The Reception of John Chrysostom in Early Modern Europe: Translating and Reading a Greek Church Father from 1417 to 1624 Kennerley Visit to download the full and correct content document: https://ebookmass.com/product/the-reception-of-john-chrysostom-in-early-modern-eur ope-translating-and-reading-a-greek-church-father-from-1417-to-1624-kennerley/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant download maybe you interests ...
Architecture and the Politics of Gender in Early Modern Europe 1st Edition Helen Hills (Editor)
https://ebookmass.com/product/architecture-and-the-politics-ofgender-in-early-modern-europe-1st-edition-helen-hills-editor/
Lives Uncovered: A Sourcebook of Early Modern Europe
Nicholas Terpstra
https://ebookmass.com/product/lives-uncovered-a-sourcebook-ofearly-modern-europe-nicholas-terpstra/
The Dialectics of Orientalism in Early Modern Europe
1st Edition Marcus Keller
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-dialectics-of-orientalism-inearly-modern-europe-1st-edition-marcus-keller/
Greek Epigram from the Hellenistic to the Early Byzantine Era Maria Kanellou
https://ebookmass.com/product/greek-epigram-from-the-hellenisticto-the-early-byzantine-era-maria-kanellou/
Nationalism as a Claim to a State: The Greek Revolution of 1821 and the Formation of Modern Greece John Milios
https://ebookmass.com/product/nationalism-as-a-claim-to-a-statethe-greek-revolution-of-1821-and-the-formation-of-modern-greecejohn-milios/
Love's Wounds: Violence and the Politics of Poetry in Early Modern Europe 1st Edition Nazarian
https://ebookmass.com/product/loves-wounds-violence-and-thepolitics-of-poetry-in-early-modern-europe-1st-edition-nazarian/
Economies of Literature and Knowledge in Early Modern Europe: Change and Exchange Subha Mukherji
https://ebookmass.com/product/economies-of-literature-andknowledge-in-early-modern-europe-change-and-exchange-subhamukherji/
Providence and Narrative in the Theology of John Chrysostom Robert Edwards
https://ebookmass.com/product/providence-and-narrative-in-thetheology-of-john-chrysostom-robert-edwards/
Prophecy, Madness, and Holy War in Early Modern Europe
Leigh T.I. Penman
https://ebookmass.com/product/prophecy-madness-and-holy-war-inearly-modern-europe-leigh-t-i-penman/
SamKennerley TheReceptionofJohnChrysostominEarlyModernEurope
Arbeitenzur Kirchengeschichte Foundedby KarlHoll † andHansLietzmann †
Editedby
ChristianAlbrecht,ChristophMarkschies andChristopherOcker
Volume157 SamKennerley TheReceptionofJohn ChrysostominEarly ModernEurope TranslatingandReadingaGreekChurchFather from1417to1624
ISBN978-3-11-070884-4
e-ISBN(PDF)978-3-11-070890-5
e-ISBN(EPUB)978-3-11-070896-7
ISSN1861-5996
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2022946561
BibliographicinformationpublishedbytheDeutscheNationalbibliothek
TheDeutscheNationalbibliothekliststhispublicationintheDeutscheNationalbibliografie; detailedbibliographicdataareavailableontheinternetathttp://dnb.dnb.de.
©2023WalterdeGruyterGmbH,Berlin/Boston
Typesetting:IntegraSoftwareServicesPvt.Ltd.
Printingandbinding:CPIbooksGmbH,Leck
www.degruyter.com
Tomyteachers
TimGreenwood
EmilyMichelson
VickyJanssens
ScottMandelbrote
RobertoCarfagni
PedroEmilioRiveraDíaz
MagistrisAcademiaeVivariiNovi
Contents AbbreviationsXI
Part1: Introduction
1Introduction3
Part2: FromlateantiquitytotheItalianRenaissance
1ThetransmissionandtranslationofChrysostomduringlate antiquitytheMiddleAges11
1.1ApottedbiographyofJohnChrysostom 11
1.2Fromthefourthtothesixthcentury:Theearliestperiod ofreception 12
1.3Fromthesixthtotheninthcentury:Theoldestmanuscripts ofChrysostom 21
1.4Fromtheninthtotheeleventhcentury:Thereception ofChrysostominByzantiumduringthe ‘Macedonian Renaissance’ 26
1.5Fromthetwelfthtothefifteenthcentury:The ‘twelfth-century Renaissance’ andafter 29
1.6Conclusion:Thestateofaffairsupto1417 34
2AmbrogioTraversari:TranslatingChrysostominearlyRenaissance Florence36
2.1AmbrogioTraversari’stranslationsofChrysostom 36
2.2TraversariandcontemporaryByzantinescholarship 44
3JohnChrysostominlateByzantineandpost-Byzantinepatristic scholarship47
3.1ChrysostominByzantinepatristicscholarshipatCouncil ofFerrara-Florence 47
3.2ChrysostomandtheconsensusoftheFathersintheGreek worldaftertheCouncilofFerrara-Florence 54
4TranslationsofJohnChrysostominRenaissanceRomefromNicholasV (1447–1455)toSixtusIV(1471–1484)62
4.1ThefoundationoftheVaticanLibrary,anditscollection ofGreekmanuscriptsofChrysostom 62
4.2TwoGreektranslatorsofJohnChrysostom:George ofTrebizondandTheodoreGaza 65
4.3TranslationsofChrysostombyLatinscholars,1450–1484. 1:PietroBalbi 76
4.4TranslationsofChrysostombyLatinscholars,1450–1484. 2:FrancescoGriffolini 82
4.5TranslationsofChrysostombyLatinscholars,1450–1484. 3:Tortelli,Lippi,Brenta,Persona,Valentini,Lando,and Selling 93
4.6ReadingChrysostomintheItalianRenaissance:Theexample ofJeanJouffroy 96
5ThefirstprintededitionsofJohnChrysostom,c.1466–1504105
5.1IncunabulaeditionsofChrysostom 105
5.2Thefirst Operaomnia:1503(Venice)and1504(Basel) 111
Part3: ThepoliticsofpatristicscholarshipinReformation Basel:Erasmus,hisfriends,andtheirenemies
1Newtexts,newquestions,andanewinterpretationofPaul121
2ThepoliticsofpatristicscholarshipinReformationBasel131
3Erasmusinexile:The1530and1536 Operaomnia 151
4Erasmus’s LifeofJohnChrysostom 163
4.1 ChrysostomusalterPaulus 163
4.2Thestudyofspuria 175
Part4: Patristicscholarshipinanage ofconfessionalisation 1Confessionalisationandscholarship:Settingthescene185
2TestingandignoringconfessionalisationinBrescia,Basel, andParis:1536–1547188
2.1Experimentsinconfessionalisationineditionsprinted between1536and1539 188
2.2Aconfessionalorcommercialrivalry?The Operaomnia of Paris(1543)andBasel(1547) 193
3AnItalianinterlude:1548–1554202
4Arivalryrenewed:The Operaomnia of1556(Paris),1558(Basel), and1570(Paris)214
5CensoringandtranslatingChrysostominItaly,theLowCountries, andFrance,1571–1585228
5.1TheplaceoftheChurchFathersintheRomanindexbetween thedeathofMarcelloCervini(1555)andtheestablishmentof theCongregationoftheIndex(1571) 228
5.2SuppressingandsupportingscholarshipinBolognaand Antwerp 235
5.3PlansforaRoman Operaomnia ofChrysostom 240
5.4JacquesdeBillyandthe1581Paris Operaomnia 245
5.5Assessingtheimpactofconfessionalisationandcensorship onpatristicsbetween1571and1585 249
6Education,collaboration,andconfession:1585–1624252
6.1Educationandconfession:PrintingChrysostomforthe classroom 252
6.2Collaborationandconfession.1:JérômeCommelinandhis successors 259
6.3Collaborationandconfession.2:HenrySavile’searlyplans foraGreekeditionofChrysostom,andtheresponseof FrontonduDuc 266
6.4Collaborationandconfession.3:HenrySavilecompleteshis edition,withhelpfromFrontonduDuc 272
6.5Conclusion 278
Part5: Generalconclusion Generalconclusion283
1Expansion,change,ordevelopment? 283
2WhytheearlymodernreceptionofChrysostomstillmatters.
