This electronic thesis or dissertation has been downloaded from Explore Bristol Research, http://research-information.bristol.ac.uk Author: Magny, Ariane Title: Porphyry in fragments : Eusebius, Jerome, Augustine and the problem of reconstruction General rights Access to the thesis is subject to the Creative Commons Attribution - NonCommercial-No Derivatives 4.0 International Public License. A copy of this may be found at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode This license sets out your rights and the restrictions that apply to your access to the thesis so it is important you read this before proceeding. Take down policy Some pages of this thesis may have been removed for copyright restrictions prior to having it been deposited in Explore Bristol Research. However, if you have discovered material within the thesis that you consider to be unlawful e.g. breaches of copyright (either yours or that of a third party) or any other law, including but not limited to those relating to patent, trademark, confidentiality, data protection, obscenity, defamation, libel, then please contact [email protected] and include the following information in your message: •Your contact details •Bibliographic details for the item, including a URL •An outline nature of the complaint Your claim will be investigated and, where appropriate, the item in question will be removed from public view as soon as possible. 1512330046 Porphyry in Fragments: Eusebius, Jerome, Augustine and the Problem of Reconstruction. Ariane Magny A dissertationsubmitted to the University of Bristol in accordancewith the requirementsfor awardof the degreeof PhD in the Facultyof Arts, Schoolof HumanitiesSeptember 20 10. 69,625 words Abstract Everyoneworking on Porphyry's Againstthe Christiansrefers to the fragment collection compiledby Adolf von Harnackin 1916.Harnack's scholarshipwas impressive,but his work is difficult to use,and needs revision in the light of new approachesto the collection and interpretationof fragments.This dissertationdraws mainly on the methodologicalwork of Most et al. (1997) to arguethat a fragment shouldnot be readapart from its contextualframework. The dissertationanalyses the fragmentspreserved in Eusebius,Jerome, and Augustine, and explains how each author's agenda,as well as their religious andintellectual contextsinfluence the way in which they refer to Porphyry.Ultimately, this study aims at proposinga new fragmentcollection. I UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL LIBRARY Acknowledgments The idea for this dissertation emerged during the writing of a Master's thesis on Porphyry and the Book of Daniel entitled: "Porphyre et le Livre de Daniel: rdaction A la tradition ex6g6tique chr6tienne du Ille si&cle" and submitted at McGill University in 2004.1 am very grateful to Gillian Clark, my supervisor, whose scholarship and human qualities have been invaluable throughout the realisation of this project, even after she had retired. I also wish to thank Neville Morley, from the University of Bristol, for his comments on the first stagesof this dissertation during my upgrade interview, as well as Bella Sandwell, also from the University of Bristol, who was my examiner at the upgrade interview, and who oversaw to the very final and crucial stagesof the dissertation in Gillian's abstentia. Peregrine Horden, from Royal Holloway, and the reviewers of the Journal of Early Christian Studies have provided very helpful feedback on the chapters "New Methods" and "Jerome," as well as Elizabeth DePalma Digeser, from UCSB, during seminar discussion. David J. Miller has patiently helped me to decipher Eusebius' Greek. I am also grateful to the Arts SSHRC for Faculty of the University of Bristol, as well as to the their financial dissertation. support throughout the writing of the Finally, I wish to thankmy husband,Dominic, aswell as my family and friendsfor their incrediblesupport throughout the pastfew years,especially given the fact that doing this PhD meantmoving abroad. Author's Declaration I declarethat the work in this dissertationwas carried out in accordancewith the requirements of the University's Regulations and Code of Practice for ResearchDegree Programmes and that it has not been submitted for any other academic award. Except where indicated by specific reference in the text, the work is the candidate'sown work. Work done in collaboration with, or with the assistanceof, others, is indicated as such. Any views expressedin the dissertation are those of the author. SIGNED: CAI ... ..................... DATE:..,c. ý Table of Contents INTRODUCTION I-NEW METHODS 18 THE PROBLEM HARNACK OF 18 AFTER HARNACK 26 FRAGMENTS CONTEXT IN 39 PRESENTATIONOF FRAGMENTCOLLECTION A 46 TEXTUAL COMPLICATIONS 47 How METHODOLOGY MAY INFLUENCE