SCRINIUM
Ìèøåëü âàí Ýñáðóê. Ëóâýí, 2002 ãîä
Michel van Esbroeck. Louvain, 2002
SocieÏteÏ des eÏtudes byzantines et slaves, St. PeÏtersbourg
SCRINIUM Revue de patrologie, díhagiographie critique et díhistoire eccleÏsiastique
“ome 2 Universum Hagiographicum MeÏmorial R. P. Michel van Esbroeck, s. j. (1934ñ2003)
Byzantinorossica Saint PeÏtersbourg 2006
ISSN 1817-7530 (Print) ISSN 1817-7565 (Online) http://byzantinorossica.org.ru/scrinium.html ISBN 5-88483-059-9 (Ã÷‘) ¡¡ ›37ñ39(5)ñ117.3+›37ñ39(6)ñ117.3 ”ƒ 281.5
Scrinium. Ò. 2: Universum Hagiographicum. Mémorial R. P. Michel van Esbroeck, s. j. (19342003) / Ed. par B. Lourié et A. Mouraviev (2006). Ñàíêò-Ïåòåðáóðã: Âèçàíòèíîðîññèêà; Ìîñêâà: ÌÖÔ Ìåæäóíàðîäíûé öåíòð ôàíòàñòèêè, 2006. lxviii+492 ñ.
SCRINIUM Revue de patrologie, d’hagiographie critique et d’histoire ecclésiastique Comité éditorial: B. Lourié (rédacteur en chef), St. Pétersbourg D. Nosnitsin (secrétaire), Hamburg D. Kashtanov, Moscow S. Mikheev, Moscow A. Orlov, Milwaukee T. Senina, St. Pétersbourg D. Y. Shapira, Jérusalem S. Shoemaker, Oregon Secrétariat: T. Senina, St. Pétersbourg E. Bormotova, Montréal
T. II: Universum Hagiographicum. Mémorial R. P. Michel van Esbroeck, s. j. (1934–2003) Edité par B. Lourié et A. Mouraviev © Authors, 2006 © B. Lourié, A. Mouraviev 2006 © Byzantinorossica, 2006
Санкт Петербургское Общество византино славянских исследований
SCRINIUM ∆Û̇ΠԇÚÓÎÓ„ËË, ÍËÚ˘ÂÒÍÓÈ ‡„ËÓ„‡ÙËË Ë ˆÂÍÓ‚ÌÓÈ ËÒÚÓËË
“ÓÏ 2 Universum Hagiographicum œ‡ÏˇÚË Ó. Ã˯ÂΡ ‚‡Ì ›Ò·Û͇, Œ. ». (1934ñ2003)
Византинороссика Санкт Петербург 2006
SCRINIUM Æóðíàë ïàòðîëîãèè, êðèòè÷åñêîé àãèîãðàôèè è öåðêîâíîé èñòîðèè Ðåäàêöèîííàÿ êîëëåãèÿ: Â. Ì. Ëóðüå (ãëàâíûé ðåäàêòîð), Ñàíêò-Ïåòåðáóðã Ä. A. Íîñíèöèí (ñåêðåòàðü), Ãàìáóðã Ä. Â. Êàøòàíîâ, Ìîñêâà Ñ. Ì. Ìèõååâ, Ìîñêâà À. À. Îðëîâ, Ìèëóîêè Ò. À. Ñåíèíà, Ñàíêò-Ïåòåðáóðã Ä. Øàïèðà, Èåðóñàëèì Ñ. Øóìåéêåð, Îðåãîí Ñåêðåòàðèàò: Ò. À. Ñåíèíà, Ñàíêò-Ïåòåðáóðã Å. Ì. Áîðìîòîâà, Ìîíðåàëü
T. II: Universum Hagiographicum Mémorial R. P. Michel van Esbroeck, s. j. (1934–2003) Ïîä ðåäàêöèåé Â. Ì. Ëóðüå è À. Â. Ìóðàâüåâà
© Àâòîðû ñòàòåé, 2006 © Â. Ì. Ëóðüå, À. Â. Ìóðàâüåâ (ñîñòàâëåíèå), 2006 © Âèçàíòèíîðîññèêà, 2006
TABLE DES MATIE´RES Table des matières ............................................................................................. vii R. P. Michel van Esbroeck, s.j. (19342003). In memoriam .............................. x [† Michel VAN ESBROECK.] Short biography of Michel van Esbroeck ................ xi À. Â. ÌÓÐÀÂÅÂ, Â. Ì. ËÓÐÜÅ. Êðèòè÷åñêàÿ àãèîãðàôèÿ êàê îáðàç æèçíè. Ìèøåëü âàí Ýñáðóê, Î. È. (19342003) [A. MURAVIEV, B. LOURIÉ. Lhagiographie critique comme une mode dexistence: Michel van Esbroeck, s.j.] ........................ xiii Samir Kh. SAMIR. Michel van Esbroeck, SJ (1934–2003), le collègue et l’ami ..................................................................................... xxv Bibliographie du P. Michel van Esbroeck, SJ ................................................ xxxi Liste des abréviations ..................................................................................... lxvii
Articles † Michel VAN ESBROECK. L’alternance politico-religieuse de Justinien II à Léon III .............................................................................. 3 Vladimir A. BARANOV. Unedited Slavonic Version of the Apology on the Cross and on the Holy Icons Attributed to Patriarch Germanus of Constantinople (CPG 8033) ............... 7 Alessandro BAUSI. La versione etiopica delle Risposte canoniche di Timoteo I attribuite a Pietro di Alessandria (CPG II, nr. 2520) ............ 41 Sebastian BROCK. The genealogy of the Virgin Mary in Sinai Syr. 16 ............. 58 István M. BUGÁR. What did Epiphanius write to Emperor Theodosius? ......... 72 † Sevir B. CHERNETSOV. Ethiopian magic literature ........................................... 92 Vincent DESPREZ. Diadoque de Photicé et le Pseudo-Macaire. Un état des questions ................................................................................. 114 Anna M. KUZNETSOVA. Demons versus Saints in the early Eastern Orthodox monastic Literature ................................... 136 Àëåêñåé Â. ÌÓÐÀÂÜÅÂ. Çàáûòûé ìó÷åíèê sub Juliano Apostata: ãðóçèíñêîå ìó÷åíèå Ñâ. Ëóêèàíà Áààëüáåêñêîãî [Alexey V. MURAVIEV. A forgotten martyr sub Juliano Apostata: a Georgian martyrium of St Lucian of Baalbek] ....................................... 144 Andrei ORLOV. «The Learned Savant Who Guards the Secrets of the Great Gods»: Evolution of the Roles and Titles of the Seventh Antediluvian Hero in Mesopotamian and Enochic Traditions .............................................................................. 165
viii
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
Bernard OUTTIER. Fragments onciaux inédits de l’évangile de Marc en géorgien, Erevan, Matenadaran 2660 ................................................... 214 Vadim B. PROZOROV. The Passion of St. Domnius: the Tradition of Apostolic Succession in Dalmatia ................................... 219 Òàòüÿíà À. ÑÅÍÈÍÀ (ìîíàõèíÿ Êàññèÿ). Äèàëîã Ôåîôèëà è Êàññèè: ëèòåðàòóðíàÿ âûäóìêà èëè ðåàëüíîñòü? [Tatiana A. SENINA (Nun Kassia). Dialogue between Theophilus and Kassia: literary fiction or reality?] .................... 240 Dan D. Y. SHAPIRA. «Tabernacle of Vine»: Some (Judaizing?) Features in the Old Georgian Vita of St. Nino ......................................................... 273 Stephen J. SHOEMAKER. The Georgian Life of the Virgin attributed to Maximus the Confessor: Its Authenticity (?) and Importance .............. 307
Notices et recensions Vladimir A. BARANOV. The Vita Tarasii as a Source for Reconstruction of the Iconoclastic Theology ................... 331 Äåíèñ Â. ÊÀØÒÀÍÎÂ. Marginalia Byzantinorossica. Î âèçàíòèéñêî-ðóññêèõ ñâÿçÿõ â òðàêòîâêå Ì. Â. Áèáèêîâà [Denis V. KASHTANOV. Marginalia Byzantinorossica. On the Byzantine-Russian connections according to M. V. Bibikov] ....... 340 Âëàäèìèð À. Ë ÈÂØÈÖ. Ñîãäèéöû äàðÿò õóì íåñòîðèàíñêîìó ó÷èòåëþ Éàðóêòåãèíó [Vladimir A. LIVSHITS. Sogdians present a xôm to a Nestorian Teacher YrwS tkyn] ............................................................. 365 Âàäèì Ì. Ë ÓÐÜÅ. Ìåòàòðîí è Ïðîìåòàÿ: Âòîðàÿ êíèãà Åíîõà íà ïåðåêðåñòêå ïðîáëåì [Basil LOURIÉ. Metatron and Prometaja: 2 Enoch at the cross-road of problems] .................................................... 371 Òàòüÿíà À. ÑÅÍÈÍÀ (ìîíàõèíÿ Êàññèÿ). Íåñêîëüêî çàìå÷àíèé ïî ïîâîäó Æèòèÿ ñâ. Åâôèìèÿ Ñàðäñêîãî [Tatiana A. SENINA (Nun Kassia). Some notes on the Life of St Euthymius of Sardes] ........................................................................ 408 Dan D. Y. SHAPIRA. Hâru³t wa-Mâru³t, again .................................................... 418 Dan D. Y. SHAPIRA. Stray Notes on Aksum and Himyar ................................. 433 Ì. Ñ. ÂËÀÄÛØÅÂÑÊÀß, Ðóññêèé äóõîâíûé ñòèõ î Åãîðèè Õðàáðîì è áëèæíåâîñòî÷íûå ñêàçàíèÿ î ñâ. Ãåîðãèè (ñåìàíòèêà èìåíè è ñþæåò â àãèîãðàôèè) [M. S. VLADYSHEVSKAJA. Russian «duxovnyj stix» (folklore spiritual poem) about Egorij the Brave and Near Eastern legends about St. George (semantics of name and plot in hagiography)] (Â. Ì. ËÓÐÜÅ) ................................................... 444
Table des matie´res
ix
Í. È. ÌÈËÞÒÅÍÊÎ, Ñâÿòûå êíÿçüÿ-ìó÷åíèêè Áîðèñ è Ãëåá [N. I. MILJUTENKO, Saint princes-martyrs Boris and Gleb] (Ñ. Ì. Ì ÈÕÅÅÂ) .......................................................................................... 446 Ë. Ã. ÕÐÓØÊÎÂÀ, Ðàííåõðèñòèàíñêèå ïàìÿòíèêè Âîñòî÷íîãî Ïðè÷åðíîìîðüÿ [L. G. KHRUSHKOVA, Early Christian monuments of Eastern Black Sea Region] (À. È. ÐÎÌÀÍ×ÓÊ) ...................................................................................... 456 Íîâûå äèññåðòàöèè, ïîñâÿùåííûå âèçàíòèéñêîé ïàòðèñòèêå [Some new theses dedicated to the Byzantine patristics] (Â. Ì. ËÓÐÜÅ) ..... 463 Àïîêàòàñòàñèñ è ó÷åíèå î ñâîáîäå âîëè [Apokatastasis and the doctrine of the liber arbitrio] (Â. Ì. Ë ÓÐÜÅ) ....... 470 Íîâàÿ ñåðèÿ, ïîñâÿùåííàÿ òåêñòàì Õðèñòèàíñêîãî Âîñòîêà [New series dedicated to the texts of the Christian East] (Â. Ì. ËÓÐÜÅ) ..... 479 Í. Í. ÑÅËÅÇÍÅÂ, Íåñòîðèé è Öåðêîâü Âîñòîêà [Nicholai SELEZNYOV, Nestorius and the Church of the East] (B. LOURIÉ) ... 481 Íîâûå ïóáëèêàöèè ïî ñèðîëîãèè íà ðóññêîì ÿçûêå [Syrian Christianity: Recent Bibliography in Russian] (Ã. Ì. ÊÅÑÑÅËÜ, Í. Í. ÑÅËÅÇÍÅÂ) ......... 481
R. P. MICHEL VAN ESBROECK, S.J. (1934ñ2003) IN MEMORIAM Notre ami et maître le R. P. Michel van Esbroeck est décédé le 21 novembre 2003. Sa mort prématurée et soudaine a surpris tout le monde de ceux qui le connaissaient. Le présent volume que nous supposions de publier en honneur de son 70ème anniversaire, est devenu son mémorial. Le temps s’écoule et on voit de plus en plus la magnitude de la personnalité scientifique du Père van Esbroeck. La science des bollandistes, c’est-àdire l’hagiographie critique, et même nos connaissances de l’Orient Chrétien en général, sont maintenant influencées par lui dans une mesure que nous n’avons pas encore appréciée. La plupart de ses brillants découverts, dispersés dans les chaînes des courts articles, n’étaient arrangée dans un ordre systématique que dans les esprits de lui-même et de quelques-uns de ses lecteurs les plus scrupuleux, capables de le suivre par toutes les courbes de ses références bibliographiques... Lui-même, il ne systématisait ses achèvements que dans quelques cas exclusifs et d’une manière très laconique. Évidemment, la personnalité et l’œuvre du P. van Esbroeck méritent d’être faites l’objet d’une étude spéciale, au même niveau que des autres grandes figures du bollandisme du XX siècle, celles des PP. Delehaye et Peeters. Faute de cela, nous avons essayé dans un autre lieu d’esquisser une partie assez grande de ce que le P. van Esbroeck a fait.1 Le volume présent n’est qu’une collection des articles des ceux qui avaient le bonheur de connaître le P. Michel personnellement ou, du moins, partageaient ces intérêts scientifiques qui ne s’ont été jamais bornés à l’hagiographie au sens stricte. C’est pourquoi ce volume, quoique intitulé Universum hagiographicum, ne se limite pas de l’hagiographie. Une petite notice biographique que nous plaçons tout de suite, est écrite en anglais par le P. van Esbroeck lui-même vers la fin de 1999. B. Lourié A. Mouraviev
1 Â. ËÓÐÜÅ, Êðèòè÷åñêàÿ àãèîãðàôèÿ, èëè Èñòîðèÿ çåìíîãî íåáà è íåáåñíîé çåìëè îò Åíîõà äî Íèëüñà Áîðà è îò áîëëàíäèñòîâ äî Êóàéíà (â ïå÷àòè) [B. LOURIÉ, L’hagiographie critique, ou l’Histoire du ciel terrestre et de la terre céleste d’Énoch à Niels Bohr et des bollandistes à Quine (à paraître)].
[NOTICE
AUTOBIOGRAPHIQUE]
SHORT BIOGRAPHY OF MICHEL VAN ESBROECK Michel van Esbroeck (= MvE) was born on the 17.06.34 in Malines in Belgium, in a family partly from Flemish and partly from Walloon ascendance: The name is Flemish, but the family language always was French. As his father Prof. Guillaume van Esbroeck († 1974) made his studies in Geology at Columbia University in the years 1921–1923, and his mother Ida Brusselmans († 1965) went at school in London from 1914 to 1918, so English was also spoken at home. MvE achieved the Greek and Latin Humanities in the Collège Saint-Michel in Brussels in 1951. After one year in Laws at the Faculties Saint-Louis in Brussels, MvE entered the noviciate of the south Belgian Province of the Society of Jesus from 1953 to 1955. He then simultaneously prepared a State Licence in Classical Philology at the Jury d’État Belge in 1959, and the three years for the Philosophical degrees at the Pontifical Institute Saint-Albert de Louvain (sj) in the same year, with a work on La prohairesis chez Aristote et chez les rhéteurs grecs. After one year for the military service, he had a class of 32 children for one year. In 1962, MvE was invited to enter the Library of the Bollandist Society in Brussels, where for the first time he was enabled to study ecclesiastical matters. At that moment he obtained the permission to follow the lectures of Prof.Gérard Garitte at the University of Louvain, but only as a free student. The languages were Armenian and Georgian. At that time Prof. Garitte had just edited the Calendrier palestino-géorgien in the publications of the Bollandists. After one year, MvE became aware of the high complexity of the hagiographic literature, which hardly can be treated in only two eastern languages from the first millennium. He then was allowed to study Arabic and Syriac in the University SaintJoseph of Beyrouth, but soon in 1964, he was recalled to make his Theological Studies in Louvain. In 1966, MvE was informed that he could not be ordained with his fellows on the ground of still unexplained reasons. He then forced the superiors to give him the normal time to achieve a Doctorate in Histoire et Philologie Orientale at the University of Louvain. In 1970 he was able to achieve his Theology and was ordained a priest. In 1972 Father François Halkin came back from Paris with the photos of the Georgian manuscript 11 from the Athos. The document had been photographed by Marcel Richard from the Institute of the Manuscripts in Paris. Nobody at that time in Paris was able to read it. MvE transcribed the whole codex, and saw that it belonged to a category of collections, which was given the name Mravalthavi. To collate the others exemplars was the first task. With the recommendation of Prof. Garitte, MvE lived 15 days in 1972 in Tbilissi. His doctorate would
xii
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
have been ready in 1972, but Gérard Garitte fell sick with a thrombosis. Only in 1975 MvE obtained his doctorate in the presence of G. Garitte. After that date, he regularly asked the Belgian State to be included in exchange programs of searchers between Soviet Union and Belgium. He made a lot of those exchanges, looking for hagiographic matters in Moscow, Leningrad, Tbilissi and Yerevan. He thus get the opportunity to exercise the contemporary Russian, Georgian and Armenian languages. In 1982, MvE was invited to teach old Armenian and Georgian in the Pontificio Istituto Orientale in Rome. In 1985, he took for one year the chair of Jean-Pierre Mahé in Paris at the Institut Catholique. In 1986, he was asked by the Ludwig-Maximilian University of Munich to give his candidature to succeed of Prof. Julius Aßfalg in the chair for the Philology of the Christian Orient. This effectively was an ideal possibility to work on the six Christian oriental languages: Armenian, Georgian, Arabic, Syriac, Coptic and Ge’ez. MvE was elected in 1987, and since holds the chair. As he was 65 year old in June 1999, he has been put in retirement according to the Law of the University on 31. July 1999. All the time since 1962, MvE worked on several hagiographic and theological matters, his first preoccupation being to signalise and publish documents which were forgotten since more than a millennium, and to measure their impact on the way to write history to-day. MvE is member of the «Deutsche patristische Kommission der deutschen Akademien» and is foreign member of the Academy of sciences in Tbilissi. [After his retirement MvE lived in Louvain-la-Neuve (Belgium). In octobernovember 2003 he taught at the Pontificio Istituto Orientale, Rome. MvE died on 21 November 2003 in his house in Louvain-la-Neuve. — NdlR]
–»“»◊≈— ¿fl ¿√»Œ√–¿‘»fl ¿ Œ¡–¿« ∆»«Õ» ûÿ≈À‹ ¬¿Õ ›—¡–” , Œ. ». (1934ñ2003) Êîãäà-òî ïðåäïîëàãàëîñü, ÷òî Ìèøåëü âàí Ýñáðóê èäåéíî âîçãëàâèò ðåäêîëëåãèþ æóðíàëà Scrinium. Âåäü ýòîò æóðíàë çàäóìûâàëñÿ, ïðåæäå âñåãî, äëÿ ðàçâèòèÿ òåõ ïîäõîäîâ ê èçó÷åíèþ àãèîãðàôèè, êîòîðûå â ïîñëåäíèå äåñÿòèëåòèÿ áîëåå âñåãî ñâÿçûâàëèñü ñ åãî ðàáîòàìè. Íî Ãîñïîäü ñóäèë èíà÷å. Òåïåðü ìû âûïóñêàåì òîì æóðíàëà, ïîñâÿùåííûé ïàìÿòè î. Ìèõàèëà. Ìèøåëü âàí Ýñáðóê îñòàâèë ïî ñåáå òàêóþ èíòåðåñíóþ è ìíîãîîáðàçíóþ ïàìÿòü, ÷òî âìåñòèòü åå â ïðåäåëû îäíîé ñòàòüè ñîâåðøåííî íåâîçìîæíî. È, òåì íå ìåíåå, ìû ïîïûòàåìñÿ.
◊ÂÎÓ‚ÂÍ Îòåö âàí Ýñáðóê è ïðèíàäëåæàë íàøåìó âðåìåíè è íå ïðèíàäëåæàë åìó. Îäíèì èç ïåðâûõ ñðåäè ñâîèõ êîëëåã îí îñâîèë êîìïüþòåð è íå óñòàâàë ïîâòîðÿòü, ÷òî òåõíè÷åñêèå óñîâåðøåíñòâîâàíèÿ â ñèëüíåéøåé ñòåïåíè ïîìîãàþò íàóêå. Îí ëèõî ãîíÿë íà ñâîåì àâòîìîáèëå ïî Åâðîïå, ïîëüçîâàëñÿ ñîâðåìåííûìè òåõíîëîãèÿìè è ïîñòîÿííî èíòåðåñîâàëñÿ íîâèíêàìè íàóêè. Âìåñòå ñ òåì, êîãäà çàäóìûâàåøüñÿ îá î. Ìèøåëå êàê î òèïå ó÷åíîãî, òî â ãîëîâó ïðèõîäèò òîëüêî ñðàâíåíèå ñ ýíöèêëîïåäèñòàìè ïðîøëîãî èëè äàæå ñ âåëèêèìè ãóìàíèñòàìè âðîäå åãî çåìëÿêà Þñòà Ëèïñèÿ èëè Ñêàëèãåðà, íî òîëüêî â äðóãîì ðîäå. Íåâîçìîæíî ÷åòêî îïðåäåëèòü åãî îáëàñòü çàíÿòèé. Öåðêîâíàÿ èñòîðèÿ? Ïàòðîëîãèÿ? Èñòîðèÿ Õðèñòèàíñêîãî âîñòîêà? Ñðàâíèòåëüíàÿ ìèôîëîãèÿ? Ñòðóêòóðàëèñòèêà? Ôèëîëîãèÿ? Âî âñåõ ýòèõ äèñöèïëèíàõ îí îñòàâèë ñâîé ñëåä. Îí èíòåðåñîâàëñÿ ëèíãâèñòèêîé, áèáëåèñòèêîé, èóäàèñòèêîé, çà÷èòûâàëñÿ òðóäàìè Ãåòå, âûïèñûâàë êíèãè è æóðíàëû ïî àñòðîíîìèè
Åãî ÿçûêîâûå ñïîñîáíîñòè ïîðàæàëè âñåõ, êòî âñòðå÷àëñÿ ñ íèì. Ñâîáîäíî çíàÿ äåñÿòêà òðè ÿçûêîâ, îí ïðîäîëæàë èíòåðåñîâàòüñÿ âñå íîâûìè ÿçûêàìè. Îò ïðÿìûõ âîïðîñîâ î òîì, ñêîëüêî ÿçûêîâ îí çíàåò, î. Ìèøåëü ïðåäïî÷èòàë îòäåëûâàòüñÿ òóìàííûìè ðàññóæäåíèÿìè î òîì, ñêîëüêî âñåãî ÿçûêîâ â ìèðå òî ëè 6000, òî ëè 200, ñìîòðÿ ïî òîìó, ÷òî ñ÷èòàòü ÿçûêàìè, à ÷òî äèàëåêòàìè
Èç ýòîãî êàê-òî ñëåäîâàëî, ÷òî ÿçûêîâ â ìèðå íå òàê óæ ìíîãî, ÷òîáû íåëüçÿ áûëî, õîòü â êàêîé-òî ñòåïåíè, íå çíàòü èõ âñåõ. Åãî çíàíèå ÿçûêîâ íå áûëî çíàíèåì ïîëèãëîòà â
xiv
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
áûòîâîì ñìûñëå: î. Ìèøåëü âåñüìà ïðèáëèçèòåëüíî ãîâîðèë íà ÿçûêàõ, êîòîðûå îí âûó÷èë. Åãî çíàíèå áûëî çíàíèåì ÷èòàþùåãî ó÷åíîãî. Îí áûë çíàòîêîì ïèñüìåííîãî ñëîâà è çíàòîêîì áîãîñëîâèÿ. Åãî çíàíèå áîãîñëîâèÿ áûëî î÷åíü ãëóáîêèì è èíòóèòèâíûì. Ýòè äâå õàðàêòåðèñòèêè íóæäàþòñÿ â ïîÿñíåíèè. Ãëóáèíà åãî ïîíèìàíèÿ áûëà ãëóáèíîé èñòîðèêà. Îí âñåãäà çíàë èñòîðè÷åñêèå îáñòîÿòåëüñòâà òîãî èëè èíîãî ìíåíèÿ èëè ó÷åíèÿ, ïîíèìàë âíóòðåííèå ìåõàíèçìû, âûçâàâøèå åãî.  ýòîì ñìûñëå ÌâÝ (îí ñàì òàê íåðåäêî ñîêðàùàë ñâîå èìÿ MvE) áûë ïîêëîííèêîì èñòîðèçìà, ïîðîæäåíèÿ ðîìàíòè÷åñêîé øêîëû. Èíòóèöèÿ î. Ìèøåëÿ áûëà ñâÿçàíà ñ åãî ìåòîäîì ñòðóêòóðíîãî èçó÷åíèÿ ïðåäìåòà è ñ åãî îãðîìíîé ýðóäèöèåé è íà÷èòàííîñòüþ. Îí áóêâàëüíî ÷óâñòâîâàë, ãäå è ÷òî îí ìîæåò íàéòè íà èíòåðåñîâàâøóþ åãî òåìó. Åãî ôåíîìåíàëüíûé ìîçã âûäàâàë ìíîæåñòâî àññîöèàöèé íà ëþáîé âîïðîñ. Ê ñîæàëåíèþ, äàëåêî íå âñå îíè ïîäâåðãàëèñü ðàñêîäèðîâàíèþ è èçëîæåíèþ. Âîîáùå ãîâîðÿ, íà íå çíàþùèõ åãî ãëóáîêî, î. Ìèøåëü ïðîèçâîäèë âïå÷àòëåíèå ÷åëîâåêà î÷åíü õàîòè÷íîãî, íåñîáðàííîãî. È òîëüêî òå, êòî áûë ïîñâÿùåí â ïîäðîáíîñòè åãî èíòåëëåêòóàëüíîé êóõíè, çíàë, ÷òî âíåøíÿÿ íåóïîðÿäî÷åííîñòü ñêðûâàëà ÷ðåçâû÷àéíî ñëîæíîå âíóòðåííåå óñòðîéñòâî, íàõîäèâøååñÿ â ñòðîãîì ïîðÿäêå. Äåòñòâî î. âàí Ýñáðóêà ïðîøëî â îêêóïèðîâàííîé Áåëüãèè ïîä ñâèñò áîìá. Êîëëåäæ èåçóèòîâ «Ñåí-Ìèøåëü» â Áðþññåëå áûë íåïðîñòûì èñïûòàíèåì äëÿ þíîãî Ìèøåëÿ: ìàëåíüêîãî âàëëîíöà ñ ôëàìàíäñêîé ôàìèëèåé íå ëþáèëè íè ïðîíåìåöêèå ôëàìàíäöû, íè ôðàíêîÿçû÷íûå âàëëîíöû. Ñ òåõ ïîð ó î. âàí Ýñáðóêà îñòàëàñü òðóäíî ñêðûâàåìàÿ èäèîñèíêðàçèÿ êî âñåìó ôëàìàíäñêîìó.  þíîñòè î. Ìèøåëü ìå÷òàë î äîëæíîñòè ïðîïîâåäíèêà Õðèñòîâà ó÷åíèÿ â Êèòàå. Òàêîé âûáîð áûë ïðîäèêòîâàí èñòîðèåé åãî ñåìüè. Îòåö åãî áûë êàêèì-òî ïðåäïðèíèìàòåëåì, èìåâøèì âåñüìà âûãîäíûå äåëîâûå îòíîøåíèÿ ñ êèòàéöàìè. Áóäó÷è ÷åëîâåêîì íåîðäèíàðíûì, îí óâëåêàëñÿ êèòàéñêèì è ÿïîíñêèì, ÷èòàë íà ýòèõ ÿçûêàõ è ïðèâèë ñûíó ëþáîâü ê Âîñòîêó. Íåñìîòðÿ íà áîëüøîé è ðàçíîîáðàçíûé æèçíåííûé îïûò è íåêîòîðûé íàëåò ñêåïñèñà î. Ìèøåëü íà âñþ æèçíü îñòàëñÿ ðîìàíòè÷åñêèì ìå÷òàòåëåì î ìèññèîíåðñêîì ïóòåøåñòâèè â Ïîäíåáåñíóþ èìïåðèþ è îáðàùåíèè ìíîæåñòâà êèòàéöåâ êî Õðèñòó. Íåçàäîëãî äî ñìåðòè åìó äîâåëîñü âïåðâûå ïîáûâàòü â ñòðàíå ñâîåé ìå÷òû îí ñ ãîðÿùèìè ãëàçàìè ðàññêàçûâàë îá ýòîé ïîåçäêå è ïëàíèðîâàë âåðíóòüñÿ òóäà åùå. Îäíàêî ïîäîáíî ôðàíöóçó Ìàðè-Ôåëèñèòå Áðîññý îí áûë îñòàíîâëåí â ñàìîì íà÷àëå ïóòè â Êèòàé. Êàê èçâåñòíî, òîò ïî ïóòè â Êèòàé îñòàíîâèëñÿ â Ñàíêò-Ïåòåðáóðãå, ãäå îæèäàë âûïðàâêè äîêóìåíòîâ, ñèäÿ â áèáëèîòåêå Èìïåðàòîðñêîé Àêàäåìèè íàóê. Êîãäà ôðàíöóç ïîïðîñèë ïðèíåñòè åìó êíèãó íà êèòàéñêîì ÿçûêå, ñëóæèòåëü îøèáñÿ è âûíåñ åìó ãðóçèíñêóþ êíèãó. Ýòî è îïðåäåëèëî äàëüíåéøóþ íàó÷íóþ
Критическая агиография как образ жизни
xv
ñóäüáó Áðîññý.1 Äëÿ âàí Ýñáðóêà òàêîé «êíèãîé» îêàçàëîñü Îáùåñòâî Áîëëàíäèñòîâ.2 Ïîñëå îêîí÷àíèÿ íîâèöèàòà, êîòîðûé çàïîìíèëñÿ èç åãî ðàññêàçîâ òåì, ÷òî ìîëîäûå èåçóèòû ãîâîðèëè ìåæäó ñîáîé èñêëþ÷èòåëüíî ïîëàòûíè, Ìèøåëü íàäåÿëñÿ ðóêîïîëîæèòüñÿ â ñàí ñâÿùåííèêà è ïîëó÷èòü íàïðàâëåíèå â ìèññèþ â êàêóþ-íèáóäü ÷óæóþ ñòðàíó. Îäíàêî ðóêîâîäñòâî Îáùåñòâà Èèñóñîâà ïî êàêèì-òî (òàê è îñòàâøèìñÿ íåïîíÿòíûì Ìèøåëþ) ñâîèì ïðè÷èíàì îòëîæèëî îðäèíàöèþ. Ýòîò óäàð ñóäüáû âàí Ýñáðóê îñòðî ïåðåæèâàë è 50 ëåò ñïóñòÿ. Íî òîãäà îí îêîí÷èë èåçóèòñêèé êîëëåæ Ñàí-Ëóè â Ëóâåíå è çàùèòèë äèïëîì ïî òåìå «Ïðîàéðåñèñ ó Àðèñòîòåëÿ è ãðå÷åñêèõ îðàòîðîâ». Ïîñëå ïîëóãîäà ñëóæáû â áåëüãèéñêîé àðìèè (îá ýòîì âðåìåíè Ìèøåëü âñåãäà âñïîìèíàë ñî ñìåõîì: îòðàâèâøèñü êàêèìè-òî êîíñåðâàìè, îíè ïðîâåëè áîëüøóþ ÷àñòü ñëóæáû íà êîéêå â ëàçàðåòå) Ìèøåëü âåðíóëñÿ â êîëëåæ Ñâ. Ìèõàèëà è â òå÷åíèå ãîäà ïðåïîäàâàë îáîëòóñàì ëàòûíü. Íî ïî èñòå÷åíèè ãîäà åìó ïîñ÷àñòëèâèëîñü ïîëó÷èòü íàçíà÷åíèå â áèáëèîòåêó Îáùåñòâà Áîëëàíäèñòîâ, íàõîäèâøóþñÿ â òîì æå çäàíèè. Ýòî è ðåøèëî åãî äàëüíåéøóþ ñóäüáó. Íà÷àëî 1960-õ ãã. óæå íå áûëî «çîëîòûì âåêîì» áîëëàíäèçìà, ñêîðåå, ýòî áûë åãî çàêàò. Áëåñòÿùèé ó÷åíûé î. Ïîëü Ïåòåðñ, àâòîð âûäàþùèõñÿ èññëåäîâàíèé, ïîäíÿâøèõ óðîâåíü âîñòî÷íîé àãèîëîãèè íà îãðîìíóþ âûñîòó, óæå äåñÿòü ëåò êàê îòîøåë â èíîé ìèð.3 Ïðîäîëæàòåëü äåëà Èïïîëèòà Äåë¸ý (18591941),4 î. Ôðàíñóà Àëüêýí áûë áîëåå âñåãî ãåíèàëüíûì êàòàëîãèçàòîðîì ãðå÷åñêîãî æèòèéíîãî ìàòåðèàëà.5 Åãî îáúåêòèâèñòñêèå âçãëÿäû íà æèòèéíûå èñòî÷íèêè ñîñòàâëÿëè ïðåäìåò 1 Ì. Áðîññå (Marie-Xavier Félicité Brosset, 1802–1880) íà âñþ æèçíü îñòàëñÿ â Ðîññèè, ãäå åãî çâàëè Ìàðèé Èâàíîâè÷. Îá ýòîì ó÷åíîì, ñóäüáà êîòîðîãî èìååò ñòîëüêî âíóòðåííåãî ñõîäñòâà ñ ñóäüáîé Ì. âàí Ýñáðóêà, ñì.: Ã. ÁÓÀ×ÈÄÇÅ, Ìàðè Áðîññå. Ñòðàíèöû æèçíè (Òáèëèñè, 1983). 2 Îá Îáùåñòâå Áîëëàíäèñòîâ ñì.: H. DELEHAYE, L’œuvre des Bollandistes à travers trois siècles. 1615–1915 (Bruxelles, 19132) (Subsidia hagiographica 13a); P. PEETERS, L’œuvre des Bollandistes (Bruxelles, 19612; ðåïðèíò: 1968) (Subsidia hagiographica 24). 3 Îá î. Ïîëå Ïåòåðñå ñì.: P. DEVOS, Le R. P. Paul Peeters (1870–1950), AB 69 (1951) I–LIX [ïåðåèçäàíî êàê Appendice II â: PEETERS, L’œuvre des Bollandistes... 150–202]. 4 Îá ýòîì âåëèêîì áîëëàíäèñòå, ôàêòè÷åñêîì ñîçäàòåëå êðèòè÷åñêîé àãèîãðàôèè êàê íàóêè ñî ñâîåé ñîáñòâåííîé òåîðèåé, ñì.: B. JOASSART, Hippolyte Delehaye. Hagiographie critique et modernisme. 2 vols. (Bruxelles, 2000) (Subsidia hagiographica 81). 5 François Halkin (1901–1988), èçâåñòíûé îñîáåííî øèðîêî áëàãîäàðÿ èçäàííîé èì òðåòüåé ðåäàêöèè (1957 ã., ñ äîïîëíåíèÿìè â 1969 è 1984 ãã.) ñïðàâî÷íèêà BHG, ïåðâûå äâà èçäàíèÿ êîòîðîãî ïîäãîòîâèë Äåëåý (1895, 1909).
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
xvi
íåðåäêèõ øóòîê î. âàí Ýñáðóêà. Áîëëàíäèçì íà÷èíàëñÿ â XVII â. â óòîïè÷åñêîé íàäåæäå ñîñòàâèòü êðóã âñåõ ñâÿòûõ Öåðêâè, è çàêàí÷èâàëñÿ ïîçèòèâèñòñêèì ðèãîðèçìîì ïåññèìèñòîâ, îòêàçàâøèõñÿ îò ñëåäîâàíèÿ ðåëèãèîçíîé çàäà÷å. Îí ïðåâðàòèëñÿ â ôîðìó çàïàäíîé ãóìàíèòàðíîé íàóêè, êîòîðàÿ ñòðåìèòñÿ îñóùåñòâèòü ïîä âèäîì îáúåêòèâèçìà è ïîëèòêîððåêòíîñòè îòêàç îò ñîáñòâåííî ðåëèãèîçíîé ïåðñïåêòèâû. Ýòî ïðåâðàùåíèå áîëëàíäèçìà â ñâåòñêóþ èñòîðè÷åñêóþ íàóêó, òî÷íåå ãîâîðÿ, ïîòåðþ èíòåðåñà ê ôèëîñîôñêîìó è áîãîñëîâñêîìó àñïåêòó æèòèéíûõ òåêñòîâ î. âàí Ýñáðóê íàçûâàë «ñìåðòüþ áîëëàíäèçìà». «ß, ïðàâî, íå çíàþ, îñòàëèñü ëè åùå áîëëàíäèñòû íà ñâåòå», ãîâàðèâàë îí. Ãîäû, ïðîâåäåííûå èì â Áðþññåëå, áûëè ôîðìàòèâíûìè äëÿ åãî íàó÷íîãî ñêëàäà. Èìåííî òàì îí âïåðâûå ðåøèë çàíÿòüñÿ õðèñòèàíñêèì Âîñòîêîì. Ïðèäÿ â Îáùåñòâî áîëëàíäèñòîâ çàêîí÷åííûì êëàññèöèñòîì è àðèñòîòåëèàíöåì, îí êàê-òî ïîïàë â êëàññ è ñòàë õîäèòü â Ëóâåíñêèé óíèâåðñèòåò íà êóðñû çíàìåíèòîãî Æåðàðà Ãàðèòòà, ïðîôåññîðà ãðóçèíñêîãî è àðìÿíñêîãî ÿçûêîâ, çíàòîêà êîïòñêîãî è àðàáñêîãî.6 Èìåííî çíàêîìñòâî ñ Ãàðèòòîì îêàçàëîñü äëÿ î. âàí Ýñáðóêà ðåøàþùèì â ëè÷íîì ïëàíå. Ãàðèòò áûë ñòðîãèì è ïåäàíòè÷íûì ó÷èòåëåì, íî óìåë ïðèâèòü ñâîèì ó÷åíèêàì ëþáîâü ê õðèñòèàíñêîé äðåâíîñòè è ñòðàñòü ê ÿçûêàì õðèñòèàíñêîãî Âîñòîêà. Ñàìà èäåÿ âûäåëåíèÿ «õðèñòèàíñêîãî Âîñòîêà» â îòäåëüíóþ îáëàñòü íå òàê óæ è î÷åâèäíà, íî èìåííî â òîãäà åùå åäèíîì Ëóâåíå â 196070-å ãã. áûë ðàñöâåò ýòèõ øòóäèé. Ïîñòåïåííî ãåíèé è ýðóäèöèÿ î. Ìèøåëÿ ðîñëè, è ïðèõîäèâøèå â êîëëåæ Ñåí-Ìèøåëü ê áîëëàíäèñòàì çà êîíñóëüòàöèÿìè ó÷åíûå âñå áîëåå ïîëó÷àëè öåííûå êîíñóëüòàöèè ïî õðèñòèàíñêîìó Âîñòîêó èìåííî îò ìîëîäîãî èåçóèòà Ìèøåëÿ âàí Ýñáðóêà. È âîò, îäíèì èç òåêñòîâ, ïðèíåñåííûõ â áèáëèîòåêó áîëëàíäèñòîâ, îêàçàëñÿ ãðóçèíñêèé ïåðåâîä òðàêòàòà Åïèôàíèÿ Êèïðñêîãî «Î âåñàõ è ìåðàõ», êîòîðûé î. Ìèøåëü ñîâåðøåííî âåðíî îòîæäåñòâèë ñ ãðå÷åñêèì îðèãèíàëîì (à âïîñëåäñòâèè îñóùåñòâèë åãî êðèòè÷åñêîå èçäàíèå â CSCO). Ïîñëå ýòîãî óäà÷íîãî îïûòà ìîëîäîé ó÷åíûé ðåøèòåëüíî îñòàâëÿåò àíòè÷íûå è äàæå ÷èñòî ãðå÷åñêèå àãèîãðàôè÷åñêèå ñþæåòû.  1970-õ ãã. îí âñå áîëåå ïåðåêëþ÷àåòñÿ íà èññëåäîâàíèå èìåííî õðèñòèàíñêîãî Âîñòîêà, ïðè÷åì, ñòàíîâèòñÿ çäåñü ïî÷òè áåçîãîâîðî÷íî ó÷åíèêîì Æåðàðà Ãàðèòòà. Äåëî â òîì, ÷òî ñðåäè áîëëàíäèñòîâ èíòåðåñ ê áîãîñëîâñêîé ïðîáëåìàòèêå æèòèéíîé ëèòåðàòóðû áûë äîâîëüíî îêêàçèîíàëüíûì, ìîæíî äàæå ñêàçàòü, ÷òî îí óáûâàë ïî ýêñïîíåíòå. Äëÿ ôàêòè÷åñêîãî îñíîâàòåëÿ âîñòî÷íîé êðèòè÷åñêîé àãèîãðàôèè î. Ïîëÿ Ïåòåðñà, âïåðâûå íà÷àâøåãî ïðèìåíÿòü ìåòîäû Äåëåý ê àãèîãðàôèè õðèñòèàíñêîãî Âîñòî6
Î íåì ñì.: H. MÉTRÉVÉLI, Gerard Garitte (1914–1990), Mus 106 (1993) 373–379.
Критическая агиография как образ жизни
xvii
êà, äåëî îáñòîÿëî íå òàê. Ìû óæå ñêàçàëè î ðîëè Æåðàðà Ãàðèòòà â ôîðìèðîâàíèè íàó÷íîé ôèçèîíîìèè è èíòåðåñîâ âàí Ýñáðóêà. Ïîëü Ïåòåðñ áûë âòîðûì. Ýòîò óäèâèòåëüíûé áîëëàíäèñò, ýðóäèò è ôàíòàçåð áûë â íàó÷íîì ïëàíå ÿâíûì ïðåäøåñòâåííèêîì î. âàí Ýñáðóêà. Ñîòíè åãî ãåíèàëüíûõ, íî ìåñòàìè ÷ðåçìåðíî ãèïîòåòè÷åñêèõ ñòàòåé äî ñèõ ïîð ñîñòàâëÿþò îñíîâó àãèîãðàôèè õðèñòèàíñêîãî Âîñòîêà. Åãî ãåíèàëüíîñòü âûçûâàëà íå ðàç ñëîæíîñòè â îòíîøåíèÿõ ñ ñîáðàòüÿìè ïî öåõó. Îò÷àñòè ýòîò æå îïûò äîâåëîñü óçíàòü è î. âàí Ýñáðóêó. Íî â òå ãîäû åìó ïîâåçëî è îí áûë íàïðàâëåí äëÿ èçó÷åíèÿ àðàáñêîãî ÿçûêà â Áåéðóò (Êàñëèê), â èåçóèòñêèé êîëëåæ Ñâ. Äóõà. Òàì îí íà÷àë ó÷èòü àðàáñêèé, íî ìåòîäà èçó÷åíèÿ íà îñíîâå ñîâðåìåííîãî ÿçûêà êàòåãîðè÷åñêè íå óñòðàèâàëà åãî î. âàí Ýñáðóê õîòåë ÷èòàòü ðóêîïèñè. È îí îñâîèë àðàáñêèé ðîâíî íàñòîëüêî, ÷òîáû ÷èòàòü õðèñòèàíñêèå ðóêîïèñè. Âåðíóâøèñü â Áðþññåëü, î. Ìèøåëü ó÷èë óæå îñòàëüíûå ÿçûêè ñàìîñòîÿòåëüíî. Ó÷èòü ÿçûêè ñòàëî åãî óâëå÷åíèåì.
