Leontius of Byzantium, “Adversus fraudes Apollinistarum”

Posted on by Roger Pearse

If you browse idly through Quasten’s Patrology volume 3, a little here and a little there — if you do this idly but often, you will acquire quite a fund of knowledge about the later Greek fathers, their lives, their quarrels, and their works; and about what editions and translations are commonly relied on for all these.

A couple of hours ago I found myself reading the entry on Apollinaris of Laodicea.  This learned man wrote a great many commentaries on Scripture.  More, he stood up to the Emperor Julian the Apostate.  The emperor passed a decree in 361 AD banning Christians from teaching the classics — effectively from teaching.  This was the first but by no means the last attempt to make sure Christians were uneducated in order to jeer at them for being uneducated.  A similar approach has been used by modern atheistic regimes, and demanded by modern atheists in democracies.  Apollinaris responded by recasting the bible in the forms of Greek dialogues and so on, to ensure that Christians could continue to acquire knowledge.  The early death of Julian after a reign of 18 months rendered the effort unnecessary.

Apollinaris was later condemned as a heretic for some christological mistakes.  His works were banned.  But they continued to circulate under other names, and some have reached us.

A 6th century writer, Leontius of Byzantium, composed a work Adversus fraudes Apollinistarum.  This was designed to show that various works in circulation were not by people like Gregory Thaumaturgus, but in reality by banned Apollinarist authors.  Censorship of opinion had its natural consequence, that opinions circulated anonymously; and hate built on this the usual accusation of fraud.  It is hateful to ban a man from speaking his mind and then call him a forger when you force him to put his opinions forward under some form of camouflage.  In our politically correct days, we have lived to see the reappearance of this Byzantine tradition.

The work itself sounds more interesting than it is.  It appears in Migne, Patrologia Graeca, 86b, cols. 1947-1976.  It’s 15 columns of Greek (ignoring the parallel Latin translation), and would therefore cost $300 to translate.  I can find no evidence of a modern translation.

The work consists of a brief introductory paragraph, then the main body which consists entirely of excerpts from Apollinarists, each named and referenced; and then a final couple of paragraphs (1973C ff.) on the Apollinarist errors.

OF THE SAME LEONTIUS, AGAINST THOSE WHO BRING US MATERIAL BY APOLLINARIS, FALSELY INSCRIBED WITH THE NAME OF HOLY FATHERS.

Some from the heresy of Apollinaris or Eutyches or Dioscorus, when they wanted to advance their heresy, inscribed some works of Apollinaris as by Gregory Thaumaturgus, or Athanasius, or Julius,  in order to deceive the more naive.  And so they did.  For by the authority of these people who deserved trust they were able to take in  many people in the Catholic Church.  And you can obtain from many true believers the book of Apollinaris with the title h( kata meros pistis, … ascribed to Gregory; and some of his letters have been ascribed to Julius, and others of his orations or expositions on the incarnation have been ascribed to Athanasius.  Likewise ascribed is the expostion  agreeing with the exposition of the 318; not only this but others also.  However this will be made evident to you, and to anyone studious of the truth, from these things which we haveextracted from Apollinaris himself, or his disciples, one of whom is Valentinus.

Valentinus: a chapter of an Apollinarist Apology

“Against those who say that we say that the flesh is consubstantial with God”.

Master Apollinaris, from his letter to Serapion.

 Receive this letter, of your charity, sir, …

And so on it goes.  I can see why it has never received translation; but surely, all these works ought to be more accessible?

Share

Stopped by a PC

Posted on by Roger Pearse

The Dell I mentioned a week ago turned out to be a turkey.  It was a Dell Studio 15, but it vibrated so strongly that my desk shook, and also had a headache-inducing mid-tone howl.  It’s going back, naturally.  Today I went out and got whatever was for sale in local shops, which turned out to be a Sony Vaio.  The Sony actually seems very nice.

Both it and my old Vista machine are now chained together, moving 250Gb of data across.  After that, I need to install lots of software — probably on Monday,  I would guess, as I don’t use a PC on Sundays.  Meanwhile I’ve found an even older laptop on which I am typing this. 

