Exegetical and Rhetorical Appropriations of Scripture in the Homilies of Anastasius Sinaita1
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
EphemeridesTheologicaeLovanienses 95/3 (2019) 439-504. doi: 10.2143/ETL.95.3.3286796 © 2019 by Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses. All rights reserved. Exegetical and Rhetorical Appropriations of Scripture in the Homilies of Anastasius Sinaita1 Konstantinos TERZOPOULOS ἡ ῥητορικὴ ἄρα,ὡς ἔοικεν,πειθοῦς δημιουργός ἐστιν. Thusrhetoric,itseems,isaproducerofpersuasionforbelief. Socrates in PLATO, Gorgias, 454e-455a. τῆς δὲ ῥητορικῆς φαντασίας κάλλιστον ἀεὶ τὸ ἔμπρακτον καὶ ἐνάληθες. Themostperfecteffectofvisualizationinoratoryisalwaysoneofrealityandtruth. LONGINUS, OntheSublime, xv 8. INTRODUCTION As things stand regarding Anastasius Sinaita’s homiletic output, six works are considered authentic while three more have been attributed to him either in the manuscript tradition or – as is the case with one – via patristic testimony. Since the preparation of their critical editions – in one case an editioprinceps – is ongoing, the observations presented in this paper are, hence, provisional and indeed still in-progress. Nevertheless, subsequent to having collected and collated, compared and evaluated over three hundred and forty medieval Greek manuscript witnesses ranging from the ninth to seventeenth centuries containing these homilies – including two palimpsests and a third manuscript from the Sinai new finds – the main threads of Anastasius’ appropriations of Scriptural exegesis and rhetorical style can be roughly sketched. Some prefatory remarks are nonetheless essential to the discussion of the Anastasian homiletic corpus, especially with regards to the exclusion of two works. The opportunity for the disambiguation of a first homily listed among the incertaeoriginis, the unedited Homiliainramospalmarum (CPG 7780), with 1,742 words, has been made possible via its textual style and thematic content. Attributed to Anastasius Sinaita in its sole witness2 1. I would like to thank Joseph Verheyden for the stimulus to produce this paper by inviting me to participate in the colloquium on “Anastasius Sinaita and the Bible” held at the Catholic University of Leuven, 12-13 December 2016. Gratitude must also be directed to Dimitrios Zaganas for reading the first draft and catching fatal errors while offering insights and Daniel Tolan for scrutinizing my translations. 2. The seventeenth-century CantabrigiensisCollegii S.TrinitatisO.05.36 (1317), Pars 1, fols. 32-35v is, if not a direct copy, at the very least clearly emanated from the same textual tradition as Bodl.Barocc. 197. 440 K. TERZOPOULOS – the fourteenth-century Ms. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Barocc. 197 (fols. 344v-348) – all internal signs point to its being a third Homiliain ramospalmarumfrom the pen of Leontius, presbyter of Constantinople (6th c.)3. With regards to a second homily, the Homiliaindefunctos (CPG 7752; 4028; 4029; 4056; BHG 2103u)4, I have not found any evidence to support the manuscript attributions to Anastasius. The style and linguis- tic technique seem more suited to the Ephraem Graecus attribution, as witnessed to in numerous tangled witnesses. The introductory section and last few paragraphs, however, plainly betray a separate Greek literary hand. The textual tradition as witnessed to in the manuscripts reveals two closely related recensions that could possibly be interpreted as distinct translations of a work originally written in another language, say, possibly Ephraem’s Syriac. As is the norm for the Ephraem Graecus corpus, one mystery often leads only to another and, as D. Hemmerdinger-Iliadou has remarked, it is the work of syriacists which shall ultimately be con- clusive5. Furthermore, it is possible that allusions to the Canticuminmortuorum exequiis6 ascribed to a certain Anastasius hymnographer may have played some role in the mistaken identity of its author7. In any event, a close reading of the homily points to its being composed for use on the Saturday before Cheesefare Sunday, as is prescribed in numerous manuscripts; moreover, the oldest extant monastic Typikon bears witness to the same diataxis while also preserving the Ephraem attribution8. The language used is consistent with a fourth- to fifth-century composition, but the obvious occasion of a commemoration of all monastic fathers and mothers that have fallen asleep in the Lord point either to an early tradition of such an observance or betrays a much later (Studite era) date of possible adaptation. With those points established, we can now turn to the remaining, authentic homilies. 3. Cf. LEONTIUS PRESBYTER OF CONSTANTINOPLE, FourteenHomilies, trans. P. ALLEN – C. DATEMA (Byzantina Australiensia, 9), Brisbane, Australian Association for Byzantine Studies, 1991; LeontiiPresbyteriConstantinopolitaniHomiliae, ed. P. ALLEN – C. DATEMA (CCSG, 17), Turnhout, Brepols; Leuven, Leuven University Press, 1987. 