1:Theongoingsignificanceofearlymoderneditionstothe GreektextofChrysostom 285
3WhytheearlymodernreceptionofChrysostomstillmatters.
2:LatinisChrysostom’ssecondlanguage 286
4WhytheearlymodernreceptionofChrysostomstillmatters.
3:Lossessincetheearlymodernperiod 288
5WhytheearlymodernreceptionofChrysostomstillmatters.
4:Nooneeditioncananswereveryquestion 289
Bibliography291
Images317
Indices319
Abbreviations Allen, Opusepistolarum
Barb.lat.
BnF
Erasmus,Desiderius. Opusepistolarum,editedbyPercyS.Allen, HelenM.Allen,andHeathcoteW.Garrod.Oxford:Clarendon Press,1906–1958.Citationbythenumberoftheletterinthis edition.
BibliotecaApostolicaVaticana,Barb.lat.
Paris:BibliothèquenationaledeFrance BuA Staehelin,Ernst,ed. BriefeundAktenzumLebenOekolampads. Leipzig:M.HeinsiusNachfolger,1927–1934.
CC Florence:ArchiviodiStato,CarteCerviniane
CCG CodicesChrysostomicigraeci (Paris:LesÉditionsduCERF,1968-) Contemporaries Bietenholz,PeterG.andThomasD.Deutscher,eds. ContemporariesofErasmus.Toronto:UniversityofTorontoPress, 1985–1987.
CT ConciliumTridentium.Diariorum,Actorum,Epistularum, Tractatuumnouacollectio.Freiburg-im-Breisgau:Herder, 1901–2001.
CWE CollectedWorksofErasmus (Toronto:UniversityofTorontoPress, 1974-)
D&S
ConciliumFlorentinum,documentaetscriptores.Rome: PontificiumInstitutumOrientaliumStudiorum,1940–1977.
ILI Bujanda,JoséM.etal. Indexdeslivresinterdits.Sherbrooke: Centred’étudesdelaRenaissance,1984–2002.
Monac.gr. Munich:BayerischeStaatsbibliothek,Cod.graec.
PG Patrologiagraeca (Paris:Migne,1857–1866)
PL Patrologialatina (Paris:Migne,1841–1865)
Pal.gr.
Reg.lat.
BibliotecaApostolicaVaticana,Pal.gr.
BibliotecaApostolicaVaticana,Reg.lat.
SC Sourceschrétiennes
Urb.gr.
Urb.lat.
BibliotecaApostolicaVaticana,Urb.gr.
BibliotecaApostolicaVaticana,Urb.lat.
USTC UniversalShortTitleCatalogue,accessibleonlineat https://www.ustc.ac.uk/
Vat.gr.
Vat.lat.
BibliotecaApostolicaVaticana,Vat.gr.
BibliotecaApostolicaVaticana,Vat.lat.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110708905-203
Part1: Introduction 1Introduction Thefollowingbookexploreswhen,how,why,andbywhomoneofthemost influentialFathersoftheGreekChurchwastranslatedandreadataparticularlysignificantmomentinthereceptionofhisworks.Ithasbeenwrittenwith twoaudiencesinmind.Ononehand,thisbookisaddressedtoresearchersof thehistoryandliteratureoflateantiquity,suchaseditorsofpatristictextsand theirreaders.Ontheother,itisdirectedathistoriansoftheearlymodernperiod,inparticularhistoriansoftranslation,ideas,andscholarship.Theinterestsoftheseaudiencesoftenoverlap,buttheirhistoriographyandresearch questionsaredifferentenoughtowar ranttreatingthemseparatelyinthis Introduction.
Tothefirst,thisbookaimstoprovi deanoverallaccountofthetextual transmissionofworksbyorattributedtoChrysostomduringtheearlymodern period.Iamnotthefirstpersontoattemptthismammothtask.Thisbook wouldhavebeeninfinitelypoorerwithouttheworkofscholarsfromDom MorintoWendyMayer,whohaveexaminedspecificaspectsofthereceptionof Chrysostomusingearlymodernsources.However,thego-tostudyforageneral accountofthetransmissionofChrysostom’sworksisstillBaur’s S.JeanChrysostomeetsesoeuvresdanslahistoirelittéraire ,whichwasfirstpublishedin 1907.1 Thataworkprintedoveronehundredyearsagoisstillinregularuseis testamenttoitsquality.Inparticular,Baur’ssurveyofvernaculartranslations willremainuseful,asitcoversathemethatwillnotbetreatedhere.ThefollowingbookwillfocusonGreekandLatin,asthatisoneareainwhichBaur’sresearchcanbegreatlyexpandedandupdated.HishistoryofeditionsinGreek andLatinprintedduringtheentireperiodcoveredbythisbookamountstojust sixpages,forexample.2 Referenceworksthatarenowfundamentaltopatristic studies,suchasthe ClavisPatrumGraecorum,alsoappearedlongafterBaur’s book,asdidthestudiesofspecificaspectsofthereceptionofChrysostomthat werenotedabove.
