὖν εἰδότες, is located next to letter E and not highlighted at all. There are Latin marginal titles24 in Montfaucon’s edition, but they are neither a simple mirror of the additional titles25 one can find in manuscript margins, nor are they the translation of the ethica titles. Rather, they seem to reflect editorial work. Finally, the edition printed by Jacques-Paul Migne continues Montfaucon’s choices, even though the editor of the Homilies on John in the editio Parisina altera,26 Theobald Fix, relied not only on previous editions, but also on some other Parisian manuscripts, to establish the text. Migne does not give ethica titles or any clue of where the parenetic part would traditionally begin. Taking such an overall view of ethica titles through the centuries encourages us to edit them afresh. To collate them systematically will reveal to what extent they vary or remain the same from one manuscript to another. This will enable us to test the idea that paratext tends to be copied hazardously whereas the main text tends to be steady.

23

Bernard de Montfaucon, Sancti Patris Nostri Joannis Chrysostomi archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani opera omnia quae exstant, vol. VIII (Paris, 1728), 1-530. 24 Figure 9 shows three of these additional marginal titles which are not the ethicon title: 1) ‘Vera de Patre & de Filio doctrina’, ‘True doctrine about the Father and the Son’ 2) ‘Sabbellianorum & Marcellianorum insania’, ‘Insanity of Sabellians and Marcellians’ 3) ‘Contra Anomoeos’, ‘Against Anomoeans’. 25 Though some of these additional marginal titles may have inspired Montfaucon’s edition: indeed, the second title written in the page photographed in figure 9 echoes an additional title I have read in K, next to the locus corresponding to PG 59, 64.12-4 (the same locus as in Montfaucon), which said κατὰ μαρκέλλου καὶ σαβελλίου, ‘Against Marcellus and Sabellius’. 26 Sancti Patris Nostri Joannis Chrysostomi, Archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani, opera omnia quae exstant … opera et studio D. Bernardi de Montfaucon … editio Parisina altera, emendata et aucta. Tomus octavus (Paris, 1836), 1-603.

46

M. DES PORTES

Fig. 8 – Savile, vol. 2 p. 584 (end of Homily 6, beginning of Homily 7) Figures 8, 9 and 10: books examined and photographed in Institut des Sources Chrétiennes, Lyon, France. Pictures published with the kind permission of the Institut.

Ethica Titles over Centuries

Fig. 9 – Savile, last (unnumbered) page of vol. 4.

47

48

M. DES PORTES

Fig. 10 – Montfaucon, vol. 8 p. 46.

Ethica Titles over Centuries

49

III. Ethica titles in the first pieces of a stemma 1. Collating ethica titles I have collated the titles and first line of the ethica in thirty-nine witnesses and Savile’s edition, in order to see if clear families of manuscripts emerge. The table in figure 11 is a sample of the synthesis of my first collation, here applied to the fifth homily. The first column indicates which manuscripts contain the portion of text in which most often the exegetical part finishes and the ethical part begins, for some witnesses may have a lacuna at this very locus, although they contain the rest of the homily. Twenty-two manuscripts and the edition (Sav) contain the portion of text in which, statistically, a separation mark is expected for homily 5. Column 6 gives the reference of that locus, based on the words and line which most often begin a new paragraph and have the ηθ sign next to them. There are variations in some witnesses, in which the ηθ sign is written in front of another point of the homily: column 7 tells which manuscripts vary, and where their separation point is. In this sample, eight witnesses have their ethicon starting one sentence after the usual locus separationis, preferring the second injunction, Μὴ δὴ τὰς θύρας ἀποκλείσῃς τῷ φωτὶ τούτῳ (line 58.29), ‘do not close the doors to this light’, to the first injunction, Εἰ δὲ μὴ πάντας εἷλε, μή σε τοῦτο θορυβείτω (58.27), ‘But if [the light] has not seized everybody, may this not trouble you’. Two witnesses (K and Y) have their ethicon starting ten lines further. Column 8 makes an inventory of the manuscripts indicating no separation point at all, or an ηθ sign that is not owing to the original scribe, but to a later hand. The second column enumerates the witnesses containing an ethicon title; for homily 5, two witnesses, A and J, have empty margins and lack an ethicon title. The titles given to the ethicon are copied out in column 3. Two titles of the fifth ethical part have been found in the corpus of manuscripts: the first one27 is the most common and the second one28 is in K only. In this corpus, there are between one and four titles for each ethicon but most manuscripts have the same widespread series of titles with only one or two exceptions. The witnesses with the most variations are B (thirty-nine varying titles), K (thirty-two varying titles), Y (fifteen varying titles) P and J (five varying titles each) and the Savile edition (48 varying titles). While, most of the time, each variant title is found in one witness only, some manuscripts do have the same variations: B and J have the same titles for homilies 36, 40, 42 and 45, for instance; P and K have

27 The most common ethicon title for homily 5 is ὅτι ἡ ἁμαρτία σκότος ἐστι καὶ περὶ τῆς ἀτελευτήτου κολάσεως, ‘That sin is darkness and about the everlasting punishment’. 28 The fifth homily’s ethicon in K is entitled περὶ τοῦ διάκρισιν ἔχειν ἀκριβῆ τοῦ καλοῦ καὶ τοῦ κακοῦ· καὶ μὴ τῇ συνηθείᾳ τῶν πολλῶν προσέχειν, ‘About having sharp discernment of good and bad; and not to pay attention to the habits of the majority’.

50

M. DES PORTES

Fig. 11 – Synthesis of the first collation of Homily 5 on John.

the same titles for homilies 42-44; B and Y have the same for homilies 46-48 and Va537 and Y, for homilies 49 and 65. The fourth column of the table gives the variant readings of the same title, which give another means to connect witnesses together and discern families of manuscripts. Moreover, the καί added in the fifth ethicon title both by Mag and Sav proves, together with other elements, that Savile relied on Magdalen College’s manuscript for his edition. No table of contents of the ethica titles has been collated for this very study, nor have sheer spelling mistakes been counted as readings worth mentioning. Finally, column 5 indicates that some titles were deciphered with some difficulty because they were totally or partly impossible to read on the manuscript, microfilm or photograph examined, so much so that I may not have noticed some variant readings. Collating the ethica titles and line where the ethicon starts enables us to see to what extent this type of paratext is steady throughout centuries. Except for B, K, P and J, ethica title variations in the witnesses examined are rare. Ethica titles are not an arbitrary element, nor is the separation point between exegesis and parenesis, because most manuscripts, even among the oldest, have the same. Even Vinf, the 9th-century uncials palimpsest, has the same ethicon beginning as the other witnesses in five of the seven loci I was able to decipher. Variations in titles and separation points vary all along the series of eighty-eight homilies, and not only in specific moments like the beginning, the end or the homilies 44 to 47 which usually close or open the book in codices containing only half of the series. It is necessary now to examine if the trends observed when collating paratextual elements agree with the trends resulting from my second collation.

Ethica Titles over Centuries

51

2. Comparing paratext and text collations Small groups of manuscripts arose in the synthesis of my second collation, which also arose in the synthesis of my first collation. Figure 12 gives an example of the second collation applied to the thirty-third homily of the series. The text used as a point of comparison is that of Migne’s edition. It is copied out in the first column: for homily 33, thirteen lines29 have been collated, in the middle of which is the locus where exegesis ends and parenesis begins, that I have indicated with the bold letters ΗΘ. Column 2 lists the manuscripts of the corpus in which the whole excerpt of text appears, while column 3 lists the ones in which only part of the excerpt appears, either because the codex was damaged and, for instance, holes were made in the folio, or because the scribe (or editor, in the case of B&L) did not copy the whole excerpt in the first place. The fourth column gives the readings differing from what Migne reads, following the order of the text. Finally, column 5 – here empty – enables us to qualify the exactness of the collation by mentioning witnesses in which the text is not legible due to the bad condition of the parchment or uneven quality of the reproduction. For homily 33, all the witnesses examined were easy to read but, for other homilies, Q, Y, S, Vinf and SP110 presented difficulties. The thirty-third homily gives a good example of what results from both collations: groups of two to four manuscripts connect in an obvious way, some manuscripts seem to have their very own variations and the rest of the corpus have the same small differences from Migne’s edition. The latter show in the minor but widespread reading γινόμενον instead of γιγνόμενον (lines 3-5 in col. 4 of the table). In figure 13, the first collation of homily 33 also reveals how similar are the titles30 of P, Q, Sin1, ‫מ‬, K, Barb, Ross, Va538, J, D17, Ang72, SP668 and Bur. On the contrary, variant readings contained by only one witness seem rather a scribe’s mistake or invention, than a transmitted reading: such are ὡς forgotten by Ang72, SP668’s wrong spelling of ἀνήκοντα (fig. 12, lines 1-2) and J rephrasing τί … τοῦ μακαρισμοῦ γένοιτ’ ἂν ἴσον in τί … μακαριώτερον 29

The lines ending the exegetical part and beginning the ethical part of homily 33 are thus translated from Migne: ‘Why, then, did they not here question Him here? Because since in all the other instances, they had to ask him questions which were related to themselves, while here, what was happening did not concern them that much. And even John did that a long time after, towards the very end, when He enjoyed greater confidence, and was bold in the love of Christ; for he it was, says, whom Jesus loved. (ethicon) What could equal such blessedness? But, beloved, let us not stop at this, the calling the Apostle blessed, but let us do all things that we also may be of the blessed, let us imitate the Evangelist, and see what it was that caused such great love.’ Excerpt from Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Gospel of St John and the Epistle to the Hebrews, trans. Charles Marriott (slightly changed), Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series 14 (Buffalo, NY, 1889), 117. 30 The most widespread title for homily 33’s ethicon is Ὅτι μεγάλα ἡμᾶς ὠφελεῖ ἡ πραότης καὶ ὅτι ταύτην ἔχων ὁ εὐαγγελιστὴς Ἰωάννης ἠγαπᾶτο παρὰ τοῦ κυρίου, ‘That meekness gives us great help and that having it, the evangelist John was loved by the Lord’, L, S, Ba309, ‫ ל‬and Bar having ὑπὸ instead of παρὰ and Savile, after Mag, preferring ‘Christ’ to ‘the Lord’.

52

M. DES PORTES

Fig. 12 – Synthesis of the second collation of Homily 33 on John.

γένοιτ’ ἂν ἴσον (fig. 12, lines 11-12). In the first collation as well (fig. 13), some witnesses have their own peculiarities,31 like Ross, ‫ ב‬and Mag. What is more striking is the recurrent association of S, Ba309 and Bar on the one hand, B and K on the other hand, and of many other witnesses, such as A and Va2004 in homilies 50 to 88. S, Ba309 and Bar (sometimes followed by Va1783) are distinct from the rest of the corpus; moreover, they often agree with Migne’s text, like in homily 39 where only they have the παρακαλῶ which Migne has at line 227.1. The examples given in homily 33 collations are an additional καὶ (fig. 12, lines 6-7), an explicative rephrasing (fig. 12, 9-11) and a different preposition (ὑπὸ instead of παρὰ) visible in fig. 13. These, and many other clear variations in both the first and the second collation, enable us to classify them as a specific branch of the stemma to come. A and Va2004 also have the same variant readings, apart from the rest of the corpus, in the ethica titles, in the excerpts of homilies collated and also at the beginning of the seventy-fifth ethicon, at line 409.39 instead of 409.13. Most of the time, manuscripts J, B and K have the same, very significant, variant readings, though each of them also have their own omissions or variations. Their common readings exhibited in the first collation of homily 33 are 31 Ross strangely reads τὸ, ‘the (fact that) meekness’, instead of ‘that meekness…’, ‫ ב‬changes the adjective from plural to singular (maybe forgetting two letters?), Savile prefers ‘gives great help to us’ and Mag replaces the demonstrative by the anaphorical pronoun (maybe forgetting a letter too?).

Ethica Titles over Centuries

53

Fig. 13 – Synthesis of the first collation of Homily 33 on John.

omissions of τοσοῦτον and τὸν ἀπόστολον (fig. 12, lines 4 and 14), the noun εὐαγγελιστὴν being replaced by ἀπόστολον (τοῦτον) except for J (fig. 12, lines 17-18) and changes in the lemma ἐποίησε τὴν τοσαύτην, K adding περὶ αὐτόν and the fourth hand I identified in B having added περὶ αὐτόν in the margin (fig. 12, the 5 last lines). In the first collation as well, B32 and K vary from the main trend since they rarely have the same ethicon title as the majority of witnesses. However, while they have the same variant readings in the text of homilies (second collation), they never have the same variant ethicon title (first collation). On the other hand, to mention only one example, while B and J have the same ethica titles only four times, the second collation showed that they very often have the same variations in the text of the homily. Finally, Y is interesting for it behaves differently in the first part of the series (homilies 1-45) and in the second part (homilies 46-88). In the first part, it has the same most common ethica titles as the majority of witnesses. But in the second part, it is clearly distinct from any other witness, except B which contains up to the 48th homily: for homilies 46-48, Y and B have the same ethica titles. And for ethica 49-59 and 65, Y has titles distinct from the rest of the corpus. In the second collation too, Y belongs to the long list of witnesses having the most common readings in homilies 1-45, and from homily 46 on, sometimes it has the common readings and sometimes, it appears in a group along with B and also A, J, Va2004 and ‫מ‬. The fact that B and Y change trends from 32 In the margin of homily 33, B’s ethicon title reads περὶ ταπεινοφροσύνης καὶ ἐλεημοσύνης, ‘about humility and alms’.

54

M. DES PORTES

homily 46 on, suggests that both ethica titles and the homilies’ text had different traditions for the first and the second part of the Homilies on John. This could explain why B always has the rarest variant readings or titles, and Y only from homily 46 on, having its second part of the series copied from a codex bearing the same tradition as B, but its first part of the series copied from a codex bearing the most common tradition. This short analysis now needs deepening and widening, so that each of the forty-one witnesses collated can be classified and the various traditions of John Chrysostom’s text, identified. Conclusion An overall view of the presence of ethica titles in John Chrysostom’s Homilies on John manuscripts and editions shows that this type of paratext has real steadiness and that the tradition of highlighting the beginning of the ethical part of Chrysostomian homilies is very ancient. However, on the margins of my research and especially through the collations made in over forty witnesses, complexity appears. Some questions underlaid this paper: first, is it possible to determine the origin of the ethica titles? Not to mention John Chrysostom’s own discourse about the ethical parts of his homilies, we know that ethica titles were present in codices as old as the 6th-century Syriac versions of the Homilies on John. However, the fact that, in the Greek tradition I have studied, a few witnesses bear titles so different from the most widespread titles indicates that several scribes, at some point, have also invented titles when copying some or other codex. What are the main variations? In the first collation, most manuscripts bear the same series of ethica titles and the main variations pertain to few very distinct witnesses. However, comparing the corpus with Migne’s text in the second collation revealed that the variations borne by the majority of codices are not as significant as those borne by diverse small groups of witnesses. Since several groups of the oldest witnesses contain several series of variant readings – almost recensions of the text sometimes – the question needs to be rather: which kind of variations seem the most likely to mirror John Chrysostom’s speech? That is what the next stage of my research shall aim to answer. Finally, can specific families of manuscripts be distinguished through the titles of the ethica? It does seem so because the first collation, of this paratext, often agrees with the second collation, of the text; while not entirely sufficient, the collation of the ethica titles does give reliable clues about the connections between specific witnesses.

D’Érasme à Field: Apport et limites des éditions et traductions des Homélies de Jean Chrysostome Sur l’Épître aux Philippiens Pierre AUGUSTIN, CNRS, IRHT, Paris, France1

ABSTRACT In the recent translation of their standard edition by Field, the sixteenth Homilies on Philippians ascribed to John Chrysostom (the argumentum being here taken as the first homily of the series) have been considered ‘the most comprehensive treatment of [this] letter surviving from Christian antiquity’ (P. Allen). However, their provenance and chronology, and the homogeneity of the whole series, have been challenged by the translators, thus emphasizing the need of a comprehensive study on their Greek manuscript tradition. As an inquiry is about to be launched by Sources Chrétiennes, this preliminary review aims at setting within the competing recensions of the text the respective manuscript evidence of the previous Greek editions and Latin translations, from the 16th century onward. Both the partial and isolated editio princeps, in 1526, by Erasmus (who published the first two homilies, though he did not believe in their authenticity) and the first publication of the series within the whole corpus of Chrysostom’s exegetical homilies on the Pauline Epistles, by Bernardino Donato, in 1529, were still based on a single witness (in the latter case, of the so called ‘rough recension’ of the text). The endeavours of Savile (1612), Montfaucon (1734) and especially Field (1855), though based on a partial recensio, have brought to light a much more elaborate recension, which, considered by Nobili and Savile typical of Chrysostom’s rhetorical preaching, has been mainly discarded since Field as a later attempt to remake an early ‘rough recension’, more likely to be genuine.

La série d’homélies chrysostomiennes Sur l’Épître aux Philippiens représente la contribution la plus complète de l’Antiquité chrétienne sur cette Épître, comme l’a récemment rappelé Pauline Allen2. Elle est transmise, à notre connaissance, par vingt-deux témoins en tradition directe, si l’on néglige deux 1 Cet exposé prend la suite de deux séances de présentation au séminaire d’HiSoMA, « Jean Chrysostome: édition et histoire des textes », animé par Guillaume Bady (CNRS) et Catherine Broc-Schmezer (Université Lyon 3) à l’Institut des Sources Chrétiennes (Lyon), les 14 mars et 11 avril 2019. La première séance a bénéficié de la contribution de Marie-Ève Geiger, que nous remercions pour son aide précieuse. 2 Pauline Allen, John Chrysostom, Homilies on Paul’s Letter to the Philippians; translated with an introduction and notes, Writings from the Greco-Roman World 36 (Atlanta, 2013), xii.

Studia Patristica CXIV, 55-79. © Peeters Publishers, 2021.

56

P. AUGUSTIN

codices descripti et au moins un manuscrit actuellement perdu3. Pour l’éditeur, ce nombre limité de témoins est une aubaine, étant donné qu’ils se comptent par centaines pour les grandes séries In Matthaeum et In Iohannem. Aussi l’Institut des Sources Chrétiennes, stimulé par le legs généreux consenti par notre regrettée collègue Gilberte Astruc pour l’édition du corpus paulinien de Chrysostome, a-t-il été conduit à en proposer l’édition critique dans le cadre de son séminaire lyonnais sur la tradition de Chrysostome. Néanmoins, le texte de ces homélies pose de sérieux problèmes, puisqu’il est bien connu que la tradition manuscrite de la plupart des séries d’homélies chrysostomiennes sur les Épîtres pauliniennes oscille, dès les plus anciens témoins, entre deux recensions très divergentes4. Pour comprendre le cheminement de nos prédécesseurs, nous essaierons de préciser les sources dont ils ont disposé ainsi que les présupposés, conscients ou non, qui sous-tendaient leurs points de vue contradictoires sur ce texte. L’histoire de ses éditions successives correspond en effet à la redécouverte progressive de ces recensions, malgré une contamination précoce de la tradition manuscrite perpétuée par l’éclectisme des éditeurs. Les pionniers, Désiré Érasme, Bernardino Donato et Wolfgang Meusel (dit Musculus), ne connaissaient en effet de ces homélies que la recension ‘rude’, qui suscita dès l’origine une controverse sur leur intégrité et leur authenticité, dont les échos sont encore perceptibles au 17e siècle, dans la correspondance de l’oratorien Richard Simon5. Cette polémique ne fut sans doute pas sans influence sur la rareté des études consacrées à ces homélies. Par ailleurs, les premières éditions parurent dans un contexte de concurrence érudite et doctrinale, d’émulation autant que de rivalité, tout d’abord, au sein même du cercle des éditeurs et traducteurs bâlois, Érasme et Musculus, entre Évangélisme et Réforme protestante; puis, avec les entreprises inspirées par la Contre-Réforme catholique: l’édition véronaise de Bernardino Donato, et surtout sa traduction romaine par Flaminio Nobili, points de référence de l’entreprise éditoriale d’Henry Savile. L’enquête de Nobili, à la recherche de nouveaux témoins, permit en effet la découverte et l’exploitation de la recension 3 On se reportera à la liste numérotée donnée en Annexe I, qui ne mentionne que les témoins conservés de la série en tradition directe. Il convient d’y ajouter au moins un ancien codex de parchemin de la bibliothèque florentine de San Marco, qui contenait les dix homélies Sur la 2e Épître à Timothée et les seize Sur l’Épître aux Philippiens, et qui pourrait avoir servi de modèle à la traduction latine de la première série par le camaldule Ambrogio Traversari. Il n’en subsiste apparemment qu’un folio de garde antérieure, présentant un pinax latin de la main de Zanobi Acciaiuoli, le bibliothécaire de San Marco: Oslo [Spikkestad] & London, The Schøyen Collection, Ms. 1571/1, vendu à Londres, chez Sotheby’s le 10 juillet 2012 (lot n° 4); voir Xavier van Binnebeke, ‘Payne & Foss, Sir Thomas Phillipps, and the Manuscripts of San Marco’, Studi umanistici e medievali VIII-IX (2010-2011), 3-38, 30-1, et la notice anonyme quelque peu fautive du catalogue de vente: The History of Western Script: Sixty Important Manuscript Leaves from the Schøyen Collection (London, 10 July 2012), 16-7 (et en ligne). 4 Voir la contribution de Maria Konstantinidou dans le présent volume, p. 5-26. 5 Voir ci-dessous, p. 69 et n. 45.

D’Érasme à Field

57

‘élaborée’ de ces homélies, qui devait s’imposer avec Savile et Montfaucon. D’où le paradoxe du retour au texte de l’édition princeps dans la dernière édition critique, celle de Frederick Field pour la Library of the Fathers d’Oxford, au terme d’une sévère critique de ses prédécesseurs. I. De Bâle à Vérone et retour: les pionniers, Érasme, Donato et Musculus (1526-1536) C’est en août 1526 que parut à Bâle, chez Johann Froben, l’édition princeps des deux premières homélies Sur l’Épître aux Philippiens6, considérées, depuis Montfaucon, comme l’argument et la première homélie de la série7. Elles sont données tout d’abord en traduction latine à titre d’exercice. Comme en témoigne la mention du titre, additis graecis, le texte n’est inséré qu’en annexe, comme pièce à conviction dans une sorte de procès d’authenticité. Érasme réimprimera la traduction seule dans ses Lucubrationes aliquot l’année suivante8. Dans le contexte du programme évangélique érasmien de renouatio Scripturarum, caractérisé par un retour aux sources patristiques, cette édition inaugure une décennie de travail d’Érasme sur le texte de Chrysostome – de 1526 à 1536 –, marquée, entre autres, par sa grande édition des Opera de 15309. La source d’Érasme n’a pas encore été identifiée10. S’agirait-il du Moguntinus (Mainz, Stadtbibliothek) II 11411? C’est en effet le seul témoin occidental, 6 Diui Ioannis Chrysostomi in epistolam ad Philippenses Homiliae duae, uersae per Erasmum Roterodamum additis Graecis… (Basel, 1526) (voir ci-dessous, Annexe II, n° 1). 7 D’où ce décalage d’une unité qu’accuse la Patrologie Grecque de Migne dans la numérotation des homélies de la série, par rapport à l’édition de Field. 8 Diui Ioannis Chrysostomi Archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani & diui Athanasii Alexandrini Archiepiscopi lucubrationes aliquot non minus elegantes quàm utiles (Basel, 1527) (Annexe II, n° 2). 9 Isabelle Diu, Érasme traducteur de saint Jean Chrysostome, thèse (École Nationale des Chartes, Paris, 1990), 32; ead., ‘L’auteur, l’Autre et les autres: la traduction patristique, entreprise collective autour d’Érasme’, dans Martine Furno (éd.), Qui écrit? Figures de l’auteur et des co-élaborateurs du texte. XVe-XVIIIe siècle (Lyon, 2009), 37-52, 48. Pour un panorama de l’entreprise d’Érasme au sein de la production patristique européenne de la première moitié du 16e siècle, voir Paolo Sachet, ‘La Chiesa davanti ai Padri: Erasmo, gli umanisti riformati e la patristica cattolica romana tra Rinascimento e Controriforma’, Rivista di storia e letteratura religiosa 54 (2018), 389419, 389-95; voir aussi Cristina Ricci, ‘Liceat ex illo felicissimo amne haurire, qui ex ore vere aureo velut ex fonte ditissimo promanat: Johannes Chrysostomus im Oberrheinischen Humanismus’, dans Carmen Cardelle de Hartmann et Ulrich Eigler (éd.), Latein am Rhein. Zur Kulturtopographie und Literaturgeographie eines europäischen Stromes, Frühe Neuzeit 213 (Berlin, 2017), 220-43. 10 Wolfgang Lackner, ‘Erasmus von Rotterdam als Editor und Übersetzer Johannes Chrysostomos’, Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik 37 (1987), 293-311, 295-6. 11 Voir ci-dessous, Annexe I, n° 17a. Le Moguntinus II 114 pourrait avoir appartenu au roi de Hongrie Matthias Corvin; il est attesté au début du 17e siècle en Allemagne, où il est acquis en 1610 par le Collège des Jésuites de Mayence; Günter Prinzig, ‘Mainzer Graeca: vom PalästinaBericht Thietmars zu den griechischen Handschriften der Staatbibliothek Mainz’, dans ΦΙΛΟΦΡΟΝΗΜΑ / Philophronema. Festschrift für Martin Sicherl zum 75. Geburtstag. Von

58

P. AUGUSTIN

sur l’ensemble de la tradition manuscrite, à transmettre isolément les deux premières homélies de la série, les seules que semble avoir connu Érasme, à en juger, du moins, d’après une lettre du 27 août 1526 à son collaborateur parisien, le chanoine Germain de Brie, où il semble détailler précisément le contenu chrysostomien de manuscrits en sa possession. L’érudit de Rotterdam y expose son programme éditorial pour donner au public un ‘Chrysostome en majesté’ (cum maiestate) qui puisse rivaliser avec les Opera d’Œcolampade parues ‘en grande pompe’ (magna pompa) chez Andreas Cratander en 1522: ‘De nombreux textes’, nous dit-il, ‘ont été traduits par d’autres d’une manière qui n’est pas très heureuse. Beaucoup n’ont pas encore été publiés. Pour ma part, j’ai trouvé (Ego nactus sum): – les Commentaires sur les Actes, qui sont tout à fait inauthentiques; – de même, Sur l’Épître aux Romains, authentiques; – de nouveau, Sur l’Épître aux Hébreux, inauthentiques et traduits. – De même, Sur l’Épître aux Philippiens, deux homélies, mais inauthentiques, si je ne me trompe, que j’ai déjà éditées après les avoir traduites en latin. – De plus, Contre les Juifs, et une douzaine d’homélies qui sont encore intactes (c’est-à-dire ni éditées, ni traduites); – enfin, Sur la Seconde Épître aux Corinthiens12.’ C’est à tort qu’on a pu interpréter cette énumération comme se rapportant à un seul et même manuscrit13. En fait, il ne s’agit pas ici à proprement parler du pinax d’un volume, mais plutôt, comme on le voit sur la troisième colonne du Textkritik bis Humanismusforschung, Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums, NF 1. R. Monogr. 4 (Paderborn, 1990), 197-223, 7 pl., 205-9. 12 Lettre 1736 (à Germain de Brie) du 27 août 1526, ll. 21-8; Percy Stafford Allen et al. (éd.), Opus Epistolarum Des. Erasmi Roterodami (Oxford, 1906-1947), VI (1525-1527) [1926] 381-2: Multa sunt parum feliciter ab aliis translata. Multa nondum prodierunt. Ego nactus sum commentarios in Acta, quae plane notha sunt; item in Epistolam ad Romanos γνησίους; rursum in Epistolam ad Hebraeos nothos et versos. Item in Epistolam ad Philippenses Homilias duas, sed nothas, ni fallor, quas iam aedidi Latinas factas. Praeterea contra Iudaeos, et duodecim ferme Homilias intactas: postremo in Epistolam ad Corinthios posteriorem. Sur l’échange épistolaire d’Érasme, entre 1517 et 1536, avec Germain de Brie, son collaborateur privilégié pour l’édition chrysostomienne, voir Michel Magnien, ‘Supplementunculum Allenianum: le début de l’ep. 2021 retrouvé’, dans Stephen Ryle (éd.), Erasmus and the Renaissance Republic of Letters. Proceedings of a Confernce to mark the Centenary of the Publication of the first Volume of Erasmi Epistolae by P. S. Allen, Corpus Christi College, Oxford, 5-7 sept. 2006 (Turnhout, 2014), 11-33; Sam Kennerley, ‘Friendship, Philology and Deceit in the Margins of a Greek Manuscript of John Chrysostom Copied for Erasmus: Reconstructing the Story of MS Wolfenbüttel, Herzog August Bibliothek, Gud. gr. 2o 10’, International Journal of the Classical Tradition 27 (2020), 361-78. 13 ‘In 1526 Erasmus had acquired a manuscript with the Greek text of Chrysostom’s sermons about the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles to the Romans, the Hebrews and the Philippians and the second Epistle to the Corinthians (n. 17: Ep. 1736, 27 Aug. 1526, ll. 22-28.)’: Pieter F. Hovingh, Desiderius Erasmus, Ordinis sexti tomus septimus. Annotationes in Epistolam ad Romanos (Leiden, 2012), 6-7 et n. 17.

59

D’Érasme à Field

tableau ci-dessous, d’une liste des homélies inédites ou non traduites qu’Érasme publiera pour la plupart dans une nouvelle traduction latine personnelle au sein de ses Lucubrationes de 1527 ou les années suivantes14. Érasme à Brie, Bâle, 27 août 1526 (Ep. 1736, Allen VI, 381-382)

Manuscrits Sources et provenances

Lucubrationes aliquot Bâle, J. Froben, 1527

Ego nactus sum commentarios in Acta, quae plane notha sunt;

Non identifié (< Padoue, 1526-1527)

item in Epistolam ad Romanos γνησίους;

Mainz, StB, Hs. II 114? Trad. publiée en 1533 (< Jésuites de Mayence) 1, ff. 1-125v

7, p. 181-211 (hom. 1-3)

rursum in Epistolam ad Hebraeos nothos et versos.

2, ff. 126-203v

Item in Epistolam ad Philippenses Homilias duas, sed nothas, ni fallor, quas iam aedidi Latinas factas.

3, ff. 204-207v

postremo in Epistolam ad Corinthios posteriorem.

4, ff. 208-301v Trad. publiée en 1530

Praeterea contra Iudaeos, et duodecim ferme Homilias intactas:

— 5, p. 158-168 (argument & hom. 1) Trad./éd. publiée en 1526

Oxford, BL, Auct. E. 1. 13 (< Dominicains de Bâle) 6, ff. 353-426

1, p. 1-69

De Lazaro conciones 1-4

3, ff. 260v-314v

2, p. 69-120

In illud, Vidi Dominum hom. 1-5

2, ff. 221v-260v

3, p. 121-148

5, ff. 344-352v

4, p. 149-156

De beato Philogonio + Ad populum Antiochenum homiliae 1-21 + In Iob sermones 1-4

1, ff. 1-221 — 4, ff. 315-344 —

On notera que la séquence des textes coïncide presque parfaitement avec le contenu du manuscrit de Mayence. Quoi qu’il en soit de cette hypothèse, dans ce dernier manuscrit, la série des homélies Sur l’Épître aux Hébreux (ff. 126203v), qui précède les homélies Sur Philippiens (ff. 204-207v), présente une perturbation importante, qui fournit aux futurs éditeurs que nous sommes la faute ‘conjonctive’ idéale pour le situer dans la tradition manuscrite: l’insertion de l’homélie 17 (ff. 149-151) entre les homélies 8 et 9 (ff. 146-149 et 151v-153v), 14

W. Lackner, ‘Erasmus von Rotterdam’ (1987), 298 et n. 25.

60

P. AUGUSTIN

et le décalage d’une unité des homélies suivantes jusqu’à la seizième (ff. 167v169), avec un desinit particulier15. Or, sur les cinq autres témoins où cette perturbation a été repérée par Rosario Gisana, seul le Marcianus gr. Z. 100, du 10e siècle (le sigle J de Gisana16) ne transmet pas isolément la série Sur l’Épître aux Hébreux, mais présente le couple Hébreux-Philippiens. Le manuscrit de Mayence est donc vraisemblablement apparenté au Marcianus. Quant au jugement défavorable d’Érasme sur l’authenticité des homélies Sur l’Épître aux Philippiens, il s’explique aisément si l’on considère qu’il n’a connu du texte que la recensio rudior, et vraisemblablement d’après un témoin tardif. D’autre part, il semble n’avoir eu tout d’abord accès qu’à une infime partie de la série, même s’il put en prendre connaissance plus tard dans l’édition de Vérone, qu’il utilisa régulièrement par la suite. Grand admirateur de l’éloquence de Chrysostome, il avait dès l’origine nourri les doutes les plus sérieux sur l’authenticité du texte, tout en accueillant avec bienveillance et intérêt l’édition de Bernardino Donato, pratiquement contemporaine de la sienne. Dans sa correspondance avec Germain de Brie, son jugement est sans appel (et sans justification). Il s’en expliquera, néanmoins, dans ses Annotationes au Nouveau Testament, dont la troisième édition paraît la même année que les homélies Sur l’Épître aux Philippiens17. Mais, c’est dans la quatrième édition, de 1535, que, commentant Phil. 2:7-9, il revient sur cette question de l’authenticité du commentaire chrysostomien. Son critère est stylistique et rhétorique; il ne retrouve dans nos homélies ni l’abondance (πολυλαλία), ni l’expressivité (argutia) habituelles à Chrysostome: Chrysostome a longuement traité de ce passage, en combattant à partir de lui contre toutes les hérésies qui ont exprimé un point de vue erroné sur la nature divine du Christ. Toutefois, ces commentaires me paraissent inauthentiques. Quel qu’en ait été l’auteur,

15 Dans la notice de G. Prinzig, ‘Mainzer Graeca’ (1990), 200-4, 202-3, reprise in Sever J. Voicu, Codices Chrysostomici Graeci VIII, II, Addenda et Corrigenda ad volumina I-IV (Paris, 2018), 185-8, 186-7, l’ordre originel des folios doit être restitué. 16 Voir ci-dessous, Annexe I, n° 7; Rosario Gisana, La Seconda e la Terza Omelia di Giovanni Crisostomo sull’Epistola agli Ebrei: studio della tradizione manoscritta, edizione critica e traduzione italiana (Excerpta ex dissertatione ad Doctoratum) (Roma, 2011), § 2.28, 37-9, sur le Marcianus gr. Z. 100 (10e siècle, sigle J), 38 (insertion de l’hom. 17). Les quatre autres témoins sont le Laurentianus Plut. VIII.11 (11e siècle, sigle G3, § 2.11, 23-4, 4) et son apographe, le Berolinensis Ham. 355 (12e-13e siècle, sigle E, § 2.1, 12 et § 2.6, 66-8), le Marcianus gr. II,19 (10e siècle, sigle D, § 2.30, 42) et son apographe, le Berolinensis Phill. 1472 (1539 AD, sigle Y, § 2.2, 13 et § 2.7, 68-70). Voir aussi § 2.8, 70-1 (accord entre D et G3). Le ms. de Mayence n’est pas mentionné. 17 Dans cette édition de 1527, le manuscrit des homélies Sur l’Épître aux Philippiens n’avait servi sûrement qu’une seule fois (pour une citation de l’hom. 1 sur Phil. 1:1, traduite par Érasme); en revanche, le recours au commentaire chrysostomien sera plus fréquent dans la quatrième édition, de 1535 : voir Miekske L. van Poll-van de Lisdonk, Desiderius Erasmus, Ordinis sexti tomus nonus: Annotationes in novum testamentum (pars quinta) (Leiden, 2009), 29.

D’Érasme à Field

61

il l’emporte (sous-entendu: par sa concision) sur l’abondance de Chrysostome, mais il n’a pas atteint sa vivacité d’expression.18

Nul doute, aussi, que le jugement porté par Érasme sur la série des homélies Sur les Actes des Apôtres, dont il n’avait voulu également donner à la presse qu’un échantillon, tant il était sceptique sur le titre du manuscrit, ait influencé son attitude vis-à-vis de la série Sur les Philippiens, découverte simultanément, bien qu’apparemment pas dans le même manuscrit. Dans la préface de leur traduction de 1539, il confie ses doutes à son correspondant: ‘le style avait une tournure concise et abrupte, ce qui semblait étranger à la diction de Chrysostome’ (stilus haberet concisum quiddam et abruptum, id quod a phrasi Chrysostomi uidebatur alienum)19. Enfin, plus prosaïquement, tout souci éditorial n’était sûrement pas absent de ce jugement: dès 1527, Érasme avait passé contrat avec Froben pour l’édition complète des œuvres de Chrysostome, comme l’a rappelé Mariarosa Cortesi20. Pour être vendable, surtout en l’absence de texte grec juxtalinéaire, une traduction devait répondre à certains critères esthétiques susceptibles de gagner la bienveillance du lecteur, faute desquels l’éditeur risquait de ne pas rentrer dans ses frais. Trois ans après l’édition d’Érasme, le 28 juin 1529, sous l’égide de l’évêque de Vérone, Gian Matteo Giberti, l’humaniste Bernardino Donato (Bonturello) procura l’édition princeps des commentaires aux épîtres pauliniennes: quatre grands volumes in-folio21. Cette édition, longuement attendue, fut accueillie avec enthousiasme par les humanistes, aussi bien à Padoue qu’à Londres et à Bâle, où Érasme en acquit un exemplaire. À bien des égards, elle préfigurait 18 Chrysostomus fusius hunc locum tractat ex eo pugnans aduersus omnes haereses, quae de Christi diuina natura perperam senserunt. Quanquam hi commentarii mihi uidentur νόθοι. Quisquis fuit, Chrysostomi πολυλαλίαν uincit, argutiam non est assequutus: Annotationes in Phil. 2, 7-9, ll. 297-300, ed. M.L. van Poll-van de Lisdonk, Desiderius Erasmus, Ordinis sexti tomus nonus (2009, 4e éd., 1535), 294 (E). 19 Mariarosa Cortesi, ‘Giovanni Crisostomo nel sec. XVI: tra versioni antiche e traduzioni umanistiche’, dans I Padri sotto il Torchio. Le edizioni dell’Antichità cristiana nei secoli XV-XVI. Atti del Convegno di studi Certosa del Galluzzo Firenze, 25-26 giugno 1999, Millennio medievale 35; Atti di convegni 10 (Firenze, 2002), 127-46, 140 et n. 50. 20 Ibid. 137 et n. 38. 21 Τοῦ ἁγίου Ἰωάννου τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου Εἰς πάσας τὰς Παύλου τοῦ ἀποστόλου ἐπιστολὰς ἀκριβεστάτη καὶ χρυσὴ ἀληθῶς, καὶ θεία ἑρμηνεία. Diui Ioannis Chrysostomi In omnes Pauli apostoli epistolas accuratissima, uereque aurea, & diuina interpretatio (Verona, 1529); voir Annexe II, n° 3. – La série Sur l’Épître aux Philippiens se trouve au t. III, ff. 205v-249v. L’édition parut chez Stefano Nicolini da Sabbio e fratelli. En 1538, leur frère, Giovanni Antonio, publiait à Venise l’édition princeps de la première homélie In Matthaeum; voir Eberhard Nestle, ‘Die Editio Princeps der ersten Matthäus-Homilie des Chrysostomus’, Zeitschrift für Bibliothekswesen und Bibliographie 20 (1903), 485-6; Chrysostomus Baur, S. Jean Chrysostome et ses œuvres dans l’histoire littéraire, Recueil de travaux publiés par les membres des conférences d’histoire et de philologie. Fasc. 18 (Louvain, Paris, 1907), 266 et n. 2. Sur Giberti et ses émules de la Curie romaine, voir Paolo Sachet, Publishing for the Popes: The Roman Curia and the Use of Printing (1527–1555), Library of the Written Word 80 (Leiden, Boston, 2020), 12-6.

62

P. AUGUSTIN

l’entreprise d’Henry Savile: Giberti n’avait pas hésité à financer sur ses fonds personnels, comme le fera plus tard le Provost d’Eton, ce qu’il considérait comme une première étape dans un ambitieux projet d’édition complète de Chrysostome, qui fut malheureusement interrompu par sa mort prématurée22. Dans son esprit, ces commentaires devaient être suivis de tout un corpus de sources évangéliques et patristiques au service d’un programme de réforme du diocèse de Vérone, auquel le prélat s’était désormais consacré après son retrait de la curie romaine où il avait tenu les plus hauts postes auprès de Clément VII23. Giberti témoignait aussi de la même munificence que Savile dans le mécénat auprès des hommes de lettres et le recours à la contribution de véritables érudits: en janvier 1528, il avait fait venir à Vérone l’humaniste Bernardino Donato (ca. 1483-1543), qui occupait alors à Padoue la chaire de lettres grecques, en l’exonérant pendant trois ans de tout enseignement pour se consacrer à l’édition patristique. La même année, il avait installé à demeure, dans son palais épiscopal, l’imprimerie des frères typographes vénitiens Niccolini da Sabbio, munie de caractères grecs et latins, comme plus tard, Savile installera les presses de John Norton dans sa demeure d’Eton. Il partageait, enfin, le même souci de l’exactitude philologique, dont témoigne l’anecdote du volume sans cesse remis sur le métier, dans la dédicace de Bernardino Donato à Clément VII. Des ‘rumores’ répandues dès l’impression du volume avaient empêché Giberti de le publier et l’avaient contraint à en retarder sans cesse la parution. Redoutant de n’en recueillir plus de désagréments pour les erreurs commises que de fruits et d’avantages pour ce qu’il avait été copié sans la moindre erreur, [Giberti] retenait l’ouvrage qui s’efforçait, pour ainsi dire, de sortir (quasi gestiens exire, comprimebat), et différait sans cesse l’édition pour un autre moment24. 22 Giberti envisageait au moins l’édition des Commentaires aux Psaumes. En 1532, il avait demandé, moyennant une caution de deux mille ducats, le prêt de deux codices antiquiores complémentaires, Caesenates Malatest. D.XXVIII.2 et 3, contenant l’ensemble du corpus, dont la main principale, le scribe Léon, est datable de 1027 au plus tard, mais peut-être de 982; voir la notice en ligne de la Biblioteca Malatestiana (consultée le jeudi 9 janvier 2020), qui renvoie, pour ce prêt, à Gherardo Ortalli, ‘Malatestiana e dintorni. La cultura cesenate tra Malatesta Novello e il Valentino’, dans Augusto Vasina (éd.), Storia di Cesena, II.2, Il Medioevo (secoli XIV-XV) (Ghigi [Rimini], 1985), 129-65, 140. Le contenu chrysostomien est décrit par Robert E. Carter, Codices Chrysostomici Graeci V. Codicum Italiae pars prior (Paris, 1983), 10-2, nos 12-3 (désormais CCG V). 23 Adriano Prosperi, Tra evangelismo e controriforma: Gian Matteo Giberti (1495-1543), Uomini e dottrine 55 (Roma, 1969, réimpr. 2011), 217-9 et n. 101-2. Deux anciens manuscrits patristiques portent, en majuscules, l’ex-libris de Giberti, Ἰωάννου Ματθαίου Γιβέρτου ἐπισκόπου Ὀυηρώνης: Romanus Ang. gr. 120, f. 2 (Corpus Constantinopolitanum de Maxime le Confesseur, première moitié du 11e siècle), Vaticanus Chisianus R. VIII 54 (gr. 45), f. 1 (Chaîne exégétique sur les Prophètes, milieu du 10e siècle). 24 B. Donato, Diui Ioannis Chrysostomi In omnes Pauli apostoli epistolas, I (1529), SS. Ac Beatissimo Patri nostro Clementi Septimo Pontifici Maximo Donatus Veronensis (dédicace à Clément VII), † ii: timens, ne plus ex eo quod erratum esset incommodi, quam ex eo quod sine

D’Érasme à Field

63

Quant à la source unique de l’édition, le Marcianus gr. Z. 103 (coll. 571)25, du 14e siècle, son caractère exceptionnel n’avait pas échappé à Giberti: En effet, comme cette œuvre était extrêmement difficile à trouver, et qu’hormis cet unique exemplaire où avait été transcrit un si grand nombre de textes, il ne s’en trouvait probablement nulle part aucun qui contienne tout cela comme un corpus, Giberti considérait qu’il ferait aussi un certain tort à sa conscience et devrait être traîné en jugement de la même manière que s’il avait enfoui le fameux talent de l’Évangile, s’il souffrait que cet ouvrage si célèbre reste plus longtemps caché comme un trésor chez lui26.

