Tag: Eusebius of Emesa

Yesterday I started to read the introduction to E.M. Buytaert, Eusèbe d’Émèse: discours conservés en latin : textes en partie inédits, tome premier: La collection de Troyes (discours 1-17), Louvan (1953).  After a bit I stopped and banged the French into Google Translate.  Here’s some bits.

First he gives a few words about Eusebius of Emesa himself:

Eusebius of Emesa was born around 300 AD in Edessa, Mesopotamia. His parents, wealthy Christians, introduced him to the Bible and Greek literature. Shortly after the Council of Nicaea, the young man left for Palestine; There he enriched his scriptural knowledge under the tutelage of Patrophilus of Scythopolis and Eusebius of Caesarea. Around 330, he arrived in Antioch, where he was admitted among the confidants of Patriarch Euphronius. The latter wished to incorporate the young scholar into his clergy, but Eusebius, seized by panic, fled to Alexandria, where he devoted himself to philosophical matters.

Returning to the Syrian metropolis under Euphronius’ successor around 335, he likely taught Holy Scripture and became a preacher. Having noticed his administrative qualities, the Eusebians chose him at the Council of the Encaenia (341) to replace Saint Athanasius, who had been deposed, and Pistos, the overly troublesome interloper. Eusebius declined the offer, but soon after accepted the see of Emesa, a Lebanese city now called Homs. His installation was not without difficulties: the Emesenians repeatedly accused him of supporting Sabellianism and dabbling in astrology. The following years are not well documented. Eusebius preached in Antioch, Beirut, and Jerusalem; he accompanied Emperor Constantius during the campaigns against the Persians; it cannot be proven that he attended any councils of the period.

By the spring of 359 at the latest, he had died and was buried in Antioch. Shortly after his death, his friend George of Laodicea wrote his encomium, which became the primary source for the Byzantine historians Socrates and Sozomen, to whom we owe most of our biographical details.

Now some context on the text.

To facilitate our discussion, it is helpful to list now the three principal collections which, in Latin patristics, have been associated with the name of Eusebius of Emesa.

1) The Gallican collection, commonly called the Pseudo-Eusebius of Emesa. The ten Homilies ad Monachos were the first to be published, as early as 1531; J. Gaigny, in 1547, increased the number of published pieces to 56, and A. Schott, in 1618, to 74. According to a more recent study by Dom G. Morin, the collection comprises 75 pieces: piece 39 is duplicate; then add two more Easter homilies, but remove two discourses that certainly belong to Maximus of Turin. Currently, it is believed that the collection contains a number of oratorical compositions by Faustus of Riez, but that the names of Caesarius of Arles and Eusebius of Emesa, put forward recently, must be definitively dismissed.

2) The collection of fourteen discourses, published by J. Sirmond, under the name of Eusebius of Caesarea, based on a Codex Herivaliensis and a manuscript that now belongs to the Bibliothèque Nationale de Paris, MS Latin 16837. Against Sirmond and many other authors, it is now established, we believe, that these discourses are the work, not of Eusebius of Caesarea, but of Eusebius of Emesa. It should be noted that this collection has also been preserved in manuscript 266 of Charleville.

3) The collection of seventeen short works, preserved in manuscript 523 of Troyes under the name of Eusebius of Emesa. His Discourses III and IV occupy the first and second positions in the previous collection brought to light by J. Sirmond. We will say a word later about the provenance of these seventeen discourses. [2].

It is the Troyes and Sirmond collections that we are publishing here. Of the twenty-nine discourses published, the seventeen in volume one give the complete Troyes collection, the twelve in volume two, the Sirmond collection, with the exception of his Discourses I and 2, which are identical to Discourses 3 and 4 of the Troyes collection and published with it.