œÂÔÓ‰‡‚‡ÚÂθ Ë Û˜ÂÌ˚È Ñíà÷àëà åãî èìÿ èñ÷åçëî ñ òèòóëüíîé ñòðàíèöû æóðíàëà Analecta Bollandiana,7 à çàòåì ñàìî ïðåáûâàíèå â Áðþññåëå îêàçàëîñü ïîä âîïðîñîì. ×ðåçâû÷àéíî ñëîæíî ðàáîòàâøèé ìîçã ó÷åíîãî ìàëî ïðèñïîñàáëèâàëñÿ ê îêðóæàþùèì ëþäÿì, à òå, ìîæåò áûòü, íå âñåãäà ñ ïîíèìàíèåì îòíîñèëèñü ê íåìó. Êîãäà ôðàíöóçñêèå êîëëåãè ïðèãëàñèëè î. âàí Ýñáðóêà çàìåíèòü èõ â òå÷åíèå ãîäà â êà÷åñòâå ïðåïîäàâàòåëÿ ÿçûêîâ õðèñòèàíñêîãî Âîñòîêà â Êàòîëè÷åñêîì óíèâåðñèòåòå, òî îí ïî ìåðêàì òîé ïðîïðåäåâòèêè, êîòîðàÿ öàðèò â óíèâåðñèòåòå, íå âïîëíå óäîâëåòâîðèë òðåáîâàíèÿì. Ïîñëå ýòîãî ãîäà îí óæå íå âåðíóëñÿ â Áðþññåëü. Áîëëàíäèñòñêèé ïåðèîä æèçíè î. âàí Ýñáðóêà çàêîí÷èëñÿ. Íà÷àëñÿ ïðîôåññîðñêèé, ïðîäîëæàâøèéñÿ âïëîòü äî ñàìîé åãî êîí÷èíû. Äðàìàòèçì ýòîãî ïåðèîäà ñîñòîÿë â òîì, ÷òî î. Ìèøåëü, êàê ìû óæå óêàçûâàëè, âîâñå íå áûë ïðåïîäàâàòåëåì ïî ñâîåìó ñêëàäó. Îí íå ëþáèë ïðîïåäåâòèêè, ñ òðóäîì ïåðåâàðèâàë ñòóäåí÷åñêîå òóïîóìèå, ÷àñòî íå çíàë, êàê ïåðåäàâàòü ñîáñòâåííîå çíàíèå. Êàê ïðåïîäàâàòåëü ÿçûêîâ îí íåðåäêî áûâàë áåñïîìîùåí ïåðåä áàíàëüíûìè ìåòîäè÷åñêèìè ïðîáëåìàìè. Ê ñ÷àñòüþ, â òåõ óíèâåðñèòåòàõ, ãäå åìó äîâåëîñü ïðåïîäàâàòü, îí íå áûâàë ïåðåãðóæåí ïðåïîäàâàòåëüñêîé ðàáîòîé è âåë â îñíîâíîì çàíÿòèÿ ïî ÷òåíèþ òåêñòîâ ñ ïðîäâèíóòûìè ñòóäåíòàìè. Ó íåãî áûëî ìàëî ìàãèñòðàíòîâ è àñïèðàíòîâ îí íå óìåë çàâëåêàòü è ïðèâëåêàòü ìîëîäåæü, êîòîðóþ îòïóãèâàëà ñëîæíîñòü ïðåäìåòà. Åãî ñïàñåíèåì áûëà 7 Äî 1990-õ ãã. æóðíàë èçäàâàëñÿ íå ïðîñòî îò èìåíè «Îáùåñòâà Áîëëàíäèñòîâ» (êàê ñåé÷àñ), à îò èìåíè îäíîãî èëè íåñêîëüêèõ êîíêðåòíûõ ÷ëåíîâ Îáùåñòâà, èìåíà êîòîðûõ âûíîñèëèñü íà îáëîæêó è òèòóëüíûé ëèñò.
xviii
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
íàó÷íàÿ ðàáîòà òîëüêî çà ïèñüìåííûì ñòîëîì îí ÷óâñòâîâàë ñåáÿ ñîâåðøåííî «â ñâîåé òàðåëêå». Êàôåäðà ÿçûêîâ è ëèòåðàòóð õðèñòèàíñêîãî Âîñòîêà Ìþíõåíñêîãî Ludwig-Maximilian óíèâåðñèòåòà ñòàëà äëÿ î. âàí Ýñáðóêà ñàìûì ãëàâíûì ìåñòîì ðàáîòû, òîé áàçîé, ãäå áûëè íàïèñàíû åãî îñíîâíûå òðóäû 19902000-õ ãîäîâ. Ïðè âñåé åãî ìàëîé ñîâìåñòèìîñòè ñ íåìåöêèì äóõîì, êëèìàò Áàâàðèè âñå æå áûë åìó ìèë. Êàê ìû óæå ãîâîðèëè, î. âàí Ýñáðóê áûâàë èíîãäà íåëåãêèì â îáùåíèè ÷åëîâåêîì. Íå îáëàäàÿ ïåäàãîãè÷åñêèì äàðîì, îí ñ òðóäîì ìîã ïîäåëèòüñÿ ñ ÷åëîâåêîì ñâîèì çíàíèåì è âíóòðåííèì áîãàòñòâîì. Ó÷åíèêàì ñâîèì âàí Ýñáðóê äàâàë ñðàçó î÷åíü áîëüøóþ ñâîáîäó, íî ïðè ýòîì ñòàâèë íåîáû÷àéíî âûñîêóþ ïëàíêó. Îäíàêî ìàëî êòî çíàåò, ÷òî î. Ìèøåëü áûë ÷åëîâåêîì íåîáû÷àéíîé äóøåâíîé ùåäðîñòè, è òåì, êòî æåëàë óçíàòü íå÷òî, ÷åì îáëàäàë îí ñàì, îí áûë ãîòîâ äàðèòü ÷àñû è äíè ñâîåãî áåñöåííîãî ðàáî÷åãî âðåìåíè. Èìåííî â ó÷åíîé äåÿòåëüíîñòè âûðàçèëàñü íàèáîëåå ñèëüíî è ïîëíî òâîð÷åñêàÿ ëè÷íîñòü î. Ìèøåëÿ. Åãî èíòåðåñû áûëè íåîáû÷àéíî øèðîêè, íî âñå æå ìîæíî ïîïûòàòüñÿ îáîçíà÷èòü åãî íàó÷íóþ ñïåöèàëèçàöèþ òàê: èñòîðèÿ áîãîñëîâèÿ íà õðèñòèàíñêîì Âîñòîêå ïðåèìóùåñòâåííî â IVVII ââ. è ïî àãèîãðàôè÷åñêèì èñòî÷íèêàì. Íî óæå ýòî îïðåäåëåíèå âåñüìà íåäîñòàòî÷íî. Âàí Ýñáðóê çàíèìàëñÿ è ïàòðîëîãè÷åñêèìè è ÷èñòî öåðêîâíî-èñòîðè÷åñêèìè ñþæåòàìè. Îí ïèñàë íà òåìû çàêàâêàçñêîé ìèôîëîãèè è èñòîðèè õðèñòèàíñêîãî êàëåíäàðÿ. Îí ââåë â îáîðîò (ïðîùå ãîâîðÿ, îïóáëèêîâàë) ïî ðóêîïèñÿì ìíîæåñòâî òåêñòîâ íà êîïòñêîì, àðàáñêîì, ñèðèéñêîì, ãðóçèíñêîì è àðìÿíñêîì ÿçûêàõ. Ðóêîïèñè áûëè åãî ñòðàñòüþ èìåííî èç-çà ðóêîïèñåé îí ñòàë ïóòåøåñòâåííèêîì. Ê ýòîìó ïóíêòó ìû åùå âåðíåìñÿ. Íî ïðåæäå íàäî îõàðàêòåðèçîâàòü íàó÷íûå çàñëóãè î. âàí Ýñáðóêà, ÷òîáû åãî íàó÷íî-èññëåäîâàòåëüñêèé ïîðòðåò áûë ïîëíûì. Ïåðâîé è äîñòàòî÷íî îáøèðíîé îáëàñòüþ åãî èññëåäîâàíèé íàäî íàçâàòü àãèîãðàôè÷åñêîå äîñüå ñâ. Ãðèãîðèÿ Íåîêåñàðèéñêîãî. Êîãäà âàí Ýñáðóê òîëüêî ïîÿâèëñÿ ó áîëëàíäèñòîâ, åãî ïåðâîé çàäà÷åé ñòàëî èçäàíèå íîÿáðüñêîãî òîìà ñ æèòèåì Ãðèãîðèÿ Íåîêåñàðèéñêîãî. Îäíàêî ýòîé ìå÷òå íå ñóæäåíî áûëî âîïëîòèòüñÿ. Íå òîëüêî ýòîò òîì íå áûë âûïóùåí, íî è ñàìî èçäàíèå Acta Sanctorum áûëî ðåøåíî áîëüøå íå ïðîäîëæàòü. Ïðè÷èíîé ýòîãî áûë ïåðåñìîòð êðèòåðèåâ ïóáëèêàöèè æèòèé ñâÿòûõ, ïðîèçîøåäøèé â ðåçóëüòàòå îôîðìëåíèÿ «êðèòè÷åñêîé àãèîãðàôèè». Ýòîò ìåòîä èññëåäîâàíèÿ æèòèéíûõ òðàäèöèé óæå íå èñêàë îãðàíè÷èòü êðóã òåêñòîâ äî «ÿäðà», íî èññëåäîâàë âñå èõ ìíîãîîáðàçèå â ðàìêàõ îòäåëüíûõ «äîñüå» ðàçíûõ ñâÿòûõ. Êðóã òåêñòîâ ïðè ýòîì ðàñøèðÿëñÿ, à ñàìîå ãëàâíîå ïðèøëîñü ðàñøèðèòü ÿçûêîâîé êðèòåðèé. Åñëè ïðè æèçíè ñàìîãî Áîëëàíäà (Iohannes Bollandus, 15961665), Ðîñâåéäà (Heribert Rosweyde, 15691629), Ïàïåáðîõà (Daniel Papebrochius
Критическая агиография как образ жизни
xix
= van Papenbroeck, 16281714) è äðóãèõ «îòöîâ-îñíîâàòåëåé» ñ÷èòàëîñü âîçìîæíûì îïóáëèêîâàòü òîëüêî ëàòèíñêèå æèòèÿ, à çàòåì ê íèì èíîãäà ïðèáàâëÿëèñü è ãðå÷åñêèå ðåäàêöèè, òî óæå âî âðåìåíà îî. Äåëåý è Ïåòåðñà ñòàëî ÿñíî, ÷òî äëÿ áîëüøèíñòâà ñâÿòûõ èìåííî âîñòî÷íûå âåðñèè (ñèðèéñêàÿ, àðìÿíñêàÿ, ýôèîïñêàÿ, ãðóçèíñêàÿ) âûõîäÿò íà ïåðâûé ïëàí. Êàê ïîäñïîðüå äëÿ ýòèõ èññëåäîâàíèé è ïóáëèêàöèé î. Ïåòåðñ çàäóìàë áîëüøîé àãèîãðàôè÷åñêèé èíâåíòàðü Bibliotheca Hagiographica Orientalis (BHO, èçä. â 1910), íî ïðè åãî èçäàíèè óæå âîçíèêëè ïðîáëåìû: ðÿä îáëàñòåé îêàçàëñÿ âûáðîøåí èç èíâåíòàðÿ, à åãî îáúåì â ðåçóëüòàòå ñòàë ìåíüøå, ÷åì ïðåäïîëàãàë î. Ïåòåðñ. Ìèøåëü âàí Ýñáðóê ïðèíÿëñÿ çà ñáîð âñåõ âîçìîæíûõ ìàòåðèàëîâ î Ãðèãîðèè Íåîêåñàðèéñêîì. Ðåçóëüòàò ýòîãî ñîáèðàíèÿ îêàçàëñÿ äâîéñòâåííûì: ñ îäíîé ñòîðîíû, ñîáðàííûõ ìàòåðèàëîâ áûëî ñòîëüêî, ÷òî èõ íàáðàëîñü íà öåëûé îòäåëüíûé òîì Acta, ÷òî áûëî íåâîçìîæíî ïî ïðèíöèïèàëüíûì ïðè÷èíàì, à ñ äðóãîé î. âàí Ýñáðóê îáíàðóæèë ðÿä ïåðåñå÷åíèé äîñüå ñâ. Ãðèãîðèÿ ×óäîòâîðöà ñ äðóãèìè äîñüå Ãðèãîðèÿ Áîãîñëîâà è Ãðèãîðèÿ Ïðîñâåòèòåëÿ. Ðÿä ïîñëåäóþùèõ ëåò îí çàíèìàåòñÿ äîñüå Ãðèãîðèÿ Ïðîñâåòèòåëÿ, íàä êîòîðûì ê òîìó âðåìåíè óæå î÷åíü äîëãî òðóäèëñÿ Æåðàð Ãàðèòò, ïðè÷åì èíòåðåñ î. Ìèøåëÿ ðàñøèðÿåòñÿ è íà îñòàëüíûõ ïðîñâåòèòåëåé, íà äîñüå ñèðèéñêîãî àïîñòîëà Àääàÿ, íà äîñüå ñâ. Íèíû-ïðîñâåòèòåëüíèöû ãðóçèí, ñâ. Âàðôîëîìåÿ
Ïîñòåïåííî âàí Ýñáðóê âñå áîëåå îòõîäèò îò ÷èñòî ãðå÷åñêîé îáëàñòè è ïîãðóæàåòñÿ â âîñòîêîâåäåíèå. Îí çàäóìûâàåò ðÿä ðàáîò, ïîñâÿùåííûõ æèòèéíûì ñáîðíèêàì (ïðîëîæíîãî òèïà, êîòîðûå â çàïàäíîé íàóêå èìåíóþò «ãîìèëèàðèÿìè» homéliaires). Âàí Ýñáðóê ïðèíèìàåòñÿ çà îïèñàíèå ãðóçèíñêèõ «ìðàâàëòàâè» «ìíîãîãëàâîâ» (ýòà ðàáîòà áûëà â 1975 ã. çàùàèùåíà èì â êà÷åñòâå äîêòîðñêîé äèññåðòàöèè), à òàêæå çàíèìàåòñÿ àðìÿíñêèìè ñáîðíèêàìè. Çäåñü èì áûë ñäåëàí êðóïíåéøèé ïðîðûâ â âîïðîñå îïèñàíèÿ ãðóçèíñêèõ ìíîãîãëàâîâ. Òàê ïîñòåïåííî ôîðìèðîâàëñÿ èíòåðåñ âàí Ýñáðóêà ê îáëàñòè ïîãðàíè÷íîé ìåæäó ïàòðîëîãèåé è àãèîëîãèåé. Îí ñòàíîâèòñÿ èñòîðèêîì áîãîñëîâèÿ. Ãëàâíûì åãî èíòåðåñîì ñòàíîâèòñÿ ýïîõà îò Ýíîòèêîíà Çèíîíà (482) äî ïðàâëåíèÿ Þñòèíèàíà (527 565). Èìåííî â ýòîé ýïîõå âèäåë îí êîðíè áîëüøèíñòâà ðàííèõ æèòèéíî-áîãîñëîâñêèõ ñîáðàíèé. Îí íà÷àë ïîäðîáíî èçó÷àòü âåñü õðèñòèàíñêèé Âîñòîê ýïîõè Þñòèíèàíà îò Ýôèîïèè è äî Ãðóçèè. Ðåçóëüòàòû ýòèõ èññëåäîâàíèé ìîãóò ñîñòàâèòü îòäåëüíûé òîì. Ñî âðåìåíåì ïðîÿâëÿåòñÿ è âòîðàÿ îáëàñòü åãî èíòåðåñîâ ïðåäàíèÿ îá Óñïåíèè Áîãîðîäèöû. Ýòè ïðåäàíèÿ çàíÿëè î. Ìèøåëÿ â ñâÿçè ñ àòðèáóöèåé Ãðèãîðèþ Íåîêåñàðèéñêîìó ñëîâà íà Óñïåíèå Áîãîðîäèöû. Çäåñü î. âàí Ýñáðóêó ïðèíàäëåæèò ðåøàþùåå ñëîâî â ñîâðåìåííîé êàê ýîðòîëîãèè, òàê è ïàòðîëîãèè. Îòäåëüíûé òîì VARIORUM ñîáðàë â 1995 ã. áîëüøóþ ÷àñòü ýòèõ ñòàòåé ïîä îäíîé îáëîæêîé, ÷åì îáëåã÷èë
xx
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
îçíàêîìëåíèå ñ âêëàäîì âàí Ýñáðóêà â ýòó îáëàñòü. Îñîáåííûé èíòåðåñ ïðåäñòàâëÿåò êàê êëàññèôèêàöèÿ èñòî÷íèêîâ, òàê è ïðèêëàäíîé àñïåêò ýòèõ èññëåäîâàíèé: ðåøåíèå âîïðîñà îá èñõîäíîé òðàäèöèè. Êàêàÿ âåðñèÿ Âçÿòèÿ ïëîòè Áîãîìàòåðè íà íåáî (Assomption) èëè Óñïåíèÿ (Dormition) Åå áûëà õàðàêòåðíà äëÿ ïåðâûõ èñòî÷íèêîâ? Âàí Ýñáðóê ñ÷èòàë, ÷òî áîãîðîäè÷íàÿ àãèîëîãèÿ íà÷èíàåòñÿ â îáëàñòè àïîêðèôè÷åñêîé è âåäåò íåïîñðåäñòâåííî ê âîñòî÷íîìó ïîíèìàíèþ Óñïåíèÿ. Ó íåãî áûëè ïî ýòîìó âîïðîñó è îïïîíåíòû, ïûòàâøèåñÿ îáâèíèòü åãî â íåäîáðîñîâåñòíîñòè, íî ó ñàìèõ îïïîíåíòîâ íå õâàòàëî ïåðñïåêòèâû è çíàíèé âàí Ýñáðóêà. Çàòî â ýòîé îáëàñòè ó âàí Ýñáðóêà ïîÿâèëñÿ ïðîäîëæàòåëü åãî äåëà, â ÷åì-òî, ðàçóìååòñÿ, êðèòè÷íûé ê åãî âûâîäàì, íî ïðîäîëæàþùèé èìåííî åãî ïîäõîä ê èçó÷åíèþ âñåé ñîâîêóïíîñòè òåêñòîâ îá Óñïåíèè, Ñòåôåí Øóìåéêåð (Shoemaker).8 Ñî âðåìåíåì îáðàçîâàëàñü åùå îäíà îáëàñòü èññëåäîâàíèé ãåíåçèñ ìîíîôèçèòñòâà. Îíà âûðîñëà èç ñåðèè èññëåäîâàíèé õðèñòèàíñêîâîñòî÷íûõ òåêñòîâ. Âûÿñíèëîñü, ÷òî âñÿ èñòîðèÿ ïðîèñõîæäåíèÿ è ðàçâèòèÿ «ìîíîôèçèòñêîãî» äâèæåíèÿ íóæäàåòñÿ â ñóùåñòâåííîé ïåðåðàáîòêå. Ïðåæäå âñåãî, îêàçàëîñü, ÷òî áûëà íåäîîöåíåíà ðîëü «ýïîõè Ýíîòèêîíà», çàòåì èñòîðèÿ áîãîñëîâñêèõ ïðåäñòàâëåíèé àíòèõàëêèäîíèòñêîé òåíäåíöèè â Àðìÿíñêîé è Ãðóçèíñêîé öåðêâàõ
 ñåðèè ñòàòåé î. âàí Ýñáðóê ïðåäïðèíèìàåò ðåêîíñòðóêöèþ ñîáûòèé è áîãîñëîâñêèõ âçãëÿäîâ ëèäåðîâ ïåðâîé àíòèõàëêèäîíèòñêîé âîëíû. Åìó òàêæå ïðèíàäëåæàò âàæíûå ðàáîòû î ðàçëè÷íûõ îñîáåííîñòÿõ ìîíîôèçèòñêèõ äîêòðèí â Àðìåíèè.  ïîñëåäíèå ãîäû æèçíè î. Ìèøåëü âåñüìà çàèíòåðåñîâàííî ó÷àñòâîâàë â âîçðîæäåííîì (ñ 1999 ã.) æóðíàëå Ðîññèéñêîé Àêàäåìèè Íàóê è Ãîñóäàðñòâåííîãî Ýðìèòàæà Õðèñòèàíñêèé Âîñòîê, ãäå îí áûë çàìåñòèòåëåì ãëàâíîãî ðåäàêòîðà. Èìåííî â ýòîì æóðíàëå îí ðàçìåùàë â ïîñëåäíèå ãîäû ñàìûå îáúåìèñòûå èç ñâîèõ ïóáëèêàöèé èñòî÷íèêîâ íà ðàçíûõ ÿçûêàõ õðèñòèàíñêîãî Âîñòîêà.
œÛÚ¯ÂÒÚ‚ÂÌÌËÍ Íàó÷íûå èíòåðåñû î. Ìèøåëÿ ïðèâåëè åãî ñ íåèçáåæíîñòüþ ê ðàáîòå ñ íåîïóáëèêîâàííûìè òåêñòàìè, íàõîäÿùèìèñÿ â ðóêîïèñÿõ. Ìíîãèå íåîáõîäèìûå åìó ðóêîïèñè íàõîäèëèñü íà òåððèòîðèè ÑÑÑÐ â Ãðóçèè, Àðìåíèè, Ëåíèíãðàäå. Âàí Ýñáðóê íà÷èíàåò åçäèòü â ÑÑÑÐ êàæäûé ãîä, ïðèâîçÿ âñå áîëüøå ôîòîãðàôèé ðóêîïèñåé èç ñâîèõ ïîåçäîê. Ïàðàëëåëüíî îí çíàêîìèòñÿ ñ ðîññèéñêèìè ó÷åíûìè, äåëàåò äîêëàäû â 8 Åãî ìîíîãðàôèÿ ìîæåò ñëóæèòü ñîâðåìåííûì ââåäåíèåì âî âñþ ýòó ïðîáëåìàòèêó: S. J. SHOEMAKER, The Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition and Assumption (Oxford, 2002) (Oxford Early Christian Studies).
Критическая агиография как образ жизни
xxi
Ëåíèíãðàäå è Ìîñêâå, ó íåãî ïîÿâëÿþòñÿ çíàêîìñòâà â Òáèëèñè è Åðåâàíå. Ïàðàëëåëüíî îí çíàêîìèòñÿ è ñ ïðåäñòàâèòåëÿìè ñîâåòñêîãî «ðåëèãèîçíîãî àíäåãðàóíäà» ó÷àñòíèêàìè ïðîõîäèâøèõ â äîìàøíèõ óñëîâèÿõ íèêåì íå ñàíêöèîíèðîâàííûõ ðåëèãèîçíûõ ñåìèíàðîâ è ïðîñòî âñòðå÷, äëÿ êîòîðûõ îí íà÷èíàåò ââîçèòü â ÑÑÑÐ Áèáëèþ è äðóãèå äóõîâíûå êíèãè. 2 ôåâðàëÿ 1983 ã. îí óñïåâàåò ïîñåòèòü îäíî èç ïîñëåäíèõ çàñåäàíèé ñåìèíàðà «Ñåìèîäèíàìèêà» ïîëóîôèöèàëüíî ñóùåñòâîâàâøåãî â Ëåíèíãðàäñêîì óíèâåðñèòåòå ôèëîñîôñêîãî ñåìèíàðà, ðàçîãíàííîãî ñ áîëüøèì øóìîì óæå ÷åðåç ìåñÿö.9 Âñå åãî ïîåçäêè â ÑÑÑÐ, îñóùåñòâëÿâøèåñÿ â ðàìêàõ òàê íàçûâàåìîãî «íàó÷íî-òåõíè÷åñêîãî îáìåíà» ñ Áåëüãèåé, áûëè îôèöèàëüíî îôîðìëåíû êàê âïîëíå ñâåòñêèå è íàó÷íûå, íî âñåãäà èìåëè ýòó ñêðûòóþ ðåëèãèîçíóþ ñîñòàâëÿþùóþ. Ñî âðåìåíåì êîíòàêòû î. Ìèøåëÿ â ÑÑÑÐ îãðàíè÷èâàþòñÿ òîëüêî Çàêàâêàçüåì.  Òáèëèñè è Åðåâàíå î. âàí Ýñáðóê áûâàë ïî÷òè êàæäûé ãîä âïëîòü äî ñâîåé âíåçàïíîé êîí÷èíû. Îí áûâàë â ñàìûõ óäèâèòåëüíûõ óãîëêàõ Ãðóçèè è Àðìåíèè, íî ãëàâíûì ïðèîáðåòåíèåì âñå æå áûëè ôîòîêîïèè ðóêîïèñåé, ïîçâîëÿâøèå èçäàâàòü íåèçäàííûå òåêñòû.  Ìîñêâå ê âèçèòàì èåçóèòà èç Áðþññåëÿ îòíîñèëèñü ñ ïîäîçðåíèåì. Åãî íåðåäêî ñîïðîâîæäàëè íàâÿç÷èâûå «ãèäû», âñå âñòðå÷è ìîíèòîðèëèñü, à â ìåòðî îí íå ðàç çàìå÷àë çà ñîáîé «õâîñò».  Ìîñêâå î. âàí Ýñáðóê ìíîãî îáùàëñÿ ñî ñâÿùåííèêîì Àëåêñàíäðîì Áîðèñîâûì è äàæå áûë ÷ëåíîì ðåäêîëëåãèè ñîçäàííîãî èì æóðíàëà «Ìèð Áèáëèè». Íî Ìîñêâà íå âëåêëà î. Ìèøåëÿ îí áûë ïóòåøåñòâåííèêîì ïî Âîñòîêó. Ñî âðåìåíåì åãî ñòàë âñå áîëåå ïðèâëåêàòü Áëèæíèé Âîñòîê òåì áîëåå, ÷òî ïîñëå îòíîñèòåëüíîé ñòàáèëèçàöèè ñèòóàöèè íà Âîñòîêå òàì ñòàëè ïðîâîäèòü êîíôåðåíöèè. Åãî ðàññêàçû î ïóòåøåñòâèÿõ ïî Âîñòîêó ìîãëè áû ñîñòàâèòü îòäåëüíóþ êíèãó, íî, ê ñîæàëåíèþ, î. Ìèøåëü íå áûë ïèñàòåëåì, à áûë ó÷åíûì, ñ÷èòàâøèì, ÷òî ðàññêàçû ãîäÿòñÿ çà îáåäåííûì ñòîëîì, à íå êàê äåëî æèçíè. Êèòàé ñòàë ïîñëåäíèì åãî ñåðüåçíûì ïóòåøåñòâèåì è â íåêîòîðîì ðîäå êóëüìèíàöèåé åãî ìå÷òû. Îí íå ñòàë êèòàèñòîì è íå ñòàë ïðîïîâåäíèêîì ñðåäè êèòàéöåâ, íî îí ïðèåõàë â ñòðàíó ìå÷òû ñâîåé þíîñòè è ïîíÿë, ÷òî ýòîò ìèð èíòåðåñåí è áîãàò, íî ýòî ìèð, âíóòðåííèõ ìåõàíèçìîâ êîòîðîãî î. âàí Ýñáðóê íå çíàë, è ñ êóëüòóðîé êîòîðîãî îí áûë 9 Ýòîò ïðîñóùåñòâîâàâøèé âñåãî òðè ãîäà ìåæäèñöèïëèíàðíûé ñåìèíàð (óæå âåñíîé 1983 ã. åãî ðàçãðîìèëî ïàðòèéíîå íà÷àëüñòâî ËÃÓ è Ëåíèíãðàäà) ñòàë íà êîðîòêîå âðåìÿ ñâîåîáðàçíûì ôîêóñîì íåïîäöåíçóðíîé ôèëîñîôñêîé è ãóìàíèòàðíîé ìûñëè, ñèëüíî ïîâëèÿâøèì íà âñåõ ñâîèõ ó÷àñòíèêîâ (ôèëîñîôîâ, ìàòåìàòèêîâ, ëèíãâèñòîâ, áèîëîãîâ, âîñòîêîâåäîâ
). Áîëüøèíñòâî èç íèõ âåñüìà çàìåòíî ïðîÿâèëèñü â èíòåëëåêòóàëüíîé æèçíè Ðîññèè ëèáî åùå òîãäà æå, ëèáî óæå â 1990-õ ãîäàõ
Ñì.: Ñåìèîäèíàìèêà. Òðóäû ñåìèíàðà / Ïîä ðåä. Ð. Ã. ÁÀÐÀÍÖÅÂÀ (ÑÏá., 1994).
xxii
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
çíàêîì êóäà ìåíåå ãëóáîêî, ÷åì ñ êóëüòóðîé õðèñòèàíñêîãî Áëèæíåãî Âîñòîêà. Êîðî÷å ãîâîðÿ, Ïîäíåáåñíàÿ îêàçàëàñü íå òîëüêî íåçíàêîìîé è ýêçîòè÷íîé, íî è ÷óæîé ñòðàíîé. Ïóòåøåñòâèå î. Ìèøåëÿ çàêîí÷èëîñü. Óåõàâ èç íå îñîáåííî ëþáèìîé èì Ãåðìàíèè, îí ïîñåëèëñÿ â Ëóâåíå.
◊ÂÎÓ‚ÂÍ ‚Â˚ Âåðà, ðåëèãèîçíàÿ ìîòèâàöèÿ áûëà èñêëþ÷èòåëüíî âàæíîé ÷àñòüþ æèçíè î. Ìèøåëÿ. Êàê èçâåñòíî, èåçóèòû íå ÿâëÿþòñÿ â ïîëíîì ñìûñëå ñëîâà èíî÷åñêèì îðäåíîì, ïîýòîìó â ïðàâèëå ó íèõ ÷àñòíàÿ ìîëèòâà è ìåññà. Êàæäîå óòðî ñïîçàðàíêó î. Ìèøåëü ñëóæèë ÷àñòíóþ ìåññó è íåîòëîæèòåëüíî ÿâëÿëñÿ â öåðêîâü äëÿ ñîâåðøåíèÿ ñåãî ñâÿùåííîãî äëÿ íåãî äîëãà; äàæå â ïóòåøåñòâèÿõ îí ñòàðàëñÿ íå îòñòóïàòü îò ýòîãî ïðàâèëà. Îäíàêî, ïðè ýòîì, â åãî äóõîâíîé æèçíè, òàê êàê îíà âèäåëàñü ñî ñòîðîíû, íàáëþäàëîñü ãëóáîêîå âíóòðåííåå îäèíî÷åñòâî. Îíî áûëî îáóñëîâëåíî íå âíóòðåííåé çàêðûòîñòüþ, à î÷åíü âûñîêîé ñëîæíîñòüþ óìñòâåííîé ðàáîòû è íåîðäèíàðíîñòüþ ìûøëåíèÿ î. Ìèøåëÿ. Ñ ñîáðàòüÿìè îí îáùàëñÿ ðåäêî, íî êîãäà îáùàëñÿ, òî ñ áîëüøîé ñåðäå÷íîñòüþ. Âàí Ýñáðóê â òî æå âðåìÿ æèâî èíòåðåñîâàëñÿ âîïðîñàìè âåðû è îñòðî ïåðåæèâàë äóõîâíóþ êàòàñòðîôó ñîâðåìåííîãî Çàïàäà.  òî æå âðåìÿ, çíàÿ äîïîäëèííî Âîñòîê, îí íå ñòðîèë ñåáå ðîìàíòè÷åñêèõ èëëþçèé îòíîñèòåëüíî ïðàâîñëàâíîãî «Morgenland»à, ñâîåîáðàçíîãî êàòîëè÷åñêîãî «Áåëîâîäüÿ». Âîñòîê áûë äëÿ íåãî ïðåæäå âñåãî îáúåêòîì íàó÷íîãî èçó÷åíèÿ, íî îí íå áûë «âèçàíòèíèçèðîâàííûì» êàòîëèêîì. Çàïàä è çàïàäíàÿ êóëüòóðà, êàòîëè÷åñòâî áûëè åìó ðîäíîé ñðåäîé, îí íèêîãäà íå èñïûòûâàë æåëàíèÿ ïåðåéòè íà «âèçàíòèéñêèé îáðÿä». Îí çíàë è ëþáèë Èãíàòèÿ Ëîéîëó, ñ÷èòàë íåîáõîäèìûìè äëÿ ñâîåé äóõîâíîé æèçíè è äëÿ ñâîåãî óìà ñîâåðøàåìûå êàæäûì èåçóèòîì «äóõîâíûå óïðàæíåíèÿ», ðàâíî êàê è âïîëíå áëàãîãîâåéíî îòíîñèëñÿ ê âûñîêîé ñõîëàñòèêå.  íåì íå áûëî îäíîé ÷åðòû, õàðàêòåðíîé äëÿ ìíîãèõ ñîâðåìåííûõ êàòîëèêîâ àæèòàöèè, ñåíòèìåíòàëüíîñòè è õàðèçìàòè÷åñêîé ýêçàëüòàöèè. Îòåö Ìèøåëü áûë î÷åíü ðîâíûì â äóõîâíîé îðèåíòàöèè ÷åëîâåêîì. Ýòî, âïðî÷åì, íå îçíà÷àëî, ÷òî åãî áîãàòûé äóõîâíûé ìèð ðàáîòàë êàê ÷àñû. Èíîãäà ó íåãî áûâàëè ïðèñòóïû îñòðîãî ïåññèìèçìà, áëèçêîãî ê îò÷àÿíèþ, íî ïðèðîäíàÿ ñêëîííîñòü ê äîáðîäóøèþ, îáùèòåëüíîñòü è ñàìîäèñöèïëèíà áðàëè âåðõ.  êîíöå êîíöîâ, î. Ìèøåëü âñåãäà áûë òðóäîãîëèêîì, è åñëè æàëåë, òî òîëüêî î òîì, ÷òî â ñóòêàõ íå 30 ÷àñîâ. Ãëàâíûì äåëîì åãî æèçíè áûëà íàó÷íàÿ ðàáîòà íàâåðíîå, îêîëî 70 % ñâîåé æèçíè îí ïðîâåë çà ïèñüìåííûì ñòîëîì èëè â áèáëèîòåêå. Åãî ðàáîòà âî ìíîãîì áûëà åãî ðåëèãèîçíîé ðåàëèçàöèåé. Î ïåññèìèçìå î. Ìèøåëÿ íàäî ïîíèìàòü åùå îäíî: îí ñêåïòè÷åñêè îòíîñèëñÿ ê ðåëèãèîçíîìó àêòèâèçìó, íî îñîáåííî ðàäåë î äåëå ïðîïîâåäè. È ãëàâíûì äåëîì ñ÷èòàë èìåííî ïðîïîâåäü õðèñòèàíñòâà ñðåäè ìóñóëüìàí è ëþäåé Äàëüíåãî Âîñòîêà.
Критическая агиография как образ жизни
xxiii
 îòíîøåíèè ïàòðèñòèêè íàäî çàìåòèòü, ÷òî î. Ìèøåëü çíàë è ëþáèë ïàòðèñòèêó, íî «ýòîñ îòöîâ», êàê âûðàæàëñÿ î. Ãåîðãèé Ôëîðîâñêèé, áûë îòäåëåí îò íåãî íåêîåé êóëüòóðíîé äèñòàíöèåé. Ãîðàçäî áîëåå âíèìàíèÿ îí óäåëÿë áîãîñëîâñêîìó ñîäåðæàíèþ æèòèéíûõ òðàäèöèé â åå ñâÿçè ñ îòå÷åñêèì áîãîñëîâèåì. Ìàëî êòî ëó÷øå íåãî âèäåë âçàèìîñâÿçè ìåæäó ïàòðèñòè÷åñêèìè è æèòèéíûìè òåêñòàìè. Íî ïðè ýòîì ó âàí Ýñáðóêà ñëîæèëîñü íåñêîëüêî îòñòðàíåííîå, «àêàäåìè÷åñêîå» îòíîøåíèå ê äóõîâíîé ðåàëüíîñòè, êîòîðóþ îí èññëåäîâàë îíî ñëîæèëîñü, âèäèìî, ïîä âîçäåéñòâèåì ïîçäíåãî áîëëàíäèçìà. Ó î. âàí Ýñáðóêà áûëà îäíà óäèâèòåëüíàÿ îñîáåííîñòü îí óìåë è ëþáèë ïîìîãàòü ëþäÿì. Îí áûë ãîòîâ ïðåäîñòàâèòü ëþáóþ ñïðàâêó, ïîäåëèòüñÿ êíèãîé, ñòàòüåé. Îí ìîã ïðåäëîæèòü (è ïðåäëàãàë) ñâîèì áëèæíèì ñàìóþ íåîæèäàííóþ ïîìîùü ïðàêòè÷åñêóþ èëè ñîâåòîì. Îí áûë áëàãîäåòåëåì äëÿ ìíîæåñòâà âûõîäöåâ èç Çàêàâêàçüÿ, êîòîðûå èñêàëè ïðèñòàíèùà â Çàïàäíîé Åâðîïå, ïîìîãàë ñòóäåíòàì, äðóçüÿì. ×àñòî åãî ïîìîùü áûëà ñîâåðøåííî íåîæèäàííîé, è åäâà ëè íå ñëó÷àéíî óäàâàëîñü óçíàòü, ÷òî îíà èñõîäèëà îò íåãî. Ïî ïðîñüáå ìàëîçíàêîìîãî ÷åëîâåêà îí áûë ãîòîâ çàñåñòü çà ïåðåâîä òðóäíîãî òåêñòà ñ àðàáñêîãî èëè ãðóçèíñêîãî ÿçûêà. Ïðè ýòîì îí äåëàë äîáðûå äåëà êàæäûé äåíü è â ïîðÿäêå ðåãóëÿðíîãî óïðàæíåíèÿ, ÷òî, êàê êàæåòñÿ, äàåò ïðàâî ãîâîðèòü îá î. Ìèøåëå êàê î «åâàíãåëüñêîì ÷åëîâåêå», äëÿ êîòîðîãî îáðàç äîáðîãî ñàìàðÿíèíà áûë äåÿòåëüíûì ðóêîâîäñòâîì.
*** Ìíîãèå âñïîìèíàþò, ÷òî î. âàí Ýñáðóê èìåë îäíó âïîëíå ïðîñòèòåëüíóþ ñëàáîñòü íå áóäó÷è ìóçûêàíòîì, îí ñòðàñòíî ëþáèë ìóçèöèðîâàòü íà ðîÿëå è âåçäå, ãäå íàõîäèëñÿ èíñòðóìåíò, îí íåïðåìåííî óïðàæíÿëñÿ â áåñêîíå÷íûõ âàðèàöèÿõ â äóõå Ëèñòà. Îí èãðàë íå ïî íîòàì, à ïî ñâîåé ñîáñòâåííîé âíóòðåííåé èíòóèòèâíîé ìåòîäå. Òî÷íî òàê æå îí ðàáîòàë è â íàóêå íåðåäêî ïðåíåáðåãàÿ ïðàâèëàìè æåñòêîé àêðèáèè, íî ðóêîâîäñòâóÿñü ñâîåé ãëóáîêîé èíòóèöèåé è îãðîìíûì îáúåìîì çíàíèé. Åãî ìåòîä íåïîâòîðèì èìåííî îòòîãî, ÷òî òðåáóåò ñëèøêîì ëè÷íûõ ñâîéñòâ íàäî ñòàòü âòîðûì âàí Ýñáðóêîì. Íî ïëîäû åãî òðóäîâ ñîñòàâèëè öåëóþ ãëàâó â èñòîðèè õðèñòèàíñêîãî Âîñòîêà. Ñàìàÿ ãëàâíàÿ èäåÿ åãî íàó÷íûõ òðóäîâ î æåñòêîé, õîòÿ è î÷åíü ñâîåîáðàçíîé ñâÿçè ìåæäó ðàçâèòèåì àãèîãðàôè÷åñêèõ ëåãåíä è ðàçâèòèåì äîãìàòè÷åñêèõ è êàíîíè÷åñêèõ ñïîðîâ, ïîñòåïåííî âñòðå÷àåò âñå áîëüøåå è áîëüøåå ïîíèìàíèå â íàó÷íîé ñðåäå è, äàëåêî íå â ïîñëåäíþþ î÷åðåäü, â Ðîññèè. Âèäèìî, ýòà èäåÿ è äîëæíà ñòàòü íà áëèæàéøèå äåñÿòèëåòèÿ ïóòåâîäíîé çâåçäîé äëÿ êðèòè÷åñêîé àãèîãðàôèè. À. Â. Ìóðàâüåâ Â. Ì. Ëóðüå
xxiv
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
RE S: UME : A. Mouraviev, B. Lourie;
LíHAGIOGRAPHIE CRITIQUE COMME UNE MODE DíEXISTENCE: MICHEL VAN ESBROECK, S. J. Une esquisse biographique du P. Michel van Esbroeck composée par deux ses disciples porte surtout sur ses qualités personnelles de l’homme de foi et du chercheur. Les auteurs tracent de même les lignes principales de ses études de l’Orient Chrétien, ainsi que ses idées magistrales dans le domaine de l’hagiographie critique.
Samir Khalil SAMIR, SJ CEDRAC (Universite : SaintñJoseph, Beirut)
MICHEL VAN ESBROECK, SJ (1934ñ2003), LE COLLE´GUE ET LíAMI1 Vendredi 21 novembre, le P. Michel van Esbroeck (prononcez: Esbrouc) était trouvé mort dans son appartement à Louvain. La nouvelle a été un choc pour ses compagnons jésuites, ses amis et pour les orientalistes, spécialement pour ceux qui l’avaient vu peu auparavant. Michel est né à Malines (= Mechelen, Belgique) le 17 juin 1934. Sa famille, de la bonne bourgeoisie, est de double ascendance: flamande (comme le suggère le nom) et wallonne; cependant, le français était sa langue maternelle et il s’est toujours présenté comme wallon, avec parfois une pointe d’agacement à l’égard des flamands. Son père, Prof. Guillaume van Esbroeck († 1974) étudia la géologie à la Columbia University de 1921 à 1923; et sa mère, Ida Brusselmans, étudia à Londres de 1914 à 1918. De ce fait, l’anglais était aussi parlé à la maison et l’ouverture culturelle faisait partie de l’atmosphère familiale.
A. Les et: udes Michel fut envoyé au Collège Saint-Michel de Bruxelles, des jésuites, et acheva ses «humanités gréco-latines» en 1951. Il étudia alors le droit à Bruxelles aux Facultés Saint-Louis, mais ceci n’était pas sa vocation. Le 14 octobre 1953 il entra dans la Compagnie de Jésus, dans la province de Belgique Méridionale. De 1955 à 1959, il prépara et obtint la licence d’état en philologie classique et la licence ecclésiastique de philosophie à l’Institut Pontifical SaintAlbert de Louvain, avec un mémoire intitulé: «La prohairesis chez Aristote et chez les rhéteurs grecs». Il fit ensuite son service militaire, puis enseigna un an au Collège SaintMichel. C’est là qu’en 1962 il entra pour la première fois dans la bibliothè1 L’article suivant et la bibliographie que le suit ont été publiés pour la première fois dans les Collectanea Christiana Orientalia [Cordoba, Espagne] 2 (2005) 409– 440. Nous publions ici cette bibliographie du P. Michel van Esbroeck dans l’édition deuxième, augmentée et corrigée par les soins du P. Samir Kh. SAMIR lui-même et les éditeurs du volume présent. Nous voudrions exprimer notre gratitude profonde à tous les amis et collègues qui ont nous aidé à compléter cette bibliographie, et surtout à Dr Grégoire KESSEL (Moscou), Dr István PERCZEL et Dr István BUGÁR (les deux de Boudapest), Dr Dénis NOSNITSIN (Hambourg), Mlle Hélène BORMOTOVA (Montréal), Dr Nathalie VESELOVA (Ottawa), M. Michel KHOLODOV (Mississauga, ON, Canada). — B. L., A. M.
xxvi
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
que des Bollandistes, située dans une aile du Collège, et se plongea dans les études hagiographiques et patristiques. Cette année-là, il fut autorisé à suivre, à l’Université Catholique de Louvain, comme auditeur libre, les cours d’arménien et de géorgien du Prof. Gérard Garitte, qui venait de publier chez les Bollandistes le «Calendrier palestino-géorgien». Il prit alors conscience de la complexité des problèmes concernant la littérature hagiographique: le grec, le latin, l’arménien et le géorgien ne pouvaient suffire à maîtriser ces questions. Il fallait nécessairement étudier l’arabe et le syriaque, le copte, le slavon et le ge’ez. Michel part donc pour Beyrouth en 1963, pour étudier l’arabe et le syriaque à l’Université Saint-Joseph (en réalité au Centre d’Etudes Arabes des Jésuites à Bikfaya). Normalement, il faut un minimum de deux ans pour apprendre les rudiments de l’arabe. Lui, arrive en retard et repart après un an, ayant appris suffisamment les deux langues. Il m’expliqua un jour sa méthode: il avait emporté avec lui quelques microfilms de manuscrits arabes hagiographiques du Sinaï. Il les projetait sur le papier et copiait le texte en suivant le tracé lumineux, sans connaître encore l’arabe. Ainsi a-t-il appris à écrire, en même temps qu’il avait transcrit des textes (qu’il éditera plus tard), avant même de connaître la langue! Il utilisa la même méthode pour le syriaque. Mais en 1964 il fut rappelé en Belgique pour commencer ses quatre années d’études théologiques à Louvain. C’est probablement à ce moment qu’il étudie tout seul le copte et le slavon, l’hébreu et le ge’ez. Normalement, à la fin de la 3° année, les jésuites sont ordonnés prêtres, puis font la 4° année. En 1966, Michel fut informé qu’il ne serait pas ordonné avec ses confrères. Cet épisode laissa une blessure profonde en lui; encore à la fin de sa vie, il me racontait ce fait disant que jamais les Supérieurs ne lui en expliquèrent le motif. Il leur demanda alors de pouvoir achever son doctorat en Histoire et Philologie Orientale à l’Université de Louvain. C’est seulement en 1970 qu’il put achever sa théologie et fut ordonné prêtre le 27 juin 1970. Plus tard, le 2 février 1974, il prononça ses vœux solennels de jésuite.
B. Le bollandiste A partir de son ordination et jusqu’en 1975, Michel est mentionné dans les catalogues des Jésuites de Belgique Méridionale comme «préparant un doctorat en histoire et philologie orientales»2 . En outre, en 1971 il est indiqué comme «étudiant l’hagiographie»; et en 1972 comme «associé aux bollandistes». A partir de 1973, il est inscrit comme «bollandiste», titre qu’il 2 Catalogus Provinciae Belgicae Meridionalis Societatis Iesu, ineunte anno 1971 (Louvain: Imprimerie des Saints Cœurs, 1971), p. 13. Et ainsi chaque année jusqu’en 1975 inclus, aux pages 13 ou 14.
Michel van Esbroeck, SJ (1934–2003), le colle´gue et l’ami
xxvii
conserve pendant 20 ans, jusqu’en 1992. C’est dans le catalogue de 1993 que n’apparut plus ce titre, et ceci fut une grande douleur pour le P. van Esbroeck: il se sentit rejeté par l’équipe. En fait, ses rapports avec les Bollandistes n’étaient pas faciles: Michel avait du mal à entrer dans un système et à se plier à un règlement. En 1972, le P. François Halkin revint de Paris avec les photos du manuscrit géorgien 11 du Mont Athos. Ce document avait été photographié par Marcel Richard, fondateur de la section grecque de l’IRHT (Institut de Recherches et d’Histoire des Textes) de Paris. Mais personne alors à Paris n’était capable de le déchiffrer. Michel transcrivit l’ensemble du codex, l’identifia comme représentant un Mravalthavi et collationna d’autres manuscrits. Encouragé par le Prof. Garitte, il partit pour Tbilissi en 1972. Il acheva bien vite le travail, mais dut attendre 1975 pour soutenir le doctorat en présence de Garitte, qui avait eu entre temps une thrombose. Le travail parut la même année à Louvain, sous le titre de «Les plus anciens homéliaires géorgiens». A partir de ce moment, il demanda régulièrement à l’état belge d’être inclus dans les programmes d’échanges culturels entre la Belgique et l’Union Soviétique. Il profita souvent de ces voyages pour examiner et rassembler des documents hagiographiques à Moscou, Léningrad, Tbilissi et Erévan. C’était aussi pour lui l’occasion de pratiquer les langues modernes: le russe, le géorgien et l’arménien. Je crois que son cœur inclinait davantage vers le géorgien, et il était fier de pouvoir dire qu’il était «membre étranger» de l’Académie des sciences de Tbilissi.