Asaresult,itishopedthatscholarsoflateantiquitywillparticularlybenefitfromthebibliographicalinformationcontainedinthisbook.Suchreaders mayfindheremanuscriptsandeditionsofChrysostomthattheywerepreviouslyunawareof,orwhosehistoryrequiredelucidation.Thismaybeespecially trueforLatintranslationsofChrysostomthatcanonlybefoundinmanuscript,
ChrysostomusBaur, S.JeanChrysostomeetsesoeuvresdansl’histoirelittéraire (Louvain:BureauxduRecueil,1907).
Baur, JeanChrysostomeetsesoeuvres,82–8.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110708905-001
someofwhich,suchasthoseofAmbrogioTraversari,mightbeofinterestto moderncriticsduetotheiruseofnow-lostGreekmanuscripts.ThesameaudiencemayalsowishtopayspecialattentiontoPart3andtheConclusionofthis book,astheytracethedevelopmentoftheearlymoderneditionsthatprovide muchoftheLatinandGreektextofChrysostomthatwereadtoday.
Tofacilitatetheuseofthisbookasareferencevolume,Ihavekeyedinthe worksofChrysostomtothe ClavisPatrumGraecorum (CPG),andeditionstothe onlinedatabasethe UniversalShortTitleCatalogue (USTC).PaoloSachetiscreating aonlinedatabasededicatedtothereceptionoftheChurchFathers(“AGAPE”) whichwillcollectanddescribepatristiceditionsprintedbetween1450and1600, butIhavenototherwisereferredtothisresourceasithadyettobelaunched whenIcompletedworkonthisbook.NoequivalentdatabaseexistsformanuscriptsoftheChurchFathers,whoseshelfmarksIhavehowevercitedinfull,or shortenedinthemannerdescribedinthe ‘Abbreviations’ pageabove.Byreferring totheindicesofthisbook,areaderinterestedinaparticulartextshouldtherefore beabletogainasenseofitstransmissionbetweenthefifteenthandtheseventeenthcentury,orattheveryleasttofindtheearlymodernmanuscriptsandeditionsthatwouldallowthemtoacquirethatsensethemselves.
Thebibliographicalsideofthisbookanswersthequestions ‘when’ and ‘by whom’.Butresearchersofthehistoryandliteratureoflateantiquitymayalso beinterestedin ‘how ’ and ‘why’ certaintextsofChrysostomweretranslated andreadbetween1417and1624,topicsthatIexpecttobeofmostsignificance tohistoriansoftheearlymodernperiodaswell.ExplaininghowIhaveaddressedthesequestionsrequiresacloserstudyofthecontentsofthisbook.
ThefirstChapterofPart2ofthisbookoffersarapidoverviewofthetransmissionofChrysostom’sworksinLatinandGreekduringlateantiquityandtheMiddleAges,beforeouranalysismovesontothetranslationandreadingofthis ChurchFatherfromthefifteenthtotheearlysixteenthcentury.Chapter2studies thefirsttranslatorofChrysostomintoLatinduringthefifteenth-century,Ambrogio Traversari,tracinghistranslationsofChrysostombacktohismonasticvocation andpapallegislationabouttheJews.AnattempttoidentifyTraversari’sGreekexemplarforhisversionofmanyofChrysostom’shomiliesofPaulisfollowedbya studyofhisknowledgeofpatristicscholarshipintheByzantineEmpire,notleast duringhisattendanceattheCouncilofFerrara-Florence,whereGreekandLatin prelatesmettodiscussaunionoftheChurchesbetweenJune1438andJuly1439. ThedebatesatthiscounciltakecentrestageforthethirdchapterofPart2,which findsthattheyshowameaningfulexchangeofpatristicscholarshipbetween GreeksandLatins,inparticularoverpatristicconsensus,andChrysostom’sstatus astheauthoritativeinterpreterofPaul.Thisthirdchapterconcludesbyexploring howpro-unionistwriterssuchasMammas,Plousiadenos,andBessarionsoughtto
convincetheirByzantinereadersthatRome,notConstantinople,wasthetrueheir totheChurchofGreekFatherslikeChrysostom.
GreekinterpretersretaintheirprominenceinthefourthchapterofPart2, whichfollowsthecollectionandtranslationofGreekmanuscriptsofChrysostominRomefromthereignofPopeNicholasV(1447–1455)tothatofPopeSixtusIV(1471–1484).KeyherearetwoByzantinescholars,GeorgeofTrebizond andTheodoreGaza,whoarenowbestk nownfortheiracrimoniousdispute aboutthecorrectmannertotranslateAristotleintoLatin.Bycontrast,this chaptershowsthattheylargelyagreedonthetranslationofChrysostom,anapparentcontradictionthathighlightst heimportanceoftheoriesofrhetoricto thepracticeofLatintranslationduringtheearlymodernperiod.Thisstudyof Renaissancepracticesoftranslationcontinuesintoananalysisoftheworkof LatinscholarslikePietroBalbiandFrancescoGriffolini.Followingtheirtranslationsthroughdifferentstagesofdevelopment,itarguesthatthesetranslators progressively ‘ polished ’ awayanytraceoftheirGreekexemplarstoproduce evermoreLatinatepiecesoforatory.TherhetoricalandmoralinterestinChrysostomimpliedbythesetranslationsisthenshowntobeconsistentwithhowhe wasreadbytheBurgundiancardinalandbibliophileJeanJouffroy.
Mostoftheresearchforthesechapterswasconductedonmanuscripts, someofwhichhaveyettofeatureinanyaccountofthereceptionofChrysostom.However,thefifthchapterofPart2addsprintedbookstothemix.ItfollowshownewtranslationsofChrysostomtravelledfromthescriptoriaofRome tothepressesoftheRhineland,butobservesthatearlybuyersofprintedbooks apparentlypreferredtoreadthepenitentialandexegeticalworksthathadbeen popularduringlateantiquityandMiddleAges.Next,thischaptershowsthat theprintingoftranslationsofChrysostomwasanythingbutastraightforward reproductionofmanuscriptexemplars.Ithighlightsexamplesofdeliberateeditorialinterventioninearlyeditionsof Chrysostom,especiallyinthefirstcollectedworksofthisChurchFatherprintedin1503and1504.
Part2ofthisbookstudieseditorsandtranslatorswhoarenolongerhouseholdnames.Bycontrast,Part3concentratesonamuchbetter-knownfigure, DesideriusErasmus,aswellasonhisfriendsandenemies.Chapter1outlines thehistoryandmotivationsofErasmus’searlyworkonChrysostom.Itargues thatErasmus ’scollectionofGreekmanuscriptsofChrysostomledhimtoengagewiththisChurchFather’sanalysisofPaul,andultimatelytoelevateChrysostomaboveAugustineasaninterpreteroftheApostleonkeytheological issuesoftheReformation.TheimpactoftheReformationonearlymodernpatristicsisfurtherpursuedinChapter2,whichexploreshowErasmuscollaboratedwithotherCatholiceditorsofChrysostominordertounderminetheleaderof theProtestantReformationinBasel,JohannesOecolampadius.Erasmusemerges
fromthischapteraslessirenicthanhehas oftenbeenportrayed,arevisionofhis legacythatisachievedbyanalysisofthedeliberaterevisionsthathemadetohis correspondence.