I apologise if any correspondence goes unanswered until I am back up and running properly.

The Vista machine (a Dell Inspiron 1720) started having problems.  Worse yet, I was out of disk space for all the PDF’s of books that I need and want.  The new machine has twice the disk space. It also has an “eSata” port — apparently that will allow an external hard disk to run at a reasonable speed —  USB hard disks are hopelessly slow.  If so, I can put my PDF collection on such a drive, and not need quite so much on the local hard disk.

Share

Henry Savile and his edition of the works of Chrysostom

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Looking at the Clavis Patrum Graecorum — a text that should certainly be online — we find that the works of Severian of Gabala appear in two main editions, under the name of Chrysostom.  There is the 1718-38 century edition of the works of Chrysostom by Montfaucon, the Benedictine editor in France.  This is what Migne reprinted.

But there is also an edition by Henry Savile, published at Eton, of all places, in 1612.  A couple of Severian’s sermons only appear in this edition.

I am impressed by the CPG, by the way.  It neatly clears up what exists for Severian, and where it may be found; in Greek, Latin, Syriac, Armenian.

Philip Schaff’s introduction to the works of Chrysostom in the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers edition is useful.  After discussing the marvellous labours of Montfaucon, he adds:

The edition of Sir Henry Savile (Provost of Eton), Etonae, 1612, in 8 vols. for., is less complete than the Benedictine edition, but gives a more correct Greek text (as was shown by F. Dübner from a collation of manuscripts) and valuable notes. Savile personally examined the libraries of Europe and spent £8,000 on his edition. His wife was so jealous of his devotion to Chrysostom that she threatened to burn his manuscripts.

Lady Savile was not the first wife to threaten her husband’s books, out of jealousy, as Reynolds and Wilson, Scribes and Scholars records.

But is the edition accessible?  Is it online?  It is, after all, a very old book, and the USA did not exist when it was published.  It is US libraries, after all, who have made Google Books and Archive.org what they are.

A search suggests that it might form part of “Early English Books Online”, a project which is not freely available.  UK taxpayers funded it, so naturally it has been placed under the control of a commercial company and only rich institutions are allowed to use it.  (It is depressing, sometimes, to see the combination of waste and greed and littleness of mind characteristic of British higher education).  You can’t even see if it is in there.

Does anyone have access to EEBO, and can check whether it is there?

Share

Severian of Gabala, Homily 3 on Genesis, chapter 5

Posted on by Roger Pearse

I’ve translated roughly a little more of the French translation of Bareille of these sermons, which I increasingly find interesting.  I’m getting an idea of why Severian was such a popular preacher.  I really think that I will commission a translation of the homilies on Genesis by Severian (although I think I would use the best translator I know on them).

5. Let us now ask where the sun goes down, and where, during the night, it purses its course?  According to our adversaries, under the land; and we who look at the sky as a tent, what is our feeling on this?  Look and see, I beg you, whether we are in error, or whether the truth of our opinion appears clearly, and whether reality is in agreement with our hypothesis. 

Imagine that above your head a pavilion has been set up.  East would be there, north here, south there and west there.  When the sun has left the East and starts to set, it will not set under the land; but crossing the limits of the sky, it traverses the northern areas where it is hidden by a kind of wall from our gaze, the upper waters concealing his journey from us; and, after having traversed these areas, it returns to the East. 

And where is the proof of this assertion?  In Ecclesiastes, an authentic and not interpolated work of Solomon: “The sun rises and the sun sets,” it is written there;  “while rising, it moves towards its setting, then it turns to the north;  it turns, it turns, and it rises again in its place.”  Eccl., i, 5.  Otherwise it is during the winter that you will note this southward journey of the sun, and its movement in the direction of the north; then, it does not rise in the centre of the East, it inclines towards the south, and, following a shorter route, it makes the day shorter; once it has set, it continues its circular direction, and the nights then are longer. 