C. Líenseignement universitaire De 1981 à 1987, Michel fut nommé à Rome, au Pontificio Istituto Orientale, pour y enseigner les langues et littératures arménienne et géorgienne. Il n’avait pas beaucoup d’étudiants, mais ils lui étaient très attachés et reconnaissants. Sa venue à Rome est liée aux manuscrits. Voici pourquoi. Lors du congrès arabe chrétien de Göttingen-Goslar, en septembre 1980, je lui avais dit que je m’apprêtais à acquérir, de la Library of Congress de Washington, l’ensemble des microfilms des manuscrits arabes du Sinaï. Mi-sérieux mi-plaisant, il me dit que si cela se réalisait il serait prêt à venir au Pontificio Istituto Orientale. Les manuscrits arrivèrent, et je l’en informais et lui promis même de les mettre dans sa chambre s’il venait à l’Orientale. Effectivement, j’installai les manuscrits dans sa chambre, mais n’avais pas eu le temps de les classer. Les numéros étaient donc totalement en désordre, ce qui rendait la recherche ardue. Un jour que Michel était parti pour quelque congrès, je décidai de lui faire une surprise: je passai la journée à classer tous les manuscrits de 1 à 696. A son retour, il fut fort déçu: Il avait visualisé la place des manuscrits, et ne se retrouvait plus dans l’ordre (trop facile) des numéros!
xxviii
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
En 1985, il remplaça Jean-Pierre Mahé à l’Institut Catholique de Paris, pour la chaire d’arménien. L’année suivante on lui suggéra de présenter sa candidature pour l’université Ludwig-Maximilian de Munich, pour succéder au Prof. Julius Assfalg à la chaire de Philologie de l’Orient Christian. C’était pour lui le poste rêvé: il pourrait enseigner les 6 langues de l’Orient chrétien: arménien, géorgien, arabe, syriaque, copte and ge’ez. Michel van Esbroeck fut élu en 1987, et resta jusqu’à sa retraite en 1999. Après, il continua d’habiter à Munich, chez les Jésuites de la Kaulbachstrasse. Mais en septembre 2001, il dut se transférer à Louvain-la-Neuve, pour des motifs financiers. Etant donné sa très importante bibliothèque, il habita seul dans un appartement, mais rejoignait chaque jour la communauté jésuite proche. Il continua de participer à de nombreux congrès de toutes sortes. Il avançait sérieusement dans l’apprentissage du chinois. Fin octobre 2003 nous nous sommes retrouvés encore à Rome, au Pontificio Istituto Orientale, puis il est rentré à Louvain, en passant par Munich, dans sa grande voiture chargée de livres, selon son habitude. Peu après, le 21 novembre, il mourait de manière inattendue, au milieu de la bibliothèque, et fut enterré le 25 à Louvain-laNeuve.
D. Líhomme et le savant J’ai vécu avec Michel pendant ses six ans à Rome, et nous nous sommes retrouvés pratiquement chaque année lors de congrès. C’était un homme exceptionnel à tous égards, et sous certains aspects génial. Ses immenses connaissances jointes à une intuition extraordinaire lui faisaient établir des corrélations entre les textes les plus éloignés les uns des autres, intuitions souvent exactes et toujours suggestives. La conversation avec lui était simplement passionnante et enrichissante, même si elle pouvait être fatigante du fait qu’il passait parfois d’un sujet à l’autre (sa pensée allait trop vite pour la plupart des gens) et qu’il faisait des allusions qui n’étaient pas évidentes pour tous. Il était chaleureux dans ses relations et agréable, tout en ayant aussi ses manies. Ses relations avec les autres pouvaient être difficiles, pour lui et pour eux, car il avait du mal à se plier à certaines règles (de la bibliothèque en particulier), qu’ils jugeaient absurdes et faites pour freiner l’élan des chercheurs; son comportement pouvait agacer; mais il avait aussi un grand cœur, un peu comme un enfant. Distrait au possible, il fallait toujours revoir les textes qu’il envoyait, et se fâchait même si je n’avais pas corrigé telle erreur … pour lui évidente. Ayant eu à lui publier six fois des textes, comme éditeur, je me suis promis de ne pas recommencer, à cause de ses distractions et de la rapidité de son travail. Il avait les qualités et les défauts des génies. Toujours pressé d’écrire, car il savait trop de choses ignorées de tous et il voulait les transmettre, il se désintéressait de certains détails méthodologiques ou bibliographiques. Son génie
Michel van Esbroeck, SJ (1934–2003), le colle´gue et l’ami
xxix
même et sa grande sensibilité l’ont fait beaucoup souffrir et l’amenaient à vivre dans la solitude. Mais il suffisait qu’il y ait quelque part un piano et Michel retrouvait sa joie et le bonheur. Il improvisait admirablement et faisait alors l’admiration de beaucoup. C’était sa détente et son plaisir. Sa distraction me faisait penser au professeur Tournesol d’Hergé3 ; parfois, discutant avec lui en français, il passait tout à coup au russe ou au géorgien, suite à une association d’idées, sans même s’en rendre compte. Sa contribution scientifique à l’orientalisme chrétien est considérable et assez unique. Ses connaissances balayaient tout le champ des sciences humaines et des sciences religieuses, et sa connaissance des langues (jamais parfaite mais toujours étonnante) lui permettait de voir ce que le spécialiste confiné dans une ou deux langues ne pouvait voir. Le fait d’embrasser tant de langues et tant de domaines, en négligeant un peu certains points, pouvait être, à juste titre, irritant pour le spécialiste (je pense aux nombreux textes arabes qu’il a publiés). Il n’en reste pas moins qu’il avait le courage de publier des textes que les spécialistes n’osaient pas publier. Ses recherches ont porté presque toujours sur l’hagiographie, mais comprise au sens le plus large possible. Et c’est ce qui rendait ses interventions dans les colloques si riches et si suggestives: il était capable de situer le moindre détail dans un grand tableau panoramique et de lui redonner ainsi sa véritable dimension. C’est aussi peut-être ce qui suscitait quelques réticences chez certains de ses collègues. Je reprendrais ici ce que le P. Robert Godding, jésuite bollandiste, qui fut son élève à Saint-Michel, écrivait lors de l’enterrement: «Dans la tradition bollandienne, qui distingue habituellement trois secteurs de la recherche, confiés à des spécialistes distincts, le latin, le grec et l’oriental, Michel pouvait à lui seul traiter avec compétence tous les aspects d’un dossier. Cette maîtrise l’avait amené à privilégier l’étude de dossiers extrêmement complexes, tels ceux des Apôtres, en particulier S. Barthélemy, de S. Grégoire le Thaumaturge, ou encore les traditions concernant la Vierge Marie. Mais l’hagiographie elle-même s’avérait pour lui un champ trop exigu. C’est ainsi qu’il s’est intéressé de près à l’exégèse, à la patristique et à l’histoire des conciles. Servi par une mémoire prodigieuse, il était seul à pouvoir opérer certains rapprochements totalement inattendus, à déceler des filiations de textes et des influences qui auraient échappé à tout autre érudit»4 . 3
«Hergé» est l’inversion francisée des initiales de Georges Remi (1907—1983), un écrivain belge très populaire. Le professeur Tournesol et le héros principal de son Le Trésor de Rackham le Rouge (1944). — NdlR de Scrinium. 4 Robert GODDING, S.J., “In memoriam. Le Père Michel van Esbroeck (19342003)”, in: Solidarité-Orient 229 (Bruxelles, Janvier-Mars 2004), pp. 3-5, ici p. 4.
xxx
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
L’aspect pédagogique n’était pas précisément son fort, qu’il s’agisse de l’enseignement ou de l’écriture. Peut-être est-il en partie responsable de ce que la chaire d’Orient chrétien de Munich n’ait pas été maintenue. Mais d’autre part, ceux de ses étudiants qui ont réussi à «tenir le coup» et à le suivre ont acquis une formation qu’ils n’oublieront pas. Avec le décès de Michel van Esbroeck l’Orient chrétien a perdu une de ses plus grandes figures. Rien qu’en quantité, ses publications sont impressionnantes: 10 livres, 235 articles, au moins 177 articles d’encyclopédies et peut-être plus de 200 comptes rendus. Pour honorer sa mémoire, ses étudiants et collègues préparaient un volume d’hommage pour ses 70 ans. Le destin les a surpris, le volume paraîtra posthume. Avec Michel van Esbroeck nous avons perdu un ami, un savant et un drôle de génie!
BIBLIOGRAPHIE DU R. P. MICHEL VAN ESBROECK, SJ Notices nec: rologiques1 [Àëåêñåé ÌÓÐÀÂÜÅÂ,]  Ëóâåíå ñêîí÷àëñÿ èçâåñòíûé èñòîðèê õðèñòèàíñòâà Ìèøåëü âàí Ýñáðóê [très brève notice avec un photo, publiée au lendemain de la mort de MvE, le 24 novembre 2003, par une indépendante ressource russe d’information religieuse], http://portal-credo.ru/site/?act=news &id=15492&type=view Robert GODDING, SJ, Le Père Michel van Esbroeck (1934-2003), Solidarité-Orient 229 (Bruxelles, Janvier-Mars 2004), p. 3-5. Lucas VAN ROMPAY, Obituary. Michel van Esbroeck (1934-2003), Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, vol. 7 (2004), No 1; cf. http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol7No1/HV7N1OBEsbroeck.html Stiftung KOERBER, Prof. Dr. SJ Michel van Esbroeck [très brève notice]; cf. http://www.stiftung.koerber.de/frames/bgd/frames.php?param = http%3A/ /www.stiftung.koerber.de/bg/recherche/de/person.php%3Fid%3D14115% 26refer%3D Hubert KAUFHOLD, Nachruf auf Prof. Dr. phil. P. Michel van Esbroeck S. J., OrChr 88 (2004), pp. 257-261. Theresia HAINTHALER, In memoriam. Edward Yarnold and Michel van Esbroeck, in: István PERCZEL, Réka FORRAI and György GERÉBY (eds.), The Eucharist in Theology and Philosophy. Issues of Doctrinal History in East and West from the Patristic Age to the Reformation, coll. «Ancient and Medieval Philosophy» de Wulf-Mansion Centre. Series I, XXXV (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2005), pp. xxv-xxvii [sur le P. M. van Esbroeck spéc. pp. xxvi-xxvii]. Àëåêñåé ÌÓÐÀÂÜÅÂ, Ìèøåëü âàí Ýñáðóê, Î. È., Ñèìâîë. Æóðíàë õðèñòèàíñêîé êóëüòóðû [Ïàðèæ] (à paraître).
Remarques prel: iminaires 1. J’avais une bibliographie incomplète, tapée par Michel van Esbroeck et s’arrêtant à l’an 1999. Grâce à l’amabilité du Prof. Dr. Hubert Kaufhold, son collègue à Munich, j’ai reçu une bibliographie plus complète faite par MvE lui-même. J’ai confronté les deux (pour la partie commune) et ai pu compléter certains détails. Cependant, étant donné la distraction bien connue de Michel et le fait que c’était d’abord pour lui-même qu’il rédigeait cette bibliographie, elle est très lacunaire, surtout pour les articles parus dans des congrès. 1
Aucune obituaire ou notice dans les Analecta Bollandiana. — B. L., A. M.
xxxii
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
2. J’ai donc réélaboré la bibliographie pour la corriger et la compléter2 . J’ai cherché à indiquer toujours: 1. les prénoms au complet; 2. tous les éditeurs d’un ouvrage; 3. les collections; 4. les titres et sous-titres au complet; 5. si possible, les maisons d’édition. 3. Chaque fois qu’une référence est utilisée plus de deux fois, je lui donne une abréviation. 4. Michel n’a pas jugé nécessaire de dresser la liste des articles d’encyclopédie. J’ai donc commencé à combler cette lacune, en inventoriant les articles de trois d’entre elles3 . 5. Il faudrait ajouter les dizaines (centaines?) de comptes rendus que Michel van Esbroeck a fait dans des dizaines de revues. Ils ont une grande importance scientifique, parce qu’il y fournit souvent des renseignements inédits empruntés aux diverses traditions orientales4 . [6. Les traductions russes d’une douzaine d’articles de MvE qu’on publiait sur le site http://portal-credo.ru depuis 2002, ne sont pas inclues dans la bibliographie car elles ne sont pas encore préparées à la publication définitive. — B. L., A. M.] Enfin, je serais très reconnaissant à toute personne qui m’enverrait des corrections ou des additions, notamment pour les deux catégories manquantes: les encyclopédies et les comptes rendus. Un complément sera publié ultérieurement5 .
Abre v: iations AB AHC Aug BK CE
Analecta Bollandiana (Bruxelles). Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum (Paderborn). Augustinianum (Rome). Bedi Kartlisa (Paris). The Coptic Encyclopedia6 .
2 Je suis reconnaissant au Prof. Hubert KAUFHOLD pour son aide efficace pour résoudre plusieurs énigmes des abréviations. 3 Le dépouillement de CE est dû à Juan Pedro MONFERRER. Qu’il en soit vivement remercié. [Les éditeurs du volume présent ont en ajouté la quatrième, EAE. — B. L., A. M.] 4 Nous avons ajouté quelques revues de MvE dont l’importance est comparable à celle des notices originales ou même des articles. — B. L., A. M. 5 Comme il est bien évident, même notre deuxième édition de cette bibliographie ne saurait être considérée comme complète. — B. L., A. M. 6 Aziz S. ATIYA (ed.), The Coptic Encyclopedia. 8 vol. (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1991).
Bibliographie du P. Michel van Esbroeck, SJ
CSCO DECA DPAC EAE LTK ML Mus OCA OCP OrChr ParOr RAC REArm StsOC ÕÂ
xxxiii
Coll. «Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium» (Louvain: Peeters) Dictionnaire encyclopédique du christianisme ancien7 . Dizionario patristico e di antichità cristiana8 . Encyclopaedia Aethiopica9 . Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche10 . Marienlexikon11 . Le Muséon (Louvain) Coll. «Orientalia Christiana Analecta» (Rome: PIO). Orientalia Christiana Periodica (Rome). Oriens Christianus (Wiesbaden). Parole de l’Orient (Kaslik). Das Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum12 . Revue des Etudes Arméniennes (Paris). Studi sull’Oriente Cristiano (Rome). Õðèñòèàíñêèé Âîñòîê [Khristianskij Vostok] (St Pétersbourg— Moscou)
Notice autobiographique “Short biography of Michel van Esbroeck”, in: Basile LOURIÉ, Alexey MOURAVIEV (éds.), Universum Hagiographicum. Mémorial R. P. Michel van Esbroeck, SJ (1934-2003), in: Scrinium 2 (2006), pp. x-xi.
A. LIVRES 1. Herméneutique, Structuralisme et Exégèse. Essai de logique kérygmatique (Paris: Desclée, 1968). 2 . Hermeneutik, Strukturalismus und Exegese (München: Kösel, [1968]13 ), 8 + 185 pages, isbn 3-466-20154-3. 7
Angelo DI BERARDINO (éd.), Dictionnaire encyclopédique du christianisme ancien. 2 vol. (Paris: Cerf, 1990), 32 + 24 + 2641 pp. 8 Angelo DI BERARDINO (a cura di), Dizionario patristico e di antichità cristiana. 2 vol. (Casale Monferrato: Marietti, 1983), 25 + 23 p. + 3630 col. 9 Siegbert UHLIG (ed.), Encyclopaedia Aethiopica. Vols. 1— (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verl., 2003—). 10 Walter KASPER et al. (Hgg.), Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, 3. Ausg. 11 Bde (Freiburg: Verlag Herder GmbH, 1993—2001). 11 Institutum Marianum Regensburg, Remigius BÄUMER und Leo SCHEFFCZYK (Hgg.), Marienlexikon, 6 Bde (St. Ottilien: EOS Verlag, 1988—1994). 12 Franz Joseph Dölger-Institut zur Erforschung der Spätantike, Das Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum (Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1941—). 13 Michel VAN ESBROECK donne la date de 1970. J’ai trouvé aussi sur internet les dates suivantes: 1972 et 1974. [Le problème provient du fait que la traduction alle-
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
xxxiv
– cr: Wissenschaft und Weisheit 36 (1973), pp. 70-73. – cr par Peter KNAUER SJ, Theologie und Philosophie 48 (1973), p. 598. 3. BASILE DE CÉSARÉE, Sur l’origine de l’homme. Homélies X-XI de l’Hexaéméron, Introduction, texte critique, traduction et notes par Alexei SMETS, s.j. et Michel VAN ESBROECK, s.j., coll. «Sources Chrétiennes» 160 (Paris: Cerf, 1970), 360 pages. isbn: 2204038547. 4. Les plus anciens homéliaires géorgiens. Étude descriptive et historique, coll. «Publications de l’Institut Orientaliste de Louvain» 10 (Louvainla-Neuve: Peeters, 1975), xxv-369 pages14 . 5. BARSABÉE DE JÉRUSALEM, Sur le Christ et les Églises. Introduction, édition du texte géorgien inédit et traduction française par Michel VAN ESBROECK, coll. «Patrologia Orientalis» 41,2 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1982). 6. EPIPHANE DE CHYPRE, Les versions géorgiennes d’Epiphane de Chypre. Traité sur les poids et les mesures, Edition, coll. CSCO 460, «Scriptores Iberici» 19 (1984), 45 pages. 7. EPIPHANE DE CHYPRE, Les versions géorgiennes d’Épiphane de Chypre. Traité sur les poids et les mesures, Traduction, coll. CSCO 461, «Scriptores Iberici» 20 (1984), 59 pages. 8. MAXIME LE CONFESSEUR, Vie de la Vierge, Edition, CSCO 478 «Scriptores Iberici» 21 (1986). 9. MAXIME LE CONFESSEUR, Vie de la Vierge, Traduction [du géorgien], CSCO 479 «Scriptores Iberici» 22 (1986). 10. Aux origines de la Dormition de la Vierge. Études historiques sur les traditions orientales, coll. «Variorum Reprints. Collected Studies Series» CS 380 (Aldershot [Hampshire]: Ashgate, 1995), 336 pages. Rassemble (en ajoutant “Addenda et Corrigenda”) 15 études en français qui correspondent aux numéros suivants de la liste ci-dessous: Ch. I o
n
II
70 -
15
III IV V
VI VII VIII IX
X
XI
XII XIII XIV XV
147 25 27 31 42 122 125 127 153 143 137 14416 104
mande a paru «ohne Jahr». Il est possible, en outre, qu’on l’avait réimprimée plusieurs fois. — B. L., A. M.] 14 Voir Samir Khalil SAMIR, “Les plus anciens homéliaires géorgiens et les versions patristiques arabes”, OCP 42 (1976), pp. 217-231. 15 “Etude comparée des notices byzantines et caucasiennes pour la fête de la Dormition”, décrit dans le Table des Matières du volume comme «Première publication d’un rapport donné à Dumbarton Oaks, mai 1988, sous la titre ‘A Comparative Study of the Byzantine and Caucasian Accounts for the Feast of the Dormition’». 16 Traduction française de l’original allemand.
Bibliographie du P. Michel van Esbroeck, SJ
xxxv
B. ARTICLES 1962 11. “Chronique arménienne”, AB 80 (1962), pp. 441-457.
1966 12. “Saint Épimaque de Péluse, I. Un parallèle arabe à la passion prémétaphrastique BHG3 593”, AB 84 (1966), pp. 399-342.
1967 13. “Saint Épimaque de Péluse, II. La translation arabe”, AB 85 (1967), pp. 441-457. 14. “Un recueil prémétaphrastique arabe du XIe siècle”, AB 85 (1967), pp. 143-164.
1968 15. “Une liste d’apôtres dans le codex géorgien 42 d’Iviron”, AB 86 (1968), pp. 139-150. 16. “La lettre de l’empereur Justinien sur l’Annonciation et la Noël”, AB 86 (1968), pp. 352-371; 87 (1969), pp. 442-444.
1969 17. “Salomon de Mak’enoc’ vardapet du VIIIe siècle”, in: Pater Mesrob DJANASCHIAN [= GIANASHIAN] (éd.), Armeniaca: Mélanges d’études arméniennes publiées à l’occasion du 250e anniversaire de l’entrée des Pères Mekhitaristes dans l’Ile de Saint-Lazare (1717-1967) (Venise, Ile de Saint-Lazare, 1969), pp. 33-44.
1971 18. “Nathanaël dans une homélie sur les archanges”, AB 89 (1971), pp. 155-176. 19. “Témoignages littéraires sur les sépultures de S. Grégoire l’Illuminateur”, AB 89 (1971), pp. 387-418. 20. “Un corpus de l’hagiographie géorgienne en géorgien”, AB 89 (1971), pp. 419-420. 21. “Un nouveau témoin du livre d’Agathange”, REArm 8 (1971), pp. 13-171. 22. “Le traité sur la Pâque de Méliton en géorgien”, Mus 84 (1971), pp. 373-394.
1972 23. “Hébreux 11,33-38 dans l’ancienne version géorgienne”, Biblica 53 (1972), pp. 43-64.
xxxvi
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
24. “Nouveaux fragments de Méliton de Sardes dans une homélie géorgienne sur la Croix”, AB 90 (1972), pp. 63-99. 25. “Nouveaux apocryphes de la Dormition conservés en géorgien”, AB 90 (1972), pp. 363-369. 26. “Le roi Sanatrouk et l’apôtre Thaddée”, REArm 9 (1972), pp. 241-283.
1973 27. “Apocryphes géorgiens de la Dormition”, AB 91 (1973), pp. 55-75. 28. “Généalogie de la Vierge en géorgien”, AB 91 (1973), pp. 347-356. 29. “Les oeuvres de Méliton de Sardes en géorgien”, BK 32 (1973), pp. 48-63.
1974 30. “Une homélie sur l’Eglise attribuée à Jean de Jérusalem”, Mus 86 (1974), pp. 283-304. 31. “L’Assomption de la Vierge dans un Transitus pseudo-basilien”, AB 92 (1974), pp. 125-163. 32. “L’homélie géorgienne d’Hésychius de Jérusalem sur la résurrection des morts”, Mus 84 (1974), pp. 125-163. 33. “Le passage d’Eznik (P. 241) dans le «De Universo» d’Hippolyte”, Mus 84 (1974), pp. 441-444. 34. “Un nouveau dictionnaire de la langue géorgienne ancienne”, BK 32 (1974), pp. 86-108. 35. “L’Éthiopie à l’époque de Justinien: S. Arethas de Neðrân et S. Athanase de Clysma, IV Congresso Internazionale di Studi Etiopici (Roma, 1015 aprile 1972). T. I (Sezione storica), in: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Quaderni, Anno 381 (1974) N 191 [1]. Problemi attuali di scienza e di cultura (Roma: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 1974), pp. 117-139.
1975 36. “Les formes géorgiennes des Acta Iohannis”, AB 93 (1975), pp. 5-19. 37. “Les apophtegmes dans les versions orientales”, AB 93 (1975), pp. 381-389. 38. “Les Acta Iohannis traduits par Euthyme l’Hagiorite”, BK 33 (1975), pp. 73-109. 39. “Fragments méconnus du Lectionnaire géorgien”, Mus 88 (1975), pp. 361-363.
1976 40. “Fragments sahidiques du panégyrique de Grégoire le Thaumaturge par Grégoire de Nysse”, Orientalia Lovanensia Periodica 6/7 (1975-1976), pp. 555-568.
Bibliographie du P. Michel van Esbroeck, SJ
xxxvii
41. “A propos de l’évangile apocryphe arabe attribué à Saint Jean”, Mélanges de l’Université Saint-Joseph 49 (1975-1976), pp. 597-603. 42. “Un témoin indirect de l’Histoire euthymiaque dans une lecture arabe pour l’Assomption”, ParOr 6/7 (1975-1976), pp. 479-491. 43. “Saint Philotheos d’Antioche”, AB 94 (1976), pp. 107-135. 44. “La passion arménienne de Saint Gordius de Césarée”, AB 94 (1976), pp. 357-386. 45. “Une forme inédite de la lettre du roi Ptolémée pour la traduction des LXX”, Biblica 57 (1976), pp. 542-549. 46. “Archéologie d’une homélie sur la Pâque attribuée à Chrysostome ou Epiphane de Chypre”, in: Michael STONE (ed.), Armenian and Biblical Studies (Jerusalem: St James Press, 1976), pp. 165-181. 47. “Une chronique de Maurice à Héraclius dans un récit des sièges de Constantinople”, BK 34 (1976), pp. 74-96. 48. “Le résumé syriaque de l’Agathange et sa portée pour l’histoire du développement de la légende”, °ÑæÔ×í ¡äíoðÕÑå [Handes Amsoreay (Vienne)] 90 (1976), col. 493-510.
1977 49. “Le manuscrit Erévan 993. Inventaire des pièces” [avec Ugo ZANETREArm 12 (1977), pp. 123-167 et pp. 479-491. 50. “L’histoire de l’église de Lydda dans deux textes géorgiens”, BK 36 (1977), pp. 109-131. 51. “Abraham le Confesseur (Ve s.), traducteur des Passions des martyrs persans”, AB 95 (1977), pp. 168-179. 52. “Le résumé syriaque de l’Agathange”, AB 95 (1977), pp. 291-358. 53. “Un feuillet oublié du codex arabe or. 4226 à Strasbourg”, AB 96 (1977), pp. 383-384. TI],
1978 54. “Deux feuillets du Sinaiticus 492 retrouvés à Leningrad”, AB 96 (1978), pp. 51-54. 55. “Deux homélies de Sévérien de Gabala conservées en géorgien”, BK 36 (1978), pp. 71-91. 56. “Une courte homélie mariale de Proclus conservée en arménien”, ¢ÑÖäÑî×ê [Pazmaveb (Venise)] 136 (1978), pp. 717-727.
1979 57. “L’homélie «Sur les apôtres» de Sévérien de Gabala en version géorgienne”, BK 37 (1979), pp. 86-101. 58. “L’opuscule sur la Croix d’Alexandre de Chypre et sa version géorgienne”, BK 37 (1979), pp. 102-132.
xxxviii
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
59. “Legends about Constantine in Armenian”, in: Thomas J. SAMUELIAN (ed.), Classical Armenian Culture. Influences and Creativity, coll. «University of Pennsylvania Armenian Texts and Studies» 4 (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1979), pp. 79-101. 60. “êäìèìâðàãèñ îàêèëîñòóðè ëðàåàêçàåè [Un mravalthavi palimpseste de Léningrade]”, ëðàåàêçàåè. ôèêíêíâèóðè ãà èñòíðèóêè ûèäáàìè [Mravalthavi. Études philologiques et historiques (Tbilissi)] 6 (1979), pp. 81-87.
1980 61. “L’hymnaire de Michel Modrekili et son sanctoral”, BK 38 (1980), pp. 113-130. 62. “La primauté de Pierre (Matth. 16,16-19) et son contexte judaïque”, Revue Théologique de Louvain 11 (1980), pp. 310-324. 63. “Un mravalthavi palimpseste dans le codex A. 737 de Tbilissi”, ëðàåàêçàåè. ôèêíêíâèóðè ãà èñòíðèóêè ûèäáàìè [Mravalthavi. Études philologiques et historiques (Tbilissi)] 7 (1980), pp. 18-21. 64. “Le manuscrit géorgien Sinaïtique 34 et les publications de liturgie palestinienne”, OCP 49 (1980), pp. 125-141. 65. “Une homélie archaïque sur la Transfiguration”, OCP 49 (1980), pp. 418-425. 66. “Le martirika du Catholicos Antoine Ier”, AB 98 (1980), pp. 411-421. 67. “¬ÕæÛæÓðÑÔÛ ½ÑÜïÛßèî-·é×ÔðÛæ ÑæîÑæ àÑæðÑåÛæ ÓððÑÔÑðÑæÛ °ÑåÕð×æ ßðßæÑÓÛð [Un palimpseste arménien de la Bibliothèque Publique SaltykovChtchédrine de Léningrade]”, ¢ÑæÒÕð ´ÑïÕæÑÔÑðÑæÛ [Banber Matenadarani (Erévan)] 13 (1980), pp. 271-274.
1981 68. Les textes syriaques; Les textes arabes; Les textes géorgiens, in: Pélagie la Pénitente. Métamorphoses d’une légende. Tome I. Les textes et leur histoire. Dossier rassemblé par Pierre PETITMENGIN(Paris: Institut d’Études Augustiniennes, 1981), pp. 135-160, 278-288 et 317-349. 69. “Le saint comme symbole”, in: Sergei HACKEL (ed.), The Byzantine Saint. University of Birmingham 14th Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, coll. «Studies Supplementary to Sobornost» 5; numéro spécial de Sobornost (London) et d’ Eastern Churches Review, No. 3 (London, 1981), pp. 128-140. 70. “Les textes littéraires sur l’Assomption avant le Xe siècle”, in: François BOVON (ed.), Les Actes Apocryphes des apôtres. Christianisme dans le monde païen (Genève: Labor et Fides, 1981), pp. 51-77. 71. “Les manuscrits de Jean Zosime Sin. 34 et Tsagareli 81”, BK 39 (1981), pp. 63-75.
Bibliographie du P. Michel van Esbroeck, SJ
xxxix
72. “La diffusion orientale de la légende des saints Cosme et Damien”, in: Pierre RICHÉ et Evelyne PATLAGEAN (éds.), Hagiographie, Cultures et Sociétés. IVe-XIIe siècles. Actes du Colloque organisé à Nanterre et à Paris (2-5 Mai 1979) par le Centre de Recherches sur l’Antiquité tardive et le Haut Moyen Âge, Université de Paris X—Nanterre (Paris: Études Augustiniennes, 1981), pp. 61-77. 73. “Amphiloque d’Iconium et Eunome: l’homélie CPG 3238”, Aug 21 (1981), pp. 517-539. 74. “La légende «romaine» des SS Côme et Damien (BHG 373d) et sa métaphrase géorgienne par Jean Xiphilin: I. Le texte grec”, OCP 47 (1981), pp. 389-425. 75. “La notion d’accomplissement de l’Ecriture, in: Lectures bibliques. Colloque du 11 novembre 1980, coll. «Publications de l’Institutum judaicum» (Bruxelles, 1981), pp. 333-35117 .
1982 76. “Col. 2,11: «Dans la circoncision du Christ»”, in: Julien RIES (éd.), Gnosticisme et Monde hellénistique. Actes du Colloque de Louvain-la-Neuve (11-14 mars 1980), coll. «Publications de l’Institut Orientaliste de Louvain» 27 (Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters, 1982), pp. 229-235. 77. “La légende «romaine» des SS Côme et Damien: II. Le panégyrique géorgien”, OCP 48 (1982), pp. 29-64. 78. “Bild und Begriff in der Transitus-Literatur: Der Palmbaum und der Tempel”, in: Margot SCHMIDT et Carl-Friedrich GEYER (Hgg.), Typus, Symbol, Allegorie bei den östlichen Vätern und ihren Parallelen im Mittelalter, coll. «Eichstätter Beiträge. Schriftenreihe der Katholische Universität Eichstätt», Abteilung Philosophie und Theologie, 4 (Regensburg: Pustet, 1982), pp. 333351. 79. “Saint Épimaque de Péluse, III. Les fragments coptes”, AB 100 (1982), pp. 125-145. 80. “Hésychius de Jérusalem “Sur les Coryphées” en version slavonne”, OCP 48 (1982), pp. 371-405. 81. “L’homélie d’Eustathe d’Antioche en géorgien, OrChr 66 (1982), pp. 189-214. 82. “Remembrement d’un manuscrit arabe de 950, in: Samir Khalil SAMIR (éd.), Actes du premier Congrès d’études arabes chrétiennes, coll. OCA 218 (Rome, 1982), pp. 135-147. 83. “L’Eglise géorgienne des origines au Moyen-Âge”, BK 40 (1982), pp. 186-199. 17
Dans une autre copie de la bibliographie, tapée par Michel VAN ESBROECK, je trouve: “p. 131-141”.
xl
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
84. “The Georgian inscriptions”, in: Michael STONE (ed.), The Armenian Inscriptions from the Sinai, with Appendixes on the Georgian and Latin Inscriptions by Michel VAN ESBROECK and W. ADLER, coll. «Harvard Armenian Texts and Studies» 6 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982), pp. 171-179.
1983 85. “L’empereur Jean Tzimiscès dans le calendrier de Georges l’Athonite”, BK 41 (1983), pp. 67-72. 86. “Gli apocrifi georgiani”, Aug 23 (1983), pp. 145-149. 87. “Homélie ephrémienne sur le bon larron en grec, géorgien et arabe”, AB 101 (1983), pp. 327-362. 88. “Deux listes d’apôtres conservées en syriaque”, in: René LAVENANT (éd.), IIIe Symposium Syriacum. Les contacts du monde syriaque avec les autres cultures, coll. OCA 221 (Rome, 1983), pp. 15-24. 89. “La naissance du culte de saint Barthélémy en Arménie”, in: REArm 17 (1983), pp. 171-195.
1984 90. “The Rise of St Bartholomew’s Cult in Armenia from the Seventh to the Thirteenth Centuries”, in: Thomas J. SAMUELIAN et Michael STONE (eds.), Medieval Armenian Culture, coll. «University of Pennsylvania Armenian Texts and Studies» 6 (Chico: Scholars Press, 1984), pp. 161-178. 91. “Nouveaux fragments arméniens de Denys d’Alexandrie”, OCP 50 (1984), pp. 18-40. 92. “Jean II de Jérusalem et les cultes de S. Étienne, de la Sainte-Sion et de la Croix”, AB 102 (1984), pp. 99-134. 93. “¡ÓÑÙÑæÓÕâèíÛ ÒæÑÓÛð êÑïäèòÙÛèòæÛñ [L’original de l’Histoire d’Agathange]”, ºÑïäÑ-ÒÑæÑíÛðÑßÑæ °ÑæÔÕí [Patma-banasirakan Handes (Erévan)] 105 (1984), pp. 28-34. 94. “Le «De Sectis» attribué à Léonce de Byzance (CPG 6823) dans la version géorgienne d’Arsène Iqaltoeli”, BK 42 (1984), pp. 35-42. 95. “Le «De Fide» géorgien attribué à Hippolyte et ses rapports avec la Didascalie de Grégoire l’Illuminateur dans l’Agathange (BHO 330)”, AB 102 (1984), pp. 321-328. 96. “Témoignages littéraires sur la Mayr Ekeghetsi ou de l’origine de Zouartnots ”, in: Giulio IENI e Gabriella ULUHOGIAN (a cura di), Atti del Terzo Simposio Internazionale di Arte Armena (Milano/Vicenza/Castelfranco V./ Piazzola sul Brenta/Venezia, 25 settembre-1° ottobre 1981) (Venezia, San Lazzaro: Casa editrice armena, 1984), pp. 615-627. 97. “Rome l’ancienne et Constantinople vues de l’Arménie”, in: Paolo SINISCALCO e Pierangelo CATALANO (a cura di), La nozione di «Romano» tra cittadinanza e universalità (Napoli: Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, 1984), pp. 351-355.
Bibliographie du P. Michel van Esbroeck, SJ
xli
98. “Description du répertoire de l’homéliaire de Mush”, REArm 18 (1984), pp. 237-280. 99. “L’origine de Pemeniay chez Anania Shirakatsi”, REArm 18 (1984), pp. 487-489. 100. “La structure de l’homéliaire de Mush”, in: Gevork Beglari DJAHUKIAN et al. (eds.), International Symposium on Armenian Linguistics, Yerevan, September 21-25, 1982: Reports / Ìåæäóíàðîäíûé ñèìïîçèóì ïî àðìÿíñêîìó ÿçûêîçíàíèþ, Åðåâàí, 21-25 ñåíòÿáðÿ 1982. Äîêëàäû (Erevan: Academy of Sciences of Armenian SSR, 1984), pp. 282-306.
1985 101. “La date et l’auteur du De Sectis attribué à Léonce de Byzance”, in: Carl LAGA, Joseph A. MUNITIZ et Lucas VAN ROMPAY (eds.), After Chalcedon. Studies in Theology and Church History offered to Professor Albert Van Roey for his Seventieth Birthday, coll. «Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta» 18 (Leuven: Peeters, 1985) pp. 415-424. 102. “Les Actes arméniens de saint Héraclide de Chypre”, AB 103 (1985), pp. 115-162. 103. “L’homélie de Pierre de Jérusalem et la fin de l’origénisme palestinien en 551”, OCP 51 (1985), pp. 33-59. 104. “Version géorgienne de l’homélie eusébienne CPG 5528 sur l’Ascension”, OCP 51 (1985), pp. 277-303. 105. “Le sens de la liberté de l’homme éclairé par la foi chrétienne”, in: Droits de l’Homme. IIIe rencontre Islamochrétienne (Tunis: Université de Tunis, 1985), pp. 171-180. 106. “La légende géorgienne de l’Ascète Nisime, Revue des études géorgiennes et caucasiennes 1 (1985), pp. 117-125. 107. “Les programmes géorgiens de la Dormition”, Jahrbuch der Österreichisches Byzantinistik 35 (1985), pp. 251-260. 108. “L’homélie de Proclus CPG 5800 dans l’ancien Tônakan arménien”, REArm 19 (1985), pp. 49-53.
1986 109. “Une lettre de Dorothée comte de Palestine à Marcel et Mari en 452”, AB 104 (1986), pp. 145-159. 110. “Les deux Testaments, une même vie”, Communio 11 (1986), pp. 7190. 111. “Les sentences morales des philosophes grecs dans les traditions orientales”, in: Massimiliano PAVAN et Umberto COZZOLI (a cura di), L’eredità classica nelle lingue orientali, coll. «Acta Encyclo-paedica» 5 (Roma: Istituto Enciclopedia Italiana, 1986), pp. 11-23. 112. “L’apport des versions orientales pour la compréhension de l’Asclepius dans les Philosophica d’Apulée”, in: Massimiliano PAVAN et Umberto
xlii
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
COZZOLI (a cura di), L’eredità classica nelle lingue orientali, coll. «Acta Encyclopaedica» 5 (Roma: Istituto Enciclopedia Italiana, 1986), pp. 27-35. 113. “Le codex rescriptus Tischendorf 2 à Leipzig et Cyrille de Scythopolis en version arabe”, in: Samir Khalil SAMIR (ed.), Actes du IIe congrès international d’études arabes chrétiennes, coll. OCA 226 (Rome, 1986), pp. 81-91. 114. “Le substrat hagiographique de la mission khazare de ConstantinCyrille”, AB 104 (1986), pp. 337-348. 115. “Un palimpseste géorgien de l’homélie 38 de Grégoire de Nazianze”, Mus 99 (1986), pp. 309-317. 116. “Verdwenen griekse hagiographie in oosterse vertalingen teruggevonden”, in: Antonius HILHORST (red.), De heiligen-verering in de eerste eeuwen van het christendom (Nijmegen: Dekker & Van de Vegt, 1986), pp. 99104.
1987 117. “Athanase déguisé en pseudo-Denys dans le Tônakan”, REArm 20 (1986-1987), pp. 167-173. 118. “Who is Mari, the Addressee of Ibas’ Letter?”, The Journal of Theological Studies 38 (1987), pp. 129-135. 119. “Les Actes apocryphes de Thomas en version arabe”, ParOr 14 (1987), pp. 11-77. 120. “Une homélie de Zacharie le Catholicos sur l’Annonciation”, °ÑæÔ×í ¡äíoðÕÑå [Handes Amsoreay (Vienne)] 101 (1987), pp. 487-503. 121. “Das Synodikon vom Jahre 843 in georgischer Übersetzung”, AHC 19 (1987), pp. 300-313. 122. “Un court traité pseudo-basilien de mouvance aaronite conservé en arménien”, Mus 100 (1987), pp. 385-395. 123. “Jalons pour l’histoire de la transmission manuscrite de l’homélie de Proclus sur la Vierge”, in: Jürgen DUMMER (Hg.), Text und Kritik. Eine Aufsatzsammlung, coll. «Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur» Band 133 (Berlin, 1987), pp. 149-160. 124. “Le soi-disant roman de Julien l’Apostat”, in: Han J. W. DRIJVERS, René LAVENANT, Corrie MOLENBERG and Gerrit Jan REININK (eds.), IV Symposium Syriacum 1984, Literary Genres in Syriac Litterature (Groningen-Oosterhesselen 10-12 Sept.), coll. OCA 229 (Rome, 1987), pp. 191-202.
1988 125. “Impact de l’écriture sur le concile de Dwin en 555”, AHC 18 (1988), pp. 301-318. 126. “L’aspect cosmologique de la philosophie d’Eunome pour la reprise de l’Hexameron basilien par Grégoire de Nysse, in: Lucas Francisco MATEOSECO y Juan Luis BASTERO (Edición a cargo de), El «Contra Eunomium I» en la producción literaria de Gregorio de Nisa. VI Coloquio Internacional so-
Bibliographie du P. Michel van Esbroeck, SJ
xliii
bre Gregorio de Nisa, coll. «Collección Teológica» 59 (Pamplona: Eunsa. Ediciones Universidad de Navarra, S.A., 1988), pp. 181-216. 127. “Le culte de la Vierge à Constantinople aux 6e et 7e siècles”, Revue des Etudes Byzantines 46 (1988), pp. 181-190. 128. “La Vision de Vakhtang Gorgasali et sa signification”, in: Elguja KHINTIBIDZE (ed.), ôèðåäêè ñàäðçàøíðèñí éàðçåäêíêíâèóðè ñèëîíæèóëèñ ëàñàêäáè / Ìàòåðèàëû ïåðâîãî ìåæäóíàðîäíîãî êàðòâåëîëîãè÷åñêîãî ñèìïîçèóìà / Proceedings of the First International Symposium in Kartvelian Studies (Tbilisi: University of Tbilisi, 1988), pp. 181-191. 129. “Le dossier hagiograhique de saint Pancrace de Taormine” (avec Ugo ZANETTI), in: Salvatore PRICOCO e Soveria MANNELLI (curato da), Storia della Sicilia e tradizione agiografica nella tarda antichità. Atti del convegno di studi (Catania 20-22 maggio 1986), coll. «Università. Varia» (Soveria Mannelli (CZ): Rubettino Editore, 1988), pp. 155-171. 130. “On the etymology of Georgian Bzoba: The Branch and the Boxtree” in: Fridrik THORDARSON, Studia Caucasologica I, Proceedings of the Third Caucasian Colloquium, Oslo, July 1986 [The Institute for Comparative Research in Human Culture] (Oslo: Norwegian University Press, 1988), pp. 42-50. 131. “L’apôtre Thaddée et le roi Sanatruk”, in: Mario NORDIO et Boghos Levon ZEKIYAN (a cura di), Atti del II Simposio Internazionale «ArmeniaAssiria». Istituzioni e poteri nell’epoca Il-Khanide, coll. «Eurasiatica. Quaderni del Dipartimento di Studi eurasiatici dell’Università degli studi di Venezia Ca' Foscari» 9 (Venezia, 1988), pp. 83-106. 132. “Une propagande chalcédonienne du début du VIe siècle: l’histoire des saints Nisthéréon et Katianos”, OrChr 72 (1988), pp. 136-167. 133. “Euthyme l’Hagiorite: le traducteur et ses traductions”, Revue des études géorgiennes et caucasiennes 4 (1988) pp. 73-107 [publié en 1990].
1989 134. “Le manuscrit syriaque nouvelle série 4 de Leningrad”, in: Enzo LUCCHESI (éd.), Mélanges Antoine Guillaumont. Contributions à l’étude des christianismes orientaux, coll. «Cahiers d’Orienta-lisme» 20 (Genève: Patrick Cramer Éditeur, 1989), pp. 155-162. 135. “Saint Grégoire d’Arménie et sa Didascalie”, Mus 102 (1989), pp. 131-145. 136. “Incidence des versions arabes chrétiennes pour la reconstitution des textes perdus”, in: Geneviève CONTAMINE (ed.), Traduction et traducteurs au Moyen-Âge. Actes du Colloque International du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique / Institut de recherche et d’histoire des textes, 26-28 mai 1986 (Paris: Éd. du CNRS, 1989), pp. 133-143. 137. “La lettre sur le Dimanche descendue du ciel”, AB 107 (1989), pp. 267-284.
xliv
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
138. “The Credo of Gregory the Wonderworker and Its Influence through Three Centuries”, in: Elizabeth LIVINGSTONE (ed.), Studia Patristica, vol. XIX — Historica, Theologica, Gnostica, Biblica et Apocrypha (Leuven: Peeters, 1989), pp. 255-266.
1990 139. “Sur quatre traités attribués à Grégoire et leur contexte marcellien”, in: Hubertus R. DROBNER et Christoph KLOCK (Hgg.), Studien zu Gregor von Nyssa und der christlichen Spätantike, coll. «Vigiliae Christianae, Supplements» 12 (Leiden—New York—København—Köln: Brill, 1990), pp. 3-15. 140. “Der von einem Bischof um 514 geschriebene Brief gegen das Christentum und die Verfolgung von seiten Dhu Nuwas”, in: Werner DIEM et Abdoldjavad FALATURI (Hgg.), XXIV. Deutscher Orientalistentag, vom 26. bis 30. September 1988 in Köln. Ausgewählte Vorträge (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1990), pp. 105-115. 141. “La religion géorgienne préchrétienne”, in: Wolfgang HAASE, Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, II, 18. 4 (Berlin—New York: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1990), pp. 2694-2725. 142. “La version géorgienne de deux commentaires d’Ammonius”, in: Gianfranco FIACCADORI (a cura di), Autori classici in lingue del vicino e medio oriente (Rome: Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato, 1990), pp. 55-64. 143. “Une homélie arménienne sur la Dormition attribuée à Chrysostome”, OrChr 74 (1990), pp. 199-233. 144. “Ein georgischer liturgischer Kanon für Maria Himmelfahrt”, in: Regine SCHULZ et Manfred GÖRG (Hrsg.), Lingua restituta orientalis. Festgabe für Julius Assfalg, coll. «Ägypten und Altes Testament», Band 20 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verl., 1990), pp. 89-110. [Cf. traduction française: no 10, ch. XIV.] 145. “Une note de Sévère d’Antioche sur Juda Cyriaque”, in: René LAVENANT (éd.), V Symposium Syriacum. Katholieke Universiteit, Leuven, 29-31 août 1988, coll. OCA 236 (Rome, 1990), pp. 183-193. 146. “L’homélie géorgienne de Sévérien de Gabala CPG 4216”, Mus 104 (1990), pp. 73-108. 147. “Les signes des temps dans la littérature syriaque”, Revue de l’Institut Catholique de Paris 39 (1990), pp. 113-149. 148. “La représentativité de la délégation arménienne à Florence: de Sargis de Caffa à Nagash d’Amid”, AHC 22 (1990), pp. 131-145.
1991 149. “Deux homélies pseudo-basiliennes sur le Dimanche et le Vendredi”, in: Samir Khalil SAMIR (éd.), Actes du 3e Congrès international d’études arabes chrétiennes, in: ParOr 16 (1990-1991), pp. 49-71.