Furtherre-readingofErasmus’scorrespondenceisproposedinChapter3, whichstudiesthe Operaomnia ofChrysostomprintedatBaselin1530.Erasmus’s letterssuggestthathewasinoverallcommandofthisedition,andthathepermittedOecolampadiustoparticipateinitoutofalackofotheroptions.Butan alternativeapproachtothismaterialsuggeststhatOecolampadiuswastheleadingfigureinthecreationofthe1530 Operaomnia,andthatheproducedan overtlyProtestanteditionofChrysostomthatErasmusandhisfriendsattempted tosupplantwithaCatholicalternativesixyearslater.Chapter4evaluatesErasmus’smaincontributiontothis1536edition,his LifeofJohnChrysostom.ItconcludesthatwhilerecenthistoriographyiscorrecttochallengewhetherErasmus’s biographiesoftheLatinFatherswereasrevolutionaryashasoftenbeenclaimed, thesourcesandcontentofhis LifeofChrysostom markagenuinedeparturefrom lateantiqueandmedievalaccountsofthisChurchFather.
AreaderofthesechapterswillcomeawaywithanErasmuswhowasmore closelyinvolvedinconfessionalpolemicagainstProtestantismthanhassofar beenbelieved.TheinteractionbetweenreligiousconfessionandpatristicscholarshipraisedbythesechaptersisfurtherexploredinPart4ofthisbook.Aftera shortfirstchapterreviewingrecenthistoriographyonthistopic,Chapter2arguesthateditionsofChrysostomprintedbetween1536and1547invertorchallengeconfessionalexplanationsofearlymodernpatristicscholarship.Wefind BenedictinemonksusingChrysostomtoquestionscholastictheology,andProtestanttheologiansfaithfullytranslatingpatristichomiliesinfavouroftheintercessionofthesaints.Indeed,whilethischaptershowsthateditorsinCatholic ParisandProtestantBaselconstantlysoughttooutdooneanother,itfindsthat thiscompetition,andthealterationstothetextofChrysostomthatitencouraged,canbebestexplainedbyacommercialratherthanreligiousrivalrybetweenthesecities.Aratherdifferentimpressionisgainedfromtranslationsof ChrysostomplannedorprintedinItalybetween1548and1554,whicharestudiedinChapter3.Thischaptershowsthattheseandothertranslationsofthe ChurchFathersweresupportedbyCardinalMarcelloCervini,andthatCervini bankrolledsuchworksinordertousetheminrefutationsofProtestantdoctrine attheCouncilofTrent.Thehistoryofthesetranslationsthereforesuggeststhat confessionalisationcouldbeaproductiveaswellasarepressiveforceinearly modernscholarship.
CrossingbackovertheAlps,Chapter4returnstotherivalrybetweenthe pressesofParisandBasel,studying Operaomnia ofChrysostomprintedtherebetween1554and1570.ThischaptershowsthattheroyallibraryatFontainebleau
begantobeexploitedbyFrencheditorsofChrysostominthe1550s,resultingin significantalterationstothereceivedtextofChrysostominthe1554 Operaomnia printedinParis.Thethorougheditingevidentinthe1554 Operaomnia isthen contrastedwithothersprintedinBaselandinParisin1558and1570,whose modestrevisionofthetextofChrysostomistracedinthefirstinstancetoadeclineineditorialstandardsattheFrobenpress,andinthesecondtotheoutbreak ofreligiouswarfareinFrance.Chapter5refinestheconclusionsofChapter3, highlightingawealthoftranslationsandeditionsofChrysostomthatwere plannedunderthesupervisionoftheCongregationoftheIndexbetween1571 and1585,andarguingthattheirdifficulttransmissionhistoryindicatesthat confessionalisationcouldsuppressa swellasstimulatescholarshiponthe ChurchFathers.
Thefinalmainchapterofthisbookextendsthestudyofconfessionandpatristicscholarshipdownto1624.Itarguesthatreligiousconfessioninformed editionsofChrysostomprintedforuse inschools,butproposesatthesame timethatthisfactshouldnotobscureotherinterpretationsofferedbythese sources.ItthenexploresthelandmarkeditionsofChrysostomeditedbyJérôme CommelininHeidelberg,HenrySavileinEton,andFrontonduDucinParis, contrastingtheevidenceofreligiousconfessionintheseeditionswiththeinterconfessionalcollaborationonwhichtheydependedfortheirexistence.Ashort ConclusionconnectsearlymodernandmoderneditionsofChrysostom,demonstratingthelastingimpactofRenais sanceandReformationscholarshipon studiesofthisChurchFathertoday.
Completingthisaccountofatwo-hundredyearlongperiodinthereception ofoneofthemostwidely-readandcommonly-translatedauthorsintheGreek languagehastakenenoughtimeformetoacquirenumerousdebts.Thisbook beganlifeasanAHRC-fundedPhDthesiswrittenattheUniversityofCambridge underthesupervisionofScottMandelbrote,towhomIowemorethanheprobablyknows.Verylittleofthatthesisremainsinthefollowingbook,exceptforin thechaptersaboutErasmus.IreviewedthosechaptersandwrotemostofPart2 asaResearchFellowatPeterhouse,Cambridge(2017–2020),andwrotePart4, thefirstchapterofPart2,andtheConclusionasHannahSeegerDavisResearch FellowattheSeegerCenterforHellenicStudiesatPrinceton(2020–2022).I addedthefinishingtoucheswhileinreceiptofaCarlFriedrichvonSiemensResearchFellowshipoftheAlexandervonHumboldtFoundationattheLudwigMaximilians-UniversitätinMunich.Igladlyexpressmythankstothesebodies andinstitutionsformakingmyresearchpossible.