En effet, cet ancien manuscrit de Bessarion contient le corpus complet des quatorze séries d’homélies sur les Épîtres pauliniennes; il s’agit d’un cas absolument unique dans la tradition manuscrite chrysostomienne, qui exercera plus tard une véritable fascination sur Frederick Field. Désormais intégralement disponible en grec, le corpus paulinien de Chrysostome allait bientôt connaître plusieurs traductions ou révisions latines, et tout d’abord en milieu protestant. La traduction princeps des homélies Sur l’Épître ullo errore descriptum, fructus & commodi, caperetur: opus ipsum quasi gestiens exire, comprimebat, editionemque in aliud semper tempus differebat. Donato revint sur ce point dans la lettre dédicace qu’il fit imprimer dans l’exemplaire destiné à Henry VIII d’Angleterre (London, BL, C. 24., f. 1): … cuius quidem operis editionem quare in hunc usque diem post impressionem ipse distulerit, nos causas, sanctissimo patri nostro Clementi VII pontifici maximo eiusdem Giberti iussu nuper exposuimus in epistola, qua illi opus Gibertus ut patrono optimo dicandum curauit. Quod meum de utroque simplicissime prolatum testimonium non tuae maiestati minus, quam illorum utrique et iustum et debitum uisum iri arbitror, ac propterea etiam et iucundum et gratum … ‘Les raisons pour lesquelles il a de son propre chef différé l’édition de cette œuvre après son impression jusqu’à ce jour, nous les avons-nous-mêmes exposées récemment à notre Très Saint Père le souverain pontife Clément VII, à la demande du même Giberti, dans la lettre par laquelle Giberti a pris soin de lui dédier cette œuvre comme au meilleur des mécènes. J’estime que mon témoignage sur les deux, présenté de la manière la plus simple, ne semblera pas moins approprié et mérité à Votre Majesté qu’à eux deux, et qu’à ce titre il vous sera même délicieux et agréable’: James P. Carley, ‘Henry VIII’s Library and Humanist Donors’, dans Jonathan Woolfson (éd.), Reassessing Tudor Humanism (Basingstoke, 2002), 99-128, ‘Appendix 1’, 113-9, 115 (trad. angl., 118). Voir la transcription des dédicaces manuscrites, en grec, à Clément VII (Verona, Biblioteca Civica) et en latin, à Henry VIII d’Angleterre (London, BL, C.24.f. 1), faite par Cristina Stevanoni, ‘Il greco al servizio della riforma cattolica. Per uno studio della tipografia di Stefano Nicolini da Sabbio e di G. M. Giberti a Verona (1529-1532)’, dans Nikolaos Μ. Panagiotakis (éd.), Ἀρχὲς τῆς νεοελληνικῆς λογοτεχνίας. Πρακτικὰ τοῦ δευτέρου διεθνοῦς συνεδρίου «Neograeca Medii Aevi», Βενετία, 7-10 Νοεμβρίου 1991, Βιβλιοθήκη τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ Ἰνστιτούτου Βυζαντινῶν καὶ Μεταβυζαντινῶν Σπουδῶν Βενετίας 15 (Venezia, 1993), II 606-32. 25 Voir ci-dessous, Annexe I, n° 19. 26 B. Donato, Diui Ioannis Chrysostomi In omnes Pauli apostoli epistolas, I (1529), † ii: Nam quum sit opus inuentu rarissimum, ac praeter unum illud exemplar, ex quo tam multa haec descripta sunt, nullum fortasse usquam extet, quod omne hoc quasi corpus contineat: uidebatur sibi Gibertus, conscientiae quoque suae iacturam quandam facturus, atque in iudicium non secus ac si talentum illud euangelicum defodisset, rapiendus: si quasi thesaurum quendam, tam praeclarum hoc opus, diutius apud se delitescere pateretur. Cette allusion à la parabole des talents est caractéristique de l’esprit évangélique de Giberti.

64

P. AUGUSTIN

aux Philippiens parut en 1536, à Bâle, chez Johannes Herwagen, le beau-père de Jérôme Froben27. Cet épais volume in-folio était censé rassembler tous les commentaires de Chrysostome sur les Épîtres de Paul ‘qui sont conservés chez les Grecs’ (quotquot apud Graecos extant), pour une bonne part dans une nouvelle traduction d’un prédicateur lorrain au nom évocateur, Wolfgang Mëuslin, alias Musculus (1497-1563). En réalité, n’étaient dues à Musculus que les homélies Sur l’Épître aux Romains, les homélies 8 à 29 Sur 2 Corinthiens, ainsi que celles sur Éphésiens, Philippiens, Colossiens et Thessaloniciens. Dans la préface, Herwagen expliquait, entre autres, que le succès d’une première publication partielle des commentaires pauliniens l’avait enhardi à proposer à de nombreux érudits de compléter les homélies manquantes: Musculus lui aurait envoyé les homélies Sur l’Épître aux Romains en lui promettant sous peu la suite, qui n’était jamais arrivée (version que Musculus démentira). Malgré tout un système de signes diacritiques visant à souligner les lacunes, les variantes relevées dans d’autres exemplaires, les problèmes de traduction, sans compter l’apparat de lexiques ou d’index, la traduction de Musculus reste étroitement tributaire de l’édition de Vérone: elle en reproduit toutes les erreurs et Musculus n’hésite pas à la citer dans le texte, en marge de sa traduction, pour justifier ses options ou attester de la corruption du texte édité. D’où ses diatribes contre Germain de Brie, qui avait utilisé à l’occasion, pour la traduction des homélies Sur l’Épître aux Romains, un témoin différent de l’édition de Vérone. De ce point de vue, cette traduction a conservé toute son utilité. Dans l’avertissement au lecteur de la réédition de 1539, Herwagen se lance dans un véritable plaidoyer contre l’emendatio ope ingenii (la conjecture), le meilleur moyen à son sens de corrompre tous les livres. Cette crainte de la ‘corruption’, caractéristique d’une ‘patristique confessionnelle’, pour emprunter une expression chère à Jean-Louis Quantin28, s’exprime également dans les travaux de la Contre-Réforme romaine, chez Flaminio De’Nobili. II. À la recherche de nouveaux témoins: la ‘recension élaborée’ de Nobili à Montfaucon (1578-1754) Le premier érudit qui ait eu accès aux deux recensions des homélies Sur l’Épître aux Philippiens est en effet Flaminio De’Nobili (1532/33-1591), qui publia à Rome, en 1578, chez Giuseppe degl’Angeli, une traduction latine 27 Ioannis Chrysostomi Archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani in omnes D. Pauli epistolas commentarii, quotquot apud Graecos extant latinitate donati, quorum bona pars quae hactenus desiderabatur, recens à D. Wolfgango Musculo traducta est…, 2 vol. (Basel, 1536); voir Annexe II, n° 4. 28 Jean-Louis Quantin, ‘Du Chrysostome latin au Chrysostome grec. Une histoire européenne (1588-1613)’, dans Martin Wallraff et Rudolf Brändle (éd.), Chrysostomosbilder in 1600 Jahren. Facetten der Wirkungsgeschichte eines Kirchenvaters, Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 105 (Leiden, 2008), 267-346, 277.

D’Érasme à Field

65

‘révisée’ des homélies Sur l’Épître aux Philippiens29. Ancien professeur à l’Université de Pise, établi dès 1575 dans la familia du cardinal Guido Ferreri, membre de la commission chargée par Grégoire XIII d’éditer l’Ancien Testament dans la version des Septante, Nobili avait été nommé ‘réviseur des auteurs ecclésiastiques’ (corrector auctorum ecclesiasticorum) à la Bibliothèque Vaticane, à la demande du cardinal Guglielmo Sirleto. Dans sa dédicace à Grégoire XIII, reprise d’une traduction publiée deux ans auparavant30, Nobili souligne la tâche de censeur qui lui a été assignée. Les Opera omnia latines de Chrysostome constituaient alors, surtout pour les commentaires aux Épîtres pauliniennes, comme l’a rappelé Jean-Louis Quantin, ‘de vastes compilations de traductions plus ou moins retouchées, qui juxtaposaient des groupes, ou si l’on préfère des strates: l’Antiquité (Annien), l’humanisme, le temps des Réformes’31. Il s’agissait pour Nobili de restaurer (restituere) un texte corrompu, à dessein ou non, en lui-même ou dans les notes qui l’accompagnaient: ‘lire divers manuscrits des Saints Pères, les collationner, noter ce qui était corrompu, ou mal traduit, ou détourné de son sens par des notes marginales (aut deprauata, aut male conuersa, aut scholiis peruersa), afin d’en référer à ses éminences les cardinaux préposés à cette fonction’32. À ses yeux, cependant, la ‘corruption’ des œuvres authentiques de Chrysostome n’est pas seulement due à la malveillance d’hérétiques, mais aussi à l’ignorance des traducteurs ou même à l’état du texte transmis par les manuscrits; aussi, sa ‘restauration’ suppose-t-elle le recours à d’autres sources manuscrites: Dans un certain nombre de passages, elles ont été volontairement corrompues (de industria esse deprauata) par des hérétiques qui les ont traduites en langue latine, mais souvent, c’est l’ignorance du traducteur (interpretis inscitiam) qui en porte l’entière responsabilité: car de nombreux passages sont déjà mutilés dans les manuscrits grecs (in graecis codicibus, allusion vraisemblable au Marcianus gr. Z 103, manuscrit de base de l’édition de Vérone), et bourrés de fautes assez nombreuses et importantes; ces textes devront être restaurés (quae … restituenda erunt) à l’aide d’exemplaires manuscrits, surtout du Vatican et de ceux que le très illustre cardinal Sirleto a corrigés (& iis, quae Illustrissimus Cardinalis Syrletus correxit)33.

29 Sancti Ioannis Chrysostomi Sermones in epistolam diui Pauli ad Philippenses multo et pleniores, et emendatiores quàm antehac impressi fuerint. Flaminio Nobilio interprete. Notationes in eiusdem patris sententias, quæ aut interpretis, aut exemplarium vitio pias lædere aures possunt. D. Basilij Magni epistolæ duæ. Beati Maximi monachi, et confessoris sermo ad pietatem exercens (Roma, 1578); voir Annexe II, n° 6. 30 Jean-Louis Quantin, ‘Sirleto, le Concile de Trente et Jean Chrysostome’, dans ‘Il sapientissimo Calabro’ (Roma, 2018), 293-337, 310-1, n. 49. 31 J.-L. Quantin, ‘Du Chrysostome latin’ (2008), 274. 32 F. De’Nobili, Sancti Ioannis Chrysostomi Sermones (1578), dédicace à Grégoire XIII, f. *3. 33 Ibid., f. *4.

P. AUGUSTIN

66

Réduire le rôle de Nobili dans l’édition chrysostomienne à une opération de censure serait donc exagéré. Aux yeux des cardinaux Morone et Sirleto, sous l’égide desquels il était placé, ce travail de révision des homélies sur les Épîtres pauliniennes s’inscrivait dans un ambitieux programme d’édition complète de Chrysostome à partir des fonds grecs du Vatican et de la collection personnelle de Sirleto34. Ce projet ne fut pas mené à terme, mais toute une documentation est encore conservée au Vatican: l’autographe de la traduction de Nobili, dont le texte de base était emprunté au Vaticanus gr. 55135, est partiellement préservé (sept homélies sur quinze) dans l’actuel Vaticanus lat. 5534 ff. 1-111 (voir aussi ff. I-II: la dédicace à Grégoire XIII). D’autre part, l’érudit avait aussi élaboré une nouvelle traduction des homélies Sur l’Épître aux Éphésiens, vraisemblablement sur le même Vaticanus gr. 551; la version autographe, dédiée au cardinal Morone, est conservée, quant à elle, dans l’actuel Vaticanus Reginensis lat. 1960, ff. 3v-16736. Quant au copieux travail d’annotation de Sirleto sur son exemplaire personnel complet de l’imprimé de Vérone, auquel fait vraisemblablement allusion la dernière phrase de Nobili, il est lui aussi conservé au Vatican. L’avertissement liminaire au lecteur ne nous renseigne pas seulement sur la source des corrections de Nobili, le Vaticanus gr. 551, mais également sur la manière dont il concevait ce processus de ‘corruption’ et sur la méthode toute éclectique préconisée pour y remédier. À son sens, c’est l’autographe même de Chrysostome qui devait se trouver plus ou moins à l’état de brouillon, dont

34

Cette révision des éditions courantes était conçue comme un travail provisoire, ‘tandis qu’était organisée à Rome une nouvelle édition des Œuvres complètes’ (dum noua omnium operum editio Romae concinnatur), dit Nobili dans sa dédicace à Grégoire XIII, ibid., f. *4v. Voir surtout ses Notationes quaedam in commentarios D. Ioannis Chrysostomi in Epistolam ad Philippenses, 172-3: Magnam uero tibi, ut puto, uoluptatem nunciamus, fore ut breui omnes Chrysostomi in Pauli Epistolas sermones graece de integro impressos, atque innumerabilibus locis emendatos, et auctos habeas; hunc tibi thesaurum non solum procurante, sed etiam magnam partem promente clarissimo illo Ecclesiae sanctae lumine Cardin. Sirleto: ‘C’est vraiment, je crois, un grand sujet de contentement que nous vous annonçons : bientôt, vous aurez tous les sermons de Chrysostome sur les Épîtres de Paul imprimés en intégralité, ainsi que corrigés en d’innombrables endroits et augmentés, ce trésor vous étant non seulement procuré, mais encore en grande partie édité grâce au Cardinal Sirleto, cet astre très illustre de la sainte Église’ – Sur ce projet, voir Pierre Petitmengin, ‘À propos des éditions patristiques de la Contre-Réforme: le « Saint-Augustin » de la Typographie Vaticane’, Recherches Augustiniennes 4 (1966), 199-251, 203 – cité par Steven Gysens, ‘Literatorum Galliae decus dulcissimum… Un échange de lettres entre Dom de Billy et Gerardus Vossius (1580-1581)’, Revue bénédictine 108 (1998), 331-58, 343, n. 58 – et désormais J.-L. Quantin, ‘Sirleto’ (2018), 310-1 et les notes; sur le statut et les émoluments dont bénéficia Flaminio De’Nobili dès décembre 1573, voir S. Gysens, ‘Literatorum Galliae’ (1998), 343, n. 63, et J.-L. Quantin, ‘Sirleto’ (2018), 311, n. 49. 35 Voir ci-dessous, Annexe I, n° 8. 36 S. Gysens, ‘Literatorum Galliae’ (1998), 331-8, 343 et n. 61-2. Voir Paul O. Kristeller, Iter italicum. A Finding List of Uncatalogued or Incompletely Catalogued Humanistic Manuscripts of the Renaissance in Italian and Other Libraries, II (London, Leiden, 1967), 334 A-B; 411 A.

D’Érasme à Field

67

l’arbitraire des copistes n’aurait fait qu’accentuer le désordre. On nous permettra de citer assez longuement ce passage essentiel: Si l’on prend le soin de collationner les manuscrits de ces commentaires, on se rendra compte aisément que, dans l’exemplaire même de Chrysostome, de nombreuses annotations avaient été placées en marge et entre les lignes (multa in margine, atque inter lineas fuisse apposita) comme additions ou variantes alternatives, car il n’avait, de toute évidence, pas encore décidé s’il préférait les insérer ou les remplacer et n’avait pas alors mis la dernière main à son œuvre. D’où, les copistes, selon ce qu’ils comprenaient eux-mêmes, ont omis tantôt quelques mots, tantôt davantage, ou transposé ailleurs un passage, et parfois même ce qui devait être ôté, comme ce qui devait lui être substitué, a été regroupé dans la même phrase… Ce fait, que j’ai pu établir sur des arguments, à mon sens, d’une absolue certitude, m’a rendu probablement, dans certains passages, un peu trop hardi à transposer des groupes de mots, lorsque je me rendais compte que cela n’avait aucune incidence fâcheuse sur le sens, et que j’ai estimé obliger le lecteur, dont la lecture aurait été sans cela nécessairement interrompue, à mon sens, par une telle perturbation dans l’ordre des mots. Les passages dont il s’agit, nous les indiquerons dans les notes que nous avons ajoutées, afin que le lecteur puisse se faire une idée et, s’il le préfère, remettre à sa place antérieure ce que nous avons transposé. Dans tous les autres passages, nous n’avons rien changé par conjecture, mais nous avons suivi essentiellement un manuscrit du Vatican, qui est beaucoup plus complet et plus correct que les autres (nihil ex coniectura mutauimus, sed Vaticanum praecipue codicem, qui reliquis multo & plenior, & emendatior est … sequuti sumus) (car dans celui de Vérone il manque parfois des pages entières); même si le manuscrit du Vatican ne nous apportait pas non plus toujours entière satisfaction37.

Quoi qu’on puisse penser, bien sûr, de cette hypothèse sur l’autographe de Chrysostome, il est piquant de constater que l’un des progrès décisifs dans l’étude de l’histoire de notre texte, la découverte de cette double recension et du phénomène de contamination, a été obtenu grâce à la censure de la Contre-Réforme romaine, au point de contraindre, une génération plus tard, Sir Henry Savile à recourir à des ‘amis romains’ pour avoir accès au ‘manuscrit de Nobili’. Si l’édition chrysostomienne de Savile fut patiemment préparée par une décennie de recherches de ses amanuenses, James Dalrymple et Samuel Slade, dans les bibliothèques européennes, sa publication au sens strict, ne s’est étagée que sur trois ans: en 1610, parurent les volumes I à III; puis, vinrent en 1611 les volumes V et VI; enfin, en 1612, les volumes IV, VII et VIII. On pourrait s’étonner que le quatrième volume, qui s’ouvre précisément sur les homélies Sur l’Épître aux Philippiens, ait attendu la dernière année pour paraître en même temps que les volumes finaux: le colophon date en effet du 31 octobre 1612, et le frontispice porte même la date de 161338. La réponse nous est 37

F. De’Nobili, Sancti Ioannis Chrysostomi Sermones (1578), avertissement liminaire au lecteur, 172-3. 38 J.-L. Quantin, ‘Du Chrysostome latin’ (2008), 316-7 et n. 211, 322 et n. 231-2.

68

P. AUGUSTIN

donnée, de manière voilée, par Savile lui-même, au huitième volume, dans l’avertissement liminaire des notes aux homélies Sur l’Épître aux Philippiens: Pour ces sermons Sur l’Épître aux Philippiens, nous avons corrigé l’édition de Vérone, tout d’abord en fonction d’un manuscrit de la Bibliothèque Impériale: comme nous n’en étions pas satisfaits, constatant que le très savant traducteur Flaminio Nobili avait utilisé à Rome d’autres manuscrits meilleurs, nous avons fait effectuer, par l’intermédiaire d’amis éminents, une copie d’un très bon manuscrit du Vatican, d’après lequel nous avons comblé de nombreuses lacunes et plus d’une fois ajouté des pages entières. Pour autant, nous n’avons pas pleinement atteint notre objectif39.

Insatisfait devant la qualité du texte transmis par l’édition de Vérone40, ainsi que par le ‘manuscrit de la Bibliothèque Impériale (de Vienne)’, le Vindobonensis theol. gr. 11141, sur lequel Samuel Slade avait transcrit l’argumentum à son intention, en 160742, l’éditeur d’Eton n’avait donc pas hésité à suspendre une année entière l’impression du quatrième volume de Chrysostome pour bénéficier de l’apport d’une source nouvelle. Son tour de force fut d’avoir réussi à obtenir, en pleine période de Contre-Réforme tridentine, une transcription intégrale de la série des homélies Sur l’Épître aux Philippiens sur le ‘manuscrit de Nobili’, le Vaticanus gr. 551, qui plus est, de la main d’un scriptor graecus de la Vaticane, Jean de Sainte-Maure43. L’épisode est retracé en 39 In hisce sermonibus in Epistolam ad Philippenses, editionem Veronensem primùm ex manuscripto Caesareo emendauimus: neque eo contenti, cùm uideremus Flaminium Nobilium doctissimum interpretem alijs melioribus Romae codicibus usum, illustrium amicorum operâ apographum ex optimae notae Vaticano describendum curauimus, ex quo & multas expleuimus lacunas, & integras non semel pagellas adiecimus. Neque tamen quod uoluimus, plenè assecuti sumus: H. Savile, Notae in tomum Quartum (1612), avertissement liminaire, vol. VIIIB, col. 459460 (notes à Savile 4, 1-88). 40 L’exemplaire annoté de Savile, conservé dans son Liber F, l’actuel Auctarium E. 3. 6 (Phil.: ff. 103v-148v = Veron. III, ff. 205v-249v), a été dépecé et réorganisé en fonction de l’édition d’Eton: voir Michel Aubineau, Codices Chrysostomici Graeci I. Codices Britanniae et Hiberniae (Paris, 1968), 119-20 n° 141 (désormais CCG I). 41 Voir ci-dessous, Annexe I, n° 20. 42 Aujourd’hui conservé dans le Liber H de Savile, Oxoniensis Auct. E. 3. 8 (argumentum: p. 567-568; CCG I, 122-5, n° 143, 125). 43 J.-L. Quantin, ‘Du Chrysostome latin’ (2008), 322 et n. 231. La copie, aujourd’hui dans le Liber G de Savile, Oxoniensis Auct. E. 3. 7, p. 847-1071 (CCG I, 120-2, n° 142), fut achevée par Jean de Sainte-Maure le 24 septembre 1610; voir Marco D’Agostino, Giovanni Santamaura, gli ultimo bagliori dell’attività scrittoria dei Greci in Occidente, Biblioteca statale di Cremona, Fonti e sussidi (Cremona, 2013), 62, n° 133, 71 et n. 28 (souscription du 24 septembre 1610), 98 (notice descriptive), 147, n. 8-9, 150, n. 22, 151, 159, n. 57. Entretemps, le Vaticanus gr. 551 avait été lui-même retranscrit pour le cardinal Federico Borromeo par le même Sainte-Maure dans l’actuel Ambrosianus P 96 sup. (Martini-Bassi 634), ff. 1-186 (CCG V, 99, n° 124); voir Cesare Pasini, ‘Giovanni Santa Maura e la biblioteca Ambrosiana’, Rivista di studi bizantini e neoellenici n.s. 42 (2005), 223-70, 264-6 (lettre de Sainte-Maure à Antonio Olgiati, datée du 23 novembre 1611, promettant la copie du ms.; note de Sainte-Maure au f. III du ms.: ‘Questo libro l’havevo recopiato in fretta da una copia recavata dal Vaticano per l’Abbate Antonio Persio et lo voglio prima rerescontrare [sic] con l’originale Vaticano e poi farlo un minimo mio presente all’Illustrissimo

D’Érasme à Field

69

détail dans un article bien connu de Giuseppe Mercati, qui a réussi à percer l’anonymat des ‘amis illustres’ mentionnés dans l’avertissement de Savile: il s’agit de l’érudit d’Augsbourg Markus Welser (1558-1614) et d’un de ses correspondants de l’Accademia dei Lincei, à Rome, l’abbé Antonio Persio (1542-1612)44. Sur le Vaticanus gr. 551, Savile s’accorde parfaitement avec Nobili: il partage son appréciation sur les apports de la recension ‘élaborée’ et sur l’ajout de ‘pages entières’ aux éditions antérieures; il ressent enfin la même insatisfaction pour la forme un peu déroutante du texte. Il convient de faire un sort à ce mythe des ‘pages ajoutées’ au texte de l’édition de Vérone, exagération rhétorique fondée sur un fait réel: le Marcianus gr. Z 103, copié sur un exemplaire lacunaire, présentait en effet deux importantes omissions: au milieu de la treizième homélie In Epistulam ad Romanos et dans la troisième homélie In Epistulam ad Titum (f. 270: au milieu du cahier λδ´, ff. 268-275v), où elle avait été suppléée en marge du f. 270 et au f. 414v par la main plus récente. C’est la première omission, surtout, qui semble avoir joué un rôle important dans la polémique entourant la publication de Giberti; elle permet de comprendre pourquoi Jérôme Commelin n’avait révisé le texte des homélies Sur l’Épître aux Romains que jusqu’à cette treizième homélie, et pas au-delà, se contentant, pour les commentaires suivants, de réimprimer le texte de son prédécesseur45. Avec Henry Savile, l’idée semblait désormais acquise auprès des érudits que la recension ‘élaborée’ offrait un texte malgré tout plus satisfaisant. Son jugement n’est peut-être pas moins tributaire de visées apologétiques que Flaminio De’Nobili, mais, dans les annotations de son édition, il s’en tient au point de vue philologique ou stylistique d’Érasme, dont il semble avoir également utilisé l’édition, et considère la recension longue comme plus représentative de l’abondance habituelle de Chrysostome. Dans les deux cas, semble-t-il, la version transmise par le Vaticanus gr. 551 semblait naturellement devoir être privilégiée, voire s’imposer, en regard de celle du Marcianus gr. Z 103, fidèlement transcrit dans l’édition princeps de Vérone, que n’avaient pas modifiée sensiblement les réimpressions de Heidelberg (Jérôme Commelin). Savile, nous Cardinale Borromeo mio Padrone conforme già gli havevo offerto. Importa 10 scudi de fatigha’). Voir aussi M. D’Agostino, Giovanni Santamaura (2013), 61, n° 106. 44 Giuseppe Mercati, ‘I. Uno scambio strano di qualche interesse per tre grandi biblioteche’; ‘II. Amici innominati del Savile in Roma’, dans Miscellanea di Scritti di Bibliografia ed Erudizione in memoria di Luigi Ferrari (Firenze, 1952), 17-26, réimpr. dans Opere minori, VI (Città del Vaticano, 1984), 381-91. 45 Voir, à ce sujet, la défense de Giberti dans la Lettre IX, datée du 25 juin 1683, de l’oratorien Richard Simon (Dieppe, 13 mai 1638-11 avril 1712) à l’abbé G[aliot], docteur de Sorbonne, dans Richard Simon, Lettres choisies, nouvelle édition (Amsterdam, 1730), 99-109, 100-2; voir aussi les deux lettres suivantes, notamment la lettre XI, qui est un éloge de l’évêque de Vérone, et le jugement de Simon sur les annotations de Jérôme Commelin aux homélies Sur l’Épître aux Philippiens, 106.

70

P. AUGUSTIN

l’avons vu, n’avait pas hésité à surseoir à l’impression du volume IV de ses Opera omnia, dans l’espoir de bénéficier, par l’entremise de ses amis romains, d’une copie de la source sur laquelle Flaminio Nobili avait corrigé le texte de Vérone… Mais le résultat n’était pas tout à fait à la hauteur des espérances, et les corrections, qu’elles soient ope codicis (à l’aide du Vaticanus) ou ope ingenii (les conjectures d’Andrew Downes), ne pouvaient remédier à toutes les fautes: Si les ethica sont sans doute bons et dignes d’un si grand auteur, les commentaires, en tout cas, sont médiocres et, la plupart du temps, semblables à ceux des homélies Sur l’Épître aux Éphésiens, tronqués et improvisés – à mon sens – (concisi, & αὐτοσχεδιασθέντες, ut puto), de sorte que, même si le manuscrit du Vatican et les ingénieuses conjectures de Downes ont été d’un très grand secours, il reste cependant çà et là à corriger beaucoup d’endroits malmenés par les copistes ou corrompus (multa tamen passim librariorum uitio luxata, multa deprauata supersint emendanda)46.

Sans renouveler profondément l’édition de son prédécesseur, Montfaucon eut néanmoins le mérite de recourir à de nouveaux témoins. Ce n’est pas ici le lieu de retracer la genèse de l’édition des Mauristes, mais on soulignera leur rôle pionnier dans le dépouillement des fonds parisiens de la Bibliotheca Regia et de la Colbertine, et surtout dans l’exploitation d’une collection privée exceptionnelle: celle du duc de Coislin. Montfaucon, qui en avait publié le catalogue en 1715, était bien placé pour en apprécier la valeur. Dans la note liminaire aux homélies Sur l’Épître aux Philippiens, publiées au volume XI, paru en 173447, il énumère les trois manuscrits dont il s’est servi et dont les collations, conservées dans les archives mauristes, ont été intégrées dans le fonds Supplément grec de la Bibliothèque nationale de France. On ne sera pas étonné de constater qu’il a privilégié le Coislianianus 75, qu’il avait en effet à demeure, avec tous les autres manuscrit déposés en 1720 à l’abbaye de Saint-Germain-des-Prés par l’évêque de Metz, Henri-Charles de Coislin48: ‘Nous avons collationné ces discours avec un ms. Coislin et un deuxième ms., de Colbert, ainsi qu’avec un ms. de la Bibliothèque du Roi, dans lequel le début manque et qui ne contient qu’une toute petite partie du texte’49. Le Coislinianus 75 (ff. 147-245v), collationné pour Montfaucon par Dom Paul Susleaue50, a été copié dans la dernière décennie du 10e siècle, vraisemblablement par Jean de Lavra. Il revêt une certaine importance pour l’histoire 46 H. Savile, Notae in tomum Quartum (1612), avertissement liminaire, vol. VIIIB, col. 459460 (notes à Savile 4, 1-88). 47 S. Ioannis Chrysostomi Opera omnia quae exstant vel eius nomine circumferuntur. Ad Mss. Cod. Gall. etc., t. XI (Paris, 1734), 189-320; voir ci-dessous, Annexe II, n° 9. 48 Voir ci-dessous, Annexe I, n° 3. 49 Hos sermones contulimus cum Coisliniano codice & cum Colbertino altero, itemque cum Regio in quo initium deest & paucissima habentur: B. de Montfaucon, S. Ioannis Chrysostomi Opera omnia, XI (1734), 189, n. a (= PG 62, 177). 50 Parisinus Suppl. gr. 282, ff. 259-267v.

D’Érasme à Field

71

de la recension ‘élaborée’, en tant que modèle présumé du Vatopedinus 327 (notre n° 18), ce qu’il conviendra de confirmer par la collation du texte51. Montfaucon est surtout le premier à avoir reconnu l’intérêt du Parisinus gr. 1017 (son Colbertinus 4122), collationné par Dom Paul Susleaue sur l’‘édition’ (en fait une simple réimpression) publiée sous le nom de Fronton du Duc en 163652. Ce témoin du 9e siècle d’un commentaire abrégé aux Épîtres pauliniennes à partir des homélies de Chrysostome n’apporte qu’une contribution minime au texte des homélies Sur l’Épître aux Philippiens, mais le fait qu’il ait régulièrement été collationné par Frederick Field, au siècle suivant, lui confère également une certaine importance dans l’histoire du texte53. Quant au troisième manuscrit de Montfaucon, le Parisinus gr. 753 (Regius 2349), collationné par Dom François Mesange54, il est plus anecdotique, car il ne transmet que l’ethicon de l’homélie 3, à peine quatre colonnes de Migne. III. Frederick Field (1801-1885), The Library of the Fathers (1838-1872) et l’Interpretatio omnium Epistolarum Paulinarum de Chrysostome (1845-1862) L’édition de Frederick Field, qui paraît à Oxford en 1855, est inséparable de la Library of the Fathers (1838-1872), où elle se trouve insérée de fait par son titre latin, qui transcrit exactement le titre anglais de la collection publiée par les initiateurs du ‘Mouvement d’Oxford’, John Keble, Edward Bouverie Pusey, Henry Newman et Charles Marriott55. De 1839 à 1877, ces derniers vont donner pour la première fois en traduction anglaise une bonne partie de l’œuvre chrysostomienne: seize volumes sur les quarante-neuf de la collection, la plupart 51 Nous sommes reconnaissant à notre collègue Erich Lamberz, qui prépare une étude sur la production de Jean de Lavra, pour les informations qu’il nous a transmises sur ces deux témoins athonites (le Parisinus provient de la Grande Laure de l’Athos) au cours d’un entretien généreusement accordé à Marie-Ève Geiger, que nous remercions également. 52 Parisinus Suppl. gr. 283, ff. 377v-385. 53 En fait, le Parisinus gr. 1017 (jadis Colbert. 4122) n’est autre que la première partie d’un même commentaire abrégé aux Épîtres pauliniennes, dont le Parisinus gr. 744 (jadis Colbert. 4183) constitue la seconde partie; Giuseppe De Gregorio, ‘Materiali vecchi e nuovi per uno studio della minuscola greca fra VII e IX secolo’, dans Giancarlo Prato (éd.), I manoscritti greci tra riflessione e dibattito, Atti del V Colloquio internazionale di Paleografia greca, Cremona, 4-10 ottobre 1998, Papyrologica Florentina 31 (Firenze, 2000), 83-151, 146, n. 292. 54 Parisinus Suppl. gr. 436, f. 353v-354 (hom. 3, excerptum, PG 62, 203.3 [μὴ πενθῶμεν]-206). 55 Frederick Field, Sancti patris nostri Joannis Chrysostomi archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani Interpretatio Omnium Epistularum Paulinarum per homilias facta. V, Continens homilias in epistolas ad Philippenses, Colossenses et Thessalonicenses, Bibliotheca Patrum Ecclesiae Catholicae qui Ante Orientis et Occidentis Schisma floruerunt. Delectu Presbyterorum Oxoniensium (Oxford, 1855), 1-171 (texte), 499-530 (notes); voir Annexe II, n° 10. Titre anglais de la collection: A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, Anterior to the Division of the East and West, translated by members of the English Church (Oxford, 1838-1872).

72

P. AUGUSTIN

avant 1845, date de publication du premier volume de Field. Or c’est précisément la traduction du corpus paulinien de Chrysostome qui va reposer de manière aiguë la question du texte grec à adopter, l’alternative entre Savile et Montfaucon n’étant guère satisfaisante56. La solution, très tôt envisagée, fut celle d’une nouvelle édition du texte grec original, à laquelle fut associé Frederick Field, déjà renommé pour ses travaux sur les homélies In Matthaeum, publiées en 1839. Le prospectus joint à chaque nouvelle livraison de la Library se faisait l’écho des efforts considérables consentis par Pusey et ses collaborateurs pour obtenir à grands frais des collations ‘à Rome, Paris, Munich, Vienne, Florence et Venise’ et il précisait que ‘les éditeurs ont des matériaux pour les œuvres principales de Chrysostome’57. C’est ce que Vivi Perraky a nommé justement ‘le marché des collations’58. Les archives de Field, conservées dans les papiers de Pusey légués à la Bodléienne, permettent de mesurer ces collaborations érudites59. En fait, Field a connu et utilisé au moins neuf manuscrits de la liste que nous fournissons en Annexe I60, mais il n’en a finalement retenu que quatre pour les homélies Sur l’Épître aux Philippiens, nos nos 2, 9, 16 et 20: E = Vindobonensis theol. gr. 111 (Lambeck CXL), ff. 86v-127v (2e moitié du 14e siècle) F = Mosquensis Sinod. gr. 105 (Vlad. 106; Matthäi CVI), ff. 1-113 (10e siècle) C = Londinensis Burney 48, I, ff. 104v-158 (début du 12e siècle) G = Mosquensis Sinod. gr. 107 (Vlad. 105; Matthäi CVIII), ff. 112-182 (11e siècle)

Les mss E et F font en général cause commune et se rapprochent du Marcianus gr. Z 103 (de Vérone), tandis qu’inversement, C et G s’accordent le plus souvent pour donner un texte plus élaboré, auquel Field rattache également le Coislinianus 75 de Montfaucon61. 56 Richard W. Pfaff, ‘The Library of the Fathers: The Tractarians as Patristic Translators’, Studies in Philology 70 (1973), 329-44, 335-7. 57 ‘… at Rome, Paris, Munich, Vienna, Florence, Venice, and the Editors have materials for the principal works of S. Chrysostom… Of these, they have begun with S. CHRYSOSTOM on St. Paul, the Rev. F. Field, M.A. Trin. Coll. Cambridge, having united with them in this great task.’ 58 Vivi Perraky, ‘Grégoire Zalykis. Face à trois grands philologues français sur la prononciation du grec (1809-1810)’, Revue historique 6 (2009) 53-97, 78, citée in Christian Förstel, ‘Le cabinet des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque nationale entre la France et la Grèce au XIXe siècle’, dans Ευάγγελος Χρυσός et Christophe Farnaud (éd.), Eλλάδα και Γαλλία τoν 19o αιώνα, La France et la Grèce au XIXe siècle (Athènes, 2012), 95-106, 97. 59 Pour les collations effectuées à la demande de Field, on voudra bien se reporter à l’Annexe I; au moins sept personnes ont contribué à l’édition de Field: à Florence (2 mss), Rome (1 ms.) et Venise (4 mss), les collations ont été assurée par Theodor Friedrich Heyse (1803-1884); à Munich (5 mss) par Theodor Krabinger, à Paris (25 mss) par Emmanuel Miller et à Vienne (8 mss) par James Lewis, de Wadham College. Quant aux manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Synodale de Moscou (4 mss), ils furent collationnés sur l’édition de Montfaucon par trois membres de l’Académie théologique, Alexandr Fedorovich Kiryakov (1804-1892), Vasily Petrovich Nechaev (1822-1905) et Mikail Lebedev. 60 Voir ci-dessous, Annexe I, nn° 2-3, 7 à 9, 16-17, 19 et 20. 61 Selon F. Field, S.P.N. Joannis Chrysostomi … interpretatio (1855), x, le Coislinianus de Montfaucon (Coislinianus 75) ‘semble se rapporter à la recension présentée par nos mss C et G’

D’Érasme à Field

73

Avec Field, nous assistons à un retour de balancier dont l’histoire de l’édition est coutumière. On doit néanmoins préciser que son recours à la tradition indirecte, par la consultation de la chaîne du Coislinianus 204 sur les Épîtres pauliniennes, avait confirmé l’antiquité de la ‘recension rude’. Field, qui disposait de plusieurs témoins des deux recensions, recourut constamment à la chaîne du Coislinianus 204. Ce contrepoint régulier lui permit de se montrer sévère pour l’éclectisme de ses prédécesseurs. Dans une page essentielle du volume V de son édition, il formule contre Nobili et Savile une critique radicale. Il leur reproche de ne pas avoir tiré les conséquences éditoriales de leur découverte, en s’efforçant de concilier deux recensions incompatibles, aboutissant à une ‘troisième recension’, mixte arbitraire des deux premières: en réalité, précise Field, la recension antiquior et difficilior n’est pas seulement transmise par l’édition princeps de Vérone, mais aussi par la Chaîne du Coislinianus 204 sur les Épîtres pauliniennes. Quant à la recension recentior (limatior) et facilior, elle serait l’œuvre d’un interpolateur ‘et, comme on peut le supposer, d’une seule et même personne pour l’œuvre entière, et, qui plus est, assez érudite et connaissant parfaitement (mieux que personne) le style de notre auteur’ (confecit Interpolator quidam, et, ut conjicere licet, per totum opus unus atque idem; isque satis eruditus, et Nostri styli in primis gnarus). La position de Field est donc de s’en tenir au plus sûr, en plaçant ‘devant les yeux du lecteur le texte de Vérone, nettoyé et corrigé dans la mesure du possible, de sorte, néanmoins, que quiconque préfère l’autre recension puisse l’extraire sans grand inconvénient des variantes placées en apparat’62. Conclusion À l’issue de cette rétrospective sur nos prédécesseurs, nous pouvons mesurer le chemin parcouru dans la manière de percevoir respectivement les deux recensions de notre texte. Les trois premiers éditeurs et traducteurs, Érasme, Donato et Musculus, n’ont connu que la recensio rudior, et d’après des témoins tardifs, des 13e et 14e siècles, vraisemblablement pour Érasme (qui ne connut en premier lieu qu’une série tronquée), sûrement pour Donato. Paradoxalement, la première version mise au jour transmettait un texte fort différent des prédications qui valaient depuis longtemps son surnom à Chrysostome. Ces facteurs conjugués justifient en grande partie le jugement défavorable d’Érasme. La découverte de la ‘recension élaborée’ de notre texte est, nous l’avons vu, le fait de la censure romaine. Dans l’optique d’une érudition patristique ‘de combat’, à laquelle appartient encore le travail de révision effectué pour

(ad eam recensionem quam exhibent nostri C. G. pertinere videtur: c’est-à-dire aux mss Londinensis Burney 48 I et Mosquensis Sinod. gr. 107). 62 F. Field, S.P.N. Joannis Chrysostomi … interpretatio (1855), xiii.

P. AUGUSTIN

74

Grégoire XIII par Flaminio De’Nobili en 1578, et, mutatis mutandis, l’entreprise ultérieure de Henry Savile (1612), il était plus vraisemblable que la recension courte des homélies Sur l’Épître aux Philippiens représente une version ‘mutilée’ (mutilata), même si l’on admettait qu’à la malveillance supposée d’hérétiques se joignaient éventuellement l’ignorance de copistes négligents, ou tout simplement les vicissitudes constatées de sa tradition manuscrite. Il convenait, par conséquent, de ‘restaurer’ (restituere) le texte dans son intégrité primitive. Quant aux hypothèses avancées par nos devanciers, Flaminio De’Nobili et Field, sur l’origine de la ‘recension élaborée’, elles ne sont pas nécessairement contradictoires: problème posé par un autographe plus ou moins laissé à l’état de brouillon, dont les surcharges auraient été insérées à divers endroits dans le texte? Intervention ultérieure, sur l’ensemble du corpus, d’un ‘interpolateur’ génial, grand connaisseur de Chrysostome et jouissant d’une autorité assez décisive pour venir concurrencer pour ainsi dire la version plus ancienne? L’opinion formulée dans ce volume par Maria Konstantinidou semble corroborer la dernière solution. Notre situation en tant qu’éditeurs des homélies Sur l’Épître aux Philippiens est assez privilégiée: les sources nous sont à peu près toutes accessibles, et leur chronologie est désormais plus assurée; les travaux menés sur d’autres séries exégétiques: commentaires aux Actes, sur Tite et Philémon, sur Hébreux, ainsi que sur le texte biblique cité par Chrysostome, semblent apporter une confirmation au point de vue de Field concernant l’ancienneté et la supériorité de la ‘recension rude’ sur la ‘recension élaborée’; c’est également la conclusion à laquelle est arrivé Jeff Childers, dans son étude des fragments conservés d’une ancienne traduction syriaque du 6e siècle63. Un consensus semble donc s’être établi sur ce point. L’examen des homélies Sur l’Épître aux Philippiens, que nous allons mener dans les années qui viennent, devrait permettre de réévaluer les deux recensions divergentes, et, par exemple, de ne pas privilégier indûment, à l’instar de Frederick Field, certaines leçons particulières du Marcianus gr. Z 103, considéré par l’éditeur de Cambridge quasiment comme l’‘archétype’ de la tradition… La présence, dès le 10e siècle, d’une intense contamination, sous la forme d’une réécriture systématique – en témoigne, par exemple, le Vaticanus gr. 1654, un manuscrit essentiel, dont Rosario Gisana a montré naguère l’importance à propos de la tradition manuscrite des homélies Sur l’Épître aux Hébreux –, doit en même temps nous inciter à nous montrer prudents. Quoi qu’il en soit, pour ce travail qui nous attend, nous pourrions nous inspirer de la maxime adoptée par Theodor Heyse64: Ce à quoi nous devons tendre surtout, c’est à nous efforcer de nous rapprocher, dans la mesure où le permettent les manuscrits, de la main originelle de l’auteur, par-delà les interventions d’un copiste isolé ou d’une quelconque recension. 63

Jeff W. Childers, Studies in the Syriac Versions of St. John Chrysostom’s Homilies on the New Testament with special Reference to Homilies 6, 20, 22, 23, 37, 62, 83, and 84 on John, D.Phil. diss. (Oxford, 1996), I 52, 146. 64 Id maxime contendendum, ut ultra unius notarii curas sive qualemcunque recensionem, ad Scriptoris pristinam manum, quantum per Codices licet, propius accedere studeamus.