Bibliographie du P. Michel van Esbroeck, SJ
xlv
150. “Primauté, Patriarcats, Catholicossats, autocéphalies en orient”, in: Michele MACCARRONE (a cura di), Il primato del Vescovo di Roma nel primo millenio. Ricerche e testimonianze. Atti del symposium storico-teologico, Roma, 9-13 ottobre 1989, coll. «Atti e documenti» 4 (Città del Vaticano: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1991), pp. 493-521. 151. “Le contexte politique de la Vie de Pancrace de Tauromenium”, in: Salvatore PRICOCO, Francesca Rizzo NERVO et Teresa SARDELLA (a cura di), Sicilia e Italia suburbicaria tra IV e VIII secolo. Atti del Convegno di studi (Catania, 24-27 ottobre 1989) (Soveria Mannelli (CZ): Rubettino Editore, 1991), pp. 185-196.
1992 152. “Le manuscrit hébreu Paris 755 et l’histoire des martyrs du Nedjran”, in: Pierre CANIVET et Jean-Paul REY-COQUAIS (sous la direction de), La Syrie de Byzance à l’Islam, VIIe-VIIIe siècles. Actes du colloque international. Lyon, Paris (11-15 septembre 1990) (Damas: Institut français d’Études arabes, 1992), pp. 25-30. 153. “La Dormition chez les Coptes”, in: Marguerite RASSART-DEBERGH et Julien RIES (éds.), Actes du IVe Congrès Copte. Louvain-la-Neuve, 5-10 septembre 1988. II. De la linguistique au gnosticisme, coll. «Publications de l’Institut Orientaliste de Louvain» 41 (Louvain-la-Neuve : Peeters, 1992), pp. 436-445. 154. Les Èinka, les Xrafstras et Loki, in: Catherine PARIS (éd.), Caucasologie et mythologie comparée. Actes du colloque international du CNRS. IVe colloque de Caucasologie (Sèvres, 27-29 juin 1988), coll. «Société d’Études Linguistiques et Anthropologiques de France» 332, Numéro spécial 23 (Paris: Peeters, 1992), pp. 115-126 [et p. 497: résumé français et summary anglais]. 155. “Armenien und die Penthektè”, AHC 24 (1992), pp. 78-94.
1993 156. “Peter the Iberian and Dionysius the Areopagite: Honigmann’s thesis revisited”, OCP 59 (1993), pp. 217-227. 157. “Les Églises orientales non syriennes”, Mus 106 (1993), pp. 97-117. 158. “Les Actes de Prochore en arménien: un nouveau témoin”, in: Henning LEHMANN and Jos J. S. WEITENBERG (eds.), I. Armenian Texts, Tasks and Tools, coll. «Acta Jutlandica» 69.1 «Humanities Series» 68 (Århus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag 1993), pp. 86-91. 159. “Une exégèse rare d’Isaïe 29. 11-12 conservée en arménien”, in: Christoph BURCHARD (ed.), Armenia and the Bible. Papers Presented to the International Symposium Held at Heidelberg July 16-19 1990, coll. «University of Pennsylvania Armenian Texts and Studies» 12 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), pp. 73-78.
xlvi
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
160. “La Sagesse de Balavar à travers la tradition géorgienne”, in: René LEBRUN (éd.), Sagesses de l’Orient ancien et chrétien. Conférences I.R.O.C. 1991-1992, coll. «Sciences Théologiques et Religieuses», 2 (Paris: Beauchesne, 1993), pp. 229-242. 161. “Un panégyrique de Théodore le Studite pour la fête liturgique des sièges de Constantinople”, in: Ephrem CARR, Stefano PARENTI, Abraham-Andreas THIERMEYER and Elena VELKOVSKA (Eds.), ÅÕËÏÃÇÌÁ, Studies in Honor of Robert Taft, SJ, coll. «Studia Anselmiana» 110, «Analecta liturgica» 17 (Rome: Sant’Anselmo, 1993), pp. 525-536. 162. “Le manifeste de Jean III le Nicéote en 505 dans le Livre des Lettres arménien”, REArm 24 (1993), pp. 27-46. 163. “Signification d’un court traité basilien conservé en arménien”, in: L. HOVSEPIAN, N. PARNASSIAN and S. SIMONIAN (eds.), The Second International Symposium on Armenian Linguistics (21-23 September 1987): Proceedings, T. 2 (Yerevan: Armenian Academy Press, 1993), pp. 181-187. 164. “Les versions syriaques du panégyrique de Grégoire le Thaumaturge”, in: Shafiq ABOUZAYD (ed.), A Festschrift for Dr. Sebastian P. Brock, in: ARAM Periodical 5:1&2 (1993), pp. 537-553.
1994 165. “Pierre l’Ibère et Denys l’Aréopagite”, in: Elguja KHINTIBIDZE (ed.), ëäíðä ñàäðçøíðèñí éàðçåäêíêíâèóðè ñèëîíæèóëèñ ëàñàêäáè / Proceedings of the Second International Symposium in Kartvelian Studies (Tbilisi: Tbilisi University Press, 1994), pp. 167-177. 166. “Invention des reliques comme attribut impérial: la tunique du Christ à Moscou et son symbolisme”, in: Pierangelo CATALANO (a cura di), Roma fuori di Roma: Istituzioni e imagini (Roma, 21 aprile 1985), coll. «Da Roma alla Terza Roma. Documenti e studi», Studi – V (Roma: Università degli studi “La Sapienza”, [1994]), pp. 225-243. 167. “Neuf listes d’Apôtres orientales”, Aug 34 (1994), pp. 109-199. 168. “La lettre de Justinien pour la fête de l’Hypapante en 562”, AB 112 (1994), pp. 65-84. 169. “Citations apollinaristes conservées en arménien dans la lettre de Sahak III Dzoroporetsi”, OCP 60 (1994), pp. 41-67. 170. “La légende des sept dormants d’Ephèse selon le codex syriaque N. S. 4 de Saint-Pétersbourg”, in: René LAVENANT (ed.), VI. Symposium Syriacum, University of Cambridge, Faculty of Divinity, 30 August - 2 September 1992, coll. OCA 247 (Rome, 1994), pp. 189-200. 171. “Ein unbekannter Traktat ad Thalassium von Maximus dem Bekenner”, in: Cornelia WUNSCH (Hg.), XXV. Deutscher Orientalistentag, Vorträge, München 8.-13.4.1991, coll. «Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, Suppl.» 10 (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1994), pp. 75-82.
Bibliographie du P. Michel van Esbroeck, SJ
xlvii
172. “La légende des apôtres Pierre, Jean et Paul à Antioche”, OrChr 78 (1994), pp. 64-85. 173. “La question 66 du «Ad Thalassium» géorgien, in: Antoon SCHOORS et Peter VAN DEUN, Philohistôr. Miscellanea in honorem Caroli Laga septuagenarii, coll. «Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta» 60 (Leuven: Peeters, 1994), pp. 329-337. 174. “L’homélie «ÑðÑðÛé ÑðÑðÑÞèñ», ses attributions et ses métamorphoses”, °Ñíß. °ÑåÑÓÛïÑßÑæ ÑäíÑÙÕðÙ [Hask. Hayagitakan amsat’ert’ (Antélias, Liban)], NS. 6 (1994), pp. 44-66. 175. “Die sogenannte Konziliengeschichte des Johannes von Odzun (717728)”, AHC 26 (1994), pp. 31-60. 176. “óãàáìíñ ëðàåàêçàåè. øäãâäìèêíáà ãà ñòðóéòóðà [Mravalthavi dUdabno: composition et structure]”, in: à. øàìèûèñà ãà æ. ÿóëáóðèûèñ ðäãàõúèèç [Akaki SHANIDZE et Zourab DZHUMBURIDZE (eds.)], óãàáìíñ ëðàåàêçàåè [Mravalthavi d’Udabno] (çáèêèñè [Tbilissi], 1994), pp. 37-42.
1995 177. “Movses Xorenac’i et le Girk’ Eakac’ ”, REArm 25 (1994-1995), pp. 109-124. 178. “La portée politico-religieuse des visions pour la conversion des peuples”, Revue de l’Institut Catholique de Paris 53 (1995), pp. 87-104. 179. “Le discours du Catholicos Sahak III en 691 et quelques dossiers annexes au Quinisexte”, in: Georges NEDUNGATT and Michael FEATHERSTONE (eds.), The Council in Trullo revisited, coll. «ÊáíïíéêÜ» 6 (Rome: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 1995), pp. 323-454. 180. “Les Actes syriaques de Philippe à Carthagène en version arabe”, OrChr 79 (1995), pp. 120-145. 181. “La Vie de saint Martinianus en version syriaque”, ParOr 20 (1995), pp. 237-269.
1996 182. “Justinian II. im Synaxar und das Konzil in Trullo”, AHC 27/8 (19951996), pp. 103-108. 183. “Conférence de M. Michel van Esbroeck, directeur d’études invité”, Annuaire de l’École pratique des hautes études 104 (1995-1996), pp. 379-382. 184. “L’Invention de la Croix sous l’empereur Héraclius”, in: Samir Khalil SAMIR (éd.), Actes du Ium Symposium syro-arabicum (Kaslik, septembre 1995), II. Etudes arabes chrétiennes (1), in : ParOr 21 (1996), pp. 21-46. 185. “Bizancio visto desde Oriente: de Marciano a Mauricio. Teología y política”, in: Domingo RAMOS-LISSÓN, Marcelo MERINO et Albert VICIANO (Eds.), El Diálogo Fe-Cultura en la antigüedad Cristiana, «Colección His-
xlviii
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
toria de la Iglesia» 26 (Pamplona: Coedición de Ediciones Eunate y Servicio de publicaciones de la Universidad de Navarra, 1996), pp. 227-238. 186. “Perpectives pour l’étude des Eglises du Caucase”, in: Robert TAFT (ed.), The Christian East: Its Institutions and its Thought. A Critical Reflection. Papers of the International Scholarly Congress for the 75th Anniversary of the Pontifical Oriental Institute, Rome, 30 May - 5 June 1993, coll. OCA 251 (Rome, 1996), pp. 129-144. 187. “Von welcher Kirche hängt die georgische Kirche geschichtlich ab?”, Mitteilungen der Berliner Georgischen Gesellschaft 5 (1996), pp. 1-12. 188. “The Memra on the Parrot by Isaac of Antioch”, The Journal of Theological Studies 47 (1996), pp. 464-476. 189. “Les trois formes de l’antichalcédonisme de 451 à 553 et ses répercussions dans le Caucase”, in: Ä. Å. ÀÔÈÍÎÃÅÍÎÂ, À. Â. ÌÓÐÀÂÜÅÂ (ðåä.) [Dmitri AFINOGENOV, Alexei MURAVIEV (eds.)], Òðàäèöèè è íàñëåäèå Õðèñòèàíñêîãî Âîñòîêà / Traditions and Heritage of the Christian East (Ìîñêâà: Èíäðèê, 1996), pp. 382-398. 190. “Lazique, Mingrélie, Svanéthie et Aphkhazie du IVe au IXe siècle”, in: Il Caucaso: ciernera fra culture dal Mediterraneo alla Persia (s. IX-XI). Settimana di Studio del Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo [CISAM], Spoleto, 20-26 avril 1995, coll. «Atti delle Settimane di CISAM» XLIII (Spoleto: CISAM, 1996), pp. 195-218. 191. “La Vie de saint Jean Higoumène de Saint-Serge par Joseph le Skeuophylax”, OrChr 80 (1996), pp. 153-166. 192. “Les relations entre Byzance et le Caucase”, in: Ihor ŠEVÈENKO, Gennady G. LITAVRIN (Editors-in-Chief), Walter K. HANAK (Corresponding Editor), Acts. XVIIIth International Congress of Byzantine Studies. Moscow, 1991. Selected papers: main and communications. Vol. II: History, Archaeology, Religion, Theology (Shepherdstown: Byzantine Studies Press, Inc., 1996 [publié en 1998]), pp. 148-159.
1997 193. “Les métamorphoses du Girk’ Eakac’ ”, REArm 26 (1996-1997), pp. 237-245. 194. “La postérité des villes fortifiées de Théodose”, in: Jean-Pierre MAHÉ et Robert W. THOMSON (eds.), From Byzantium to Iran. Armenian studies in Honour of Nina Garsoïan, coll. «Columbia University program in Armenian studies, Suren D. Fesjian academic publications» 5 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), pp. 361-378. 195. “Le discours de Jean Damascène pour la Dédicace de l’Anastasis”, OCP 63 (1997), pp. 53-98. 196. “La triple préface de Phocas”, in: Ysabelle DE ANDIA (éd.), Denys l’Aréopagite et sa postérité en Orient et en Occident. Actes du colloque international, Paris, 21-24 septembre 1994, coll. «Collection des Études Augus-
Bibliographie du P. Michel van Esbroeck, SJ
xlix
tiniennes. Série Antiquité» 151 (Paris: Institut d’Études Augustiniennes, 1997), pp. 167-186. 197. “The Aphthartodocetic Edict of Justinian and Its Armenian Background”, in: Elizabeth LIVINGSTONE (ed.), Studia Patristica. Vol. XXIII — Late Greek Fathers, Latin Fathers after Nicaea, Nachleben of the Fathers, Index Patrum and Index Auctorum of Vols. XIX-XXIII (Leuven: Peeters, 1997), pp. 573-585. 198. “¢åèòÖÑæÔÑñÛ àÑåßÑßÑæ ôÑâÑôÑÙåèòæØ íßíÑñ µèòíïÛæÛÑæèí ¢-Ûñ äÛæéÕî ¬Õîèæ £”,§ëäÛÑÞÛæ [Etchmiadzine (Etchmiadzine)] (1997)¹ 6-7, pp. 170-180 [Traduction arménienne de “La politique arménienne de Byzance de Justinien II à Léon III” parue avant l’original français; cf. no 208].
1998 199. “La Vie arabe de Théodose le Cénobiarque”, in: Samir Khalil SAMIR (éd.), Actes du 4e Congrès International d’Etudes Arabes Chrétiennes (Cambridge, septembre 1992), in: ParOr 18 (1998), pp. 45-73. 200. “Le monachisme syriaque”, in: Le monachisme syriaque aux premiers siècles de l’Eglise (IIe-début VIIe siècle), I. Textes français, coll. «Patrimoine Syriaque. Actes du colloque» V (Antélias [Liban]: Centre d’Études et de Recherches Religieuses et Orientales (CERO), 1998), pp. 71-80. 201. “La légende d’Apa Jeremias et Apa Johannes et les fragments Chester Beatty Copte 829”, Orientalia [Roma] 67 (1998), pp. 1-63. 202. “L’opposition entre Pierre l’Ibère et Pierre le Foulon (482-491)”, Caucasica. The Journal of Caucasian Studies [Tbilissi] 1 (1998), pp. 60-67. 203. “Les trois croix dans le Kartlis Mokcevay”, Caucasica. The Journal of Caucasian Studies [Tbilissi] 2 (1998), pp. 70-76. 204. “Actes syriaques d’André attribués à Ephrem”, in: René LAVENANT (ed.), Symposium Syriacum VII. Uppsala University, Department of Asian and African Languages, 11-14 August 1996, coll. OCA 256 (Rome, 1998), pp. 85-105. 205. “Die Legenden in der Geschichtschreibung”, in: Brigitte SCHRADE et Thomas AHBE (Hgg.), Georgien im Spiegel seiner Kultur und Geschichte. Zweites Deutsch-Georgisches Sympo-sium, 9. bis 11. Mai 1997, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz (Berlin: Berliner Georgische Gesellschaft e. V., 1998), pp. 84-87. 206. “Les versions orientales de la Bible: une orientation biblio-graphique”, in: Joe KRAŠOVEC (ed.), Interpretation of the Bible = Interpretacija Svetega pisma = Interprétation de la Bible = Interpretation der Bibel: International symposium on the interpretation of the Bible on the occasion of the publication of the new Slovenian translation of the Bible, 17-20 September 1996. Ljubljana, Slovenia, coll. «Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. Supplement Series» 289 (Ljubliana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), pp. 399-509.
l
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
207. “Ein Jahrtausend antichalkedonischer Literatur”, AHC 39 (1998), pp. 146-187. 208. “La politique arménienne de Byzance de Justinien II à Léon III”, StsOC 2,2 (1998), pp. 111-120. [Traduction arménienne: cf. no 198.] 209. “La Vie de saint Jean le Pauvre ou le Calybite en version géorgienne”, OrChr 82 (1998), pp. 153-183. 210. “La place de Jérusalem dans la conversion de la Géorgie”, in: Tamila MGALOBLISHVILI (ed.), Ancient Christianity in the Caucasus, coll. «Iberica Caucasica» 1 (Richmond: Curzon Press 1998), pp. 59-74.
1999 211. “Le martyre géorgien de Grégoire le Thaumaturge et sa date”, Mus 112 (1999), pp. 129-185. 212. “Le discours dogmatique de Grégoire Vkayaser”, ÕÂ N.S. 1 (7) (1999), pp. 38-57. 213. “Un discours inédit de saint Germain de Constantinople sur la Croix et les icônes”, OCP 65 (1999), pp. 15-51. 214. “Les saints fous de Dieu”, in: Le monachisme syriaque du VIIe siècle à nos jours, coll. «Patrimoine Syriaque. Actes du collo-que» VI (Antélias [Liban]: Centre d’Études et de Recherches Religieuses et Orientales (CERO), 1999), pp. 131-138. 215. “A Ballad about Saint Andrew and the Cannibals, Attributed to Saint Ephraim”, Hugoye, 2,1 (1999). Voir: http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol2No1/ HV2N1Esbroeck.html 216. “Hélène à Edesse et la Croix”, in: Gerrit Jan REININK et A. C. KLUGKIST (eds.), After Bardaisan. Studies on Continuity and Change in Syriac Christianity in Honour of Prof. Han J. W. Drijvers, coll. «Orientalia Lovanensia Analecta» 89 (Leuven: Peeters, 1999), pp. 107-115. 217. “Koptische Fragmente der Apa-Jeremias-Legende”, in: Stefen EMMEL, Martin KRAUSE, Siegfried G. RICHTER , Sofia SCHATEN (Hgg.), Ägypten und Nubien in spätantiker und christlicher Zeit, Akten des 6. Internationalen Koptologenkongresses, Münster, 20-26 Juli 1996, Band 2. Schrifttum, Sprache und Gedankenwelt, coll. «Sprachen und Kulturen des Christlichen Orients», Band 6/2 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verl., 1999), pp. 114-116. 218. “Une collection de 35 apocryphes apostoliques”, in: Samir Khalil SAMIR (éd.), Actes du 5e Congrès International d’Etudes Arabes Chrétiennes (Lund, août 1996), tome 1, in: ParOr 24 (1999), pp. 179-199.
2000 219. “Un Dialogue entre Basile et Grégoire conservé en géorgien”, ÕÂ N.S. 2 (8) (2000), pp. 56-101. 220. “Le grand dieu svane Phusnabuasdia et saint Boa d’Hiérapolis”, OrChr 84 (2000), pp. 101-116.
Bibliographie du P. Michel van Esbroeck, SJ
li
221. “Le couvent de Sainte-Croix de Jérusalem selon les sources géorgiennes”, StsOC 4,2 (2000), pp. 139-170. 222. “Zwei armenische Listen mit Konzilien bis zum Jahre 726”, AHC 32 (2000), pp. 264-302.
2001 223. Alexandre à Amasée: un épisode peu remarqué, Mus 114 (2001), pp. 141-151. 224. “Actes d’André d’après la tradition attribuée à Ephrem”, ÕÂ N.S. 3 (9) (2001), pp. 106-151. 225. “L’écorchement rituel aghouanais”, ÕÂ N.S. 3 (9) (2001), pp. 389-402. 226. “L’encyclique de Komitas et la réponse de mar Maroutha (617)”, OrChr 85 (2001), pp. 162-175. 227. “La pénitence de Loth auprès d’Abraham au site de l’église géorgienne de la Croix”, StsOC 5,1 (2001), pp. 57-92. 228. “Some earlier features in the Life of the Virgin”, Marianum. Ephemerides Mariologiae 63 (2001) 297-308.
2002 229. “Die Stellung der Märtyrerin Rhipsime in der Geschichte der Bekehrung des Kaukasus”, in: Werner SEIBT (Hg.) Die Christianisierung des Kaukasus. The Christianization of the Caucasus (Armenia, Georgia, Albania). Referate des Interna-tionalen Symposions (Wien, 9.-12. Dezember 1999), coll. «Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Byzantinistik», Band IX. (Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2002), pp. 171-180. 230. “L’Année régulière de 364 jours dans la controverse au sujet de Chalcédoine”, in: Madeleine PETIT et Basile LOURIÉ (éds.), Mémorial Annie Jaubert (1912-1980), in: ÕÂ N.S. 4 (10) (2002) [publié 2006], pp. 465-469. 231. “Traité acéphale arménien sur les trois premiers Conciles et son attribution probable à Jean Mayravanetsi”, OCP 68 (2002), pp. 89-174.
2003 232. “Der armenische Ikonoklasmus”, OrChr 87 (2003), pp. 144-153.
2004 233. “Bemerkungen zur syrischen Transitus-Literatur”, in: Martin TAM(Hg.), Syriaca II. Beiträge zum 3. deutschen Syrologen-Symposium in Vierzehnheiligen 2002, coll. «Studien zur Orientalischen Kirchengeschichte», Band 33 (Münster—Hamburg—Berlin—Wien—London: LIT Verlag, 2004), pp. 357-370. 234. “The Syriac Versions of the Panegyric of Gregory of Nyssa on Gregory the Wonderworker and the life of the same”, Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 56 (2004), pp. 1-13. CKE
lii
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
235. “On the Historical Background of the Early Sources concerning the Churches in the Caucasian Mountains”, in: Carl G. FÜRST, Richard POTZ (Hgg.), Die Kaukasischen Kirchen, in: Jahrbuch der Gesellschaft für das Recht der Ostkirchen, Kanon XVIII (Egling an der Paar: Verl. Roman Kovar, 2004), pp. 1-16. 236. “Origine et portée de l’attribut marial «Trapeza» dans la 3e homélie sur la Dormition de Jean Damascène”, in: Ysabel DE ANDIA und Peter Leander HOFRICHTER (Hgg.), Christus bei dem Vätern. PRO ORIENTE-Studientagung über „Christus bei den griechischen und lateinischen Kirchenvätern im ersten Jahrtausend“ in Wien (7.-9. Juni 2001), Forscher aus dem Osten und Westen an den Quellen des gemeinsamen Glaubens, coll. «Tyrolia-Reihe» Bd. XXVII, «Patristische Tagungen» Bd. 1 (Wien: Verl. Tyrolia, 2004), pp. 129-138.
2005 237. “L’implication eucharistique dans le milieu antichalcédonien”, in: István PERCZEL, Réka FORRAI and György GERÉBY (eds.), The Eucharist in Theology and Philosophy. Issues of Doctrinal History in East and West from the Patristic Age to the Reformation, coll. «Ancient and Medieval Philosophy» de Wulf-Mansion Centre. Series I, XXXV (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2005), pp. 67-79.
2006 238. “L’alternance politico-religieuse de Justinien II à Léon III”, in: Basile LOURIÉ, Alexey MOURAVIEV, Universum Hagiographicum. Mémorial R. P. Michel van Esbroeck, SJ (1934-2003), in: Scrinium 2 (2006), pp. 3-6.
C. ARTICLES DE DICTIONNAIRES OU DíENCYCLOP≈:DIES18 CE 239. “Amphilocius of Iconium”, in: CE (1991), I, pp. 114, 116. 240. “Assumption”, in: CE (1991), I, pp. 289-293. 241. “Athanasius of Clysma”, in: CE (1991), I, pp. 304-306. 242. “Catena, Arabic Tradition of”, in: CE (1991), II, p. 475. 243. “Cosmas and Damian, Saints”, in: CE (1991), II, pp. 638-640. 244. “Ephraem Syrus, Saint”, in: CE (1991), III, pp. 963-964. 18 Je n’ai examiné que le LTK3 (1993-2001), le DPAC (1983) = DECA (1990) et la CE (1991). [Deux articles du RAC et cinq articles du ML ont été incorporés dans la bibliographie par MvE lui-même. Les éditeurs du volume présent ont examiné en outre l’EAE. — B. L., A. M.]
Bibliographie du P. Michel van Esbroeck, SJ
liii
245. “Epimachus of Pelusium, Saint”, in: CE (1991), III, pp. 965-967. 246. “Eusignius, Saint”, in: CE (1991), IV, pp. 1071-1072. 247. “Hilaria, Saint”, in: CE (1991), IV, pp. 1230-1232. 248. “John Colobos, Saint, Arabic Tradition of”, in: CE (1991), V, pp. 13611362. 249. “Judas Cyriacus, Saint”, in: CE (1991), V, pp. 1377-1378. 250. “Leontius of Tripoli, Saint”, in: CE (1991), V, pp. 1442-1444. 251. “Maximus and Domitius, Saints”, in: CE (1991), V, pp. 1576-1578. 252. “Melito of Sardis”, in: CE (1991), V, pp. 1585-1586. 253. “Mercurius of Caesarea, Saint”, in: CE (1991), V, pp. 1592-1594. 254. “Michael, the Archangel, Saint”, in: CE (1991), V, pp. 1616-1620. 255. “Philotheus of Antioch, Saint”, in: CE (1991), VI, pp. 1960-1961. 256. “Pidjimi, Saint”, in: CE (1991), VI, pp. 1966-1967. 257. “Proclus, Saint”, in: CE (1991), VI, pp. 2016-2019. 258. “Severian of Jabalah, Saint”, in: CE (1991), VII, pp. 2122-2123. 259. “Sophia, Saint”, in: CE (1991), VII, pp. 2143-2144. 260. “Theognosta, Saint”, in: CE (1991), VII, pp. 2243-2244. 261. “Three Hebrews in the Furnace”, in: CE (1991), VII, pp. 2257-2259. 262. “Victor Stratelates, Saint, Coptic Tradition of”, in: CE (1991), VII, pp. 2303-2304.
DPAC / DECA 263. “Abraham de Beth Rabban”, in: DPAC (1983), col. 16-17 = DECA (1990), p. 10. 264. “Acace de Séleucie”, in: DPAC (1983), col. 24 = DECA (1990), pp. 15-16. 265. “Aithalla d’Edesse”, in: DPAC (1983), col. 111 = DECA (1990), pp. 60-61. 266. “Anastase Magundat”, in: DPAC (1983), col. 185 = DECA (1990), p. 115. 267. “Apophtegmata Patrum”, in: DPAC (1983), col. 291-292 = DECA (1990), pp. 192-193. 268. “Arabie, 1. Evangélisation”, in: DPAC (1983), col. 304-305 = DECA (1990), pp. 202-203. 269. “Arabie, 3. Langue et Littérature”, in: DPAC (1983), col. 306-308 = DECA (1990), pp. 203-205. 270. “Athanase Gammâl”, in: DPAC (1983), col. 433 = DECA (1990), pp. 291-292. 271. “Babaï Bar Nesibnayé, le Petit”, in: DPAC (1983), col. 463-464 = DECA (1990), p. 327. 272. “Daniel le Stylite”, in: DPAC (1983), col. 890 = DECA (1990), p. 626. 273. “Dorothée de Thessalonique”, in: DPAC (1983), col. 1039 = DECA (1990), p. 727.
liv
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
274. “Géorgienne (Langue, Littérature)”, in: DPAC (1983), col. 1459-1462 = DECA (1990), pp. 1039-1040. 275. “Innocent de Maronée”, in: DPAC (1983), col. 1784 = DECA (1990), p. 1226. 276. “Isaac d’Amid”, in: DPAC (1983), col. 1828 = DECA (1990), p. 1247. 277. “Isaac d’Antioche”, in: DPAC (1983), col. 1828 = DECA (1990), pp. 1247-1248. 278. “Isaac d’Edesse”, in: DPAC (1983), col. 1829 = DECA (1990), p. 1248. 279. “Isaac le Persan”, in: DPAC (1983), col. 1830-1831 = DECA (1990), p. 1249. 280. “Ishobokht de Rev-Ardashir”, in: DPAC (1983), col. 1832 = DECA (1990), pp. 1250-1251. 281. “Malabar”, in: DPAC (1983), col. 2069 = DECA (1990), pp. 15221523. 282. “Moïse le Sarracène”, in: DPAC (1983), col. 2325 = DECA (1990), p. 1660. 283. “Octateuque de Clément”, in: DPAC (1983), col. 2548-2549 = DECA (1990), p. 1794. 284. Pâpâ Bar Aggai, in: DPAC (1983), col. 2638 = DECA (1990), p. 1879.
EAE 285. “ úAbiyä Égziù ”, in: EAE I (2003) 42.
LTK 286. Abdallâh ibn al-Fadºl”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 17. 287. Abdallâh ibn atº-Tº aiyib”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 17. 288. “ Abdallâh ibn Zakarîyâ ibn Musâ, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 17. 289. Anânîschô, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 595. 290. “Aba I. II., ostsyr. Katholikos”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 8-9. 291. “Abchasien”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 16. 292. “Abdas”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 17-18. 293. “Abdischo”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 19. 294. “Abido v. Edessa”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 49-50. 295. “Abido v. Nekresi”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 50. 296. “Abo v. Tiflis”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 60-61. 297. “Abraham d. Bekenner”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 67. 298. “Abraham de Georgiis”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 69. 299. “Abraham Ecchellensis”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 68. 300. “Abraham Petrus I. Ardzivian”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 71-72. 301. “Abraham v. Aghbatan”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 66.
Bibliographie du P. Michel van Esbroeck, SJ
302. “Abraham v. Arbela”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 66. 303. “Abraham v. Kaschkar”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 69. 304. “Abraham v. Natpar, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 70. 305. “Abraham v. Qidun”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 70-71. 306. “Abraham, Mamikonier”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 70. 307. Abu l-Barakât, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 105. 308. Abû Sº âlihº”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 105-106. 309. “Abuna”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 106. 310. Achmîm, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 114. 311. “Adana”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 143-144. 312. “Agapios v. Hierapolis”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 224. 313. “Agathangelos”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 225-226. 314. “Aghbak”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 233-234. 315. “Akepsimas v. Hº naita”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 288. 316. “Albanien (Aghuanien)”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 321. 317. “Aleppiner”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 357. 318. “Aleppo”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 357-358. 319. “Ananias v. Mokk‘”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 594. 320. “Ananias v. Narek”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 594. 321. “Ananias v. Schirak”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 594-595. 322. “Andreas v. Longjumeau”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 631. 323. “Angamali”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 645. 324. “Ani”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 676. 325. “Antiochien (Orontes) II”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 769. 326. “Antiochos v. Mar Saba”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 770. 327. “Antipater v. Bostra”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 774. 328. “Antonianer I-III”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 782. 329. “Antonios v. Tagrit”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 793. 330. “Antoniuskloster”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 794. 331. “Arabien VI”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 906-907. 332. “Aramäer V”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 914. 333. “Arbela”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 938. 334. “Ardschil”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 953. 335. “Arewordiq”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 956. 336. “Armenien I-VI”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 999-1004. 337. “Artvin”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 1048. 338. “Aschot I. III.”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 1060. 339. “Assemani”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 1086-1087. 340. “Athanasios I. Gammàlâ, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 1126. 341. “Azarian, Aristakes”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 1325. 342. “Baanes”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 1331. 343. Bâbai bar Nesºîbnâyç”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 1331-1332.
lv
lvi
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
344. “Babai d. Große”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 1331. 345. “Babgen”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 1332. 346. “Babikian, Adeodat”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 1332-1333. 347. “Babylon III-IV”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 1335-1336. 348. “Bagdad”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 1351-1352. 349. “Bagratiden”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 1352-1353. 350. “Balai”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 1364. 351. “Barba’schmin”, in: LTK 1 (1993), col. 1403. 352. “Barhº adbschabba”, in: LTK 2 (1994), col. 4-5. 353. “Barsabbaeus”, in: LTK 2 (1994), col. 33. 354. “Barsºauma d. Nackte”, in: LTK 2 (1994), col. 34. 355. “Barsºauma v. Nisibis”, in: LTK 2 (1994), col. 34. 356. “Barsºauma, Archimandrit”, in: LTK 2 (1994), col. 33-34. 357. “Bartholomaeus de Podio”, in: LTK 2 (1994), col. 44. 358. “Bartholomaios v. Edessa”, in: LTK 2 (1994), col. 41-42. 359. “Bartholomiten”, in: LTK 2 (1994), col. 46-47. 360. “Basileios v. Kilikien”, in: LTK 2 (1994), col. 70. 361. “Bâwîtº”, in: LTK 2 (1994), col. 99. 362. “Berekischo”, in: LTK 2 (1994), col. 244. 363. “Bermudes, João”, in: LTK 2 (1994), col. 263. 364. “Bochtischo”, in: LTK 2 (1994), col. 544. 365. “Bodbe”, in: LTK 2 (1994), col. 546. 366. “Candida”, in: LTK 2 (1994), col. 920. 367. “Chatsitsarier”, in: LTK 2 (1994), col. 1031. 368. “Chelaschwili, Jona”, in: LTK 2 (1994), col. 1032. 369. “Chosrov Andzewac‘i”, in: LTK 2 (1994), col. 1098. 370. “Damaskus 5”, in: LTK 2 (1994), col. 1384. 371. “David d. Erbauer”, in: LTK 3 (1995), col. 41. 372. “David v. Bolnisi”, in: LTK 3 (1995), col. 40. 373. “Demetre I.”, in: LTK 3 (1995), col. 80. 374. “Dschuanscher”, in: LTK 3 (1995), col. 384. 375. “Dschulfa”, in: LTK 3 (1995), col. 384. 376. “Dumbadze, Jakob”, in: LTK 3 (1995), col. 400. 377. “Dvin”, in: LTK 3 (1995), col. 417. 378. Elischç, in: LTK 3 (1995), col. 604-605. 379. “Ephräm d. Kleine”, in: LTK 3 (1995), col. 708. 380. “Erzurum”, in: LTK 3 (1995), col. 857-858. 381. “Etschmiadzin”, in: LTK 3 (1995), col. 941-942. 382. “Eudaimon I. Èhetidze”, in: LTK 3 (1995), col. 976-977. 383. “Eugenios, Mönch”, in: LTK 3 (1995), col. 980. 384. “Eustathios v. Mzcheta”, in: LTK 3 (1995), col. 1015. 385. “Eustochios v. Jerusalem”, in: LTK 3 (1995), col. 1017.
Bibliographie du P. Michel van Esbroeck, SJ
lvii
386. “Euthymios Hagioreites”, in: LTK 3 (1995), col. 1020-1021. 387. “Eznik v. Kolb”, in: LTK 3 (1995), col. 1143-1144. 388. “Ezr”, in: LTK 3 (1995), col. 1144. 389. “Faustos v. Byzanz”, in: LTK 3 (1995), col. 1199. 390. “Georgios Mertschule”, in: LTK 4 (1995), col. 482. 391. “Giwt”, in: LTK 4 (1995), col. 660. 392. “Golinduch”, in: LTK 4 (1995), col. 829. 393. “Gregorios Arscharunik‘”, in: LTK 4 (1995), col. 998. 394. “Gregorios II. Martyrophilos”, in: LTK 4 (1995), col. 1003. 395. “Gregorios III. Pahlawuni”, in: LTK 4 (1995), col. 1010. 396 “Gregorios IV. Tlay”, in: LTK 4 (1995), col. 1026. 397. “Gregorios Magistros”, in: LTK 4 (1995), col. 1003. 398. “Gregorios v. Chandsta”, in: LTK 4 (1995), col. 999. 399. “Gregorios v. Narek”, in: LTK 4 (1995), col. 1004. 400. “Gregorios v. Tat‘ew”, in: LTK 4 (1995), col. 1026. 401. “Hayrik”, in: LTK 4 (1995), col. 1224. 402. “Hilaria, angeblich Tochter des Ks. Zenon”, in: LTK 5 (1996), col. 97. 403. “Isbozetes”, in: LTK 5 (1996), col. 612. 404. “Johannes der Sarkawag”, in: LTK 5 (1996), col. 965. 405. “Johannes Rufus”, in: LTK 5 (1996), col. 963. 406. “Johannes v. Bolnisi”, in: LTK 5 (1996), col. 885. 407. “Johannes v. K‘rna”, in: LTK 5 (1996), col. 929. 408. “Johannes v. Orotn”, in: LTK 5 (1996), col. 941. 409. “Johannes XV. Bar Ma‘dani”, in: LTK 5 (1996), col. 882. 410. “Johannes Zosime”, in: LTK 5 (1996), col. 978. 411. “Josef v. Hotoc‘im”, in: LTK 5 (1996), col. 1007. 412. “Julianos v. Tabia”, in: LTK 5 (1996), col. 1081. 413. Kâlçb Ella Asºbehºâbisi LZN”, in: LTK 5 (1996), col. 1141. 414. “Ketevan”, in: LTK 5 (1996), col. 1413. 415. “Komitas”, in: LTK 6 (1997), col. 211-212. 416. “Qardaq”, in: LTK 8 (1999), col. 751.
ML 417. “Arabische christlicher Literatur”, in: ML 1 (1988), pp. 211-214. 418. “Armenische Literatur”, in: ML 1 (1988) pp. 237-239. 419. “Georgien”, in: ML 2 (1989), pp. 618-622. 420. “Kopten”, in: ML 3 (1991), pp. 641-645. 421. “Syrien”, in: ML 6 (1994), pp. 344-349.
RAC 422. “Agathangelos”, in: RAC, suppl. 1/2 (1985), pp. 239-248. 423. “Albanien”, in: RAC, suppl. 1/2 (1985), pp. 257-266.
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
lviii
D. PUBLICATIONS POSTHUMES 19 · (¿´ PARAI TRE) 424. “La Theotokos véritable arche d’alliance”, in: Mother of God, an International Conference, National Hellenic research foundation Athens, 1214 January 200120 . 425. “Die Quelle der Himmelfahrt Muhammeds”, in: Akten des XXVIII. Deutschen Orientalistentages. Bamberg, 26.-30. (März, 2001). 426. “Parallelism Between Caucasian and Chinese Cross Representations”, in: First International Conference “Research on Nes-torianism in China”, Salzburg 20-26 May 2003. (À paraître dans la collection “Monumenta Serica”.) 427. “Nino, Théognosta et Eustathe: un dossier hagiographique oriental des IVe-Ve siècles”, ÕÂ N.S. 5 (11) (?).
E. EXEMPLES DES QUELQUES COMPTES-RENDUS IMPORTANTS Discussion sur Joseph et Aseneth: : 428. [cr de M. Philonenko, Joseph et Aséneth (1968), et de Ch. Burchard, Untersuchungen zu „Joseph und Aseneth“ (1965)], AB 86 (1968), pp. 404410. 429. [cr de R. Sh. Kraemer, When Aseneth Met Joseph (1998)], XB 2 (8) (2000), pp. 452-454.
´Un pan de la pensee: neo: platonicienneª dans la litter: ature copte dite gnostique: 430. [cr de P.-H. Poirier, Le tonnaire intellect parfait (NH VI, 2) (1995)], AB 115 (1997), pp. 384-385.
Líhistoire de líantichalced: onisme armen: ien avant le VIIIe sie'cle: 431. [cr de N. Garsoïan, L’Église arménienne et le grand schisme d’Orient (1999)], XB N.S. 2 (8) (2000) 445-452.
19
Cette partie de la bibliographie est très aléatoire: elle est basée sur des souvenirs personnels et des recherches personnelles. 20 Nous ne connaissons que le titre de la communication de MvE d’après le programme de la conférence. Les actes de la conférence n’ont été jamais publiés. — B. L., A. M.