Ofcourse,Ihavealsoacquiredmanydebtstofriendsandcolleaguesinthe meantime.AspecialthanksgotoAnd reasAmmann,PierreAugustin,GuillaumeBady,ScottMandelbrote,andJean-LouisQuantin,whoallkindlyread
draftchaptersofthisbook.Indedicatingthisstudytomyteachers,Ihopethat itwillgosomewaytojustifyingthetimethattheyspentonme,eventhoughI amsurethatitwillcontainmanymistakesforwhichIaloneamtoblame.Ican onlybegthereader’sindulgenceforsucherrors,quotingwithFrontonduDuc:
Part2: FromlateantiquitytotheItalian Renaissance 1Thetransmissionandtranslation ofChrysostomduringlateantiquity theMiddleAges 1.1ApottedbiographyofJohnChrysostom JohnChrysostomwasbornaround350ADinAntioch,acityintheGreekspeakingeastoftheRomanEmpire.Verylittleremainsofthissite,whichislocatedclosetothemoderntownofAn takyainsouth-eastTurkey.Butwhen Johnwasborn,Antiochwasanold,largeandprosperoussettlementwithconsiderablereligiousdiversity,whereJewsandpagansrubbedshoulderswith Christiansloyaltooneofthecity’scompetingbishops.John’smother,Anthusa, wasaChristian,whilehisfatherSecundusservedonthestaffoftheRomanmilitarycommanderfortheeast,the magistermilitumperOrientem.Aswascommonforsomeoneofhissocialstanding,Johnreceivedaneducationdesigned toequiphimforafutureinthecivilserviceorthelawcourts.However,shortly aftercompletinghiseducation,JohnwasbaptisedbyMeletius,thepro-Nicene bishopofAntioch,throughthisritemarkinghisintentiontopursueacareerin theChurch.JohnservedonMeletius’sstaffandwasappointedlectoramonghis clergy,atthesametimeattendingaschoolofasceticismrunbyDiodoreofTarsus.JohnthenleftAntiochtopursuefurtherasceticstudiesunderthetutelage ofanagedSyrianhermit,intheprocesslearningtheOldandNewTestament byheart.HavingreturnedtoAntioch,Johnprogressedthroughtheclericalorders.Hewasappointeddeacon,andwasthenordainedapriestin386byMeletius ’ssuccessor,Flavian.Hespentthenext11yearspreachingandwritingin Antioch.TheeloquenceofhishomiliesandtractswouldearnJohnthenicknameof ‘Chrysostom’,or ‘thegoldenmouth’,atitleattestedinGreekasearly asthefifthcentury,andinLatininthemid-sixthcentury.1
John’slifechangedinthewinterof397.On26Septemberofthatyear,PatriarchNectariusofConstantinopledied,andJohnwasappointedashissuccessor insomewhatmysteriouscircumstances.Johnwasthereafterembroiledinthe arduousdemandsfacedbythebishopofacitythatwasnotonlythecapitalof theEasternRomanEmpire,butthathadbecomethesecondseeafterRomein
WendyMayer, “JohnChrysostom, ” TheWileyBlackwellCompaniontoPatristics ,ed.Ken Parry(Oxford:Wiley,2015),141;GuillaumeBady, “Enquêtedespremièresattestationsdusurnom ‘Chrysostome’ , ” in StudiaPatristica,vol.114,ed.MarkusVinzent,GuillaumeBady,and CatherineBroc-Schmezer(Leuven:Peeters,2021),143–59.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110708905-002
381.HespenthisearlyyearsinConstantinoplepreaching,combattingheresies suchasArianism,quellingcivildisturbances,andnegotiatingthereleaseof high-rankingofficialswhohadbeentakenprisonerbytheGoths.However, mattersturnedfortheworsein402.Inthatyear,whileJohnwasawaytoadministerecclesiasticaldisciplineinAsiaMinor,hisreplacementSeverianofGabalaseizedtheopportunitytowinoversectionsofthemetropolitannobility andclergywhowereunhappywithhisrule.ThisinternalcrisiswascompoundedbyJohn ’ sindecisivenessoveragroupofEgyptianmonkswhohad fledtoConstantinopleafterthepatriarchofAlexandria,Theophilus,hadaccusedthemoffollowingtheheresieso fOrigen.In403,Johnwastherefore calledbeforeasynodpackedwithhos tilebishops,accusedofamedleyof chargeslikeviolence,financialirregularity,andmoralcorruption.Herefused toattendandwasdeposed,butriotinginConstantinoplepersuadedtheimperialauthoritiestoorderhisrecall.Hisreturnwashowevershort-lived.Anoutbreakofviolencebetweenhissupport ersandimperialtroopspromptedthe authoritiestosendJohnintoexileforasecondtimeon20June404.Placed undermilitaryescort,Johnwasdispatchedtothefurthestreachesoftheempire,dyingin407whileonajourneytothesmalltownofPityusontheeastern shoreoftheBlackSea.2
1.2Fromthefourthtothesixthcentury:Theearliestperiod ofreception
Over800sermons,200letters,andahandfuloftractssurvivethatarecurrently attributedtoChrysostom.Thismountainofliteratureisjustafractionofwhat helikelypreachedorwrote,butthegapleftbytheselosseshasbeenfilledbya vastnumberofworksthatforcenturie sfalselycirculatedunderhisname. 3 JohnChrysostomisindeedthebest-attestedofanyGreekauthor.Hisauthentic worksalonecanbefoundinaboutoneineveryeightGreekmanuscriptsthat areextanttoday.4
PaulineAllenandWendyMayer, JohnChrysostom (London:Routledge,2000),3–11;summarisingandcorrectingJohnN.D.Kelly, GoldenMouth:ThestoryofJohnChrysostom – ascetic, preacher,bishop (London:Duckworth,1995).
Mayer, “JohnChrysostom,” 141–4.
GuillaumeBady, “Lesmanuscritsgrecsdes œuvresdeJeanChrysostomed’aprèslabasede données Pinakes etles CodiceschrysostomicigraeciVII:CodicumParisinorumparsprior, ” EruditioAntiqua 4(2012):67.
