Rufinus' Historia Monachorum in Aegypto and the Promulgation Of
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
vigiliae christianae 71 (2017) 285-314 Vigiliae Christianae brill.com/vc Rufinus’ Historia monachorum in Aegypto and the Promulgation of Evagrian Ascetic Teaching Andrew Cain University of Colorado, Classics Department [email protected] Abstract Around 403 Rufinus composed his Historia monachorum in Aegypto, a Latin translation of Ἡ κατ’ Αἴγυπτον τῶν μοναχῶν ἱστορία (“Inquiry about the Monks of Egypt”). This Greek work, authored anonymously years earlier by one of the monks in his monastery on the Mount of Olives, chronicles the author’s months-long travels throughout Egypt, where he met notable monastic personalities and recorded for posterity their deeds and teachings. In rendering the Greek original into Latin Rufinus made certain amendments which point to possible reasons why he undertook this ambitious translation project. In this article I draw attention to amendments he made pertaining to the figure and teach- ings of Evagrius of Pontus and I argue that one of his principal authorial objectives was to promulgate and popularize the core principles of Evagrius’ ascetic mysticism among a western readership. Keywords Historia monachorum – Rufinus – Evagrius of Pontus – Egyptian monasticism – hagiography From September 394 to early January 395, seven monks from Rufinus of Aquileia’s monastery on the Mount of Olives made a pilgrimage to Egypt in order to visit monastic personalities and communities from the Thebaid in the south to the delta town of Diolcos in the north. Within months of their return to Jerusalem one of the party anonymously composed an engaging account in Greek of the journey ostensibly for the spiritual edification of the broth- ers in his monastery, though he clearly intended it for wider dissemination. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi �0.��63/�57007�0-��34Downloaded��98 from Brill.com09/30/2021 04:21:53PM via free access 286 Cain This work,1 which has come down to us under the name Ἡ κατ’ Αἴγυπτον τῶν μοναχῶν ἱστορία (“Inquiry about the Monks of Egypt”2), was translated into Latin by Rufinus perhaps in 403 or 404,3 several years after his return to Italy from Palestine. Rufinus entitled it Historia monachorum in Aegypto, the desig- nation by which the Greek original is best known to readers today. Accordingly, for our purposes in this study, the Greek original will be referred to as GHM, Rufinus’ translation as LHM,4 and the anonymous author of the GHM as “Anon.” (shorthand for “Anonymous”).5 Despite having been one of Rufinus’ most popular and widely diffused works throughout Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages,6 the LHM has received from modern scholars surprisingly little focused attention as a literary artifact.7 As a result, certain fundamental contextual questions remain unexplored, such as: what were Rufinus’ primary objectives in undertaking this ambitious 1 For a recent comprehensive study of this work, see A. Cain, The Greek Historia monacho- rum in Aegypto: Monastic Hagiography in the Late Fourth Century (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016). 2 This title sometimes has been translated into English as “History of the Monks of Egypt.” However, ἱστορία here does not have historiographic connotations. As is evident from the form and content of his narrative, the author did not venture to write anything resembling a linear “history” of contemporary Egyptian monasticism. This Greek abstract noun is ety- mologically related to the Indo-European verbal root weid-, woid-, wid- (“see,” “know”) and it here involves the gathering of knowledge through autopsy and the subsequent writing down of the results of these investigations. See B. Snell, Die Ausdrücke für den Begriff des Wissens in der vorplatonischen Philosophie (Berlin: Georg Olms Verlag, 1924), 59-71; R. Thomas, Herodotus in Context: Ethnography, Science, and the Art of Persuasion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 161-167; L. Zgusta, “History and its Multiple Meaning,” in L. Zgusta, History, Languages, and Lexicographers (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992), 1-18. 3 So C.P. Hammond, “The Last Ten Years of Rufinus’ Life and the Date of his Move South from Aquileia,” JThS n.s. 28 (1977): 372-429 (394-395); A. de Vogüé, Histoire littéraire du mouvement monastique dans l’antiquité, 3: Jérôme, Augustin et Rufin au tournant du siècle (391-405) (Paris: Cerf, 1996), 317-320. 4 All quotations of the GHM come from A.-J. Festugière (ed.), Historia monachorum in Aegypto. Édition critique du texte grec (Brussels: Société des Bollandistes, 1961), and all those of the LHM are taken from E. Schulz-Flügel (ed.), Tyrannius Rufinus, Historia monachorum sive De vita sanctorum patrum (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1990). 5 On the issue of his self-imposed anonymity, see Cain, The Greek Historia monachorum, 49-57. 6 For an overview of the manuscript tradition, see Schulz-Flügel, Historia monachorum, 90-142. 