Bibliographie du P. Michel van Esbroeck, SJ
lix
F. INDEX DES NOMS HISTORIQUES21 úAbiyä Égziù — 285 Abdallâh ibn al-Fadº l — 286 Abdallâh ibn at -º Tº aiyib — 287 Abdallâh ibn Zakarîyâ ibn Musâ 288 Anânîðô — 289 «Ephrem grec» — 87 «Mari», adressât d’Ibas et de Dorothée — 109, 118 Aaronites — 122, 163 Aba I, Catholicos — 290 Abdas — 292 Abdicho — 293 Abido d’Édèsse — 294 Abido de Nekresi — 295 Abo de Tiflis — 296 Abraham (biblique) — 227 Abraham d’Aghbatan — 301 Abraham d’Arbela — 302 Abraham de Beth Rabban — 263 Abraham de Georgiis — 298 Abraham de Kachkar — 303 Abraham de Natpar — 304 Abraham de Qidun — 305 Abraham Ecchellensis — 299 Abraham le Confesseur — 51, 297 Abraham Pierre I Ardzivian — 300 Abraham, Mamikonien — 306 Abu l-Barakât 307 Abû Sº âlihº — 308 Acace de Séleucie — 264 Achmîm 310 Achote I — 338 Adana — 311 Agapios d’Hiérapolis — 312 Agathange — 21, 48, 52, 93, 95, 313, 316, 422 Aghbak — 314 Aghouanie (Albanie de Caucase) — 225, 423 21 L’index contient les noms personnels et géographiques anciens ainsi que les noms des fêtes et des objets de culte qui se trouvent ou sont sous-entendus dans les titres des publications de MvE, munis des numéros correspondants dans la liste bibliographique. En outre, l’index contient quelques rubriques plus générales, telles que «Bible» ou «Église (telle ou telle)». Les noms des Églises dans l’index correspondent aussi bien à l’histoire de ces Églises qu’à leurs traditions hagiographiques, littéraires etc. Les nom des Églises ne sont indiqués que dans les cas où la précision des noms individuels n’est pas possible.
lx
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
Aithalla d’Edesse — 265 Akepsimas de Hº naita — 315 Aleppo — 317, 318 Alexandre de Chypre — 58 Alexandre le Grand — 223 Amasée — 223 Ammonius, philosophe — 142 Amphiloque d’Iconium — 73, 239 Anania de Mokk‘ — 319 Anania de Narek — 320 Anania Shirakatsi — 99, 321 Anastase Magundat — 266 André de Longjumeau — 322 André, apôtre — 204, 215, 224 Angamali — 323 Ani — 324 Annonciation — 16, 120 Anonyme: évêque, l’auteur d’un épître sur les chrétiens d’Arabie — 140 Anotoine, saint, monastère de — 330 Antioche — 172, 325 Antioche de Mar Saba — 326 Antipatre de Bostra — 327 Antoine de Tagrit — 329 Antoine I, Catholicos — 66 Aphkhazie — 190, 291 Apocryphes, arabes — 41 Apocryphes, géorgiens — 86 Apollinaire de Laodicée — 169 Apophthegmata Patrum — 37, 267 Apôtres — 15, 57, 88, 167, 218 Apulée — 112 Arabie — 268, 269, 331 Araméens — 332 Arbela — 333 Archanges — 18 Ardchil — 334 Arethas de Nejran — 35 Arewordiq — 335 Arménie — 198, 208, 336 Arsène Iqaltoeli — 94 Artvin — 337 Asclepius — 112 Assemani — 339 Athanase d’Alexandrie — 117 Athanase de Clysma — 35, 241 Athanase Gammâl — 270, 340 Azarian, Aristakes — 341
Bibliographie du P. Michel van Esbroeck, SJ
Baanes — 342 Bâbai bar Nesºîbnâyç — 271, 343 Babai le Grand — 344 Babgen — 345 Babikian, Adeodat — 346 Babylon — 347 Bagdad — 348 Bagratides — 349 Balai — 350 Balavar — 160 Barba’chmin — 351 Barhºadbchabba — 352 Barlaam et Joasaph — 160 Barsºauma de Nisibis — 355 Barsºauma le Nu — 354 Barsºauma, archimandrite — 356 Barsabbaeus — 353 Barsabée de Jérusalem — 5 Barthélémy d’Édesse — 358 Barthélémy, apôtre — 89, 90 Bartholomaeus de Podio — 357 Basile de Césarée — 3, 126 Basile de Césarée, pseudo- — 31, 122, 149, 163, 219 Basile de Cylicie — 360 Bâwît º — 361 Berekicho — 362 Bermudes, João — 363 Bible, exégèse — 159, 242 Bible, Septante — 45 Bible, théologie — 62, 75, 76, 110 Bible, version géorgienne — 23 Bible, versions orientales — 206 Boa d’Hiérapolis — 220 Bochtischo — 364 Bodbe — 365 Byzance — 192, 194, 198, 208 Candida — 366 Cannibales — 215 Carthagène — 180 Chelaschvili, Jona — 368 Chosrov Andzewac‘i — 369 Christ — 5, 76 Christ, tunique de — 166 Èinka 154 Côme et Damien — 72, 74, 77, 243 Constantin le Grand — 59 Constantin-Cyrille, apôtre des Slaves — 114
lxi
lxii
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
Constantinople — 47, 97, 127, 161 Croix — 24, 58, 92, 184, 203, 213, 216, 227 Cyrille de Scythopolis — 113 Damas — 370 Daniel le Stylite — 272 David de Bolnisi — 372 David le Constructeur — 371 Dédicace de l’Anastasis, fête — 195 Demetre I — 373 Denys d’Alexandrie — 91 Denys l’Aréopagite — 117, 156, 165, 196 Dhu Nuwas — 140 Dimanche — 137, 149 Djuancher — 374 Djulfa — 375 Dormition de la Vierge — 10, 25, 27, 31, 42, 70, 78, 104, 107, 125, 143, 144, 147, 153, 233, 240 Dorothée comte de Palestine — 109 Dorothée de Thessalonique — 273 Dumbadze, Jacques — 376 Dvin — 377 Édesse — 216 Église Arménienne — 11, 49, 67, 89, 90, 97, 98, 100, 125, 155, 197, 222, 231, 232, 367, 418, 431 Église Copte — 420 Église de Chine — 426 Église de Perse — 51 Église Géorgienne — 4, 34, 39, 60, 63, 64, 83, 187, 203, 210, 221, 227, 419 Églises — 178 Églises antichalcédoniennes — 207, 230, 237 Églises arabophones — 14, 53, 82, 136, 242, 417 Églises du Caucase — 186, 189, 190, 192, 229, 235, 426 Églises orientales — 150, 157 Églises syriacophones — 134, 200, 421 Elischç — 378 Ephrem le Petit — 379 Ephrem le Syrien — 204, 215, 224, 244 Épimaque de Péluse — 12, 13, 79, 245 Épiphane de Chypre — 6, 7, 46 Erzurum — 380 Éschatologie — 147 Etchmiadzine — 381 Éthiopie — 35 Étienne, protomartyr — 92 Eudaimon I Èhetidze — 382 Eugène, moine — 383
Bibliographie du P. Michel van Esbroeck, SJ
Eunome — 73, 126 Eusèbe Pamphile — 104 Eusignius — 246 Eustathe d’Antioche — 81 Eustathe de Mzcheta — 384 Eustathe Placide — 427 Eustochios de Jerusalem — 385 Euthyme l’Hagiorite — 38, 133, 386 Eznik de Kolb — 33, 387 Ezr — 388 Faustos de Byzance — 389 Florence — 148 George, martyr — 20, 50 Georges l’Athonite — 85 Georges Mertchule — 390 Géorgie — 130, 141, 274 Germain de Constantinople — 213 Girk’ Eakac’ — 177, 193 Giwt — 391 Golinduch — 392 Gordius de Césarée — 44 Grégoire Archarunik — 393 Grégoire de Chandsta — 398 Grégoire de Narek — 399 Grégoire de Nazianze — 115 Grégoire de Nazianze, pseudo- — 219 Grégoire de Nysse — 40, 126, 139, 234 Grégoire de Tat‘ew — 400 Grégoire II Martyrophilos — 394 Grégoire III Pahlawuni — 395 Grégoire IV Tlay — 396 Grégoire l’Illuminateur — 19, 95, 135, 138 Grégoire le Thaumaturge — 40, 164, 211, 234 Grégoire Magistre — 397 Grégoire Vkayaser — 212 Hayrik — 401 Hélène, impératrice — 216 Héraclide de Chypre — 102 Héraclius, empereur — 47, 184 Hésychius de Jérusalem — 32, 80 Hilaria — 247, 402 Hippolyte de Rome — 33, 95 Histoire euthymiaque — 42 Homélie «ÑðÑðÛé ÑðÑðÑÞèñ» — 174 Hypapante — 168
lxiii
lxiv
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
Ibas d’Édesse — 118 Ichobokht de Rev-Ardachir — 280 Icônes — 121, 213, 232 Innocent de Maronée — 275 Iran — 194 Isaac d’Amid — 276 Isaac d’Antioche — 188, 277 Isaac d’Édesse — 278 Isaac le Persan — 279 Isbozetes — 403 Jean Chrysostome — 46, 143 Jean d’Odznun — 175 Jean Damascène — 195, 236 Jean de Jérusalem — 30, 92 Jean III le Nicéote — 162 Jean le Calybite — 209 Jean Mayravanetsi — 231 Jean Tzimiscès — 85 Jean Xiphilin — 74 Jean Zosime — 71 Jean, apôtre — 36, 38, 41, 172 Jean, higoumène de Saint-Serge — 191 Jeremias, apa — 201, 217 Jérusalem — 210, 221 Johannes de Bolnisi — 406 Johannes de K‘rna — 407 Johannes de Orotn — 408 Johannes le Sarkawag — 404 Johannes Rufus — 405 Johannes XV Bar Ma‘dani — 409 Johannes Zosime — 410 Johannes, apa — 201 John Colobos — 248 Joseph de Hotoc‘im — 411 Joseph et Aséneth — 428, 429 Joseph le Skeuophylax — 191 Juda Cyriaque — 145, 249 Julien de Tabia — 412 Julien l’Apostat — 124 Justinien I — 16, 35, 168, 197 Justinien II — 182, 198, 208, 238 Kâlçb Ella Asºbehºâbisi LZN — 413 Kartlis Mokcevay — 203 Ketevan — 414 Khazarie — 114 Komitas — 226, 415
Bibliographie du P. Michel van Esbroeck, SJ
Lazique — 190 Léon III, empereur — 198, 208, 238 Léonce de Byzance — 94, 101 Léonce de Tripoli — 250 Livre des Lettres arménien — 162 Loki — 154 Loth (biblique) — 227 Lydda — 50 Malabar — 281 Marcel d’Ancyre — 139 Marcel, acémète — 109 Marcien, empereur — 185 Maroutha, mar — 226 Martinianus — 181 Maurice, empereur — 47, 185 Maxime et Domitius — 251 Maxime le Confesseur — 8, 9, 171, 173 Méliton de Sardes — 22, 24, 29, 252 Mercurius de Césarée — 253 Michel Modrekili — 61 Michel, l’archange — 254 Mingrélie — 190 Moïse le Sarracène — 282 Moscou — 166 Mouhammade — 425 Movses Xorenac’i — 177 Nagash d’Amid — 148 Nathanaël (biblique) — 18 Nejran, martyrs de — 35, 140, 152 Nino — 427 Nisime, ascète — 106 Nisthéréon et Katianos — 132 Noël — 16 Octateuque de Clément — 283 Pancrace de Taormine — 129, 151 Pâpâ Bar Aggai — 284 Pâque — 22, 32, 46 Paul, apôtre — 80, 172 Pélagie la Pénitente — 68 Philippe, apôtre — 180 Philosophes grecs — 111, 430 Philothée d’Antioche — 43, 255 Phocas, traducteur de Denys l’Aréopagite en syriaque — 196 Phusnabuasdia — 220 Pidjimi — 256
lxv
lxvi
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
Pierre de Jérusalem — 103 Pierre l’Ibère — 156, 165, 202 Pierre le Foulon — 202 Pierre, apôtre — 62, 80, 172 Prochore, apôtre — 158 Proclus — 56, 108, 123, 257 Ptolémée, roi — 45 Qardaq — 416 Reliques — 166 Rhipsimé — 229 Rome — 97 Sahak III Dzoroporetsi — 169, 179 Sainte-Sion — 92 Saints fous de Dieu — 214 Salomon de Mak’enoc’ — 17 Sanatrouk, roi — 26, 131 Sargis de Caffa — 148 Sept dormants d’Éphèse — 170 Sévère d’Antioche — 145 Sévérien de Gabala — 55, 57, 146, 258 Sièges de Constantinople, fête des — 161 Sinaï — 54, 84 Sophia, sainte — 259 Svanéthie — 190 Synodikon de l’Orthodoxie — 121 Thaddée, apôtre — 26, 131 Thalasse (Ad Thalassium) — 171, 173 Théodore le Studite — 161 Théodose le Cénobiarque — 199 Théodose, empereur — 194 Théognoste, sainte — 260, 427 Thomas, apôtre — 119 Transfiguration — 65 Trois Hébreux dans la fournaise — 261 Udabno — 176 Vakhtang Gorgasali — 128 Vendredi — 149 Victor Stratelates — 262 Vierge — 8, 9, 10, 28, 56, 123, 127, 228, 236, 424 Xrafstras — 154 Zacharie, Catholicos — 120 Zénon, empereur 402 [cf. 247] Zouartnots — 96
LISTE DES ABRE±VIATIONS ÂÂ
Âèçàíòèéñêèé âðåìåííèê
ÏÑÐË
Ïîëíîå ñîáðàíèå ðóññêèõ ëåòîïèñåé
ÕÂ
Õðèñòèàíñêèé Âîñòîê (Ñåðèÿ, ïîñâÿùåííàÿ èçó÷åíèþ õðèñòèàíñêîé êóëüòóðû íàðîäîâ Àçèè è Àôðèêè)
AAWG
—
Abhandlungen der deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen
AB
—
Analecta Bollandiana
Byz
—
Byzantion
BZ
—
Byzantinische Zeitschrift
CChr
—
Corpus Christianorum
CCSL
—
Corpus Christianorum. Series latina
CPG
—
M. GEERARD, Clavis Patrum Graecorum (Turnhout: Brepols) I (1973), II (1974), III (1979), IV (1980), Supplementum (1998) (Corpus Christianorum)
CPL
—
E. DEKKERS, Clavis Patrum Latinorum (Steenbrugge, 1951; 19612)
CSCO
—
Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium
CSEL
—
Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum
CSHByz
—
Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae
DOP
—
Dumbarton Oaks Papers
DSp
—
Dictionnaire de Spiritualité
EÆ
—
Encyclopaedia Aethiopica / Ed. S. UHLIG. Vol. I: A–C, Wiesbaden 2003; vol. II: D–Ha, Wiesbaden 2005
JBL
—
Journal of Biblical Literature
JÖB
—
Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik
JSNT
—
Journal for the Study of the New Testament
JTS
—
Journal of Theological Studies
MANSI
—
Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et Amplissima Collectio / Ed. J. D. MANSI. T. I sqq. (Florentiae—Venetiis, 1759 sqq.)
MGH
—
Monumenta Germaniae Historica
Mus
—
Le Muséon
lxviii
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
MUSJ
—
Mélanges de l’Université Saint-Joseph (Beyrouth)
OCA
—
Orientalia Christiana Analecta
OCP
—
Orientalia Christiana Periodica
OLP
—
Orientalia Lovaniensa Periodica
OrChr
—
Orientalia Christiana
PdO
—
Parole de l’Orient
PG
—
Patrologiae cursus completus. Series graeca / Acc. J. P. MIGNE (Parisiis, 1857–1866)
PL
—
Patrologiae cursus completus. Series latina / Acc. J. P. MIGNE (Parisiis, 1841–1864)
PO
—
Patrologia Orientalis
PTS
—
Patristische Texte und Studien
Rad JAZU —
Radova Jugoslavenske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti (à présent — Radova Hrvatske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti)
REArm
—
Revue des Études Arméniennes
RÉB
—
Revue des Études Byzantines
RÉG
—
Revue des Études Grecques
REGC
—
Revue des Études Grecques Classiques
ROC
—
Revue de l’Orient Chrétien
SC
—
Sources Chrétiennes
SP
—
Studia Patristica
ST
—
Studi e Testi
STDJ
—
Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah
TM
—
Travaux et Mémoires
TU
—
Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur
VC
—
Vigiliae Christianae
Articles
Ü Michel van Esbroeck
LíALTERNANCE POLITICO-RELIGIEUSE DE JUSTINIEN II ¿" LE O : N III1 Dans un premier temps nous rappellerons brièvement ce que nous avons exposé à Copenhague il y a cinq ans2 sur la base de documents arméniens, qui jusque là n’avaient pas été pris en considération pour l’histoire de cette période. Nous y adjoindrons ici au début de la même période la portée d’une homélie de Jean Damascène pour les Encénies à Jérusalem, sauvée en géorgien,3 et à l’autre bout de la même période, l’homélie de Germain de Constantinople sur les images et la Croix, également préservée en géorgien seulement.4 La période de 688 à 720 comporte sept empereurs, sept papes à Rome, cinq patriarches de Constantinople, quatre khalifes à Damas et trois catholicos d’Arménie. Le traité de 688 avec Abd-alMalik, — Justinien II a alors 19 ans, — et la victoire de Thessalonique la même année permettent à l’empereur d’inaugurer sa politique religieuse universelle. Il envoie trente mille hommes en Arménie, Géorgie et Aghouanie. En vrai successeur de Justinien Ier, il invite en 689/690 cinq évêques arméniens à Constantinople. N’arrivant pas à un accord de fond, il décide d’entériner seulement les usages chrétiens dans le concile de 691 ou Quinisexte, dont il essayera d’universaliser la valeur en accord avec les Arméniens dans un concile à Theodosiopolis vers 693, dont
1
Conférence donnée au XXe Congrès international des Études byzantines, Paris, 19–25 août 2001. Nous publions le texte comme il a été lu par l’auteur, d’après un fichier de son manuscrit préparé pour ce congrès. Toutes les notes sont introduites par la rédaction. 2 Il s’agit du XIXe Congrès international des Études byzantines, Copenhague, 18–24 août 1996. L’auteur a subséquemment publié la conférence qu’il avait donnée là, d’abord, dans une traduction arménienne par Azat Bozoyan [¢åèòÖÑæÔÑñÛ àÑåßÑßÑæ ôÑâÑôÑÙåèòæØ íßíÑñ µèòíïÛæÛÑæèí ¢-Ûñ äÛæéÕî ¬Õîèæ £,§ëäÛÑáÛæ (1997) no 6–7, 170–180], puis, dans l’original français [La politique arménienne de Byzance de Justinien II à Léon III // Studi sull’Oriente Cristiano 2.2 (1998) 111–120]. 3 Éditée par l’auteur comme: Le discours de Jean Damascène pour la Dédicace de l’Anastasis // OCP 63 (1997) 53–98. 4 Éditée par l’auteur comme: Un discours inédit de saint Germain de Constantinople sur la Croix et les icônes // OCP 65 (1999) 15–51. Mais maintenant il faut tenir compte de la version slavonne publiée par Vladimir Baranov dans le volume présent [V. À. BARANOV, Unedited Slavonic Version of the Apology on the Cross and on the Holy Icons Attributed to Patriarch Germanus of Constantinople (CPG 8033)]. Voir encore une discussion de l’authenticité dans le même article de Baranov.
"
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
les canons sont préservés en arménien,5 et non moins avec les Latins, d’abord auprès de Serge Ier avant son éviction en 695, puis sans succès avec Jean VII, ensuite avec Sissinios au point de s’attaquer à Ravenne, pour finalement réussir après presque trente ans avec le pape Constantin en 711. La ténacité de son entreprise, en dépit de ses dix ans d’éviction, montre quelle valeur il accordait à ce signe de l’unité religieuse chrétienne. Mais de part et d’autre cet accord n’a pas été acquis sans concessions. Le concile de Théodosiopolis entérine pratiquement tous les usages reprochés aux Arméniens dans quelques canons du Quinisexte, et il en va de même pour l’accord avec les Latins. Le concile de Theodosiopolis se garde de parler de Chalcédoine. La légitimité de ce dernier est en effet jalousement maintenue par Justinien II; déjà Justinien Ier lui avait témoigné une fidélité inflexible. Le patriarche Kallinikos, qui sacrera les deux successeurs intrus après la mutilation de Justinien II, estime que l’empereur est allé trop loin. Le récit touchant la phialle des bleus construite par Justinien II, et pour laquelle une église dût être détruite, entraîne une réplique de Kallinikos pleine d’ironie théologique: Gloire au Christ Dieu qui pâtit! Autrement dit, le patriarche considère que les concessions aux Arméniens à Théodosiopolis impliquent une théologie arménienne théopaschite qu’il rejette. Cette théologie est préservée avec grande éloquence dans le discours du catholicos Sahak III. Le concile de Chalcédoine n’y est pas mentionné, car la théologie avalise le monothélisme et le monoénergisme, rejetés par ceux qui a Constantinople réhabilitèrent Maxime le Confesseur. Sahak traite des natures, des noms, de l’énergie, de la volonté, de la Session à la droite, des bras étendus sur la Croix. Ces thèmes sont repris pour réduire ensuite à l’absurde les opposants. La dernière partie invite à n’adorer Dieu que dans la Croix et non dans les distinctions théologiques de l’homme et de Dieu. En annexe figure un Testament donné à Sembat Bagratouni, qui dit explicitement: Dieu nous a donné comme image la Croix de Dieu à adorer… en effet, toute autre image, Dieu lui-même l’a interdite en disant: Quelle ressemblance vois-tu en moi? Sembat Bagratouni succède à Nerses Kamsarakan, placé à la tête des Arméniens par Justinien II en 689. En 695 ou 697, il fut déporté avec Sahak III à Damas par les Arabes. Il en revint et reçut de Justinien II revenu au pouvoir la permission de se réfugier à Poti, où il demeurera avec les Nakharars arméniens jusqu’en 710 environ. Il accueillit là le spathaire Léon, exilé par Justinien II pour une campagne ossète. C’est grâce aux Nakharars arméniens que 5
Voir surtout les travaux de l’auteur: Armenien und die Penthekte // Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum 24 (1992) 78–94; Le discours du Catholicos Sahak III en 691 et quelques dossiers annexes au Quinisexte // The Council in Trullo revisited / Ed. G. NEDUNGATT, M. FEATHERSTONE (Rome, 1995) (ÊáíïíéêÜ 6) 323–454; Justinian II. im Synaxar und das Konzil in Trullo // Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum 27/28 (1995/ 1996) 103–108.
Michel van Esbroeck
#
ce Léon put regagner Constantinople vers 711, où il deviendra en 717 Léon III. La doctrine qu’il défendra face à Germain de Constantinople est exactement celle décrite par Sahak III dans ce Testament. Le premier à remplacer Justinien II en 695 est Leontios, le général que Justinien avait envoyé en Arménie dix ans auparavant. Un bleu remplace un bleu. A la suite de la perte de l’Afrique en faveur des Arabes, Tibère Apsimaros, cette fois un vert, prend le pouvoir 698, et est pareillement couronné par Kallinikos. Tibère envoie une expédition punitive contre les 30.000 soldats restés fidèles à Justinien II en Arménie, et à n’en pas douter au concile de Théodosiopolis. En 711, Vardan Philipikkos renversa Justinien II et l’exécuta. Il y eut à ce moment un anathème contre Sembat, lequel aurait pillé la ville de Poti le jour de Pâques. Ils auraient enlevé les trésors de l’Église et les auraient emportés dans leur pays. Manifestement, le futur Léon III s’est retiré du Caucase à ce moment. Vardan-Philippikos chassa les Arméniens et les Arabes les établirent dans la région de Mélitene. Or, Vardan-Philipikkos pratiqua une politique ouvertement anti-chalcédonienne, anathématisant le concile de 680, ce que personne avant lui n’avait fait, au point de supprimer une représentation du sixième concile dans le Palais impérial. Ceci, ni Justinien II, ni Sahak III, ni Sembat Bagratouni, ni Léon III ne le firent jamais. Le tour de force du traité de Sahak III était de maintenir la compatibilité avec Chalcédoine et le sixième concile, sans les nommer. Les troupes de l’Opsikion mirent fin au règne de Vardan son règne en 713. Anastase II Artémon qui lui succède a soin de reconnaître officiellement le VIe concile. Théodose III qui lui succède en 713 a été forcé de prendre le pouvoir à son corps défendant, à un moment où déjà le futur Léon III organise l’empire en sous-main. Après ce bref sommaire,6 venons-en à l’homélie du Damascène sur les Encénies. Bien que le texte soit perdu en grec, son authenticité ne saurait être mise en doute. La vraie question est de savoir en quelle année ce discours d’apparat a été prononcé un 14 septembre dans l’église de l’Anastasis. Nous avons donné une série d’arguments qui militent pour une date précoce. L’absence complète de polémique iconoclaste d’une part, et de l’autre le panégyrique du diacre Épiphane au concile de 787, qui lie la volte-face de Jean Damascène vis-à-vis des richesses des Arabes à la glorification de l’église de la Katholikè, c’est-à-dire de l’Anastasis. D’une part le § 16 de l’homélie montre clairement que les fils d’Agar occupent la surface du temple, d’autre part la coupole de l’Anastasis reçoit une glorification universelle au § 30, laquelle avalise les privilèges théocratiques de l’édifice construit par Hélène et restaurée par Modeste. La Croix prêchée par le Damascène n’est pas celle que
6 C’est-à-dire, un sommaire de la conférence donnée au congrès de Copenhague dont le résumé se finie ici.
$
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
met en valeur Sahak III. Elle est directement liée à la fois à la coupole de l’Anastasis et à la légitimité théocratique de l’empereur byzantin. Quand pareille assertion est-elle vraisemblable? La Mosquée sur la surface du temple date déjà de ‘Omar al-Khattâb. La vraie question est de savoir si Jean Damascène se serait exprimé comme il le fait après que la Qubbat alSakhr ait été bâtie par Abd-alMalik. Nous pensons que cela n’aurait guère de sens. La base des deux coupoles ne présente qu’une différence de deux centimètres en longueur, et celle du mausolée est évidemment la copie consciente de l’Anastasis plus ancienne. Bien que l’inscription en mosaïques porte la date de 692, on a montré que cette date a été reportée et que l’achèvement de la coupole n’eut lieu sans doute que six ans plus tard, car le Khalife n’eut pas auparavant les loisirs de vaquer à une telle construction. La date a été sciemment assignée avant la date du discours du Damascène. Enfin nous croyons que le Damascène lui-même réagit au concile de 691, où l’empereur Justinien II renoue avec les prérogatives byzantines. Nous voudrions enfin remarquer que la différence entre les deux théologies de la Croix, celle de Sahak avant 691, et celle du Damascène après, permet de comprendre les premières monnaies portant la croix byzantine d’un côté et le Bismillah de l’autre, tandis qu’après cela les monnaies d’Abd-alMalik aboliront la Croix. Venons-en au dernier volet : l’homélie de Germain de Constantinople où l’opposition à l’iconoclasme revêt encore un caractère presque anodin, eu égard à ce qu’il deviendra dans les trois textes de Germain conservés en grec. L’important dans ce texte est la présence de la Croix, que Léon revendique sans figuration du Christ. La problématique est exactement celle que nous citions plus haut dans le Testament de Sahak III à Sembat Bagratouni. La victoire de 717 sur les Arabes a dès le départ une coloration toute différente d’après qu’on se rallie à Léon III avec la Croix seule ou avec Germain portant l’icône de la Vierge. Cette opposition illustre un nouveau changement politico-religieux introduit par l’empereur byzantin. Un autre indice en est le dialogue qui a incontestablement prit cours entre l’éphémère Khalife Omar II (717–720) et l’empereur Léon, et dont des traces retravaillées sont demeurées en arménien et en arabe. Ce dialogue a d’ailleurs donné lieu finalement à un genre littéraire très fourni, dont les affinités se laissent le plus souvent repérer jusqu’à cette époque. Le bref raccourci que nous avons donné ici illustre une alternance politico-religieuse qui dépasse largement le cadre des factions du cirque. C’était là le but de notre communication. Préparé à la publication par Basile Lourié
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 century 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 initiator of Iconoclasm Leo III.3 The Slavonic translation of the same treatise of an unknown date is contained 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 chronologischen Fixierung des Lebens und Wirkens des Patriarchen: mit dem griechischdeutschen Text der Vita Germani am Schluss der Arbeit, Das Östliche Christentum n. s. 27 (Würzburg, 1975) 200–240; O. MIENARDUS, The Beardless Patriarch: St. Germanus // 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 discours 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-Byzantine 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.
8
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
ãëàãîëåìàÿ Ðàé. Ïîó÷åíèå ñâÿòûõ îòåö» [The Book which is called Paradise. The Teachings of the Holy Fathers].4 The issue of the authorship will be re-investigated. Certainly, such a method of attribution as language analysis 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 development of argumentation for and against images in the Iconoclastic controversy, 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 (ÒÔ ÃÀÒÎ), Collection of hand-written books 229, fols. 218v.–225v. I would like to express our gratitude 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, Àíàôåìàòñòâîâàíèå (îòëó÷åíèå îò Öåðêâè), ñîâåðøàåìîå â ïåðâóþ íåäåëþ Âåëèêîãî ïîñòà: èñòîðè÷åñêîå èññëåäîâàíèå î ×èíå Ïðàâîñëàâèÿ [Anathematizing (excommunication), which is performed on the first Sunday of the Great Lent: Historical research on the Rite of Orthodoxy] (ÑÏá., 1879).
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 between the words. For the convenience of comparison between the Slavonic and Georgian versions, in our translation we preserved the structure of chapters 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 abstinence 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.
10
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
20
25
30
5
10
15
7
Cf. Gal. 6:14. On the theological opposition «soulless–ensouled» in the Iconoclastic Controversy, see V. A. BARANOV, The Role of Christ’s Soul-Mediator in the Iconoclastic Christology // 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. 8
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, unrestrictedly 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 victorious 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 imaginum 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 (Nicephorus?) 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).
12
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
20
25
30
5
10
15
20
15
Ps. 46:6 (King James [KJ]: Ps. 47:5). 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). 16
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. For we see how the Cross was sanctified through such voluntary and holy nailing and turned into blessing. Yet you do not see that, and venerate the sanctified Cross, but do not venerate the depicted image of the One who sanctified it nor accept it. But what do those of little faith say, who do not want to rightly divide the word of truth, moreover do not know it: The idols of the heathens are silver and gold, the work of men’s hands. They have mouths, but they speak not; eyes have they, but they see not, and so on. Was it not of these that David, the Forefather of God, sang in the past?
3. Oh, insanity, oh, lack of faith, oh, evil doctrine! Come and see, all who can see, how the letter kills but the spirit gives life. For David sang of these in his word about the idols of the heathens and not about Christian icons. So Christian icons are not considered gods by those who think in the right way. We depict with material colours the image of Our Lord Jesus Christ according to us, by this raising our mind to his divine and immaterial [nature]. For being God and incircumscribable, he did not neglect to become a circumscribable man for the sake of man, and moreover unto majesty. You know the remembrance of his conception and Nativity, His growing and Baptism, innumerable multitudes of signs and miracles, as well as the slandering by the
14
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
25
30
5
10
15
20
25
21
Most likely:
(cf. Ps. 31:9 [KJ: Ps. 32:9]).
V. A. Baranov
15
Jews, [His] Transfiguration on Mount Tabor, Passion on the Cross, three-day Burial, Festal and Glorious and Bright Resurrection, [His] Entrance to the disciples through the closed doors in Zion, Ascension to the Heavens, and again, His fearful Coming.22 And we do not name the painted image God, the Creator of heaven and Earth, of the sea and the abysses, of all things visible and invisible. Let there not be such a thing!23 For this is the work of the madness of the Hellenes and of the godless pagans!
4. If some say such things, let them be covered with shame and disgrace for it is they who sin and not we. But we contemplate God for the sake of those true prophesies as it was spoken. For He was Incarnated for the sake of His mercy according to us from the Holy Spirit and Mary, the Ever-Virgin and the Mother of God, who is the One, Consubstantial to God and the Father, Consubstantial Son and God, in two natures but in one image,24 unmixed, immutable, unchangeable, divisible and indivisible, worshipped by all the faithful. For it is needed to depict in God’s churches [the things] rightly foresaid by the prophets and divine Gospels through the narrated words which were fulfilled in deed for the assurance of those who accept the narrator. Instead of bulls and lions, horses and mules, sheep and goats, birds and the like,25 is it not more appropriate for the beauty of God’s Church to erect Ñf. John of Damascus, Apology I, 8. 59–67 [=Apology III, 8], [KOTTER, 82–83]; the Epistle of Pope Gregory II to Patriarch Germanus mentions the following scenes in a similar context: the Nativity and Veneration of the Magi, Meeting, Flight into Egypt, various miracles of Christ, His Passion, Resurrection and Ascension (J. D. MANSI, Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio (Florence—Venice, 1759–1798) Vol. 13 [hereafter: MANSI 13]. 96AC); the Adversus Constantinum Cabalinum gives the list of scenes worthy of depiction in: PG 95, 313D–316A). 23 On the very important issue of the circumscribability of Christ according to his human nature in the icon theology of Patriarch Nicephorus, see P. ALEXANDER, Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople: Ecclesiastical Policy and Image Worship in the Byzantine Empire (Oxford, 1958) 199, 206f; Ch. VON SCHÖNBORN, L’icône du Christ: Fondaments théologiques (Paris, 1986) 204f. The third Antirrheticus of Theodore the Studite is also dedicated to the issue of circumscribability (PG 99, 389–436). 24 Perhaps, an «interpretative» Slavonic translation, since in Georgian this is translated by the standard «hypostasis». A similar translation one may see in chapter 19 of the Apology. The correlation of image and hypostasis plays a very important role in the theology of Theodore the Studite (VON SCHÖNBORN, L’icône du Christ… 223–227) and for the whole later Iconophile tradition. 25 Cf. John of Damascus, Apology I, 20.10–15 [KOTTER, 96]). In the Georgian version the «sea animals» are added to the list. 22
16
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
30
5
10
15
20
25
30 26
Cf. Jn. 10:38. Most likely, Greek pra/gma — «deed, matter». 28 Ex. 17:11–13. 29 Gen. 47:31; Cf. Apology I, 8.81–82 [KOTTER, 83]; ñf. the Epistle of Patriarch Germanus to Thomas of Claudiopolis (H. G. THÜMMEL, Die Frühgeschichte der ostkirchlichen Bilderlehre. Texte und Untersuchungen zur Zeit vor dem Bilderstreit (Berlin, 1992) (TU 139) 382.164). 27
V. A. Baranov
17
and paint in a sacred manner God’s holy and honorable icons which are a self-speaking book, and the remembrance of the continuous true manifestation, and a brief narration, and moreover, for the sake of those ignorant who do not know the Scriptures?30 5. Not continuing our word about such things, let us move on to other things of ignorance. Bring again the word about the veneration of the divine and honourable icons, and having written a most true word, we will show those who suffer from knowledge, the gathering of the heretics, that those who do not honour the icon of our Saviour Jesus Christ, should not venerate His divine and Life-giving Cross. For I will ask you: as the Father is in the Son, and the Son is in the Father, in the same way the Image is in the Cross and the Cross is in the Image, for the Cross and the Image are the same thing. Moses the God-beholder showed this when he defeated sensible Amalek, stretching his arms crosswise on the mountain, representing through himself the Cross as in an Image, that is Jesus in the Cross for the sake of our flesh, and the Cross in Jesus Christ. For the one who honors and venerates His honorable Cross also in honor venerates His honorable Image, and being human-like according to the visible representation, he is represented through human hands by means of material paints.31
6. If there is a spark of unbelief and it burns your mind, and you think me wrong, I beg you to tell me asking, the rod of Joseph, to which Jacob bowed down, signified the bowed person himself or was it the image of Jesus vene-
30 John of Damascus as well calls icons «books for the illiterate» (bi/blouj a)gramma/twn) (Apology III, 9,59–60 [KOTTER, 99]). 31 Ñf. Theodore the Studite, PG 99, 697BC. The same example of Moses’ arms lifted up is used in other sources of the Iconoclastic time: the Canon on the Exaltation of the Cross by Cosmas the Hymnographer (see ÊÀÆÄÀÍ, Èñòîðèÿ âèçàíòèéñêîé ëèòåðàòóðû
153) and in the Iconoclastic inscription of a certain Sergius from the collection of Iconoclastic inscriptions, quoted and refuted by Theodore the Studite (PG 99, 437A).
18
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
5
10
15
20
25
30
32
Cf. Mk. 8:18.
V. A. Baranov
19
rated? Did it not show Him honored and venerated? Yes, indeed, I say unto you, that the one who does not honor the Son, does not honor the Father. So, the one who does not venerate this historical sacred representation, the icon of our Lord Jesus Christ, will neither be ever able to confess His divine Incarnation other than as a reverie.33 Let such be in every way anathema! Let us leave a hostile devil, an unclean spirit, to those wretched Iconoclasts, and to the repudiators of saints, who say that one should not venerate the icon of Christ, let there be anathema. But we have said already as Moses assured us, that the Cross and the icon are the same thing. In cutting off the icon as not venerable, then let the right wood of the Cross similarly be cut off, which makes the image.
7. If this will happen, what will you then venerate, oh puffed up and ignorant people! Truly, if you have ears to hear and eyes to see, it is nothing other than the form of the literal letter,34 as you have been told, so that understanding what was spoken you would understand and correct yourselves. But if you decree that the beautiful and sacred image of Our Savior Jesus Christ should in no way be venerated because it was depicted by a hand made of dust, making the accusation its being made by hand, tell me, as I again want to ask you: from the Forefather Adam and until now, what is not made-byhands in the whole world? You cannot show me anything of that kind. The only things not made-by-hands are those which our unfalse God desired to create solely with His Word, and fulfilled by the Holy Spirit.
33 Ñf. The Epistle of Patriarch Germanus to Thomas of Claudiopolis (THÜMMEL, Die Frühgeschichte der ostkirchlichen Bilderlehre… 381.147f), and Patriarch Germanus’ Epistle to John of Synnada (Ibid. 375.42). 34 The comparison of the Cross with the letter «tau», and thus, allusion to the T-shaped Cross, mentioned in the Epistle of pseudo-Barnabas 9,8 (the Greek text of the Epistle is: Épitre de Barnabé / Eds. R. A. KRAFT, P. PRIGENT (Paris, 1971) (SC 172); on the T-shaped Cross, see «Kreuz» // Reallexikon zur Byzantinische Kunst / Ed M. RESTLE. Bd 5. (Stuttgart, 1995) 2–218, the images are on pp. 25–26) is present only in the Georgian version. Apparently the Slavonic translator or scribe omitted it as incomprehensible and in this way simplified the original argument of the author.
20 5
10
15
20
25
30
5
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
V. A. Baranov
21
8. Both before Noah and after Noah, before Abraham and after Abraham, before Moses and after Moses, before Solomon and after Solomon, the Lord’s altars were set up by men. But they could not create anything uncreated or unmixed or unpainted or not made-by-hands. We see all these things that are of human hands. Similarly God spoke in Moses’ tabernacle in the midst of Cherubim made-by-hands, and the divine Spirit of the Lord lived in Solomon’s Temple made-by-hands. And those who want will find these things in the Old [Testament] and many more things while in the New, that is after the Incarnation of God’s Word. Are there not holy altars made-by-hands created in the whole world, upon which there were erected crosses, some made of gold, some of silver, and some made of copper and iron, and from various [types] of wood? And all of the liturgical vessels of the Church, are they not of human hands? Both they are and they will be. And upon the thankfulness and divine calling of the Most-holy and Life-giving Spirit, the bread of the Offering becomes truly divine flesh. Is it not mixed and broken into pieces by an earthly hand? And according to what has been said before, in receiving and believing without deceit in the divine and saving Blood, is the wine of the divine chalice not made by human hands? Indeed you will tell me, yes.35
35 The standard list of man-made objects (the Cross, the Book of the Gospels and the Eucharist; sometimes church vessels and altar tables are included), whose holiness was accepted without saying, both by the Iconodules and by the Iconoclasts, is often mentioned in the anti-Iconoclastic polemics: MANSI 13, 241CD, 249A, 269D–272A; John of Damascus, Apology I, 15 (KOTTER, 88.14f); Nouthesia gerontos (Á. Ì. ÌÅËÈÎÐÀÍÑÊÈÉ , Ãåîðãèé Êèïðÿíèí è Èîàíí Èåðóñàëèìëÿíèí, äâà ìàëîèçâåñòíûõ áîðöà çà ïðàâîñëàâèå â VIII âåêå [George of Cyprus and John of Jerusalem, two little known fighters for Orthodoxy in the eighth century] (ÑÏá., 1901) XVII); Adversus Constantinum Cabalinum (PG 95, 325B); Adversus Iconomachos (PG 96, 1352AB); Theodore the Studite (PG 99, 497Af); Epistle of the Three Patriarchs (Texte zum byzantinischen Bilderstreit: der Synodalbrief der drei Patriarchen des Ostens von 836 und seine Verwandlung in sieben Jahrhunderten / Ed. H. GAUER (Frankfurtam-Main, 1994) (Studien und Texte zur Byzantinistik 1) 52.27–43). On the theological significance of the term «not made-by-hands» in the polemics of the Iconoclastic time, see Â. À. ÁÀÐÀÍÎÂ, Èêîíîáîð÷åñêèå ñïîðû è áîãîñëîâñêîå çíà÷åíèå Íåðóêîòâîðíîãî îáðàçà [Iconoclastic controversy and the theological significance of the Image «Not Made-by-hands»] // Âèçàíòèÿ è ñîâðåìåííûé ìèð. Ìàòåðèàëû âòîðîé íàó÷íî-ïðàêòè÷åñêîé êîíôåðåíöèè ïàìÿòè âèçàíòèéñêîé èìïåðèè. Ïÿòûé ìåæäóíàðîäíûé ôåñòèâàëü «Ýõî Ýëëàäû», Íîâîñèáèðñê, ìàðò 2003 ã. [Byzantium and the modern world. The materials of the second scholarly-practical conference in the memory of the Byzantine Empire. The fifth international Festival «The Echo of Hellas», Novosibirsk, March, 2003] / Ïîä ðåä. Ì. Í. Áóñèê-Òðîôèìóê (Íîâîñèáèðñê, 2006, forthcoming).
22
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
10
15
20
25
30
5
10
36
Ps. 95:13 (KJ: Ps. 96:13). Mt. 16:27. 38 Jer. 11:19. 39 Jn. 19:15. 40 Mt. 27:25. 37
V. A. Baranov
23
9. And we honor with hope and venerate these all with fear and honor, and believe them to be holy and God’s. For what reason is only the icon of our Savior Jesus Christ blasphemed by your irrepressible mouths? Oh savagery, oh woe! Oh terrible wonder! For if we dishonor an earthly king, we receive such vengeance from him! Those who dare this then are given over to deathly judgment, for the king says to them: “Because you dishonored and afflicted me while I was absent, as if present due to my image, thus I command to kill you with a ferocious and fatal death.”41 If these things are done in this way, what will then the heavenly and immortal, and eternal king do to you, great-talkers and blasphemers, who is dishonored by you for the sake of his honorable and most-honorable icon, when he will come to judge the world in righteousness and reward every man according to his works, disbelief or faith?
10. Oh fear, oh trembling! Oh painful torment, which will afflict you at that time! If you do not repent, you will be counted with those, whom the Prophet foreseeing revealed, who made slander upon the Lord — he speaks in their name: let us put the [poisonous] wood into his bread, and hide him alive under the earth. Saying this he manifestly showed the Jews, fighters against God, who, when the prophecy had come true, cried out to Pilate: “Away with him, away with him, crucify him!” “His blood be on us, and on our children”. But many times you also destroyed and burnt all sorts of icons, and shamelessly spit and trampled and completely broke them, and made a council to hide and make unknown and to commit to the depths with a stone the icon, similar in form to the Body of the Divine Word. And if anyone
41
Cf. Fragments 1 and 2 of Theodore of Mopsuestia, who interprets creation in the image of God, comparing it to the Emperor’s image, which was left in the city after his departure (F. PETIT, L’homme créé «à l’image» de Dieu. Quelques fragments grecs inédits de Théodore de Mopsueste // Mus 100 (1987) 275–277). Our text is especially reminiscent of the Riot of Statues in Antioch in 387, when in response to the rise in taxation the city population overthrew the statues of the Emperor, after which both the City and the rioters were severely punished by Theodosius I (on the Riot see R. BROWNING, The Riot of A.D. 387 in Antioch: The Role of the Theatrical Claques in the Later Empire // Journal of Roman Studies 42 (1952) 13–20). On the Byzantine Imperial cult see: G. DAGRON, Empéreur et prêtre: étude sur le cesaropapisme byzantin (Paris, 1996); M. MCCORMICK, Eternal Victory. Triumphal Rulership in Late Antiquity, Byzantium, and the Early Medieval West (Cambridge, 1986).
24
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
15
20
25
30
5
10
42
Cf. Mt. 27:24. Mt. 26:24. 44 Jn 6:30, cf.: Mt. 16:1. 45 Mt. 16:4; Mt. 12:39. 43
V. A. Baranov
25
washes [his hands] in front of you like Pilate saying, “I am clean from your blood, you see to it,” you would exclaim in the manner of the Jews: “Let every icon be taken, and let this iniquity be upon our heads!”
11. Oh deception, oh diabolic schemes! Oh fatal theft! Be terrified, oh man, thinking of these, and do not be a slanderer of yourself, imagining yourself standing while you have cruelly fallen down. Rise up, oh man, and repenting, you will be saved. If you will be excommunicated with the Jews, it would be good for you if you had not been born, according to the word of the Lord. The heretics, childish in their minds, said this in any time and in any place, and about every thing: “If you want”, [they] said to the master, “us to listen to your teaching, show us an iconic sign from the heaven, like the Crosslike [sign] out of stars,46 and having believed, we will venerate it.” This is similar to what was said by the Jews to the Lord Jesus Christ: “teacher, what sign would you show us from the heaven so we believe you?” But the Lord told them the following words, which we also tell you. Thus says the Lord, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for an iconic sign from heaven and it shall not be given unto it except in my earthly heaven, that is in the Church”. For the Cross was on high for the sake of one or many people of good faith, but until this day for such and for many unbelievers, the Cross and the icon will cause similar things to that wicked generation.
46
Emperor Constantine I’s vision of the starry Cross in the sky on the eve of the battle with Maxentius at the Milvian bridge is described by the majority of historians: Eusebius, Vita Constatnini I. 28f (F. WINKELLMAN, Eusebius Werke. Erster Band. Erster Teil. Über das Leben des Kaisers Constantins (Berlin, 1975, repr. 1991) 29–31); Socrates, Ecclesiastical History I, 2 (PG 67, 37Af); Sozomenos, Ecclesiastical History I, 3 (J. BIDEZ, G. C. HANSEN, Sozomens Kirchengeschichte (Berlin, 1960) (Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller 50) 11–12); Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum, 44, 4–6 (Lactance. De la mort des persécuteurs / Ed. J. MOREAU (Paris, 1954) (Sources Chrétiennes 39) 126–127). See also M. DI MAIO, J. ZEUGE, N. ZOTOV, Ambiguitas Constantiniana: The Caeleste Signum Dei of Constantine the Great // Byz 58 (1988) 333–360; F. HEILAND, Die astronomische Deutung der Vision Kaiser Konstantins // Sondervortrag im Zeiss-Planetarium-Jena (Jena, 1948), 1f; T. D. BARNES, The Conversion of Constatine // Echos du Monde Classique/Classical Views n.s. 4 (1985) 371–391; H. GRÉGOIRE, La vision de Constantin «liquidée» // Byz 14 (1939) 341–351; A. H. M. JONES, The Fortuitous Event // The Conversion of Constantine / Ed. J. EADIE (New York, 1971), 89–98; P. WEISS, Die Vision Constantins // Colloquium aus Anlass des 80. Geburtstages von Alfred Heuss. Frankfurter althistorische Studien 13. / Ed. J. Bleicken (Kallmünz, 1993) 143–169.
26
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
15
20
25
30
5
10
15
47
Ps. 32:10–11 (KJ: Ps. 33:10–11). An allusion to the text of the Cherubic Hymn: «Let us who mystically represent the Cherubim and who sing the thrice-holy hymn to the life-creating Trinity, now lay 48
V. A. Baranov
27
12.To Belial, the initiator of evil, seducer and deceiver, we will say what we had said before: “Woe to you, devil, and all of your servants! Woe to you, devil, and all of your service! Woe to you, devil and all of your reasoning! Woe to you, devil, and all of your incurable violence! Woe to you, devil, and all of your insatiable will! Together with those of like mind, in casting out the holy icons you wanted to preach the divine Incarnation of the Word to be believed as a reverie. But woe to you and your accomplices, all-cunning demon!49 As the Divine Spirit says through the Prophet, “The Lord brings the councils of the heathen to naught, sweeps aside the thoughts of people, and sweeps aside the councils of princes. The Council of the Lord stands forever”. But having left you, I am now fighting with this renegade and evil servant. For I want you, I want your salvation that is in God, I seek your rising from the fall and correction. But one, having fallen from the very beginning due to his arrogance and pride, does not hope to rise.
13. But you, brethren sober up from your drunkenness, I beg you, wake up from your sleep — I mean your foolishness. Rise from your wild fall, for you can if you want to. You see how God, incircumscribable by His nature, manifested Himself to our fathers and prophets, patriarchs and kings, in shadows and images, in shadows and riddles, appearing to them according to their measure. Such are the noetic Cherubim mysteriously represented on the earth, and because of this representation the thrice-holy hymn is brought to the thriceholy and the most holy, consubstantial and life-giving Trinity. Learn how
aside all cares of this life…». On the Hymn, see: R. TAFT, The Great Entrance: A History of the Transfer of Gifts and Other Pre-anaphoral Rites in the Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom (Rome, 1975) 53–118. Cf. Patriarch Germanus, Historia Mystagogica, 34–35 (F. BRIGHTMAN, The Historia Mystagagogica and other Greek Commentaries on the Byzantine Liturgy // JTS 9 (1908) 265.29–266.17). 49 A similar accusatory speech addressed to the devil appears in John of Damascus, Apology II, 6 (KOTTER, 72).
28
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
20
25
30
5
10
15
50
Mt. 3:16. Cf. Rev. 6:12f. 52 Cf. Mt. 24:30. 51
V. A. Baranov
29
when the Lord Jesus was baptized in the Jordan, the Holy Spirit descended in the form of a dove. Admonish how as a great fiery pillar Basil of the great name in a similar image to this divine and most pure dove, made a dove from pure gold and hung it over the altar.53 Learn how the thrice-blessed and allvenerable Mary of the harlots conversed with the icon of the most-holy pure Mother of God as if it was animated, and received such adoption and intercession, that named the holy Mother of God her guarantor for the sake of Her icon.54
14. Learn this, I beg you, my beloved friends and brethren, and in no way oppose the truth. So that walking on a cliff and precipice, you not throw yourselves down forever into the pit of disbelief and perish unto the ages of ages. And you try to say in protest, “when the heavenly powers tremble in the dreadful and terrible coming, when the heavens change, the sun grows dark, the moon disappears, the stars fall down, the earth shakes, the sea dries out, how or where will be manifested this material icon, which you, oh man, teach us to venerate?”
15. I say again, that, oh brethren, the shadow of the Law ended with the coming of grace. In this way, when the beauty of the original image which 53
This practice is mentioned among the accusations of Monophysite Philoxenus of Mabbug concerning Iconoclastic actions — prohibition of liturgical doves, a number of which have survived until now (MANSI 13, 179f). Severus of Antioch also struggled with this practice, although the motives of both bishops were probably far from the Iconoclasm, ascribed to them (S. BROCK, Iconoclasm and the Monophysites // Iconoclasm, Papers given at the Ninth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, University of Birmingham, March 1975 / Eds. A. Bryer, J. Herrin (Birmingham, 1977) 53–54). 54 See the Life of Mary of Egypt (PG 87.3, 3713Af; M. GEERARD, Clavis Patrum Graecorum. Vol. 3 (Brepols—Turnhout, 1979) ¹ 7675). The fragment with the miracle from the icon of the Virgin appears in the florilegium of John of Damascus, Apology III, 135 [KOTTER, 198–199], in the florilegium of the Second Council of Nicaea (MANSI 13, 85D–89A), and in the florilegium in defence of icons of the Ms. Parisinus Graecus 1115 (A. ALEXAKIS, Codex Parisinus Graecus 1115 and Its Archetype (Washington, 1996) (Dumbarton Oaks Studies 34) 200–201).