1.2Fromthefourthtothesixthcentury:Theearliestperiodofreception
Aswewillseelater,suchprominenceisoftenachievedbyauthorswho controlledthecontentanddistributionoftheirworks. 5 Apredictablelackof manuscriptssurvivingfromChrysostom’spenmakesitmoredifficulttobecertainabouttheshapeofhisworksduringhislifetime,orabouthiscontrolover thedisseminationofthem.However,Chrysostommayhavehadtheopportunitytomanagethetransmissionofatleastsomeofhiswritings.Forexample,it ispossiblethathislettershavecomedowntousfromaprivatearchiveofcorrespondence,suchasscholarsandpublicfiguresofhistimetypicallykept.6 We mightalsoimaginethatJohnensuredthatthelongertractsthatheprobably wroteforprivatereadingwerecopieddown,andmadeavailableforothersto transcribe.TheearliestevidenceforthereceptionofChrysostomindeedcomes fromareaderofjustsuchatract.In392,Jeromenotedinhis Devirisillustribus thathehadreadChrysostom ’ s Desacerodotio .Since Desacerdotio hadbeen writtenaround388–390,itappearsthatJeromehadaccesstoamanuscriptof thisworkinBethlehemjustafewyearsafteritscompositioninAntioch.7
IfChrysostom’slettersandtractsmayhavebeencuratedbytheirauthor, theoppositeconclusioncanbereachedabouthishomiliesonScripture.For longitwasassumedthatChrysostomdeliveredthesehomiliesinthepolished formandorderinwhichtheyarefoundinmostmanuscriptsandprintededitions.However,sincethemiddleofthelastcenturyithasbecomeclearthat thesehomiliesareknowntousthroughnotesjotteddownbytachygraphers whileChrysostomwaspreaching.Forexample,GreekcopiesofChrysostom ’s CommentaryonIsaiah stopabruptlyatIsaiah8:10.Justtwomanuscriptsexplainthereasonforthissuddenstop.Inthem,anotestatesthat “untilnowthis introductionbythemostholyarchbishopofConstantinople,JohnChrysostom, isfoundinGreekletters;afterthispoint,itisinsigns.” AsJeanDumortierhas argued,thatthetextofChrysostom ’s CommentaryonIsaiah isincompletein Greekisthereforeduetoanearlyscribewhowasunabletodecipherthetachygraphicsignsthatpreservedtherestofthecommentaryintheirexemplar.All laterGreekmanuscriptsderivefromthisdefectivecopy.Bycontrast,anArmenianscribeortranslatorofthefifthcenturywasabletounderstandthisshorthand,withtheresultthattherestofthecommentarylackinginGreekis preservedinArmenianinstead.8
Part3.2andPart3.3.
WendyMayer, “TheinsandoutsoftheChrysostomletter-collection:newwaysoflookingat alimitedcorpus,” in CollectingEarlyChristianLetters.FromtheApostlePaultoLateAntiquity, ed.BronwenNeilandPaulineAllen(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2015),143–5.
SC,272:12–13.
SC,304:11–14.
ScribesalsoshapedthereceptionofChrysostom ’sworksinotherways. ManuscriptsandprintededitionspresentChrysostom’shomiliesinseries,giving theimpressionthathepreachedtheminimmediatesuccession.Yettheseseries areoftenartificial,theresultofscribesbringingtogetherhomiliesonthesame themethatwerepreachedincompletelydifferenttimesandplaces.Pauline AllenandWendyMayerhaveforinstanceshownthatJohnpreachedsomeofthe HomiliesonColossians atAntioch,andothersaboutadecadelateratConstantinople. 9 AswellasrationalisingthestructureofChrysostom’shomilies,later scribesandscholarssometimeschangedtheircontent,polishingthemintoa moreliterarystyle.ManyworksbyChrysostomthereforeexistinone ‘rough’ versionandatleastonerevisedor ‘smooth’ recension,ascanbeseen,forexample, inmanuscriptsof Deuirginitate (CPG4313), QuodChristussitDeus (CPG4326), De sanctoBabyla (CPG4347), DeSS.IuventinoetMaximo (CPG4349), DeS.Pelagia (CPG4350), Sermocumiretinexilium (CPG4397), HomiliainSanctumPascha (CPG4408), Sermones1–8inGenesim (CPG4410), DeDavideetSaule (CPG4412), Inillud:VidiDominum (CPG4417), InIohannemhomiliae1–88 (CPG4425), In ActaApostolorum (CPG4426),thehomiliesonRomans(CPG4427),I-IICorinthians(CPG4428–4429),Galatians(CPG4430),Ephesians(CPG4431),Philippians (CPG4432),Colossians(CPG4433),I-IIThessalonians(CPG4434–4435),I-IITimothy(CPG4436–4437),Titus(CPG4438),andPhilemon(CPG4439),aswellas De resurrectione (CPG4341),and Adilluminandoscatechesis3 (CPG4467).10 Indeed,
PaulineAllenandWendyMayer, “ChrysostomandthePreachingofHomiliesinSeries:A NewApproachtotheTwelveHomilies InepistulamadColossenses (CPG4433),” Orientalia ChristianaPeriodica 60(1994):29–38.
Inorder: SC,125:77–81;AnthonyGlaise, “Le QuodChristussitDeus attribuéàJeanChrysostom(CPG4326):edition,traductionetcommentaire” (PhDdiss.,UniversityofTours,2020), 284–91; SC,362:63–4; SC,595:91–3;SeverJ.Voicu, “L’immaginediCrisostomoneglispuri,” in Chrysostomosbilderin1600Jahren.FacettenderWirkungsgeschichteeinesKirchenvaters ,ed. MartinWallraffandRudolfBrändle(Berlin:WalterdeGruyter,2008),64;WendyMayer, “MediaManipulationasaToolinReligiousConflict:ControllingtheNarrativeSurrounding theDepositionofJohnChrysostom,” in ReligiousConflictfromEarlyChristianitytotheRiseof Islam ,ed.WendyMayerandBronwenNeil(Berlin:WalterdeGruyter,2013),154; SC , 561:231–5; SC,433:84–113; DeDavideetSaulehomiliaetres,ed.FrancescaPrometeaBarone (Turnhout:Brepols,2008),l; SC,277:31–3;PaulW.Harkins, “TheTextTraditionofChrysostom’sCommentaryonJohn,” in StudiaPatristica.Vol.VII,ed.FrankL.Cross(Berlin:Akademie-Verlag,1966),210 – 20;FrancisT.Gignac, “ EvidenceforDeliberateScribalRevisionin Chrysostom’s HomiliesontheActsoftheApostles, ” in Nova&Vetera.PatristicStudiesinHonor ofThomasPatrickHalton,ed.JohnPetruccione(Washington,DC:TheCatholicUniversityof AmericaPress,1998),209–25;MariaKonstantinidou, “TheDoubleTraditionofJohnChrysostom’sExegeticalWorks:RevisionsRevisited,” in StudiaPatristica,vol.114,ed.MarkusVinzent, GuillaumeBady,andCatherineBroc-Schmezer(Leuven:Peeters,2021),16 –22; Interpretatio
1.2Fromthefourthtothesixthcentury:Theearliestperiodofreception
thepolishingofChrysostom’shomiliesinto ‘smooth’ versionswassufficiently commonthateventhislonglistisnotexhaustive.