Footnote 2 contains a useful warning:

At one time, Latin patristics knew yet another “Emesenian” collection.  A Dominican, who remained anonymous, edited 145 homilies under the title: Divi Eusebii episcopi EMISENI homiliae de Tempore et de Sanctis, Paris, 1554. In reality, this was the work of Bruno of Segni, which can be found in Marchesi, S. Brunonis Astensis Opera, Venice, 1651, or in the PL, vol. CLXIV-CLXV. See L’Heritage litt. d’Eusébe ad’Emése, p. 98.

Then Dr B. goes into a detailed description of the manuscripts from which he intends to edit the Latin text.  Most of this will be useful only to someone intending to do likewise, so this is just a summary:

Troyes, Bibliothèque de la ville, ms. 523. 11-12^th century.  From Clairvaux, where it was MS M.40, and appears as such in the 1472 catalogue.  Transferred to Troyes with many other Clairvaux MSS at the Revolution.

Charleville, Bibliothèque de la ville, ms. 266.  2^nd part of the 12^th century.  Mutilated at the end.  Belonged to the Norbertine monastery of Belval, where it was MS. 421.  Transferred in 1795 with 82 other MSS of Belval to Charleville municipal library.  Folios 107r-160v contain the collection of homilies attributed in 1643 by Sirmond to Eusebius of Caesarea, in the same order as in the two MSS that Sirmond used.

Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, ms. arménien 110.  12^th century.  A big heavy sermonary, in two columns.  On f.468r-469r are two pieces which are attributed “By St Eusebius, bishop”.  These are two fragments of the Troyes collection item 2, De filio.

London, British Library, ms. syriaque 676 (Add. 12,164).  6^th century.  Contains a florilegium, which includes three extracts of the Sirmond collection no. 11.  Lemma is “Eusebii Emeseni, ex oratione De Fide” or “same”.

Also mentioned are BNF lat. 16837, a Syriac MS in Rome, and another Armenian MS in Venice.

In our blessed days, it is easier to consult manuscripts than ever, and especially French manuscripts, thanks to the IRHT and their ARCA site, https://arca.irht.cnrs.fr/.  The search engine on this is really useful.  Search for “Charleville 266” and that’s what you get.  You no longer have to guess for whatever fanciful title the locals may have given the town archives.

On the other hand the practical French identifications of yesterday – “Charleville, Bibliothèque de la ville” – are today replaced by bored locals with useless names such as “France, Charleville-Mézières, Voyelles Media Library”.

Charleville, Bibliothèque de la ville 266 is online.  There’s a digitised microfilm at https://arca.irht.cnrs.fr/ark:/63955/md97xk81jv2b, and also a few colour images.  But at the bottom, labelled “to do”, is “complete digital copy”.  You have to give it to the French, they’re really tackling the digitisation problem with determination.

Troyes 523 is much the same – a digitised microfilm and a few scattered images: https://arca.irht.cnrs.fr/ark:/63955/md77fq97930g.

I’ve not tried to hunt down the others.

I have long wanted to do something with the sermons of Eusebius of Emesa (d. ca. 360 AD).  These exist in an ancient Latin translation, which was published back in 1953 by E. M. Buytaert.¹  But I never have, simply because I have never had access to it.  It’s a great publication, a solid piece of work: but you never see anything about it.  I suppose this is because nobody takes Eusebius of Emesa seriously.  He was a quiet, old-fashioned, scholarly figure, who left little mark on the Arian controversies.

Anyway, last week I weakened, and I ordered an actual physical copy of volume 1 brand-new from Peeters in Louvain.  It’s not really that expensive – about 30 euros, plus modest postage.

This morning I had to go out and drag something round the side of the house.  When I did so, I found, behind the garden gate, a parcel.  Oh no.  For it was gently raining.

The courier had not troubled to leave a note, and no electronic communications had taken place.  Indeed I didn’t even have a delivery date.

In my own future interests, I decided to complain to the courier company.  Their “help page” was plainly designed to wear-out and baffle, rather than help.  So I wrote to the CEO, telling him the story in a nice way, and asking if he could give the delivery driver a spanking.  This afternoon I got a very nice email back from the poor girl charged with fielding complaints, who evidently got a chuckle out of my phrasing.  Apparently it had been dropped off yesterday.