We all know, my brothers, that the sun always does not start at the same point.  How then do the days become shorter?  Because the sun, to rise, moves from the south; then, from where it rises, it follows an oblique path, and from this comes the brevity of the days.   As it sets in the extremity of the west, it must necessarily traverse during the night the west, north, all of the east, to arrive on the edge of the south; from which inevitably follows the length of the night.  When the distance traversed and the speed of travel are the same, the nights then are equal to the days.  After that, it moves northwards as during the winter it had moved south; it rises in the northern heights and makes the day longer;  on the other hand the curve which it must follow during the night being shorter, the nights also become shorter. 

This is not what the Greeks have taught us:  they do not want these teachings, and they claim that the sun and the stars continue their course beneath the land.  But no, the Scripture, this divine mistress, the Scripture leads us and dispenses her light to us. 

Thus the Lord has made the sun, a torch which never weakens; he made the moon, whose glory shines and fades alternately.  The work reveals the workman.  The workman never knows failure, the work is also eternal.  The moon does not lose its light, it is concealed only to our eyes, a faithful image of mortal men. 

Think of the centuries that have passed since its appearance!  And yet, when the moon is new, we say:  The moon is born today.  Why this language?  Because we see a figure of our corporeal life there.  The moon is born, grows, reaches its apogee, only to then decrease, diminish and disappear:  and we also, we are born, we grow, we arrive at our apogee; then we fade, we decline, we age and we disappear in death.  But, just as the moon reappears then, we also will come back to life and another life is reserved for us.  This is why the Saviour, to teach us that, following the example of our birth on earth, a new birth awaits us beyond the tomb, expresses himself in these terms:  “When the Son of man comes at the time of the new Genesis.”  Matth. xix, 28. 

So the moon guarantees the resurrection to us.  What! she says to us, you see me disappearing to reappear, and you lose all hope?  Wasn’t the sun itself created for us, as well as the moon, and all creatures?  What does not promise us our resurrection?  Isn’t the night the image of death?  When darkness covers our bodies, you recognize nobody any more.  Often it happens that you touch with your hand the face of someone sleeping, and you do not know whose face this is, whose is that one; and you ask, so that the voice allows you to recognize those whom the darkness conceals from you.  So in the same way as the night hides the features of everyone, and as we do not recognize one another any more, when we are all together; in the same way death destroyed the human form and prevents us recognizing them any more. 

Walk through the tombs, look at the skulls which they contain; do you recognize to which people they belonged?  He knows who formed them; He who delivered these bodies to dissolution knows from where they came.  And you do not admire the creative power of the Lord?  There is a multitude of men, and none is exactly the same as any other.  You could traverse the ends of the universe in vain, you would not find two men who resembled each other exactly; and, when you believe you have found such, there would be presented in the eyes or the nose a difference which would justify this astonishing truth. Two children come out of the same place at the same time, and their resemblance is imperfect.  

Share

Good Friday: evil triumphant

Posted on by Roger Pearse

We’re all basically nice people, aren’t we?  Few of us are powerful, or important.  We endure the edicts of the latter patiently.  We help each other out as we can.  Always we remember that what you hand out is what you may get back.

The struggles of John Chrysostom with his rivals in Constantinople in 400 AD strike us as petty.  Personalities seem to be all, and Christian teaching nowhere.  It’s very easy for us to look down on those involved, to sigh and wonder why people at that time were so selfish and greedy and vicious.

The answer is sin — which affects all of us. But most of us don’t have enough power to inflict harm on others, and indeed no wish to do so.  It can be hard to imagine that others do.

We must always remember that there are people who will do whatever they can get away with.  All criminality is based on this — and in a different way, much entrepreneurial activity! — and most people in politics do the same.  We tend to think that no-one would behave like that.  When we see it, we deplore it.  Atheists often fling at us the misdeeds of the inquisition, or of powerful bishops persecuting heretics in antiquity, or methodists in 18th century England, and we feel embarassed because we just wouldn’t do these things.

Yesterday I saw an article at Anglican Mainstream, (more details at Virtue Online, notes here, here).  All the reporting is unfortunately rather amateurish, so I have put together selected extracts, but the facts do not seem to be in dispute. 