30
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
20
25
55
The closest Scriptural allusion for the passage seems to be Heb. 10:1 — «For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things…». The first part «the shadow of the Law has ended up…» (h( skia\ tou= no/ mou parh=lqe) appears in pseudo-Athanasius of Alexandria, Synopsis scripturae sacrae (PG 28, 413,7). A closer parallel is the Sunday Theotokion of the Second Tone of the Orthodox Church (the composition of the Theotokia is traditionally ascribed to the contemporary of Patriarch Germanus John of Damascus): ïðPéäå ñíü çàêhííàÿ, ábãîä@òè ïðèøPäøè: °êîæå áî êóïèíA íå ñãàð@øå ¼ïàëåìà: ò@êÌ ä2à ðîäèëA MñT, U ä2à ïðåáûëA MñT. âìñòî ñòîëïA ½ãíåííàãî, ïð@âåäíîå âîçñÈ ñbíöå: âìñòî ìÌÉñPÿ, õròhñú, ñïàñPíÈå ä}øú í@øèõú [The shadow of the law has passed now that grace has come, for as the Bush in flames was not consumed, so as a Virgin you bore a Child and remained a Virgin; instead of a pillar of fire the Sun of righteousness has dawned, instead of Moses Christ, the salvation of our souls]. The author of the Apology either uses the Theotokion itself or a common Patristic source with the author of the Theotokion, which we were unable to identify. 56 Ñf. Stichera of the First Tone at the Little Vespers of the Feast of Transfiguration of the Orthodox Church (the same stichera is repeated at the Aposticha): Væå ñú ìÌÉñPîìú ãëàãhëàâûé äðPâëå íà ãîð ñÈí@éñòýé ½áðàçû, ãëàãhëÿ, Cçú Nñìü á3ú ñé: äíPñü æå íà ãîð Ôàâºðñòýé ïðåÌáð@æüñÿ, íà÷àëîÌáð@çíîå ïîêàçA ëó÷@ìè ¼áëèñò@ÿñÿ. òìæå, õròQ, âåëè÷@þ òâî ñSëó. [The One who talked to Moses on Mount Sinai through images, saying «I am the God that I am», now transfiguring on Mount Tabor, showed the original image shining with rays. Therefore, oh Christ, I magnify Thy power]. The passage in our Apology alluding to the Transfiguration shows a classical Patristic parallelism between the Transfiguration and the Second Coming (see J. A. MCGUCKIN, The Transfiguration of Christ in Scripture and Tradition (Lewiston, 1986) (Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity 9) passim) and thus reinforces the continuity between the transfigured yet retained human image of Christ in the Transfiguration being the same as His image of the Second Coming. On the notion of the Transfiguration as a New Testament fulfillment of the Old Testament Mosaic revelation in John of Damascus, see V. A. BARANOV, Origen and the Iconoclastic Controversy // Origeniana Octava. Origen and the Alexandrian Tradition / Ed. L. PERRONE. Vol. 2 (Leuven, 2003) (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 164) 1048. 57 Basil the Great, De Spiritu Sancto, 18, 45 (PG 32, 149C). 58 Mt. 25:21.
V. A. Baranov
31
was assumed from the Virgin, then will fearfully shine with divine rays, the material and all-honored iconic vision will end. But the homage, and honor, and veneration, that we pay for the sake of these to God, who became man for our sake will not be depleted. For we wait to receive a reward from Him, having heard that “the honor of an icon is passed over to its prototype.” Because of this, he who is faithful over a few things, is faithful over many.
32
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
30
5
10
15
20
25
30
5 59
1 Tim. 2:4. Ps. 118:106 (KJ: 119:106). 61 2 Tim. 2:25. 60
V. A. Baranov
33
If until now we have said many things to you and mentioned only the iconic veneration of the Master and Savior, do not be surprised. It was suitable for us to disclose first the spring to the thirsty, and then the rivers, that is, the honorable and desirable icons of all the saints.
16. By this the disciples of the Church, who philosophize piously and in an orthodox manner, are thus commanded: do not accept those into communion, and do not greet them, and do not admix with them in any way, until they turn into the knowledge of the truth through repentance.
17. And if some of them say, “we have sworn to not venerate any icon at all, this is why we withdraw from dwelling with the orthodox”. Let such a person know what would have been useful for Herod, if only he had broken his oath and did not kill the Forerunner — for the Prophet says: “I have sworn, and I will perform it, that I will keep thy righteous judgments”. And what he says is this: He says he has “sworn to keep thy righteous judgments”, and not to transgress thy divine commands. And to not keep but to transgress, he neither swore nor performed. For the lawless and cursed Herod fulfilled what he swore, and became the consumption of the eternal fire. He ought by no means swear for the sake of pleasing people, and not God, even if he will be compelled by a deadly persecution. If this is the case, let such repent and escape defiled things, for fearful is the judgment of such an oath, upon those who dumbly swore such things upon the doing of the destroyer and fighter of God.
18. Since as the Apostle says “in meekness one ought to instruct those who oppose themselves”, I will again say a small thing to them for the sake of
34
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
10
15
20
25
30
5
62
Cf. the Definition of the Second Council of Nicaea (787), which decrees to set up the holy representations «in God’s holy churches, on the sacred vessels and on clothes, walls and boards, in houses and on roads (e)n tai=j a(gi/aij tou= Qeou= e)kklhsi/ aij, e)n i(eroi=j skeu/sesi kai\ e)sqh=si, toi/coij te kai\ sani/sin, oi)k / oij te kai\ o(doi=j)» (MANSI 13, 377D). 63 These prayers, absent in the Georgian translation, have parallels in Adversus Iconomachos (PG 96, 1360C). 64 1 Tim. 1:15. 65 Cf. Jas. 2:10.
V. A. Baranov
35
mercy. Brethren, I beg your love in the Lord, as you wish, come all together in one mind, overcoming evil with love, and leaving behind the disbelief and seduction of your former foolishness. And we do not kiss the sacred images of our Lord Jesus Christ, depicted on walls and boards and on sacred vessels, and of the Most-pure Mother of God, His Mother according to the flesh, and not only these, but also of all the holy fathers of God, patriarchs, prophets, apostles and martyrs, and of the venerable monks, and of the women — of the holy women-martyrs, who because of their patience turned weakness into fortitude, as gods in the manner of pagan dumbness, since this is a heresy and the ruin of the soul, but we kiss those icons in a theological way as the sincere friends of God and thus say with prayer. If this is the Lord’s icon, we say: “O Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, help us and save us”. If this is of His Most-pure Mother, we say: “Holy Theotokos, the Mother of the Lord, pray to your Son, our true God, to save our souls”. And if of a martyr: “Oh, martyr of the Lord, who shed your blood for Christ, being bold, pray for us”. Similarly we say this about every righteous person and venerable monk. This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation, that this is not only harmless, but also intercedes for crowns. Let us, who despise the impious and deceitful faith of the heterodox, and think of ourselves as faithful, not hear:
19. “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” For it is not as some think that the veneration is a tempo-
36
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
10
15
20
25
*** The dating and the authorship of the Apology In general, in its argumentation and the issues discussed, the text shows a significant amount of correspondence with the polemic literature of the first Iconoclasm,66 and, first of all, with the Apologies in Defense of Images of John Damascene: both use the same comparisons, Scriptural examples and arguments. The early period of the Iconoclastic Controversy is also indicated by the lack of a clearly articulated Christological argument and a «didactical» argument on the importance of icons for the illiterate, which apparently later proved to be too weak to be used in defense of icons in comparison with more sophisticated arguments of a Christological and philosophical type. At the same time several points of our text are close to the theological elaborations of later Constantinopolitan Iconodulic authors, such as the argument on circumscribability, which was extensively used in particular by Patriarch Nicephorus, or the argument of the similarity of Cross and image on the basis of Moses’ figure with spread arms. The authorship of Patriarch Germanus is mentioned in the anachronistic title of the Apology and does not have direct support in the text. However, 66
See the corresponding notes above in the text of the Apology, and M. VAN ESUn discours inédits de saint Germain de Constantinople sur la Croix et les Icônes // OCP 65 (1999) 23. BROECK,
V. A. Baranov
37
rary honor, and then it will die out. But it will in the future by the grace of Christ, give reward due to faith, when the bodies of the saints will be conferred with shining more than the brightness of the sun, praying for us all to our Most-holy and Honorable and Most-blessed Glorious Lady Mother of God and Ever-virgin Mary, whose icon we venerated in honor, moreover will venerate ever, and of all the saints who pleased God from the ages. We in kissing have honored and will honor their wounds and sufferings for Christ according to the iconic representation. To our God, one in substance in three image-constitutions,67 we send our thankfulness, to Him be glory and power, honor and worship and splendor before all ages, now and ever and unto the ages of ages. Amen.
*** four arguments can be advanced against the dating of the Apology to the earliest stages of the Iconoclastic Controversy, falling into the Patriarchate of Germanus: 1) ex silentio, 2) the presence of the citation from the Definition of Nicaea II (787) in our text, 3) the argument against the canonical prohibition of icon veneration, and 4) explicit contradiction of the whole tenor of the Apology with the «moderate» position of Patriarch Germanus expressed in his authentic three Epistles to the Iconoclastic bishops of Asia Minor. Even if the citation of the text from the Definition of Nicaea II in our Apology (ch. 18) is a later interpolation, why did the treatise, if it had been written by the Champion and Confessor of Orthodoxy Patriarch Germanus, not appear at the Council of Nicaea II? For it would have been invaluable for supporting the position of the Iconodules, who cited three Epistles of the same Patriarch to the Iconoclastic bishops, which had much less polemical power than our Apology but were sanctified by the name of the Orthodox Champion. And our «Apology on the Cross and on the Holy Icons» in its Greek original form had to survive Iconoclasm to be translated into Georgian (on the date of the Slavonic translations we do not have sufficient data) three centuries later. The answer is that our Apology must have existed at the time
67 Most likely, another case of an «interpretative» Slavonic translation (see n. 24 for chapter 4 above).
38
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
of Nicaea II, given its general polemic tenor, Scriptural and Patristic examples, and the stage of the development of its argumentation, but was not yet ascribed to Patriarch Germanus and thus could not be used as an authoritative proof-text. The author in chapters 16–17, as it seems, refers to a certain document of canonical character which bound his adversaries not to venerate icons. Most likely our text refers not to some kind of a personal oath and not to a possible «secular» decision of the issue of the icons by an institute like the Imperial silentium,68 but their signature under a formal Synodocal document similar to the Definition of an Iconoclastic council (most likely of Hiereia, since we do not know of any other Iconoclastic councils prior to 754) with its canonical consequences and anathemas. Therefore the author appeals to withdraw from Eucharistic communion with the Iconoclasts, who «swore» not to venerate icons. If this is so, then our Apology has to be dated to the time after year 754. And finally, significant attention (chapters 14–15 and 19), which our author pays to the refutation of the argument that material icons possess only temporary (and thus relative) value, which will be canceled after Christ’s Second Coming and global transformation of the material universe. The Author of the Apology insists that the significance of the image does not depend on a time period, and image veneration will retain its saving value in the age to come. We may compare this position with the opinion of Patriarch Germanus, expressed in his Epistle, written in the very beginning of the Iconoclastic Controversy to his bishop Thomas of Claudiopolis. In this Epistle, that was cited at the Fourth Session of Nicaea II among other testimonies in defense of icons, the Patriarch thus addresses one of his bishops, who decided to destroy icons in his diocese. For justification of images, Patriarch Germanus uses the argument of «usefulness»: One should depict the image of the Lord according to the flesh on icons in the rebuke of the nonsense of heretics, [speaking] that He became man not in a true sense but in imagination; but also as a certain direction for those
68
In January, 730, Leo III convoked a silentium, a meeting of the high secular and ecclesiastical authorities, to endorse his edict against images. Patriarch Germanus refused to approve the document, insisting on a proper Synodical decision of the problem, and resigned from his post; his former synkellos Anastasius took the position of Patriarch to execute the Imperial Iconoclastic policy (Nicephorus, Short History, 62, ed. and trans. C. MANGO, Nikephoros Patriarch of Constantinople. Short History (Washington, 1990) (Dumbarton Oaks Texts 10) 130; Theophanes, Chronography / Ed. C. DE BOOR (Leipzig, 1883) 409; trans. C. MANGO, R. SCOTT, The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor (Oxford, 1997) 565). On the institute of silentium, see: A. CHRISTOPHILOPULU, Sile/ntion // BZ 44 (1951) 79–85.
V. A. Baranov
39
who are not strong to lift up to the height of spiritual contemplation but have a need in some bodily observation of what they have heard, inasmuch as it is useful and permissible.69
According to the opinion of Patriarch Germanus, one should not reject images, since they can be useful for the less «spiritual» members of the Church. The Patriarch mentions the Incarnation of Christ, yet he does so with polemical purposes, exactly as not long before Anastasius of Sinai did (d. after 700), who used the example of the Crucifix in his polemics with the Monophysites.70 At the same time St. Germanus does not insist, as will the next generation of Iconophile theologians, that icon veneration is indispensable for Orthodox as a testimony of Christ’s true humanity. Moreover, from the words of the Patriarch it can even follow that «those who lifted themselves up to the height of spiritual contemplation» may not need icons at all. We will not discuss here in detail the position of Patriarch Germanus, just noting that he simply follows here an old tradition of «moderate» or «practical» acceptance of sacred images, cut short by the Iconoclastic Controversy which sharply posed the question of «all or nothing» in regard to the cult of religious representations.71 In the light of this tradition and without the existing settlement of the question of icons in a Synodical way, this ambiguity may explain the wavering attitude of Patriarch Germanus at the time of the initiation of the Iconoclastic policies of Leo III since Patriarch Germanus had kept his post of the Head of the Church of Constantinople about four years after the first Iconoclastic actions of Leo, until the Imperial silentium, where he was forced to sign a document which was way too far for Germanus’ irenic attitude.72
To\ de\ tou= kuri/ou th=j kata\ sa/ rka i )de/aj e )n ei )ko/si tupou=sqai to\ n carakth=ra, ei )j e/l) egcon me/n e )sti tw=n fantasi/a| kai\ ou)k a)lhqei/a| a)n / qrwpon au )to\ n gene/sqai lhrwdou/ntwn ai(retikw=n, ceiragwgi/an de/ tina tw=n mh\ pa/nth ei )j to\ u(yhlo\ n a)na/ gesqai th=j pneumatikh=j qewri/aj exiscuo/ ) ntwn, a)lla\ deome/nwn kai\ tinoj swmatikh=j katanoh/sewj pro\ j th\ n tw=n a)kousqe/ntwn bebai/wsin. O /( son epwfele/ ) stero/n te kai\ perispoudasto/teron (MANSI 13, 116A = THÜMMEL, Die Frühgeschichte der ostkirchlichen Bilderlehre… 381.147–151). 70 A. KARTSONIS, Anastasis: The Making of an Image (Princeton, 1986) 40–67. 71 On this tradition see in more detail: Â. À. ÁÀÐÀÍÎÂ, Î ìàëîèçâåñòíîì äîèêîíîáîð÷åñêîì ó÷åíèè îá «óìåðåííîì» èêîíîïî÷èòàíèè [On the little-known preIconoclastic teaching of «moderate» Iconodulia] // Ìèð Ïðàâîñëàâèÿ 6 (Âîëãîãðàä, 2006, in print). 72 S. GERO, Jonah and the Patriarch // Vigilliae Christianae 29 (1975) 142–143. On the wavering attitude of Patriarch Germanus, see also P. KARLIN-HAYTER, The Age of Iconoclasm // La spiritualité de l’univers byzantin dans le verbe et l’image. Hommages offerts à Edmond Voordeckers. Instrumenta Patristica 30 (Turnhout, 1997) 138. 69
40
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
Therefore putting on one scale the arguments, mentioning Patriarch Germanus’ authorship in the anachronistic title of the Apology, and the arguments rather typical for the first Iconoclasm with the lack of stress on Christological or philosophical argumentation; and on the second scale all the discrepancies mentioned above, we may conclude, that our Apology constitutes a pamphlet against Iconoclasts of a rather popular level, comparable by its target audience to the anti-Iconoclastic Adversus Constantinum Cabalinum. As it seems, the Apology was composed after the Council of Hiereia of 754 and was interpolated after the Second Council of Nicaea (787), at that time still not under St. Germanus’ authorship, which in such case should be rejected. Recently there appeared an MA thesis, defended in 2005 at the Medieval Studies Department of the Central-European University and dedicated to the Georgian translation of the Homily: Natia GABRICHIDZE (Georgia), St. Germanos Patriarch of Constantinople in Old Georgian Translated Sources: Homily on the Cross and Icons.
–≈«fiÃ≈ ¬Î‡‰ËÏË ¿. ¡‡‡ÌÓ‚
Õ≈»«ƒ¿ÕÕ¿fl —À¿¬flÕ— ¿fl ¬≈–—»fl ´—ÀŒ¬¿ Œ –≈—“≈ » —¬fl“¤’ » ŒÕ¿’ª, œ–»œ»—¤¬¿≈ÃŒ√Œ œ¿“–»¿–’” √≈–ÿՔ ŒÕ—“¿Õ“»ÕŒœŒÀ‹— ŒÃ” (CPG 8033)  ñòàòüå ïðåäëàãàåòñÿ èçäàíèå ñëàâÿíñêîé âåðñèè àíòèèêîíîáîð÷åñêîãî ïîëåìè÷åñêîãî òðàêòàòà «Ñëîâî î Êðåñòå è ñâÿòûõ èêîíàõ, è ïðîòèâ åðåòèêîâ» ïî ðóêîïèñè íà÷. XVII â. ñáîðíèêå «Êíèãà ãëàãîëåìàÿ Ðàé. Ïîó÷åíèå ñâÿòûõ îòåö» (Òîáîëüñêèé ôèëèàë Ãîñóäàðñòâåííîãî àðõèâà Òþìåíñêîé îáëàñòè, ñîáð. ðêï. êíèã ¹ 229, ë. 218 îá.225 îá.) âìåñòå ñ àíãëèéñêèì ïåðåâîäîì òåêñòà. Ãðå÷åñêèé îðèãèíàë «Ñëîâà» íåèçâåñòåí, ãðóçèíñêàÿ âåðñèÿ «Ñëîâà» áûëà èçäàíà î. Ìèøåëåì âàí Ýñáðóêîì.  îáåèõ âåðñèÿõ «Ñëîâî» ïðèïèñûâàåòñÿ ñâ. Ãåðìàíó I Êîíñòàíòèíîïîëüñêîìó (715730); ýòîé æå àòòðèáóöèè ïðèäåðæèâàëñÿ è ïåðâûé èçäàòåëü òåêñòà.  ñòàòüå ïðåäëàãàåòñÿ àíàëèç àðãóìåíòîâ ïàìÿòíèêà â ñðàâíåíèè ñ ðàçâèòèåì ïðîáëåìàòèêè èêîíîáîð÷åñêîãî ñïîðà, îòðàæåííîé â äàòèðîâàííûõ ãðå÷åñêèõ ïàìÿòíèêàõ òîãî æå ïîëåìè÷åñêîãî æàíðà. Àâòîð ïðèõîäèò ê âûâîäó, ÷òî «Ñëîâî» ïðåäñòàâëÿåò ñîáîé ïàìôëåò ïðîòèâ èêîíîáîðöåâ äîñòàòî÷íî ïîïóëÿðíîãî óðîâíÿ, íàïèñàííûé ïîñëå ñîáîðà â Èåðèè 754 ã. è èíòåðïîëèðîâàííûé ïîñëå Ñåäüìîãî Âñåëåíñêîãî ñîáîðà. Àâòîðñòâî ïàòðèàðõà Ãåðìàíà â òàêîì ñëó÷àå äîëæíî áûòü îòâåðãíóòî.
Alessandro Bausi Universit‡´ degli Studi di Napoli ´LíOrientaleª
LA VERSIONE ETIOPICA DELLE RISPOSTE CANONICHE DI TIMOTEO I ATTRIBUITE A PIETRO DI ALESSANDRIA (CPG II, NR. 2520)* L’edizione e traduzione delle Risposte canoniche attribuite a Pietro di Alessandria continua una serie di contributi dedicati a singoli testi del Sinodos, la più importante collezione etiopica canonico-liturgica.1 Al pari dell’Epistola 70 di Cipriano di Cartagine, le Risposte canoniche hanno tradizione minoritaria, e sono tramandate da soli sette testimoni noti:2 1) Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, d’Abbadie 65, ff. 141vb–143ra (A);3 2) Ber* Abbreviazioni: DAE = E. LITTMANN, Deutsche-Aksum Expedition herausgegeben von der Generalverwaltung der königlichen Museen zu Berlin. Band IV. Sabaische, griechische, und altabessinische Inschriften (Berlin, 1913); EMML = Addis Ababa, Ethiopian Manuscript Microfilm Library; RIÉ = É. BERNAND, A. J. DREWES, R. SCHNEIDER, Recueil des Inscriptions de l’Éthiopie des périodes pré-axoumite et axoumite. 3 voll. (Paris, 1991–2000) (Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres). 1 Per una presentazione sintetica delle questioni mi permetto di rimandare a due miei lavori recenti, cfr. A. BAUSI, San Clemente e le tradizioni clementine nella letteratura etiopica canonico-liturgica // P. LUISIER (a c.), Studi su Clemente Romano. Atti degli Incontri di Roma, 29 marzo e 22 novembre 2001 (Roma, 2003) (OCA 268) 13– 55, spec. 27 sgg.; ID., The Aksumite background of the Ethiopic «Corpus canonum» // S. UHLIG (ed.), Proceedings of the XVth International Conference of Ethiopian Studies in Hamburg, 21.–25.7.2003 (Wiesbaden, 2003), ove si troverà indicata ulteriore bibliografia su edizioni e traduzioni, manoscritti e problemi specifici. 2 Per l’Epistola 70 cfr. A. BAUSI, L’Epistola 70 di Cipriano di Cartagine in versione etiopica // Aethiopica 1 (1998) 101–130, edizione che non ha potuto tener conto del ms. s (cfr. oltre), che tramanda tra l’altro l’Epistola 70 completa della lista dei mittenti e dei destinatari, cfr. ID., Cyprian of Carthage // EÆ I. 842; cfr. anche ID., Note aggiuntive sull’Epistola 70 di Cipriano: versione etiopica e versione siriaca // M. BERNARDINI, N. TORNESELLO (a c.), Studi in onore di Giovanni Maria d’Erme. Saggi di colleghi e amici in occasione del suo compleanno. 2 voll. (Napoli, 2005) (Series Minor) Vol. I. 99–109, per complementi e la discussione dei rapporti con la versione siriaca; tra gli altri mss. dell’Epistola 70, i mss. RU tramandano anche le Risposte canoniche. 3 Per la bibliografia relativa ai mss. ABR, cfr. A. BAUSI, Il Se¯nodos etiopico. Canoni pseudoapostolici: Canoni dopo l’Ascensione, Canoni di Simone Cananeo, Canoni Apostolici, Lettera di Pietro. 2 voll. (Lovanii, 1995) (CSCO 552–553; Scriptores Aethiopici 101–102) Vol. testo. xiv e xviii; per il ms. U, cfr. ID., L’Epistola 70 di
"
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
lin, Staatsbibliothek Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Ms. orient. Fol. 398, ff. 187rb– 188vb (B); Roma, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Borgiano etiopico 2, ff. 174vb–176ra (R); Uppsala, Universitätsbibliothek, O Etiop. 39, ff. 122rc–123va (U); Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Éthiopien 181, ff. 124va–125vb (p);4 Etiopia, Collezione privata, ff. 117va–119va (s); 7) Addis Ababa, National Library 239, pp. 186c–189c: di quest’ultimo testimone non è stato possibile tenere conto in questa edizione.5 Come già per l’Epistola 70 di Cipriano, anche per le Risposte canoniche il primato dell’identificazione del testo etiopico spetta a J. M. Wansleben,6 che riconobbe nel testo etiopico attribuito al vescovo Pietro di Alessandria (ca. 300–311) lo stesso testo corrente in greco sotto il nome del patriarca Cipriano... 105 sgg.; per il ms. p, cfr. M. CHAÎNE, Supplément au Catalogue des manuscrits éthiopiens de H. Zotenberg (1877–1912) // Catalogue des manuscrits éthiopiens de la Collection Antoine d’Abbadie (Paris, 1912) 153 sg. (ms. nr. 181); per il ms. s, che sarà oggetto a tempo debito di una presentazione adeguata, cfr. intanto J. MERCIER, La peinture éthiopienne à l’époque axoumite et au XVIIIe siècle // Académie des Inscriptions & Belles Lettres. Comptes Rendues (2000) 35–71, spec. 36, n. 6; BAUSI, The Aksumite background…, con ulteriori riferimenti. 4 L’edizione delle Risposte canoniche era già approntata (cfr. BAUSI, L’Epistola 70 di Cipriano... 106, n. 17) quando si è presentata l’opportunità di utilizzare i due testimoni aggiuntivi p, e soprattutto il prezioso s: nell’intenzione di non utilizzare per l’edizione di testi del Sinodos identiche sigle per testimoni diversi, i due sono stati indicati con sigle «non canoniche», normalmente riservate ad archetipi e subarchetipi. 5 Per questo ms. cfr. Catalogue of the Ethiopian Manuscripts in the National Library of Ethiopia (Addis Ababâ, 1962) 104 (ms. nr. 239), che ne è una semplice segnalazione; BAUSI, Il Sçnodos etiopico… Vol. testo. xxi, ove il ms., indicato con n, era stato utilizzato per la costituzione del testo dell’Indice melchita e dell’Indice copto, cfr. Ibid. Vol. testo. 1–8. Il ms. discende con tutta probabilità da un subarchetipo comune al ms. B, con il quale condivide un errore esclusivo e la perfetta sequenza dei testi, cfr. Ibid. Vol. testo. xxvi sgg. 6 Cfr. J. M. VANSLEBIUS, Conspectus Operum Aethiopicorum Quae ad excudendum parata habet R.P. Fr. Joan. Michael Vanslebius (Parisiis, 1671) 17: «IX. Sunt Responsa Canonica Petri Martyris Patriarchæ Alexandrini, ad quatuordecim quæstiones ipsi ab Episcopis, & Clero propositas, quæ tamen rectius Th. Balsamon in sua collectione Canonum Timotheo, ejusdem Urbis Episcopo adscribit. Hæc non habeo Arabice», in occasione della presentazione dell’edizione proposta per la stampa, e mai realizzata, sulla base del ms. R; riassunto anche in J. QUÉTIF, Scriptores ordinis praedicatorum recensiti. 2 voll. (Lutetiae Parisiorum, 1719–1721; rist. New York, 1959–1961) Vol. II. 693 sg.: «responsa canonica Petri martyris patriarchae Alexandrini». Nel 1666, come dimostra il suo «Index» nel ms. Firenze, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Magliabechiano Cl. III, Cod. 2, f. IIr «Nonnullae quaestiones et Responsiones», si era limitato ad una indicazione sommaria del contenuto, cfr. A. BAUSI, I manoscritti etiopici di J. M. Wansleben nella Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Firenze // Rassegna di Studi Etiopici 33 (1989 [1991]) 5–33, spec. 21.
A. Bausi
"!
alessandrino Timoteo I (380–384)7 . Nei cataloghi di mss. etiopici, la «riscoperta» della corretta identificazione del testo data al 1935.8 Entro l’ampia tradizione orientale9 delle Risposte canoniche, l’attribuzione a Pietro non si 7 Cfr. P.-P. JOANNOU, Discipline Générale antique (IVe–IXe s.). 4 voll. (Grottaferrata [Roma], 1962–1964) (Pontificia Commissione per la Redazione del Codice di Diritto Canonico Orientale. Fonti 9) Vol. II (Les canons des Pères Grecs, 1963) 240– 258; e già J. B. PITRA, Iuris ecclesiastici graecorum historia et monumenta. 2 voll. (Romae, 1864–1868; rist. Roma, 1963) Vol. I. 630–645; per le datazioni tengo conto di A. CAMPLANI, Atanasio di Alessandria: Lettere festali. Anonimo: Indice delle lettere festali (Milano, 2003) (Letture cristiane del primo millennio 34) 636. 8 Cfr. per il ms. A: A. D’ABBADIE, Catalogue raisonné de manuscrits éthiopiens appartenant à Antoine d’Abbadie (Paris, 1859), p. 78 (ms. nr. 65): «21. Questions à Saint Pierre»; CHAÎNE, Supplément au Catalogue… 44 (ms. nr. 65): nessuna segnalazione; per il ms. p, Ibid. 154, ms. nr. 181: «Questions disciplinaires»; C. CONTI ROSSINI, Notice sur les manuscrits éthiopiens de la collection d’Abbadie. Extrait du Journal Asiatique (1912–1914) (Paris, 1914) 167 (ms. nr. 152): «Comment les évêques et les prêtres interrogèrent l’évêque martyr Pierre, car il y avait un néophyte de sept ans»; per il ms. B, che omette l’incipit, A. DILLMANN, Die Handschriften-verzeichnisse der Königlichen Bibliothek zu Berlin. Dritter Band. Verzeichniss der abessinischen Handschriften (Berlin, 1878) 16 (ms. nr. 23): «ohne Überschrift: allerlei casuistischen Fragen aus dem canonischen Recht und Antworten darauf»; e finalmente, per il ms. R, S. GRÉBAUT, E. TISSERANT, Codices aethiopici Vaticani et Borgiani Barberinianus orientalis 2 Rossianus 865. 2 voll. (In Bybliotheca Vaticana, 1935–1936) (Bybliothecae Apostolicae Vaticanae codices manu scripti recensiti iussu Pii XI Pontificis maximi) Vol. I. 774 sg.: «Interrogationes XIII et responsa, hic sub nomine Petri ìAlexandrinií, alias sub nomine Timothei. Textum interrogationum XV graecum a Balsamone enarratum invenies» ecc., con rinvio alla trad. ed edizione del testo siriaco di F. NAU, Littérature canonique syriaque inédite // ROC 14 (1909) 1–49, 113– 130; Concile d’Antioche, lettre d’Italie, canons «des saints pères», de Philoxène, de Théodose, d’Anthime, d’Athanase etc. Textes et traductions d’après le ms. syriaque N. 62 de Paris et le ms. 12155 de Londres, avec un fragment syriaque de voyage de saint Pierre et seize pages de texte syriaque lithographié (Paris, 1909) (Ancienne littérature canonique syriaque 3), e cenni alla versione copta; per il ms. U, O. LÖFGREN, Katalog über die äthiopischen Handschriften in der Universitätsbibliothek Uppsala Sowie Anhänge über äthiopische Handschriften in anderen Bibliotheken und in Privatbesitz in Schweden (Uppsala—Stockholm, 1974) (Acta Bibliothecae R. Universitatis Upsaliensis 18) 114 (ms. nr. 35): «14 Fragen an den Bischof Petrus und seine Antworten», si limita al rinvio a GRÉBAUT, TISSERANT, Codices aethiopici… 9 Cfr. in sintesi CPG II, nr. 2520 (Responsa canonica). La versione araba nota risale al XVIII sec., cfr. G. GRAF, Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur. Erster Band. Die Übersetzungen (Città del Vaticano, 1944) (ST 118) 316. Per la tradizione siriaca, credo utile riportare alcuni complementi (cfr. già BAUSI, L’Epistola 70 di Cipriano... 106, n. 17, con ulteriori dettagli che qui non ripeto): la trad. del testo siriaco dal ms. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Syr. 62, in NAU, Littérature canonique syriaque... 35–37, seguita dalla pubblicazione del testo in facsimile, ID., Concile d’Antioche, lettre d’Italie…, era stata preceduta dall’edizione di F. SCHULTHESS,
""
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
configura come una degenerazione etiopica: la si ritrova tale e quale nella versione copta, ancora inedita;10 non la si ritrova invece nella versione siriaca, mentre la tradizione armena conosce un’attribuzione ad Atanasio.11 La tradizione etiopica si caratterizza poi nella sua totalità per l’omissione di una delle Risposte canoniche — la VII,12 — riducendo così a 14 il numero totale delle risposte, mentre ne contano 15 la tradizione orientale e la migliore greca; entro quest’ultima, una tradizione meno autorevole conosce un’aggiunta di ulteriori 14 risposte, per un totale di 29.13 Die syrischen Kanones der Synoden von Nicaea bis Chalcedon nebst einigen zugehörigen Dokumenten (Berlin, 1908) (Abhandlungen der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. Philologisch-historische Klasse N. F. 10/2) 153– 155, sulla base di cinque mss. (London, British Library, Add. 14526, Add. 14527 e Add. 14528; Roma, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Sir. 127; Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Syr. 62, cfr. dettagli, Ibid. v–ix); nuova edizione e trad. di A. VÖÖBUS, The Synodicon in the West Syrian Tradition. 4 voll. (Louvain, 1975– 1976) (CSCO 367–368, 375–376; Scriptores Syri 161–164) Testo, vol. I. 140–143; trad., vol. I. 138–141; dal ms. Dam. Patr. 8/11; cfr. ulteriori segnalazioni in W. SELB, Orientalisches Kirchenrecht. Band II. Die Geschichte des Kirchenrechts der Westsyrer (von den Anfängen bis zur Mongolenzeit) (Wien, 1989) (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse. Sitzungsberichte 543. Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für antike Rechtsgeschichte 6 Herausgegeben von Walter Selb) 111, n. 100, e pp. 120 sg.; per il ruolo del testo in Severo di Antiochia cfr. da ultimo H. KAUFHOLD, Welche Kirchenrechtsquellen kannte Patriarch Severos von Antiocheia (512–518)? // Ius canonicum in Oriente et Occidente. Festschrift für Carl Gerold Fürst zum 70. Geburtstag / Hrsg. H. Zapp, A. Weiß und S. Korta (Frankurt am Main, 2003) (Adnotationes in Ius Canonicum 25) 259–274, spec. 267. 10 Cfr. R.-G. COQUIN, Le Corpus Canonum copte. Un nouveau complément: le ms. I.F.A.O., Copte 6 // Orientalia, n.s. 50 (1981) 39–86, spec. 43 sg. e n. 18, che nel dare notizia del nuovo ms. ritorna su vari punti della collezione copta, correggendo le indicazioni in merito di CPG II, nr. 2520: «CPG, tome II, n° 2520; l’auteur renvoie pour la version copte à Crum, Der Papyruscodex 103 sq., mais Crum n’a pas édité ni traduit le début des Responsa canonica de Timothée, mais seulement la fin et les deux dihgh/mata ajoutés à leur suite dans notre Corpus canonum; on notera, en passant, que la version copte n’a que les quinze premières questions et réponses comme les meilleurs manuscrits grecs. Ce texte copte les attribue à Pierre, le prédécesseur de Timothée»; il riferimento è a W. E. CRUM, Der Papyruscodex saec. VI–VII der Phillippsbibliothek in Cheltenham: koptische theologische Schriften (Strassburg, 1915) (Schriften der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft in Strassburg 18). 11 Cfr. JOANNOU, Les canons des Pères Grecs... 238, n. 6; anche su questo punto tace CPG II, nr. 2520. 12 Probabilmente per omoteleuto, dato che le risposte VI e VII sono pressoché identiche, cfr. JOANNOU, Les canons des Pères Grecs... 244, ll. 4 sg. e 12, risposta VI: .U ¸ perqe/sqai o f) ei¿lei eÀwj aÄ n kaqarisqv=, e risposta VII: Ou k ) o )fei¿lei eÀwj aÄ n kaqarisqv=. 13 Cfr. JOANNOU, Les canons des Pères Grecs... 239, testo, e pp. 252–258, trad.
A. Bausi
"#
La pubblicazione della versione etiopica delle Risposte canoniche — testo di per sé trascurabile, a parte il ristretto interesse canonistico — si giustifica per più motivi: 1) fornisce il testo attendibile della versione etiopica delle Risposte, finora inedita, sulla più ampia tradizione attingibile; 2) conferma la necessità di prestare attenzione, entro la tradizione del Sinodos, ad una piccola costellazione di testi, prevalentemente di tradizione minoritaria che sembra ormai configurarsi come il residuo di una fase premedievale della tradizione canonico-liturgica, probabilmente risalente ad età aksumita e derivata, in parte o interamente, direttamente dal greco:14 se così è, è anche vero che della versione etiopica delle Risposte canoniche non possediamo la esatta Vorlage greca, come dimostrano sia le differenze di dettaglio sia la stessa attribuzione a Pietro, condivisa con la versione copta, e probabilmente risalente ad una recensione greca da cui dipendono le due versioni copta ed etiopica; 3) for14
Per questo punto cfr. BAUSI, San Clemente e le tradizioni clementine... 15–18; ID., The Aksumite background…, ove si troveranno ulteriori rinvii; per l’«ellenismo aksumita», cfr. G. FIACCADORI, Aethiopica Minima // Quaderni Utinensi 7 (13/14) (1989 [1993]) 145–164; ID., Un’epigrafe greca aksumita (RIÉth 274) // V. RUGGERI, L. PIERALLI (a c.), EUKOSMIA. Studi miscellannei per il 75° di Vincenzo Poggi S.J. (Soveria Mannelli [Catanzaro], 2003) 243–255; ed ID., Sembrouthes «Gran Re» (DAE IV 3 = RIÉth 275). Per la storia del primo ellenismo aksumita // La Parola del Passato 59 (2004) 103–157; tra le ultime acquisizioni di testi all’età aksumita si contano anche l’Omelia cattedrale XIV di Severo di Antiochia, cfr. D. V. PROVERBIO, Un frammento copto dell’omelia cattedrale L di Severo di Antiochia (In Leontium II) // Augustinianum 41 (2001) 517–520, spec. 518 (nei mss. London, British Library, Orient. 8192, ff. 134rb–136rb ed EMML 1763, ff. 270vb–272va, e 8509, ff. 151v–153r), ed un’omelia pasquale edita ancora dai citati mss. Orient. 8192, ff. 72va–77ra ed EMML 1763, ff. 201vb–204vb (cui ancora si accompagnava il ms. EMML 8509, ff. 92r–102r, cfr. FIACCADORI, Aethiopica Minima... 150, § IV, EMML 7602: il «Libro dei Santi» di Tullu Guddo, con ulteriori riferimenti), attribuita dagli editori O. RAINERI, TEDROS ABRAHA, Filone di Carpasia: un’omelia pasquale trasmessa in etiopico // RUGGERI, PIERALLI, EUKOSMIA... 377–398, assai reticenti su un’ipotesi di Vorlage, a Filone di Carpasia, ma tempestivamente identificata da S. J. VOICU, Filone di Carpasia e Pseudo Ippolito: di un’omelia pasquale tramandata in etiopico // Augustinianum 44 (2004) 5–24, almeno per una parte, con l’omelia In sanctum Pascha dello PseudoIppolito; sul ms. EMML 1763 cfr. i riferimenti in BAUSI, The Aksumite background… § 3.1 (Homily on the sabbaths). Direi ormai abbastanza sicura l’attribuzione all’età aksumita dell’Epistola 70 di Cipriano di Cartagine (cfr. BAUSI, L’Epistola 70 di Cipriano…; ID., Note aggiuntive sull’Epistola 70 di Cipriano…); solo possibile, con riserva, quella della Didascalia dei 318 niceni sulla retta fede e la vita monastica — cfr. ID., La versione etiopica della Didascalia dei 318 niceni sulla retta fede e la vita monastica // Ægyptus Christiana. Mélanges d’hagiographie égyptienne et orientale dédiés à la mémoire du P. Paul Devos bollandiste / Curr. E. Lucchesi, U. Zanetti (Genève, 2004) (Cahiers d’Orientalisme 25) 225–248, — che esula dalla categoria dei testi «di tradizione minoritaria».
"$
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
nisce un nuovo esempio di lingua di traduzione di età aksumita, segnata dai limiti e dalle forzature conseguenti all’esigenza di una resa fedele ed immediata, e, aggiungerei, non esposta all’opera continua di revisione cui fu sottoposto il testo biblico nel corso della sua tradizione; 4) infine, permette di identificare una citazione da «Pietro» nella Omelia sui sabati di Retu‘a Haymânot (l’Ortodosso),15 con la XII (aethiopice = XIII graece) delle Risposte canoniche, in una forma che evidenzia alcuni tratti di corruttela,16 e che suggerisce anche che il ms. EMML 1763 (testimone autorevole ed il più antico dell’Omelia, ante 1336/37 o 1339/4017 ) riflette un momento di passaggio cruciale tra la pura conservazione di testi della remota eredità aksumita e la costituzione di un corpus letterario più recente ed aggiornato.18 Seguono l’edizione critica e la traduzione del testo. Nella costituzione del testo, che, come si è accennato, presenta problemi linguistici non indifferenti, si è tenuto conto dei rapporti tra i testimoni come anche dei criteri interni; in pochi casi si è ritenuto di ricorrere a congetture.19 La traduzione non vuole 15 Cfr. G. LUSINI, Studi sul monachesimo eustaziano (secoli XIV–XV) (Napoli, 1993) (Studi Africanistici. Serie Etiopica 3) 130–175 (Appendice. L’omelia «Sui sabati». Testo e traduzione), spec. p. 158, ll. 12 sg., trad. p. 159, ll. 13 sg.; e BAUSI, The Aksumite background… § 3.1 (Homily on the sabbaths) per l’identificazione della citazione e la bibliografia ulteriore, compreso uno status quaestionis sul significato di questa ed altre citazioni entro l’Omelia sui sabati; il testo è tramandato nei mss. EMML 1763, ff. 37va–48va, Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Ms. orient. oct. 1269, ff. 71rb–88vb, e Roma, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Borgiano etiopico 2 (R della presente edizione), ff. 177r–185v (erroneamente in LUSINI, Studi sul monachesimo eustaziano... 17: «ff. 174r–182v», secondo una numerazione non più valida). 16 Cfr. la risposta XII, apparato dell’edizione e commento alla trad. 17 Cfr. GETATCHEW HAILE, W. F. MACOMBER, A catalogue of Ethiopian manuscripts microfilmed for the Ethiopian Manuscript Microfilm Library, Addis Ababa and for the Hill Monastic Manuscript Library, Collegeville. Vol. V: Project Numbers 1501– 2000 (Collegeville, Minnesota — St. John’s Abbey and University, 1981) 218; LUSINI , Studi sul monachesimo eustaziano... 21. 18 Come già ho avuto occasione di notare, cfr. BAUSI, The Aksumite background… §§ 3.1 (Homily on the sabbaths), 3.2 (Further evidence from MS EMML 1763), 4.4 (A role for Dabra Hñ ayq Est ifa¯nos?), con riferimenti ulteriori. 19 Oltre ad un archetipo (lo dimostra da sola l’omissione della VII risposta canonica), risulta chiaramente un subarchetipo comune ad RU (come risultava già per l’Epistola 70 di Cipriano, cfr. BAUSI, L’Epistola 70 di Cipriano... 109 sg.; cfr. le varianti I,14; II,6; V,13; XI,13; XII,4,14,15; XIV,8); probabile, ma non dimostrato, anche un subarchetipo comune ad ARU (cfr. III,7,13–14; XII,31: lezioni caratteristiche e non errori); come ugualmente probabile, nulla ostando, è la possibilità che s occupi da solo un ramo di uno stemma bifido, se si considerano, eccezionalmente, — in mancanza di errori — innovazioni significative individuanti un subarchetipo comune ad ABRUp le grafie normalizzate loro proprie, di contro ai numerosi arcaismi
A. Bausi
"%
essere (e aggiungerei: non può essere) niente di più che una guida all’interpretazione del testo edito, del quale quindi intende mantenere e rivelare tutte le difficoltà. Il testo in corsivo indica un’aggiunta necessaria per la resa del senso, in casi in cui si è ritenuto che ancora non ricorressero gli estremi per supporre una corruttela e proporre una congettura. Le annotazioni si limitato ai pochi passi per i quali si sono ritenute indispensabili.
Codices A B R U p s
Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, d’Abbadie 65, ff. 141vb–143ra. Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Ms. orient. Fol. 398, ff. 187rb–188vb. Roma, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Borgiano etiopico 2, ff. 174vb– 176ra. Uppsala, Universitätsbibliothek, O Etiop. 39, ff. 122rc–123va. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Éthiopien 181, ff. 124va–125vb. Etiopia, Collezione privata, ff. 117va–119va.
esclusivi di s (cfr. IV,5; V,11,18,21,22; VII,5; VIII,16; XI,5; XII,4,17,28; XIV,10), che in questa edizione, in ogni caso, sono stati intenzionalmente per lo più rigettati in apparato, nella convinzione che vadano discussi e commentati in un lavoro appositamente dedicato, e che non sia opportuno accoglierli ora a testo senza darne adeguatamente conto.
"&
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
Edizione del testo etiopico* [I ] aÕ:1 K:a2 o]Dê:3 ÄÂÄÂ\q: c\é]q: DíÃÂï]fÅÂ]:4 mkÆê%:5 [L%q:6 ÃÂí¹Y]:a7 aK:8 IÇ}:a9 }ê[:10 X]oñ¥}: [mkoë:11 $M:12 KAð: FAðe: éoë: ©©c:13 }: §cõXké:14 cÿXl{:15 kï¥MY: n: ocSk:16 M}o:17 KÏqé: }´kX:18 §kò:19 ¥¹Me: ]K: ´ïmkGíX:20 Ãé:21 [II] aÖ:1 o]Dê:a2 §kòDê:3 K:4 }ê[:5 X]oñ¥}:6 ³{ó}:7 noë: E%Dí@é: §Êeªê: Lªï@é: §}P: eªê[: 8 ¹Mco: 9 K: 10 KÏqé{ê:11 §8Ke: KAð: DNq:12 @D÷:13 §kò:14 ÄÂÄÂ]: aK:15 ï}ÃêI:a16 M³{ó}: K}Ê]:17 Xê]:18 ï§8Ke:19 K[:20 D²ïò: Nq: D{²ï©ö:21 kÃöG: §8Ke:22 [III] a×:1 o]Dê:a2 §kòDê: DK: kï¢:3 X]oñ¥}: éoë:4 w: ³{ó}:5 DK: §é~@é:6 cUmk:7 Deªê]: cÿXl}:8 §kò:9 ÄÂÄÂ]: DK: §òX:10 cÿXl}:11 DKAð: ï§ÆXÏ: §eSmk:12 aé]o:13 cÿXl}:a14 : qS: ¢D÷: kk:15 [}ko:16 X]oñ¥}:17
* Compendia: a. ante; add. addit; al. aliter; con. conieci; del. delevit; em. emendavit; om. omittit; p. post; in m. in margine; in r. in rasura; praep. praeponit; s.l. supra lineam; transp. transponit; (;, ;= etc.) distinxit. [I] 17 om. B; Õ: o]F: DÃÂí¹Y]: ÄÂÄÂ]: §kòF: k}o: }]G; U | 12 (om. B; al. U); K: Rp | 3 (om. B; al. U) o]Dê: ABRUp | 4 (om. B; al. U); DíÃÂí]: f" A | 5 (om. B; al. U); om. ARp | 6 (om. B; al. U); [L%q: p | 7 (;= s); (om. B; al. U); ÃÂíÃÂí¹Y]: p | 8-9 ]K: I" A; Õ: MIÇ|q: R; K– U; Õ: K: IÇ}: p | 10 "]: AUs | 11 ×: p; mk$oë: s | 12 (; A); $Kq: RU | 13 ©c: A; ©cc: U; ©cñc: p | 14 §cõXmk: Bp; ¥cõ" RU | 15 "}: s | 16 cXk: U | 17 "q: R; M}q{ð: p | 18 (; BRUp) | 19 §kò: p | 20 ´ïmk: p; ´ï: mkGíX: s | 21 (; ABRUp; ;= s). [II] 12 Ö: o]Dê: A; o[Dê: B; Ö: o]Dê RU; o]Dê: p | 3 om. A | 4 M: A | 5 "]: Bs | 6 éoë: add. RU | 7 "{ó{: AR | 8 "]: ABs | 9 (; Bp); "q: Bp | 10 om. A; K: BRUp | 11 "qé: BU | 12 DNo: A | 13 (; ABRUp) | 14 "kòDê: B | 15-16 KAð: }ÃêI: ABp; KAð: "G: R; ï}" U | 17 K" RU; K" s | 18 Xè]: U | 19 (; AU) | 20 KAð: p | 21 {²ï´: A; {²ï©ö: BRUp | 22 (; ABRUps). [III] 12 {in m. ×:} ×: o]Dê: A; o[Dê: B; ×: o]" RU; o]Dê: p | 3 "§: ABUp | 4 (; U) | 5 ³}}: R | 6 "~: ABp; §é}Að: U | 7 §eSmk: ARU | 8 (; BRUp) | 9 DKAð: §kò: B; §kò: RU | 10 §òX: Up | 11 (; B); "{: RU | 12 §cÿSmk: A | 13-14 cÿXl{: ARU | 15 k– U; kk– p | 16 "kq: A; [|mkq: B | 17 (; ABRUp; ;= s).