D’Érasme à Field

75

Annexe I. La tradition manuscrite: témoins utilisés par Savile, Montfaucon et Field 10e siècle: 1. Constantinopolitanus Schol. theol. (27), ff. 226-352v (Hebr., Phil.) 2. Mosquensis Sin. gr. 105 (Vlad. 106), ff. 1-113v (Phil., Hebr.) → collation pour Field: Oxoniensis Gr. th. b. 4, ff. 247v-368v (Phil., sigle F) 3. Parisinus Coislinianus 75, ff. 147-245v (Eph., Phil.) → collation pour Montfaucon: Parisinus Suppl. gr. 282, ff. 259-267v (Phil.), 267v-283 (Eph.), 258 (page de titre) → collation pour Field: Oxoniensis Gr. th. b. 4, ff. 125-189v (Eph., sigle B) 4. Patmiacus 143, ff. 196-307v (2Cor., Phil., 1-2Thes.) 5. Taurinensis C. I. 1 (Pasini 17), ff. 124-197v (Col., 1Thes., Phil.) 6. Vaticanus gr. 1654, ff. 5-73 (Phil., Hebr.) 7. Marcianus gr. Z. 100 (coll. 375), ff. 222-354 (Hebr., Phil.) → collation pour Field: Oxoniensis Gr. th. b. 7, ff. 152-176 (Hebr., sigle R) 10/11e siècle: 8. Vaticanus gr. 551, ff. 114v-167v (Gal., Eph., Phil., Col., …) → copie pour Savile: Oxoniensis Auct. E. 3. 7, p. 847-1071 (Phil.) → copie pour Borromeo: Ambrosianus P 96 sup. (MB 634), ff. 1-186 (Phil.) → collation pour Field: Oxoniensis Gr. th. b. 4, ff. 115-124v (Eph., sigle F) 9. Mosquensis Sin. gr. 107 (Vlad. 105), ff. 112-182 (Eph., Phil., Phlm.) → collation pour Field: Oxoniensis Gr. th. b. 4, ff. 192-234 (Eph.), 247v-368v (Phil.); b. 6, ff. 489-520 (Phlm.) (sigle G) e 11 siècle: 10. Meteorensis Μ. Μεταμορφώσεως 564, ff. 1*-86v* (Phil., des. mut.) 11. Patmiacus 142, ff. 154-259 (Eph., Phil., Gal.) 12. Sinaiticus gr. 373, ff. 249v-316v (Gal., Eph., Phil.) 13. Sinaiticus gr. 374, ff. 1-96v (Phil., 1-2Tim.) 14. Vaticani gr. 2123 + 2055, ff. 23-72v (Eph., Phil., Col.) 15. Marcianus gr. Z. 101 (coll. 428), ff. 96-158v (a. 1065, Eph., Phil., Col.) e 12 siècle: 16. Londinensis Burney 48, I, ff. 104v-158 (Gal., Eph., Phil., Col., 1-2Thes.) → collation pour Field: Oxoniensis Gr. th. b. 4, ff. 369-539 (Phil.); b. 5, ff. 101-137 (Col.), 320-363 (1-2Thes.); b. 6, ff. 316-385v (1-2Tim.), 455-465 (Tit.), 529-536 (Phlm.) (sigle C) 13e siècle: 17. Parisinus gr. 745A, ff. 1-70 (Phil., Hebr.) → collation pour Field: Oxoniensis Gr. th. b. 7, ff. 177-406v (Hebr., sigle A)

76

P. AUGUSTIN

13/14e siècle: 17a. Moguntinus II 114 (arg. et hom. 1), ff. 204-207v (Rm., Hebr., Phil., 2Cor.) 14e siècle: 18. Athous Vatopedinus 327, ff. 6-112v (a. 1335) (Phil., Col., 1-2Thes., 1-2Tim.) 19. Marcianus gr. Z. 103 (coll. 571), ff. 331-357 (Rm., Eph., 1-2Thes., Col., 1-2Cor., Tit., Hebr., Phil., 1-2Tim., Phlm., Gal.) → éd. de Vérone, exemplaire de Savile: Oxon. Auct. E. 3. 6, ff. 103v-148v (Phil.) → collation pour Field: Oxoniensis Gr. th. b. 3, ff. 144-197v (pinax et Rm.), 375-379v (1Cor., sigle B) 20. Vindobonensis theol. gr. 111, ff. 86v-127v (Hebr., Phil., Eph., Col., Gal.) → copie pour Savile: Oxoniensis Auct. E. 3. 8, p. 567-568 (Phil., arg.) → collation pour Field: Oxoniensis Gr. th. b. 7, ff. 93-132v (Hebr.), b. 4, ff. 237-246 (Phil.), b. 5, ff. 2-14v (Col.), b. 4, ff. 10-17v (Gal.) (sigle E) 15e siècle: 21. Ambrosianus Q 96 sup. (MB 695), ff. 103v-139v (Hebr., Phil., …, Mt., …) 16e siècle: 22. Athous Kutlumusiu 110 (L 3183) (Eph., Phil., Phlm.)

D’Érasme à Field

77

Annexe II. Les éditions et traductions (latines) d’Érasme à Field Acronymes des répertoires bibliographiques pour les éditions des 16e et 17e siècles: EDIT16: CNCE = Censimento nazionale delle edizioni italiane del XVI secolo, Censimento Nazionale Cinquecentine: Edizioni (http://edit16.iccu. sbn.it) ESTC = English Short-Title Catalog (1473-1800) (https://estc.ucr.edu) STC = A Short Title Catalogue of Books Printed in England, Scotland and Ireland and of English Books Printed Abroad, 1475–1640, ed. A.W. Pollard and G.R. Redgrave ; 2nd ed., 3 vol. (London, 1976-1991 [19261]). Vol. I (1986); Vol. II (1976); Vol. III (Indexes, 1991). USTC = Universal Short Title Catalogue (www.ustc.ac.uk) VD16 = Verzeichnis der im deutschen Sprachbereich erschienenen Drucke des 16. Jahrhunderts (www.vd16.de) 1. 1526 (D. Érasme, Bâle, J. Froben): édition/traduction princeps (argument et hom. 1) → ms.? (recensio rudior) Diui Ioannis Chrysostomi in epistolam ad Philippenses Homiliae duae, uersae per Erasmum Roterodamum additis Graecis. — Eiusdem Chrysostomi libellus elegans graecus, in quo confert uerum monachum cum principibus, diuitibus ac nobilibus huius mundi, Basileae, apud Johannem Frobenium, Mense Augusto 1526, f. a2r-v (dédicace à Polydore Vergile d’Urbino); a3-bv, b2-c4v (traduction); α-α5, α5v-β5 (texte). VD16 J 426 ; USTC 640615 2. 1527 (D. Érasme, Bâle, J. Froben): réimpression de la traduction seule Diui Ioannis Chrysostomi Archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani & diui Athanasii Alexandrini Archiepiscopi lucubrationes aliquot non minus elegantes quàm utiles, Basileae, apud Ioan. Frobenium, 1527, 157 (dédicace à Jean III de Portugal, du 24 mars); 158-62 (argument); 162-68 (hom. 1). VD16 J 408 ; USTC 640621 3. 1529 (G.M. Giberti - B. Donato, Vérone, S. a Sabio): édition princeps des commentaires pauliniens → 19. Marcianus gr. Z. 103 (coll. 571) (recensio rudior). Τοῦ ἁγίου Ἰωάννου τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου Εἰς πάσας τὰς Παύλου τοῦ ἀποστόλου ἐπιστολὰς ἀκριβεστάτη καὶ χρυσὴ ἀληθῶς, καὶ θεία ἑρμηνεία, Diui Ioannis Chrysostomi in omnes Pauli apostoli epistolas accuratissima uereque aurea et diuina interpretatio, Graece edente Bern. Donato, Veronae, typis aereis excusum per Stephanum & fratres a Sabio, quarto kalendas Iulias 1529, I, ff. +ii-+iii (dédicace à Clément VII); III, ff. 205v-249v (Phil., texte). EDIT16: CNCE 32946 ; USTC 836405

78

P. AUGUSTIN

4. 1536 (W. Meuslin/Musculus, Bâle, J. Herwagen): traduction princeps de la série → éd. de Vérone, 1529. Ioannis Chrysostomi Arch. CP. in Omnes D. Pauli epistolas commentarij, quotquot apud Graecos extant latinitate donati, quorum bona pars quae hactenus de|siderabatur, recens à D. WOLFGANGO || Musculo traducta est; Basileae, ex Officina Iohannis Heruagii, 1536; réimpr. 1539: coll. 917A1002B (Phil.). VD16 J 433 ; USTC 626162 5. 1543 (J. Hucher, Paris, Ch. Guillard / Lyon, H. de La Porte et héritiers d’A. de La Porte): réimpression corrigée des traductions d’Érasme et Musculus → éd. de Vérone, 1529 (+ annotations de Guillaume Budé) Diui Ioannis Chrysostomi Archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani opera, quatenus in hunc diem latio donata noscuntur, omnia, cum ad collationem Latinorum codicum miræ antiquitatis, tum ad Græcorum exemplarium fidem innumeris pene locis natiuæ integritati reſtituta, uix ulli æstimandis laboribus uirorum linguæ utriusque insigniter callentium: quæ in quinque digessimus tomos (…) t. IV: Quartus tomus…, ea complectens, quæ ad enarrationem faciunt omnium epistolarum beati Pauli apostoli, nunc recognita, ut uersa pagina perspicere licet. Horum omnium indicem ad finem huius Tomi reperies. Accessit et alter index sententiarum et rerum locupletissimus. Parisiis, Ex officina Carolæ Guillard, sub sole aureo, uia ad diuum Iacobum, Anno domini 1543. Cum priuilegio, ff. 263 ss. (= K iiijv-N iiijr) (traduction d’Érasme pour l’argumentum, de Musculus pour le reste, revue par Philippe de la Montagne/Montanus). USTC 195460 (et 195358: édition à part du t. IV) 6. 1578 (F. De’Nobili, Rome, G. degl’Angeli): traduction révisée de la série → Vaticanus gr. 551 (recensio fusior); éd. de Vérone, 1529; trad. de Bâle, 1536; éd. Théophylacte, 1470. S. Ioannis Chrysostomi Sermones in epistolam diui Pauli ad Philippenses multo et pleniores, et emendatiores quàm antehac impressi fuerint, Romae, apud Iosephum de Angelis, M.D.LXXVIII. (= 1578), ff. *2-*5v (dédicace à Grégoire XIII); p. 1-171 (traduction); 172-78 (notes). EDIT16: CNCE 27167 ; USTC 836500 7. 1596 (J. Commelin, Heidelberg): réimpression de l’édition princeps de 1529. → éd. de Vérone, 1529 Τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις ὄντος πατροῦ ἡμῶν Ἰωάννου τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου ἀρχιεπισκόπου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως ἑρμηνεία εἰς τὰς τοῦ ἁγίου Παύλου ἐπιστολάς. S. Ioannis Chrysostomi archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani

D’Érasme à Field

79

expositio in diui Pauli Epistolas. Græca Veronensis editio, locis quam plurimis mutila, integritati restituta ope mss. illustriss. Bibliothecae Palatinæ & Augustanæ. D. Ioannis apocalypsis cum commentario Andreæ Cæsariensis Latine reddito, [Heidelberg], apud Hieronymum Commelinum, M D XCVI (= 1596), t. I, n. p. (dédicace à Frédéric III; brève préface au lecteur), p. 12001315 (texte avec la traduction de Flaminio Nobili). VD16 J 432 ; USTC 699743 8. 1612 (H. Savile, Eton, J. Norton): édition seule → Oxoniensis Auct. E. 3. 7 < Vaticanus gr. 551; Vindobonensis theol. gr. 111 (argument); éd. de Vérone, 1529; éd./trad. de Bâle, 1526; trad. de Rome, 1578. Τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἰωάννου … τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου τῶν εὑρισκομένων τόμος δʹ – δι’ ἐπιμελείας καὶ ἀναλωμάτων Ἐῤῥίκου τοῦ Σαβιλίου ἐκ παλαιῶν ἀντιγραφῶν ἐκδοθείς, IV, Etonae, in Collegio Regali Excudebat Joannes Norton, in Graecis Regius Typographus, 1612, p. 1-88 (texte); VIIIb, col. 459-76 (notes d’A. Downes); 477-82 (notes de J. Bois). STC 14629, 14629a, 14629.5 ; ESTC S124547 9. 1734 (B. de Montfaucon, Paris, Ch. Robustel, J. Barbou, G. Desprez): édition/traduction → Parisinus Coislinianus 75; trad. de Rome, 1578 (revue); voir: Parisinus gr. 1017 (extraits) et Parisinus gr. 753 (hom. 3, ethicon). S. Ioannis Chrysostomi Opera omnia quae exstant vel eius nomine circumferuntur. Ad Mss. Cod. Gall. etc., vol. XI, Parisiis, sumtibus L. Guerin, C. Robustel, J. et J. Barrou, G. Desprez et J. Desessartz, 1734, 189-320. 10. 1855 (F. Field, Oxford, J. Wright): édition seule → 2. Mosquensis Sin. gr. 105 (Vlad. 106) (sigle F); 20. Vindobonensis theol. gr. 111 (sigle E); 9. Mosquensis Sin. gr. 107 (Vlad. 105) (sigle G); 16. Londinensis Burney 48 (sigle C); éd. de Vérone, 1529; voir: Oxoniensis Auct. T. 3. 15 (extraits); Parisinus gr. 1017 (extraits); Parisinus Coislin. 204, éd. J.A. Cramer, Catenae VI, 1844 (chaîne). Sancti patris nostri Ioannis Chrysostomi archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani Interpretatio Omnium Epistularum Paulinarum per homilias facta. Vol. V, Continens homilias in epistolas ad Philippenses, Colossenses et Thessalonicenses, Oxonii, J. Wright & al., 1855, p. 1-171 (texte); 499-530 (notes).

Two Examples of the Collaboration between Henry Savile, Jacques Sirmond and Fronton du Duc Marie-Ève GEIGER, Ludwig Maximilian University, Munich, Germany

ABSTRACT The story told of the first edition of the homilies 3 and 4 In principium Actorum seems to have settled into the following simple form: homily 3 was first published by Henry Savile in 1612-1613, homily 4 by Fronton du Duc in 1616. But a textual analysis of both editions reveals an exchange between the two famous scholars in which Fronton du Duc gives material to Henry Savile and then, in his turn, makes use of his English colleague’s work. Research into handwritten sources (especially Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Suppl. gr. 400 and 590) highlights the additional role of French scholar Jacques Sirmond. He is the key figure in the discovery of these unedited Chrysostomic texts in Rome, where he lived from 1590-1608, as well as in Genoa, which he visited during his trip back to Paris in 1608. The paper aims at an outline of the role of and collaboration between Jacques Sirmond and Fronton du Duc in the creation of these two homilies’ editio princeps and at a fuller, more accurate view of the network of scholars working towards the publication of John Chrysostom’s complete work.

In his book on Thomas Aquinas, Gilbert Keith Chesterton describes the holy man’s arrival in Paris: ‘As he [Thomas] entered Paris, they showed him from the hill that splendour of new spires beginning, and somebody said something like, “How grand it must be to own all this”. And Thomas Aquinas only muttered, “I would rather have that Chrysostom MS. I can’t get hold of”.1 Running after Chrysostom’s manuscripts: this is the common way of life of a few contemporary editors, and that was the case for many ancient ones as well. Among their number, we find the two major figures of the Chrysostom studies at the turn of the seventeenth century: Fronton du Duc (1558-1624) and Sir Henry Savile (1549-1622). Their exchange shows mutual respect, fair competition and close collaboration. Both had themselves partners or more precisely – in the case of Henry Savile – amanuenses, colleagues and family members who helped them. Henry Savile was interested in finding rare texts rather than other copies of the main Chrysostom commentaries he already had. 1 Gilbert Keith Chesterton, St. Thomas Aquinas (Mineola, NY, 2009), 60. My warmest thanks go to Brigitte Wedderburn and Pierre Augustin for the careful proofreading.

Studia Patristica CXIV, 81-99. © Peeters Publishers, 2021.

82

M.-È. GEIGER

His partners (for example Thomas Allen, Richard Montagu, John Hales, Andrew Downes, John Bois, James Dalrymple, Samuel Slade, Thomas Savile, Dudley Carlton)2 sent indices and transcriptions back to Eton during journeys across Europe (for James Dalrymple, Samuel Slade and Thomas Savile) or helped Henry Savile to prepare and annotate the Greek edition which he published ‘in one go’ (1612-1613), though the printing process (1610-1612) depended on the arrival of the transcriptions. This editorial process is now better documented thanks to the recent research of Jean-Louis Quantin (2008) and Pierre Augustin (2017). Fronton du Duc began his editorial work with the revision of the Latin edition of the Opera omnia in 1588 and completed it with several editorial projects, the most major one being the bilingual (Greek-Latin) edition, published from 1609 to his death in 1624. For this huge enterprise, he had a network of collaborators too. As Laurence Brottier wrote: ‘outre le Préfet et le Garde de la Bibliothèque royale, Jacques-Auguste de Thou et Isaac Casaubon, … Sébastien Tengnagel, Jacob Gretser, et surtout le cardinal Baronius sont l’objet de la gratitude de l’éditeur’.3 In the article ‘Du Chrysostome latin au Chrysostome grec. Une histoire européenne (1588-1613)’, Jean-Louis Quantin presents an accurate analysis of the editorial process by Fronton du Duc and of the help he brought to Henry Savile.4 Jean-Louis Quantin underlines the role of former editions and of transcriptions Fronton du Duc had received from various sources, for example from the above mentioned Cardinal Baronius, but also from French scholar Jacques Sirmond (1559-1651). In my research on the homilies In principium Actorum (CPG 4371),5 I demonstrated that Jacques Sirmond was the key figure for the rediscovery and the edition of Chrysostom’s homilies In principium Actorum 3 and 4. In this article, 2 See Jean-Louis Quantin, ‘Du Chrysostome latin au Chrysostome grec. Une histoire européenne (1588-1613)’, in Martin Wallraff and Rudolf Brändle (eds), Chrysostomosbilder in 1600 Jahren. Facetten der Wirkungsgeschichte eines Kirchenvaters (Berlin, New York, 2008), 267-346, 313-4, n. 201, and Pierre Augustin, ‘Quelques sources parisiennes du Chrysostome de Sir Henry Savile’, SP 96 (2017), 157-73. See also Mark L. Sosower, ‘Greek Manuscripts Acquired by Henry and Thomas Savile in Padua’, Bodleian Library Record 19.2 (2006), 157-84, 168, and Pierre Augustin, ‘In aedibus Dn. Legati Angliae Constantinopoli Galatae: Henry Savile, Samuel Slade et les manuscrits de Galata-Péra en 1610’, in André Binggeli, Matthieu Cassin and Marina Detoraki (eds), Bibliothèques grecques dans l’Empire ottoman, Bibliologia 54 (Turnhout, 2020), 225-56. 3 Laurence Brottier, ‘Fronton du Duc, éditeur et traducteur de textes grecs’, in François-Xavier Dumortier (ed.), Science et présence jésuite en Orient et en Occident. Journée d’études du 9 février 2002 autour de Fronton du Duc (Paris, 2004), 89-115, 93. 4 J.-L. Quantin, ‘Du Chrysostome latin au Chrysostome grec’ (2008), 323-32. 5 See Jean Chrysostome. Homélies sur le début des Actes, ed. Marie-Ève Geiger, SC (Paris, forthcoming), and ead., Les homélies de Jean Chrysostome In principium Actorum (CPG 4371): édition critique, TU (Berlin, Boston, forthcoming).

Collaboration between Henry Savile, Jacques Sirmond and Fronton du Duc

83

with Jean-Louis Quantin’s and Pierre Augustin’s research as starting point, I would like to contribute to the deepening of our knowledge about this double collaboration, on the one hand between Jacques Sirmond and Fronton du Duc, and on the other hand between Fronton du Duc and Henry Savile. The case of In principium Actorum 3 will enable us to examine Fronton du Duc’s role as transcriber for Henry Savile’s edition project and as reviser for his own edition, that means: his role at the beginning and at the end of the editorial process. The case of In principium Actorum 4 will then put a new light on the intervention of Fronton du Duc in the margins of a few ‘dossiers’, that means: in the middle of the editorial process. A few concluding remarks will bring a first assessment of Jacques Sirmond’s contribution and revalue the role of Fronton du Duc as supervisor in the whole editorial process. 1. Fronton du Duc as transcriber and reviser: from Henry Savile’s amanuensis to Henry Savile’s re-user a. The case of homily In principium Actorum 3 In my research on the homilies In principium Actorum (CPG 4371), I studied the handwritten transmission of homily In principium Actorum 3, which deals with the significations of the word ‘apostles’. The following table shows the distribution of the twenty available witnesses from the tenth to the seventeenth century: Table 1: Direct transmission of homily In principium Actorum 3. Century Siglum Name

Folios / pages

s. X

s. X-XI

s. XI

Y

Moskva, Gosudarstvennyj Istoričeskij Musej, Synod. gr. 128

f. 34r-40ᵛ

P

Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Gr. 700

f. 274ᵛ-282ᵛ

Va

Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vaticanus gr. 560

f. 270v-280v

V

Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vaticanus gr. 1920

f. 340ᵛ-350r

Ha

Hagion Oros, Bibliothêkê tou Prôtatou, 2

f. 1r-2ᵛ (fragm.)

I

Istanbul, Patriarkhikê Bibliothêkê, Theol. Skholê, Uncatal. Section, 26

f. 121ᵛ-130r

K

Oxford, Bodleian Library, Holkham. gr. 41

f. 44r-62ᵛ

G

Genova, Biblioteca Franzoniana, Urbani 13

f. 109r-118ᵛ

S

Hagion Oros, Monê Stauronikêta, 6

f. 183r-191ᵛ (inc. mut.)

M.-È. GEIGER

84 Century Siglum Name

s. XVI

s. XVII

Folios / pages f. 5r-12v (inc. mut.)

R

Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Gr. 730

T

Torino, Biblioteca Nazionale Universitaria, B. I. 10 f. 70ᵛ-79ᵛ

E

Venezia, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, Gr. II 26

Z

Venezia, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, Gr. Z 104 f. 124ᵛ-136r

U

Venezia, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, Gr. Z 111 f. 296v-301r

D

Berlin, Deutsche Staatsbibliothek, Phillippicus 1440

f. 179r-186ᵛ

C

Berlin, Deutsche Staatsbibliothek, Phillippicus 1443

f. 87ᵛ-96r

W4

Roma, Biblioteca Casanatense, 1396

f. 193r-202r

W3

Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Ottob. gr. 8

f. 216r-225r

P2

Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Suppl. gr. f. 63r-70ᵛ 590

S2

Oxford, Bodleian Library, Auctarium E.3.13

f. 206ᵛ-217r

p. 1-8

The group of manuscripts which we consider consists of the four manuscripts Va, W4, P2 and S2. Va is the antigraphon of W4, which is the antigraphon of P2, which is the antigraphon of S2. The manuscript S2 served as a base for Henry Savile’s edition, which served as a base for Fronton du Duc’s edition. The manuscript S2 served as a base for Henry Savile’s edition. At this point I am presenting just two examples from the textual analysis. 1. The first example is quoted from the beginning of the text, where the Holy Scripture is compared to the rivers of Paradise: ‘Did you see how there are not four rivers, but an unlimited number of [rivers] flowing out (ἐκχέονται) of this spring?’6 A change appeared during the copy of P2: the conjugate verb ἐκχέονται became the participle ἐκχέοντες. The manuscript S2 is the first one with the changed form, which then all the following editions quoted.7 But Henry Savile noticed a mistake and proposed a solution: ‘post ἀδιόριστοι deest εἰσίν’.8 He wants to add a finite verb, which is missing in the sentence. This solution is neither present in the notes at the end of Fronton du Duc’s volume nor in a following edition. 2. The second example is succeeding the first one: ‘Do you want to know the abundance of these streams? Do you want to know the nature of the 6 Most of the manuscripts have: εἶδες πῶς οὐχὶ τέσσαρες ποταμοὶ ἀλλ’ ἀδιόριστοι ἀπὸ τῆς πηγῆς ἐκείνης ἐκχέονται. 7 The Patrologia graeca reproduces the incorrect expression εἶδες πῶς οὐχὶ τέσσαρες ποταμοὶ ἀλλ’ ἀδιόριστοι ἀπὸ τῆς πηγῆς ἐκείνης ἐκχέοντες (PG 51, 88.32-4). 8 Henry Savile, Τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἰωάννου Ἀρχιεπισκόπου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου τῶν εὑρισκομένων τόμος ὄγδοος (Eton, 1612), 939.

Collaboration between Henry Savile, Jacques Sirmond and Fronton du Duc

85

waters?’9 The copyist of S2 omitted six words and Savile, who was not able to compare with another manuscript, printed the incorrect text.10 Fronton corrected it in his own edition.11 Fronton du Duc did not take the text for his own edition from manuscript P2, but from Henry Savile’s edition itself, as a mistake – maybe a misprint – shows. The sentence is taken from the end of the homily, at the beginning of the parainesis: ‘It should be necessary (ἀναγκαῖον ἦν) to show also their merits [of the apostles], all of them’.12 In Savile’s edition, the ἦν was transformed into a δή, and all the following editions printed the particle. Fronton du Duc did not revise the text with manuscript P2, but with another witness, because all the omissions in P2, in S2 and in Henry Savile’s edition are corrected in Fronton du Duc’s edition. But as in these sections of the text the manuscript used for corrections has no proper reading, it is impossible to say for certain which one it is.13 b. The handwritings in P2 and S2 P2 (Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Suppl. gr. 590) was written by Jacques Sirmond during his stay in Rome between 1590 and 1608.14 The manuscript is a compilation of many sources now conserved not only at the Biblioteca Vaticana, but also in smaller libraries like – in our case – the Biblioteca Casanatense.15 As Jean-Louis Quantin remarked, Jacques Sirmond sent many texts he found in Rome and in the surrounding area to his Jesuit colleague Fronton du Duc: these texts were not always available in other European libraries visited by the editors’ partners. For example, Jacques Sirmond sent copies of homilies about the New Testament, which Fronton du Duc had already used 9 Most of the manuscripts have: βούλει μαθεῖν δαψίλειαν τῶν ναμάτων τούτων; βούλει μαθεῖν τῶν ὑδάτων τὴν φύσιν; 10 H. Savile, Τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἰωάννου … τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου τῶν εὑρισκομένων τόμος ὄγδοος (1612), 111, l. 44, gives: βούλει μαθεῖν τῶν ὑδάτων τὴν φύσιν. 11 Fronton du Duc, Sancti Patris Nostri Ioannis Chrysostomi Archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani, De diuersis noui Testamenti locis Sermones LXXI. Nunc primum Græcè & Latinè coniunctim editi, ex Bibliotheca Regis Christianißimi, impensa & liberalitate Reverendißimorum Episcoporum & Cleri vniuersi Franciæ Regni. … [Tomus Quintus] (Paris, 1616), 675, l. 1-3. 12 Most of the manuscripts have: ἀναγκαῖον ἦν καὶ τὰ κατορθώματα αὐτῶν δεῖξαι πάντα. 13 It is probably manuscript C (Berlin, Deutsche Staatsbibliothek, Phillippicus 1443, from the 16th century). This manuscript was in Paris at this time and it is based on another family branch of the tradition. This is made particularly clear by omissions which were already in P2, and which Fronton du Duc corrected thanks to the other manuscript. But as there are no proper readings of C reproduced in P2, this other manuscript cannot be identified for certain and the attribution to C should remain a hypothesis. The only evidence might be that the verb ἦν is very slightly crossed down in C. For further details, see my forthcoming editions of In principium Actorum in SC and TU. 14 In my previous research, I explained why it is more careful not to specify the date. See ibid. 15 W4 bears today the shelfmark 1396 in this library.

86

M.-È. GEIGER

for a publication in 1604.16 The homily In principium Actorum 3 is an example of Jacques Sirmond’s handwriting: he wrote the main text as well as the marginal notes and indications.17 S2 (Oxford, Bodleian Library, Auctarium E.3.13) is the ‘liber O’ by Sir Henry Savile. It means that this manuscript belongs to the twenty-two ‘dossiers’ of Savile’s aduersaria donated to the Bodleian Library. The sixteen pages at the beginning of the manuscript contain the homily In principium Actorum 3 (CPG 4371) and the homily De mutatione nominum 1 (CPG 4372). In the homily In principium Actorum 3, we find two different hands: the first one for the main text and some annotations (often conjectures) in the margins, the second one for corrections and other annotations (often the biblical indications). The corrector may be Henry Savile. He corrected the main text itself18 and also dealt with the conjectures made by the first hand, which he did in two ways: 1. He rejected some conjectures and replaced them with his own surmises. For example, we find in the manuscripts the sentence ‘a sensitive grace was given to reveal the intelligible (τὸ νοητὸν γενέσθαι καταφανές)’. In the margin of S2 (p. 4), the first hand wrote εἰς τὸ νοητόν. The correcting hand crossed the preposition out and replaced it with ὥστε, in order to precise the consecutive sense. Henry Savile printed this last variant in the margin of his edition.19 2. He accepted some conjectures, which he printed in the margin of his edition. For example, in the margin of Henry Savile’s edition as well as in the margin of S2 (p. 1, from the first hand), we find the conjecture μετ’ αὐτῶν, instead of μετ’ ὑμῶν in the text.20 Another example shows the next step of 16 See J.-L. Quantin, ‘Du Chrysostome latin au Chrysostome grec’ (2008), 286. In the edition of 1604, Jacques Sirmond supplied Fronton du Duc with four or five of the ten texts: probably In Samaritanam (CPG 4581 = 7912), and certainly De occursu domini, de deipara et Symeone (CPG 4523, in a mutilated version entitled De circumcisione domini), De sancta Pentecoste hom. 1 (CPG 4343.1), De diabolo tentatore hom. 2 (CPG 4332.2), De ieiunio et eleemosyna (CPG 4502). Jacques Sirmond found these texts in Grottaferrata or in Rome. See the notes at the end of Fronton du Duc’s volume, S. Ioannis Chrysostomi Archiepiscopi Contantinopolitani tractatuum decas de diuersis Noui Testamenti locis (Bordeaux, 1604), 392, 404, 406, 421, 425. According to an unpublished note from Pierre Augustin, the homily De sancta Pentecoste hom. 1 (CPG 4343.1) could come directly from our manuscript W4. 17 For example, the Latin annotations marking the text or the signs referring to transitions or important sections are from Jacques Sirmond’s hand. 18 For example, at the beginning of the homily in S2 (p. 1), the corrector modifies the wrong expression τὸν πόθον τῆς ἡμετέρας ἀγάπης, which we find in P2 and S2 (first hand), and gives the right one: τὸν πόθον τῆς ὑμετέρας ἀγάπης (‘the desire of your charity’). See H. Savile, Τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἰωάννου … τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου τῶν εὑρισκομένων τόμος ὄγδοος (1612), 111, l. 17-8. 19 Ibid. 115, l. 2-3. Fronton du Duc left the text in the ‘rough’ version, like in the manuscripts, without any conjecture: see Fronton du Duc, S.P.N. Ioannis Chrysostomi … De diuersis noui Testamenti locis Sermones LXXI (1616), 680, l. 25. 20 See H. Savile, Τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἰωάννου … τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου τῶν εὑρισκομένων τόμος ὄγδοος (1612), 111, l. 16. Like most of the manuscripts, Fronton du Duc gives μετ’ ἡμῶν: S.P.N. Ioannis Chrysostomi … De diuersis noui Testamenti locis Sermones LXXI (1616), 673, l. 41.

Collaboration between Henry Savile, Jacques Sirmond and Fronton du Duc

87

this process. In the manuscripts, we find the following sentence: ‘Look (ὅρα γάρ): using one language (μίαν γλῶσσαν ἔχων) by nature, he spoke in various and different languages by grace’. In the margin of S2 (p. 4), the first hand wrote ὁ γάρ. Henry Savile printed this conjecture in the margin of his edition.21 In his own edition, Fronton du Duc then replaced ὅρα with ὁ in the main text itself.22 It means that some conjectures made by the first hand were both printed by Henry Savile in the margin of his edition and taken into the text itself by Fronton du Duc for his own edition. The key point is that the main hand of the pages 1-16 in S2 is Fronton du Duc’s one. Although we do not have his name in the manuscript, there are many clues which prove it. First, it is certain that Fronton du Duc sent the text of the homily to Henry Savile, because of the statement in Henry Savile’s notes in the second part of the eighth volume. He writes: ‘For this homily … the Reader knows that he is indebted to the very erudite Fonton du Duc, who generously communicated it (probably copied from the Vaticana) to me because of his kindness. It is not surprising that it contains some flawed and suspect things, because [we have it] in one unique copy’.23 Henry Savile was near to the truth when he mentioned that the homily was copied from the Vaticana, because the antigraphon of P2 was in Rome (W4), and the source was indeed in the Biblioteca Vaticana (Va). Fronton du Duc’s handwriting has not yet been extensively studied. But there is a manuscript which does definitely contain Fronton du Duc’s script: manuscript Auctarium T.1.1. In her description,24 Annaclara Cataldi Palau mentions that ‘on p. 380, blank, we find, written vertically on the internal side of the folio: “P. Frontonis”, which confirms Rudberg and Fedwick’s identification of the scribe’.25 Annaclara Cataldi Palau gave the year 1590 as the terminus ante

21 See H. Savile, Τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἰωάννου … τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου τῶν εὑρισκομένων τόμος ὄγδοος (1612), 115, l. 7. 22 See Fronton du Duc, S.P.N. Ioannis Chrysostomi … De diuersis noui Testamenti locis Sermones LXXI (1616), 680, l. 35. 23 Hanc orationem … debere se sciat Lector doctissimo Frontoni Ducæo, qui eam ex Vaticana, vt opinor, descriptam mihi pro sua humanitate liberaliter communicauit. mendosa aut suspecta inesse aliqua, non est mirandum, vt in vnico exemplari: H. Savile, Τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἰωάννου … τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου τῶν εὑρισκομένων τόμος ὄγδοος (1612), 939, l. 11-7. 24 Annaclara Cataldi Palau, A Catalogue of Greek Manuscripts from the Meerman Collection in the Bodleian Library (Oxford, 2011), 60-72, especially 70-1 for the identification of the copyist. In the manuscript, p. 1-388, 353-364 (half page), 395-524 are attributed to Fronton du Duc. 25 Ibid. 71. The references to Rudberg and Fedwick are the following ones: Stig Y. Rudberg, ‘L’homélie pseudo-basilienne “Consolatoria ad aegrotum”’, Le Muséon 72 (1959), 301-22, 3067, 309, and Paul J. Fedwick, Bibliotheca Basiliana Universalis: A Study of the Manuscript Tradition of the Works of Basil of Caesarea. I: The Letters, Corpus Christianorum Bibliotheca Basiliana Universalis 1 (Turnhout, 1993), 544, 558.

M.-È. GEIGER

88

quem because of a partial subscription added to one of the copied texts.26 Even if it is indeed difficult to extend the date of a single text to the whole manuscript, Auctarium T.1.1 is probably a very early manuscript by Fronton du Duc’s hand. This manuscript which contains various ecclesiastical texts was intended for his personal use. Jean-Louis Quantin, who did an extensive study of Henry Savile’s ‘dossiers’ at the Bodleian Library, attributed other pages to Fronton du Duc, which all are this time copies given to Henry Savile. He also attributed the first pages of the manuscript Auctarium E.3.13 (our manuscript S2) to Fronton du Duc.27 Together with the other indications he gives in the article, we can try to sum up the witnesses of Fronton du Duc’s transcribing work now conserved at the Bodleian Library in the following table: Table 2: Fronton du Duc’s transcriptions kept at the Bodleian Library. Name

Pages

Terminus ante quem

Content and use

Identification

Auctarium 1-388, T.1.1 353-364 (1/2), 395-524

1590 (?)

Various ecclesiastical texts for Rudberg (1959), personal use Fedwick (1993), Cataldi Palau (2011)

Auctarium 1-15, E.3.13 17-23 (liber ‘O’)

1612

In principium Actorum 3, De mutatione nominum 1, De Anna 5 (excerpta), given to Henry Savile

Quantin (2008), Geiger (forthcoming)

Auctarium 771-779, E.4.2 781-785 (liber ‘T’)

1612

De sacerdotio liber 6, Expositiones in Psalmos (excerpta), given to Henry Savile

Quantin (2008)

This first assessment should be confirmed by other investigations, not only in the body of the texts, but also in the margins around them. This analysis shows how the text of homily In principium Actorum 3 was first copied by Jacques Sirmond, then copied by Fronton du Duc, then revised by Henry Savile with improvements in the margins of his edition, and finally taken in its revised form by Fronton du Duc for his own edition, with the improvements now in the main text. Fronton du Duc himself was both transcriber and reviser. A preliminary look at the world of marginal annotations around Fronton du Duc’s editorial projects will give a more accurate view of his revision work. 26

A. Cataldi Palau, A Catalogue of Greek Manuscripts (2011), 61, 69. The subscription is transcribed in the description of text 43. 27 J.-L. Quantin, ‘Du Chrysostome latin au Chrysostome grec’ (2008), 324, n. 240.

Collaboration between Henry Savile, Jacques Sirmond and Fronton du Duc

89

2. Fronton du Duc as annotator: polyphony in the margins a. The case of homily In principium Actorum 4 As part of my research on the homilies In principium Actorum (CPG 4371), I also studied the handwritten transmission of homily In principium Actorum 4, which deals with the reasons for which the lecture of the book of the Acts of the Apostles takes place just after Easter and not from the day of Pentecost onwards. The following table shows the distribution of the twenty available witnesses from the tenth to the seventeenth century: Table 3: direct transmission of the homily In principium Actorum 4. Century Siglum Name

Folios / pages

s. X

s. X-XI

s. XI

s. XIV

L

Hagion Horos, Monê Koutloumousiou, 39

f. 2v-2r, 275v-275r (fragm.)

Y

Moskva, Gosudarstvennyj Istoričeskij Musej, Synod. gr. 128

f. 40r-49ᵛ

P

Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Gr. 700 f. 283r-293r

Va

Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vaticanus gr. 560

f. 280v-294r

V

Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vaticanus gr. 1920

f. 350ᵛ-362v

Ha

Hagion Oros, Bibliothêkê tou Prôtatou, 2

f. 2v, 284r-ᵛ (fragm.)

I

Istanbul, Patriarkhikê Bibliothêkê, Theol. Skholê, Uncatal. Section, 26

f. 139r-151r

K

Oxford, Bodleian Library, Holkham. gr. 41

f. 120r-145ᵛ

G

Genova, Biblioteca Franzoniana, Urbani 13

f. 143r-156ᵛ

I1

Hagion Oros, Monê Ibêrôn, 1435

f. 5r-6r (fragm.)

S

Hagion Oros, Monê Stauronikêta, 6

f. 192r-205r

R

Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Gr. 730 f. 12v-29r

T

Torino, Biblioteca Nazionale Universitaria, B. I. 10

f. 80r-92ᵛ

E

Venezia, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, Gr. II 26

f. 217r-231r

Z

Venezia, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, Gr. Z 104

f. 194ᵛ-211r

U

Venezia, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, Gr. Z 111

f. 315r-321r

I2

Hagion Oros, Monê Ibêrôn, 255

f. 4r-11v

M.-È. GEIGER

90 Century Siglum Name

Folios / pages

s. XIV-XV

Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vaticanus gr. 536

f. 97r-101r (excerpt.)

W2

s. XVI

C

Berlin, Deutsche Staatsbibliothek, Phillippicus 1443

f. 124r-136r

s. XVII

P3

Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Suppl. gr. 400

f. 95r-105ᵛ, 107r-v, 106r-v, 108r-v

I now focus on both manuscripts G and P3. In the margins of P3 there are readings coming from manuscript C, that means from another family. P3 is the antigraphon of G, which is a very special manuscript for the transmission of In principium Actorum 4: G’s text contains a certain number of important variants (additions, rewriting of sentences, etc.).28 P3 served as a base for Fronton du Duc’s edition: it contains all these specific variants of G. The main hand in P3 is again Jacques Sirmond’s one. He copied the text during a stay in Genoa on his route back to France after his time in Rome, in 1608.29 P3 is therefore, like P2, a manuscript copied by Jacques Sirmond for the use of Fronton du Duc. b. Who is who? But contrary to the case of In principium Actorum 3, where there was only Jacques Sirmond’s hand, we find in P3 a threefold system of annotations in the margins. 1. There are variants and corrections taken from another manuscript named ‘o’: it corresponds to the manuscript C (now Berlin, Deutsche Staatsbibliothek, Phillippicus 1443). In the margins of P3 we find mistakes coming from C, for example in a line where only C and P3mg (f. 97r) propose τὸ instead of σύ.30 It is hard to say which hand these annotations in P3 come from. 28

See my forthcoming editions of In principium Actorum in SC and TU. During his stay in Genoa, Jacques Sirmond copied other manuscripts, like Phillippicus 6757, now New Haven (CT), Yale University, Beinecke Rare Book & Manuscript Library, MS 807. In this last manuscript, there is a subscription from Jacques Sirmond revealing that this manuscript was copied in Genoa in 1608. See A. Cataldi Palau, A Catalogue of Greek Manuscripts from the Meerman Collection (2011), 55, n. 274: ‘Among several others, he [Jacques Sirmond] copied in Genoa, in 1608, codex Clermont 161…, today Cheltenham, Phill. 6757, from a codex still in Genoa, Biblioteca Franzoniana, MS Urbani 30, a twelfth-century manuscript which came from the library of Filippo Sauli, Bishop of Brugnato (Genoa, 1492-1528)…’. My thanks go to Pierre Augustin for the information about the current location of Phillippicus 6757. 30 Most of the manuscripts have: σὺ δὲ διαπαντὸς ἔνδον ἔχεις τῆς οἰκίας τοὺς μαθητάς (‘you, you have always in your house the disciples’). Only C and P3mg have τὸ δὲ διαπαντὸς ἔνδον ἔχεις τῆς οἰκίας τοὺς μαθητάς. Fronton du Duc printed σύ, see Fronton du Duc, S.P.N. Ioannis Chrysostomi … De diuersis noui Testamenti locis Sermones LXXI (1616), 944, l. 14. 29

Collaboration between Henry Savile, Jacques Sirmond and Fronton du Duc

91

2. There are conjectures, which are very probably by Fronton du Duc’s hand, because the script is nearly the same as in S2 and because these conjectures are then printed in Fronton du Duc’s edition. For example, most of the manuscripts have: ‘How are you worthy (ἄξιος εἶ) to be called “father”?’ G and P3txt (f. 98r) have an infinite verb (ἄξιος εἶναι). C and P3mg1, together with other manuscripts from C’s family,31 give ἄν ᾖ ἄξιος. But P3mg2, the second annotator, gives the reading καὶ ἄξιος ἂν ἦς, which is also printed by Fronton du Duc in his edition.32 3. There is an alphabetical system of references leading to another document which we have lost. This system is used for big variants, for example for the correction of a big omission at the end of the homily in P3 (f. 106r), which comes directly from G,33 or for text passages where there are several variants, for example an omission combined with a transposition. This complex annotations system shows how the editorial process took place: Jacques Sirmond’s copy was revised first by Fronton du Duc himself, then by another helper, or by the same Fronton du Duc at another time, whereby he put the variants from another witness in the margins. Based on at least two different documents (Jacques Sirmond’s annotated copy and the lost document with variants) or maybe more, Fronton du Duc first printed homily In principium Actorum 4, including his conjectures or corrections in the edited text itself, and not in the margins like Henry Savile. This leads us to reassess the collaboration between Jacques Sirmond and Fronton du Duc in the editorial process.