7 As partial evidence of this general neglect we may cite the fact that the LHM has been trans- lated into a modern language only once—into Italian, by Giulio Trettel (Rufino di Concordia, Storia di Monaci [Rome: Città Nuova, 1991]). My own translation of the LHM into English is forthcoming in 2018 in the Fathers of the Church series (Catholic University of America Press). Vigiliae christianaeDownloaded from 71 Brill.com09/30/2021 (2017) 285-314 04:21:53PM via free access Rufinus’ Historia monachorum in Aegypto 287 translation enterprise in the first place? Since he elected not to affix a preface explaining the occasion of the work,8 as he did, for instance, in the case of his translation and continuation of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History,9 we must inspect other aspects and features of the LHM. When he translated the Greek works of Origen,10 Eusebius,11 Basil,12 Gregory of Nazianzus,13 and others,14 Rufinus exercised considerable freedom in 8 On this (and other) conventional uses of authorial prefaces in patristic literature, see A. Cain, “Apology and Polemic in Jerome’s Prefaces to his Biblical Scholarship,” in E. Birnbaum and L. Schwienhorst-Schönberger (eds.), Hieronymus als Exeget und Theologe: Der Koheletkommentar (Leuven: Peeters, 2014), 107-128. 9 See P.R. Amidon (trans.), The Church History of Rufinus of Aquileia, Books 10 and 11 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 3-4. Cf. H. Crouzel, “I prologhi di Rufino alle sue traduzioni di Origene,” in A. Scottà (ed.), Storia ed esegesi in Rufino di Concordia (Udine: Antichità Altoadriatiche, 1992), 121-124. 10 C.H. Bammel, “Rufinus’ Translation of Origen’s Commentary on Romans and the Pelagian Controversy,” AAAd 39 (1992): 131-149; H. Crouzel, “Rufino traduttore del Peri Archon di Origene,” AAAd 31 (1987): 129-139; A. Grappone, Omelie origeniane nella traduzione di Rufino: un confronto con i testi greci (Rome: Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, 2007); A. Muraru, “Strategies of Translation in Late Antiquity: Rufinus and the Bilingual Readers of Origen’s Homilia in Exodum 9,” Adamantius 17 (2011): 297-302; N. Pace, Ricerche sulla traduzione di Rufino del De principiis di Origene (Firenze: La Nuova Italia, 1990). 11 M. Humphries, “Rufinus’s Eusebius: Translation, Continuation, and Edition in the Latin Ecclesiastical History,” JECS 16 (2008): 143-164. 12 C. Lo Cicero, “Come romanizzare Basilio ancora sul vertere di Rufino,” RFIC 130 (2002): 40-75; Lo Cicero, “Rufino traduttore di Basilio: emulazione e citazioni bibliche,” in I. Gualandri (ed.), Tra IV e V secolo: studi sulla cultura latina tardoantica (Milan: Cisalpino, 2002), 97-117; Lo Cicero, Tradurre i greci nel IV secolo: Rufino di Aquileia e le omelie di Basilio (Rome: Herder, 2008); H. Marti, “Rufinus’ Translation of St. Basil’s Sermon on Fasting,” StudPatr 16 (1985): 418-422; C. Moreschini, “La traduzione di Rufino dalle Omelie di Basilio: motivi e scopi di una scelta,” in C. Moreschini and G. Menestrina (eds.), La traduzione dei testi religiosi (Brescia: Morcelliana, 1994), 127-147; A. Salvini, “Sulla tecnica di traduzi- one dal greco in latino nelle Homiliae Morales di Basilio-Rufino,” SCO 46 (1998): 845-889; K. Zelzer (ed.), Basili Regula a Rufino Latine versa (Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences, 1986). 13 C. Moreschini, “Rufino traduttore di Gregorio Nazianzeno,” AAAd 31 (1987): 227-285. 14 See e.g. A. Carlini, “Le Sentenze di Sesto nella versione di Rufino. Vel enchiridion si Graece vel anulus si Latine,” in G. Fornasir (ed.), Studi forogiuliesi: in onore di Carlo Guido Mor (Udine: Deputazione di storia patria per il Friuli, 1984), 109-118; F. della Corte, “L’Anulus Sexti di Rufino,” AAAd 31 (1987): 195-205; C. Moreschini, “Motivi romanzeschi e inter- essi cristiani nelle Recognitiones dello Pseudo Clemente tradotte da Rufino,” Koinonia 35 (2011): 179-196; B. Neil, “Rufinus’ Translation of the Epistola Clementis ad Iacobum,” Augustinianum 43 (2003): 25-39. Vigiliae christianae 71 (2017) 285-314 Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 04:21:53PM via free access 288 Cain making his own phraseological (and conceptual) adjustments, translating sensus pro sensu rather than verbum pro verbo.15 He applied this same meth- odology when he translated the GHM, liberally adding to, subtracting from, and retouching the content of his source-text in numerous ways. These altera- tions and amendments serve as a reliable index of not only Rufinus’ translation technique but also his authorial intentions. For, while most of the changes are relatively minor and ultimately inconsequential in the grand scheme of the narrative, some substantively impact how we interpret the LHM as a whole and invite us to make reasonable inferences about Rufinus’ aims in releasing the work to a western readership. There has been no scholarly attempt yet to taxonomize the scores of Rufinian alterations, and so, in order that we may gain a sense of their variety, it will be instructive first, in Part I of this study, to take a bird’s-eye inventory of them. In Part II I isolate one particularly significant category of amendments (pertain- ing to the figure and teachings of Evagrius of Pontus), and in Part III I explore the potentially far-reaching implications that these amendments have for our understanding and appreciation of Rufinus’ authorial designs for his LHM.