A. Bausi
"'
Traduzione [I] 1 In qual modo i metropoliti ed i presbiteri interrogarono il vescovo, beato martire, Pietro. Se è accaduto che un giovane catecumeno di sette anni, ovvero un adulto, sia entrato inconsapevolmente mentre offrono l’offerta eucaristica e l’ha ricevuta, che cosa conviene che facciamo? Disse: Lo battezzino, perché il Signore lo ha chiamato. [II] 2 Interrogarono e dissero: Se un catecumeno è ossesso da un demone ed i suoi parenti vogliono che riceva il santo battesimo, è conveniente che sia battezzato, tanto più se è prossimo alla morte? Disse il metropolita: Se non è purificato dal demone, spirito impuro, non sia battezzato, ma se è prossimo al momento della morte ed è giunto al momento della sua dipartita, sia battezzato. [III] 3 Interrogarono e dissero: Se è un cristiano battezzato ed è posseduto da un demone, gli è permesso di accostarsi alla santa offerta eucaristica? Disse il metropolita: Se l’offerta eucaristica ha l’effetto di richiamare in senno,20 e se egli non bestemmia, si accosti all’offerta eucaristica, e non di continuo, gli è sufficiente ogni domenica.
20
«se l’offerta eucaristica ha l’effetto di richiamare in senno»: traduzione fortemente ipotetica di DK: §òX: cÿXl}:; cfr. il greco (JOANNOU, Les canons des Pères Grecs... 242, l. 2): ¹Ea\n mh\ e)cagoreu/v to\ musth/rion, trad., Ibid. 242: «S’il ne divulgue pas le sacrement».
#
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
[IV] aØ:1 o]Dê:a2 §kòDê: DKn: §©ñ: }´:3 ï§F: oM~: @§L~q:4 ¥]okcÿê:5 [mkê:6 K: ¢@mk:7 ¹Mco: eªê[:8 }:9 I¥é: éoë:10 aK:11 KÏqé{ê:a12 {@n:13 §kò: ÄÂÄ]  : KÏqé: §}P:14 K: }ÃêI: éoë: K}Ê]:15 Xê]:16 [V ] aÙ:1 o]F:a2 §kòF:3 mk[ïq: DK: kòoq: M]D: Mp: {: ÃD÷o: 4 DK: §é|@é: 5 q}P: 6 cÿXl{: 7 §kò: ÄÂ Ä Â ] : ï§é~Ké:8 ]K: §ÃXy: ÄÂéD÷]: GX¥: §mkF:9 ïqqVGcë:10 kk§|oñKé:11 }kD: M}mkSq:12 wkïSKé: k²ïò:13 a:14 §mkF:a15 ìkí²ïò:16 ]oXn:17 K: p]oXké: 18 DÃD÷q:19 M:20 %k:21 q@F:22 ykéS: K:23 ï§ÇmkKé:24 [§¸}:25 [VI] aÚ:1 o]F:a2 §kòF:3 DK: mk[ïoë:4 }ê[:5 X]oñ¥}: ÃöGÊq:6 ]L: Do8Mf: k%Do: o8Mf: X¢q: K:7 §DMª: }]q:8 K:9 KÏqé{ê: q8Ke:10 LðK:11 qÃö|I:12 §kò:13 ÄÂÄ]  :14 KÏqé: qÃö|I:15 aLðK8{:16 K%D:17 ]: q{ÃöI:a18 [VII] aÛ:1 o]Dê:a2 §kòDê: DK: D©q: mk[ïq:3 k%Do:4 Í[ï:5 K:6 aqÃéM{ê:7 LðK:a8 §©öIX{ê:9 q]o§: §{:10 §kò: ÄÂÄÂ]:11 ÅM: k}o: Q³{: o²mkS:12 |©öN:13 MK[:14 ©ö§:15 éoë: KÏqé: aqmkE%:16 q]o§:a17 kG\k:18 qF:19 [IV] 12 Ø: o]Dê: AU; o[Dê: B; Ø: o\Dê: R; o]Dê: p | 3 }²: B | "o: AB | 5 ¢]olcÿê: A; ¢]omkcÿê: s | 6 ": A | 7 ¢@ké:: R | 8 "]: s | 9 }o: A | 10 oë: s | 11-12 (12 KÏqé:{ê: R); KÏq" B; KKÏqé{ê: p | 13 (; ABRUp) | 14 om. AR | 15 om. A; K}" B | 16 (; ABRUp; ;= s). [V] 12 Ù: o]Dê: ARU; o]Dê: Bp | 3 §kòDê:: Bp | 4 ÃD÷p: A; ÃD÷q: 5 s | §é}@é: BRUp; §|@é: s | 6 (; p) | 7 (; BRUp); "}: Ap | 8 (; A); ï§é~: p | 9 om. A; }: §mkF: p | 10 ïqqS" Bp | 11 kkò|oñKé: s | 12 "o: ABp | 13 (; ABU); k²ïò@é: RU | 1415 §mkF: B; §mkF: p | 16 con.; D²ïò: ABRUs; D²óò: p | 17 ]oV{em. X}n: B | 18 o]pVké: A; ¥]oXké: p; o]oXké: s | 19 (; BRUp) | 20 M: s | 21 %k: s | 22 o@" ARp; "é: BU | 23 K: A | 24 ï§ÈlKé: ABRUp | 25 (; ABRUps). [VI] 12 {del. Ú:} o]F: A; o[F: B; o]F: Rp; Ú: o]F: 3 U | §kòDê: s | 4 mk[ïo: U | 5 }ê]: Bs | 6 ÃöGÊ: p | 7 kK: ABRUp | 8 (; ARU); kKÏqé: add. p | 9 ]K: A | 10 o8Kc: s | 11 LôK: p | 12 (; ABRUp); "{y: A | 13 LðK: U | 14 ÃÂéD÷]: B | 15 (; AB) | 16-18 om. B | 16 (om. B); kK8{: R; K8{: p | 17 (om. B); K%E: R; K%F: s | 18 (; ApU); (om. B); qÆ}I: R. [VII] 12 {in m. Û:} Û: o]Dê: A; o]Dê: BRp; Ú: o]Dê: U | 3 mk[ïq: 4 B | kÃöK: p | 5 Í]: s | 6 K– B | 78 om. A | 8 (om. A); LôK: p | 9 §©öw" RU | 10 (; ARUp); §}: s | 11 ÃÂéD÷]: B | 12 "Sq: A | 13 (; p); "M: ABRUp | 14 "K: A | 15 ©öé§: U | 1617 (17 qmkD%: A); q]" qmk" s | 18 kw[mk: B; kG\mk: s | 19 (; ARUp; ;= s). 4
A. Bausi
#
[IV] 4 Interrogarono e dissero: Se c’è uno che è malato e vaneggia e non può fare la professione di fede, e i suoi implorano di conferirgli il santo battesimo mentre è ancora in vita, è conveniente che glielo diamo? Disse il metropolita: Conviene che lo riceva se è purificato dallo spirito impuro. [V] 5 Lo interrogarono e gli dissero: Se una donna ha passato la notte con suo marito ed ha avuto luogo la preghiera, le è possibile ricevere l’offerta eucaristica? Disse il metropolita: Non è loro possibile, perché Paolo apostolo proclama e dice: «Non allontanatevi tra di voi, se non in seguito a comune accordo, ad un certo momento»,21 e questo che dice, «ad un certo momento, di dedicarsi»,22 è «perché vi dedichiate alla preghiera e quindi di nuovo stiate insieme e perché Satana non vi combatta». [VI] 6 Lo interrogarono e gli dissero: Se la sua donna è catecumena ed ha fatto iscrivere il proprio nome per essere battezzata e nel giorno del battesimo si è accorta di trovarsi come avviene alle donne, conviene che sia battezzata, o che attenda? Disse il metropolita: Conviene che attenda tanti giorni finché non sia purificata. [VII] 7 Interrogarono e dissero: Se una donna dovrà partorire nel giorno di Pasqua, osserverà il digiuno e le sarà permesso di bere vino?23 Disse il metropolita: Il digiuno è stato concepito per il nostro corpo, perché noi lo indeboliamo; ma dal momento che è già debilitato, conviene che mangi e beva nella misura che può. 21 «se non in seguito a comune accordo, ad un certo momento» traduce }kD: M}mkSq: wkïSKé: k²ïò:; cfr. il greco, Ibid. 243, ll. 7 sg.: ei¹ mh/ ti aÄn e)k sumfw¯nou pro\j kairo/n; è una citazione da 1 Cor., 7,5, che ricorre identica nella risposta XII, ove però l’etiopico traduce diversamente: }kD: kQXq: wkïSKé: k²ïò:; si può naturalmente ipotizzare che all’origine nei due passi il testo fosse identico, ma è più probabile che la stessa espressione sia stata tradotta all’origine in modo diverso: segnale forse della insoddisfazione della soluzione accolta, della fortissima oscillazione linguistica e della conseguente scarsa (ma non impossibile) «prevedibilità» della traduzione; per lo stesso fenomeno nella Bibbia, cfr. M. A. KNIBB, Translating the Bible. The Ethiopic Version of the Old Testament (Oxford, 1999) (The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy 1995) 92 sgg. 22 «e questo che dice, “ad un certo momento, di dedicarsi”»: traduce : §mkF: ìkí²ïò: ]oXn:; la congettura si deve alla supposizione che il D²ïò: della tradizione (cfr. V,16) sia corrotto dal k²ïò: che ricorre prima e nel passo parallelo (cfr. V,13; XII,19); assente nel testo greco, ma con riscontri nell’apparato di varianti (JOANNOU, Les canons des Pères Grecs... 243, ad. l. 8, kairo\n): kairo\n de\ le/gei th=j sunousi¿aj, kairo\n de\ le/gw to\n th=j suna/cewj, kairo\n le/gw th\n ou)si¿an sunh/qeian. 23 «le sarà permesso di bere vino» traduce il testo §©öIX{ê: q]o§: (cfr. similmente IX,7–8 §©öIX{ê: §mkE%: «gli si deve permettere di mangiare»); cfr. il greco, rispettivamente, Ibid. 244, ll. 15 sg.: ei¹ o)fei¿lei nhsteu=sai kaiì mh\ pieiÍn oiånon, e soprattutto, Ibid. 246, ll. 9 sg.: hÄ a)polu/ei au)to\n o( klhriko\j lamba/nein oÁ du/natai ; il passo potrebbe confermare il significato di «permittere vel concedere», postulato da A. DILLMANN, Lexicon Linguae Aethiopicae (Lipsiae, 1865) C. 1108,
#
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
[VIII] aÜ:1 o]Dê:a2 §kòF:3 §é~@é:4 Dc[ï]: §ÃDï:5 }: @D÷: M]Dí@é:6 X¥~]:7 K{ð:8 l%©ö:9 IXKpq:10 K:11 ¥Sè^@é:12 ]K: éoë: §ÃíDï: §cõXmkAð: 13 §kò: ÄÂÄÂ]: ï§ÃíDï:14 ]K: Me©öK:15 cÿXl}: §mkF: ªï¥f}:16 }kD: §qMwê: D: ïqcXké:17 Çê:18 ï{ò: KÏqé: ¢@Dê: X¥~]:19 }: §ÃíDï:20 [IX] aÝ:1 o]Dê:a2 §kòDê: Kn: §©ñ: ¹c: ILM:3 k©õ@é: [§G:4 o}Q: M©õ@é: kÃöG: ÅK:5 Í[ï: K:6 §©öIX{ê:7 §mkE%:8 emk:9 §]o§: §{:10 §kò: ÄÂÄ]  : §©öGX:11 ]K: ©K: k©õ@é:12 Q³@é: §mkE%Að:13 §]o§Að:14 kM¸{:15 §F:16 [X ] aÞ:1 o]F:a2 §kòF: DK: Ãé%: Dc[ï]: aD]o]n:3 [M:4 c[ï]:a5 K: ì[ímk\mk:6 }oë:7 ©cñc: wé:8 KAð:9 mk[ïo: wê@é:10 aDK:11 KÏqé{ê:a12 §JX:13 kòo: }oë: §´kX: cÿXl{Að:14 §kò: ÄÂÄÂ]: |@é: qkò: DDï: K:15 }oë:16 ì[ímk\mk:17 [M:18 c[ï]: MK[ò:19 a}oë:20 ï{ò:a21 KÏqé: a§\oÏ:22 é]o: w8ïq:a23 l%©ö:24
[VIII] 12 {in m. Ü:} Ü: o]Dê: A; o[Dê: B; Ú: o]Dê: R; Ü: o]Dê: U; o]Dê: p | 3 o§kòF: p | 4 §é}@é: ABRUp | 5 §ÃíDï: BU | 6 om. p | 7 (; RU); X¥~]: p | 8 K{ð: ABR; KAð: U | 9 l%©: R | 10 "po: Rp | 11 K– B | 12 §kcÿ@é: A; ¥Sê^@é: B; ¥Sè]@é: R | 13 (; AUp); §c" AU | 14 §ÃíDï{del. Að}: B; ï§Ã" Rp | 15 Me©öM: s | 16 ¥f}: s | 17 ïqcõXké: p; ïqeXké: s | 18 Ãê: A | 19 X~]: U | 20 (; ABRUp; ;= s); §ÃDï: p. [IX] 12 {in m. Ý:} o]Dê: A; o[Dê: B; Û: o]Dê: R; Ý: o]Dê: U; o]Dê: p | 3 ILK: p | 4 [G¢: AR | 5 ÅM: s | 6 ]K: B | 7 §©öw" R; §©öyX{ê: p; §©öIX}: s | 8 §mkD%: A | 9 kemk: B | 10 (; ARUp) | 11 §©öyX{ê: A; §©wX: R; "IX: Up | 12 k©õ: ARU; p. Q³@é: transp. p | 13 §mk" ARU | 14 §]o§Að: p | 15 "}: s | 16 (; ABRUps). [X] 12 {in m. Þ:} Þ: o]F: A; q]F: B; Ü: o]F: R; Þ: o]Dê: U; o]F: p | 35 om. U | 3 (om. U); D]p" R | 4 (om. U); ]" s | 6 con.; \mk\mk: As; [mk[k: B; [mk\k: Rp; [mk\k: U | 7 }r: U | 8 (; U); x@é: B | 9 K{ð: U | 10 (; Ap) | 1112 DKÏq{ê: B | 13 om. R; §GêX: U | 14 (; ABRUp); "l{: A; "l}Að: s | 15 om. p | 16 }r: U; éoë: add. p | 17 (; p); con.; \mk\mk: As; [mk[mk: B; [mk\k: RU; [mk\mk: p; }oë: add. A | 18 ]" s | 19 "[ò: A; M{s.l. K}[ò: B; MK]ò: s | 2021 }r: {ò: A | 2223 (23 ; A); §[" w8ïq: A; §[" x" B; §\{in r. oÏ: w}8ïo: R; §\" w8ïo: Up | 24 (; BRU; ;= s); om. A.
A. Bausi
#!
[VIII] 8 Interrogarono e gli dissero: È possibile ad un presbitero di pregare, mentre è in compagnia di un ariano o uno di una fede diversa? lo contamina? perché lui sta pregando e celebrando l’offerta. Disse il metropolita: Non pregherà, perché prima dell’offerta eucaristica il diacono dice: «Voi che non vi comunicate, uscite senza salutare»: non è dunque conveniente che vi siano ariani mentre prega. [IX] 9 Interrogarono e dissero: Se un ammalato soffre gravemente per la sua malattia ed è stremato, si è riavuto dalla sua malattia ed è arrivato il digiuno di Pasqua, gli si deve permettere di mangiare olio e di bere vino? Disse il metropolita: Gli sarà permesso, perché il suo corpo è debilitato a causa della malattia; mangi e beva pure per quanto può. [X] 10 Lo interrogarono e gli dissero: Se hanno chiamato un presbitero per celebrare un matrimonio ed il presbitero ha saputo che il matrimonio non è valido — che si tratta di figli di fratelli o di moglie del fratello — conviene che vada in casa di costui e celebri l’offerta eucaristica? Disse il metropolita: Ecco, tu stesso hai detto che il matrimonio non è valido, ed il presbitero l’ha saputo; e dal momento che non è valido, non è conveniente che partecipi al peccato altrui.
anche se s.v. «dahara», per Mt. 19,8, cfr. ora R. ZUURMOND, Novum Testamentum Aethiopice. Part III. The Gospel of Matthew (Wiesbaden, 2001) (Aethiopistische Forschungen 55) 195, accolto anche da W. LESLAU, Comparative Dictionary of Ge‘ez (Classical Ethiopic) (Wiesbaden, 1987) 129 «allow», s.v. «dh r II, dah ara, dehò ra», ed a questo si potrebbe ricondurre la ben nota occorrenza epigrafica aksumita (dahò ara) di RIÉ nr. 187, ll. 15, 21, 26, 27: «permettere» come «lasciar libero di», assolutamente «lasciar libero» e quindi «congedare, smobilitare» (l’ipotesi di «entlassen» per RIÉ nr. 187 = DAE nr. 9, è già di Enno Littmann, cfr. DAE p. 27), o forse ancor meglio «lasciar andare, sbrigliare, scatenare»; probabile la riduzione a questo significato di quello indicato per la radice dhò r dai lessici (cfr. DILLMANN, Lexicon... Cc. 1083 sg. «repudio dimittere, repudiare uxorem»; LESLAU, Comparative Dictionary… 128 «divorce, repudiate (a wife), send away (a wife)»); l’altra occorrenza epigrafica — cfr. già A. J. DREWES, Some features of epigraphical Ethiopic // Semitic Studies In honor of Wolf Leslau On the occasion of his eighty-fifth birthday November 14th, 1991 / Ed. A. S. Kaye. 2 voll. (Wiesbaden, 1991) Vol. I. 382–391, spec. 390 sg.; RIÉ nr. 185 I bis, l. 6; impossibile una verifica sulla tavola nr. 102, pressoché illeggibile — si trova in uno solo dei quattro testi paralleli in lingua etiopica nelle due «pseudo-trilingui» RIÉ nrr. 185 e 185 bis; per la seconda, cfr. anche S. UHLIG, Eine trilinguale ‘Ezana-Inschrift // Aethiopica 4 (2001) 7–31, spec. 15 e 23; il testo va quindi, cautelativamente, considerato dubbio (non escluso nemmeno un errore del lapicida, con parziale ripetizione: RIÉ nr. 185 bis I, l. 6 inizia con: hò rm dhò rm), tanto più che la lettura adottata da UHLIG, Eine trilinguale ‘Ezana-Inschrift... 15, e n. 3, è gnym.
#"
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
[XI] aÞÕ:1 o]Dê:a2 §kòDê: DK:3 GDK:4 mk[ï:5 }: §[mk:6 M]D:7 mk[ïoë:8 Ilñ: {²Y: Dc[ï]: DK: ¥kéJ{ê:9 c[ï]:10 §}P: cÿXl{:11 §kò: ÄÂÄ]  : DK: Ïqo:12 mk[ïq: }:13 noë: : KÏqé: §}P: cÿXl{:14 K[: [§¸}: §Æmk:15 kM}¥o:16 ¥XIf: §Êoë: aMcÿXl}:17 eªê]:a18 aKÏqé:19 §}P: cÿXl{:a20 K[:21 ï¢w©öµ:22 oÇmkr:23 K: Êo:24 §eSmk:25 é]o:26 cÿXl}:27 [XII] aÞÖ:1 o]Dê:a2 §kòDê: mkmk:3 D: ¥]o]ké:4 B|q:5 ¢:6 K%D:7 §íKé:8 ìïí§]ké:9 ykéS: ¥q:10 L}oë: D: ]Dê¸}: K%F:11 §kò: ÄÂÄÂ]: kK:12 kò: mkF:13 §ò{ð:14 §kò: GX¥:15 ïqqVGcë:16 kk§|oñKé:17 }kD: kQXq: wkïSKé:18 k²ïò: 19 ]oXn: 20 DÃD÷q: 21 M: %k: qqVké: 22 K: ï§ÇlKé:23 [§¸}: k}o: ÏqqKé:24 b[}ko:25 a§@é©ö:26 [}ko:a27 X]oñ¥}: ]K: n}oë:28 KQ%o:29 K}Ê]:30 ¥X²é:b31
[XI] 12 {in m. ÞÕ:} o]Dê: A; o[Dê: B; Ý: o]Dê: R; ÞÕ: o]Dê: U; o]Dê: p | 3 K: RU; DKn: – p | 4 GFK: s | 5 mk[ò: AUs | 6 §[mk: p; §\mk: s | 7 K]D: A | 8 "q: BUp; mk[ïo: s | 9 ¥l" A; ¥kéG{ê: B | 10 om. ARU | 11 (; ABRUp); "l}: Bs | 12 Ïq{em. o}: R; Ïqéq: s | 13 om. RU | 14 (; ARUp); "}: Bs; §kò: ÄÂÄÂ]: add. A | 15 §Ämk: A; §ÆF: p | 16 kM}¥o:: BU; kK}¥q: s | 1718 (18 ; U); Me" cÿ" A | 1920 om. p | 20 (; AU); (om. p); "}: s | 21 K{s.l. }[: B; K:[: R; K: [: U; L]: s | 22 ï§" B | 23 oÆ" BR | 24 Êo: A | 25 §eSmk: p | 26 om. ARUp | 27 (; ABRUp; ;= s); cÿXk{: A; "{: RUp. [XII] 12 {in m. ÞÖ:} o]Dê: A; Þ: o]Dê: R; ÞÖ: o]Dê: U; o]Dê: 3 p | "k: RU | 4 é[ké: RU; ¥]ké: p; ¢]o]ké: s | 5 "o: As | 6 §: RU | 7 "F: As | 8 §íKé: p | 9 con.; "ké: As; §[" BU; §]ké: Rp | 10 ¥o: ABR; {del. mk}¥o: U; ¥q: K%D: p | 11 (; ABRUp); D÷Ké: p; "D: s | 12 K: ABRUp | 13 (; U) | 14 §ò:{ð: R; ÄÂéD÷]: add. RU | 15 om. RU | 16 ïqqS" ABUp; ïqXGcë: R | 17 kkò|oñKé: s | 18 (; p); wkò" B | 19 k²óò: A; ²ïò: p | 20 "Sn: B; ]oXn: s | 21 (; U) | 22 qqS" BU | 23 ï§Äk" A; ï§Èl" BUp; ï§:ÃölKé: R | 24 (; AB); ÏqéqKé: s | 2531 cfr. homiliam De sabbato, Retua haymanot vel Orthodoxo auctore: [}ko: [}ko: X]oñ¥}: ]K: nr}: ¥X²é: KQ%o: K}Ê]: eªê]: | 26-27 om. R | 28 noë: ABp; nr}: RU | 29 "q: s | 30 (; ARU) | 31 (; Bps); (¥%X²é: R) a. KQ%o: transp. ARU.
A. Bausi
##
[XI] 11 Interrogarono e dissero: Se un uomo ha sognato di giacere con sua moglie, un laico, e ne ha fatto parola con il presbitero, il presbitero gli permetterà di ricevere l’offerta eucaristica? Disse il metropolita: Se persiste in lui il desiderio della moglie, non conviene che riceva l’offerta eucaristica; ma se Satana lo combatte e con questo pretesto desidera allontanarlo dalla santa offerta eucaristica, conviene che riceva l’offerta eucaristica; altrimenti non cesserà di combatterlo, se avrà desiderato di accostarsi all’offerta. [XII] 12 Interrogarono e dissero: I sacerdoti che celebrano il matrimonio, in quali giorni prescriveranno loro di ìnoní giacere insieme24 e quali sono i giorni permessi? Disse il metropolita: Dico come ho detto ora: ha detto l’Apostolo: «Non allontanatevi tra di voi, se non di comune accordo, ad un certo momento, per dedicarsi alla preghiera, e perché quindi stiate insieme di nuovo, perché Satana non vi combatta, a motivo della vostra passione»: il sabato e la domenica, perché in essi si eleva il sacrificio spirituale.25
«di ìnoní giacere insieme» traduce il testo congetturale ìïí§]ké: ykéS:: la negazione sembra necessaria per introdurre l’alternativa tra giorni in cui non è lecito giacere insieme, e quelli in cui lo è; cfr. il greco (JOANNOU, Les canons des Pères Grecs... 248, ll. 9–12): periì poi¿wn h m( erw½ n th=j e (bdoma/doj parati¿qesqai xrh\ a)pe/24
xesqai th=j pro\j a)llh/louj koinwni¿aj, kaiì poi¿aj eÃxein e )p' e )cousi¿aj; 25
«il sabato e la domenica, perché in essi si eleva il sacrificio spirituale» traduce [}ko: §@é©ö: [}ko: X]oñ¥}: ]K: n}oë: KQ%o: K}Ê]: ¥X²é:; cfr. il greco, Ibid. 149, ll. 2–5: ¡Ec a)na/gkhj [omesso da alcuni mss.] de\ to\ sa/bbaton
kaiì th\n kuriakh\n deiÍ, dia\ to\ e )n au t) aiÍ j th\n pneumatikh\n qusi¿an a)nafe/resqai t%½ qe%½; il passo è citato testualmente nella Omelia sui sabati di Retu‘a Haymânot, ove è
attribuito a Pietro (LUSINI, Studi sul monachesimo eustaziano... 158, ll. 10–13): ]K: DÃÂí¹Y]: K: §[òF: k§: K%F: ¥]oXké: Ê©öÍ©: KÏqé: DÃD÷q: }: qS: KÏqé: ^k: §q@F[: {²YKé: §kò: [}ko: [}ko: X]oñ¥}: ]K: nr}: ¥X²é: KQ%o: K}Ê]: eªê]:, Ibid. 159, ll. 11–14: «poiché quando chiesero a Pietro in quali giorni soprattutto fosse necessario dedicarsi alla preghiera — pur essendo sempre necessario, quando possibile — parlò loro dicendo: “Di sabato e di domenica, poiché in essi offrono il sacrificio dello Spirito Santo”»). Nella citazione dell’Omelia si nota la banalizzazione dell’aggiunta di eªê]: dopo K}Ê]:; l’inversione della frase finale e nr}: per il meno comune n}oë: (esclusivo di s), qui a testo (cfr. XII,28, 31), sono condivisi con i mss. RU: un indizio che la fonte dell’Ortodosso discende dallo stesso subarchetipo da cui, per questo testo, dipende quello comune ad RU.
#$
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
[XIII] aÞ×:1 o]Dê:a2 §kòDê:3 DK: }: ï¥MX:4 X^: coD:5 L:6 éöÊ:7 DK: §²mkT{ê:8 D÷oë: cÿXl{:9 §kò:10 ÄÂÄ]  : §8§e: c[ï]: §Iqq:11 DK: L}{ê:12 }: ï¥MX:13 ²mkS: }o: ]Kn: [mk:14 Lªï@é: D:15 No: §Gí]:16 K: §´kT:17 D÷oë: cÿXl{:18 §mkDê:19 }: ï¥MX:20 ²mkS: }o:21 ]Kn:22 %k: kM}ªkò: [mk{ð:23 K:24 kG}: o²mkS: }oë: : KÏqé: §´kT: D÷oë: cÿXl{:25 ]K: coD: {Ï^: DDï@é: {: k}o:26 KÏqé:27 §Iqq: §8§e: c[ï]: K:28 ï§S©ö: é]o: è{{ó:29 [XIV] aÞØ:1 o]F:a2 §kòF:3 DK: mk[ïoë: Dmk[ï: ³{ó}:4 loñ: omk©ö: kNeI:5 ¢emk:6 §mkF: Mp: ï§F: o´R: Mmk[ïq: §Êe©ö: ¥é]mk: Fo:7 §kò: ÄÂÄÂ]:8 GñS: mk[ïo: mk[ï:9 LD:10 @D÷: é]o:11 {²X: ìFn: íìmkDíKé:12
[XIII] 12 {in m. Þ×:} ÞÕ: o]Dê: A; o[Dê: B; ÞÖ: o]Dê: R; Þ×: o]Dê: U; o]Dê: p | 3 §kòD: A | 4 "MX: B; ï¢M}: U; ï¢MX: p | 5 (; U) | 6 K: : ARUp; K: B | 7 éÊ: ARU; Ãö©Ê: s | 8 §²mkX{ê: p | 9 (; ABRUp); "}: s | 10 {in m. Ö:} §kò: A | 11 §yqo: A; §Iqq: Up | 12 om. A 13 | ï¥MX: B; ï¢MX: p; X^: add. s | 14 [mk: ABp | 15 D– ARp | 16 "é: A; §Gí]: B; ï§Gí]é: U | 17 (; B) | 18 (; B); "}: s | 19 §kòDê: U | 20 ï¢MX: Up | 21 (; ABRUp) | 22 ({in m. ×:} praep. A) ]Kn: ABRUp | 23 [mk{ê: U | 24 K{ð: A; K: : U; L: s | 25 "}: s | 26 k}o:: B; {²X: add. A | 27 KÏoë: A | 28 bis p | 29 (; ABRUps). [XIV] 12 {in m. ÞØ:} ÞØ: o]F: A; o]F: Bp; Þ×: o]F: R; ÞØ: o]F: U | 3 §kòDê: s | 4 "{: R | 5 kN{s.l. e}I: B | 6 §I: ¢" A; ¥$e" p | 7 (; ABRUp) | 8 §kò: ÄÂéD÷]: add. RU | 9 "[ò: A | 10 LD÷Ké: p; KD: s | 11 é]o: – A; é]o: }oë: RU | 12 (; A; ;=; B; ;= s); con.; }kDíKé: ABRUps; oÊÃK: ("ÃöK: s) [ï~¬]: ([ò" R) (;=;=; A; ; Rp) add. ARUps; k[EK: ´ïmkGíX: D$DK: $DM: Lô}: Lô}; D§ê}: D§ê}; add. U.
A. Bausi
#%
[XIII] 13 Interrogarono e dissero: Se si è ucciso inavvertitamente o se altrimenti è precipitato in un burrone, celebreranno per lui l’offerta eucaristica? Disse il metropolita: Il presbitero si accerti, indaghi se davvero ha fatto questo inavvertitamente; infatti si dà il caso che le persone parenti del morto mentano perché gli si celebri l’offerta eucaristica, e dicono: «L’ha fatto inavvertitamente»; e dato che si dà ancora il caso che ciò sia avvenuto in seguito ad angoscia umana o ad un dolore e non conviene che gli celebrino l’offerta eucaristica, poiché lui stesso si è ucciso, per questo è conveniente che il presbitero indaghi e si accerti, per non incorrere in giudizio. [XIV] 14 Lo interrogarono e gli dissero: Se la moglie di un uomo è indemoniata e folle, e la custodiscono in catene, e suo marito dice: «Non posso mantenermi nella continenza sessuale», e desidera sposare un’altra? Disse il metropolita: Entra in gioco l’adulterio in questa storia, e ìnon so cosa dirvií.26
SUMMARY The Ethiopic version of the Canonical answers attributed to Peter bishop of Alexandria (ca. 300–311) as in the Coptic, and better known as belonging to the patriarch Timotheus I (380–384) as attested by the Greek and Syriac tradition (CPG II, nr. 2520), are critically edited and translated on the basis of six MSS of the Sinodos, the most important Ethiopic canonico-liturgical collection (Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, d’Abbadie 65, ff. 141vb–143ra; Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Ms. orient. Fol. 398, ff. 187rb–188vb; Roma, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Borgiano etiopico 2, ff. 174vb–176ra; Uppsala, Universitätsbibliothek, O Etiop. 39, ff. 122rc–123va; Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Éthiopien 181, ff. 124va–125vb; Ethiopia, Private collection, ff. 117va–119va). This edition follows some other contributions dedicated to minor texts in the Sinodos (the Epistle 70 of Cyprian of Carthage and, much more hypothetically, the Teaching of the 318 Nicene Fathers on the right faith and the monastic life), which are likely to belong in the oldest layer of the canonico-liturgical tradition, probably dating back to Aksumite age and translated directly from a Greek Vorlage. The Canonical answers are also quoted in the Homily on the sabbaths by Retu‘a Haymânot (ante 1336/37 or 1339/40).
«e ìnon so cosa dirvií» traduce il testo congetturale ìFn: íìmkDíKé:, di contro a }kDíKé: di tutti i testimoni ABRUps; cfr. il greco (JOANNOU, Les canons des Pères Grecs... 250, ll. 16 sg.): kaiì periì tou/tou ti¿ a)pokri¿nasqai ou x) eu r( i¿skw; ho ritenuto necessaria una proposta congetturale; il testo può essersi corrotto prima con eliminazione di Fn: e quindi con passaggio di mkDKé: a }kDíKé:. 26
Sebastian Brock Oxford
THE GENEALOGY OF THE VIRGIN MARY IN SINAI SYR. 16 No one has done more than Michel van Esbroeck in drawing attention, through his numerous publications of new texts, to the riches of patristic literature that lie hidden in manuscripts written in the languages of the Christian Orient. Among these publications it is not difficult to discern a particular interest in texts the popular traditions that grew up surrounding the Virgin Mary. It is thus a great pleasure to have the opportunity to offer, by way of a small tribute to his great scholarship and learning, a Syriac counterpart, as it were, to his «Généalogie de la Vierge en géorgien».1 The interest of some of the texts in Sinai Syr. 16 became apparent even before the appearance of Mrs A. S. Lewis’ Catalogue in 1894 thanks to J. Rendel Harris’ publication (in 1891), from this manuscript, of the Syriac text of the Apology of Aristides (CPG 1062), and the discovery (by J. A. Robinson) that the underlying Greek text was in fact preserved almost complete, incorporated into the Life of Barlaam and Ioasaph (CPG 8120). Since both Harris and Lewis only provided summary indications of the rest of the contents of Sinai Syri. 16, a much fuller description of its contents is given in Appendix 2, below.2 Among the items in the manuscript of which Harris and Lewis make no mention is the following, on f. 200r. 1: Next, an account concerning the ancestors of the Bearer of God, composed by the Fathers of the circle (d-beth) of Gregory.3 The short ensuing text (f. 200r. 1–2) reads as follows: jOk@ mgJ Mc@ Kd[ eXg i\oJ ¡C BN \CJ m\cL MC°¡c i\oJ M±[MC°@ nO[H[G ¯fO[ ¡kS@N jg KS ¯Mc NNL A\ÐlC m[ Qt\c@ ¯fO[ mg i[gN jg mg eD[g yoO[ 1
AB 91 (1973) 347–356. I take the opportunity to thank His Grace Archbishop Damianos, the Librarian and the Synaxis of the Holy Monastery of St Catherine, Sinai, for the opportunity to look at this manuscript during my visit to the Monastery to catalogue the Syriac fragments from the New Finds. 3 It is unclear which Gregory is intended; possibly the attribution was suggested by Gregory of Nyssa, On the Nativity (PG 46. 1137D), where a narrative concerning Mary’s parents is mentioned, but without any names being mentioned. 2
S. Brock
59
¯yoO\c KcN@ BO~t[N BO~t\c KcN@ Qt\c@ C jg ¯Lk@ Al[J mg i[hc KcN@ |NJPN |NJQc KcN@ Qt\c@ C fO[N ¯¡[_PJ Lk@ uD
\c@J L±S M±[[@J ¯i[hc ¡_Adg g@J E[_ jOGKC ¯]`g@J L±S m[J OkL ¯lXC ]_l\S@ uD
\c@ LJ ¯¢JNM[J ZL ¡XD mg ¡C@ mgJ a[@ m[J i[g ¯ZOcJ ¡XD mg m[J ¡g@ mgJ a[@ ¯¡[Mc@ ¡pkOw mg eDCJ \DJ ¡\kOw C mg OXdS@ m[K[L ¯¢JNM[J LO`dg LO`dhC eXCJ m}Nw QSk jNM[ mgJ a[@ ¯ZOcJ LOkM_ LOkM`CN ¯¡C@ mgJ a[@ ¢JNM[ mg UkJJ g@g ¯¡dCO[ E
S k@ mg OcN ¢DG mg ¡[DsJ ¢K\s mgJ a[@ \G Mg@J Eleazar (Mt 1:15) had two children, the one Mathan (Mt 1:15), and the other Jotham. Joseph is descended from Mathan and Mary from Jotham. Eleazar’s son Mathan begot Jacob, and Jacob begot Joseph. And Eleazar’s son Jotham begot Zadoq, and Zadoq begot Mary by his wife Dina, who is the sister of Elisabeth, the wife of Zechariah. For this reason it is written that the Angel said to Mary, «Behold, Elisabeth your relative has conceived» (Lk 1:36) — that is, the sister of your mother. Now Mary from her father’s side was from the tribe of Judah, but from her mother’s side, from the tribe of Levi. Then the (tribes) were intermingled after the return from the Babylonian captivity through divine providence, so that our Saviour might be seen as being from both of them, in order that, through his kingship, the kingship of Judah might become ineffective, and through his priesthood, the (same would apply to the) priesthood of Levi. It is (thus) said that «he arose from Judah» (Heb 7:14), on his father’s side, for his mother’s genealogy, according to the custom of the Hebrews, reckons from the husband, and not from the wife.
Mary, of course, does not feature at all in the genealogies given in Matthew 1 and Luke 3. Earlier commentators were more interested in providing explanations for the apparent contradictions between the two lists (exemplified by Joseph’s father being Jacob in Matthew and Eli in Luke). Here, one of the most influential texts was the Letter of Africanus to Aristides (CPG 1693), who neatly solved the problem by reference to levirate marriage (Deut 25:5) and the concept of a legal, alongside that of a natural, son. As will be seen below, this explanation was current in Syriac circles4 in an adapted form, attributed to Theodore of Mopsuestia.
4
Probably by way of the Syriac translation of Eusebius’ Gospel Questions and Answers, for which see G. BEYER, Die evangelischen Fragen und Lösungen des Eusebius in jakobitischer Überlieferung und deren nestorianischen Parallelen // Oriens Christianus ns 12/14 (1925) 50–69.
60
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
A second concern was to provide a Davidic ancestry for Mary, as well as that given in the Gospels for Joseph. This was done by showing how Mary and Joseph were related (see Appendix 1). Yet another concern, which might or might not involve the genealogies, was the matter of Christ’s priesthood. In the New Testament this was seen as being «of the order of Melkizedek» (Hebrews 5:6), that is, non-levitical. Earlier Syriac tradition, represented by Aphrahat and Ephrem (and also found in the Teaching of Gregory the Illuminator, section 433), also had an interest in his levitical priesthood, and saw this as having been transferred to him by John the Baptist at the Baptism.5 Evidently at an early date in Syriac tradition some people wanted to see Christ’s levitical priesthood transmitted directly through the genealogy of Mary, and this is explicitly stated in the Armenian translation of the Commentary on the Diatessaron (I.25), attributed to Ephrem, in contrast to the Syriac text (I.25–26) which goes out of its way to argue that Mary was not of levitical descent, and the Gospel statement that Elisabeth was her «relative» (Luke 2:36) was not to be taken in a literal sense.6 The same concern with Christ’s levitical priesthood is also found in our present text which, in line with the Armenian translation of the Commentary on the Diatessaron, takes this back to his very birth, through the actual construction of a genealogy for Mary. Speculation concerning the parents of Mary first surface in the Protogospel of James, which set the mainstream tradition of naming them as Joachim and Anna. The same work also states that Mary was from «the tribe(!) of David», and it was probably a concern to show Christ’s Davidic descent through Mary, as opposed to Joseph, that speculation about her ancestry developed. A full-blown genealogy for Mary, traced back through Joachim and Anna, was subsequently provided in the Life of the Virgin by Epiphanius the monk (9th century; BHG 1049), whereby she is also related to Joseph and Elisabeth. A related genealogy for Mary is known to Jacob of Edessa (d. 708) who, in one of his Letters, says that «There are some narratives written by certain zealous people on their own authority, without having any testimonies from Scripture, which show that Mary, the holy Virgin, the mother of 5 Aphrahat, Dem. VI.13, XXI.13, XXIII.20; Ephrem, Hymni c. Haereses XXII.19; Comm. Diatessaron IV.3; elsewhere (Sermo de Domino Nostro LIII) Ephrem associates the transfer as having come through Simeon at the Presentation in the Temple. See further R. MURRAY, Symbols of Church and Kingdom. A Study in Early Syriac Tradition (Cambridge, 19751; 20042) 178–182. 6 See D. G. K. TAYLOR, The priesthood of Christ in early Syriac tradition // SP, forthcoming (I am most grateful to David Taylor for letting me see his paper). For the differences between the Syriac and the Armenian, see C. LANGE, The descent of Mary and the Syriac Commentary on the Diatessaron // The Harp (Kottayam) 15 (2002) 107–116.
S. Brock
61
Christ, was the daughter of Hanna and of the upright Ioakin, concerning whom those who authored the narratives say that he was the son of Panther, and Panther was the brother of Melki, the son of Yani (Lk 3:24) who descends from the lineage of Levi in the genealogy. He was living in the region of Galilee, in the vicinity of the place where the town of Tiberias was built».7 Jacob’s remarks are quoted by Dionysius bar Salibi (d. 1171) in the course of his lengthy discussion of the Gospel narratives; interestingly, he gives a manuscript variant for a couple of the names: «Jacob of Edessa says: (some) narratives say that Mary was the daughter of Ioiakin, from the tribe of Judah. He was the son of Estir — in (another) manuscript, Panther — and Estir was the brother of Melki, the son of Yani — in (another) manuscript, the one who was from Niri — who is descended in the genealogy from Nathan; and through (his) wife he (sc. Joseph) was from the tribe of Levi, and he was living in Galilee, in the place where the town of Tiberias was built».8 Since Jacob’s main concern in his letter was to demonstrate Mary’s Davidic descent, the link between Mary and the tribe of Levi, found in the narratives «by certain zealous people» receives no comment, and there is nothing in the text to suggest that this was seen as the source of Christ’s priesthood. Although Joachim and Anna as the parents of Mary came to dominate the later tradition in both East and West, they were not the only names to be accorded to them. Indeed, immediately preceding his quotation from Jacob of Edessa, Dionysius bar Salibi says. «It is asked, Who were Mary’s parents? Her father is called Ioaqim, Ioakin, Ionakir,9 Sadoq, Iozedeq; and again his mother is called (both) Hanna and Dina». Slightly earlier in his discussion Dionysius bar Salibi does indeed provide Mary’s parentage through Sadoq and Dina, and the verbal parallels (indicated by italics below) with our text in Sinai Syr. 16 strongly suggest that both texts go back to a common souce. After discussing Julius Africanus’ explanation of Joseph’s genealogy, he continues: 7
British Library, Add. 12172, f. 89r. The passage is printed in Wright’s Catalogue, p. 597, and the full letter was published by F. NAU, Lettre de Jacques d’Edesse sur la généalogie de la Sainte Vierge // ROC 6 (1901) 512–531. The relevant text is on p. 519. The genealogy to which Jacob objects is in fact to be found in the Doctrina Jacobi Nuper Baptizati (CPG 7793; ed. V. DÉROCHE in TM 11 (1991)); a Syriac translation of precisely this passage (I.42) is preserved in British Library Add. 17194, dated 885/6, published with French translation by F. NAU in PO 8 (1912) 721–722. 8 Commentarii in Evangelia I.1 / Ed. I. SEDLACEK, I.-B. CHABOT (CSCO 15–16) 50 (text), 38 (tr.). 9 This is found in the Cave of Treasures (ed. A. SU-MIN RI) XLIV.47 and in the Syriac Life of the Virgin edited by E. A. W. BUDGE, The History of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the History of the Likeness of Christ (London, 1899) 5 (this text seeks to harmonize a number of originally separate traditions; a similar harmonization is to be found in Solomon of Bosra, Book of the Bee, XXXIV).
62
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
He did not attach the genealogy to Mary and say «N begot Mary, from whom Christ was born», since it was not the custom of the Hebrews for genealogies to be traced through women. For this reason he does not enumerate Mary’s (ancestry), but Joseph’s, so that he should not be seen to be confusing the ordering. We furthermore say that, through the mention of Joseph, it is known that the Virgin, along with him, descends from David, since there was intermarriage within each tribe. Even though a few women married outside their tribe, Joseph and Mary were both grandchildren of two brothers: a certain Eleazar begot two sons, Mathan and Jotham; Mathan begot Jacob, and Jacob begot Joseph, while Jotham begot Sadoq and Sadoq (begot) Mary.10 And the name of her mother was Dina, — and she is the sister of Elisabeth, whence the (angel’s) words «Behold, your relative Elisabeth» (Lk 1:36). The matter was arranged by the divine Will so that the kingdom and priesthood, of David and of Levi, should receive fulfilment in Christ.