Suchre-arrangementofChrysostom ’sworksintoseriesandthepolishing oftheircontentjustifyLucianoCanfora’sprovocativeargumentthatthescribe isalsoanauthor.11 Indeed,hiscontentioncanbeextendedthroughonefinal trendobservableinthefirsttwocenturiesofChrysostom’sreceptioninGreek. ThedepositionofChrysostomandhisdeathinexilecreatedaschismbetween ‘Johannites’ and ‘anti-Johannites’ thatwasnothealeduntilthetransportofhis relicstoConstantinoplein438.Duringthethirty-yearintervalbetweenJohn’s deathandrehabilitation,bothsidesdisseminatedtextsthatsoughttoeither sanctifyortarnishhisreputation.Muchofthismaterialwasspurious,with bothsideswritingandcirculatingtextsunderJohn’snameinordertoadvance theircaseintheconflict.12 Manyofthesespurioustextsweresoonregardedas authentic.IsidoreofPelousion(370->433)forexampleacceptedasauthentica forgedletterfromJohntoLibanios,whichwasmeanttosolidifyChrysostom’s reputationforeloquencebyhavingthisfamousoratorpraiseacompositionby Chrysostomthathehadallegedlyread.13
ThewidespreadavailabilityofChrysostom ’ sworks,theirarrangement intoartificialseries,andtheprevalenceofspuriaarealltrendsobservablein theearliestreceptionofChrysostominLatinaswellasinGreek.Tothefirst, wehavealreadyseenthatJeromeprobablyknewChrysostom ’s Desacerdotio withinafewyearsofitscomposition.ThatJeromecitedthisworkunderthe omniumepistolarumPaulinarumperhomiliasfacta ,ed.FrederickField(Oxford:J.Wright, 1855),5:ix-xiii;BlakeGoodall, TheHomiliesofStJohnChrysostomontheLettersofStPaulto TitusandPhilemon.ProlegomenatoanEdition (Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1979), 56–61; SC,595:83–4; SC,50bis:106.
LucianoCanfora, Ilcopistacomeautore (Palermo:Sellerio,2002);foranearliercomment inthisregardabouteditorsofChrysostomasauthors,seetooGuillaumeBady, “Latradition desoeuvresdeJeanChrysostome,entretransmissionettransformation,” Revuedesétudesbyzantines 68(2010):161.
SeverJ.Voicu, “‘FuronochiamatiGiovanniti’:un’ipotesisullanascitadelcorpuspseudocrisostomico, ” in Philomathestatos.StudiesinGreekandByzantineTextsPresentedtoJacques NoretforhisSixty-FifthBirthday,ed.BartJanssens,BramRoosen,andPetervanDeun(Leuven: Peeters,2004),701–11;SeverJ.Voicu, “Lavolontàeilcaso:latipologiadeiprimispuridiCrisostomo,” in GiovanniCrisostomo:OrienteeOccidentetraIVeVsecolo (Rome:InstitutumPatristicumAugustinianum,2005),1:101–18;Mayer, “MediaManipulationasaToolinReligious Conflict” .
MarkPatrickHuggins, “TheReceptionofJohnChrysostomintheMiddleByzantinePeriod (9th-13thcenturies):AStudyofthe CatecheticalHomilyonPascha (CPG4605)” (PhDdiss.,UniversityofEdinburgh,2020),118.
title Περὶἱερωσύνης suggeststhathehadreaditinGreek.14 Hisknowledgeofa homilyofChrysostomonGalatiansthatherevealedina404lettertoAugustine probablycamefromhisexposuretothistextinthesamelanguage.15 Butwhile JeromeappearstohaveknownthesetextsinGreek,itispossiblethatChrysostomwastranslatedintoLatinduringhislifetime.ALatincitationofanunidentifiedworkattributedtoChrysostomcanbefoundinPelagius’s Denatura.YvesMarieDuvalhasdated Denatura tobetween406and410,andhasarguedthatit waslikelywrittentowardstheearlierratherthanthelaterendofthisrange.This unidentifiedworkmaythenhavebeentranslatedintoLatinduringthelasttwo yearsofJohn’slife.16
ItisfittingthatPelagiuswasperhapsthefirstauthortociteaLatintranslationofChrysostom,asmuchofwhatweknowabouthisearliestreceptionin LatinispreservedbythefollowersandopponentsofthisBritishtheologian.In 418,agroupofPelagianbishopscitedapassagefromChrysostom’s Adilluminandoscatechesis3 (CPG4467)intheir Libellusfidei. 17 Oneoftheirnumber,Julianof Aeclanum,thencitedthesamehomilyinhis AdTurbantium againstAugustine.18 Forhispart,Augustinerepliedbydrawingonthishomilytwiceinhisrebuttalto Julian,the ContraIulianum. 19 SubsequentresearchhasshownthatAugustine likelyread Adilluminandoscatechesis3 fromaparticularsource,namelythe “collectionof38homilies” thatwasdiscoveredbyDomWilmart.20 Thiscollection oftextsbyChrysostomandotherGreekaswellasLatinauthorswasprobably
SeverJ.Voicu, “LeprimetraduzionilatinediCrisostomo,” in CristianesimoLatinoecultura Grecasinoalsec.IV (Rome:InstitutumPatristicumAugustinianum,1993),397–8.
Mayer, “JohnChrysostom,” 145.
Yves-MarieDuval, “Ladatedu ‘Denatura’ dePélage.Lespremièresétapesdelacontroversesurlanaturedelagrâce,” RevuedesÉtudesAugustiniennes 36(1990):257–83.
PL,48:525.
JulianofAeclanum, ExpositiolibriIob;Tractatusp rophetarumOsee,IoheletAmos,ed. LucasdeConinck(Turnhout:Brepols,1977),4:311–12.Forachronologyofthisexchange,see MichaelaZelzer, “GiovanniCrisostomonellacontroversiatraGiulianod’EclanoeAgostino,” in GiovanniCrisostomo.OrienteeOccidentetraIVeVsecolo,928.
AndreasE.J.Grote, “EgoipsauerbagraecaquaeaIoannedictasuntponam(c.Iul.1.22): AugustinusunddieÜberlieferungderTaufkatechese Adneophytos desJohannesChrysostomus,” in SpiritusetLittera.BeiträgezurAugustinus-Forschungzum80.GeburtstagvonCorneliusPetrusMayerOSA,ed.GuntramFörsteretal.(Würzburg:AugustinusbeiEchter,2009), 183–98.
AndréWilmart, “Lacollectiondes38homélieslatinesdeSaintJeanChrysostome,” Journal ofTheologicalStudies 19(1918):305–27;WolfgangWenk, ZurSammlungder38Homiliendes ChrysostomusLatinus (Vienna:ÖsterreichischenAkademiederWissenschaften,1988).