The saga began several years ago when the thriving congregation at the Good Shepherd decided to withdraw from the Episcopal Church because they no longer felt that those in control of the denomination shared the values for which it was founded and which they believed in.  They aligned themselves instead with other churches that have felt the same as the Anglican Church in North America.

The church building was built by local people who paid for its upkeep, so the congregation considered that it belonged to them.  The TEC officials then sued for possession, spending large sums on court fees.  Several writers say that the basis of the case for expelling the congregation was that the church officials “claimed that those leaving were not able to uphold the desires of the church founders”.  They won, and were able to seize the funds, property and fabric of the church.

That was January 2008.  The priest and his young family were immediately evicted from the rectory, in the depths of winter.  The soup kitchen was closed, and TEC officials removed signs indicating where a new one was. 

The church itself stood padlocked and empty for more than a year.  The congregation gathered at a redundant Catholic church nearby and doubled in size.

The church building was then put up for sale by the TEC diocese.  The assessed value of the property was $384,400.  The congregation offered to buy it for about $150,000, but were turned down.

On February 9, 2010, the premises were sold to Imam Muhammad Affify, doing business as the Islamic Awareness Center, for $50,000, a third of the offer from the congregation.  The sale has a condition that the Moslems may not resell the property to the congregation. 

It seems hardly necessary to comment much on this atrocious episode.  To take by legal violence that for which you did not pay, not because you want or need it, but purely to inflict harm on others…? 

So it was on Good Friday.

Share

Severian of Gabala on Genesis, sermon 2, chapter 3

Posted on by Roger Pearse

I was browsing the Bareille French translation of Severian’s homilies, and came across this interesting passage.  But I can’t work out which bits of the bible he is quoting — not even when a ‘reference’ is given!

3.  “But, the land was invisible.”  What does it mean, invisible?  I have heard several of our holy fathers saying:  The land was invisible, because it was hidden under water. Many opinions can be extremely religious without being true for all that.  The three friends of Job, for example, seeing him surrounded with trials, condemned this holy man:  in their opinion, he had deserved his unhappy fate.  If you had not oppressed widows, they said to him, if you had not fleeced orphans, the Lord would not have treated you in this manner. Being unaware of the intentions of God, they condemned Job and said that his sufferings were deserved, not wanting to show God acting wrongfully.  Well!  although they were supporting the cause of God, God still blamed them and said to them:  “Why didn’t you speak justly about my servant?”  Job, XLII, 7. Their sentiment was inspired by piety; but nevertheless it was not right.  What now does the text before us mean:  “The earth was invisible and without beauty?” The interpreters have given a clear explanation of it.  The earth, they say, is called invisible, not because it was not seen, but because it was stripped of any ornament.  It had as yet neither the glory of its flowers, nor the crown of its fruits, nor the variety of its ornaments, nor its belt of rivers and fountains; it was invisible, not having been endowed yet with its marvellous fruitfulness.  The Scripture has said of one of its heroes:  “Isn’t this he who struck the visible Egyptian?”  II Reg., XXIII, 21. So are there invisible men?  No; but that was useful to direct our attention:  it is in an analogous sense that the earth is said to be invisible.

Interesting attitude to the Fathers: “it may be pious, but that does not mean it is right”!

“The land was invisible” is merely a different version of Genesis 1:1, The earth was without form and void; Augustine quotes Terra autem erat invisibilis et incomposita et tenebrae erant super abyssum, as does Tertullian in De Baptismo 3.

Share

Wace, Dictionary of Christian Biography, in Wikisource

Posted on by Roger Pearse

While creating a basic Wikipedia article on the Arian bishop Patrophilus of Scythopolis I stumbled across the fact that someone has placed a scanned version of Wace’s Dictionary of Christian Biography to the end of the Sixth Century in Wikisource.  This is invaluable for obscure patristic writers, as every statement tends to be referenced to the primary sources.  The article on Eusebius of Emesa was useful; all the ‘E’ writers are here.

Share

Armenian sermons of Severian of Gabala … or Eusebius of Emesa?