But first I brought it in, nervously, and unwrapped it.  Multiple layers of too-soft cardboard.  But thankfully Peeters had shrink-wrapped the book itself in plastic, inside the packaging.  It’s fine.

Amusingly this must be *modern* shrink-wrapping, because grimy finger-prints were visible underneath it on the paper cover!

The marks are actually less visible on the real thing – the camera deceives, as we all know.

I’ve not looked inside it yet for an unexpected reason.  You see, I bought this new.  But this is no modern reproduction.  This is clearly from the original print run.  Peeters must have a stack of volumes that has sat there ever since 1953, for the last 73* years.  And, being a product of a different time, the pages are uncut!

It’s rather a privilege to have it.  But I’m sure that Dr Buytaert would be less sentimental, and tell me to get on, cut the pages and read what he had to say.

* 73 years, not 23!

1. E.M. Buytaert, Eusèbe d’Émèse: discours conservés en latin : textes en partie inédits, 2 vols, Louvain (1953).  Archive.org, vol. 1; vol. 2. (borrowable only)[↩]

I’ve written in the past about Eusebius of Emesa (d. ca. 360).  He was a pupil of Eusebius of Caesarea, and therefore, inevitably, a scholarly man.   He is identified by Jerome as an Arian.  But in truth he was perhaps one of the many in the east who rejected the Nicene watch-word “homoousios”  – consubstantial – as a key term of belief, because it was not scriptural.  These people were thereby driven into the arms of the Arians, and it was part of the Nicene recovery to identify and separate these people, who only objected to the word, from the true Arians.

His career is recorded by Socrates, in his Ecclesiastical History book 2, chapter 9.  After the emperor Constantius II arranged for Athanasius to be deposed as bishop of Alexandria, an Arian synod nominated Eusebius of Emesa to replace him.  But Eusebius wisely refused, and his refusal was accepted.  Probably the bishops realised that he was not the man for the rough work they had in mind.  They nominated George of Cappadocia instead, who was to meet a violent end after the death of Constantius.

Eusebius was instead made bishop of Emesa, modern Homs, in Syria.  He was in fact a native Syriac speaker, and therefore should have been acceptable.  But he was unable to remain there, after his interest in scholarship and astronomy caused the locals to worry that he was a sorceror.  A reconciliation was patched up, which collapsed, and thereafter he retreated to Antioch and lived a quiet life.

Most of the works attributed to him by Jerome have perished.  A few quotations survive in later writers.  But two collections of homilies have survived, one in an ancient Latin translation, the other in Armenian.

Both are basically inaccessible, even today.

The Latin homilies were edited by E. Buytaert in the 1950s, in two volumes.  The first is a collection preserved only in a manuscript at Troyes, Bibliothèque Municipale 523, which also contains some works by Tertullian, and the De solstitiis et aequinoctibus.  The second contains works published under other names in the 17th century by Sirmond.

But Buytaert’s edition is not accessible online.  Indeed it is one of the ironies of our age that the actual manuscript, Troyes 523, is online as a scanned microfilm, while the edition is not.  Thankfully Peeters of Leuven keep it in print, remarkably, so it can be purchased that way.

The Armenian homilies were edited by Nerses Akinian around the same time, and published in Handes Amsorya (= Monthly Review), published by the Mechitarist Fathers in Vienna.  This is not online as far as I can tell, and actually I can’t find a research library near me that might have them.  Worse, it seems that the University of Michigan did scan all their volumes, which it made available through Hathi, who make them unavailable on copyright grounds.  The fact that the whole lot is in Armenian script makes it very hard to work with anyway.  But I suspect that it might be OCR’d, and then machine translated.  Or maybe not.

There do not seem to be any translations of any of this material.

The name of Eusebius of Emesa also became attached to a Latin collection of homilies known as “Eusebius Gallicanus”.  The publication history of the latter involved confusion on exactly this point.  But I will write more about these two, and also the homilies of Eusebius of Alexandria, which also feature in both cases.