3. The collaboration between Jacques Sirmond and Fronton du Duc a. Jacques Sirmond’s contribution to Fronton du Duc’s editorial project: first assessment First let us put a new light on Jacques Sirmond’s role as a kind of amanuensis of Fronton du Duc. At the end of manuscript P3 we find many indices which provide us with the evidence for Jacques Sirmond’s preliminary work helping Fronton du Duc in his editorial project. They are not to be confused with the indices at the beginning of the volume, which Jacques Sirmond added

31 K (Oxford, Bodleian Library, Holkham. gr. 41) and U (Venezia, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, Gr. Z 111). See table 3 above. 32 See Fronton du Duc, S.P.N. Ioannis Chrysostomi … De diuersis noui Testamenti locis Sermones LXXI (1616), 945, l. 26-7. 33 Fronton du Duc printed the corrected text, without the omission, see ibid. 958, l. 17-31.

M.-È. GEIGER

92

on a separate bifolio when – later on – he was librarian at the Clermont College in Paris.34 These indices at the end of the volume were executed during his stay in Genoa in 1608.35 When we compare the content to the catalogue of the Urbani manuscripts from the Franzoniana Library published by Annaclara Cataldi Palau,36 we find that Jacques Sirmond’s indices correspond very precisely to the content of eleven manuscripts of this library. The following table sums up the comparison between Jacques Sirmond’s indices and the Urbani manuscripts. Table 4: The indices at the end of P3 and the manuscripts from the Franzoniana Library. Suppl. gr. 400: indices r

v

Manuscripts from the Franzoniana Library

f. 149 -151 : 30 homilies

Urbani 13 (complete)

f. 151v-153v: 32 homilies

Urbani 11 (today 31 homilies, 1 was lost)

f. 153v-155r: 35 homilies

Urbani 12 (complete)

f. 155r-156r: 33 eclogae

Urbani 16 (31 eclogae) with a complement from Urbani 15 (2 eclogae)

f. 157r-159v: eclogae’s sources f. 161r-166r: hagiographical texts

Urbani 33, 34, 35, 37, 36, 38

Jacques Sirmond searched for unedited Chrysostomic texts in the manuscripts which included collections of various homilies. He therefore neglected the manuscripts Urbani 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 containing homilies from Chrysostom’s commentaries on Matthew, Genesis and Romans. He indexed manuscripts Urbani 13, then 11 and 12. These indices are particularly interesting. There is again a complex system of annotations in the margins, especially in the case of manuscript Urbani 13:

34 On these indices, see for example A. Cataldi Palau, A Catalogue of Greek Manuscripts from the Meerman Collection (2011), 32. 35 The title of the indices (f. 149r) gives a very clear indication: ‘Index diuersarum homiliarum ex codd. Bibliothecae Genuensis’. 36 Annaclara Cataldi Palau, Catalogo dei manoscritti greci della Biblioteca Franzoniana (Genova), Urbani 2-20, Supplemento n. 8 al ‘Bolletino dei classici’ (Roma, 1990) and ead., Catalogo dei manoscritti greci della Biblioteca Franzoniana (Genova), Urbani 21-40, Supplemento n. 17 al ‘Bolletino dei classici’ (Roma, 1996).

Collaboration between Henry Savile, Jacques Sirmond and Fronton du Duc

93

Table 5: System of annotations for Sirmond’s index corresponding to manuscript Urbani 13. List of texts in manuscript Urbani 1337

Annotations in the margins of P3 (f. 149r-151v)

In illud: Habentes eundem spiritum 1 (CPG 4383)

V. 368

In illud: Habentes eundem spiritum 2 (CPG 4383)

V. 375

In illud: Habentes eundem spiritum 3 (CPG 4383)

V. 382

In dictum Pauli: Nolo uos ignorare (CPG 4380)

V. 343

Sermo 9 in Genesim (CPG 4410)

V. 31

De mutatione nominum hom. 3 (CPG 4372)

V. 282

De mutatione nominum hom. 4 (CPG 4372)

VIII. 102

In illud: Si esurierit inimicus (CPG 4375)

V. 304

In principium Actorum hom. 1 (CPG 4371)

+ Habeo

In principium Actorum hom. 2 (CPG 4371)

+ Habeo

V. 274

In principium Actorum hom. 3 (CPG 4371)

+ Habeo

VIII. 111

De mutatione nominum hom. 1 (CPG 4372) De mutatione nominum hom. 2 (CPG 4372)

VI. 722

VIII. 60 Non habet Sauillius

De poenitentia hom. 5 (CPG 4333)

VI. 824

In principium Actorum hom. 4 (CPG 4371)

Non habet Sauillius

De sanctis martyribus (CPG 4357)

Non habet Sauillius

In illud: Vtinam sustineretis modicum (CPG 4384)

V. 391

De gloria in tribulationibus (CPG 4373)

+ Non habet Sauillius Edita a Front.

V. 292

In illud: In faciem ei restiti (CPG 4391)

+ Habeo

V. 398

In illud: Domine, non est in homine (CPG 4419)

+ Habeo

V. 168

Non esse ad gratiam concionandum (CPG 4358)

Non habet Sauillius

VIII. 93

De prophetiarum obscuritate hom. 1 (CPG 4420)

Habeo +

VI. 649

De prophetiarum obscuritate hom. 2 (CPG 4420)

Habeo +

VI. 658

De diabolo tentatore hom. 1 (CPG 4332)

VI. 680

De poenitentia hom. 1 (CPG 4333)

Edita est +

VI. 763

De diabolo tentatore hom. 2 (CPG 4332)

Edidi

VI. 690

De diabolo tentatore hom. 3 (CPG 4332)

VI. 844

Quod nemo laeditur nin a se ipso (CPG 4400)

+ Edita

Epistula 125 ad Cyriacum 1, recensio prima (CPG 4405)

+ Edita

Epistula ad Cyriacum 2 (CPG 4405)

Edita

37 This list is taken from A. Cataldi Palau, Catalogo dei manoscritti greci della Biblioteca Franzoniana (Genova), Urbani 2-20 (1990), 79-81.

94

M.-È. GEIGER

By comparing the annotations to the Latin handwriting of Jacques Sirmond,38 I found that he is probably the one who noticed which of the texts were not edited by Henry Savile (‘Non habet Sauillius’). We also find the indication of the volume and the pages in Henry Savile’s edition, maybe from the same hand, but in this case the years 1610 or even 1612 are the real terminus post quem. Furthermore, the indication ‘Non habet Sauillius’ is also mentioned in connection with the text De mutatione nominum 2 (CPG 4372), which was apparently not copied by Jacques Sirmond, at least not in P3 in its present form, even though this text was available in manuscript Urbani 13. From these observations, we can conclude that Jacques Sirmond added the marginal annotations when he was back in Paris, working as a librarian at the Clermont College.39 Another hand wrote the indications ‘Habeo’, ‘Edita (est)’ and ‘Edita a Front’. Could that mean that a later editor or printer made annotations in the margins? Could it be again Fronton du Duc’s handwriting? In the margins of the index of manuscript Urbani 12, we also find the indication of the volume and the pages in Henry Savile’s edition, but without any comment. The same device appears for manuscript Urbani 11. For three texts of this manuscript we find another information: ‘Non habet Sauillius’ for In paralyticum demissum per tectum (CPG 4370), ‘Habeo’ (from the later hand) for De Anna 1 (CPG 4411) and ‘Edita’ (again from the later hand) for De decem millium talentorum debitore (CPG 4368).40 Hence, during his stay in Genoa, Jacques Sirmond copied three texts which were definitely not in the possession of Henry Savile or Fronton du Duc: De sanctis martyribus (CPG 4357), In principium Actorum 4 (CPG 4371) and In paralyticum demissum per tectum (CPG 4370). He also noticed, maybe later on, that De mutatione nominum 2 (CPG 4372) was missing in Henry Savile’s edition. If he had been aware of it during his stay in Genoa, he certainly would have copy this homily too, because of its presence in manuscript Urbani 13. Moreover, these four homilies are printed together in Fronton du Duc’s edition:41 38 We find his hand for Latin annotations in P2 and P3 but also in indices at the beginning of many manuscripts, see for example A. Cataldi Palau, A Catalogue of Greek Manuscripts from the Meerman Collection (2011), 33. 39 It is hard to specify the date: before Henry Savile printed his edition, he made a catalogue which he sent round Europe in order to find unedited Greek texts by John Chrysostom. See J.-L. Quantin, ‘Du Chrysostome latin au Chrysostome grec’ (2008), 318. It means that a list was circulating, with which it was possible to check whether Henry Savile had a text or not. See also the reprint of this catalogue in Antonio Possevino (Possevin), Apparatus sacri ad Scriptores ueteris, & noui Testamenti, Eorum Interpretes, Synodos, & Patres Latinos, ac Græcos, Horum Versiones, Theologos Scholasticos, quique contra hæreticos egerunt, Chronographos, & Historiographos Ecclesiasticos, Eos, qui casus conscientiæ explicarunt, Alios, qui Canonicum Ius sunt interpretati, Poëtas Sacros, Libros pios, quocumque idiomate conscriptos, Tomus Secundus (Venice, 1606), 148-51. See also Jean-Louis Quantin, ‘Historical Criticism, Confessional Controversy, and Self-Censorship: Henry Savile and the Lives of John Chrysostom’, Erudition and the Republic of Letters 6 (2021), 138-233, 156, n. 64. 40 These are the fourth, the fifth and the tenth text of the manuscript, see A. Cataldi Palau, Catalogo dei manoscritti greci della Biblioteca Franzoniana (Genova), Urbani 2-20 (1990), 75. 41 See Fronton du Duc, S.P.N. Ioannis Chrysostomi … De diuersis noui Testamenti locis Sermones LXXI (1616), 921-81. The asterisk in the index at the beginning of the volume shows that the Latin translation of these texts was also unedited.

95

Collaboration between Henry Savile, Jacques Sirmond and Fronton du Duc

Table 6: Four homilies rediscovered in Genoa and first published by Fronton du Duc in 1616. Homilies rediscovered in Genoa

In Fronton du Duc’s edition (1616)

In paralyticum demissum per tectum (CPG 4370)

hom. LXII, p. 921-940

In principium Actorum hom. 4 (CPG 4371)

hom. LXIII, p. 941-960

De mutatione nominum hom. 2 (CPG 4372)

hom. LXIV, p. 960-971

De sanctis martyribus (CPG 4357)

hom. LXV, p. 971-981

This observation consolidates the hypothesis of the Genoese source for the rediscovery of these four texts. The following content table of Suppl. gr. 400 shows the possible source(s) of the texts which were copied at the Franzoniana Library.

Table 7: The main texts in P3 and their source(s) in the Biblioteca Franzoniana. Folios

Suppl. gr. 400: main texts

Source(s) in the Franzoniana Library

Annotations in the margin of the index

1r-8v

In illud: Salutate Priscillam et Aquilam, sermo 1 (CPG 4376)

< Urbani 12, f. 119r-126r

V. 314

9r-23v

In illud: In faciem ei restiti (CPG 4391)

+ Habeo < Urbani 13, f. 179v-195r or Urbani 12, f. 293v-305v, but the text is mutilated at its end

V. 398

25r-27r

De sanctis martyribus (CPG 4359)

< Urbani 12, f. 3r-5r

V. 618

27r-33v

De sanctis martyribus (CPG 4357)

< Urbani 13, Non habet Sauillius f. 156v-163v or Urbani 12, f. 5r-10r, but without any marginal indication in the index

35r-46r

De prophetiarum obscuritate < Urbani 13, hom. 1 (CPG 4420) f. 212v-223v

Habeo +

VI. 649

47r-61v

De prophetiarum obscuritate < Urbani 13, hom. 2 (CPG 4420) f. 223v-240r

Habeo +

VI. 658

63r-67r

De diabolo tentatore hom. 1 < Urbani 13, (cum lacuna) (CPG 4332) f. 240r-245r (cum lacuna)

69r-76v

Non esse ad gratiam concionandum (CPG 4358)

< Urbani 13, f. 203v-212r

77r-86v

De mutatione nominum hom. 4 (CPG 4372)

< Urbani 13, f. 65r-76r

VI. 680

Non habet Sauillius VIII. 93 VIII. 102

M.-È. GEIGER

96 Folios

Suppl. gr. 400: main texts

Source(s) in the Franzoniana Library

Annotations in the margin of the index

87r-94r

De mutatione nominum hom. 1 (CPG 4372)

< Urbani 13, f. 119r-128r

95r-108v

In principium Actorum hom. 4 (CPG 4371)

< Urbani 13, f. 143r-156v

Non habet Sauillius

109r-122v In paralyticum demissum per tectum (CPG 4370)

< Urbani 12, f. 16v-29r

Non habet Sauillius

123r-148v Eclogae (see CPG 4684)

< Urbani 15 or 16

VIII. 60

Why were these texts copied and not others? The annotations themselves do not provide us with enough elements to answer this question. But a striking fact is that today P3’s texts are conserved in the order of Henry Savile’s edition (1610 or even 1612-1613), while Jacques Sirmond copied the texts in 1608. The interest in Henry Savile’s work, demonstrated by the marginal annotations as well as the order of the texts reveals a thorough examination of the work of the English Scholar and of the ‘dossiers’ brought by Jacques Sirmond from Italy. The person most likely to have done this examination was Fronton du Duc himself. Many other indications underline the careful attempt to find brand new texts and to restructure Jacques Sirmond’s documents to this end: 1. The codicological analysis of P3 shows the manuscript is a miscellaneous collection of quires which could have been bound or rebound together at a later time. This is corroborated by the pages of the indices, because some indications are now missing. As table 5 shows, some cruces from the latest system of annotations may have disappeared. The pages containing the index of the eclogae (f. 155r-156r) are very interesting too. They were cut after having been annotated, as the text of the index itself but also the twofold system of annotations in the margins indicate. The first system mentions a different numbering of the eclogae and was created by Jacques Sirmond himself after a comparison between Urbani 15 and 16. The second system could come from the same hand which put ‘Habeo’, ‘Edita (est)’ and ‘Edita a Front.’ in the above mentioned index of Urbani 13’s texts. On the one side we find the reference to the pages of another source of the eclogae (‘In Florileg. 1105’) and on the other side we have the number of each ecloga in this last source. But some of these references are now missing, probably because the sheets were cut.

Collaboration between Henry Savile, Jacques Sirmond and Fronton du Duc

97

Table 8: Groups of quires in manuscript P3 and corresponding texts or groups of texts. Groups of quires

Corresponding texts or groups of texts

1×8

= f. 1-8

f. 1r-8v = CPG 4376.1

2×8

= f. 9-24

f. 9r-23v = CPG 4391

1×8 + 1×2

= f. 25-34

f. 25r-33v = CPG 4359 + 4357 (probably both taken from Urbani 12, f. 3r-10r)

1×8 + 1×4

= f. 35-46

f. 35r-46r = CPG 4420.1

2×8

= f. 47-62

f. 47r-61v = CPG 4420.2

1×6

= f. 63-68

f. 63r-67r = CPG 4332

1×8

= f. 69-76

f. 69r-76v = CPG 4358

1×10 (?)

= f. 77-86

f. 77r-86v = CPG 4372.4

1×8

= f. 87-94

f. 87r-94r = CPG 4372.1

1×8 + 1×6

= f. 95-108

f. 95r-105v, 107r-v, 106r-v, 108r-v = CPG 4371.4

1×8 + 1×6

= f. 109-122

f. 109r-122v = CPG 4370

1×10 (?) + 1×6 + 1×2 = f. 123-140

f. 123r-139r = CPG 4684 (ecl.)

1×8

= f. 141-148

f. 141r-148v = CPG 4684 (ecl.)

1×8

= f. 149-156

f. 149r-156r = indices of Urbani 13, 11, 12, 16 (and 15)

1×4

= f. 157-160

f. 157r-159v = index of the sources of the eclogae

1×8

= f. 161-168

f. 161r-166r = hagiographical index

2. The history of the text of In principium Actorum 4 (CPG 4371) already showed that manuscript C (now Berlin, Deutsche Staatsbibliothek, Phillippicus 1443) played a great role as a witness for the purpose of Fronton du Duc’s edition. In this manuscript, the text of In principium Actorum 4 (CPG 4371, f. 124r-136r) follows the text of De mutatione nominum 2 (CPG 4372, f. 116v-123v). A careful reconstruction of the history of De mutatione nominum 242 could provide more arguments to show that C was also very important for the edition of this text. Maybe Jacques Sirmond copied the text of this homily in Genoa, and the document proving it is now missing because of the flexible structure of his ‘dossiers’. Be that as it may, the index he made there reveals the existence of this unedited homily and the use of C for the correction of In principium Actorum 4 enabled to edit De mutatione nominum 2 at the same time, as the order of the texts in Fronton du Duc’s edition shows. In the index the remark ‘Non habet Sauillius’ next to the title of De mutatione nominum 2 is also the only one which was underlined, as if it was necessary to manifest the importance of this text that nobody had whether edited nor (maybe) copied. 42

This work is at the planning stage with Nathalie Rambault.

98

M.-È. GEIGER

3. The first annotator in P3’s indices, who may be Jacques Sirmond himself, made two interesting mistakes. He wrote that Henry Savile was not in possession of either homily De gloria in tribulationibus (CPG 4373) or Non esse ad gratiam concionandum (CPG 4358). In the first case the remark is carefully crossed out with little strokes and it is the only time where the extended indication ‘Edita a Front.’ occurs. In the second case the mistake could come from an incorrect lecture of the manuscript Jacques Sirmond was indexing. The wrong beginning of the text κακῶς ὑμῶν οἶμαι was then corrected into ἱκανῶς ὑμῶν οἶμαι. The mention ‘Non habet Sauillius’ was crossed out with a substantial stroke this time. The reference to Henry Savile’s edition was added with the same ink which was used for the stroke and this ink is paler than the one used for the other references. From these mistakes and corrections we can conclude that Jacques Sirmond worked with just a list of incipits, like the one in Henry Savile’s edition to start with,43 and probably not with a catalogue containing titles and incipits like the list Henry Savile had previously sent around Europe.44 This enables us to estimate the terminus post quem of the examination of the indices to the years 1610 or even 1612-1613, and to connect one of these revisions to Fronton du Duc’s preliminary work for his volume of the year 1616. 4. The other sources of Jacques Sirmond’s work in Italy are good indicators too. For example P2, Jacques Sirmond’s manuscript, which was important for the history of In principium Actorum 3, shows the same flexible composition as P3: there are the same recurrent coincidences between the end of a text and the end of a quire. Moreover, it is interesting to notice that P3 contains the text of De decem millium talentorum debitore (CPG 4368, f. 37r-46v) and of De Anna 1 (CPG 4411, f. 123r-130v). Would it be possible that the last annotator of the indices in P3 had all the documents coming from Jacques Sirmond’s Italian journey in front of him when he added his remarks? This could be a reason why both homilies were marked with ‘Habeo’ and ‘Edita’ in the index of Urbani 11. The case of manuscript P3 (Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Suppl. gr. 400) thus shows the importance of the role of Jacques Sirmond for Fronton du Duc. Jacques Sirmond made indices from Chrysostom’s texts which he found during his Italian journey and copied texts which the editor did not already have. His documents were carefully checked and reorganised in order to prepare Fronton du Duc’s next volumes, especially the volume from the year 1616. 43 See H. Savile, Τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἰωάννου … τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου τῶν εὑρισκομένων τόμος ὄγδοος (1612), after 428 (there are no more page numbers). 44 See Antonio Possevino (Possevin), Apparatus sacri … Tomus secundus (1606), 148-51, and J.-L. Quantin, ‘Historical Criticism, Confessional Controversy, and Self-Censorship’ (2021), 156, n. 64.

Collaboration between Henry Savile, Jacques Sirmond and Fronton du Duc

99

b. Reassessing Fronton du Duc’s role on the route to the first Chrysostom editions The case of the homilies In principium Actorum 3 and 4 contributes to a better understanding of Fronton du Duc’s editorial method. First Fronton du Duc played the role of a transcriber for Henry Savile in five cases at least: for homilies In principium Actorum 3 (CPG 4371), De mutatione nominum 1 (CPG 4372), De Anna 5 (CPG 4411), for De sacerdotio liber 6 (CPG 4316) and for excerpts from the Expositiones in psalmos (CPG 4413). He personally copied these texts or extended passages of these texts and sent them to Henry Savile, like the amanuenses did for him. Then Fronton du Duc took Henry Savile’s edition as a base for his own one. This shows once more how constant the relationship between the two famous scholars must have been and how intertwined the two editorial processes were. Secondly Jacques Sirmond played the role of a transcriber for Fronton du Duc. This is furthermore reassessing the role of the libraries in Genoa for the discovery and creation of the editio princeps of homilies In paralyticum demissum per tectum (CPG 4370), In principium Actorum 4 (CPG 4371), De mutatione nominum 2 (CPG 4372) and De sanctis martyribus (CPG 4357). Fronton du Duc was the first one who published them, thanks to Jacques Sirmond at least in the case of In principium Actorum 4. Fronton du Duc’s method of finding new Chrysostomic texts may not have been as advanced as Henry Savile’s system, for example when the English scholar sent a catalogue round Europe in order to find unedited Greek texts by Chrysostom. But Fronton du Duc succeeded in publishing ‘brand new’ texts. Moreover, he did extensive work on the texts, comparing the manuscripts, putting corrections and conjectures into the text itself, where Henry Savile contented himself with writing a few remarks in the margin. Maybe this is not just a question of editorial deadlines, but the ‘trademark’ of an underestimated scholar.

Are Chrysostom’s Homilies on Hannah a ‘Series’? Catherine BROC-SCHMEZER, Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3, HiSoMA / Sources Chrétiennes, Lyon, France1

ABSTRACT At first glance, the unity of the series of John Chrysostom’s five Homilies on Hannah, mother of Samuel (CPG 4411), is obvious. We find the same surprising and original theme, unique in patristic literature, and the same liturgical time of preaching: between Easter and Pentecost. Moreover, because of the Prologue of Homily 1, which clearly refers to the Homilies on the Statues and to the return of bishop Flavian from Constantinople after the riot of the statues, the whole series has been dated from the year 387 for centuries, at least since the edition of Bernard de Montfaucon. However, a more cautious approach, which verifies the connections between the homilies as well as the references to the historical or liturgical context, leads to the opposite conclusion. The lost homily, to which the so-called ‘Homily 4’ alludes, is probably not the fourth of a unified series of six, but the first of another group, since ‘Homily 4’ and ‘Homily 5’ have a different structure, a different exegetical method, and different purposes. Moreover, they do not allude to the year 387 and even contain elements which seem hard to conciliate with this terrible year. It seems that we are in presence of two groups of homilies that were gathered later, Homilies 1 to 3, which were undoubtedly pronounced in the same context and most probably in the year 387, and a sequence composed of the lost homily, ‘Homily 4’, a lost homily on Pentecost, and ‘Homily 5’. After this analysis, the remaining question will be to know what exactly happened ‘between’ these two groups.

It has been assumed for years, at least since the edition of John Chrysostom’s work by Bernard de Montfaucon in 1721,2 that the five Homilies on Hannah, mother of Samuel,3 were pronounced the same year, after the return of the bishop Flavian from Constantinople where he tried to calm down the emperor’s wrath after the riot that arose in Antioch in 387; that the fourth was pronounced just before, and the fifth just after Pentecost, and that one homily, situated 1 I would like to thank my husband, Gerhard Schmezer, for his patience and longsuffering in re-reading my article. Without his efforts, my English would have been much less comprehensible. I would also like to thank Richard Bishop for his very helpful comments and suggestions. 2 Bernard de Montfaucon, Sancti patris nostri Joannis Chrysostomi archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani opera omnia quae exstant, vol. IV, Ad sermones quinque in Annam (Paris, 1721), 699-747. 3 PG 54, 631-76, CPG 4411.

Studia Patristica CXIV, 101-120. © Peeters Publishers, 2021.

102

C. BROC-SCHMEZER

between the third and the fourth was missing, since the preacher says in Homily 4 that he commented on the beginning of chapter two, verse 1 of the First Book of Reigns in the previous homily, which he doesn’t do in Homily 3.4 But things appear more complicated when we look at the text more closely, trying, as Pauline Allen and Wendy Mayer suggest,5 to check the unity of the ‘series’. In this article, we shall proceed step by step, examining: 1) why Chrysostom would have preached on Hannah; 2) whether or not each homily explicitly belongs to a ‘series’, and 3) whether this ‘series’ is the same. These elements will lead us once again to the question: what do we mean when we speak of a ‘series’? The five homilies concentrating on the figure of Hannah6 constitute a unique case in the whole of patristic literature, and one might wonder why this young priest, ordained only one year earlier, who had just became famous because of the well-known Homilies on the Statues which he delivered before a population terrified by the emperor’s threat, suddenly preached on such an unexpected matter, commenting on a text which seems to have had a less inspired status than others in his opinion,7 presenting the figure of a woman who was not central to Christianity and yet to whom he attributed so much importance. Trying to answer this question might help us to understand whether we should consider these homilies as a ‘series’. 4 See recently Robert Charles Hill, ‘St John Chrysostom’s Homilies on Hannah’, St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 45 (2001), 319; Gary Philippe Raczka, The Lectionary at the Time of St. John Chrysostom, diss. (Notre Dame, 2015), 171. 5 Pauline Allen and Wendy Mayer, ‘Chrysostom and the preaching of homilies in series: A new approach to the twelve homilies In epistulam ad Colossenses (CPG 4433)’, OCP 60 (1994), 21-39; eaed., ‘The thirty-four homilies on Hebrews: the last series delivered by Chrysostom in Constantinople?’, Byzantion 65 (1995), 309-48; eaed., ‘Chrysostom and the preaching of homilies in series: A re-examination of the fifteen homilies In epistulam ad Philippenses (CPG 4432)’, VC 49 (1995), 270-89; eaed., ʻTraditions of Constantinopolitan preaching: Towards a new assessment of where Chrysostom preached whatʼ, Byzantinische Forschungen 24 (1997), 93-114; Wendy Mayer, The Homilies of St John Chrysostom: Provenance. Reshaping the foundations, OCA 273 (Roma, 2005), 507-13. 6 In the Septuagint, the story of Hannah, mother of Samuel, is located at the beginning of the First Book of Reigns. After presenting the initial situation, indeed, that Elqana had two wives, Hannah, who didn’t have any children, and Phennana, who had several (1:1-2), the text recounts the day of the sacrifice in Sèlo, where Hannah prayed and made the vow that she would consecrate her child to God if she would have any, and where the priest Eli first thinks that she is drunk, and sends his paidarion to chase her from the house of the Lord, but then blesses her (1:2-18); Hannah then goes back to her home, gives birth to Samuel, and stays with him until he is weaned (1:19-23); then she goes back to Sèlo, lets the priest remember who she is, consecrates her son to God (1:24-8) and sings what came to be known as ‘Hannah’s song’ (2:1-11). After the episode of the profanation of the sacrifices by Eli’s sons (2:12-7), Hannah once again receives the blessing of the priest (2:18-21) and gives birth to another three boys and two girls. 7 As for other historical texts of the Bible, Chrysostom calls the author of 1Reigns συγγραφεύς, and not προφήτης. On this distinction, see Robert C. Hill, Reading the Old Testament in Antioch, The Bible in Ancient Christianity 5 (Leiden, Boston, 2005), 32.

Are Chrysostom’s Homilies on Hannah a ‘Series’?

103

I. Why Hannah? As tempting as it might be, a liturgical explanation poses several problems. It might be tempting because four of these five homilies were preached during a special time of the liturgical year – paschal time8 – , and because they comment on the very beginning of a text. One could have imagined that, like the practice of commenting on Genesis during Lent, or on the Book of Acts during paschal time,9 there would have been, during the fourth century, a practice of reading the First Book of Reigns in church during paschal time in Antioch. But at least three objections can be made here: 1) unlike the Book of Acts,10 the First Book of Reigns has little to do with the liturgical context of paschal time11; 2) if this practice would have been fixed, we probably would have had other homilies of other preachers on this subject just as we have several sets of commentaries on Genesis; and, 3) John obviously surprises his audience by preaching about Hannah and begins his third homily as if continuing his preaching on the same topic would have depended on their good will: Unless I appear tedious and burdensome to some, I want to take up again the same theme on which I spoke to you also the other day (πρώην), introduce you by hand to Hannah and direct the homily to the meadow of this woman’s virtuous acts.12 8

The last one having been preached immediately after Pentecost. As Chrysostom alludes to in the Homilies on the Beginning of Acts (In principium Actorum), PG 51, 101.23-6: Ἀνάγκη λοιπὸν εἰπεῖν, τίνοϛ ἕνεκεν οἱ Πατέρεϛ ἡμῶν ἐν τῇ Πεντηκοστῇ τὸ βιβλίον τῶν Πράξεων ἀναγινώσκεσθαι ἐνομοθέτησαν. ‘We still have to say for what reason our fathers established as a rule to read the Book of Acts during the time of Pentecost.’ For the localization of the Homilies on the Beginning of Acts (CPG 4371) in Antioch, see Wendy Mayer, ‘The sequence and provenance of John Chrysostom’s homilies In illud: Si esurierit inimicus (CPG 4375), De mutatione nominum (CPG 4372) and In principium Actorum (CPG 4371)’, Aug 46 (2006), 169-86, and Marie-Eve Geiger, Les homélies de Jean Chrysostome In principium Actorum (CPG 4371): projet d’édition critique, traduction et commentaire, unpublished dissertation (Lyon, 2018). 10 Even for the Book of Acts, Chrysostom replies to his audience’s objection, why we read before Pentecost the narratives of events which mostly happened after this feast. See PG 51, 104.18-23. 11 We do have a (very short) reference to Hannah connected with a one-week fasting period after Pentecost in Apostolic Constitutions 5.20.15, l. 99-101 (ed. Marcel Metzger, SC 329 [Paris, 1989], 282) which could point to the Feast of Pentecost itself as the liturgical link with these homilies. In that case, the liturgical occasion would not be the reading of a biblical text connected with a special time of the liturgical year, but the punctual occasion of a feast; and the surprise of the hearer would not be that Chrysostom speaks about Hannah, but that he continues to do so a third time. I thank Richard Bishop for this interesting suggestion, which, indeed, deserves more investigation. There remains the problem of the Prologue of Homily 1, which, by referring to the breaking of fast, suggests a date closer to Easter than to Pentecost. 12 Hom. 3, PG 54, 652.43-7: Εἰ μὴ δοκῶ προσκορής τισιν εἶναι καὶ φορτικὸς, βούλομαι τῆς αὐτῆς ὑποθέσεως ἅψασθαι πάλιν, ὑπὲρ ἧς καὶ πρώην ὑμῖν διελέχθην, καὶ πρὸς τὴν Ἄνναν ὑμᾶς χειραγωγῆσαι, καὶ εἰς τὸν λειμῶνα τῶν κατορθωμάτων τῆς γυναικὸς εἰσαγαγεῖν τὸν λόγον. As a Francophone, I am very thankful for the English translations of the Homilies on 9

104

C. BROC-SCHMEZER

Another reason could be exegetical. If we accept the year 387 for our homilies and if we follow Francesca Barone in her edition of the Homilies de Davide et Saule,13 we have a group of eight homilies14 preached during the paschal time of the same year 387, commenting on the First Book of Reigns and highlighting, as customary by Chrysostom, the figures of men and women to present them as models for people of his time. If we look at the structure of John Chrysostom’s work, which consists essentially of posteriorly reconstructed ‘series’ of homilies commenting on a biblical text, and covering almost all the New Testament as well as large parts of the Old Testament,15 we may consider that what the manuscripts call Homilies on Hannah and Homilies on David and Saul, might also have been called Homilies on the First Book of Reigns, especially if we take into account the fact that numerous manuscripts of the Homilies on Hannah also contains the Homilies on David and Saul. In that case, after having commented on Genesis during Lent, John Chrysostom would have freely chosen to comment on another Old Testament text, the First Book of Reigns.16 But if we now turn to what Chrysostom himself says about his purpose, we see that he doesn’t claim at all to introduce a new subject. On the contrary, in order to help his audience return to the quiet atmosphere of Lent, he explicitly goes back to an earlier theme, in the middle of which he was interrupted:17 the way of accessing the knowledge of God, which he really preached on in Homilies 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 On the Statues:18 So what was our theme? We studied the question as to how from the beginning God showed providence for our race, and how he taught us what is useful, without there being any writing or any gift of the Scriptures; and we brought out the fact that he guided us to knowledge of himself through contemplation of creation.19 Hannah by Robert C. Hill, John Chrysostom. Old Testament Homilies, vol. I (Brookline, MA, 2003) 61-132, which I used as a basis; however, I did not hesitate to change it when I thought that some details could be nearer of the Greek text. 13 Iohannis Chrysostomi, De Davide et Saule homiliae tres, CChr.SG 70 (Turnhout, Leuven, 2008), ‘Introduzione’, XI-XIX. But the order of preaching of these two series – first De Davide et Saule, then the Homilies on Hannah – remains problematic. 14 The five surviving Homilies on Hannah, the lost one on Hannah, and the three Homilies on David and Saul. 15 Especially if we add the Commentaries on Isaiah and On Job. 16 On the structure of Chrysostom’s work, see Catherine Broc-Schmezer, ‘Théologie et philosophie en prédication: le cas de Jean Chrysostome’, RSPT 97 (2013), 187-212, especially 202-4. 17 By the return of the bishop from Constantinople, Easter, the feast of several martyrs, and a predication to the people ‘coming from the country’, Hom. 1, PG 54, 634.8-23. 18 Hom. 9, PG 49, 105.7-109.48; Hom. 10, PG 49, 112.28-118.3; Hom. 11, PG 49, 120.43-50; Hom. 12, PG 49, 128.41-135.4; Hom. 13, PG 49, 139.47-141. 19 Hom. 1, PG 54, 634.30-5: Τίς οὖν ἦν ἡμῖν ἡ ὑπόθεσις; Ἐζητοῦμεν πῶς ἐξ ἀρχῆς ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν προενόει τοῦ γένους, καὶ πῶς τὰ συμφέροντα ἐπαίδευσεν, οὔτε γραμμάτων ὄντων, οὔτε Γραφῶν δοθεισῶν· καὶ ἐδείκνυμεν ὅτι διὰ τῆς κατὰ τὴν κτίσιν θεωρίας πρὸς τὴν αὐτοῦ θεογνωσίαν ἐχειραγώγησεν.

Are Chrysostom’s Homilies on Hannah a ‘Series’?

105

After this example of natural theology through the contemplation of nature, which constitutes a first way of accessing God, Chrysostom goes to a second way, the conscience (τὸ συνειδός), and to a third, the education given by parents, insisting on the fact that education doesn’t concern only men, but also women: Let not the women, therefore, consider it beyond them to care for both the girls and the boys. Gender made no difference in these instances: he20 simply said in the one case, ‘If she raised children’ (1Tim 5:10), and in the other ‘if they continue in faith, in love and in holiness’ (1Tim 2:15). And so care is to be taken by us of both lots of children, and especially by the women, to the extent that they also stay at home more. Indeed, the men are often diverted by traveling, by the concerns of the agora, and the public affairs, whereas the woman enjoys exemption from all such concerns and would be in a position to look after the children more easily, enjoying much free time as she does.21

The exemplum of Hannah is introduced in this very context: That is what women in olden times did: this commitment was required not only of men but also of women – I mean, to care for their children and to introduce them to the philosophia. To prove that this is true, I shall recount to you an ancient story. Hannah was a woman of the Jews.22

In other words, the explicit purpose of John Chrysostom is to give an example of good education, or, to be more precise, a good education given by a woman.23 However, by using the verb διηγήσομαι, ‘I shall recount’, the preacher suggests that he might need time to do so, and eventually more than one homily: but how many?

20 Sic. As usual when he quotes the biblical text (Old and New Testament), Chrysostom does not mention the author of the precise book, although he did not speak about Paul before this quotation. 21 Hom. 1, PG 54, 638.2-15: Μὴ τοίνυν ἀλλότριον αὐτῶν εἶναι νομιζέτωσαν αἱ γυναῖκες τὸ καὶ θηλειῶν καὶ ἀρρένων ἐπιμελεῖσθαι. Οὐ γὰρ διέκρινεν ἐνταῦθα τὸ γένος, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐκεῖ ἁπλῶς εἶπεν, Εἰ ἐτεκνοτρόφησε, καὶ ἐνταῦθα, Ἐὰν ἐπιμείνωσι τῇ πίστει, καὶ τῇ ἀγάπῃ, καὶ τῷ ἁγιασμῷ. Ὥστε ἀμφοτέρων ἡμῖν ἐπιμελητέον τῶν παιδίων, καὶ μάλιστα ταῖς γυναιξὶν, ὅσῳ καὶ τὰ πλείονα οἴκοι κάθηνται. Τοὺς μὲν γὰρ ἄνδρας καὶ ἀποδημίαι, καὶ αἱ τῆς ἀγορᾶς φροντίδες, καὶ τὰ τῆς πόλεως πράγματα περιέλκουσι πολλάκις· ἡ δὲ γυνὴ πάσης τοιαύτης φροντίδος ἀτέλειαν ἔχουσα, εὐκολώτερον δύναιτ᾿ ἂν τῶν τεχθέντων ἐπιμελεῖσθαι, πολλῆς ἀπολαύουσα τῆς σχολῆς. 22 Hom. 1, PG 54, 638.15-21: Οὕτως αἱ παλαιαὶ ἐποίουν γυναῖκες· οὐ γὰρ ἀνδράσι μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ γυναιξὶν ἀναγκαῖον τοῦτο τὸ ὄφλημα· λέγω δὲ τὸ τῶν οἰκείων προνοεῖσθαι παίδων, καὶ εἰς φιλοσοφίαν αὐτοὺς ἐνάγειν. Καὶ ὅτι τοῦτό ἐστιν ἀληθὲς, ἀρχαίαν τινὰ ἱστορίαν ὑμῖν διηγήσομαι. Ἄννα τις ἐγένετο παρὰ τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις γυνή. 23 If education in general would have been his purpose, one could wonder why he doesn’t say a single word about the bad behaviour of Eli’s sons and their profanation of the sacrifices (1Reigns 2:12-7). On this special attention to the figure of a woman, see Catherine Broc-Schmezer, ‘Hannah, mother of Samuel, by Greek commentators of the Bible’, in Biblical Women in the Writings of the Church Fathers, The Bible and Women 5.2 (Wien, forthcoming).

106

C. BROC-SCHMEZER

II. Did each homily belong to a ‘series’? At first glance, the unity of the series is evident: all of them were preached during paschal time, and, in Homilies 3 and 4, John Chrysostom suggests that part of the audience could be bored by the same subject. Let us, however, look closer at each homily, proceeding step by step and first, examining the evidence proving that it belonged to a ‘series’. Homily 1 could stand by itself: after having summed up the verses 1 to 5, Chrysostom comments on the text verse by verse until verse 11, the end of Hannah’s vow: ‘and he will not drink wine or strong drink’, and then goes directly to verse 20, which announces the child’s birth, as if he would have given a conclusion to the story: Hannah prayed and then she bore the child. But two elements suggest that a subsequent homily was intended: 1) the preacher spoke about Hannah’s grief,24 sobriety,25 strong will,26 patience,27 and about her vow to give her child to God, but he did not yet really show how she educated him, as announced; 2) he showed how Hannah’s prayer was fulfilled, but he presented her vow without showing how she fulfilled it, so that the story is not really finished. The incipit of Homily 2 shows clearly that it belongs to a series: Nothing, then, matches prayer, dearly beloved, nothing is more efficacious than faith. Just the other day (πρώην) Hannah shew both to us.28

From the third homily on, the theme of the eventual tediousness of the audience proves that the homily is not isolated, as we saw at the beginning of Homily 3.29 In Homily 4, Chrysostom suggests that his hearers could be ‘surprised’ that he ‘leads them back’ (ἐπαναγαγὼν) to the ‘theme’ (τῆς ὑποθέσεως) of Hannah: ‘I shall … come to the customary instruction,30 continuing the account of the story of Hannah. Don’t be surprised if we are not yet rid of this theme: I can’t get this woman out of my mind.’31 24

PG 54, 638.37-639.8. PG 54, 639.49-56. 26 PG 54, 639.56-640.13. 27 PG 54, 641.39-642.2. 28 PG 54, 643.28-9: Οὐδὲν ἄρα ἴσον εὐχῆς, ἀγαπητοὶ, οὐδὲν πίστεως δυνατώτερον. Ἀμφότερα ἔδειξεν ἡμῖν ἡ Ἄννα πρώην. 29 Hom. 3, PG 54, 652.43-7. See quotation above, note 14. 30 The formula ‘the customary instruction’ (τῆς εἰωθυίας … διδασκαλίας) might also suggest that preaching on Hannah already became a custom, which would plead in favor of a rather long ‘series’ about Hannah, since a second homily on this subject would not be enough to create a ‘custom’. But it might also simply mean that Chrysostom ended with his ‘prologue’ (προοίμιον, PG 54, 662.52) against the horse races and arrived at the regular instruction, which consists in commenting on a biblical text, whatever this text might be. 31 PG 54, 662.57-663.4: … τῆς εἰωθυίας ἅψομαι διδασκαλίας, ἐπὶ τὴν τῆς Ἄννης ἱστορίαν ἐπαναγαγὼν τὸν λόγον. Καὶ μὴ θαυμάσητε, εἰ μηδέπω τῆς ὑποθέσεως ταύτης ἀπηλλάγημεν. Καὶ γὰρ οὐ δύναμαι τὴν γυναῖκα ταύτην ἀπὸ τῆς διανοίας ἐκβαλεῖν τῆς ἐμῆς. 25

Are Chrysostom’s Homilies on Hannah a ‘Series’?