Posted on by Roger Pearse

In a post a few days ago I mentioned that I had discovered an English translation of a sermon by Severian of Gabala on the sufferings and death of our Lord, and placed it online.  The sermon was translated from an 1827 publication of sermons in Armenian — probably from the parallel Latin text, rather than the Armenian, I fancy! — and I have since discovered the book online here.  I also noted that the sermon was not listed among the works of Severian in the Clavis Patrum Graecorum.

While I was scanning the text, I came across  various examples of allegorical interpretation.  This is not quite what I associate with Severian.  Looking at the table of contents in the Armenian, at the end around p. 449, I am struck by the vagueness of the titles.  Severian is called bishop of Emesa, for instance.  15 sermons are edited.  Here are the last three:

  • XIII.  B. Severiani Episcopi in Ficulneam arefactam. – 415
  • XIV.  B. Emesensis Episcopi in Passionem Christi – 429
  • XV. B. Eusebii (lege, Seberiani) Episcopi in idem mysterium (de Juda traditore) – 443

The last entry is the most interesting: “Of the blessed Bishop Eusebius (read: Severian) on the same mystery (of Judas the traitor)”.  The lege is added by the modern editor, of course.  But should we agree?  Or do the last two sermons both truly belong to Eusebius of Emesa (d. 359)?

Eusebius of Emesa is listed in CPG 2, nos 3525-3543.  #3525 is a list of sermons extant in Latin translation and discovered in the Codex Trecensis which also preserves works of Tertullian and was unknown until a century ago.  Among these is De arbore fici; we might wonder whether ‘Severian’ XIII is the same work.

Listed in #3531 is “Armenian sermons”.  These have been edited by N. Akinian, Die Reden des Bischofs Eusebius von Emesa, in Handes Amsorya 70 (1956), 71 (1957) and 72 (1958).  This is a collection of homilies under the name of Eusebius of Emesa.  The first eight are by Eusebius; the other five are by Severian of Gabala (CPG 4185, 4202, 4210, 4246, 4248)!  Sermon 2 is De passione Christi (Akinian, l.c. 70, pp.385-416) — is this our baby?  Well, no.

Because sermon 5 De passione, ed. vol. 71, p.357-80, is listed in the CPG as being the same as the sermon XIV of Aucher, starting on p.428, and continuing as Aucher’s sermon XV.  And fragments of it are indeed found in the Butyaert Latin text.

I will therefore update the page I uploaded with the necessary details.

Share

Chrysostom “In Kalendas” translation progress

Posted on by Roger Pearse

I’ve received the first column of Chrysostom’s sermon on New Year, and it’s been checked over by someone I trust who has given it the all-clear (i.e. only a couple of minor glitches).  Full-speed ahead!

Share

Notes on the Theodosian Legal Code (438 AD)

Posted on by Roger Pearse

I’ve been reading the French translation by Elisabeth Magnou-Nortier of book 16 of the Codex Theodosianus, the law book compiled under Theodosius II from rescripts or letters issued by preceding emperors.  A couple of passages struck my eye, and I translate these here with a few of the footnotes:

Under the empire, custom (mos) continued to play a role as a creator of law.  The emperors naturally also created law.  The jurisconsult Gaius distinguished three forms of imperial intervention, although there were in fact four in the early Empire. 

Edicts (edicta), similar to those issued by the magistrates of the Republic, were formal laws, which had to be posted up in public places.  Mandates (mandata) were addressed to functionaries, especially governors of provinces.  Decrees (decreta) were judgments given by the emperor in court cases that came before him, either directly or as the last resort of appeal.

Rescripts (rescripta, epistulae) were responses written by the emperor to functionaries who had particular problems on points of law.  It has long been thought that “constitutions” were the normal legislative activity of the emperors.  But today a re-evaluation has concluded that “the source which is quantitatively the most important of imperial legislation … is not the general law …. but the rescript, a reply from the emperor to a question on a precise point, mostly arising from judicial activity.  The editorial methods of the imperial chancellery give these ad-hoc responses a general character; the reply of the emperor never includes … either the name of the person, nor the place concerned.  This voluntary reticence contributes to place in high relief the juridical solution, which alone is important.” [1] …

[Despite the conversion of Constantine to Christianity] material continued to accumulate in the imperial chancellery, often self-contradictory.  The rupture introduced by the conversion of Constantine into the legislative activity of the emperors is so perceptible that none of the laws gathered in the Theodosian code is earlier than 312 AD.