Eusebius of Emesa flourished in the 340s AD, and was identified with the anti-Nicene party.  Only one of his works has survived in the original Greek, a short homily on penitence.  The rest of his works existed only in fragments until Eligius Buytaert located 29 homilies in antique Latin translations in two manuscripts in France.

The Greek text of the Homilia de paenitentia (CPG 3530) is preserved in manuscript Paris BNF Coislin 913, online here.  Our text begins on folio 89:

There are also ancient versions in Armenian and Georgian.

The Greek text was edited by E. M. Buytaert, “L’heritage litteraire d’ Eusebe d’ Emese”, Louvain (1949) , p.16*-29* (i.e. in the second half of the book).  This book can be borrowed from Archive.org here.  There is a useful article on the text on p.150.

Prior to the work of Buytaert, the Greek text was attributed to Basil of Caesarea, and appeared in editions of his works.  It may be found in the Patrologia Graeca 31, columns 1476-1488, online here.  The quality of the text is atrocious, however.

The only complete edition of the works of Basil in the original Greek with parallel Latin translation is that prepared by the Maurist fathers, Julien Garnier and Prudentius Maran, “Sancti Patris Nostri Basili Caesareae Cappacdociae … Opera Omnia“, 3 volumes (Paris, 1721–1730), reprinted in J.-P. Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, vols. 29–32 (Paris, 1857, 1886).  The volumes are here:

• Vol. 1 (1721) – https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Sx5UAAAAcAAJ
• Vol. 2 (1722) – https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ah5UAAAAcAAJ.   This contains the Eusebius of Emesa, De paenitentia, on p.603; (p. 720 of the PDF, if you download it).
• Vol. 3 (1730) – https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=fR5UAAAAcAAJ

A correspondent asked me whether there was any English or French translation of De Paenitentia.  There does not seem to be. So, on a whim, I have scanned in the 1722 Latin translation, and passed it through Google translate, and the results (with a little intervention) are appended.  It has no scholarly value, but should help the interested find their way around the text.  I’ve appended my scan of the Latin.  As usual, I make this file and its contents public domain.  Do whatever you like with them!

• Eusebius of Emesa – On Repentance (PDF)
• Eusebius of Emesa – On Repentance (Word .docx)

I have also placed them at Archive.org here.

The text is not of great interest.  Eusebius argues against some who say that sins are only forgiven through baptism, and sins after baptism cannot be forgiven.  This strange idea – to our eye – was common in the fourth century, and resulted in the common practice of death-bed baptism.

During the Great Persecution under Diocletian, many had apostasised.  Afterwards the question arose on what to do with those who had lapsed. Some of these were bishops; or ordained by them.  Fanatics demanded that they were expelled. Others saw no problem in the ordination of rank traditores, or traitors.

This in turn led to many undesirable consequences.   As we see in our own day, demands for ideological purity – whatever the ideology – where power and money are involved mean that those who are considered most “pure” have most authority.  This in turn creates a ratchet, as politicians race to take ever more extreme positions, to prove their “purity” and so gain power.  Dissenters are tracked down and purged, to keep the pressure on.  Any who fail to keep up with the very latest dogmas are marginalised.

It is a recipe for fanatics, and a very happy place for dishonest men.   The truly honest are repelled, while the cynical find that they can lie their way to power and profit.

This process appears again and again in Byzantine history, as new “heresies” are discovered, and new groups thrown into the darkness.  It had nothing whatever to do with Christianity.

Nor was this purely a Byzantine activity.  During the Commonwealth after the English Civil War, all sorts of awful things took place of this kind.  Some of the “preachers” proved to be utterly vile men.  Charles II’s minister, Lord Arlington, once a preaching presbyterian chaplain to a New Model Army regiment, when times changed became the mastermind of the vicious persecution of the Scottish presbyterians recorded by Bishop Burnet.

Probably something like this is the background to Eusebius of Emesa’s mild rebuttal.