AssumPTIONS 56 II-EUSEBIUS 60 111-JEROME 86 PORPHYRY JEROME IN 89 IV-AUGUSTINE'S LETTER 102 115 ON THE HARMONY OF THE Gs V-AUGUSTINE'S 147 PORPHYRY DE CONSENSUEVANGELISTARUM AND 143 AuGuSTINE's AGENDA 146 THE PROBLEMOF AUGUSTINE'SRHETORICAL PRACTICE 157 THEORY IN PRACTICE 158 BERCHMANAND DE CONSENSUEVANGELISTARUM 177 CONCLUSION 184 APPENDIX 194 BIBLIOGRAPHY 201 Introduction' The proceedingsof a conferenceheld at the Sorbonnein September2009 on the problemsraised by Porphyry'sAgainst the Christians:"Le traitd de Porphyre contreles chr6tiens.Un si&clede recherches,nouvelles questions, " to which I am lucky to contribute,will be publishedin the Collectiondesttudes Augustiniennesjust on time for the centenaryof the first ftagmentcollection published by the German scholarAdolf von Hamackin 1916.In this work, an entirely new andreturning generationof Porphyrianscholars gather to reflect on a centuryof scholarly developmentsin, andon the future of the questionsraised by, Againstthe Christians. This is in line with the currentrevival of interestin Porphyry'scorpus. Contributors to Studieson Porphyry,edited by G. Karamanolisand A. Sheppardin 2007,2focussed on Porphyry'sNeoplatonism; Sdbastien Morlet, the organizerof the Sorbonne colloquium,has himself publishedon Porphyryand Eusebius, as well as on Against the Christians;3 AaronJohnson has written on Eusebius,ethnicity, andAgainst the 4 Christians; JeremySchott used Porphyry to discussGreek ethnicity;' andAude Businehas been interested in Porphyry'sPhilosophyfrom OracleS.6 Porphyry's Againstthe Christiansis meantto be at the centerof this dissertation.His nameis 1All abbreviationsfollow LAnnýe Philologique,and all translationsare mine, unlessotherwise specified. 2G. Karamanolisand A. Sheppard(eds), Studies on Porphyry(London: 2007), Supplementto the Bulletin of ClassicalStudies 98. bude 3S. Morlet, La Dýmonstrationevangilique'd`Eusýbe de Cgsarge: sur PapologMquechritienne h Pipoque de Constantin(Paris: 2010); S- Morlet, "La Dýmonslralion6vangilique d'Eus&be de Cdsarde A contient-elledes fragments du Contra Christianosde Porphyre? propos du frg. 73 Harnack" (forthcomingin StudiaPatristica); S. Morlet, "Un nouveaut6moignage sur le ContraChristianos de Porphyre?" Semilicaet Classica,1 (2008):157-166. 4 A. Johnson,"Rethinking the Authenticity of Porphyry, c. christ. Fr. I, " (forthcoming in Studia Patrislica) 5J. Schott,"Porphyry on Christiansand Others: 'BarbarianWisdom', Identity Politics, and Anti- ChristianPolemics on the Eve of the GreatPersecution. " JECS 13no3 (2005): 277-314;Christianity, Empire, and the MakingofReligion in Late Antiquity (Philadelphia: University of PennsylvaniaPress, 2008). 6A. Busine,Paroles dApollon: pratiqueset traditions oraculairesdans IAntiquiti tardive (Ile-IV2e si&les) (Leiden:Brill, 2005). is actually its first word. But the Porphyry that we shall be looking at the product of have been in secondary elaborations of his anti-Christian ideas. These ideas compiled fragments various fragment collections, but recent developments on the gathering of have led me to question the word 'fragment' itself. Therefore, am I being just as dishonest about my intentions as Jerome of Stridon is, when the very first sentenceto his Commentary on Daniel goes as follows: "Porphyry wrote his 121h book against the Book of Daniel.... 997and when he later insists that, "In fact, we arenot proposingto respondto the calumniesof that adversary,which would require a lengthy argument, 8 discuss ,, Jeromeis for but to the things, which our prophetsaid .... our main source Porphyry'sAgainst the Christians.This must lead us to ask,what the subjectmatter of this dissertationis going to be if, from the start,we questionthe existenceof Porphyry'sAgainst the Christians.Studying Against the Christiansis just like studyingan enigma,for it constantlyescapes those reflecting on it. It exists in a very abstractway, becauseit is a lost work whosecontent needs to be carefully reconstructed,a task that is almostimpossible. In that respect,this madewriting the dissertationa real challenge.But at the sametime, this is alsowhat madeit exciting. Let us look at the problemsraised by Against the Christians,and at how we can try to overcomethem. Porphyryof Tyre is a Neoplatonistphilosopher, who flourished in the end of the Yd c. C.E. (232-ca.305), 9 right in the midst of profound religious changes,which will affect the entire Romanempire. Indeed, the emperorDiocletian will launchthe 7 Jerome,Commentary on Daniel Prologue:"Contra prophetamDanielern duodecimurn librurn scribit Porphyrius." 8 Jerome,Commentary on Daniel Prologue:"Verum quia nobis propositurnest non aduersariicalumniis longo indigent, dicta disserere respondcre,quae sermone sedea quaea propheta sunt nostris .-- ." 9 Porphyry, Vita