1.2Fromthefourthtothesixthcentury:Theearliestperiodofreception 17
assembledunderChrysostom’snameinNorthAfricabetween410and421.21 How Julianandhiscolleaguesalsoknew Adilluminandoscatechesis3 haspredictably receivedlessattention,butitshouldbenotedthatAugustine’scitationsdifferin oneimportantrespectfromthoseofhisPelagianadversaries.Inadditiontothe versioncitedbyJulianandtheotherPelagianbishops,Augustineknewanother translationofthishomily.Jean-PaulBouhothasarguedthatthisisbecausetwo differentrecensionsofthe “collectionof38homilies” werealreadycirculating duringAugustine’slifetime,asthealternativetranslationof Adilluminandoscatechesis3 thathecitedcanbefoundinsomemanuscriptsofthiscollection,such asBnF,Arsenal175.22
Augustine’suseofthe “collectionof38homilies ” hasdominatedstudies abouttheLatinreceptionofChrysostominthefifthcentury.Thiscollectionwas indeedanimportantsourceforthebishopofHippoandhiscontemporaries,to whichAugustineowedhisknowledgeofothertextsattributedtoChrysostom, namely Decrucedominica (CPG4525)and DeLazaroresuscitato (CPL541).23 However,AugustinealsoknewotherworksbyChrysostomthatneverseemtohave beenpartofthe “collectionof38homilies”.Inhis ContraIulianum,Augustine furnishedlongcitationsfromthethirdlettertoOlympias(CPG4405.3),thethird ofthe SermonesinGenesim (CPG4410.3),andthetenthhomily InEpistulamad Romanos (CPG4427.10).24 EvenifitisnowwidelyacceptedthatAugustinehad improvedhisGreekbythetimethathewrote ContraIulianum,hisacquaintance withthislanguageappearstohavebeenmediatedbyLatintranslationseven then.Augustinecouldjudgeatranslationandpresentaliteralversionofhisown ifhewantedto.Nonetheless,suchknowledgedidnotequatetoanindependent commandofGreek,suchasAugustinewouldhaverequiredtochasedownand translatecitationsthatwererelevanttohisargument.25 Itthereforeseemslikely
Jean-PaulBouhot, “ Lacollectionhomilétiquepseudo- chrysostomienne découvertepar DomMorin,” RevuedesÉtudesAugustiniennes 16(1970):145.
Jean-PaulBouhot, “Versioninéditedusermon ‘Adneophytos’ deS.JeanChrysostome,utiliséeparS.Augustin,” RevuedesÉtudesAugustiniennes 17(1971):27–41.
Voicu, “Leprimetraduzioni,” 401–5.
PL,44:656–60;BertholdAltaner, “AltlateinischeÜbersetzungenvonChrysostomusschriften,” inidem, KleinepatristischeSchriften,ed.GüntherGlockmann(Berlin:Akademie-Verlag, 1967),431;RudolfBrändle, “LaricezionediGiovanniCrisostomonell’operadiAgostino,” in GiovanniCrisostomo.OrienteeOccidentetraIVeVsecolo,885–95;Zelzer, “GiovanniCrisostomonellacontroversiatraGiulianod’EclanoeAgostino,” 929.
GiuseppeCaruso, “ Exorientispartibus.Agostinoelefontigrechenel ContraIulianum, ” in TransmissionetreceptiondesPèresgrecsdansl ’Occident,del’AntiquitétardiveàlaRenaissance.Entrephilologie,herméneutiqueetthéologie ,ed.EmmanuelaPrinzivallietal.(Paris: Institutd ’ÉtudesAugustiniennes,2016),106–7.
thatpassagesofthethirdlettertoOlympias,thethird SermoinGenesim,andthe tenthhomilyonRomansthatAugustinecitedin ContraIulianum wereeither translatedforhimtohelphimrefuteJulian,orwereextractedbyhimfromold Latintranslationsoftheseworksthathavesincebeenlost.26
Afterfinishing ContraIulianum,Augustinedraftedanotherworkagainstthe sameadversary,whichisknownasthe Opusimperfectum.Whileexpandinghis argumentsagainstJulianinmanyplaces,AugustinecitednonewtextsofChrysostominthiswork.Instead,hesimplyrecycledthesamepassagesthathehad quotedinhisearliertract.Augustinewasnotthenthemostdiligentreaderof Chrysostom,andhiscitationsassuchprobablyunderestimatethenumberof textseitherbyorattributedtoChrysostomthatwereavailabletoLatinreadersin theearlyfifthcentury.27 ThiscontentionisconfirmedbythefactthatAugustine nevermentionedtwotranslationsthatweremadeatthistimebyanotherofhis Pelagianopponents,AnianusofCeleda.Anianustranslatedatleastthefirst twenty-five HomiliesonMatthew (CPG4424)around419/20.Hemayhavetranslatedtheremaining65homiliesofthisseries,butextantmanuscriptsonlypreservethissmallernumber.28 Anianus’sothertranslationwasof DelaudibusPauli (CPG4344),whichhecompletednotbefore421.29 WecanidentifyAnianusasthe translatoroftheseworksthroughtheprefacesthathewrotetoeach,inwhichhe explainedthathehadtranslatedtheminordertoexposethefaultsinAugustine’s theologyoforiginalsin.30 Anianus’sprefacetothe HomiliesonMatthew indeed attackedAugustinetosuchanextentthatitwaspartiallycensoredbylaterscribes,
Altaner, “AltlateinischeÜbersetzungenvonChrysostomusschriften,” 307–9.
Altaner, “AltlateinischeÜbersetzungenvonChrysostomusschriften,” 304–6.
HerbertMusurillo, “JohnChrysostom’s HomiliesonMatthew andtheVersionofAnnianus,” in Kyriakon.FestschriftJohannesQuasten,ed.PatrickGranfieldandJosefA.Jungmann(Münster: Aschendorff,1970),1:452–60;RachelSkalitzky, “AnnianusofCeleda:HisTextofChrysostom’s HomiliesonMatthew, ” Aevum 45(1971):208–33;EmilioBonfiglio, “NotesontheManuscriptTraditionofAnianusCeledensis’ TranslationofJohnChrysostom’s HomiliaeinMatthaeum [CPG4424],” in StudiaPatristica.Vol.XLVII,ed.JaneBaunetal.(Leuven:Peeters,2010),287–93;MichaelGorman, “AnnianusofCenedaandtheLatintranslationsofJohnChrysostom’s HomiliesontheGospel ofMatthew, ” Revuebénédictine 122(2012):100–24.
AdolfPrimmer, “DieOriginalfassungvonAnianus ’ epistulaadOrontium,” in Antidosis. FestschriftfürWaltherKrauszum70.Geburtstag,ed.RudolfHanslik,AlbinLesky,andHans Schwabl(Vienna:Böhlaus,1972),278–89.Otherauthorsgiveadateofnotbefore419/20,for exampleAltaner, “AltlateinischeÜbersetzungenvonChrysostomusschriften,” 420–1.
Theprefacetothe HomiliesonMatthew shouldbereadintheversioneditedbyPrimmer, “DieOriginalfassung,” 279–82;theprefaceto DelaudibusPauli canbefoundin PG,50:471✶472✶ and PL,48:628–30.