The emperors faced a primary difficulty.  Since the 2nd century, the jurisconsults had produced a huge volume of legal material and commentary on case law which did not agree among itself.  In order to put an end to this endless process, Constantine decided, in 321, to give full authority to the notes of Paulus and Ulpian on Papinian.[2]  A still more profound reform was made by Theodosius II and Valentinian III in 426, in a law headed “On Citations”.[3]  This law confirmed the authority of five jurisconsults; Papinian, Paulus, Ulpian, Modestinus, and Gaius.  If these disagreed, the judge should follow the majority; if they were equally divided, the opinion of Papinian should be used.

An urgent need to intervene was becoming evident.  The first collections of laws appear at the end of the 3rd century, with the Codex Gregorianus and at the start of the 4th century, the Codex Hermogenianus which contained the laws of Diocletian.  The need for a precise law led Theodosius II to initiate in 429 an ambitious programme, which was cut short.  He tried again in 435 in a more modest way.  The work was completed on 15 February 438, when the Codex Theodosianus was published in the East.  … It was divided into 16 books, the first 5 of which are unfortunately full of gaps where material has not reached us. …

The 16th book has been the subject of discussion by specialists.  … Book 16 was composed in the years preceding the publication of the Code.

If we compare the imperial legislation concerning the heresies and sects with that which concerned itself with paganism, a difference of tone is apparent.  The law against the first is striking in its density, certainty, indeed a pitiless harshness against those who directly menaced the spiritual unity of the Empire, such as Arianism, Donatism, or Manichaeism.  But the laws of chapter 9 show only a limited ambition.  They repeat the prohibition of blood sacrifices of animals during ceremonies, first at night and then day and night (364 and 382 AD), because all animal sacrifices for a Christian are as cruel as they are useless.  Some prescribe the preservation of temple fabric (399), the upkeep of popular celebrations (399) or again the destruction of rural temples on the condition that this does not provoke trouble or disorder (399).

Certainly a law of 392 indeed prohibited, or more accurately attempted to prohibit, the domestic pagan rites, but we may doubt whether it had any real force.  Others order the closure of all the temples, the destruction of sculptured images of the Olympic gods (392 and 395), suppress the privileges and incomes of the pagan priests (396), annex the property of the temples to the state treasury and the income in kind to the army (407). Leaving aside the statue of victory in the Senate … all historians agree that the destruction of the temples, above all in the East, such as Zeus at Apamea in 388, the Serapeum at Alexandria in 391, and numerous temples in Egypt, Phrygia, Cappadocia, and Syria at the end of the 4th and start of the 5th centuries, are the work of enterprising bishops and above all extremist monks.  “The destructive zeal of the monks could go well beyond what was authorised, as when they burned in 388 the synagogue of Callinicum.”   … The emperors and their counsellors quickly assessed the degree of alienation and resistance by the ancient cults, their rites and festivals, which they judged less threatening to the unity of the empire than the new heresies or the sects, since they were old and above because they could be reused by Christian activities, these offering numerous favourable opportunities to acculturate the new religion in the urban and rural population.  However neither magic, nor occultism, nor divination ever disappeared from the socities which called themselves Christian.

[1] Magnou-Nortier, Le Code Theodosien, Cerf 2002, p. 16-17.  This quotation is given from G. Giordanengo, “Le pouvoir legislatif du roi de France”, in Bibl. Ec. des Chartes, vol. 147, 1989, p. 288.  Magnou-Nortier gives further references, although not directly to the statement of Gaius.
[2] Cod. Th. 1, 4, 1 (321).
[3] Cod. Th. 1, 4, 3 (426).

Share