107

And in Homily 5, using the image of his homily as a meal, he announces that he will serve his guests the continuation of the same story: So since we have the same guests then and now, I shall set the meal before you with the same enthusiasm today as well, returning to the theme that the festal period interrupted. I mean, as it would have been inappropriate at the occurrence of Pentecost to fail to speak on the good things given to us at that time and keep the former theme, so with the passing of Pentecost, I shall properly resume the thread of the story, picking up the theme concerning Hannah.32

Was Homily 5 the last one? For the time being, it is hard to say. Homily 5 doesn’t have any conclusion formula. Moreover, since Homily 4,33 Chrysostom explicitly intends to be as exhaustive as possible. In Homily 5, he even compares Scripture to a treasure chest, which good robbers don’t leave before having taken everything which is inside: The question, indeed, is not the number of things said and the number of days, but whether we arrived at the end of our subject. Indeed, those who found a treasure chest, even if they should take thousands of precious objects from it, do not desist until they have exhausted it … Now, if those mad about precious objects adopt such zeal in connection with things that perish and do not last, all the more must we behave like that in regard to the divine treasures, not desisting until we have exhausted all that appears to us.34

But at the end of Homily 5, he is only at the explanation of verse 2 of the ten verses composing Hannah’s song, so that the ‘treasure chest’ is not yet exhausted. At least we can say, then, that Chrysostom might have had the intention of continuing his preaching on this theme. But two elements suggest the opposite: first, the impatience of the audience; second, the fact that Chrysostom himself, while claiming to be as exhaustive as possible, diverges more and more from his initial topic. Out of the nine PG columns of Homily 1, seven are devoted to Hannah, and out of the nine of Homily 5, only two are devoted to Hannah, sandwiched between a Prologue complaining about those who are

32 PG 54, 670.40-50: Ἐπεὶ οὖν οἱ αὐτοὶ δαιτυμόνες καὶ τότε καὶ νῦν ἡμῖν πάρεισι, μετὰ τῆς αὐτῆς προθυμίας καὶ σήμερον τὴν ἑστίασιν ὑμῖν παραθήσομαι, ἐπὶ τὴν ὑπόθεσιν ἐπανελθὼν, ἣν ὁ τῆς ἑορτῆς καιρὸς διέκοψεν. Ὥσπερ γὰρ τῆς Πεντηκοστῆς παρούσης, ἄκαιρον ἦν, ἀφέντας λέγειν περὶ τῶν δοθέντων ἡμῖν κατ᾿ ἐκεῖνον τὸν καιρὸν ἀγαθῶν, τῆς ἀκολουθίας τῆς προτέρας ἔχεσθαι· οὕτω νῦν τῆς Πεντηκοστῆς παρελθούσης, εἰς καιρὸν τὴν ἀκολουθίαν τῆς ἱστορίας ἀναληψόμεθα, ἐπὶ τῆς κατὰ τὴν Ἄνναν ὑποθέσεως ἐχόμενοι. 33 Hom. 4, PG 54, 663.36: νυνὶ δὲ ἀναγκαῖον τὴν ἑξῆς ἑρμηνεῦσαι ῥῆσιν: ‘but now it is necessary to give the interpretation of the following formula’. 34 PG 54, 670.50-671.3: Οὐδὲ γὰρ εἰ πολλὰ τὰ εἰρημένα χρὴ σκοπεῖν, καὶ ἐν πολλαῖς ἡμέραις, ἀλλ᾿ εἰ πρὸς τὸ τέλος ἤλθομεν τῆς ὑποθέσεως. Καὶ γὰρ οἱ θησαυρὸν εὑρόντες, κἂν μυρία λάβωσιν ἐκεῖθεν χρήματα, οὐ πρότερον ἀφίστανται, ἕως ἂν τὸ πᾶν ἐξαντλήσωσιν … Εἰ δὲ οἱ περὶ τὰ χρήματα μαινόμενοι τοσαύτῃ περὶ τὰ ἀπολλύμενα καὶ μὴ μένοντα κέχρηνται τῇ σπουδῇ, πολλῷ μᾶλλον ἡμᾶς ἐπὶ τῶν θείων θησαυρῶν τοῦτο ποιεῖν χρὴ, καὶ μὴ πρότερον ἀφίστασθαι, ἕως ἅπαν τὸ φαινόμενον ἐξαντλήσωμεν.

108

C. BROC-SCHMEZER

absent, and a small treatise about Providence.35 Perhaps his patience wasn’t as great as that of his audience. One might wonder, however, why Chrysostom didn’t continue to comment on Hannah’s song, which corresponded so well to his care of the poor and the weak, and that he doesn’t say anywhere in his work a single word about the echo between Hannah’s song and the Magnificat (Luke 1:46-55),36 although he insists so often on the harmony of the two Testaments.37 It seemed, then, so obvious that each homily belonged to a series that it was tempting to forget another step in the analysis: is it the same series? III. Is it the same ‘series’? 1. The internal references Our next step will be to check the internal references between the homilies. – Connection between Homily 1 and Homily 2 At the beginning of Homily 2, Chrysostom gives the list of the points he had already developed ‘the other day’ (πρώην): Approaching God with these gifts (i.e., εὐχή and πίστις38), she achieved all she wanted, set to rights her natural deficiency, opened her closed womb, took away her shame, dismissed the taunts of her rival and restored herself to great confidence, reaping a bumper crop from barren rock. You all heard how she prayed, how she begged and pleaded, received her request, conceived, bore, raised and made an offering of Samuel.39

Indeed, of the seven items on this list, Homily 1 developed the themes of prayer40 and faith41 and showed how Hannah begged and pleaded. 42 That she received her request, conceived and bore a child is shown by the brief reformulation of 1Reigns 1:20: Τεκοῦσα δὲ τὸ παιδίον, ἐκάλεσεν αὐτὸ 35

PG 54, 669.1-671.7 and PG 54, 672.56-676.39. On this point, see Catherine Broc-Schmezer, Les figures féminines du Nouveau Testament dans l’œuvre de Jean Chrysostome. Exégèse et pastorale, EAA 185 (Paris, 2010), 318-9. 37 See Anne-Marie Malingrey, ‘L’harmonie des deux Testaments dans les homélies Contra Anomeos’, SP 27 (1993), 198-201. 38 See above, PG 54, 643.28, note 28. 39 PG 54, 643.29-37: μετὰ γὰρ τούτων προσελθοῦσα τῷ Θεῷ τῶν δώρων, πάντα ὅσα ἠθέλησεν ἤνυσε, καὶ φύσιν πεπηρωμένην διώρθωσε, καὶ μήτραν κεκλεισμένην ἀνέῳξε, καὶ αἰσχύνην ἀνεῖλε, καὶ τὰ ὀνείδη τῆς ἀντιζήλου κατέλυσε, καὶ πρὸς παρρησίαν ἑαυτὴν πολλὴν ἐπανήγαγεν, ἐκ πέτρας ἀγόνου στάχυν κομῶντα θερίσασα. Καὶ πάντες ἠκούσατε, πῶς ηὔξατο, πῶς ᾔτησε, καὶ ἔπεισε καὶ ἔλαβε, καὶ ἔτεκε καὶ ἔθρεψε καὶ ἀνέθηκε τὸν Σαμουήλ. 40 Especially by the comparison of the prayer with a letter, PG 54, 640.44-50. 41 See for instance, PG 54, 638.51-3: God waited before fulfilling her wish ἵνα … τὸν πλοῦτον αὐτῆς τῆς πίστεως κατίδωμεν: ‘it was … for us to espy the riches of her faith’. 42 PG 54, 640.50-641.9-39. 36

Are Chrysostom’s Homilies on Hannah a ‘Series’?

109

Σαμουὴλ.43 Among the two apparently missing points, her education of Samuel and her offering of him to God, one is at least present in the small concluding parenetic part which Chrysostom introduces in this way: Women, emulate her; men, let us imitate her, and let us show similar care for our children, let us bring up offspring in similar fashion, in every matter and especially in that of chastity.44

Nothing in the biblical text allows Chrysostom to make of Hannah a specific model of the education of chastity, nor did the preacher speak about Hannah’s education while he was commenting on the text verse by verse. But this belongs to another question, the specific use of biblical figures of women as ‘réceptacles de vertus’ by Chrysostom, who attributes to them even qualities they don’t have in order to give them as exempla for the women of his time.45 If, then, something is missing, it is the link between exegesis and paraenesis within Homily 1, and not between Homily 1 and Homily 2. There remains only one point of the list still missing, the offering of Samuel to God.46 Later on in Homily 2, Chrysostom refers to ‘the woman’s longsuffering (ἀνεξικακία), of which you heard partly the other day’, which corresponds to an important theme in Homily 1.47 If we now look at the sequence of the verses commented upon, Homily 2 seems to go backwards, since Homily 1 ended with verse 20 and Homily 2 begins with verse 12. But in fact, Homily 1 skipped from verse 11 to verse 20, in the quick and concluding evocation of the birth of Samuel. Homily 2, then, begins exactly at the point where Homily 1 had stopped the verse-by-verse commentary. These elements lead us to confirm, despite the problem of the absence of offering of Samuel to God, that Homily 2 probably followed Homily 1. – Connection between Homily 2 and Homily 3 The summary of Homily 2 made at the beginning of Homily 3 situates the audience at the exact junction between grief and joy:

43

PG 54, 642.3: ‘After giving birth to the child, she called him Samuel’. PG 54, 642.11-5: Ταύτην ζηλώσατε, γυναῖκες, ταύτην μιμησώμεθα, ἄνδρες, καὶ τοσαύτην περὶ τὰ παιδία ποιώμεθα τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν, οὕτως ἐκτρέφωμεν τοὺς τεχθέντας, ἔν τε τοῖς ἄλλοις ἅπασιν, ἔν τε τῷ τῆς σωφροσύνης λόγῳ. 45 C. Broc-Schmezer, Les figures féminines (2010), 503 and note 247. 46 Unless we consider that the audience would have ‘heard’ it in a lecture of the biblical text during the liturgy. 47 PG 54, 645.21-2: τὴν ἀνεξικακίαν τῆς γυναικὸς, ἣν ἠκούσατε … ἐκ μέρους καὶ πρώην, with the corresponding place in Homily 1, PG 54, 641.39-642.2. 44

110

C. BROC-SCHMEZER

We saw her barren, we saw her become a mother, we saw her weeping, we saw her rejoicing; we shared her grief at one time, let us share her satisfaction today.48

This corresponds to Homily 1, with the quick quotation of verse 20 announcing without developing the birth of Samuel, and to Homily 2 where Chrysostom presents her as rejoicing in advance.49 Homily 3 begins with the verse 22, whereas Homily 2 ended with verse 18, but the gap is filled by a summary of the missing verses, in a way which favors Chrysostom’s intent to show the efficacy of prayer. Indeed, between Hannah’s prayer and its fulfilment, the biblical text recounts the dialogue with Eli and his servant (v. 12-1850), the meal she has with her husband, and their return home (v. 19-21), but Chrysostom insists instead on the instantaneity of its fulfilment: As soon as she opened her mouth, her prayer rose up to heaven and brought her fruit in season, holy Samuel.51 Verses 19-21, then, are not missing: Chrysostom skirts around them. Homily 2, therefore, may precede Homily 3. – Connection between Homilies 1-3 and the following homilies At this point, we can consider that Homilies 1-3 belong, in fact, to the same series. The situation is different with Homilies 4 and 5. Both mention the famous lost homily where the preacher explained the first formula of 1Reigns 2:1, which doesn’t correspond to Homily 3. So in Homily 4: On the meaning, then, of ‘My heart was strengthened in my Lord (1Reigns 2:1)’ I spoke to your charity the other day, it is clear to you; now I must give the interpretation of the next formula: since, after having said ‘My heart was strengthened in my Lord’, she added: ‘My horn was exalted in my God’.52

Homily 5 mentions both the lost homily and Homily 4: For this very reason we spent two whole addresses (δύο διαλέξεις ὁλοκλήρους) on only two formulas, the first, ‘My heart was strengthened in the Lord’, and the second, following: ‘My horn is exalted in my God’.53 PG 54, 653.20-3: Εἴδομεν δὲ αὐτὴν στεῖραν οὖσαν, εἴδομεν αὐτὴν μητέρα γενομένην, εἴδομεν δακρύουσαν, εἴδομεν χαίρουσαν· συνηλγήσαμεν τότε, συνησθῶμεν σήμερον. 49 PG 54, 651.58: Πρὶν λάβῃ ὅπερ ᾔτησεν, ἐθάρσησεν ὡς λαβοῦσα: ‘Before receiving what she asked, she had the confidence of one who had received’. 50 Already commented in Homily 2. 51 PG 54, 652.56-8: Ὁμοῦ γὰρ ἐφθέγξατο, καὶ πρὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν ἀνέδραμεν ἡ εὐχὴ, καὶ καρπὸν ἤνεγκεν ὥριμον αὐτῇ, τὸν ἅγιον Σαμουήλ. 52 Hom. 4, PG 54, 663.33-6: Ὅτι μὲν οὖν, τί ἐστιν, Ἐστερεώθη ἡ καρδία μου ἐν Κυρίῳ, πρώην εἶπον πρὸς τὴν ὑμετέραν ἀγάπην, δῆλον ὑμῖν· νυνὶ δὲ ἀναγκαῖον τὴν ἑξῆς ἑρμηνεῦσαι ῥῆσιν. Εἰποῦσα γάρ· Ἐστερεώθη ἡ καρδία μου ἐν Κυρίῳ· ἐπήγαγεν· Ὑψώθη κέρας μου ἐν Θεῷ μου. 53 PG 54, 671.16-20: Διὰ δὴ τοῦτο δύο διαλέξεις ὁλοκλήρους εἰς δύο ῥήσεις ἀνηλώσαμεν μόνας, εἴς τε τὴν πρώτην τὴν λέγουσαν, Ἐστερεώθη ἡ καρδία μου ἐν Κυρίῳ, καὶ τὴν δευτέραν τὴν μετ᾿ ἐκείνην, Ὑψώθη κέρας μου ἐν Θεῷ μου. 48

Are Chrysostom’s Homilies on Hannah a ‘Series’?

111

It is obvious, then, that 1) Homily 5 follows Homily 4 and that 2) we have lost a homily commenting on the beginning of 1Reigns 2:1. But, before speaking of a lost homily between Homily 3 and Homily 4, and not simply before Homily 4, it must be proved that there is a connection between Homilies 1-3 and the group consisting of the lost homily, Homily 4 and Homily 5. If we look at the sequence of the commented verses, the last verse commented by Homily 3 is 1Reigns 2:20,54 whereas Hannah’s song goes back to 2:1. This, however, is not enough to affirm that the sequence of Homily 3 to the lost homily is impossible, since, in fact, Chrysostom conflates two episodes: the episode of Hannah’s song (1Reigns 1:24-2:11), and the episode of the coat, with the benediction of Eli and the five other children (1Reigns 2:18-21). He quotes 1Reigns 2:20, the benediction of Eli, as if it would have been an answer of Eli to the offering of Samuel by Hannah. In these conditions, an explanation of Hannah’s song in the following homily is not impossible. But the method of exegesis is notably different in Homilies 4 and 5 than in Homilies 1-3. Whereas the preacher commented on respectively twenty, seven and nine verses in Homilies 1 to 3, he now needs three homilies (if we count the lost one) to comment on less than two verses. He explicitly proceeds to a word-by-word explanation: Hence let us comment (διερευνώμεθα) on everything little by little, unfolding them (ἀναπτύξαντες,) word by word, so as not to pass over even the slightest detail.55

Such words as διερευνᾶν, ἀναπτύσσω, or ἑρμηνεῦσαι56 appear only in Homilies 4 and 5, and not in Homilies 1-3. This changing of exegetical method might explain why Chrysostom, in Homily 5, doesn’t speak about ‘four whole addresses’, but of ‘two’ (δύο διαλέξεις ὁλοκλήρους), which, in itself, could speak against the unity of the series. Why, then, would Chrysostom have changed so radically? One reason could be the difference of the text itself, since Hannah’s song is poetical and consequently more difficult to understand, as we can see with such expressions as κέραϛ μου, ‘my horn’ and ἐπλατύνθη … τὸ στόμα μου, ‘my mouth was wide open’57. But there were also textual difficulties in the preceding narrative like, ‘μὴ δῷϛ τὴν δούλην σου εἰϛ θυγατέρα λοιμήν58’, and Chrysostom didn’t really explain or even skirt around them.59 Inversely, some expressions like ‘in my

54

PG 54, 657.48-50. PG 54, 671.13-5: Διὸ δὴ κατὰ μικρὸν διερευνώμεθα πάντα, καθ᾿ ἑκάστην ῥῆσιν ἀναπτύξαντες, ὥστε μηδὲ τὸ μικρότατον ἡμᾶς, ὡς οἷόν τε, παραδραμεῖν. 56 PG 54, 663.36. 57 1Reigns 2:1, explained respectively in PG 54, 663.33-49 and PG 54, 671.20-40. 58 1Reigns 16 which is, even today, difficult to understand. See Michel Lestienne, Premier livre des Règnes, La Bible d’Alexandrie 9.1 (Paris, 1997), 134 and note 16. 59 For example, the question of the unique portion, verse 1:1-5. 55

112

C. BROC-SCHMEZER

God’ or even ‘my God’, or ‘in your salvation’ (ἐν σωτηρίᾳ σου)60 are explained at length in Homilies 4 and 5, although they don’t pose any problem of immediate comprehension. Furthermore, the structure of the two groups of homilies is different. Homilies 1-3 mix exegesis and paraenesis throughout the homily, drawing out from the narrative, one by one, the qualities of Hannah, and ending with a very short ‘ethicon’, whereas Homilies 4 and 5 have a more familiar structure in Chrysostom’s work, that is to say, 1) a prologue, in this case, against horse races, 2) an exegetical part and 3) a small treatise answering an objection – on prayer in Homily 4,61 on the Providence of God in Homily 5.62 Considering the structure of Homilies 4 and 5 allows us to recognise the similarities of Homily 1 to 3 when we look back at them. Finally, the purpose of the reference to Hannah is different in the two groups. Homilies 1 to 3 both deal with children’s education, even when the proper exegesis of the text doesn’t make any reference to it, as in Homily 2.63 Homily 3 emphasizes that Samuel knew nothing but virtue,64 exhorts women, and parents in general, to make their children’s souls the house of God,65 and to bring their children with them to church.66 On the contrary, children disappear from Homilies 4-5. At the beginning of Homily 5, Chrysostom encourages his audience to keep its interest in Hannah because of the importance of the theme, which is prayer: Let us not tire, then: our homily is not in favour of ordinary matters, but is about prayer, our hope.67

Indeed, all the parenetical part of Homily 4 and all the exegetical part of Homily 5 are about prayer.68 So again, we find two groups, Homilies 1-3, about children’s education and the other group, consisting of the lost homily, Homily 4 and Homily 5, about prayer.

60

Hom. 4, 9, PG 54, 663.49-664.59, PG 54, 664.59-665.40 and Hom. 5, PG 54, 671.40672.41. 61 Answering the objection of the impossibility to conciliate work and prayer, PG 54, 667.10668.55. 62 Answering the objection of the injustice of the fate of rich and poor people, PG 54, 672.56676.39. 63 See above, note 47. 64 PG 54, 656.19-37. 65 PG 54, 658.5-21 and PG 54, 658.39-659.10. 66 PG 54, 659.23-55. 67 PG 54, 671.7-9: Μὴ τοίνυν ἀποκάμωμεν· οὐδὲ γὰρ ὑπὲρ τῶν τυχόντων ἡμῖν ὁ λόγος, ἀλλὰ περὶ εὐχῆς, τῆς ἐλπίδος τῆς ἡμετέρας. 68 PG 54, 666.16-668.55 and PG 54, 671.7-672.56.

Are Chrysostom’s Homilies on Hannah a ‘Series’?

113

– Connection between Homilies 4 and 5 Two passages of the Homilies 4 and 5 gives the strong impression that Homily 5 immediately followed Homily 4. Indeed, in Homily 5, Chrysostom explicitly refers to the complaint against the occasional churchgoers he made ‘in the previous assembly’: It was all to no avail, apparently, for us to appeal to those who joined in the previous assembly (τῇ προτέρᾳ συνάξει), urging them to remain in their paternal home (ἐπὶ τῆς οἰκίας τῆς πατρῴας), and not attend and in turn go off (ἀφίστασθαι πάλιν) amongst those showing up only on feast-days (μετὰ τῶν ἐν ἑορτῇ μόνον ἡμῖν φαινομένων)69.

Indeed, in Homily 4, he complained with exactly the same words: … the one who takes part in this divine gathering with fervor and desire should do so consistently, and not be amongst those showing up only on feast-days (μετὰ τῶν ἐν ἑορτῇ μόνον φαινομένων) and in turn go off with them (ἀφίστασθαι πάλιν), simply driven like a sheep.70

However, it is well-known that Pentecost was celebrated in the meantime,71 since in Homily 4, Chrysostom speaks about Pentecost as ‘the coming assembly’ (τῆς ἐπιούσης συνάξεως),72 and in Homily 5, says that Pentecost ‘has gone’ (παρῆλθεν).73 This should prevent us from coming too quickly to the conclusion, despite such apparently clear evidence, that two homilies immediately succeed each other. In this case, it seems that Chrysostom, on the day of Pentecost, repeated his complaint, enlarging the theme of the ‘paternal home’ (ἐπὶ τῆς οἰκίας τῆς πατρῴας) by a reference to the parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32): Indeed, we reminded the son who had squandered his substance and returned to his paternal home (πρὸς τὴν πατρικὴν οἰκίαν), and we added all the hardship, the hunger, the shame, the insults, and all the other things he endured in foreign parts in our wish to bring them to a better frame of mind with this example … On their part, however, they did not imitate this son or condemn themselves for their former departure, nor did they remain in the paternal home; instead, they ran again away.74 PG 54, 669.8-12: Μάτην, ὡς ἔοικε, τοὺς τῇ προτέρᾳ συνάξει παραγενομένους ἡμῖν παρεκαλέσαμεν, πείθοντες μένειν ἐπὶ τῆς οἰκίας τῆς πατρῴας, καὶ μὴ μετὰ τῶν ἐν ἑορτῇ μόνον ἡμῖν φαινομένων ἐφίστασθαι καὶ ἀφίστασθαι πάλιν. 70 PG 54, 662.45: Τὸν γὰρ ζήλῳ καὶ πόθῳ … τοῦ θείου τούτου μετέχοντα συλλόγου, διηνεκῶς ταῦτα ποιεῖν χρὴ, ἀλλ᾿οὐχὶ μετὰ τῶν ἐν ἑορτῇ μόνον φαινομένων, μετ᾿ἐκείνων ἀφίστασθαι πάλιν, θρεμμάτων δίκην ἁπλῶς ἀγόμενον. 71 See above, note 2. 72 PG 54, 662.38: Not ‘tomorrow’s assembly’, according to R.C Hill, John Chrysostom. Old Testament Homilies (2003), 111, since in the same homily (PG 54, 660.42-3), Chrysostom says that ‘we gather here only once a week’ (Ἅπαξ τῆς ἑβδομάδος ἐνταῦθα συλλεγόμεθα). 73 PG 54, 669.40. 74 PG 54, 669.20-37: Καὶ γὰρ τοῦ τὴν οὐσίαν κατεδηδοκότος υἱοῦ, καὶ πρὸς τὴν πατρικὴν οἰκίαν ἐπανελθόντος ἀνεμνήσαμεν, καὶ τὴν ταλαιπωρίαν ἅπασαν, καὶ τὸν λιμὸν, καὶ τὴν 69

114

C. BROC-SCHMEZER

– Identification of the Homily on Pentecost? Do we actually have this homily? The only remaining authentic homily of Chrysostom on Pentecost75 doesn’t refer to this parable. It is interesting to note, however, that its prologue has the same pattern as the one referred to by Chrysostom: 1) there is the same complaint about those who are absent, in the one case, castigating the audience for not returning to the paternal home, and in the other case, to neglect ‘the nudity of their mother’ (γυμνὴν τὴν μητέρα περιορᾷν);76 2) there is the same reference to a biblical exemplum (the Prodigal Son and the discovery of Noah’s nudity respectively);77 and 3) there is the same kind of paragraph stating that every day is a feast.78 As it can also be confirmed with another example, the first homily of the so-called Homilies on the Beginning of Acts,79 it seems that a recurrent situation caused these recurrent and almost ritual complaints about those who are absent. We must, then, admit, as Bernard de Montfaucon did,80 that the homily preceding Homily 5 is lost. Even the puzzling fact that the remaining homily makes reference to Eli and to the bad education of his sons81 – the missing point in the Homilies on Hannah – might not be enough to lead to another conclusion. At this point, then, the analysis of internal references suggests that we might be in presence of two series, Homilies 1 to 3, commenting on the narrative of the story of Hannah, and a sequence of four homilies: 1) the lost homily on the first words of 1Reigns 2:1; 2) Homily 4; 3) a lost Homily on Pentecost; and 4) Homily 5, commenting on Hannah’s song.

αἰσχύνην, καὶ τὰ ὀνείδη καὶ τὰ ἄλλα, ὅσα ἐπὶ τῆς ἀλλοτρίας ὑπέμεινε, προσεθήκαμεν, τῷ παραδείγματι τούτῳ σωφρονεστέρους ποιῆσαι βουλόμενοι … Ἐκεῖνοι δὲ τὸν υἱὸν ἐκεῖνον οὐκ ἐμιμήσαντο, οὐδὲ κατέγνωσαν τῆς ἔμπροσθεν ἀναχωρήσεως, οὐδὲ ἔμειναν ἐπὶ τῆς πατρῴας οἰκίας, ἀλλ᾿ ἀπεπήδησαν πάλιν. 75 CPG 4343; Jean Chrysostome, Homélies sur la Résurrection, l’Ascension et la Pentecôte, SC 562 (Paris, 2014) and Nathalie Rambault’s introduction, 267-74. 76 1, 21, SC 562, 204. 77 1, 20-35, SC 562, 204-6. 78 1, 59 - 2, 56, SC 562, 208-14 / PG 54, 669.40-670.35. 79 We find the same kind of lamentation as in Homily 5 on those who were absent (PG 51, 65-67.4-8); the same distinction between those who come by habit and those who come by desire (PG 51, 65-67.9-11); the same kind of description of the crowded church (PG 51, 65-67.12-5); the same complaint about the disorder of previous assembly (PG 51, 65-67.15-7), the same opposition between the bodily presence and the presence by mind (PG 51, 65-67.17-9) and the same repeated preference for the present audience (PG 51, 65-67.19-25). For the title of this ‘series’, which doesn’t correspond exactly to the content, see M.-E. Geiger, Les homélies de Jean Chrysostome In Principium Actorum (2018). 80 PG 50, 542. 81 3, 10-20, SC 562, 224.

Are Chrysostom’s Homilies on Hannah a ‘Series’?

115

2. References to the liturgical and historical context Let us now turn to the references to the liturgical and historical context, to see if they confirm this analysis. – In Homilies 1-3 In the state in which we have it, the prologue of the first homily gives evidence of the year and of the liturgical context of Homily 1. All scholars agree82 that the ‘father’ who came back from his expedition is Flavian coming back from his interview with Theodosius at Constantinople in 387. Because of the allusion to the break of fasting,83 scholars also agree that the homilies were given during the paschal time, albeit with numerous variants when they try to date each of them more precisely. On the contrary, in Homilies 2 and 3, we don’t have the slightest evidence of the liturgical or historical context. The prologues are general as well as the small final parenetic parts, even when, in Homily 3, Chrysostom urges the parents to go to mass with their children. The only possibility, then, of situating Homilies 2 and 3 depends on their link with Homily 1. – In Homily 4 The liturgical context of Homilies 4 and 5 is clear, since they precede and immediately follow Pentecost. There are two references to the general context in Homily 4. The prologue refers to horse races. Indeed, Chrysostom argues against people making excuses that they don’t have time to go to mass because they have too much work. He pursues: But for you to know that this is a pretext and pretence and cover for laziness (ῥᾳθυμία), without my saying a word, the day after tomorrow will convict all those who put up such a pretence, when the whole city will decamp to the hippodrome, and homes and markets will be emptied for the sake of this lawless spectacle.84 82 Henri Savile, Τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοιϛ πατρὸϛ ἡμῶν ̓Ιωάννου ἀρχιεπίσκοπου Κωνσταντινουπόλεωϛ τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου τῶν εὑρισκομένων τόμος ὅγδοος (Eton, 1612), 713; Louis-Sébastien Lenain de Tillemont, Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire ecclésiastique des six premiers siècles, vol. XI (1706) 76; B. de Montfaucon, S.P.N. Joannis Chrysostomi … opera omnia quæ exstant, vol. IV (1721) 697-9; Joannes Stilting, ‘De S. Joanne Chrysostomo episcopo Constantinopolitano et ecclesiæ doctore, prope Comana in Ponto, commentarius historicus’, Acta Sanctorum… Septembris tomus quartus (Antwerp, 1753), 478-9; Gerhard Rauschen, Jahrbücher der christlichen Kirche unter dem Kaiser Theodosius dem Grossen. Versuch einer Erneuerung der Annales Ecclesiastici des Baronius für die Jahre 378-395 (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1897), 5201-521; W. Mayer, The Homilies of St John Chrysostom (2005), 41, 53, 90-1, 117-8 note 401, 140, 223. 83 Hom. 1, PG 54, 631.50-632.48. 84 PG 54, 660.53-7: Ἵνα δὲ μάθητε, ὅτι καὶ ταῦτα σκῆψις καὶ πρόφασις καὶ ῥᾳθυμίας ἐστὶ παραπετάσματα, οὐδὲν ἐμοῦ λέγοντος, ἡ μετὰ τὴν αὔριον αὐτοὺς ἐλέγξει πάντας ἡμέρα τοὺς τὰ τοιαῦτα προφασιζομένους, ὅταν πᾶσα ἡ πόλις πρὸς τὸν ἱππόδρομον μεταστῇ, καὶ οἰκίαι, καὶ ἀγοραὶ εἰς τὴν παράνομον θεωρίαν κενωθῶσιν ἐκείνην.

116

C. BROC-SCHMEZER

Horse races could have occurred in any year. However, were we to consider that the five homilies are a unified series, the year 387 poses the problem of the punishment that Theodosius imposed on the city, since he forbade horse races, theatres, and baths.85 In that case, we would have to consider that the punishment came to an end before Pentecost of the year 387.86 A second element is the allusion to court, when Chrysostom tries to demonstrate that prayer is possible in any place. He answers the fictitious objector this way: – And how is it possible, you ask, for a person of the world, tied to the court, to pray every three hours and to go out and run to the church? – It is possible and quite simple; and even if running to the church is not manageable, it is possible to pray standing there before the doors and nailed (sic) to the tribunal. Indeed, there is no such need for voice as for thoughts, for outstretched hands as for a concentrated soul, for right posture as for right mood … Many other people also did this in many cases, and while the governor was shouting from inside, threatening, persisting and getting mad, once they had made the sign of the cross standing in front of the doors and they had said a few prayers in their mind, when they went in, they transformed and soothed him, turning him from wild to mild. They were not prevented from praying like this by the place, or the time, or the absence of words.87 Conclusions may be drawn on both sides from this passage. One could think that Chrysostom chose this example because court was still on the mind of the audience after the crisis of the statues.88 But at the same time, references or 85 See Libanios, Discourse XX, 6, ed. and trans. Albert F. Norman (Cambridge, MA, 1977): ‘So he proclaimed, “There are to be no horse races: no one is to go to the theatre, either to give or to partake of enjoyment. The great city is to have the title of a petty town, and it is to keep away from the luxury of the baths”’. Chrysostom, too, alludes to the shutdown of the theatres and of the hippodrome in Homily 15 on the Statues, PG 49, 153.51-3 : ἀλλ’ ἰδοὺ νῦν σιγώντων ἡμῶν, καὶ οὐδὲν περὶ τούτου λεγόντων, αὐτόματοι τὴν ὀρχήστραν ἔϕραξαν, καὶ ὁ ἱππόδρομος ἄβατος γέγονε: and now without my saying a word and speaking about this, they spontaneously closed the orchestra and the hippodrome is forbidden. 86 See Emmanuel Soler, Le sacré et le salut à Antioche au IVe siècle ap. J.-C. Pratiques festives et comportements religieux dans le processus de christianisation de la cité (Beyrouth, 2006), 230. 87 PG 54, 667.6-38: Καὶ πῶς δυνατὸν, φησὶν, ἄνθρωπον βιωτικὸν, δικαστηρίῳ προσηλωμένον, κατὰ τρεῖς ὥρας εὔχεσθαι τῆς ἡμέρας, καὶ εἰς ἐκκλησίαν ἐκτρέχειν; Δυνατὸν, καὶ σφόδρα εὔκολον· κἂν γὰρ εἰς ἐκκλησίαν δραμεῖν μὴ ῥᾴδιον, ἑστῶτα ἐκεῖ πρὸ τῶν θυρῶν, καὶ τῷ δικαστηρίῳ προσηλωμένον εὔξασθαι δυνατόν· οὐδὲ γὰρ οὕτω φωνῆς χρεία, ὡς διανοίας, οὐδὲ ἐκτάσεως χειρῶν, ὡς συντεταμένης ψυχῆς, οὐδὲ σχήματος, ἀλλὰ φρονήματος … Τοῦτο καὶ ἄλλοι πολλοὶ πολλάκις ἐποίησαν, καὶ βοῶντος τοῦ ἄρχοντος ἔνδοθεν, ἀπειλοῦντος, διατεινομένου, μαινομένου, πρὸ τῶν θυρῶν ἑστῶτες σφραγισάμενοι, καὶ ὀλίγα ῥήματα κατὰ διάνοιαν εὐξάμενοι, εἰσελθόντες μετέβαλον αὐτὸν καὶ ἐπράϋναν, καὶ ἥμερον ἐξ ἀγρίου κατέστησαν· καὶ οὐδὲν οὔτε ἀπὸ τοῦ τόπου, οὔτε ἀπὸ τοῦ καιροῦ, οὔτε ἀπὸ τῆς σιγῆς πρὸς τὴν εὐχὴν ταύτην ἐνεποδίσθησαν. 88 According to Libanios (Discourse 20, 3), the riot started in the courtroom.

Are Chrysostom’s Homilies on Hannah a ‘Series’?

117

comparisons with the tribunal are frequent in Chrysostom, and all of them do not refer explicitly to the year 387. Moreover, it is doubtful that Chrysostom would have spoken in such a general way (τοῦτο ἄλλοι πολλοὶ πολλάκις ἐποίησαν) precisely in 387, when people had fresh memories of what happened a few weeks earlier. One could wonder especially if the mention of people being able to calm the judge’s wrath just by making the sign of the cross fits with the spectacular representation he made of the salvific intervention of the monks coming from the Mont Silpios and persuading the emissaries of the emperor to spare the prisoners.89 And one could ask if it would have been prudent to speak about a judge ‘shouting from inside, threatening, persisting and getting mad’ a few weeks after he had celebrated the clemency of the emperor thanks to the visit of Flavian.90 In other words, although these elements are not enough to make the year 387 impossible, were it not for the argument of the series, we would not choose this year in priority to locate this homily; we would rather probably avoid it. Are there at least elements which prove that it was delivered in Antioch? At the beginning of the final exhortation, Chrysostom quotes Psalm 118:164: ‘seven times a day I praised you for the judgements of your righteousness’ to invite his audience to do the same. Then he pursues: And if a king, a man immersed in countless concerns and beset from every quarter, everywhere, beseeched God so many times a day, what excuse or pardon would we have, with so much free time on our hands, not to implore him incessantly, especially as this puts us in a position to reap such benefit?91

It might have been more difficult for the bishop of Constantinople to explicitly admit that he had ‘so much free time’92 by comparison to the emperor, especially if we take account of the situation of economical and political rivalry which soon appeared between John Chrysostom and the

89

Homily 17 on the Statues, PG 49, 172.45-173.30. Homily 21 on the Statues, especially PG 49, 214.30-58. 91 PG 54, 666.18-23: Εἰ δὲ βασιλεὺς ἀνὴρ μυρίαις βαπτιζόμενος φροντίσι, καὶ πανταχόθεν περιελκόμενος, τοσαυτάκις τῆς ἡμέρας παρεκάλει τὸν Θεὸν, τινὰ ἂν ἔχοιμεν ἀπολογίαν ἢ συγγνώμην ἡμεῖς, τοσαύτην σχολὴν ἄγοντες, καὶ μὴ συνεχῶς αὐτὸν ἱκετεύοντες, καὶ ταῦτα τοσοῦτον μέλλοντες καρποῦσθαι κέρδος; 92 Unless, of course, we consider this formula as typical of a preacher who, by delicacy, includes himself when he is, in fact, speaking of his audience. See for instance Hom. 3 on Hannah, PG 54, 659.55-7: Ἂν ταύτην οὖν καὶ ἑαυτοῖς καὶ τοῖς παιδίοις συλλέξωμεν τὴν εὐπορίαν, (…) ἀπολαυσόμεθα τῆς λαμπρότητος…: ‘If, then, we amass this (spiritual) resource both for ourselves and for our children, we shall enjoy great notoriety…’. On this ‘nous de prédicateur’, see Catherine Broc-Schmezer, ‘Philosophie et théologie en prédication: le cas de Jean Chrysostome’, RSPT 97 (2013), 188-9. 90

118

C. BROC-SCHMEZER

imperial court.93 This is the only element that would eventually plead, then, in favor of Antioch.94 As for the frequency of preaching, Chrysostom complains that his hearer doesn’t even consent to go to church, although ‘we gather here only once a week’ (Ἅπαξ τῆς ἑβδομάδος ἐνταῦθα συλλεγόμεθα),95 which appears to correspond neither to Antioch, where the custom seems to have been gathering three time a week – Friday, Saturday and Sunday96 –, nor to Constantinople, where the custom seems to have been gathering twice a week – Saturday and Sunday.97 This point deserves more investigation but is, for the moment, of no help to decide if this homily was preached in Antioch or in Constantinople. Do we have to go a step further in our methodical doubt, and ask if this homily had really been preached? Three elements speak in favour of an actual predication: the complaints against those who were absent,98 the reference to Pentecost, and the reference to the applause at the very end of the homily.99 In Homily 4, then, we have only one, rather weak, external element which could plead in favor of Antioch, but, in any case, probably not to the year 387. – In Homily 5 There is only one small element in Homily 5 that could help us to date Homily 5. At the end of the final exhortation, which dealt with richness and poverty, Chrysostom assimilates himself to the ‘poor people’:100

93 Florent van Ommeslaeghe, ‘Jean Chrysostome en conflit avec l’impératrice Eudoxie. Le dossier et les origines d’une légende’, AB 97 (1979), 131-59; John Hugo Wolfgang Gideon Liebeschuetz, ‘The fall of John Chrysostom’, Nottingham Medieval Studies 29 (1985), 1-31; Gérard J.M. Bartelink: ‘παρρησία dans les œuvres de Jean Chrysostome’, SP 16 (1985), 441-8. 94 In her article, ‘At Constantinople, how often did John Chrysostom preach? Addressing assumptions about the workload of a bishop’, SE 40 (2001), 83-105, Wendy Mayer convincingly demonstrates that the argument of a lack of time as bishop used by scholars to attribute a homily of unknown provenance to Antioch is not valid. The situation is different here, however, in that Chrysostom himself would be explicitly and publicly admitting in front of the court that he had ‘so much time’, τοσαύτην σχολήν, by comparison with the emperor. 95 PG 54, 660.42-4. 96 See Franz Van de Paverd, Zur Geschichte der Messliturgie in Antiocheia und Konstantinopel gegen Ende des vierten Jahrhunderts. Analyse der Quellen bei Joannes Chrysostomos, OCA 187 (Roma, 1971), 69, 422-4; G.P. Raczka, The Lectionary (2015), 198-200. 97 See W. Mayer, ‘At Constantinople, how often did John Chrysostom preach?’ (2001). 98 PG 54, 660.18-663.1, and especially the call to the audience to repeat his speech to them, PG 54, 662.32-663.1. 99 PG 54, 668.45-55. 100 On the relativity of this concept, since the word ‘poor’ seems to design, for Chrysostom, those who have less than two servants, see Hom. 28 in the Epistle to the Hebrews, PG 63, 197.43198.15; Jean-Marie Salamito, ‘La christianisation et les nouvelles règles de la vie sociale’, in Charles and Luce Pietri (eds), Histoire du christianisme, vol. 2, Naissance d’une chrétienté (250430) (Paris, 1995), 675-702, especially 702; Sergio Zincone, Ricchezza e povertà nelle omelie di Giovanni Crisostomo (Roma, 1973).

Are Chrysostom’s Homilies on Hannah a ‘Series’?

119

Let us consider all this precisely, therefore, and go through it with all the others – ‘Give a wise person the opportunity, Scripture says, and he will become wiser’ (Prov. 9:9) – , calling constantly to mind also the fact that not even from the abundance of possessions will anything else accrue to the owners than worries, troubles, fears and dangers; and let us not think that we have less than the rich.101

This address to people who are less rich than others corresponds better to the more socially diverse audience of Antioch than to the court of Constantinople. However, the argument is not absolutely compelling, especially if we notice that Chrysostom’s position seems to have changed during the homily itself. Indeed, the first argument to justify the existence of richness and poverty, at the beginning of the homily, is that ‘we’ owe to poverty the possibility of using the service of craftsmen, since otherwise, nobody would accept to do this work,102 which seems to be observed from the point of view of someone wealthier. We can conclude, then, that the evidence contained in Homily 5, without being really compelling, tends to plead in favour of Antioch, but not specifically for the year 387. However, the fact that it certainly belongs to the same series as Homily 4, where there is also an element in favour of Antioch, contributes to situating it here. As to whether it was really delivered, the complaint against those who were absent and the reference to Pentecost plead in favour of an actual predication, although the final use of Prov. 9:9, which is a frequent quotation used by literate people at the end of a letter, exhibits a more written style.103 To conclude: according to its prologue, Homily 1 was delivered during paschal time of the year 387 in Antioch. This prologue is the only point which also links the other homilies to the year 387. How and to what extent we can rely on it to suggest a more precise dating of the homilies will be the subject of another publication. Homilies 2 and 3 don’t have external references which could confirm that they were preached in 387 and in paschal time, but internal references, a similar structure and a similar way of proceeding to exegesis lead us to think that they were probably preached at the same time and in the same conditions 101 PG 54, 676.15-22: Ταῦτ᾿ οὖν ἅπαντα μετὰ ἀκριβείας σκοποῦντες, καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ἅπασιν ἐπεξιόντες (Δίδου γὰρ, φησὶ, σοφῷ ἀφορμὴν, καὶ σοφώτερος ἔσται), κἀκεῖνο μεμνημένοι διηνεκῶς, ὅτι οὐδὲ ἀπ᾿αὐτῆς τῆς τῶν χρημάτων περιουσίας ἔσται τι πλέον τοῖς κεκτημένοις, ἀλλὰ φροντίδες, καὶ ἀγωνίαι, καὶ φόβοι, καὶ κίνδυνοι· μηδὲν νομίζωμεν ἔλαττον ἔχειν τῶν πλουτούντων. 102 PG 54, 673.9-24. 103 Prov. 9:9 is often quoted at the end of a letter in the monastic correspondence of LowerEgypt. See David-Marc d’Hamonville, note to 9:7-9, Les Proverbes, La Bible d’Alexandrie 17 (Paris, 2000), 213. See, for instance, Basile of Caesarea, Letters 159, 2; 260, 5; Antony, Letters, in Placide Deseille, Saint Antoine, Lettres, Spiritualité Orientale 19 (Abbaye de Bellefontaine, 1976), 56, 82, 91.

