Vladimir A. Baranov Novosibirsk UNEDITED SLAVONIC VERSION OF THE APOLOGY ON THE CROSS AND ON THE HOLY ICONS ATTRIBUTED TO PATRIARCH GERMANUS OF CONSTANTINOPLE (CPG 8033) The Apology on the Cross, and on the Holy and Most Blameless Icons, and against the Heretics, in the manuscript tradition attributed to Patriarch Germanus I of Constantinople (715–730)1 survived in Georgian and Old Church Slavonic translations. The Georgian translation of the eleventh cen- tury by Ephrem Mtsire2 was critically edited by Fr Michel van Esbroeck, s. j. in 1995. Fr Michel van Esbroeck took the face value of the text and attributed it to Patriarch Germanus, connecting it with the Iconophile position of the Patriarch during the Arab siege of the Byzantine capital in 717/718 (with his promotion of the miraculous powers of the Virgin’s Icon) as opposed to the promotion of miraculous powers of the Cross by the Emperor and future ini- tiator of Iconoclasm Leo III.3 The Slavonic translation of the same treatise of an unknown date is con- tained in a manuscript of the beginning of the seventeenth century, «Êíèãà 1 For the biography and literary activity of Patriarch Germanus see: L. LAMZA, Patriarch Germanos I. von Konstantinopel (715–730): Versuch einer endgültigen chro- nologischen Fixierung des Lebens und Wirkens des Patriarchen: mit dem griechisch- deutschen Text der Vita Germani am Schluss der Arbeit, Das Östliche Christentum n. s. 27 (Würzburg, 1975) 200–240; O. MIENARDUS, The Beardless Patriarch: St. Ger- manus // Makedonika 13 (1973) 178–186; J. LIST, Studien zur Homiletik Germanos I von Konstantinopel und seiner Zeit (Athens, 1939). More on the literary heritage of the Patriarch see in À. Ï. ÊÀÆÄÀÍ, Èñòîðèÿ âèçàíòèéñêîé ëèòåðàòóðû (650–850 ãã.) [The History of Byzantine literature (650–850)] (Ìîñêâà, 2002) 82–105, and P. PLANK, Der heilige Germanos I, Patriarch von Konsantinopel (715–730) // Der christliche Osten 40 (1985) 16–21. 2 According to the gloss in one of the manuscripts (M. VAN ESBROECK, Un dis- cours inédits de saint Germain de Constantinople sur la Croix et les Icônes // OCP 65 (1999) n. 35, p. 30; the information on the manuscripts and their stemma see on pp. 30–31). On Ephrem Mtsire see: M. TARCHNISHVILI, Geschichte der kirchlichen georgischen Literatur (Vatican, 1955) 182–198, and E. KHINTIBIDZE, Georgian-By- zantine Literary Contacts (Amsterdam, 1996) 107–119. 3 M. VAN ESBROECK, Un discours inédits de saint Germain de Constantinople sur la Croix et les Icônes // OCP 65 (1999) 29. Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 03:43:17PM via free access 8 Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum ãëàãîëåìàÿ Ðàé. Ïîó÷åíèå ñâÿòûõ îòåö» [The Book which is called Para- dise. The Teachings of the Holy Fathers].4 The issue of the authorship will be re-investigated. Certainly, such a method of attribution as language anal- ysis cannot be applied in the case of translations, thus the main method for attribution of the text will be the analysis of inner content against the deve- lopment of argumentation for and against images in the Iconoclastic contro- versy, reflected in dated texts, as well as correspondence of the argument * * * 5 10 15 4 Tobolsk Branch of the State Archive of the Tyumen Region (ÒÔÃÀÒÎ ), Collec- tion of hand-written books 229, fols. 218v.–225v. I would like to express our grati- tude to V. N. Alexeev for pointing to the presence of our Apology in the manuscript, and to Lisa Marie Baranov for her thorough editing of the article and, especially, the English translation of the Apology. Another edition of the Slavonic translation on the basis of another manuscript is being prepared by Agnes Kríza for Studia Slavica Hungarica. 5 This is an anachronism in the title, since the Feast of Orthodoxy on the first Sunday of Great Lent commemorated the the final restoration of icon-veneration and was introduced in the Byzantine Church after the corresponding event in 843. On the Restoration of Icons by Empress Theodora after the death of her husband Theophilus, see Theophanes Contunuatus, IV, 6 (PG 109, 168Cf). On the history of the rite of Orthodoxy on the first Sunday of the Lent, see Ïðîò. Ê. ÍÈÊÎËÜÑÊÈÉ, Àíàôåìàòñò- âîâàíèå (îòëó÷åíèå îò Öåðêâè), ñîâåðøàåìîå â ïåðâóþ íåäåëþ Âåëèêîãî ïîñòà: èñòîðè÷åñêîå èññëåäîâàíèå î ×èíå Ïðàâîñëàâèÿ [Anathematizing (excommuni- cation), which is performed on the first Sunday of the Great Lent: Historical research on the Rite of Orthodoxy] (ÑÏá., 1879). Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 03:43:17PM via free access V. A. Baranov 9 with Germanus’ original writings. The representation of the Slavonic text, including punctuation and orthography, is made as authentic as possible. For the convenience of reading in some places, breaks have been supplied be- tween the words. For the convenience of comparison between the Slavonic and Georgian versions, in our translation we preserved the structure of chap- ters proposed by M. van Esbroeck. Quotations from the Scripture are marked in the translation in italics with references in the original. * * * By Our Holy Father Germanus, the Archbishop of Constantinople. The Apology on the Cross, and on the Holy and Most Blameless Icons,6 and against the Heretics spoken on the first Sunday of Holy Lent, that is on the Sunday of Orthodoxy. Father, bless. 1. Since many of those who insanely and senselessly proclaim heresy, in an unlearned and furious manner, through their evil and poisonous statements, and through the inquiries of these ignorant ones and through their blind absti- nence due to unruliness, concerning the word about the honourable icons, have become often in the habit of confusing the disciples of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, and we, calling out: bring forth, bring forth the divine word unto the opening of our mouths, shall say to them: “tell us, oh insane 6 Added in the Georgian version «made-by-hands and not made-by-hands», in spite of the absence of any examples of images «not-made-by-hands» like the Edessa Mandylion of the Savior or the Camuliana image of the Virgin in the treatise. Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 03:43:17PM via free access 10 Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum 20 25 30 5 10 15 7 Cf. Gal. 6:14. 8 On the theological opposition «soulless–ensouled» in the Iconoclastic Controver- sy, see V. A. BARANOV, The Role of Christ’s Soul-Mediator in the Iconoclastic Christo- logy // Origeniana Nonna / Eds. Gy. Heidl, R. Somos (Leuven, 2007, forthcoming). 9 Isa. 60:13. 10 Cf. the Peuseis of Constantine V (PG 100, 425D=Fragment 174, H. HENNEPHOF, Textus byzantinos ad Iconomachiam pertinentes in usum academicum (Leiden, 1969) (Byzantina Neerlandica. Series A, fasc. 1) 56). 11 Gal. 3:13. 12 Deut. 21:23. Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 03:43:17PM via free access V. A. Baranov 11 and dishonest ones, by whose word are you maliciously blaspheming the most blameless icon of the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, unrestricted- ly proclaiming to venerate His Honourable and Life-Giving Cross?” For as I think, the Cross, even if it is a victorious weapon of divine power against the devil and all his hostile powers, and praise higher than all praise, yet it is of soulless wood, the cypress, I say, the pine and the cedar, and not only that but by the hands of unlawful people was made, using tools for wood, unto the three-day death of the Lord Jesus.13 2. But you say in any case: we are accustomed to honor and venerate the Cross of Jesus because of our Lord and God nailed to it, who was made a curse for us, to make us receive filial adoption being freed from the ancient curse. I will say the same thing: the Cross, as the divine and Holy Spirit says by the Prophet, was the vessel of curse, for he that is hanged on the wood is accursed. If that one who is hanged on the wood is accursed, obviously also is that upon which he is hanged,14 that is the wood of the cross, if it had not turned into a holy thing through the holiness of God who was raised on it. For Christ revealed it by destroying the hostile powers through this victori- ous scepter. For this reason the judgment is righteous by you and by us — it is venerated in honor and truth for the sake of Christ raised on it. Why only 13 John of Damascus has a similar argument in Apology II, 19.1–6; Contra ima- ginum calumniatores orationes tres // Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos III / Ed. B. KOTTER (Berlin, 1975) (Patristische Texte und Studien 17) 118 [hereafter: KOTTER]. 14 Michael the Syrian provides a text, relating to the Byzantine Iconoclasm of the ninth century, which mentions an alleged order of a Patriarch of Constantinople (Nice- phorus?) to have images suspended around peoples’ necks together with crosses (S. GERO, The Resurgence of Byzantine Iconoclasm in the Ninth Century, according to a Syriac Source // Speculum 51 (1976) 2). Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 03:43:17PM via free access 12 Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 15 Ps. 46:6 (King James [KJ]: Ps. 47:5). 16 2 Tim. 2:15. 17 Ps. 134: 15–16 (KJ: Ps 135: 15-16). 18 2 Cor. 3:6. Cf. John of Damascus, Apology I, 5.11–13 (KOTTER, 78). 19 Cf. Phil. 2:6–7 20 Cf. Ps 92:1 (KJ: Ps 93:1). Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 03:43:17PM via free access V. A. Baranov 13 do you not venerate His human-like image, who for our sins was nailed to it, buried and resurrected and, as David the Forefather of God said: who has gone up to the heavens with a shout.