4. PG 89, 1192-1201. Migne’s text is lifted from Glossaria Graeca minora et alia anecdotaGraeca, ed. C.F. MATTHAEI, vol. 1, Moscow, 1774, pp. 51-58. The discussions in S.N. SAKKOS, Περὶ Ἀναστασίων Σιναϊτῶν, Thessaloniki, 1964, pp. 140-142 and K.-H. UTHE- MANN, AnastasiosSinaites:ByzantinischesChristentumindenerstenJahrzehntenunter arabischerHerrschaft (AKG, 125), Berlin, De Gruyter, 2015, pp. 797-798 are of minimal assistance. Further discussion below. 5. D. HEMMERDINGER-ILIADOU, s.v. ÉphremleSyrien, in Dictionnairedespiritualité, vol. 4, Paris, Beauchesne, 1960, cols. 788-819 (especially cols. 801, 813 nr. 44). 6. J.B. PITRA, AnalectasacraspicilegioSolesmensiparata, vol. 1, Paris, A. Jouby et Roger, 1876, pp. 242-249; C.A. TRYPANIS, FourteenEarlyByzantinecantica (Wiener byzan- tinistische Studien, 5), Wien, Böhlau, 1968, pp. 29-39. 7. SAKKOS, Περὶ Ἀναστασίων (n. 4), pp. 233-236. 8. M. ARRANZ, LeTypicondumonastèreduSaint-SauveuràMessine,codexMessinen- sisGr115,A.D.1131 (OCA, 185), Roma, Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 1969, p. 194. APPROPRIATIONS OF SCRIPTURE IN THE HOMILIES OF ANASTASIUS SINAITA 441 Despite our veritable incognizance of the authentic Anastasian homiletic corpus, its textual transmission attests to the popularity it enjoyed in the late antique and middle Byzantine Church, well attested to via the earliest ninth- through tenth-century panegyrika and homiliaria – manuscripts containing collections of homilies for the feasts of the liturgical calendar attributed to patristic writers held in high esteem and recited during the divine services9. Interestingly, except for the Sermodetransfiguratione, which belongs to the fixed monthly cycle of feasts in the Menaia hymn books, the remainder of the known homilies discussed below are appointed for use during the holiest period of the ecclesiastical year, that of the Triodion10. Taking into account the fact that in its formative period the Triodion is considered a product of the ninth-century editorial work of the Studios monastery in Constantinople11, it is not surprising that for each homily there exists at least two textual traditions, even from their earliest surviving manuscript witnesses. The state of affairs for the homiletic Anastasian tradition becomes that much more provisional when it is observed that palimpsest witnesses preserve what seem to be ancient readings not found in any of the other remaining preserved later sources. With regards to the occasion or place of composition and original pres- entation of these homilies – save, again, the Sermodetransfiguratione– 9. A. EHRHARD, ÜberlieferungundBestandderhagiographischenundhomiletischen LiteraturdergriechischenKirchevondenAnfängenbiszumEndedes16.Jahrhunderts, 3 vols. (TU, 50-52), Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1936. 10. This is the liturgical cycle of feasts and commemorations revolving around the fluctuating date of Pascha, beginning with the pre-lenten weeks through the Great Fast to Holy Week – the so-called Lenten (κατανυκτικόν) Triodion – and passing on from the feast of Pascha through the entire paschal season, culminating with the feast of Pentecost and the Sunday after that of All Saints – the so-called Joyous Triodion (χαρμόσυνον) and Pentecostarion. Cf. K. MĒLIARAS, Ἱστορικὴ ἐπισκόπησις τοῦ Τριῳδίου·τὸ σχέδιον καὶ ὁ καταρτισμὸς αὐτοῦ, in NeaSion 29 (1934) 44-61, 153-161, 177-184, 330-346, 452-467, 502-516, 553-570, 609-615; J. NORET, Ménologes,synaxaires,ménées:essaideclarifica- tiond’uneterminologie, in AnalectaBollandiana 86 (1968) 21-24; TheLentenTriodion, trans. Mother MARY – K. WARE (Service Books of the Orthodox Church), London – Boston, MA, Faber & Faber, 1978, pp. 40-43; O. STRUNK, Speciminanotationumantiquiorum: Foliaselectaexvariiscodicibussaec.X,XI,&XIIphototypicedepicta (Monumenta Musi- cae Byzantinae, 7), Hauniae, Munksgaard, 1966, pp. 24-25. Recent research on the ninth century Sinai Tropologion (Sin.gr.NE/ΜΓ 56-5) gives new insight on the antecedent to the Triodion; cf. S.S. FRØYSHOV, LesmanuscritsdelabibliothèqueduSinaï:archivesdu mondeorthodoxe,trésordelaliturgiehiérosolymitaine, in LeMessagerOrthodoxe 148 (2009) 60-75; P. GÉHIN – S. FRØYSHOV, Nouvellesdécouvertessinaïtiques:àproposdela parutiondel’inventairedesmanuscritsgrecs, in REB 58 (2000) 167-184; A. NIKIFOROVA, TheTropologionSin.gr.NE/ΜΓ 56-5oftheNinthCentury:ANewSourceforByzantine Hymnography, in Scripta&e-Scripta 12 (2013) 157-185; A. NIKIFOROVA – T. CHRONZ, The Codex Sinaiticus Liturgicus Revisited:ANewEditionandCriticalAssessmentoftheText, in OCP 83 (2017) 59-125. 11. For a concise overview of this important time of liturgical development after the victory over iconoclasm cf. R.F. TAFT, TheByzantineRite:AShortHistory, Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 1992, pp. 52-66 and the relative bibliography.