120

C. BROC-SCHMEZER

as Homily 1. As for Homilies 4 and 5, they surely belong together in the same sequence of four homilies, composed of the lost homily about the beginning of 1 Reigns 2:1, Homily 4, a lost homily on the day of Pentecost, and Homily 5. Some references might suggest that they were preached in Antioch, but nothing points to the year 387; on the contrary, we would rather situate them in another year. The main question, then, is the link between the two groups, Homilies 1-3 and Homilies 4-5. Except the undeniable fact that Chrysostom’s audience seems to be already familiar with the person of Hannah at the beginning of Homily 4, all the other elements underline the discrepancies between the two groups, and lead us to conclude that, between Homily 3 and Homily 4, something happened which is more than simply the loss of a homily. Could it simply be the use of another method due to a more poetical text? Was it the intervention of another tachygraph? Did Chrysostom preach this homily in a different year? Did he reuse a commentary? Or is it even another author? These questions will not receive a definitive answer before the collation of the more than seventy manuscripts will come to an end. Their purpose is more to show the points of vigilance which we keep in mind while preparing the edition. In any case, if we have to consider that a ‘series’ must contain homilies which follow each other in sequence and are preached in the same context, by the same preacher and with the same purpose, then we can definitely say that the Homilies on Hannah are not a unified ‘series’.

Où et quand l’Éloge des martyrs égyptiens de Jean Chrysostome (CPG 4363) a-t-il été prononcé? Nathalie RAMBAULT, HiSoMA / Sources Chrétiennes, Lyon, France

ABSTRACT It was almost a consensus among ancient scholars that John Chrysostom delivered the homily On the Egyptians Martyrs in Constantinople. But at the beginning of the 21st century, this assertion had been called into question, being insufficiently argued. The recent edition of the text, published in Sources Chrétiennes in 2018, gives the opportunity to reopen the file. Based on textual elements that have not yet been taken into account, we established that the homily On the Egyptian Martyrs had been delivered in Constantinople, probably in the autumn of 401, to honour the memory of monks loyal to Peter II of Alexandria and condemned to the Phaeno copper mines in 375 by Palladius, prefect of Egypt.

Depuis Lenain de Tillemont en 1706, un certain nombre d’érudits et de chercheurs se sont interrogés sur le lieu de prédication de l’Éloge des martyrs égyptiens, sans parvenir à un accord. La récente édition du texte, parue aux Sources Chrétiennes en 20181, quoiqu’elle demeure à peu de choses près fidèle à l’édition de la Patrologie Grecque, nous donne néanmoins l’occasion de rouvrir le dossier et de proposer un éclairage nouveau. Qui sont les martyrs dont la mémoire est honorée dans cette homélie? A-t-elle été prêchée à Antioche ou à Constantinople? Voici les questions auxquelles cette étude va tenter de répondre. Déterminer cela permettrait sans doute de mieux comprendre les allusions à la diplomatie avec l’Égypte qui irriguent le texte et de préciser l’enjeu historique de l’Éloge des martyrs égyptiens. Après avoir rappelé la position des érudits anciens et précisé l’état actuel de la recherche, je montrerai quelles nouvelles pistes peuvent être prises en considération. 1. La position des érudits anciens Les plus prudents parmi les savants affirment que l’homélie ne fournit aucun indice déterminant. Cependant une majorité se dégage en faveur de Constanti1 Jean Chrysostome, Panégyriques de martyrs, tome I, Introduction, texte critique, traduction et notes par Nathalie Rambault avec la collaboration de Pauline Allen, SC 595 (Paris, 2018).

Studia Patristica CXIV, 121-129. © Peeters Publishers, 2021.

122

N. RAMBAULT

nople. Ainsi, Lenain de Tillemont, qui fut le premier à se saisir de la question, plaida en faveur de Constantinople, affirmant que l’importation des reliques était plus courante dans la capitale de l’empire qu’à Antioche2. Mais il n’apporte aucune preuve pour soutenir son opinion. Son argument fut jugé infondé par Bernard de Montfaucon qui pour sa part affirme que les données du texte ne permettent pas de prendre clairement position3. La prudence de Montfaucon fut initialement celle de Baur4 qui plus tard changea d’opinion et plaida en faveur de Constantinople5. Quant à situer l’homélie à Antioche, seul Stilting soutient cette thèse. Il pense que les mines auxquelles sont condamnés les martyrs se situent dans une région voisine d’Antioche6.

2. L’état actuel de la recherche Bien que l’historien Pierre Maraval, dans son ouvrage Lieux saints et pèlerinages d’Orient, se rallie à Constantinople7, la recherche actuelle a classé l’homélie parmi les textes de provenance incertaine. En effet, W. Mayer en 20068 puis P. Allen et moi-même, dans le cadre de notre édition aux Sources Chrétiennes, avons passé en revue plusieurs indications concrètes fournies par le texte. Tout d’abord, la présence dans l’assistance d’habitants de la cité et d’étrangers. En effet, dans le cours de son homélie, Chrysostome prend à témoin l’assistance en précisant: ‘nos compatriotes et ceux venus d’ailleurs’ (πολλοὶ καὶ τῶν ἐγχωρίων καὶ τῶν ἑτέρωθεν ἐληλυθότων)9. Or Antioche et Constantinople sont des cités cosmopolites. Ensuite, l’allusion à un risque sismique. En effet, lorsque Chrysostome dit: ‘Si notre Maître commun est en colère en raison de la multitude de nos péchés, nous pourrons aussitôt le rendre indulgent envers notre cité en plaçant ces corps devant nous comme

2 Louis-Sébastien Lenain de Tillemont, Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire ecclésiastique des six premiers siècles, vol. XI (Paris, 1706), 144-5. 3 Bernard de Montfaucon, Sancti patris nostri Joannis Chrysostomi archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani opera omnia quae exstant, vol. II (Paris, 1718), 698. 4 Chrysostomus Baur, Johannes Chrysostomus und seine Zeit, 2 vol. (München, 1929-30), tr. angl. Mary Gonzaga, John Chrysostom and His Time, 2 vol. (Westminster, MD, 1959-60), I 200, n. 72a. 5 C. Baur, John Chrysostom and His Time (1960), II 76, n. 14. 6 Joannes Stilting, ‘De S. Joanne Chrysostomo episcopo Constantinopolitano et ecclesiæ doctore, prope Comana in Ponto, commentarius historicus’, Acta Sanctorum … Septembris tomus quartus (Anvers, 1753), 505. 7 Voir Pierre Maraval, Lieux saints et pèlerinages d’Orient. Histoire et géographie des origines à la conquête arabe (Paris, 20113), 94, n. 166. 8 Voir St John Chrysostom, The Cult of the Saints. Select homilies and letters introduced, translated, and annotated by Wendy Mayer with Bronwen Neil (New York, 2006), 209. 9 Éloge des martyrs égyptiens, 1, 55-6, SC 595, 338-9.

L’Éloge des martyrs égyptiens de Jean Chrysostome

123

protection’10, il semble faire allusion aux tremblements de terre, car ses textes présentent toujours les séismes comme une manifestation de la colère divine11. Or Antioche et Constantinople sont connues l’une et l’autre pour leurs fréquents séismes12. En outre, dans la cité où l’homélie a été prononcée, les reliques des martyrs ont déjà prouvé leur rôle protecteur lors d’une catastrophe collective, comme l’indique la citation ci-dessus. Or des rituels pénitentiels existaient aussi bien à Antioche qu’à Constantinople13. Enfin, concernant Antioche, nous possédons le témoignage de Sévère et du ménologe jacobite. Or l’hymne de Sévère est de teneur trop générale pour déterminer si ce sont les mêmes martyrs qui sont honorés dans les deux cas et le ménologe ne précise pas les circonstances du martyre de ces personnes14. Néanmoins, bien que ni l’un ni l’autre ne prouve qu’il s’agisse des mêmes saints, aucun des deux témoignages n’exclut cette possibilité. Finalement, une indication des plus intéressantes s’est révélée lorsque nous avons recherché si un culte des martyrs égyptiens était attesté à Constantinople. Jean Chrysostome lui-même, dans la quinzième des Homélies nouvelles, atteste de l’existence d’un culte de martyrs égyptiens. Bien que le nom du martyr ne soit pas mentionné, il est précisé que ses reliques sont déposées dans l’église dédiée à saint Acace et qu’il ‘a récemment germé en Égypte’15. De même, les personnes dont il est question dans l’Éloge des martyrs égyptiens ont été elles aussi récemment martyrisées: ‘Ces faits se sont produits aussi à notre génération’, précise Chrysostome16. Bien qu’il soit impossible de dire si ce martyr fait 10

Ibid. 1, 44-6, SC 595, 336-7. Voir Jean Chrysostome, In Acta Apostolorum homilia 7, 2, PG 60, 66.17; id., homilia 41, 2, PG 60, 291.3-4; Post terrae motum homilia, PG 50, 714.37-9. 12 Pendant les années où Jean fut prêtre à Antioche, trois séismes assez importants eurent lieu: en 387, 394 et 396. Il en évoque certains: voir Jean Chrysostome, Ad populum Antiochenum 2, 2, PG 49, 35.6; In terrae motum et in divitem et Lazarum 1, PG 48, 1027.1-27; Post terrae motum, PG 50, 713-6. Sur la fréquence des séismes à Antioche, voir Emanuela Guidoboni et Jean-Paul Poirier, Quand la terre tremblait (Paris, 2004), 94-101; Glanville Downey, A History of Antioch in Syria from Seleucus to the Arab Conquest (Princeton, 1961), 438. À Constantinople, des tremblements de terre ont eu lieu chaque année entre 400 et 403: voir Alan Cameron, Barbarians and Politics at the Court of Arcadius (Berkeley, Los Angeles, Oxford, 1993), 102. 13 Pendant plusieurs jours des processions parcourent la ville pour la purifier, les fidèles jeûnent, pratiquent des vigiles et se rendent dans les martyria, même les plus éloignés, afin d’apaiser la colère divine: voir Post terrae motum, PG 50, 713-6 pour Antioche. Les mêmes rituels ont été pratiqués à Constantinople lors d’une tempête dévastatrice: voir Jean Chrysostome, Contra ludos et theatra 1, PG 56, 265.3-12. 14 Voir Sévère d’Antioche, Hymne 151, éd. Ernest Walter Brooks, PO 7.5 (Turnhout, 20032), 609-10. Pour le ménologe, voir Additional 17134, f. 85, conservé à la British Library et François Nau, ‘Un martyrologe et douze ménologes syriaques’, PO 10.1 (Paris, 19932), 34. 15 Οὗτος ἐξ Αἰγύπτου πρώην ἐϐλάστησεν: Homélie nouvelle 15, 8, 31-2 (trad. Guillaume Bady, à paraître en SC). Le titre de l’homélie précise le lieu de prédication: voir Athos, Stavronikita 6, f. 138v. 16 ταῦτα ἐπὶ τῆς γενεᾶς ἐγένετο τῆς ἡμετέρας: Éloge des martyrs égyptiens, 2, 74-5, SC 595, 350-1. 11

124

N. RAMBAULT

partie du groupe dont il est question dans notre homélie, cette information laisse néanmoins envisager un récent transfert de reliques de martyrs égyptiens à Constantinople. Voilà l’état de la question. Mais une lecture plus serrée du texte et certaines allusions laissent entrevoir de nouvelles possibilités d’interprétation. Quelles sont ces nouvelles hypothèses et sur quelles données textuelles s’appuient-elles? 3. Nouvelles hypothèses a) Des moines condamnés récemment pour des motifs doctrinaux Le texte donne quatre précisions importantes. Tout d’abord, les martyrs en question, après avoir été torturés17, ont été condamnés à travailler dans des mines de cuivre: ‘Ils furent transférés aux mines où ils devaient extraire du cuivre’18. On sait que la damnatio ad metalla, pour châtier les infractions religieuses, demeura en vigueur au moins jusqu’au 5e siècle19. Précisons que ce type de condamnation émanait uniquement des autorités civiles. Quelles sont les mines de cuivre dont il est question? Eusèbe de Césarée atteste que les chrétiens d’Égypte étaient envoyés aux mines de cuivre de Phaeno – ou Phennésos – en Phénicie, aujourd’hui Khirbat Faynan en Jordanie. Les récentes recherches archéologiques et anthropologiques effectuées sur le site confirment que les personnes condamnées en Égypte aux travaux forcés dans des mines de cuivre étaient envoyées à Phaéno et cela jusqu’au 5e siècle20. Ensuite, comme nous l’avons dit plus haut, la condamnation est assez récente. Elle est également la conséquence de dissensions doctrinales entre chrétiens. C’est ce qu’il faut comprendre lorsque Chrysostome dit: ‘L’Égypte hostile à Dieu et en proie à la plus grande folie, d’où proviennent les bouches athées, d’où proviennent les langues chargées de blasphèmes’21. Enfin, de nombreuses personnes sont

17

Ibid. 1, 95, SC 595, 342-3. Παρεδόθησαν μετάλλοις ἔνθα χαλκὸν ἀνορύττειν: ibid. 2, 64-5, SC 595, 348-9. 19 Voir Mark Gustafson, ‘Condemnation to the Mines in the Later Roman Empire’, HTR 87 (1994), 421-33; Roland Delmaire, ‘Exil, relégation, déportation dans la législation du BasEmpire’, dans Philippe Blaudeau (éd.), Exil et relégation: les tribulations du sage et du saint durant l’Antiquité romaine et chrétienne (Ier – VIe siècle ap. J.-C.), Actes du colloque organisé par le Centre Jean-Paul Picard, Université de Paris XII-Val-de-Marne, 17-18 juin 2005 (Paris, 2008), 115-6. 20 Voir Eusèbe de Césarée, Histoire ecclésiastique VIII, 13, éd. Gustave Bardy, SC 55 (Paris, 19944), 28-32; Mohammad Najjar et Thomas E. Levy, ‘Condemned to the Mines. Copper Production and Christian Persecution’, Biblical Archeology Review 37.6 (2011), 30-9, 34-6. 21 ἐξ Αἰγύπτου μάρτυρες, Αἰγύπτου τῆς θεομάχου καὶ μανικωτάτης καὶ ὅθεν τὰ ἄθεα στόματα, ὅθεν αἱ βλάσφημοι γλῶσσαι: Éloge des martyrs égyptiens, 1, 1-3, SC 595, 332-3. 18

L’Éloge des martyrs égyptiens de Jean Chrysostome

125

passées en jugement: ‘Les tribunaux abondaient en décisions impies et en ordonnances sacrilèges’22. On recherchera donc des événements qui se sont déroulés en Égypte au temps de Jean Chrysostome, dans un contexte de persécutions doctrinales. On pensera évidemment aux querelles entre homéens et nicéens. Puisque ces faits que nous recherchons ont débouché sur une condamnation aux mines, il est clair que les autorités civiles d’Alexandrie sont intervenues et que l’une des Églises concernée était soutenue par l’Empereur. Une seule série d’évènements, impulsés par le pouvoir impérial et ayant abouti à des violences entre chrétiens de partis opposés, avec condamnation aux mines de nicéens, correspond à ce que nous cherchons. À Alexandrie en 375, des troubles se produisirent lors de la prise de fonction de l’évêque arien Lucius désigné par Valens. À cette occasion, le préfet Palladius prononça des sentences contre des partisans de l’évêque nicéen sortant, Pierre II. L’Histoire ecclésiastique de Théodoret conserve une lettre de Pierre dans laquelle l’évêque exilé raconte que vingttrois moines égyptiens ont été envoyés aux mines de Phaeno. Voici ce qu’écrit Pierre, selon le témoignage de Théodoret: ‘Beaucoup furent arrêtés et incarcérés, puis maltraités, écorchés, torturés et livrés aux mines de Phennésos. La plupart étaient des moines qui, par ascèse, vivaient au désert. Au nombre de vingt-trois.’23 Ici le mot ‘désert’ fait référence au centre monastique installé à Nitrie, à quelques kilomètres au sud d’Alexandrie. Que les martyrs dont il est question dans notre homélie soient des moines vivant au désert, cela est incontestable puisque Chrysostome consacre tout un développement à l’éloge du désert24 et qu’il y évoque ‘des citoyens qui d’hommes étaient devenus des anges’25: Ἐν μὲν γὰρ ταῖς πόλεσι τὰ παράνομα ταῦτα καὶ τυραννικὰ ἐτολμᾶτο καθ’ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν ἐπιτάγματα, ἡ δὲ ἔρημος ἀτέλειαν εἶχε τῆς ἀπανθρώπου λειτουργίας. Καὶ τὰ μὲν δικαστήρια ἀνοσίας πράξεως ἔγεμε καὶ ἀθέσμων ἐπιταγμάτων, αἱ δὲ ἐρημίαι τοὺς πάντων ἀνθρώπων εὐνομωτέρους εἶχον πολίτας, τοὺς ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἀγγέλους γεγενημένους, καὶ πρὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν ἡ ἔρημος ἡμιλλᾶτο, τό γε ἐκ τῆς ἀρετῆς τῶν οἰκούντων πολιτῶν. Alors que dans les cités, on osait chaque jour promulguer ces ordonnances criminelles et tyranniques, le désert était exempté de cette inhumanité. Et alors que les tribunaux abondaient en décisions impies et en ordonnances sacrilèges, les déserts étaient peuplés 22 τὰ μὲν δικαστήρια ἀνοσίας πράξεως ἔγεμε καὶ ἀθέσμων ἐπιταγμάτων: ibid. 2, 42-2, SC 595, 346-7. 23 Théodoret de Cyr, Histoire ecclésiastique, IV, 22, 26-7, éd. Léon Parmentier et Günther Christian Hansen, GCS NF 5 (Berlin, 19983), annotation par Jean Bouffartigue, introduction Annick Martin, traduction Pierre Canivet, SC 530 (Paris, 2009), 284-5. 24 Éloge des martyrs égyptiens, 2, 36-46, SC 595, 346-7. 25 Chez Chrysostome, les moines sont par excellence des anges sur terre et leur vie est un modèle de vie angélique: voir Laurence Brottier, L’appel des ‘demi-chrétiens’ à la ‘vie angélique’. Jean Chrysostome prédicateur: entre idéal monastique et réalité mondaine (Paris, 2005), 367-71.

126

N. RAMBAULT

de citoyens plus respectueux des lois que tous les hommes, des citoyens qui d’hommes étaient devenus des anges; et le désert rivalisait avec le ciel, au moins par la vertu des citoyens qui l’habitaient26.

b) Une translation de reliques À ce sujet, l’homélie nous apprend deux choses. Tout d’abord, que les reliques en question viennent d’Égypte: ‘d’Égypte sont venus des martyrs’27. Ensuite, que le culte de ces martyrs a été établi en Égypte même peu après leur mort dans les mines: ‘Les persécuteurs obtinrent comme résultat que les martyrs soient plus éclatants et plus prospères. Leur corps s’attira une influence plus considérable et plus grande’28. Cette translation a-t-elle lieu à Antioche ou à Constantinople? À Antioche, de nombreuses reliques de martyrs sont issues de translations. Néanmoins, il est à noter que ce transfert a eu lieu alors qu’Antioche était encore une résidence impériale. Nous ne trouvons pas trace d’une réception de reliques à Antioche postérieure au règne de Valens29. Au contraire, à Constantinople, l’importation des reliques s’accélère à partir du règne de Théodose 1er, et devient dès lors une pratique bien établie30. C’est pourquoi établir la prédication de l’Éloge des martyrs égyptiens à Constantinople est beaucoup plus vraisemblable et pertinent qu’à Antioche. Mais peut-on trouver à Constantinople la trace du culte d’un groupe de martyrs égyptiens condamnés aux mines? Oui. Le Typicon de la Grande Église, daté du 10e siècle et le synaxaire de l’Église de Constantinople du 11e siècle attestent la commémoration de dix martyrs condamnés par un préfet d’Égypte31. Malheureusement son nom n’est pas mentionné. Néanmoins, le texte du 26

Éloge des martyrs égyptiens, 2, 39-46, SC 595, 346-7. Ibid 1, 1 et 3, SC 595, 332-3. 28 Ibid. 1, 89-94, SC 595, 340-1. 29 Citons par exemple, les reliques de l’évêque Ignace transférées le 17 octobre 360 à l’initiative de Constance: voir Jean-Noël Guinot, ‘L’histoire du siège d’Antioche relu par Jean Chrysostome: idéalisation ou déformation intentionnelle?’, Topoi. Orient-Occident, Suppl. 5 (2004), 477, n. 76; les reliques de Julien sous le règne de Valens, celles de Barlaam et Romain: voir SC 595, 34. 38; celles de Mélèce. 30 Voir John T. Wortley, ‘The earliest relic-importations to Constantinople’, dans id., Studies on the Cult of Relics in Byzantium up to 1204, Variorum collected studies 935 (Farnham, 2009), 209-10, et P. Maraval, Lieux saints (2011), 93-4. 31 Voir Le Typicon de la Grande Église. Ms Sainte-Croix n° 40, Xe siècle. Introduction, texte critique, traduction et notes par J. Mateos, tome 1, Le cycle des douze mois, OCA 165 (Roma, 1962), 305; ‘Synaxarium ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae e codice Sirmondiano nunc Berolinensi adiectis synaxariis selectis opera et studio H. Delehaye’, Propylaeum ad Acta Sanctorum Novembris (Bruxelles, 1902), 732. Ces martyrs se nomment Marcien, Nicandre, Apollon, Léonide, Arios, Gorgios, Hyperéchios, Sélénios, Iréné et Pambon. L’unique autre culte mentionné d’un groupe de martyrs égyptiens est celui des dix mille moines brûlés dans les grottes de Nitrie sur l’ordre de Théophile en 401. 27

L’Éloge des martyrs égyptiens de Jean Chrysostome

127

synaxaire précise que ces Égyptiens sont morts après avoir souffert la faim, la soif et le froid32, c’est-à-dire dans les conditions d’épuisement que les anthropologues en charge du site de Phaéno ont décrites. À quel moment de l’épiscopat de Jean Chrysostome cette translation depuis l’Égypte s’est-elle réalisée? c) Un éloge paradoxal de l’Égypte et d’Alexandrie dans un contexte diplomatique Dès le début de son mandat, en 398, la diplomatie avec Alexandrie occupe le nouvel évêque de Constantinople33, puis l’arrivée des Longs frères à l’automne 401 intensifie cette activité. Notre homélie se fait l’écho de cette activité puisqu’elle brosse un tableau très élogieux des Égyptiens et d’Alexandrie34: Καὶ καθάπερ ἐπὶ τῆς τῶν ὠνίων εὐετηρίας, ὅταν ἴδωσιν οἱ τὰς πόλεις οἰκοῦντες πλείω τῆς χρείας τῶν οἰκούντων γενομένην τὴν φορὰν καὶ πρὸς τὰς ἔξω διαπέμπουσι πόλεις, ὁμοῦ τε τὴν παρ’ ἑαυτῶν ἐπιδεικνύμενοι φιλοφροσύνην καὶ πρὸς τῇ τούτων περιουσίᾳ μετ’εὐκολίας ὧν ἂν δέωνται πάλιν ἀντωνούμενοι παρ’ἐκείνων, οὕτω καὶ οἱ Αἰγύπτιοι πεποιήκασιν ἐπὶ τῶν τῆς εὐσεϐείας ἀθλητῶν. Ἰδόντες τῇ τοῦ θεοῦ χάριτι πολλὴν παρ’ ἑαυτοῖς γενομένην τὴν φοράν, οὐ κατέκλεισαν ἐν τῇ πόλει τὸ μέγα τοῦτο τοῦ θεοῦ δῶρον, ἀλλὰ πανταχοῦ τῆς γῆς ἐξέπεμψαν τοὺς τῶν ἀγαθῶν θησαυρούς, τήν τε αὑτῶν φιλαδελφίαν ἐπιδεικνύμενοι καὶ τὸν κοινὸν πάντων δεσπότην δοξάζοντες καὶ τὴν αὑτῶν παρὰ πᾶσι κοσμοῦντες πόλιν καὶ μητρόπολιν τῆς οἰκουμένης ἁπάσης ἀποφαίνοντες. Εἰ γὰρ ψυχραὶ καὶ εὐτελεῖς ἀφορμαὶ καὶ πρὸς τὸν παρόντα βίον ἡμῖν συντελοῦσαι χάριτες μόνον ἴσχυσαν τοῦτο τὸ γέρας πολλαῖς τῶν πόλεων παρασχεῖν, τὴν οὐδὲν τούτων τῶν ἐπικήρων καὶ φθαρτῶν χαριζομένην, ἀλλ’ ἄνδρας πολλὴν ταῖς κληρωθείσαις αὐτοῖς πόλεσι καὶ μετὰ τελευτὴν κεκτημένους ἀσφάλειαν, πῶς οὐ δίκαιον μάλιστα πασῶν ταύτης παρ’αὐτῶν τῆς προεδρίας τυχεῖν; Il en va comme des marchandises, les bonnes années: lorsque les habitants d’une cité voient que leur production dépasse les besoins des habitants, ils l’exportent vers les autres cités, démontrant leur bienveillance en même temps qu’ils échangent facilement avec les autres leurs surplus en achetant les marchandises dont ils ont besoin. C’est ce que les Égyptiens ont fait dans le cas des athlètes de la piété: lorsqu’ils ont vu que chez eux, par la grâce de Dieu, la production avait été abondante, ils n’ont pas mis ce grand présent de Dieu sous clé dans leur cité, mais ils ont exporté leurs trésors de bienfaits par toute la terre, démontrant ainsi leur amitié fraternelle en même temps qu’ils glorifiaient le Maître commun à tous, embellissaient leur cité aux yeux de tous et rendaient manifeste son statut de métropole de la terre entière. Si, en effet, 32 Voir ‘Synaxarium ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae’ (1902), 732: λιμῷ καὶ δίψει καὶ κρύει ταλαιπωρήσαντες ἐτέλεσαν. Aux 9e et 10e siècles, ces martyrs sont fêtés le 5 juin. 33 C’est en effet à l’initiative de Jean qu’une délégation où figurent des membres du clergé d’Alexandrie part à Rome en 398 pour mettre fin au schisme d’Antioche: voir John N.D. Kelly, Golden Mouth: The Story of John Chrysostom, Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop (London, 19962), 117-8. 34 Éloge des martyrs égyptiens, 1, 5-25, SC 595, 332-5 (traduction légèrement retouchée).

128

N. RAMBAULT

de simples ressources sans grande valeur et des faveurs qui contribuent uniquement à notre existence présente sont capables de procurer ce privilège à bien des cités, n’est-il pas juste qu’une cité qui ne fait la faveur de rien parmi ces marchandises périssables et corruptibles, mais d’hommes qui, même après leur mort, apportent une grande sécurité aux cités qui ont hérité d’eux, obtienne de leur part cette première place au-dessus de toutes?

Comme on peut le lire dans cet éloge, Chrysostome souligne la générosité dont fait preuve Alexandrie dans l’exportation des reliques de ses martyrs, sa bienveillance (φιλοφροσύνη), son amitié fraternelle (φιλαδελφίαν). Les Égyptiens sont présentés comme des bienfaiteurs et Alexandrie comme ‘la métropole de la terre entière’. Au-delà des lieux communs relevant du genre encomiastique, cet éloge est révélateur. Précisons qu’il s’agit d’ailleurs d’un éloge paradoxal car plus loin, sans être nommée explicitement, Alexandrie fait indirectement l’objet d’un blâme. Le passage en question se trouve dans l’éloge du désert (2, 36-46) cité ci-dessus et, bien que Chrysostome généralise son propos, nul doute qu’Alexandrie est concernée puisque la répression y fut sanglante au temps de la persécution de nos martyrs. Comment comprendre cet éloge paradoxal? La réponse à cette question va nous permettre de préciser l’époque où la translation des reliques a pu avoir lieu. Un tel éloge reflète en effet la position délicate dans laquelle se trouve Jean Chrysostome à ce moment précis. À quel moment l’évêque de Constantinople se trouve-t-il donc dans un tel embarras dans ses relations diplomatiques avec Alexandrie? Et à quel moment de ses relations avec Théophile d’Alexandrie peut-il encore faire l’éloge d’Alexandrie tout en déguisant le blâme qu’il lui destine? Vraisemblablement à l’automne 401, lorsque les Longs Frères, persécutés par Théophile et chassés de Nitrie, arrivent à Constantinople, sollicitant la protection de Chrysostome et demandant justice35. En tout cas, avant que leurs demandes ne deviennent trop difficiles à gérer pour l’évêque36. À ce moment-là, Jean est humainement obligé d’accueillir la délégation dont il admire sans doute le courage et soutient en son for intérieur le combat. Cependant son statut d’évêque de la capitale l’oblige aussi à ménager son confrère Théophile et à tout faire pour ne pas rompre avec lui37. D’ailleurs le vocabulaire employé dans l’éloge de l’Égypte, la mention de la générosité, de la bienveillance et de l’amitié, font penser que ces reliques constituent un don, un présent. Que ce présent ait été apporté par une délégation de moines égyptiens, les Longs Frères, l’éloge de la vie au désert, nous en convaincra, s’il en est besoin. Et quoi de mieux qu’offrir des reliques pour obtenir bienveillance, protection et secours?

35

Sur l’affaire des Longs Frères, voir J.N.D. Kelly, Golden Mouth (1996), 191-202. Sur l’activité déployée par les moines d’Égypte pour obtenir réparation, voir Palladios, Dialogue sur la vie de Jean Chrysostome, VII, 115-VIII, 22, éd. Anne-Marie Malingrey et Philippe Leclercq, SC 341 (Paris, 1988), 153-9. 37 Voir J.N.D. Kelly, Golden Mouth (1996), 195-7. 36

L’Éloge des martyrs égyptiens de Jean Chrysostome

129

Qui a pu autoriser cette translation? La législation impériale encadre de manière très stricte la translation de reliques comme en témoigne l’édit promulgué le 26 février 386: Que personne ne transfère d’un endroit à un autre un corps inhumé; que personne ne partage, que personne n’achète le corps d’un martyr. Mais que l’on ait la possibilité, là où est enterré le corps d’un saint, d’y ajouter, pour la vénération de ce lieu qui mérite d’être appelé martyrium, la construction que l’on voudra38.

En théorie, seuls l’empereur en tant que Pontifex Maximus ou un gouverneur de province en cas d’attaque ennemie, d’inondation ou de tremblement de terre peuvent autoriser l’exhumation d’un corps et sa translation39. Mais dans la pratique courante, les évêques en ont également l’initiative. D’ailleurs Jean Chrysostome lui-même atteste cette pratique dans une lettre où l’on apprend qu’Otreius d’Arabissos a de nombreuses reliques sous sa responsabilité et, qu’à la demande de Jean, il peut en envoyer en Phénicie au prêtre johannite Rufin40. Dans le cas qui nous intéresse, l’autorisation d’offrir ces reliques a pu être octroyée par Dioscore, l’évêque d’Hermoupolis qui dans le même contexte que les moines de Nitrie dont il a été un des compagnons, est lui aussi persécuté par Théophile41. Conclusion À partir d’éléments du texte qui n’avaient pas encore été pris en compte, nous avons établi que l’Éloge des martyrs égyptiens avait été prononcé à Constantinople, vraisemblablement à l’automne 401 et qu’il honorait la mémoire de moines fidèles à Pierre II d’Alexandrie, condamnés aux mines de cuivre de Phaéno en 375 par le préfet Palladius, et nous avons émis l’hypothèse que leurs reliques avaient été apportées par les Longs Frères lors de leur ambassade. Cette nouvelle interprétation permet de mieux comprendre l’éloge du désert et l’image paradoxale de l’Égypte et d’Alexandrie dans ce texte. De même, certains éléments, comme la condamnation des opposants à l’orthodoxie et l’éloge des martyrs qui résistent à l’hérésie, peuvent aussi être compris en référence à l’actualité. Enfin, cette nouvelle interprétation met en lumière l’enjeu diplomatique du texte en reflétant la position délicate dans laquelle se trouve Jean Chrysostome à ce moment-là, pris en tenaille entre les moines de Nitrie et Théophile d’Alexandrie. 38

Code Théodosien IX, 17, 7. Traduction J. Rougé et R. Delmaire dans Les lois religieuses des empereurs romains de Constantin à Théodose II, tome II, Code théodosien I-XV, Code justinien, Constitutions sirmondiennes, SC 531 (Paris, 2009), 172-4. 39 Voir J.T. Wortley, ‘The earliest relic-importations to Constantinople’ (2009), 211. 40 Voir Jean Chrysostome, Lettre 126, 4 à Rufin, PG 52, 687.10-5; Lettre de Vigilius de Trente à Jean Chrysostome, PL 13, 552-8. 41 Si l’on en croit Palladios, Dioscore est encore en Égypte lorsque les Longs Frères arrivent à Constantinople: voir Palladios, Dialogue, VII, 129-31, SC 341, 155.

Studying the Quod Christus sit Deus (CPG 4326): A New Perspective about Chrysostom’s Polemical Works? Anthony GLAISE, Université de Tours, France

ABSTRACT Since the first edition of the Quod Christus sit Deus in 1966, scholars have not shown any interest in this text and, as a consequence, it has never been properly analyzed. However, our present concern is the manuscript tradition of this text. How has this text been received and understood through the centuries? For this purpose, we have to focus on sequences of texts and the marginal remarks in the manuscripts. In the present case, these data shed much light on how the polemical corpus of John Chrysostom was received by copyists. We can make an initial observation: the inclusion of the Quod Christus sit Deus in a larger range of texts indicates that the copyists were aware of the strong thematic and stylistic proximity between this and other Chrysostomian texts, especially the polemical ones (for instance, the Discourses against the Jews, those against Anomeans or the Discourse on Blessed Babylas). Furthermore, the Quod Christus sit Deus has been copied together with hagiographies and non-polemical texts by John Chrysostom or other authors. This phenomenon of the concatenation of texts is relevant to study the reception of the Quod Christus sit Deus as a polemical and rhetorical text.

Despite the extensiveness of the manuscript tradition of John Chrysostom’s works, from the 16th century to our times, scholars and editors still edit, translate or comment on these works. For many years, a new field of research has been emerging from this uninterrupted flow of commentaries and translations: studying the manuscript tradition per se, in its materiality and its historicity, and not as a mere channel of textual transmission.1 To explore this perspective, I will deal with a text which is largely ignored by scholars: the Quod Christus sit Deus.2 This short monograph gathers one hundred and thirty testimonia to

1 See Patrick Andrist, ‘The Physiognomy of Greek contra Iudaeos manuscript books in the Byzantine era: a Preliminary Survey’, in Robert Bonfil, Oded Irshai, Guy G. Stroumsa and Rina Talgam (eds), Jews in Byzantium. Dialectics of Minority and Majority Cultures (Leiden, 2012), 549-85, or id., ‘Pour un répertoire des manuscrits de polémique antijudaïque’, Byzantion 70 (2000), 270-306. 2 The last edition of the Greek text was made in an unpublished dissertation: Norman G. McKendrick, Quod Christus sit Deus of Saint John Chrysostom (Ann Arbor, MI, 1966). It was

Studia Patristica CXIV, 131-142. © Peeters Publishers, 2021.

132

A. GLAISE

demonstrate the divinity of Christ and was addressed to those who deny it.3 Analyzing this text philologically through the manuscripts which transmit it, and studying the content of these manuscripts, allows us to see how this work has been received by copyists over centuries. So, we would be able to have a fresh point of view on Chrysostom’s polemical works, and particularly on the Discourses against the Jews. To this end, I will firstly describe the main features of the manuscript tradition of the Quod Christus sit Deus and then put it in the larger perspective of the literary analysis of Chrysostom’s works. Patterns of concatenation in the manuscript tradition First of all, I can already state that the manuscript tradition of the Quod Christus sit Deus is not plentiful. Indeed, it has been copied in fifteen witnesses (if I include an Arabic witness, which is in bold characters in the following list): • Basel, Universitätsbibliothek, B II 15, s. IX • Jerusalem, Patriarchal Library, Hagios Sabas 3, s. X • Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, gr. 812, s. XI • Roma, Biblioteca Angelica, gr. 110, s. XI • Sinai, Saint Catherine’s Monastery, gr. 379, s. XI • Torino, Biblioteca Nazionale Universitaria, B I 10, s. XI • Venezia, Bibioteca Nazionale Marciana, gr. 107, s. XI • Venezia, Bibioteca Nazionale Marciana, gr. 114, s. XI • Wien, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, theol. gr. 26, s. XI • Venezia, Bibioteca Nazionale Marciana, gr. 568, s. XII • Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, arabe 158, s. XIV • Napoli, Biblioteca Nazionale Vittorio-Emanuele III, II A 30, s. XV • Oxford, Bodleian Library, Auctarium E.3.11, s. XVII • Oxford, Bodleian Library, Auctarium E.3.13, s. XVII • Città del Vaticano, Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana, Arch. del Capit. di San Pietro, C 151, s. XVI-XVII • Athini, Ethnikē Bibliothēkē tēs Hellados, Metochion tou Panaghiou Taphou 659, s. XVII

translated by Margaret A. Schatkin and Paul W. Harkins in John Chrysostom, Apologist. Discourses on Blessed Babylas and against the Greeks (Washington, DC, 1985). 3 On the structure of the text, see Anthony Glaise, ‘“Nous prendrons les livres des Juifs, qui ont crucifié le Christ”: Quelques remarques sur le Quod Christus sit Deus attribué à Jean Chrysostome (CPG 4326)’, in Guillaume Bady and Diane Cuny (eds), Les polémiques religieuses du Ier au IVe siècle de notre ère. Hommage à B. Pouderon (Paris, 2019), 201-14.

133

Studying the Quod Christus sit Deus

Among them, I can define two patterns of concatenation of the texts which have been copied in these manuscripts.4 That is, three among the older manuscripts (the ninth-century Basileensis B II 15, the tenth-century Hagios Sabas 3 and the eleventh-century Marcianus gr. 114) gather together the Quod Christus sit Deus and texts which are commonly ascribed to the Antiochean period of the John Chrysostom’s life (before 397).5 I can render a partial account of this phenomenon in the following table: Basileensis B II 156 Marcianus gr. 1147 Sabaiticus 38 De profectu evangelii

ff. 271v-278v v

r

ff. 45v-51v

– v

v

Comparatio regis et monachi

ff. 281 -285

ff. 225 -230

Lacuna

De mansuetudine

ff. 285r-289r

ff. 230v-236r

Lacuna

v

v

ff. 236 -239

ff. 78r-79r

De precatione, I

v

ff. 291 -295

r

–

ff. 13r-15v

De precatione, II

ff. 295r-299r

–

De continentia

Quod Christus sit Deus

ff. 289 -291

r

r

v

r

ff. 314 -333

r

v

ff. 15v-19r v

ff. 79v-95r

v

ff. 239v-264

De eleemosyna

ff. 249 -257

ff. 215 -225

ff. 69r-76r

In dictum Pauli: Oportet haereses esse

ff. 371v-377r

–

ff. 51v-59v

In Iuventinum et Maximinum

ff. 439v-443v

ff. 264v-269r

ff. 95r-98v

Flavian I of Antioch, Homilia de anathemate

ff. 447r-451r

ff. 269r-273v

f. 98v (des. mut.)

4

r

I exclude from my study all the manuscripts which follow a particular scheme of concatenation: the Torino, Biblioteca Nazionale Universitaria, B I 10 and the latest manuscripts (15th17th centuries). 5 On this chronology, see Robert E. Carter, ‘The Chronology of Saint John Chrysostom’s Early Life’, Traditio 18 (1962), 357-64. See also Wendy Mayer, The Homilies of St John Chrysostom: Provenance. Reshaping the Foundations, OCA 273 (Roma, 2005), which underlines how difficult it is to date Chrysostom’s works from the Antiochean period or from the Constantinopolitan one. Nevertheless, I tried to confirm in my PhD thesis that the Quod Christus sit Deus can be dated from the Antiochean period. 6 To have a complete description of this important manuscript, see Gustav Meyer and Max Burckhardt, Die mittelalterlichen Handschriften der Universitätsbibliothek Basel, Abteilung B. Theologische Pergamenthandschriften. Erster Band: Signaturen B I 1-B VIII 10 (Basel, 1960), 150-69. 7 Elpidio Mioni, Bibliothecae Divi Marci Venetiarum codices graeci manuscripti. Indices omnium codicum graecorum. Thesaurus antiquus (Roma, 1981), I 161-2. 8 Athanasios Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Ἱεροσολυμιτικὴ βιβλιοθήκη ἤτοι κατάλογος τῶν ἐν ταῖς βιβλιοθήκαις τοῦ ἀποστολικοῦ τε καὶ καθολικοῦ ὀρθοδόξου πατριαρχικοῦ θρόνου τῶν Ἱεροσολύμων καὶ πάσης Παλαιστίνης ἀποκειμένων ἑλληνικῶν κωδίκων (Bruxelles, 1963), II 9-11.

A. GLAISE

134

Sequences of texts which I find in all these manuscripts appear in bold characters, showing how firm patterns of concatenation have been elaborated through the centuries. However, in these manuscripts, concatenation affects texts which have no thematic proximity: moral homilies, panegyrics, polemical works; only their Antiochean origin could make this corpus coherent. In the second pattern of concatenation, texts have not been collected with a chronological approach, but with a thematic one. It concerns six witnesses out of fifteen. In this pattern, the Quod Christus sit Deus was joined to polemical works, to homilies or to a treaty like On the priesthood, as can be seen in the following table: Marcianus Angelicus Parisinus Marcianus Sinaiticus Vindob. theol. gr. 1079 gr. 11010 gr. 81211 gr. 56812 gr. 37913 gr. 2614 Against the ff. 2r-51r Anomoeans, I-V

ff. ff. 1r-37v r v 124 -147

Against the ff. 51r-79r Anomoeans, XI, VII-VIII

ff. ff. 38r-60r ff. 32r-50v v v 147 -162

Ad eos, qui scandalizati sunt

ff. 79r-121v

ff. ff. 162v-185r 60r-95v

Quod Christus sit Deus

ff. 121v-147v

ff. 52r-65r ff. ff. 156r-176v 188r-217v

ff. ff. 234v-262v 120r-140v (des. mut.)

Homilies against the Jews

ff. 148r-233v (I, IV-VIII)

ff. 65v-110r (I, IV-VIII)

ff. 56r-120v (I, IV-VIII)

9

ff. 96r-155v (I, IV-VIII)

ff. 1r-32r

ff. 51v-85r

ff. 85v-154v (I, IV-VIII)

ff. ff. 1r-53r r r 140 -177 ff. ff. 53r-84r r v 177 -199 ff. ff. 84v-139v 199v-240r

ff. 140r-234v (I, IV-VIII)

Elpidio Mioni, Bibliothecae Divi Marci Venetiarum codices graeci manuscripti (1981), I 151-2. 10 Robert E. Carter, Codices Chrysostomici Graeci V, Codicum Italiae pars prior (Paris, 1983), 173-4. 11 Henri Omont, Inventaire sommaire des manuscrits grecs de la Bibliothèque nationale. Ancien fonds grec. Théologie (Paris, 1886), 150-1. 12 Elpidio Mioni, Bibliothecae Divi Marci Venetiarum codices graeci manuscripti (1981), I 472-3. 13 Murad Kamil, Catalogue of all manuscripts in the Monastery of St. Catharine on Mount Sinai (Wiesbaden, 1970), 78; Victor Gardthausen, Catalogus codicum Graecorum Sinaiticorum (Oxford, 1886), 88. 14 Herbert Hunger and Otto Kresten, Katalog der griechischen Handschriften der österreichischen Nationalbibliothek. Teil 3.1. Codices Theologici 1-100 (Wien, 1976), 43-4.

135

Studying the Quod Christus sit Deus

Marcianus Angelicus Parisinus Marcianus Sinaiticus Vindob. theol. gr. 1079 gr. 11010 gr. 81211 gr. 56812 gr. 37913 gr. 2614 In illud: Vidi Dominum

ff. 307v-337v (hom. I-III, VI)

ff. 188v-211r (hom. I, IV, II, III, V, VI)

ff. 176v-196v (hom. I-III, VI)

On the priesthood

ff. 234r-307r

ff. 4r-51v

ff. – 196v-249v

ff. 174r-188r (hom. IV, VI) ff. 218r-232v (hom. I-III)

ff. 300v-338r (hom. I-VI)

ff. 263r-280v (hom. II-III, VI [inc. mut.])

ff. 2r-56r

–

Once again, I can highlight a firm pattern of concatenation of texts: the whole corpus is dealing with either debates ad externos or ad internos literature, on Scripture or on the meaning of the priesthood. Moreover, there is greater proximity of the Quod Christus sit Deus with the Discourses against the Jews in five manuscripts out of six. I will study this link later. The Quod Christus sit Deus, a book for everyone and no one? A comparison with the Discourses against the Jews Also, this proximity allows us to deal with the topic of the title of the Quod Christus sit Deus. Indeed, most editors have entitled it (in its Latin version) Contra Iudaeos et gentiles, quod Christus sit Deus (Against Jews and Greeks, on the divinity of Christ).15 Nonetheless, this hides a huge point for our purpose. Actually, there are two versions of this title: on one hand, the work is aimed at the Jews and the Greeks; on the other hand, it is aimed exclusively at the Greeks.16 These two versions are clearly distributed according to the patterns of concatenation I have defined earlier: Πρὸς Ἕλληνας ἀπόδειξις ὅτι θεὸς ἐστὶν ὁ Χριστός Demonstration against the pagans, that Christ is God

Πρός τε Ἰουδαίους καὶ Ἕλληνας ἀπόδειξις ὅτι θεὸς ἐστὶν ὁ Χριστός Demonstration against the Jews and the pagans, that Christ is God

9th century

Basileensis B II 15

–

10th century

Sabaiticus 3

–

15

We can see this in the editions of Henry Savile (1612), Fronton du Duc (1613), Bernard de Montfaucon (1718-1738) and Jacques-Paul Migne (1862). 16 Anthony Glaise, ‘Quelques remarques sur le Quod Christus sit Deus’ (2019), 202-3.

A. GLAISE

136

Πρὸς Ἕλληνας ἀπόδειξις ὅτι θεὸς ἐστὶν ὁ Χριστός Demonstration against the pagans, that Christ is God

Πρός τε Ἰουδαίους καὶ Ἕλληνας ἀπόδειξις ὅτι θεὸς ἐστὶν ὁ Χριστός Demonstration against the Jews and the pagans, that Christ is God

11th century

Marcianus gr. 114 Taurinensis B I 1017

Angelicus gr. 110 Sinaiticus gr. 379 Parisinus gr. 812 Marcianus gr. 107 Vindobonensis theol. gr. 26

12th century

–

Marcianus gr. 568

14 century

Parisinus arab. 158 (Arabic witness)

–

15th century

–

Neapolitanus II A 30

–

Oxoniensis Auct. E.3.11 (Savile’s Codex M) Vaticanus, Arch. Capit. San Pietro C 151

th

th

17 century

So, the long version of the title can be found in the latest manuscripts, which follow the second pattern and bring closer together the Quod Christus sit Deus and the Discourses against the Jews. The only exception is the Arabic witness, which has been likely translated from one of the oldest manuscripts. It shows us that the long version is a gloss and that the short one is probably the nearest to the intention of the first ‘editors’. So, this gloss leads us to put a question in a provocative way: why has a copyist, one fine day, decided to add ‘Jews’ to the title of the Quod Christus sit Deus? First, the second pattern of concatenation of texts clearly highlights the polemical feature of the Quod Christus sit Deus. Indeed, the proximity with polemical texts seems to be obvious if we consider the aim defined by the author himself at the beginning of the text:18

17 This manuscript does not follow the patterns I have defined earlier, but it seems to have tight philological relationships with the earliest witnesses (this point is precisely studied in my PhD thesis). 18 Norman G. McKendrick, Quod Christus sit Deus of Saint John Chrysostom (1966), 38-9; M.A. Schatkin and P.W. Harkins, John Chrysostom, Apologist (1985), 188 (translation slightly modified).

Studying the Quod Christus sit Deus

Εἰ γὰρ δὴ λέγοι ὁ Ἕλλην· Πόθεν δῆλον ὅτι θεὸς ἐστὶν ὁ Χριστὸς; – τοῦτο γὰρ δὴ κατασκευάσαι πρῶτον καὶ τὰ ἄλλα πάντα ἕπεται – οὐκ ἀπ’ οὐρανοῦ ποιησόμεθα τὴν ἀπόδειξιν οὐδὲ ἀπ’ ἄλλων τῶν τοιούτων. Ἐὰν γὰρ εἴπω πρὸς αὐτὸν ὅτι οὐρανὸν ἔκτισεν ἢ γῆν ἢ θάλατταν, οὐκ ἀνέξεταί μου· οὐ πιστεύει γάρ. … Πόθεν οὖν αὐτὸν ἐνάξομεν, καὶ μάλιστα ὅταν ἰδιώτης ᾖ; Πόθεν δὲ ἄλλοθεν ἀλλ’ ἢ ἀπὸ τῶν παρ’ ἐμοῦ καὶ αὐτοῦ κοινῶς καὶ ἀναντιρρήτως ὁμολογουμένων καὶ πρὸς ἃ ἀμφιβόλως οὐκ ἔχει; Ὅτι μὲν γὰρ οὐρανὸν ἐποίησε καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ἅπερ εἶπον οὐκ ἂν ἀνάσχοιτο πεισθῆναι τέως. Τίνα οὖν ἐστιν ἃ καὶ ἐκεῖνος ὁμολογεῖ αὐτὸν πεποιηκέναι καὶ οὐκ ἂν ἀντείποι; Ὅτι τὸ Χριστιανῶν γένος αὐτὸς ἐφύτευσεν.

137

Suppose the pagan should say: ‘Where is the proof that Christ is God?’ – since I must first lay this as a foundation and everything follows from it – I shall not draw my demonstration from heaven or any such divine cause. For if I say to him that created heaven, earth or sea, he will not stand for this as proof, since he is not a believer. … How shall I persuade him, especially if he is ignorant? What source of proof can I use other than one on which we both together agree, one which is undeniable and admits no doubt? If I base my argument on the fact that he created heaven and the other things of which I spoke, the pagan would not yet accept to believe me. What is there which even he admits that Christ has done and which he would not deny? That from Christ came the people of Christians.

By asking rhetorical questions to a fictitious opponent and by looking for the most convincing proof, the author is using traditional rhetorical tools he uses elsewhere in polemical homilies. Nevertheless, this point heightens a peculiar proximity. Indeed, in the whole group of manuscripts which follows the thematic pattern of concatenation, the Quod Christus sit Deus is near the Discourses against the Jews, as noted earlier. Furthermore, the Quod Christus sit Deus has been considered as the seventh Discourse against the Jews in three of these manuscripts (the Parisinus gr. 812, the Vindobonensis theol. gr. 26 and the Sinaiticus gr. 379, all copied in the 11th century), as we can see, for instance, at folio 120v of the Sinaitic manuscript (figure 1).19 Because these three manuscripts contain the Discourses against the Jews, I, IV-VIII (six texts all told),20 this number ‘seven’ (ζʹ) is self-evident: the Quod Christus sit Deus, which is an independent work, has been joined with the other Discourses. So, this detail informs us about the history of the manuscript tradition of the Quod Christus sit Deus, but it shows also that many copyists considered that the Quod Christus sit Deus and the Discourses against

19 The whole manuscript is available on the website of the Library of Congress: https://www. loc.gov/item/00279380253-ms/. 20 About this corpus, see Wendy Pradels, Rudolf Brändle and Martin Heimgartner, ‘The Sequence and Dating of the Series of John Chrysostom’s Eight Discourses Adversus Iudaeos’, ZAC 6 (2002), 90-116.

138

A. GLAISE

Figure 1: Sinai, Saint Catherine’s Monastery, gr. 379, f. 120v (Library of Congress, Collection of Manuscripts in St Catherine’s Monastery, Mt Sinai).

the Jews have such a likeness that they copied them as a group, even if the main opponent of the Quod Christus sit Deus is a Greek (or ‘pagan’), as I said. This phenomenon can be explained in a twofold way. First, in a ‘material’ way: in these manuscripts, the Quod Christus sit Deus is entitled Demonstration against Jews and pagans. So, we can easily understand why the copyists joined it as a new discourse with the corpus of the Discourses against the Jews. Then, in a ‘thematic’ way. Indeed, if the main opponent is a Greek, Jews are still evoked in the text itself. For instance, John Chrysostom wants to lay the foundations of his demonstration on the Ancient Testament. So, he alludes to the ‘books of the Jews’, as we can read:21 Ὥστε μηδὲ ὕποπτον γενέσθαι τὸν λόγον, τὰ βιβλία ἀπὸ τῶν σταυρωσάντων αὐτὸν οἴσομεν Ἰουδαίων καὶ τὰς περὶ αὐτοῦ μαρτυρίας ἐκ τῶν παρ’ αὐτοῖς φυλαττομένων γραφῶν ἔτι καὶ νῦν ἀναγνωσόμεθα. 21

In order to avoid my discourse to become suspicious, I shall bring forward the books of the Jews who crucified him and I shall go through the testimonies about him which comes from the Scriptures, over which they have kept guard until now.

Norman G. McKendrick, Quod Christus sit Deus of Saint John Chrysostom (1966), 42; M.A. Schatkin and P.W. Harkins, John Chrysostom, Apologist (1985), 191 (translation slightly modified).

Studying the Quod Christus sit Deus

139

Jews are described here as ‘keepers’ of the Holy Books, but then they are considered as opponents. Indeed, the author evokes them quickly at the end of the text:22 Ἀλλὰ ταῦτα μὲν ἡνίκα ἂν πρὸς Ἰουδαίους λέγωμεν, σαφέστερον καὶ εὐρύτερον ἀναπτύξομεν.

But when I shall speak against the Jews, I will give a clearer and broader explanation of these things.

Nevertheless, this short sentence takes place near an important explanation about the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem: according to the author, it had been foretold that many would attempt to rebuild the Temple, but in vain. Furthermore, the text ends with the topic of the destruction of the Temple and the captivity in Babylon. At first sight, these topics, which are traditional in an antiJudaic perspective, seem to be unproper to debating with a Greek. This unusual phaenomenon was noticed by a reader of a manuscript, the Hagios Sabas 3, who wrote some words in the margin in front of the text I have just quoted.23 Indeed, he asked (figure 2): Ὁρᾷς ὅτι καὶ πρὸς Ἰουδαίους ἁρμόζει ὅλος σχέδον ὁ λόγος; ‘Do you see that almost the whole text also fits the Jews?’

Figure 2: Jerusalem, Patriarchal Library, Hagios Sabas 3, f. 94v (Library of Congress, Collection of Manuscripts in the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem).

I can ask the same question in a different way: why does almost the whole text fit the Jews, when the main opponent is a Greek? Even if the short version of the title does not evoke the Jews, they are, as much as the Greeks, the declared opponents of the author in this text. That can lead us to affirm the Quod Christus sit Deus seems to be a response to the ‘judaizing Christians’, just as the Discourses were.24 However, in contrast to the Discourses, which 22

Ibid. 132, 260. The whole manuscript can be consulted on the website of the Library of Congress: https:// www.loc.gov/item/0027939348A-jo/. 24 John Chrysostom had to deal with the phaenomenon of the ‘Judaizing Christians’, who went to the church and to the synagogue, taking part in Jewish feasts. On Christianity, paganism and 23

140

A. GLAISE

try to divert Christians from the Judaic influence, the Quod Christus sit Deus is concurrently influenced by both the anti-pagan literature and the anti-Judaic ways of arguing for the Christian faith.25 So, the real audience of the Quod Christus sit Deus remains uncertain and doubtful.

Two texts on a same topic but with two different aims Yet, we can still go further. I hold up as examples two texts. The first one, from the Discourses against the Jews:26 Ἐπειδὴ γὰρ εἶδεν μαινομένους, ἀγχομένους, ἐπιθυμοῦντας θυσιῶν, παρεσκευασμένους, εἰ μὴ λάβοιεν, πρὸς τὰ εἴδωλα αὐτομολῆσαι, μᾶλλον δὲ οὐ παρεσκευασμένους μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτομολήσαντας ἤδη, ἐπέτρεψε τὰς θυσίας. … Ἆρα οὐχὶ καὶ τοῖς σφόδρα ἀνοήτοις δήλη καὶ καταφανὴς γένοιτο ἂνἡ αἰτία τῆς κατασκαφῆς ἐκείνης; Ὥσπερ γὰρ οἰκοδόμος θεμελίους θεὶς, τοίχους ἀναστήσας, ὄροφον καμαρώσας, τὴν καμάραν ἐκείνην εἰς ἕνα μέσον συνδήσας λίθον, ἂν ἐκεῖνον ἀφέλῃ, τὸν πάντα τῆς οἰκοδομῆς διέλυσε σύνδεσμον· οὕτω καὶ ὁ Θεὸς, καθάπερ τινὰ σύνδεσμον λατρείας τὴν πόλιν ποιήσας, εἶτα ταύτην ἀνατρέψας. καὶ τὴν λοιπὴν τῆς πολιτείας ἐκείνης οἰκοδομὴν κατέλυσεν ἅπασαν.

Then, when he saw [the Jews] choking with rage, setting their heart on performing sacrifices, and prepared, if their desires were not fullfilled, to transfer their allegiance to idols, or rather not only prepared to do so but already having done so, [the Lord] allowed them sacrifices. … Is it not enough to show clearly and obviously even to the most senseless the reason of this destruction. In the same way as an architect who, having laid the foundations of a building, raised its walls, constructed the vault which will cover them, and added the stone which is the keystone; if he takes it away, he would compromise the entire solidity of the building. So did God, when he had made Jerusalem the keystone of the Jewish cult: when he overturned this city, he also destroyed the rest of the structure of that whole way of life.

Judaism in Antioch in Chrysostom’s era, see Emmanuel Soler, Le sacré et le salut à Antioche au IVe siècle après J.-C. Pratiques festives et comportements religieux dans le processus de christianisation de la cité (Beyrouth, 2006). 25 In the same way, Eusebius of Caesarea adressed his Demonstration of the Gospel to both Jews and pagans (see particularly Dem. I, 1, 11-12). As the Demonstration is one of the most important models of the Quod Christus sit Deus, it can partly explain the uncertainty of the Quod Christus sit Deus’ audience. On the influence of the Demonstration, see Sébastien Morlet, ‘La source principale du Quod Christus sit Deus attribué à Jean Chrysostome: la Démonstration évangélique d’Eusèbe de Césarée’, REAug 58 (2012), 261-85. 26 John Chrysostom, Discourses against the Jews, IV, 6 (PG 48, 880-1; the English translation is mine).

Studying the Quod Christus sit Deus

141

Then, the second one, from the Quod Christus sit Deus:27 Ἡ γὰρ δύναμις τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἡ τὴν ἐκκλησίαν οἰκοδομήσασα, αὐτὴ καὶ τοῦτον καθεῖλε. Καὶ προεῖπον καὶ τοῦτο οἱ προφῆται ὅτι καὶ παρέσται ὁ Χριστός, καὶ ταῦτα ἐργάσεται. … Εἶδες πῶς σαφῶς καὶ τὸν Ἰουδαϊσμὸν ἐξέβαλε καὶ τὸν Χριστιανισμὸν ἔδειξε διαλάμποντα καὶ πανταχοῦ τῆς γῆς ἐκτεταμένον;

For the power of Christ, which has built the Church, has also destroyed by itself that place [i.e. the Temple of Jerusalem]. The prophets foretold also that Christ would come and that he would do these things. … Do you see how clear it is that God has rejected Judaism and has shown at the same time the Christianity shining and reaching the ends of the earth?

These texts deal with the same topic: the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem as a clue to the new ineffectiveness of the Mosaic Law. Nonetheless, the way they were written largely differs. In the first one, the author aims to be more concrete: Jews are negatively described, the author is using a comparison with an architect. In the second one, he wants to make an observation: God built the Church, destroyed the Temple and prophets foretold it. Moreover, there is no disgraceful remark towards Jews, referring only in a general way to ‘Judaism’ or ‘Christianity’. If the Quod Christus sit Deus and the Discourses have the same aim (to proove the superiority of Christianity), the means are quite different. Indeed, the first text is a monography which adopts an exegetical point of view and considers the opponent as the mere embodiment of a wrong way to understand Scriptures, whereas the second one has to be effective, because it is directly aimed to a real audience; the preacher wants to solve some problems within the Christian community of Antioch using rhetorical tools: exaggerations, comparisons, even if words could be rough and hard. To put it in a nutshell, there were many debates about the completeness of the Quod Christus sit Deus or its attribution to John Chrysostom.28 However, it does not invalidate our study, seeing that the text was received by copyists themselves as a Chrysostomical work.29 In the latest manuscripts I studied, it 27 Norman G. McKendrick, Quod Christus sit Deus of Saint John Chrysostom (1966), 131, 6-7; M.A. Schatkin and P.W. Harkins, John Chrysostom, Apologist (1985), 259. 28 A few studies deal partly with it: Sever J. Voicu, ‘La volontà e il caso: la tipologia dei primi spuri di Crisostomo’, in Giovanni Crisostomo, Oriente e Occidente tra IV e V secolo. XXXIII Incontro di studiosi dell’antichità cristiana, Roma, 6-8 maggio 2004 (Rome, 2005), 101-16 (especially 106); Sébastien Morlet, ‘La source principale du Quod Christus sit Deus’, 261-2. 29 Indeed, the Quod Christus sit Deus appears clearly in the Catalogus Augustanus, which lists the Chrysostomical works; it has been copied in the manuscript Augustanus Reipublicae bibliothecae gr. 8 (= Monacensis gr. 478), ff. 287r-288v and reproduced in PG 64, 141-6. About this Catalogus, see Pierre Augustin, ‘La pérennité de l’Église selon Jean Chrysostome et l’authenticité

142

A. GLAISE

was often copied with the Discourses against the Jews and the Homilies against the Anomoeans. It did not happen randomly: at the contrary, it shows us some copyists are ‘editors’ too. So, reading the Discourses against the Jews at the light of the Quod Christus sit Deus, because of their proximity and their differences, allows us to put the well-known Discourses in a new perspective. If some scholars like R.L. Wilken and I. Sandwell30 have still largely studied the rhetorical features of the Discourses against the Jews, they have not paid any interest to the Quod Christus sit Deus in this point of view. Nevertheless, studying the Discourses in their transmission, underlining proximities in manuscripts with other polemical texts can enlighten greatly our comprehension of these texts, which are often the subject of misunderstanding. This example must lead us to pay more attention to concatenation of texts in manuscripts and to study these as historic objects.

de la IVe Homélie sur Ozias’, RAug 28 (1995), 95-144; Pierre Augustin and Jacques-Hubert Sautel, Codices Chrysostomici Graeci VII, Codicum Parisinorum pars prior (Paris, 2011), XXIV. 30 Isabella Sandwell, Religious Identity in Late Antiquity: Greeks, Jews and Christians in Antioch (Cambridge, 2007).

En quête des premières attestations du surnom ‘Chrysostome’ Guillaume BADY, CNRS, HiSoMA / Sources Chrétiennes, Lyon, France

ABSTRACT The time when John of Constantinople was first called ‘Golden Mouth’ seems to be difficult to determine. In the fifth century he was merely given names like ‘bishop’ or ‘blessed John’, while ‘Chrysostom’ was in fact a very rare designation; Dio of Prusa’s case proves to be a significant one in this respect. An inquiry in the Greek literature after John, as well as in some Coptic, Syriac or Armenian sources, only confirms that, even if he was called ‘Chrysostom’ in the fifth century, as in the Vita sancti Epiphanii, it became an established designation much later.

Le surnom ‘Chrysostome’ donné à Jean, devenu évêque de Constantinople en 398, a déjà fait l’objet de plusieurs études, plus ou moins anciennes1. C. Baur, en particulier, une fois mises de côté les sources d’ancienneté douteuse, parvient à cette conclusion: la première attestation connue serait en latin et remonterait aux environs de 547, chez Facundus d’Hermiane: illud os aureum … Constantinopolitani Joannis2. Dans le même contexte, une transcription du terme grec, Iohannis Constantinopolitani episcopi, quem Chrysostomum uocant, est employée par le pape Vigile le 14 mai 5533.

1 Voir en particulier Joannes Stilting, ‘De S. Joanne Chrysostomo episcopo Constantinopolitano et ecclesiæ doctore, prope Comana in Ponto, commentarius historicus’, Acta Sanctorum … Septembris tomus quartus (Anvers, 1753), 690-1; Chrysostomus Baur, S. Jean Chrysostome et ses œuvres dans l’histoire littéraire (Louvain, Paris, 1907), 58-60; id., Johannes Chrysostomus und seine Zeit, 2 vol. (München, 1929-30), tr. angl. Mary Gonzaga, John Chrysostom and His Time, 2 vol. (Westminster, MD, 1959-60), II 471-5, en part. 474-5, note 12; plus récemment, Sever J. Voicu, ‘Per una lista delle opere trasmesse in copto sotto il nome di Giovanni Crisostomo’, dans Paola Buzi et Alberto Camplani (éd.), Christianity in Egypt: Literary Production and Intellectual Trends in Late Antiquity. Studies in honor of Tito Orlandi, Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum 125 (Rome, 2011), 597-8. 2 Défense des Trois Chapitres IV, 2, 26, éd. Anne Fraïsse-Bétoulières, SC 478 (Paris, 2003), 158-9. Voir C. Baur, John Chrysostom (1959-60), II 472. 3 Constitutum de tribus capitulis LX, 217, éd. Otto Günther, Epistulae imperatorum, pontificorum, aliorum, CSEL 35.1 (Vienne, 1895), 291. Voir C. Baur, S. Jean Chrysostome (1907), 59.

Studia Patristica CXIV, 143-159. © Peeters Publishers, 2021.

144

G. BADY

La relecture des textes, la prise en compte de nouvelles sources et les possibilités offertes par les bases de données4 permettent-elles d’en savoir plus? La question en implique une, plus générale: comment Jean était-il désigné à époque ancienne – c’est-à-dire, pour laisser de côté des qualificatifs ou dérivés byzantins, avant le IXe siècle?

Quelques désignations anciennes L’un des échos les plus anciens est sans doute celui de Jérôme dans le De uiris illustribus: Joannes Antiochenae ecclesiae presbyter5. La désignation ecclésiale est en effet la première attendue et pratiquée. À partir de la période constantinopolitaine, au nom de Jean est souvent ajouté le titre, non pas d’‘archevêque’6, ni de ‘patriarche’7, mais d’‘évêque’: c’est le cas aussi bien chez les Grecs (par exemple Socrate8 et Palladios9) que chez les Latins, chez qui le fait est encore plus net puisque le terme episcopus semble ne jamais avoir été remplacé par archiepiscopus, du moins pour désigner Jean. Augustin le cite comme episcopus Iohannes et de même Julien d’Eclane, Fulgence de Ruspe, Jean Cassien, Gennade, Arnobe le Jeune, Facundus d’Hermiane, Cassiodore, Bède, Raban Maur, Hugues de Saint-Victor, Thomas d’Aquin, etc. – la mention du siège épiscopal intervenant parfois avec l’adjectif Constantinopolitanus. Un autre type de désignation – là encore, non spécifique à Jean – est axiomatique ou laudatif; plusieurs adjectifs fleurissent ainsi sous des plumes amies:

4 Le Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, de l’Université de Californie (stephanus.tlg.uci.edu, consulté le 8 août 2020) et les séries A et B de la Library of Latin Texts, du Centre ‘Traditio Litterarum Occidentalium’ (brepolis.net, consulté à la même date). 5 Jérôme, De uiris illustribus 129. 6 Le mot ἀρχιεπίσκοπος, dont les premières attestations au IVe siècle sont égyptiennes (voir les quelques emplois chez Épiphane et dans les Apophtegmes), n’est employé vraiment qu’à partir du concile d’Éphèse: voir Annick Martin, Athanase d’Alexandrie et l’Église d’Égypte au IVe siècle (Rome, 1996), 266-7; Philippe Blaudeau, Alexandrie et Constantinople (451-491), de l’histoire à la géo-ecclésiologie, BEFAR 327 (Rome, 2006), 18-9. 7 Le titre s’impose plus tard: après 429, mais en un sens assez vague, et à partir de 541 concernant les titulaires des sièges pentarchiques: voir Vittorio Peri, ‘La dénomination de patriarche dans la littérature ecclésiastique du IVe au XVIe siècle’, Irenikon 64 (1991), 359-64; P. Blaudeau, Alexandrie et Constantinople (2006), 19-22; Theresia Hainthaler, ‘Einige Überlegungen zum Titel “Patriarch des Westens”’, dans Theresia Hainthaler, Franz Mali et Gregor Emmenegger, Einheit und Katholizität der Kirche, Pro Oriente 32 / Wiener Patristische Tagungen IV (Vienne, 2009), 59-77. Je remercie chaleureusement Philippe Blaudeau pour ses très opportunes indications à ce sujet. 8 Histoire ecclésiastique, VI, IV, 3, etc. 9 Dialogue sur la vie de Jean Chrysostome, I, 146.175; III, 41, etc., éd. Anne-Marie Malingrey et Philippe Leclercq, SC 341 (Paris, 1988), 60, 64, 68, etc.

En quête des premières attestations du surnom ‘Chrysostome’

145

‘saint’10, ‘grand’11, ‘divin’12, etc., – sans parler de substantifs comme ‘père’13. Pour qualifier l’Antiochien comme d’autres ‘Pères’, la formule ὁ ἐν ἁγίοις πατὴρ ou τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν est de règle au moins à partir du IXe siècle. C’est sans doute vers cette époque, à la faveur de la translittération des textes en minuscules – qui a certainement aidé à faire de l’expression un standard de librairie –, que le titre τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἰωάννου ἀρχιεπισκόπου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου est devenu une règle, et de même pour les autres Pères. Mais cela remonte sans doute plus haut. D’après l’enquête rapide que j’ai faite dans le TLG, la formule ὁ ἐν ἁγίοις, apparaissant au 4e siècle pour d’autres auteurs, se lit pour la première fois appliquée à Jean dans les actes de Chalcédoine14, puis notamment chez Justinien15. Un autre terme affleure çà et là: μακάριος, ‘bienheureux’, adjectif usité pour désigner un insigne défunt, est l’épithète privilégiée qu’emploient, pour désigner Jean, le Pseudo-Martyrios et Palladios, qui écrivent peu après sa mort, ou, plus tard, Théodore de Trimithonte et le Pseudo-Georges d’Alexandrie16. De même, en latin il est dit beatus par l’évêque d’Hermiane17, comme par Cassiodore et d’autres. Or, pour les titres dans les manuscrits, le terme μακάριος, en tant qu’il se distingue de la formule ‘patristique’ devenue normative ultérieurement (τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν), est un signe très net d’ancienneté. Le Basileensis gr. 39, du IXe siècle, a permis à Anne-Marie Malingrey de mettre en tête du De sacerdotio τοῦ μακαρίου Ἰωάννου18. Mieux: au début du VIIe siècle, le Guelferbytanus 75a ignore le surnom ‘Chrysostome’ – il conviendrait d’examiner si des manuscrits moins anciens ont hérité eux aussi de cette absence – et porte comme inscriptio (f. 1) et suscriptio (f. 186) les mots suivants: ΤΟΥ ΜΑΚΑΡΙΟΥ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ ΑΡΧΙΕΠΙCΚΟΠΟΥ ΚΩΝCΤΑΝ ΕΡΜΗΝΕΙΑ ΕΙC ΤΟ ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΤΘΑΙΟΝ ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ19. 10

Pseudo-Martyrios, Oratio funebris in laudem sancti Iohannis Chrysostomi, 49, 18, éd. Martin Wallraff, trad. Cristina Ricci (Spolète, 2007), 102: τὸν ἅγιον. 11 Théodoret, Histoire ecclésiastique V, 29, 1: ὁ δὲ μέγας Ἰωάννης. 12 Ibid. V, 33, 2: τὸν θεῖον … Ἰωάννην. 13 Pseudo-Martyrios, Oratio funebris 45, 17 (2007), 98: τοῦ πατρός. 14 Éd. Eduard Schwartz, Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum, II, 1, 3 (Berlin, 1935), 52, ligne 36: ὁ ἐν ἁγίοις Ἰωάννης ὁ ἐπίσκοπος Κωνσταντινουπόλεως. 15 Justinien, Contra monophysitas 171 et 196: ὁ ἐν ἁγίοις δὲ Ἰωάννης ὁ Κωνσταντινουπόλεως ἐπίσκοπος. 16 Voir pour ces deux derniers biographes (sans doute respectivement du VIIe et du début du VIIIe s.) l’éd. de François Halkin, Douze récits byzantins sur saint Jean Chrysostome, Subsidia Hagiographica 60 (Bruxelles, 1977), 7-68 et 69-285. 17 Défense des Trois Chapitres XI, 5, 3, éd. Anne Fraïsse-Bétoulières, SC 499 (Paris, 2006), 74. 18 Τοῦ μακαρίου Ἰωάννου ἀρχιεπισκόπου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου: Jean Chrysostome, Sur le sacerdoce, éd. Anne-Marie Malingrey, SC 272 (Paris, 1980), 60. 19 Wolfenbüttel, Herzog August Bibliothek, Helmst. cod. 75a, f. 1r. Voir Otto von Heinemann, Die Handschriften der Herzoglichen Bibliothek zu Wolfenbüttel: I. Die Helmstedter Hss. (Wolfenbüttel, 1884-1913), 77-8; Guglielmo Cavallo, Ricerche sulla maiuscola biblica (Florence, 1967),

146

G. BADY

De ‘Chrysostome’, point de trace, ni du vivant de Jean, ni dans les années qui ont suivi sa mort. Même si elle doit être disqualifiée, une occurrence assez révélatrice doit ici être examinée. Apparaissant chez Sozomène, elle est bien connue parce qu’elle est l’un des rares exemples où le surnom Χρυσόστομος est donné à quelqu’un d’autre, en l’occurrence Antiochus de Ptolémaïs: ‘Antiochus avait la parole coulante et la voix sonore, si bien que certains le nommaient aussi Bouche d’or’ (ὡς καὶ Χρυσόστομος πρός τινων ὀνομάζεσθαι)20. Ici on serait tenté de comprendre le καὶ dans le sens de ‘à l’instar’ de Jean, mais comme Sozomène n’attribue jamais le surnom à ce dernier, il faudrait sans ambiguïté traduire par ‘même’ – si du moins il fallait le traduire car il est surtout là pour conforter ὡς. Le fait qu’un autre prédicateur, parmi les proches ennemis de Jean, ait un tel surnom sans que cela fasse aucunement difficulté, même à un historien favorable à Jean comme Sozomène, est particulièrement significatif. Or l’historien écrit dans les années 440. Auparavant, même les partisans de Jean, comme Palladios ou le Pseudo-Martyrios – la mention ‘Chrysostome’ dans le titre de leurs ouvrages n’étant certainement pas originelle – semblent ne pas connaître le surnom. Avant de chercher quand le surnom apparaît, c’est en effet son absence qu’il convient d’abord de constater ou de confirmer. On peut même se demander si, de l’avis de ses contemporains, Jean pouvait mériter un surnom à ce point laudatif, ou si, en imaginant qu’on l’ait trouvé chez l’historien Socrate, il n’aurait pas eu un sens antiphrastique: celui qui blâmait ses excès de ‘liberté de bouche’21 l’aurait plutôt appelé ‘Éleuthérostome’22! Chez Palladios lui-même, les mots χρυσέοις ῥήμασι sont pris en mauvaise part, qualifiant les propos des ennemis de Jean23. Isidore de Péluse, quant à lui, mort dans les années 435 ou 440, évoque Jean et le cite à plusieurs reprises24 dans sa correspondance25, en particulier dans la Lettre 1777: pour parler du 106; Otto Mazal, ‘Ein Unzialcodex mit Predigten des Johannes Chrysostomos. Der cod. Guelf. 75a Helmst. der Herzog August Bibliothek zu Wolfenbüttel’, Byzantina 13 (1985), 867-79. 20 Sozomène, Histoire ecclésiastique VIII, 10, 1, trad. André-Jean Festugière et Bernard Grillet, SC 516 (Paris, 2008), 278-9. L’apparat critique de l’éd. de Joseph Bidez et Günther Christian Hansen, GCS 50 (Berlin, 1957), 362, ne donne pour variante que χρυσόστομον au lieu de χρυσόστομος à cet endroit : le terme n’est pas omis ni changé dans les manuscrits. 21 Socrate, Histoire ecclésiastique VI, 3, 1: ἐλευθεροστομίᾳ τε πρὸς τοὺς ἐντυγχάνοντας ἀμέτρως ἐκέχρητο. 22 Voir mon article, ‘Bouche d’Or ou “langue sans frein”: Jean Chrysostome et le francparler’, dans Pascal-Grégoire Delage (éd.), Jean Chrysostome, un évêque hors contrôle, Actes de la septième Petite Journée de patristique (21 mars 2015, Saintes) (s.l., 2015), 33-58. 23 Dialogue sur la vie de Jean Chrysostome, IX, 184, SC 341, 196. 24 Y compris – je l’ai découvert avec étonnement en révisant le t. III des Lettres – par une tournure introductive comme ‘cette parole du Christ’, dans la Lettre 1721: voir la note que j’ai ajoutée ad loc., éd. Pierre Évieux et Nicolas Vinel, SC 586 (Paris, 2017), 51. 25 Voir Edmond Bouvy, ‘S. Jean Chrysostome et saint Isidore de Péluse’, Échos d’Orient 1.7 (1898), 196-201.

En quête des premières attestations du surnom ‘Chrysostome’

147

‘très sage Jean’ (ὁ πάνσοφος Ἰωάννης)26, l’image récurrente qu’il choisit est celle de la lyre, et non de la bouche27. Il en va de même dans les panégyriques de Jean que Théodoret a composés et sur lesquels Photius nous renseigne: certes, on lit dans le troisième la phrase ‘La bouche de l’Église est enfermée dans un tombeau’ (ἐν τάφῳ τὸ τῆς ἐκκλησίας συγκέκλεισται στόμα)28; mais, alors que la plupart du temps le saint est appelé simplement ‘Jean’, et que bien des métaphores apparaissent pour le désigner, la formule τὸ τῆς ἐκκλησίας στόμα, déjà utilisée par Grégoire de Nysse au sujet de l’Épouse du Cantique29, y est isolée, surtout en comparaison avec l’image de la lyre qui apparaît cinq fois. Primitivement, Jean était-il donc qualifié, à l’instar d’Éphrem, par cet instrument? L’image est trop commune sans doute pour être envisagée sérieusement, mais elle oblige à remettre plus strictement en question le phénomène de ‘chrysostomisation’, qui s’avère réserver quelques surprises.

Le cas de Dion ‘Chrysostome’ et la rareté du surnom En effet, contrairement au jugement de C. Baur – lui-même prénommé Chrysostomus –, le surnom ‘Chrysostome’ ne semble pas avoir été ‘fréquemment usité chez les Byzantins’30: le savant chrysostomien cite avec raison, d’après Sozomène, Antiochos de Ptolémaïs ainsi que Dion de Pruse, mais en réalité la liste ne va pas plus loin d’après les sources littéraires. La documentation épigraphique concernant les anthroponymes – à distinguer des surnoms – confirme en partie ce constat31. En tout état de cause, l’application exclusive du surnom à Jean, parmi les auteurs chrétiens, à partir du moment où elle a été effective, a certainement empêché que la liste ne s’allonge dès lors. Le cas de Dion mérite ici d’être interrogé. À y regarder de près, la documentation est assez ténue32. La seule attestation littérale antérieure à Jean se décèle

26

Cf. Eustrate de Constantinople, infra, p. 153. SC 586, 120-2: jouant d’une ‘divine lyre’ (θείας λύρης), Jean est nommément comparé à Orphée. 28 Photius, Bibliothèque, Cod. 273, éd. René Henry, t. VIII (Paris, 1977), 107. 29 Grégoire de Nysse, In Canticum canticorum, hom. 15, éd. Hermann Langerbeck, Gregorii Nysseni Opera VI (Leyde, 1960), 228, lignes 9 et 17; 405, ligne 17; 406, ligne 3. 30 C. Baur, S. Jean Chrysostome (1907), 58. 31 Je renvoie à la contribution de Julien Aliquot (infra, p. 161-162), qui a répondu favorablement à ma requête à ce sujet: je l’en remercie très chaleureusement. Ma vive gratitude va également à Cécile Bost-Pouderon, qui m’a très opportunément renvoyé à Eugenio Amato, Traiani Praeceptor. Studi su biografia, cronologia e fortuna di Dione Crisostomo (Besançon, 2014), 33. 32 Voir les sources sur Dion rassemblées par Hans von Arnim, Dionis Prusaensis quem vocant Chrysostomum quae exstant omnia, vol. II (Berlin, 1896), 311-36. 27

148

G. BADY

dans le De demonstratiuis (Περὶ ἐπιδεικτικῶν) de Ménandre, au IIIe siècle33: Δίωνος τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου. Or les témoins de l’œuvre sont assez tardifs, le plus ancien étant du milieu du Xe siècle: on lit bien ces mots dans le Parisinus gr. 1741, f. 58v, ligne 16 (l’apparat critique de D.A. Russell et N.G. Wilson est muet à cet endroit34). Les manuscrits des œuvres de Dion lui-même ne remontent pas non plus à l’Antiquité, et le plus ancien, le Vaticanus gr. 99, du premier quart du Xe siècle, porte en marge supérieure du f. 37r l’attribution Δίωνος Πρυσαίου. À cet égard il semble inutile d’imaginer, puisque la mention du lieu d’origine pouvait suffire, que c’est la nécessité de le distinguer de l’historien Dion Cassius qui ait motivé le surnom ‘Chrysostome’; néanmoins, il y avait d’autres homonymes encore, dont le grand-père de Dion35. Confortant celle de Ménandre, une attestation contemporaine de Jean, chez Eunape de Sardes vers 395 ou 396, mérite un entier crédit, même si elle est transmise au plus tôt par un manuscrit du XIe siècle, le Laurentianus Pluteus 86, 7, f. 218v: Δίων ὁ ἐκ Βιθυνίας ὃν ἐπεκάλουν Χρυσόστομον36. Le témoignage de Photius, qui disposait parfois de sources inconnues de nous, est aussi à prendre en compte – même si c’est avec prudence –, lorsqu’il écrit: ‘Ses discours lui ont fait donner par ses contemporains le surnom de Chrysostome (Χρυσόστομον δ’ αὐτὸν οἱ λόγοι τῇ κατ’ αὐτὸν γενεᾷ δεδώκασιν ἐπονομάζειν)’37. Deux sources, plus anciennes, coïncident quant à elles pour employer une périphrase faisant référence au surnom, en reconnaissant à Dion ‘une langue d’or’: Thémistius d’une part, au IIIe siècle (Δίωνα τὸν χρυσοῦν τὴν γλῶτταν38), Synésius de Cyrène d’autre part, au tout début du Ve siècle, du vivant même de Jean (en deux passages: Δίωνι τῷ χρυσῷ τὴν γλῶτταν39 et τῆς γλώττης, ἣν χρυσῆν εἶχεν40). Synésius n’employait pas ces expressions comme des stéréotypes, remarque K. Treu41, puisqu’il le faisait aussi en s’adressant à quelqu’un d’autre42: c’est d’autant plus vrai que, dans toute la littérature 33 De là sans doute le jugement, prudent, de Louis François, Essai sur Dion Chrysostome philosophe et moraliste cynique et stoïcien (Paris, 1921), 6: ‘Peut-être n’obtint-il de la postérité cette preuve d’admiration qu’au troisième siècle.’ 34 Donald A. Russell et Nigel G. Wilson, Menander Rhetor edited with translation and commentary (Oxford, 1981), 116-7 (= Spengel, 389). 35 Voir E. Amato, Traiani Praeceptor (2014), 33. 36 Eunape de Sardes, Vie des philosophes II, 3, éd. Richard Goulet (Paris, 2014), 3; pour la datation, voir ibid. 35. 37 Photius, Bibliothèque, Cod. 209, éd. René Henry, t. III (Paris, 1962), 106. Voir aussi la scolie d’Aréthas de Césarée au passage. 38 Orat. 5, 63d, éd. Heinrich Schenkl, Glanville Downey, Themistii orationes quae supersunt, vol. I (Berlin, 1965), 93, ligne 5. 39 Calv., 1, 1, éd. Jacques Lamoureux, Synésius de Cyrène. Opuscules, I (Paris, 2004), 48. Pour la date (entre 396/397 et 405/406), voir ibid. 1-10. 40 Dion, 1, 3, ibid. 140. Pour la date (en novembre ou décembre 404), voir ibid. 96-101. 41 Kurt Treu, Synesios von Kyrene. Ein Kommentar zu seinem ‘Dion’, TU 71 (Berlin, 1958), 31. 42 Ep. 17, 173c: τῇ χρυσῇ σου ψυχῇ τε καὶ γλώττῃ.

En quête des premières attestations du surnom ‘Chrysostome’

149

grecque dont l’antériorité est certaine, on chercherait en vain un précédent idoine de l’association de χρυσ- et de γλω- – tout comme de celle de χρυσet de στομ-. Telles sont les données concernant le surnom de Dion. Avant tout l’on ne peut que constater leur rareté, ainsi que l’absence d’une documentation antérieure à Jean si l’on prend garde à la date des manuscrits considérés: que Dion ait été surnommé ‘Chrysostome’ avant Jean reste donc très vraisemblable, mais n’interdit pas le questionnement. Puisque tel était son surnom, pourquoi n’y en a-t-il pas davantage de traces? Si l’on en croit certaines d’entre elles, pourquoi ne pas penser qu’il était dit plutôt ‘Chrysoglotte’? Même si l’hypothèse n’est à l’évidence pas assez bien étayée, le surnom traditionnel ne l’est pas lui-même de manière massive. Supposons un instant, en effet, que Dion ait été ‘chrysostomisé’ après Jean. Devrait-on y voir une initiative païenne tardive, visant à concurrencer le surnom donné à l’auteur chrétien? Ou encore, de la part des chrétiens, un trait d’ironie? On le sait bien, Aréthas, citant l’anecdote rapportée – dans un contexte assez apologétique – par Grégoire de Nazianze sur l’haleine de Dion43, en tire cette conclusion: ‘C’est donc à la place de “Bouche à mauvaise haleine” que, par euphémisme, il a été dit “Bouche d’or” (ἀντὶ τοίνυν τοῦ Ὀζόστομος ἐλέχθη εὐφήμως Χρυσόστομος)’44. Aréthas était sans doute le lettré le mieux documenté de son temps, mais comme Photius, il est difficile de prendre son allégation, très isolée, pour argent comptant. Ce qui est frappant, en revanche – et là est peut-être un argument fort de plus en faveur de l’ancienneté de l’appellation du natif de Pruse –, c’est que Dion ait pu avoir ou conserver sans l’ombre d’une difficulté le même surnom que Jean alors même que ce dernier, désigné comme ‘Chrysostome’ sans qu’il soit nécessaire de préciser son nom, était si présent dans la culture tardo-antique et byzantine. On peinerait, en effet, à trouver un passage où, à cause de leur commun surnom, un auteur ou un copiste ait ressenti le besoin de les distinguer: le contexte semble avoir implicitement suffi. Dans tous les cas, il est manifeste que, avec trois ‘attributaires’ en tout et pour tout, le surnom était beaucoup moins banal que ce que l’on aurait pu croire. Le constat confère a contrario bien plus de valeur aux premières attestations concernant Jean, qu’il convient à présent de retracer à nouveaux frais.

43 Grégoire de Nazianze, De uirtute, Carm. I, 1, 10, v. 809-17, PG 37, 738. L’anecdote est connue par ailleurs au sujet d’autres personnages, comme Gélon ou Caius Duilius. 44 H. von Arnim, Dionis Prusaensis (1896), 328, ligne 16. Voir aussi, illustrant la façon dont ‘Chrysostome’ pouvait être ajouté, la scholie d’Aréthas à la Vie d’Apollonius de Tyane de Philostrate, V, 27, ibid. 312.

150

G. BADY

Des attestations de ‘Chrysostome’ au Ve siècle? Tentons donc de vérifier si un texte grec pourrait ou non précéder les attestations en latin. Or on lit dans un passage d’un supplément à la Vie d’Épiphane (BHG 597) attribué à Polybe, disciple d’Épiphane et évêque de Rhinocoroura, au sujet des moines que Théophile d’Alexandrie avait chassés d’Égypte: Οὗτοι οὖν ἀναγκασθέντες ἀνῆλθον ἐπὶ τὴν βασιλίδα πόλιν, καὶ προσέπεσαν Ἰωάννῃ τῷ ἐπίκλην Χρυσοστόμῳ (‘Ceux-ci furent donc contraints de monter à la ville impériale, et ils se jetèrent aux pieds de Jean, surnommé Bouche d’or’)45. Deux arguments doivent cependant inviter à évaluer ce témoignage avec la plus grande prudence. D’une part, le texte attribué à Polybe, écrit entre 438, date de la translation des reliques de Jean Chrysostome à Constantinople, et la fin du Ve siècle, est qualifié par H. Delehaye46 de ‘pur roman dans lequel on chercherait en vain la trace d’une source historique’. D’autre part, la tradition manuscrite en grec, qui commence au IXe ou au Xe siècle, n’est pas unanime: représentant l’une des branches de la tradition, le Laurentianus Pluteus XI 9, du XIe s., f. 78r, a bien Ἰωάννῃ τῷ ἐπίκλην Χρυσοστόμῳ, tandis que toute la seconde branche, dont le plus ancien témoin est le Vatopedinus gr. 84, du IXe s., omet τῷ ἐπίκλην Χρυσοστόμῳ (ainsi le Vaticanus Palatinus gr. 27, f. 135v, du XIe s.)47. S’agit-il d’une lectio difficilior qui a semblé inutile à tel ou tel copiste au vu du contexte, ou bien, inversement, d’une glose ajoutée? Deux raisons pourraient conforter la première option. Premièrement, Ἰωάννῃ τῷ ἐπίκλην Χρυσοστόμῳ est une expression sans équivalent; comme elle suppose que l’appellation ‘Jean Chrysostome’ n’était pas encore lexicalisée – pour ainsi dire –, elle doit être ancienne et, en tout cas, elle peut apparaître comme une lectio difficilior. Deuxièmement, l’expression est attestée dans la version sahidique du texte48. Or celle-ci est conservée dans un codex de papyrus dont ‘la copie n’est pas postérieure au milieu du VIIe siècle’, selon C. Rapp, 45 Vita Epiphanii LX, PG 41, 101 (le texte est encore absent du TLG). Je remercie vivement Diego Arfuch, membre associé de la Société des Bollandistes, de m’avoir indiqué cette référence. 46 ‘Saints chypriotes’, Analecta Bollandiana 26 (1907), 242. Voir déjà Daniel Papebrock, ‘De S. Epiphanio episcopo Salamine seu Constantiae in Cypro’, Acta Sanctorum … Maii tomus tertius (Anvers, 1680), 48 E. 47 Voir Claudia Rapp, The Vita of Epiphanius of Salamis. A Historical and Literary Study, DPhil Thesis (University of Oxford, 1991). Je la remercie pour les précisions et confirmations qu’elle m’a apportées. 48 Clavis coptica 0413, sur le site http://www.cmcl.it. Le texte est conservé au Museo Egizio di Torino, cat. 63.000, cod. XV, fragm. 1-18: voir Francesco Rossi, ‘Un nuovo codice copto del Museo egizio di Torino’, Atti della Reale Accademia dei Lincei. Memorie della Classe di scienze morali, storiche e filologiche, serie 5, 1 (1893, publié en 1894), 7-47; Tito Orlandi, ‘Les papyrus coptes du Musée Égyptien de Turin’, Le Muséon 87 (1974), 126; id., ‘The Turin Coptic papyri’, Augustinianum 53 (2013), 517 et 524. Je remercie T. Orlandi pour les précisions qu’il m’a fournies à ce sujet.

En quête des premières attestations du surnom ‘Chrysostome’

151

qui compte un délai préalable de 50 ans pour la traduction du grec au copte49. T. Orlandi situe même la traduction ‘aux alentours du Ve siècle’50, soit peu de temps après la rédaction originale en grec. Si l’on cherchait une preuve documentée d’une attestation du surnom en grec au Ve siècle, avant les occurrences en latin, voilà qui y ressemble de manière presque inespérée. Et pourtant il reste une marge d’interprétation dans la datation, motif pour garder une certaine prudence et poursuivre l’enquête. Une autre occurrence, majeure, apparaît encore au Ve siècle – et curieusement elle n’a pas beaucoup attiré l’attention jusqu’ici: dans les actes du concile de Chalcédoine ou, plus précisément, dans le florilège accompagnant l’adresse que les Pères conciliaires ont envoyée à l’empereur Marcien en novembre 451. Une citation des Homélies sur Jean, en effet, est ainsi introduite: Τοῦ μακαρίου Ἰωάννου τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου ἐκ τοῦ κατὰ Ἰωάννην51. En faveur de l’authenticité de la mention milite, en plus de l’adjectif μακαρίου et du soin particulier dont les documents de ce concile ont fait l’objet, le fait que, quelques lignes plus loin, une autre citation – introduite par une formule différente: Τοῦ ἁγίου Ἰωάννου ἀρχιεπισκόπου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως ἐκ τῆς ἑρμηνείας τοῦ κατὰ Ματθαῖον εὐαγγελίου52 – trahisse non pas une uniformisation, mais le recours à des sources concrètement existantes. Inversement, contre son authenticité, on peut avancer plusieurs arguments: tout d’abord, ‘Chrysostome’ est absent des quatre autres mentions ou citations53, ainsi que de la version latine, y compris pour le passage en question54; ensuite, alors que cette dernière est attestée par deux témoins des VIe ou VIIe siècles, le texte grec l’est au mieux par un manuscrit du XIe, le Venetus 555, ce qui, sur des mots sans incidence dogmatique, laisse aux copistes une marge d’intervention de six siècles; de plus, l’Éranistès 49 Claudia Rapp, ‘Epiphanius of Salamis: The Church Father as Saint’, dans Anthony A. Bryer et George S. Georghallides (éd.), ‘The Sweet Land of Cyprus’. Papers Given at the Twenty-Fifth Jubilee Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Birmingham, March 1991 (Nicosia, 1993), 178. Le codex pourrait donc être de la fin du VIe s. ou du début du VIIe s.: C. Rapp, The Vita of Epiphanius of Salamis (1991), 33. Cette datation est à comparer, infra, avec les analyses de S. Voicu. 50 ‘The Turin Coptic papyri’ (2013), 527; voir aussi C. Rapp, The Vita of Epiphanius of Salamis (1991), 33, n. 57. 51 Éd. Eduard Schwartz, Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum, II, 1, 3 (Berlin, 1935), 115, ligne 8. 52 Ibid. 116, lignes 8-9. C’est par cette citation, diophysite en diable, que se conclut tout le concile (en tout cas en latin): que Jean de Constantinople ait ainsi le dernier mot, comment ne pas y voir le signe de son autorité théologique? 53 En plus de celle citée dans la note précédente: τοῦ ἁγιωτάτου Ἰωάννου ἐπισκόπου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως (florilège accompagnant le Tome de Léon, n° 10: éd. E. Schwartz, ACO, II, 1, 1 [Berlin, 1933], 23, ligne 7; Ὁ ἐν ἁγίοις Ἰωάννης ὁ ἐπίσκοπος Κωνσταντινουπόλεως (session 12 dans les actes en grec, §58: E. Schwartz, ACO, II, 1, 3 [1935], 52, ligne 36); εἰσιν ἐπιστολαὶ τοῦ μακαρίου Ἰωάννου τοῦ ἐπισκόπου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως (session 14 dans les actes en grec, §12, du 29 octobre 451: ibid. 59, ligne 23). ‘Chrysostome’ ne figure pas comme variante, ni en grec, ni en latin. 54 Éd. Eduard Schwartz, Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum, II, 3, 3 (Berlin, 1937), 120, ligne 25: Beati Iohannes episcopi Constantinopolitani.

152

G. BADY

de Théodoret, dont le florilège de l’adresse à Marcien s’est directement inspiré, ne comporte nulle part les mots τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου55; enfin, les actes de Chalcédoine étaient susceptibles de favoriser ou d’accompagner la diffusion du surnom, mais rien de tel ne se laisse observer. De tels éléments ont de quoi susciter une certaine perplexité. Au VIe siècle, quelques exemples et un concurrent possible La perplexité grandit si l’on s’avise que l’exemple chalcédonien est peut-être sans précédent, et sans équivalent pendant de nombreuses décennies par la suite. En effet, l’occurrence suivante pourrait être dans l’Histoire ecclésiastique de Théodore le Lecteur, écrite après 518 (la dernière année qu’elle relate)56. Au livre IV, en effet, on peut recenser huit occurrences de Χρυσόστομος, dont quatre avec Ἰωάννης et quatre sans57. En réalité, à chaque fois l’éditeur signale par des caractères en romain ces mots comme inauthentiques58, car cette partie de l’œuvre est conservée sous la forme d’un Epitome, dont le manuscrit le plus ancien, le Vatopedinus 286, date du XIIIe siècle, et dont la rédaction est à situer entre 610 et 61559 – soit près d’un siècle après Théodore. Une suspicion de remaniement tardif plane sur les occurrences ultérieures, plutôt livresques, dans des traités et florilèges divers: l’Adversus Aphthartodocetas (II,10) de Jean le Grammairien au début du VIe siècle60, les Testimonia sanctorum de Léonce de Jérusalem, datés entre 536 et 53861, la Topographie

55 Y compris à l’endroit en question: Théodoret de Cyr, Éranistès, Flor. II, 70, éd. Gerard H. Ettlinger (Oxford, 1975), 175, ligne 17. Les manuscrits les plus anciens, des Xe et XIe s., mentionnent pourtant ‘Chrysostome’ en d’autres endroits, par exemple ibid. 173, 1, mais l’éditeur a écarté ces leçons comme tardives. 56 Voir Pierre Nautin, ‘Théodore Lecteur et sa “réunion de différentes Histoires” de l’Église’, Revue des études byzantines 52 (1994), 213-43; P. Blaudeau, Alexandrie et Constantinople (2006), 549-52. 57 Éd. Günther Christian Hansen, Theodoros Anagnostes. Kirchengeschichte, GCS NF 3 (Berlin, 1995), chapitres 272, ligne 7; 281, l. 5; 282, l. 1; 283, l. 1; 285, l. 1; 286a, l. 4; 286b, l. 5; 287, l. 1 (l’apparat critique n’offre pas de variantes pour ces mots). 58 L’Historia tripartita latine, au livre X, éd. Walter Jacob et Rudolp Hanslik, CassiodoriEpiphanii Historia ecclesiastica tripartita, CSEL 71 (Vienne, 1952), ne comporte d’ailleurs pas ces ajouts. 59 Ibid. 38-9. 60 Marcel Richard, Iohannis Caesariensis presbyteri et grammatici opera quae supersunt, CChr.SG 1 (Turnhout, 1977), 73, l. 141: τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου ἐκ τῆς κατὰ Ἰωάννην ἑρμηνείας. 61 Patrick T.R. Gray, Leontius of Jerusalem Against the Monophysites: Testimonies of the Saints and Aporiae, Oxford Early Christian Texts (Oxford, 2006), 68, 72, 74, 92: 4 citations introduites par τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου ou Ἰωάννου τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου (sur la date, peut-être contestable: ibid. 40 et 42).

En quête des premières attestations du surnom ‘Chrysostome’

153

chrétienne (X, 46) de Cosmas Indicopleustès, entre 547 et 54962. Vague, mais intéressante est l’occurrence qu’on lit dans le De statu animarum post mortem, composé entre 582 et 59363 par Eustrate de Constantinople, disant de Jean qu’il ‘resplendit par la bouche plus que l’or, lui dont les discours brillent comme des braises’: ὁ τὸ στόμα ὑπὲρ τὸ χρυσίον ἐκλάμπων, οὗ καὶ οἱ λόγοι ὡς ἄνϑρακες ἀπαστράπτουσιν64. S’agit-il d’une allusion au surnom ‘Chrysostome’? La prudence reste de rigueur, car le motif de la lumière semble prévaloir sur celui de la bouche65, et surtout il y a dans l’œuvre six autres mentions de Jean, en tant que ὁ πάνσοφος Ἰωάννης ἐπίσκοπος Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, où le surnom brille par son absence66. Le soin et la précision avec lesquels Eustrate cite ses sources sont trop remarquables pour ne pas laisser penser qu’au mieux, si le surnom était donné à Jean, c’était encore de manière occasionnelle ou marginale, et indépendamment des usages dans les manuscrits. Les emplois au VIe siècle restent donc limités. Comme le suppose Sever Voicu formulant une hypothèse très séduisante67, le besoin de distinguer Jean d’un homonyme sur le siège de Constantinople, comme Jean II (518-520), a pu jouer un rôle dans la diffusion du surnom – et même dans sa ‘naissance’; or pour affirmer ce dernier point il faudrait non seulement prouver avec une totale certitude l’irrecevabilité du témoignage de la Vie d’Épiphane, mais aussi documenter positivement la concurrence, c’est-à-dire la gêne occasionnée par la co-occurrence possible dans un même contexte des deux ‘Jean de Constantinople’. Or, pour être probable, le besoin ne semble pas être apparu comme une nécessité absolue, malgré le renom de Jean II à l’époque, si l’on en juge par la durée très étendue de co-occurrence dans les documents – jusqu’au VIIIe siècle? – aussi bien que par la cohabitation pérenne d’homonymes divers dans les sources.

62

Wanda Wolska-Conus, Cosmas Indicpopleustès. Topographie chrétienne, III, SC 197 (Paris, 1973), 287: Ἰωάννου τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου (suivent plusieurs extraits). Cette partie de l’œuvre a été remaniée: voir Wanda Wolska-Conus, Cosmas Indicopleustès. Topographie chrétienne, I, SC 141 (Paris, 1973), 35-6, 56 (et sur la date de l’œuvre: 16). 63 Louis Demos, The Cult of the Saints and its Christological Foundations in Eustratios of Constantinople’s De statu animarum post mortem, diss. (Harvard University, 2010), 58-60. 64 Éd. Peter Van Deun, Eustratii Constantinopolitani de statu animarum post mortem (CPG 7522), CChr.SG 60 (Turnhout, 2006), 64 (l. 1538-9). Cf. S.J. Voicu, ‘Per una lista delle opere trasmesse in copto’ (2011), 598, n. 34. 65 Cf. CChr.SG 60, 65 (l. 1573): ὁ αὐτὸς φωστήρ. 66 Ibid. 10 (l. 196-7); cf. ibid. 24 (l. 551-2), 25 (τοῦ θεοφόρου διδασκάλου, l. 577), 63 (l. 1511-2), 111 (l. 2680-1), 112 (l. 1704). 67 S.J. Voicu, ‘Per una lista delle opere trasmesse in copto’ (2011), 598.

154

G. BADY

Les biographies attribuées à Georges d’Alexandrie et Théodore de Trimithonte, et quelques témoignages avant Jean Damascène Une considération similaire peut être faite d’après un passage de la Vie de Jean Chrysostome attribuée à Georges d’Alexandrie (v. 620 – v. 630). Jean y est appelé ‘Jean de l’Aumône’ en raison de sa bienfaisance envers les pauvres: Ὅθεν ἐκ τούτου ὠνομάσθη Ἰωάννης ὁ τῆς ἐλεημοσύνης68. L’expression est troublante à plus d’un titre. Tout d’abord, si l’on met à part les avatars ultérieurs de cette Vie69, elle n’est jamais employée ailleurs au sujet de Jean Chrysostome – même si, eu égard à l’intense action caritative de Jean, elle n’est pas invraisemblable. Ensuite, elle suppose que soit méconnu le surnom du prédécesseur immédiat de Georges sur le siège d’Alexandrie, précisément ‘Jean l’Aumônier’, Ἰωάννης ὁ ἐλεήμων. Faut-il supposer que celui qu’on appelle aussi Jean de Chypre ait été ainsi qualifié assez tardivement? Sa propre Vie a été composée par Léonce de Néapolis vers 640, mais le surnom n’y apparaît que dans le titre (initial et final)70, selon un usage plutôt livresque, et dans des manuscrits non antérieurs au IXe siècle. L’Anonyme qui a repris la Vie (plus ancienne, mais perdue) de Jean l’Aumônier écrite par Sophrone et Jean Moschos semble être fidèle à ses sources71, mais sa mention du surnom, en dehors du titre, apparaît dans les premiers mots, sans doute de sa main72. Enfin, ni la Vie attribuée à Georges, ni celle écrite par Théodore, évêque de Trimithonte (Chypre), qui participa en 680 au 6e concile œcuménique, ne mentionnent ‘Chrysostome’ autrement que dans leur titre73. Pourtant, dans son homélie consacrée au saint, Théodore ne l’emploie pas moins de douze fois74: 68 Vie de Jean Chrysostome (BHGa 873bd), 22, l. 46, éd. François Halkin, Douze récits byzantins sur saint Jean Chrysostome, Subsidia hagiographica 60 (Bruxelles, 1977), 134. Voir de même dans la Vita brevior (BHG 874d), 22, l. 26, ibid. 325: Ὅθεν ἐκ τοῦτου ὠνομάσθη παρὰ πολλῶν Ἰωάννης ὁ τῆς ἐλεημοσύνης. 69 Ainsi Léon le Sage, Homélie 38 (Éloge de Jean Chrysostome), l. 649-50, éd. Th. Antonopoulou, Leonis VI Sapientis Imperatoris Byzantini Homiliae, CChr.SG 63 (Turnhout, 2008), 509. Voir Chrysostomus Baur, S. Jean Chrysostome et ses œuvres dans l’histoire littéraire (Louvain, Paris, 1907), 46. 70 Éd. André Jean Festugière et Lennart Rydén, Léontios de Néapolis, Vie de Syméon le Fou et Vie de Jean de Chypre, Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 95 (Paris, 1974), 343 et 409: Λεοντίου ἐπισκόπου Νεαπόλεως τῆς Κυπρίων νήσου εἰς τὰ λειπόμενα τοῦ βίου τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ ἀρχιεπισκόπου Ἀλεξανδρείας Ἰωάννου τοῦ ἐλεήμονος / Βίος τοῦ ἁγίου Ἰωάννου τοῦ ἐλεήμονος. 71 Voir Hippolyte Delehaye, ‘Une vie inédite de saint Jean l’Aumônier’, Analecta Bollandiana 45 (1927), 11-5; A.J. Festugière et L. Rydén, Léontios de Néapolis (1974), 315-7. 72 H. Delehaye, ‘Une vie inédite de saint Jean l’Aumônier’ (1927), 19: Βίος τοῦ ὁσίου πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἰωάννου τοῦ ἐλεήμονος. Ἰωάννης … ὁ τῆς ἐλεημοσύνης ἐπώνυμος… 73 Vie attribuée à Georges d’Alexandrie, éd. F. Halkin, Douze récits (1977), 70; Vie de Théodore (BHG 872b), PG 47, LIII. 74 Homélie sur la vie de Jean Chrysostome (BHGa 872b), éd. F. Halkin, Douze récits (1977), 8-44.

En quête des premières attestations du surnom ‘Chrysostome’

155

étonnant contraste, que la dépendance supposée de sa Vie par rapport à celle attribuée à Georges ne suffit pas à expliquer; les deux textes, Vie et homélie, auraient-ils eu deux auteurs différents, la paternité de Théodore, attachée à l’un, ayant à un moment donné été donnée à l’autre, par confusion ou contagion? Le dossier mériterait d’être réexaminé de fond en comble. Or, en cette matière déjà passablement déconcertante, le fait le plus troublant est peut-être le flou qui demeure depuis cent ans autour de la Vie attribuée à Georges d’Alexandrie. En 1907, sur la base explicite d’un seul passage, Chrysostomus Baur l’estimait dépendante de celle de Théodore75; en 1925, Paul R. Norton, en énumérant quelques références, se prononçait pour l’avis contraire76; en 1927, C. Baur énumère 2 autres passages, tout en reconnaissant que la dépendance peut être interprétée dans un sens comme dans l’autre77; surtout, il fournit des arguments, certes non dirimants, mais pas complètement négligeables contre une datation de la Vie attribuée à Georges antérieure à 680 (avec un terminus ante quem vers 725, avant le De imaginibus I de Jean Damascène), et contre une origine alexandrine ou même orientale (il penche plutôt vers Rome ou l’Italie méridionale, en raison de la position servile affichée vis-à-vis du pape)78. En 1959, Hans-Georg Beck ne se dit convaincu ni par C. Baur ni par P.R. Coleman, sans se justifier79. En 1977, François Halkin déclare, à son tour sans exposer la moindre argumentation, que la Vie attribuée à l’Alexandrin ‘semble bien remonter à la première moitié du VIIe siècle’80. Les arguments de C. Baur n’ont donc reçu aucune réfutation en règle. Pour ma part, à défaut de traiter ici la question de manière approfondie, à la suite de C. Baur je tiendrais moins pour une lectio difficilior que pour une aberration l’attribution de l’œuvre à Georges d’Alexandrie, titulaire du siège qui s’était montré le moins favorable à Jean; par ailleurs, si jamais il y a autre chose qu’invention ou confusion historique dans cette Vie, et dans la mesure où Jean d’Alexandrie a pu être surnommé ‘l’Aumônier’ à une époque ultérieure, Chrysostome a pu l’être avant lui au VIIe ou au VIIIe siècle. Du reste, l’œuvre a pu précéder la Vie attribuée à Théodore de Trimithonte. L’absence, dans le texte, du mot ‘Chrysostome’, même s’il n’y a pas d’évolution bien nette de son emploi, inviterait en tout cas à ne pas situer trop tard la Vie attribuée à Georges. 75

C. Baur, S. Jean Chrysostome (1907), 45. Paul R. Norton, ‘The Vita S. Chrysostomi by Georgius Alexandrinus’, Classical Philology 20 (1925), 69-70. Voir aussi, sans mention de l’article C. Baur daté de 1927: Paul R. ColemanNorton, Palladii Dialogus de vita S. Joannis Chrysostomi (Cambridge, 1928), xiii, n. 9. 77 Chrysostomus Baur, ‘Georgius Alexandrinus’, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 27 (1927), 6. Voir aussi id., Der heilige Johannes Chrysostomus und seine Zeit (1929), I xxi; et de même dans la traduction anglaise: John Chrysostom and His Time (1959), I xxxiv-xxxv. 78 Ibid. 4-7. 79 Hans-Georg Beck, Kirche und theologische Literatur im byzantinischen Reich (München, 1959), 460. 80 F. Halkin, Douze récits (1977), 69. 76

156

G. BADY

La moisson d’occurrences du VIIe siècle, en effet, est à peine plus riche que celle du VIe. Du début du siècle peut dater le Pré spirituel de Jean Moschos, rappelant ‘l’évêque de Constantinople saint Jean Chrysostome’ et ‘saint Jean de Constantinople, celui qui, à juste titre, est surnommé Chrysostome en raison de la pureté et de la limpidité de son enseignement’81. L’occurrence présente dans les Quaestiones et dubia attribuées à Maxime le Confesseur82, qui pourraient dater du premier quart ou du premier tiers du VIIe siècle83, est très probante, car syntaxiquement intégrée; cependant, son statut originel, au sein d’une compilation, attestée par le Vat. gr. 1703, du Xe s., reste incertain. Un peu plus tard, les actes du concile du Latran en 649, d’après les témoins grecs remontant au mieux au XIIIe siècle, ont beau citer un extrait Τοῦ ἁγίου Ἰωάννου τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου84, en latin dès le IXe siècle on a comme traduction sancti Iohannis episcopi Constantinopolitani, ce qui jette pour le moins un voile de suspicion sur le grec à cet endroit précis. Quant à l’édition des Instructions de Dorothée, citant à deux reprises ‘saint Jean Chrysostome’85, elle est à situer encore plus tard, ‘à la fin du VIIe siècle ou au commencement du VIIIe’86. Le premier véritable seuil est franchi par Jean Damascène, qui est le premier à utiliser ‘Chrysostome’ de manière récurrente (une vingtaine de fois, dont une dans son Éloge de Jean Chrysosotome87). Il marque ainsi au VIIIe siècle, après une longue période d’emplois encore épars, une normalisation définitive du surnom que les éditions des œuvres de l’Antiochien issues de la translittération en minuscules au IXe siècle consacreront pour la suite des siècles.

81 Jean Moschos, Le Pré spirituel 128 (ὁ ἐπίσκοπος Κωνσταντινουπόλεως Ἰωάννης ὁ Χρυσόστομος) et 191 (περὶ τοῦ ἁγίου Ἰωάννου Κωνσταντινου πόλεως, τοῦ δικαίως ἐπονομασθέντος Χρυσοστόμου διὰ τὸ τοῦ διδασκαλικοῦ λόγου καθαρὸν καὶ διαυγὲς), PG 87.3, 1292 et 3069, trad. Christian Bouchet, Fioretti des moines d’Orient: Jean Moschos, Le Pré spirituel, Les Pères dans la foi 95 (Paris, 2006), 140 et 205-6. Sur la date, voir Vincent Déroche, ibid. 7-9. 82 Question 119, éd. José H. Declerck, Maximi confessoris quaestiones et dubia, CChr.SG 10 (Turnhout, 1982), 87, l. 9-10: Κατὰ μὲν τὴν ἱστορίαν ὁ Χρυσόστομος πάνυ ἐπιστημόνως ἑρμηνεύσας τὸν τόπον ἔφη ὅτι… 83 Ibid. XV-XVI. 84 Éd. Rudolf Riedinger, Acta conciliorum œcumenicorum. Series secunda, volumen primum: Concilium Lateranense a. 649 celebratum (Berlin, 1984), 288, act. 5, §27, l. 7. L’éditeur, ibid. X, se montre prudent quant au texte originel. 85 Dorothée, Instructions 12, 128, et 16, 169, éd. Lucien Regnault et Jacques de Préville, SC 92 (Paris, 2001), 386 et 464. 86 L. Regnault, J. de Préville, ibid. 34. 87 Jean Damascène, Laudatio sancti Johannis Chrysostomi, 17, éd. Bonifatius Kotter, Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos, 5, PTS 29 (Berlin, New York, 1988), 369, l. 11: τὸν χρυσολόγον καὶ χρυσόστομον.

En quête des premières attestations du surnom ‘Chrysostome’

157

‘Chrysostome’ dans les langues orientales: quelques éléments En dehors du grec et du latin, une enquête approfondie serait encore à mener dans les langues orientales88. Pour le copte, Sever Voicu a déjà pu distinguer une nette différence entre les traductions en sahidique et celles en bohaïrique: les premières, antérieures au milieu du VIe siècle, se signalent par l’absence complète du surnom Chrysostome (ou alors par ajouts ultérieurs), tandis que dans les secondes, généralement plus tardives, il apparaît constamment89. Ce constat rend d’autant plus précieuse l’occurrence du surnom dans la Vie d’Épiphane en sahidique, qui serait la première dans cette langue. Quant à moi, je ne ferai qu’une rapide incursion dans les corpus de deux d’entre elles. En syriaque90, il ne semble pas y avoir d’attestation de †ÎãÎÔéÎé{üÝ, l’équivalent (par translittération) de ‘Chrysostomos’, au Ve siècle. Au début du siècle suivant, le florilège intégré par Philoxène de Mabboug dans ses Mēmrē contre Ḥabib introduit simplement les citations chrysostomiennes par ‘De l’évêque Jean’91. Encore au VIe siècle, le manuscrit Add. 14566 de la British Library témoigne d’une appellation ancienne ¿þÙËù ëÚàÎóçÚÔç×éÎùx¿òÎúíÚòsèæ¾ÐÎÙ€üã, ‘saint mar Jean, évêque de Constantinople’92. Concernant les citations de Jean chez Sévère d’Antioche, Sever Voicu aboutit quant à lui à une conclusion comparable93.

88

Voir Sever J. Voicu, ‘John Chrysostom in the oriental languages’, Comparative Oriental Languages Studies Newsletter 5 (2013), 41-6, et la bibliographie; parmi des études plus anciennes, citons Constantin Bacha, ‘S. Jean Chrysostome dans la littérature arabe’, dans ΧΡΥΣΟΣΤΟΜΙΚΑ. Studi e ricerche intorno a S. Giovanni Crisostomo a cura del comitato per il XV° centenario della sua morte (Roma, 1908), 173-87; Aurelio Palmieri, ‘San Giovanni Crisostomo nella letteratura russa’, ibid. 189-211; Michel Tamarati, ‘Saint Jean Chrysostome dans la littérature géorgienne’, ibid. 213-6. 89 S.J. Voicu, ‘Per una lista delle opere trasmesse in copto’ (2011), 596-600. Je remercie tout particulièrement S. Voicu pour ses éclaircissements à ce sujet. 90 Voir notamment Arthur B. Shippee, ‘The known Syriac witnesses to John Chrysostom’s Catecheses and new manuscript sources’, Le Muséon 109 (1996), 87-111; Jeff W. Childers, ‘Chrysostom’s Exegetical Homilies on the New Testament in Syriac Translation’, SP 33 (1997), 509-16; Andrea Schmidt et Dominique Gonnet (éd.), Les Pères grecs dans la tradition syriaque, Études syriaques 4 (Paris, 2007); Sever J. Voicu, ‘Testi patristici in armeno (secc. V-VIII)’, dans Angelo Di Berardino (éd.), Patrologia, V: dal Concilio di Calcedonia (451) a Giovanni Damasceno († 750). I Padri orientali (Genova, 2000), 575-607. 91 Éd. Maurice Brière et François Graffin, Sancti Philoxeni episcopi Mabbugensis dissertationes decem de uno e sancta trinitate incorporato et passo (Mēmrē contre Ḥabib), t. V, PO 41.1 (Turnhout, 1982), 66-7, 76-7, 86-7, 98-9, 116-7. 92 Je remercie vivement Sergey Kim pour cette précision qu’il m’a fournie. 93 Sever J. Voicu, ‘Quoting John Chrysostom in the sixth century: Severus of Antioch’, dans La teologia dal V all’VIII secolo fra sviluppo e crisi. XLI Incontro di studiosi dell’antichità cristiana, Roma, 9-11 maggio 2013, Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum 140 (Roma, 2014), 636.

158

G. BADY

De manière similaire en arménien94, l’apparition du terme Ոսկեբերան (Oskeberan) reste à dater; la Lettre des Arméniens aux orthodoxes en Perse, datée d’environ 508, cite avec d’autres Pères ‘Jean’, sans autre précision95; Moïse de Khorène au Ve siècle – ou bien plus tard en réalité – mentionne ‘Jean le Grand’96, mais transmet aussi une lettre où Atticus, évêque de Constantinople de 406 à 425, écrit à Sahag, évêque des Arméniens97: ‘Tu as négligé la source de l’Église, saint Jean notre père, par qui, non seulement cette métropole de l’univers, mais encore tous les chrétiens et le monde entier ont été enseignés, ce qui l’a fait surnommer Chrysostome’. Étant donné qu’Atticus est l’un des acteurs majeurs de la condamnation de Jean98, le document a tout l’air d’un faux tardif dont l’Histoire d’Arménie n’est pas exempte. Plus sûrement, selon Emilio Bonfiglio, l’attestation la plus ancienne est contenue dans l’épistolaire de Jean III d’Odzoun, catholicos des Arméniens entre 717 et 72899. Des sondages plus larges et plus approfondis, en de multiples langues, dépasseraient le cadre de cette étude et mes compétences, mais semblent plus que jamais nécessaires. Conclusion En tout état de cause, le bilan de cette enquête n’est pas entièrement négatif. Si le premier motif de l’apparition du surnom a dû être la réputation d’éloquence de Jean, en Orient comme en Occident, l’usage livresque paraît avoir mis du temps à s’installer. Jean serait donc devenu ‘Chrysostome’ bien avant de l’être dans les titres des manuscrits: à tout le moins postérieur à 438, le témoignage du supplément de la Vie d’Épiphane pourrait être le plus ancien 94 Voir notamment Giovanni Aucher, ‘San Giovanni Crisostomo nella letteratura armena’, dans ΧΡΥΣΟΣΤΟΜΙΚΑ (1908), 143-71; Rose Varteni Chétanian, La version arménienne ancienne des homélies sur les Actes des Apôtres de Jean Chrysostome: homélies I, II, VII, VIII, CSCO 607-8, Arm. 27-8 (Louvain, 2004); Emilio Bonfiglio, ‘The Armenian Translations of John Chrysostom: The Issue of Selection’, dans Madalina Toca et Daniel Batovici (éd.), Caught in Translation: Studies on Versions of Late-Antique Christian Literature, Texts and Studies in Eastern Christianity 17 (Leiden, 2020), 35-63; id., ‘Giovanni Crisostomo e il corpus Chrysostomicum nell’Armenia tardoantica: strumenti di lavoro, fortuna e prospettive di ricercar’, Adamantius 25 (2019), 214-28. 95 Nina Garsoïan, L’Église arménienne et le Grand schisme d’Orient, CSCO 574, Subs. 100 (Louvain, 1999), 449; pour la datation, voir ibid. 146. Je remercie chaleureusement Maxime Yevadian pour m’avoir indiqué cette référence, ainsi que les deux suivantes. 96 Moïse de Khorène, Histoire d’Arménie, III, 52, trad. Victor Langlois, Collection des historiens anciens et modernes de l’Arménie, t. II (Paris, 1869), 161. 97 III, 56, ibid. 165. 98 Voir la position également suspicieuse à ce sujet d’Emilio Bonfiglio, ‘Giovanni Crisostomo e il Corpus Chrysostomicum nell’Armenia tardoantica: strumenti di lavoro, fortuna e prospettive di ricerca’, Adamantius 25 (2019), 223-4. 99 E. Bonfiglio (ibid.), qui renvoie à N. Połarean (éd.), Girk‘ T‘łt‘oc‘ (Jérusalem, 1994), 470.

En quête des premières attestations du surnom ‘Chrysostome’

159

connu; plus douteux est celui des actes de Chalcédoine, à qui l’on doit la consécration posthume de Grégoire de Nazianze comme ‘le Théologien’ et qui, par leur importance, auraient dû faire se multiplier après 451 les emplois de ‘Chrysostome’. Rares encore pendant plus d’un siècle, sinon jusqu’au VIIIe siècle, les autres sont postérieurs aux premières attestations en latin. Quant aux corpus en langues orientales, ils restent trop largement inexplorés. On peut espérer qu’à l’avenir la mise en lumière d’autres sources permettra de trouver de nouvelles occurrences. D’un point de vue épistémologique, l’historien est bel et bien victime du succès de Jean de Constantinople: le poids de ce succès dans la tradition littéraire et manuscrite est tel qu’il semble conditionner celle-ci, même si celle-ci est authentiquement ancienne. La façon que nous avons d’employer si communément le surnom ‘Bouche d’or’ paraît même nous empêcher de le prendre pour ce qu’il est: historiquement, le contraire d’une évidence.

À propos de Χρυσόστομος et d’autres anthroponymes tirés de στόμα Julien ALIQUOT, CNRS, HiSoMA, Lyon, France

ABSTRACT The radical of the Greek noun στόμα, ‘mouth’, has produced a small series of anthroponyms since the Archaic period. Although not rare, these names are not frequently attested. Apart from a few derivatives, we can mention at least two auspicious compounds derived from laudatory adjectives that refer to the idea of eloquence: Εὔστομος and Χρυσόστομος. Both are fairly well attested in Latin sources under the Roman empire, in rather modest, if not servile, circles. Occurrences of the masculine Chrysostomus and the feminine Chrysostoma can be found at Rome and in Italy between the first and fifth centuries AD. On the other hand, the use of Χρυσόστομος as a personal name seems to have been extremely rare in the East. Up to and including the early Byzantine period, the mediocre success of this anthroponym was therefore inversely proportional to the popularity that John Chrysostom’s nickname enjoyed among the Christians since the end of antiquity.

Le radical du substantif grec στόμα, ‘bouche’, a produit une petite série d’anthroponymes depuis l’époque grecque archaïque. Sans être rares, ces noms sont peu fréquents. Dans ses Historischen Personennamen (1917), Friedrich Bechtel n’en enregistrait qu’un, l’hypocoristique masculin Στομᾶς, qu’il considérait à juste titre comme un sobriquet (‘grande bouche’, ‘grande gueule’, ‘gueulard’)1. Plus récemment, Louis Robert a attiré l’attention sur d’autres noms grecs tirés du même radical στομ-2. La consultation des volumes parus du Lexicon of Greek Personal Names permet de compléter le tableau: aux côtés de Στομᾶς, Στομῆς, Στόμιος et Στόμων, et peut-être de Στόμας et

1 Friedrich Bechtel, Die historischen Personennamen des Griechischen bis zur Kaiserzeit (Halle, 1917), 481, d’après Inscriptiones Graecae IV.1, 764, col. 2, ligne 3, à Trézène au IVe siècle av. J.-C.; voir pour mémoire Friedrich Bechtel, Die einstämmigen männlichen Personennamen des Griechischen, die aus Spitznamen hervorgegangen sind (Berlin, 1898), 29-30 et 64, qui proposait d’abord de considérer Στομᾶς comme une troncation de Στόμαργος, pourtant inusité comme anthroponyme. 2 Louis Robert, Études épigraphiques et philologiques (Paris, 1938), 180 (‘Στόμων, c’est, en grec, comme Στομᾶς, l’homme à la grande bouche’); Noms indigènes dans l’Asie-Mineure grécoromaine (Paris, 1963), 69-70 (Στομᾶς, Στομῆς, Στόμιος, Στόμων).

Studia Patristica CXIV, 161-162. © Peeters Publishers, 2021.

162

J. ALIQUOT

Στόμης3, la documentation épigraphique atteste aussi l’existence du masculin Στομίλος et du féminin Στομιανή4. Il convient de rapprocher de ces dérivés au moins deux composés de bon augure issus d’adjectifs élogieux qui renvoient à l’idée d’éloquence: Εὔστομος (Eustomus) et Χρυσόστομος (Chrysostomus). Tous deux sont assez bien attestés dans les sources latines à l’époque romaine impériale, dans des milieux plutôt modestes, sinon serviles. Des occurrences du masculin Chrysostomus et du féminin Chrysostoma se trouvent à Rome et en Italie entre le Ier et le Ve siècle apr. J.-C.5. En Orient en revanche, l’usage de Χρυσόστομος comme nom de personne semble rarissime dans l’Antiquité. Une attestation isolée apparaît dans un papyrus égyptien du VIIe siècle apr. J.-C.6. Jusqu’à l’époque protobyzantine incluse, le médiocre succès de cet anthroponyme fut donc inversement proportionnel à la popularité que le surnom de Jean Chrysostome a connue auprès des chrétiens depuis la fin de l’Antiquité. On en revient ainsi à l’idée que le saint évêque ‘à la bouche d’or’ n’a été qualifié de la sorte que longtemps après sa mort.

3 Dans ses ‘Notes d’onomastique béotienne (Thespies)’ (1995), Olivier Masson, Onomastica Graeca selecta, III (Genève, 2000), 237, hésitait à accentuer Στομᾶς au lieu de Στόμας dans le cas des occurrences de ce nom en Béotie (‘car je ne suis pas certain de l’existence de formes en -ᾶς à l’intérieur du béotien’). 4 Στομίλος: Inscriptiones Graecae XII.9, 56, 376 (Styra, Ve siècle av. J.-C.). Στομιανή: Peter Herrmann, Tituli Asiae Minoris, V, Tituli Lydiae linguis Graeca et Latina conscripti, 1 (Wien, 1981), 95, no 284 (Τερτύλλα Μηνοδότου Στομιανή, Koula, 173/174 apr. J.-C.). Ce dernier nom rappelle l’épiclèse topique du héros Stomianos (ἥρως Στομιανός), qui devait éviter aux navires de s’échouer en manquant l’entrée dans la vraie Bouche (Στόμα) du Bosphore à l’époque romaine impériale, même si le rapport linguistique ou historique entre les deux termes n’est pas évident. Voir Louis Robert, ‘Les inscriptions grecques de Bulgarie’, Revue de philologie (1959), 194-6 = Opera minora selecta, V (Amsterdam, 1989), 224-6; cf. Adam Łajtar, Die Inschriften von Byzantion, I, Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 58 (Bonn, 2000), 58-60, nos 25-9. 5 Rome: Corpus inscriptionum Latinarum VI, 27275 (Chrysostomus), 33827 ([---]stomia), 34421 (Anthidis Chrysostom(a)); Antonio Ferrua, Inscriptiones christianae urbis Romae, n.s. 7 (Romae, 1980), no 18590 (Grisostoma); cf. Heikki Solin, Die griechischen Personennamen in Rom, 2e éd. (Berlin, 2003), 769-70. Ostie: Corpus inscriptionum Latinarum XIV, 255 (Marcius Chrysostomus), 461 (T. Marcius Crysostom(us)) et 4562 (T. Marcius Chrysostomus). Brixellum (Émilie): Année épigraphique, 1931, 9 (Chrisostomus). 6 Carl Wessely, Studien zur Palaeographie und Papyruskunde, X (Leipzig, 1910), 153, no 291, ligne 17 (δ(ιὰ) Χρυσοστόμου).