Basically the same information is to be found in an extract to be found in British Library, Add. 17168, f. 181v, which turns out to be an exact quotation of the opening of the text in Sinai Syr. 16: Eleazar had two sons, one Mathan and the other Yotham. Joseph’s lineage is from Mathan, and Mary’s from Yotham. Eleazar’s son Mathan begot Jacob, and Jacob begot Joseph, while Eleazar’s son Yotham begot Zadoq, and Zadoq begot Mary by his wife Dina, who was the sister of Elisabeth, the wife of Zechariah.11
The second half of the text qoted by Dionysius (from «Eleazar begot...» to the end) is also found in the Commentary on the Gospel by the East Syriac scholar Isho`dad of Merv12 (flourished mid ninth century), with wording in the last sentence that corresponds closely with that of Dionysius, against that of Sinai Syr. 16. Since Dionysius is known to have used Isho`dad’s commentaries, he may well be quoting directly from Isho`dad, and not from a common source; Isho`dad, however, speaks of «the priesthood of Aaron» (rather than that of Levi), and he adds at the end «from their shadows (i. e. types)». Sadoq and Dina as the names of Mary’s parents are also known from an East Syriac source attributed to Theodore of Mopsuestia. Amongst the prefatory material found in a number of East Syriac Gospel manuscripts is a text on the Gospel genealogies. This starts out by resolving, along the lines of Julius Africanus, the apparent disagreement between Matthew and Luke over 10
The variation between Zadoq and Sadoq is also found for homonym in the Gospel genealogies (Mt 1:14, where the Old Syriac has Zadoq, while the Peshitta and Harklean have Sadoq. 11 The Syriac text is printed in WRIGHT, Catalogue… 800. 12 The Commentaries of Isho`dad of Merv / Ed. M. L. GIBSON (Horae Semiticae 5–6; 1911) 20–21 (text), 12–13 (tr.).
S. Brock
63
the ancestors of Joseph; and to help the reader a diagram is also provided. The text reads:13 ¯K[NJ ¡lCOW mg mdD°[g mC° e\_L m[ ¯yoO[J ZLOC@ BO~t[ Oc ¡_J jOh\dJ ¢KS ¯]ds Oc ¡dD[gJ jkJ S@N ¯yoO[J ZLOC@ NL Cpg NL v@N ¯¡l_L ¡kL ¡dCO[ m[J ZLN[@ ¯jOh\dJ ¡sP mg eD[gJ NL Qt\c@ C jg o@ M±hJ k@ EpkJ ¯[OG GOTCJ ¡hN s{g ¡h\oJ ZL ¯BO~t\c M±lg KcN@N ¯MplG Sk jkJ C mgJ N±L ]`dg oAc M±DpkN jg \gN ¯]cL O[NLJ ]dtc M±lg KcN@N ¯¢}g ]cL ¡hOHC ¯¡g@ mg jOk@ ¡S°@ ]cLN BO~t[ m[J e\`g ¯¡\lÐC ¡cJ \gN k@ ]ds EpkN ¯¡sP Mc i\~kJ LkAc M±Dpk ZLOS@ BO~t[ m[K[L ¯¡oOhlC E[_J a[@ ¯ZhC E[_J a[@ BO~t[ C [Al\_ ZLN[@J yoO\c M±lg KcN@N ¯¡}Oc B`gJ a[@ ]cLJ LC E
Sg [AoOhkN ¯NMk ¡c ¡k°HX~c ¢@J ¡l`[@ ¯¡T\
g ZLN[@ K[NJ C E
Thc m\Cz [AoOhk j@N [Al\_ j@J ¯i\ C° m[M[°J ¡dCO[ [C G OTCJ rK±[ [NL e\`g ¯yoO\c ¡gKs K[NJ mg ¯[OG GOTCJ m\cL ¡hNCN ¯OSg C°J m[MlXcOS NL ¯¡tC{CJ a[@ ¯Md[J Oc ]`dgN LC Oc Qt\c@ C jg i\o ¯s{hC ¡h\o k@ jNM[°c NLJ o@N ¯ZLOC@ jg C E[_ L±C BO~t[N ¯ZLOC@ ]`dg Oc ¡²kS@ L±C ]dsN ¯]dsJ LC [AoOhkN BO~t[J LC [Al\_ ZLN[@J yoO[ i\ m\cL CN ¯rKhc |J±P ¢JL v@N yoO[J MplG TkJ ¡`[@ mgJ ¯i[g v@ M±[[@ mg mg ¯Mc NNL m\lÐC m[° JO\c@ C Qt\c@J eXg 13
I have used Harvard Syr. 4, dated AG 1511 (= AD 1199/1200), written in the Monastery of Rabban Sabrisho`, and British Library, Or. 2695, dated AG 1514 (= AD 1202/3) and AH 599 (= AD 1200/1) and written in the monastery of Mar Isho`yahb and Mar Ya`qob in Beth Nuhadra. (For these monasteries, see J-M. FIEY, Assyrie chrétienne (Beirut, 1965) I. 130–157, and II. 707–737). The text also features in several other East Syriac Gospel manuscripts of this period.
64
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
¯fO[ ¡kS@N jg KS ¯uD
\dsJ L±S Lk@ ¡l[J mg i[hc |NJzN |NJ{c KcN@ jgN ¯GOSJ ¡\ds ¡hNC m\h\J a[@ ¯e_oJ Z} [AkNMg ¡[N} ZQS ¯¡l~
xg nNNJ@ Zg ¡
[K~c K\DsJ C° eCO[ id . There are two lines, then, which descend from the blessed David, one on Solomon’s side, which reaches to Jacob, the father of Joseph, and the other on Nathan’s side, which descends to Eli, who was also considered to be the father of Joseph. The line of descent is as follows: Mathan, son of Eleazar, descends from the seed of Solomon; he married a wife called Esta: she is to be found in the centre of the diagram, in the inner ring. By her he begot Jacob. Mathan (then) died and Melki married Esta. Now Melki’s family was from the line of Nathan. By her Melki begot Eli, the same person as Heli:14 in the diagram he is called Heli. Thus Jacob and Heli were brothers by the same mother. Eli married, but died without children; his brother Jacob then married his widow in order to establish offspring from him, as it is written in the Law (Deut 25:5). By her he became father of Joseph, who was the natural son of Jacob, as is written in Matthew, but for legal purposes he was reckoned as the son of Heli, as Luke describes — so that there might be no room for fault-finders: whether they wanted to reckon the matter according to nature, or according to law, Christ was still the son of David. Thus you should know that the line of descent of the two families is indicated in the outer ring (of the diagram), running from David to Joseph. By means of the indications in the inner ring, the fusion of the two families is shown, as though (indicated) by a finger. Mathan, son of Eleazar, is listed with his family, and Melki with his, while Esta, who was wife to both, is placed in the middle. Jacob, her son, is inscribed following Mathan his father; following these is marked Joseph, the natural son of Jacob and the legal son of Eli. Thus far, the text is based on Julius Africanus’ explanation in his Letter to Aristides. By way of conclusion, however, a paragraph concerning the genealogy of Mary is added: One should also know that the source from which Joseph’s family descends is the same as that from which Mary’s does too, for Eleazar, son of Eliud (Mt 1:15), had two sons, the one Mathan, and the other Yotham. Mathan begot Jacob, and Jacob (begot) Joseph; likewise Yotham begot Sadok, and Sadok (begot) Mary by his wife Dina, who was the sister of Elisabeth, as is indicated in the outer ring (of the diagram). 14 `Eli is (surprisingly) the Harklean form, and Heli that of the Sinaiticus and Peshitta.
S. Brock
65
The genealogy constructed by the holy Mar Theodore the Interpreter is ended.
It is at once obvious that this final paragraph comes from the same source as that from which the extract in Sinai Syr. 16 derives. In all likelihood Sinai Syr. 16 is the earliest witness to this variant tradition, that the names of Mary’s parents were not Anna and Joachim, but Dina and Z/Sadoq.15 The precise date, however, of the manuscript has been much disputed, thanks to the extremely conservative nature of the estrangelo hand employed.16 According to Nestle, Sachau was of the opinion that it could belong to the late sixth century, and Draguet (p. 33*) likewise considered a sixth-century date likely. By contrast both Lewis, in her Catalogue, and Harris (p. 4) preferred the seventh century, while Mingana, on the basis of Mingana Syr. 641 (which comes from Sinai Syr. 16), opted for «about AD 850». Although Mingana’s allocation of dates is often very unsatisfactory, in this case there is good reason for thinking that he was at least right to exclude a sixth- or seventh-century date: as Nicole Zeegers-Vander Vorst correctly observed,17 the presence in the manuscript of some extracts taken from Jacob of Edessa, who died in 708, means that the manuscript must accordingly be dated to at least the eighth century. A further pointer to this sort of dating is provided by a scribal note on f. 177v which is written in serto script:18 apart from Harvard Syr. 176 whose dating is uncertain (see HATCH, Album… Pl. XCV, and M. H. GOSHEN-GOTTSTEIN, Syriac Manuscripts in the Harvard College Library. A Catalogue (Missoula, 1979) 110–111), at present the earliest known dated manuscript in serto script is British Library Add. 14548, of AD 790 (HATCH, Album… Pl. XCVI). Thus, in all likelihood, Sinai Syr. 16 should be dated to the eighth or early ninth century.
15 The tradition is alluded to in a certain number of considerably later writers, but these are not of concern here. 16 Illustrations of it can be found in HARRIS, The Apology of Aristides, Frontispiece, and in R. DRAGUET, Fragments de l’Ambrosienne de Milan à restituer aux mss. syriaques Sinai 46 et 16, in Biblical and Patristic Studies in Memory of Robert Pierce Casey / Ed. J. N. BIRDSALL, R. W. THOMSON (Freiburg, 1963) Plate V. 17 Une gnomologie d’auteurs grecs en traduction syriaque // Symposium Syriacum 1976 (OCA 205; 1978) 166, n. 13. 18 The scribe identifies himself as Mari son of ’tnws, from Edessa (this, apart from the name Mari, was noted by BUNDY, Mus 96 (1983) 98, where he suggested that the father’s name is a miswriting of Athanasius). Mari writes in a fully developed serto script, as opposed to the cursive hands of scribal notes in British Library Add. 14452 (of AD 509), Add. 14530 (of AD 535) and Add. 14558 (of AD 557); on which see F. BRIQUEL-CHATONNET, De l’écriture édéssienne à l’estrangela et au serto // Semitica 50 (2000) 81–90; also J. F. HEALEY, The early history of the Syriac script: a reassessment // Journal of Semitic Studies 45 (2000) 55–67.
66
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
One further point requires mention: is Sinai Syr. 16 of Melkite or of Syrian Orthodox origin? Links between Sinai and the Melkite community in Edessa can be seen from a number of dated Syriac manuscripts, the earliest being British Library Or. 8606, dated 723;19 the presence in Sinai Syr. 16, however, of quotations from Jacob of Edessa suggests that this particular manuscript may well instead be of Syrian Orthodox origin. In either case, it is witness to interaction between the two communities at some stage or other. Whatever the date of Sinai Syr. 16, it seems likely that the tradition it preserves concerning Mary’s ancestry and Christ’s levitical priesthood has much earlier roots: an interest in the latter in the latter half of the fourth century can clearly be seen in the Commentary on the Diatessaron, I.25–26, where the Syriac text provides objections to Mary’s levitical ancestry, while the Armenian translation promotes it.20 The tradition of Christ’s levitical priesthood — whether it be transmitted through Mary, or through John the Baptist, or through Simeon — is most likely to have a Judaeo-Christian origin, and this means that the wording preserved by Dionysius bar Salibi, that the kingdom of David and the priesthood of Levi were to «receive fulfilment» will represent this tradition more correctly than does the extract in Sinai Syr. 16, which speaks of the Old Testament kingship and priesthood as being rendered ineffective in Christ, reflecting a later supersessionist attitude. Each of the two traditions for the names of Mary’s parents — Joachim and Anna, and Zadoq and Dina21 — will have its roots in a different early Christian milieu: Joachim and Anna make their first appearance in the Protogospel of James, whose various misconceptions about Jewish traditions make a gentile Christian origin likely; while Zadoq and Dina provide a counterpart that very probably originates in Judaeo-Christian circles. Syriac literature provides evidence for other such pairs, notably in the legends of the finding of the Cross, with Constantine’s mother Helena as the heroine in the mainstream tradition, but Claudius’ wife Protonike in the tradition preserved in the Teaching of Addai. Our short text in Sinai Syr. 16 can thus be seen to provide another example of an intriguing phenomenon to which Michel van Esbroeck has drawn attention on a number of different occasions.
19 For details, see S. BROCK, Syriac on Sinai: the main connections // Eukosmia. Studi miscellanei per il 75 di Vincenzo Poggi S. J. / Ed. V. Ruggieri, L. Pieralli (Soveria Mannelli, 2003) 103–117. 20 For a discussion of the problems raised by this contradiction, see TAYLOR, The priesthood of Christ… and LANGE, The descent of Mary... The position taken in the Syriac text has some resemblance to that of Eusebius, in his Questions and Answers on the Gospels (BEYER, Die evangelischen Fragen… 54–55). 21 Whereas Anna/Hanna gets her name from Samuel’s mother, Dina gets hers from Jacob’s daughter.
67
S. Brock
APPENDIX 1 The genealogical schemata given for Mary (1) Sinai Sin. 16. Mary is said to descend on her father’s side from the tribe of Judah, and on her mother’s from the tribe of Levi. Eleazar
Mathan
Yotham
Jacob
Zadoq = Dina
Joseph = Mary
Elisabeth = Zacharias John the Baptist
(2) Mary’s relationship to Joseph, as added to Julius Africanus’ explanation of Joseph’s genealogy (Apocryphal books apud Jacob of Edessa). David Solomon
Nathan
Eleazar
Yanai
Mathan = (1) Esta (2) = Melki
Jacob = (2) anon. (1) = Heli Joseph
Panther
Joachin = Hanna/Anna Mary
(3) Syriac Life of Mary (ed. BUDGE). In contrast to Julius Africanus’ schema, where Jacob is Joseph’s natural father and Eli/Heli his legal father, the reverse is the case here. Dina is said to have been called Hanna from the time that she gave birth to Mary.
68
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
Solomon
Nathan
Eleazar Mathan
Matath
Yonakir/Zadoq = Dina/Hanna
Jacob = (1) Esta (2) = Heli
Mary
Joseph
(4) Cave of Treasures XLIV.45–46. (There is considerable variation in the spelling of some of the names). Eleazar
Sakot/Sabrat = Mathan
Hadyat = Jacob
Paqod
Yonakir = Hanna
Joseph
Mary
(5) Epiphanius the monk, Life of Mary, and other Greek texts: Nathan
Solomon
Levi Panther Mattham (priest in Bethlehem) Mary Salome (midwife)
Sobe
Bar Panther Anna = Joachim
Elisabeth
John the Baptist
Mary
Melki = (2) anon. (1) = Matthan
Eli = (1) anon. (2) = Jacob Joseph
S. Brock
69
APPENDIX 2 The contents of Sin. Syr. 16 The following description of the contents is based on the present foliation (which probably goes back to the time of the microfilming of the manuscripts by the Library of Congress in 1950); it should be noted that the folio numbers given by J. RENDEL HARRIS, The Apology of Aristides (Cambridge, 1891) 3–6, and by A. S. LEWIS, Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts in the Convent of Saint Catherine on Mount Sinai (Studia Sinaitica 1, 1894) 18–38, in their descriptions of the manuscript will not correspond with those given below, since they were working before the removal of the first quire (folio 1 today represents the first folio of the second quire). ff. 1–27r: Palladius, Lausiac History. R. Draguet’s manuscript H in his Formes syriaques de la matière de l’Histoire Lausiaque (CSCO SS 169–170, 173–174; 1978). The missing first quire of Sinai syr. 16 is to be found in Milan A296 Inf, ff. 174–179 + Mingana syr. 641 + Milan A296 Inf. f.180 (see DRAGUET, Les formes syriaques de la matière de l’Histoire Lausiaque (CSCO, Scr. Syri 169; 1978) 33*– 34*). ff. 27r–56r: Nilus, On Monastic Life. P. BETTIOLO’s manuscript B in his Gli scritti siriaci di Nilo Solitario (Louvain, 1983) 46–151. ff. 56r–68r: Apology of Aristides. Edited from this manuscript by J. RENDEL HARRIS, The Apology of Aristides (Cambridge, 1891) (Texts and Studies I.1). Reedited in B. POUDERON, M-J. PIERRE, B. OUTTIER, M. GUIORGADZÉ, Aristide, Apologie (Sources chrétiennes 470; 2003). ff. 68r–75r: Plutarch. Edited from this manuscript by E. NESTLE, A Tract of Plutarch on the advantage to be derive from one’s enemies (Studia Sinaitica 4; 1904). ff. 75r–84v: Plutarch, Peri askeseos. This is the same text as that edited from British Library Add. 17209 by P. DE LAGARDE, Analecta Syriaca (Leipzig, 1858; repr. Osnabrück, 1967) 177–186. The beginning, missing in Add.17209 (and so also in de Lagarde’s edition), is edited from Sinai Syr. 16 by W. ROHLFS, PseudoPlutarch, Peri Askeseos // Paul de Lagarde und die syrische Kirchengeschichte (Göttingen, 1968) 176–184. ff. 84v–89r: Discourse of Pythagoras. This is the same text as that edited from Add. 14658 by DE LAGARDE, Analecta Syriaca... 195–201. ff. 89r–95v: Plutarch, Peri aorgesias. This is the same text as that edited from Add.17209 by DE LAGARDE, Analecta Syriaca... 186–195. ff. 95v–103r: Lucian, Peri tou me radios pisteuein diabole. This is the same text as that edited from Add. 17209 by E. SACHAU, Inedita Syriaca (Halle, 1870; repr. Hildesheim, 1968) 1–16. ff. 103r–105r: Discourse by a philosopher on the soul. Printed by LEWIS, Catalogue… 19–26. This text is elsewhere attributed either to Aristotle or to Gregory
70
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
Thaumaturgus: see my Clavis Patrum Graecorum III, 7717 // JTS ns 32 (1981) 163–177. ff. 105r–108v: Theano, Counsels. This is the same text as that edited from Add. 14658 by SACHAU, Inedita Syriaca... 70–75. German translation by U. POSSEKEL, Der Rat der Theano. Eine pythagoreische Spruchsammlung in syrischer Überlieferung // Mus 111 (1998) 7–36. (Sinai Syr. 16 provides the text for the passages that Sachau could not read; I hope to edit this on another occasion). ff. 108v–109r: Plato, Definitions. This is the same text as that edited from Add. 14658 by SACHAU, Inedita Syriaca... 66–67. f. 109r–v: Plato, Instruction to a pupil. This is the same text as that edited from Add. 14658 by SACHAU, Inedita Syriaca... 67–69. f. 109v: Short definitions, on faith etc. This is the same text as that edited from Add. 14658 by SACHAU, Inedita Syriaca... 69. ff. 109v–114v: Sayings of the Philosophers. These are edited by LEWIS, Catalogue… 26–38. On these sayings, see N. ZEEGERS-VAN DER VOORST // Symposium Syriacum 1976 (OCA 205; 1978) 163–177. ff. 114v–177v: John the Solitary, Commentary on Ecclesiastes. Edited from this manuscript by W. STROTHMANN, Der Kohelet-Kommentar des Johannes von Apamea (GOFS 30; 1988). ff. 177v–184v: John Chrysostom, On the Canaanite Woman (CPG 4529). Sinai Syr. 16 is D. BUNDY’s manuscript S in his edition, in Mus 96 (1983) 97–132 ff. 184v–200r: John (yhwnys) Chrysostom, excerpts from his Homilies on Matthew (CPG 4424). 184v «On the young man from whom Legion departed, and on humility». 186r «From Discourse 28». 191r «From the Discourse on the person who has sinned, that he should not despair because he has fallen». 195r «From the Discourse on “If your brother has wronged you, rebuke him between yourselves». f. 200r: «The Fathers of the circle of Gregorios», On the genealogy of the Virgin (the text discussed above). f. 200v: (the title is too faded to read). f. 201r: Jacob of Edessa, On Paradise. (This is not from his work on the Hexaemeron). f. 202r: Ephrem, On Paradise. (This short extract is in 7:7 metre). f. 202v: Mar John (yhwnys). (On Satan counselling despair to the sinner). f. 202v: Mar Jacob. (On «every knee shall bow» before the Bema at the Last Judgement). f. 203r: Questions posed by Yohannan to Jacob (probably, of Edessa). (On Adam’s skull). f. 203v: Mar John (yhwnys), to Gregory the Anagnostes (Reader). (On «Even though heaven and earth will pass away, my words will not pass away»). No addressee with this name is known in John Chrysostom’s correspondence.
S. Brock
71
f. 204 does not belong to the original manuscript. Blank, apart from a note of ownership by the monastery on Sinai in a hand of c. 10th/11th century. Codicological details Material: parchment. Script: neat Estrangelo, one column ff. 1–56r; 2 columns ff.56v–end (the change over —probably involving different scribes — occurs mid text). For published photographs and discussion of the date, see above. Measurements: 16.5 × 24.8 cms; area of writing 10.7 × 16.5 (ff. 1–56r), 11.7 × 17.5 (ff.56v–end). Prickings: these take the form : : (for the single columns) and : : : : (for the double columns). Lines per page: c. 27 (ff. 1–56r); c. 34 (ff. 56v–end). Quire numbering: quires (of 10ff.) are numbered on the inner lower margins of the recto of the first, and verso of the last, folio of each quire for quires 2–5 (= ff. 1r–40v), after which the numbers are only given on the recto of the first folio of each quire (except quire 7; between f.51 and the end the quire numbering indicates that a few folios must be missing here and there). Page headings: these are found with only partial regularity on the verso of the fifth and tenth folio of each quire. Incorporated into the binding at the front and back are two fragments in an estrangelo hand of the sixth century; these can be identified as being from Aphrahat, Demonstration XXIII.59–60 (at the beginning, corresponding to Patrologia Syriaca II, cols. 124–125; at the end, to col. 120).
SUMMARY The Gospels of Matthew and Luke only provide a genealogy for Joseph. Speculation concerning Mary’s ancestry is first found in the Protogospel of James. In due course other writers offered a variety of different genealogies, one of which (to be found in Sinai Syr. 16) is published here. According to this genealogy Mary was the daughter of Zadoq and Dina (rather than the familiar Joachim and Anna). The other witnesses to this variant tradition, and the motivation behind it, are also discussed. In an appendix a full description of the contents of Sinai Syr. 16 is given (among the several important texts is the Apology of Aristides)
Istva;n M. Buga;r University of Debrecen, Hungar
WHAT DID EPIPHANIUS WRITE TO EMPEROR THEODOSIUS?1 1. The problem The subject of my paper is a letter. It does not need an explanation, how great importance a letter can have for understanding an author and his inner development. The significance of the letter concerned, however, is of a different nature. It was used as a conclusive proof in a suit, which has once shaken all the Christian world, and has been resumed several times ever since. The issue debated was the legitimacy of using images in the Christian cult. When this debate first sprang up in oecumenical dimension, the parties started to wage a sort of philological war. They were accumulating, and indeed creating and refuting historical evidence to support their respective case. On the iconoclastic side the main role was played by some writings attributed to Epiphanius of Salamis, a prominent figure of the antiheretical struggles of the fourth century A.D. Besides a Testament attributed to Epiphanius, the Seventh Ecumenical Council names only a letter to the Emperor Theodosius. Now, what does the letter prove? According to the iconoclastic side, that in the golden age of Patristics, the fourth century, there was a significant resistance against the use of sacred images in Christian worship. According to the iconophiles, that except for the author of this letter, nobody shared the iconoclastic position in that golden age.2 Besides, the Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Concil disproved that the author was Epiphanius, and after iconoclasm had been resumed, patriarch Nicephorus (758–828) elaborated on their
1
An earlier version of this paper was read at the Byzantine Studies Seminar, convened by Prof. E. Jeffreys, Dr. J. Howard and Dr. M. Mango, University of Oxford, 27th April, 1998. I am grateful for inspiration, encouragement and suggestions on different stages of this material especially to the Rt. Rev. K. T. Ware, István Perczel, Andrew Louth, Averil Cameron and Samuel Rubenson. I am also indebted to Basile Markesinis for checking my manuscript readings and to Matthew Suff, who has carefully proofread the final text. A substantial part of the research has been carried out with financial support from the Central European University Foundation. I have collected extensive further material while being an Andrew W. Mellon visiting scholar at the American Academy in Rome. The preparation of the final version has been made possible with the help of the Hungarian National Research Fund (OTKA D 34591) and the Bolyai Fund of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. 2 Fr. 2. below with n. 9.
I. M. Buga; r
73
argument. His coclusions remained authoritative for a thousand and two hundred years, until Karl Holl, the critical editor of the works of Epiphanius, challanged them.3 In spite of Georg Ostrogorsky’s fierce attack against Holl’s view,4 the overwhelming majority of twentieth century scholars took sides with Karl Holl.5 This view can be represented by Georg Thümmel who last wrote on the issue and edited the fragments á decades ago.6 Now the text is regularly used in handbooks to show the supposedly strong resistance to the use of religious images on the side of church authorities in the fourth century.7 There are however some considerations and evidence ignored by Thümmel that make it worth revisiting the question.
2. The text First, let us start the investigation by trying to establish the text of the letter, the evidence. Nicephorus, fortunately, quotes it abundantly. With a little change of order in Thümmel’s published text8 it will appear that the entire 3 K. HOLL, Die Schriften des Epiphanius gegen die Bilderverehrung // Sitzungberichte der königlichen Preussiscen Akademie der Wissenschaften 11 (1916) 828– 868. 4 G. OSTROGORSKY, Die pseudo-epiphanischen Schriften gegen die Bilderverehrung als Bindeglied zwischen den ikonoklastischen Synoden von 754 und 815 // Studien zur Geschichte des byzantinischen Bilderstreites (Breslau, 1929; repr. Amsterdam, 1964) 61–113. 5 E. g. J. WILPERT, Die unbekannten bilderfeindliche Schriften des hl. Epiphanius // Historisches Jahrbuch 38 (1917) 532–535; F. DÖLGER [review of] G. Ostrogorsky, Studien zur Geschichte des byzantinischen Bilderstreites // Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen 191/8 (1929) 353–372; B. HEMMERDINGER, Saint Épiphane, iconoclaste // SP 10 (1970) (TU 107) 118–120, esp. 118; P. MARAVAL, Épiphane, «docteur des iconoclastes» // Nicée II, 787–1987: Douze siècles d’images religieuses: Actes du colloque international Nicée II tenu au Collège de France, Paris / Ed. E. Bœspflug, N. Lossky (Latour—Marbourg, 1987) 51–62. 6 H. G. THÜMMEL, Die bilderfeindliche Schriften des Epiphanios von Salamis // Byzantinoslavica 47 (1986) 170. 7 E. g. Ja. PELIKAN, Images of the Invisible // The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, vol. 2 The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600–1700) (Chicago, 1977) 102; C. MANGO, The Art of the Byzantine Empire, 312–1483: Sources and Documents // Sources and Documents in the History of Art / Ed. H. W. Johnson (Englewood Cliffs, Colo., 1922) 41–42. Cf. CPG; JOHANNES QUASTEN, Patrology. Vol. 3, The Golden Age of Patristic Literature: From the Council of Nicaea to the Council of Chalcedon, (Westminster, Md., 1960) 391–393 (repeated in the 6th edition [1992]). 8 Republished in H. G. THÜMMEL, Die Frühgeschichte der ostkirchlichen Bilderlehre. Texte und Untersuchungen zur Zeit vor dem Bildestreit (Berlin, 1992) (TU 139) [henceforth THÜMMEL].
74
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
argument against the images contained in it survives.9 Furthermore, Nicephorus quotes a passage stating the author’s orthodoxy10 and a further one counselling the Emperor concerning fasting on Saturdays.11 We can now add two important fragments to the edition of Thümmel. One is preserved in a ninth-century Syriac manuscript containing a Cononite12 florilegium probably of the late sixth century.13 The cited passage anathematises those who reject the resurrection of the body. The other, more extensive and unpublished fragment comes from codex Vat. gr. 375, a fourteenth-century collection of instructive texts for monks.14 The heading of the passage reads «Emperor Theodoret», and thus became a separate item in the CPG. As a note of P. Maraval testifies, I was not the first who thought that it must come from the same letter that we are discussing now.15 However, Fr. J. P. Paramelle, to whom he refers, to the best of my knowledge has never fulfilled his promise to publish the text. I do not understand the suggestion of Devréesse that the letter would be by Epiphanius of Pavia and addressed to King Theoderic of Ravenna.16 Although we know from the biography of Epiphanius by his sucessor, Ennodius,17 that he maintained good connections with Theoderic for diplomatic reasons, why would a Latin orthodox bishop write in Greek to the Arian king, advise him on prayer and name his wife Augusta? It is much easier to suppose that the fourteenth-century monk copyist of the codex misread the name. Besides the similar pronounciation of the two names in Byzantine Greek (Theodosion/Theodoriton) and the minuscule writing, another source of mis9
See my reconstruction in the Appendix, fr. 2. Fr. 1.a. 11 Fr. 3.a. 12 The followers of John Philoponus’ teaching on the Trinity, who separated from the non-Chalcedonian Church in the second half of the sixth century, were themselves divided by Philoponus’ writing on the resurrection. Those who rejected it were led by Conon, who had been consacrated as the metropolitan of Tharsus by Jacob Baradaeus. 13 Fr. 1.b. 14 Fr. 3.b. 15 MARAVAL, Épiphane… 56 n. 31. 16 Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana // Codices Vaticanae Graecae. Tom II / Ed. R. DEVREESSE. 67. 17 Ennodius, Vita Epiphanii 109–110; 122–130; 178–189. CSEL 6,359,3–19; 362,16–364,20; 377,13–380,6; cf. Sister GENEVIEVE MARIE COOK (ed., tr., intr., comm.), The Life of Saint Epiphanius by Ennodius // Studies in Medieval and Renaissence Latin Language and Literature 14 (1942) 12–13 (although she claims that Ennodius obviously sought the favour of Theoderic). The Vita does mention letters to Theoderic about Epiphanius’ success in liberating captives and about the needs of the poor: 180–181. CSEL 6, 377,25–378,7. 10
I. M. Buga; r
75
spelling could be a sort of error of profession, since the name of Theodoret of Cyrrhus, author on early monasticism, must have been more familiar to him. I have already seen «Posidonius» (i. e. the philosopher) in print instead of «Poseidon» (i. e. the god), or a historian of philosophy saying Heraclitus instead of Heracles (Hercules). The same phenomenon occurs even more frequently in reading. The new fragment advises the Emperor and the Empress to persist in saying the morning and evening prayer, and indeed to strive at uninterrupted prayer.18 Basile Markesinis, to whom I am indebted in editing the text, has suggested me that the script of the manuscript may point to a provenance from Cyprus.19 This would well explain how the compilator got hold of the letter of Epiphanius.
3. External evidence for the history of the text Now I turn to the external evidence for the history of the text. The speaker at the Second Council of Nicaea, deacon Epiphanius of Constantinople, says that he read the whole letter carefully, that is to say, not only an excerpt.20 He may have found it in the patriarchal archives. Whether it was in a collection of letters, and how it reached the patriarchal collection, which was previously for fifty years under iconoclastic control, we do not know anymore. In the refutation the speaker at Nicaea concedes that the letter is contemporary with St. Epiphanius, and thus can make a good argument out of its remark that not a single member of the clergy had taken heed to the author’s concern about the dangers of idolatry. The council, referring to similar cases during earlier ecumenical councils, «refuses the writing but acknowledges the Father».21 Elsewhere the fathers of Nicaea often complain that at Hiereia only extracts were circulated on tablets (ðéôôÜêéá) instead of codices. They themselves were careful to present codices and cite writings with their incipit.22 They also inform us that all over the world there cannot be found even two or 18
Although the authenticity of the sayings attributed to Epiphanius in the alphabetical Apophthegmata is dubious at best, we may note that one among them, No. 3 exactly deals with ceaseless prayer, while No 7. with the seven hours of prayer. 19 Cf. P. CANART, Un style d’écriture livresque dans les manuscrits chypriotes du XVIe siècle: la chypriote «bouclée» // La paléographie greque et byzantine: 21–25 octobre 1974. Colloques Internationaux du C.N.R.S. ¹ 559 (Paris, 1977) 304–321; although this very manuscript is not on Canart’s «provisional list of manuscripts written with “chypriote bouclée”»: ibid. 311–318. 20 See Appendix, n. 9. 21 MANSI XIII. 296D. 22 Sister C. MURRAY, Art and the Early Church // JTS 28 (1977) 315, n. 1 with references.
76
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
three manuscripts of the supposedly Epiphanian writing against images, except for some copies that have been made very recently.23 Until recently there was no evidence of the knowledge of the letter before the Iconoclastic Controversy. The source of the Syriac fragment however seems to date well before that period. Moreover, I have found reference to the letter in the Vita Epiphanii,24 which has been recently the subject of a doctoral dissertation at Oxford by Claudia Rapp.25 On the basis of the translation technique of the Syriac version, she believes that the Vita is not later than the mid-fifth century.26 In any case it surely predates Leontius of Neapolis, a mid-seventh-century author.27 Now, according to the Vita, in the Letter to Theodosius Epiphanius asks the Emperor to expel heresies current in Cyprus. Rapp comments that no such laws are known from Theodosius’ antiheretical legislation, neither do we have any evidence that the mentioned heresies were represented to a considerable extent in late fourth-century Cyprus.28 Besides the Letter to Theodosius, the author of the Vita was aware of the letter to John and only one further group of letters pertaining to the debates with Chrysostom and mentioned by Socrates, the possible source of the Vita on the issue.29 There could have been a collection of his letters known at the time of the composition of the Life. The new fragment from Vat gr. 375 as an independent source also confirms the existence of a letter of Epiphanius to Theodosius, which dealt at least with issues other than images. If it is the same letter, it must have got into the monastic florilegium before it was discarded by the Seventh Ecumenical Council.
23 MANSI XIII, 296B: «ôïýôùí ô§í ëïãõäñßùí S êáôN ô§í óåðô§í åkêüíùí ðåñéâïìâïóé, äýï } ôñåsò âßâëïé PíN ðOóáí ôxí ïkêïõìÝíçí ï¡ðù çñçíôáé, åk ìx íåùóôr dãñÜöçóáí». 24 Fr. 1.c. 25 C. RAPP, The Vita of Epiphanius of Salamis: An Historical and Literary Study. D. Phil. Thesis, University of Oxford, Faculty of Modern History (Oxford, 1991) Vol. 1. 16–40. I am grateful to Kate Leeming for drawing my attention to this dissertation. The dissertation contains a critical edition of the text that was to be published, but has not come out to the best of my knowledge. 26 Ibid. Vol. 1. 94–102; cf. vol. 2. Appendix, 34–35. 27 Rapp is probably right in assuming that a passage in Leontius of Neapolis’ Vita Iohannis Eleaemosynaris (c. 19) rests on the Vita, and the Vita Auxibii, composed between 600 and 649, again uses the Vita Epiphanii: RAPP, The Vita of Epiphanius… Vol. 2. Appendix, 30. 28 Ibid. Appendix, comment on c. 119. 29 Historia Ecclesiastica VI,10,17.
I. M. Buga; r
77
4. Faking during the controversy Thus far I seem to have corroborated that the text in discussion is authentic. There is, however, some reason to raise doubts. During the Iconoclastic Controversy another letter of Epiphanius was also adduced as evidence against the case of icons. This letter, quoted as EÅðéóôüëç äïãìáôéêÞ is however rather suspicious.30 As Ostrogorsky has observed,31 it corresponds almost word for word to a paragraph in the Definition of the Iconoclastic Council of Hiereia.32 An interesting parallel can be found among the letters of St. Basil, which states — contrary to the Dogmatic Letter — the iconophile position as if professing faith in the decision of a council.33 I supply the parallels from the Definition of Nicaea II,34 but one can probably find even closer correspondence elsewhere. No scholar would claim that this letter is by St. Basil, or from the fourth century. Luckily, we do have the collection of St. Basil’s letters, and this one seems to have been transmitted extra collectionem. In the case of Epiphanius we, unfortunately, cannot settle the issue so easily, but the highly suspicious Dogmatic letter is in itself enough to raise doubts concerning the other iconoclastic writings attributed to Epiphanius. Elsewhere I have argued that among these the Treatise can hardly be by Epiphanius.35
5. Evidence of the content As for the Letter to Theodosius, the only means to get closer to the answer is to look at the contents of the letter. Holl’s36 only strong argument for the authenticity of the letter is the passage where the author allows fasting on Saturdays.37 This seems to contradict eighth century Byzantine practice, but would be conceivable in the fourth century.38 Holl, however, misinterprets the fourth-century evidence,39 further, there was a fierce debate about fasting 30
THÜMMEL § 36,2–3. P. 76. 32 MANSI XIII, 336E. 33 Epistula 360, Courtonne. M. Bessières has discussed the origin of the fragment in JTS 23 (1922): 345. 34 MANSI XIII, 373E; 376A; C; E; 377A; CE; 380A 35 See I. M. BUGAR; , «Origenist Christology» and Iconoclasm: The Case of Epiphanius of Salamis // Christus bei den Vätern: Forscher aus dem Osten und Westen Europas an den Quellen des gemeinsamen Glaubens / Ed. Y. de Andia, P. L. Hofrichter (Tyrolia—Wien, 2003) (Wiener Patristische Tagungen 1) 96–110. 36 «Epiphanius», 370–376. 37 Fr. 3.a. 38 Quinisexta council, canon 55 (= Apostolic Canon 66). 39 In fact the testimonies cited by him prove exactly and unanimously the opposite, especially in relation to Palestine and Cyprus. He misinterprets the — otherwise 31
78
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
on Saturdays exactly at the time of the iconoclastic controversy40 — nonetheless I do not believe that an iconoclast forger would risk the force of his «evidence» by introducing another controversial issue. enigmatic — Syriac of Athanasius’ Festal Letter 6: in my understanding the passage says exactly the opposite of what Holl wants: Athanasius exempted the Saturdays from fasting. This is how the author of the monograph on the festal letter, A. CAMPANALI, translates the passage: La lettere festali di Atanasio di alessandria: studio storico-critico (Rome, 1989) (Corpus dei manoscritti copti letterari) 174. I am grateful to Sebastian Brock for drawing my attention to this publication, as well as for checking my interpretation. Egeria, c. 27,1; 6 is absolutely clear about the Jerusalem practice contrasting it with the Western: in Jerusalem they never fasted on Saturdays except Holy Saturday. This is why they calculated Great Lent as lasting for 8 weeks. The Saturday liturgy coincided with the repose from fasting, as it is obvious — contrary to Holl — also from the canons 49 and 51 of Laodicaea. Similarly, the Saturday liturgy on Cyprus (and Cappadocia: Socrates, HE V,22 PG 67,640, cf. Epiphanius, de fide 24,7) not only does not prove that it was a fasting day (OSTROGORSKY, Die pseudo-epiphanischen Schriften… 93), but in fact proves again exactly that it was not. (With Holl’s argument Epiphanius would turn out as approving Sunday fasting as well.) The Apostolic Canon V. mirrors a general practice in the fourth-century East (cf. also Basil, de ieiunio I–II, PG 31, 176,20–21; 181,47–49; 189,25–26; 196,17– 20). As Augustine asserts, the Saturday fast was exclusively a Roman custom, and he himself blames those who wanted to enforce it on Eastern clergy: Ep. 82,14. PL 33,281; cf. Ep. 36 passim. Further, Nicephoros aduces a passage from the Panarion (42,3,4), where Epiphanius reproaches Marcion for having introduced the Saturday fast in order to harass the God of the OT. This seems to suggest that Epiphanius was of the opposite — by Nicephorus’ time orthodox — conviction, but does not exclude the possibility that he gave concessions to the practice of the imperial family. 40 The canon of Quinisexta quoted did not guarantee that the question could not be raised. One has to remember only that questioning the legitimacy of icons also contradicted the Quinisexta council (Canon 82). And indeed, around 700 a fierce debate about times of fasting was shaking the peace of the Church. It was Emperor Heraclius who in the seventh century enforced the eight-week long Lent on the entire Church, by then common mainly among the non-Chalcedonians. Maximus the Confessor opposed him also on this issue: T. MGALOBLISHVILI, The Lent Cycle in Ancient Georgian Homiletic-Liturgical Collections // SP 33 (1997) 559–560. Now a century later, seeing that the «controversy about the sacred fasts is towering up to the high air» St John Damascene dedicated a writing to the issue which he introduced with words similar to the preface to his First Apology against the Iconoclasts: De sacris ieiuniis (quotation from c. 3. PG 95,68,5–6.). He takes sides against those who maintained a seven-week long Lent, but warns also their opponents that they should be more tolerant. In fact he tries to harmonise earlier patristic references by proclaiming a preparatory week of meat-fast, six weeks of Lent until the Friday preceding Palm Sunday, and then Holy Week. He is arguing against the eight-week party in so far as they reasoned their position by claiming that one had to count only five weekdays as fasting days. Damascene answers that on Saturday and Sunday the fasting is less strict and liturgy is offered; nevertheless we must include them to get forty days since
I. M. Buga; r
79
5.1. The Letter to John It is the question of images that will take us further. Although in the extant writings of Epiphanius, there is hardly any reference to any use of Christian images, there is another fragment discussed during the Iconoclastic Controversy, which proves to be genuine by the evidence of Jerome’s translation. In Latin the entire Letter to John of Jerusalem survives, and among other issues it discusses an affair of Epiphanius with an image. Dating from 394, the letter relates how Epiphanius in a church under the jurisdiction of John of Jerusalem tore down a curtain (âyëïí — velum) with an effigy allegedly of a saint or Christ indistinguishable for him.41 He ordered it to be used as a burial shroud for a poor deceased. With the letter, he now sends a curtain to replace the damaged one. What exactly Epiphanius’ concern was that prompted him this iconoclastic act is unclear. In any case, he seems to have considered it a highly unusual decoration in a church. Now depictive art as such was far from being unusual in Christian churches by the end of the fourth century.42 Yet the incident testifies that Epiphanius had scruples at least with some sort of images. In the Letter to Theodosius, too, the author asks the Emperor that curtains with images be torn down and turned into burial shrouds.43 This so far may seem to confirm the authenticity. Holy Week is distinct from the Tessarakoste. He does not detail the argument of the seven-week party, but we cannot exclude that it had been suggested to count Saturdays as fasting days, as in the Roman Church, although the seven/eight-week position not always corresponded exactly to the admitting or rejection of Saturday fasting. The Martyrdom of Shushanik (fifth century) speaks about eight weeks with a liturgy only on Sundays. This may imply fasting on Saturdays of the Great Lent. Conversely, the eighth-century Martyrdom of Abo Tbileli confirms that at the time of its composition Lent lasted seven weeks with liturgy offered on both Saturdays and Sundays: MGALOBLISHVILI, The Lent Cycle… 560. 41 Stretched between columns, such textiles are represented in Santa Maria Antiqua in Rome. See A. GRABAR, Christian Iconography: A Study of Its Origins (Priceton, 1968) (Bollingen Series XXXV.10) 99 and plates 250–251. The velum mentioned in the letter, however, was at the gateway of the church (34,14). See also J. STRZYGOWSKI, Einfarbige Stoffe mit biblischen Darstellungen aus Ägypten // Orient oder Rom: Beiträge zur Geschichte der Spätantiken und Frühchristlichen Kunst (Leipzig, 1901) 110–111. Egeria on the Golgotha marvelled that «et si vela vides, auroclava sunt, si cortinas vides, similiter auroclauvae olosericae sunt» (c. 35, quoted by HOLL, «Epiphanius», 382). 42 For evidence in the sphere of pilgrim sites see e. g. A. GRABAR, Martyrium: Recherches sur le culte des reliques et l’art chrétien antique (Paris, 1946) Vol. 2: Iconographie; I. BUGAR; , Images and Pilgrimages: On Some Evidence before Justinian // Annual of Medieval Studies at CEU: 1997–1998 / Ed. K. Szende (Budapest, 1999) 201–230 with further literature. 43 Fr. 2,31–34.
80
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
There is however something strange about the issue. The Letter to Theodosius advises that all images be destroyed, except the curtains, which all have to be turned to shrouds. This sounds a little bizarre as an imperial measure. It rather looks as if the author were consciously alluding to this episode of the Letter to John three times,44 and does this, it appears to me, rather awkwardly. In the list of sites with icons, another expression, ïkê² käßv, may also echo the ïkê² êïéí² of the Testament attributed to Epiphanius and certainly quoted in the Iconoclastic Controversy.45 Art historians and antiquarians well know that an object is suspect not so much when it has no parallel as when it has too close parallels. This is exactly the case with our letter. We seem to have detected the source of the possible forger. And there is further evidence that he is indeed a forger.
5.2. Iconography Epiphanius, who could not even distinguish a representation of Christ or some other saint in the Letter to John, appears as an expert on the iconography of Christ and the Apostles in the Letter to Theodosius. He knows exactly where the practice is uniform and where one can find minor differences. He writes as follows: Furthermore, they lie by representing the appearance of saints in different forms according to their whim, sometimes delineating the same persons as old men, sometimes as youths,
intruding into things which they have not seen. For these impostors represent the holy apostle Peter as an old man with hair and beard cut short; some represent St. Paul as a man with receding hair, others as being bald and bearded, and the other apostles as being closely cropped. And they paint the Saviour with long hair, and this by conjecture because He is called a Nazarene, and Nazarenes wear long hair. They are in error, those who try to attach stereotypes to Him: for the Saviour drank wine, whereas Nazarenes did not. If then the Saviour had long hair while his disciples were cropped, and so, by not being cropped, He was unlike them in appearance, for what reason did the Pharisees and scribes give a fee of thirty silver pieces to Judas that he might themselves or through others have known by the token of His hair Him whom they were seeking to find, and this without paying a fee?46
44
Fr 2,8; 11; 31. See St. John of Damascus, Apol. I 25; MANSI XIII, 292CD. 46 Fr 2, 12b–27; translation based on MANGO, The Art of the Byzantine Empire, 312–1483… 42. 45
I. M. Buga; r
81
Holl points out that Epiphanius himself was strongly opposed to the idea that Christ was a Nazirite and to the custom of wearing long hair to imitate him.47 Thus, the argument is very much in the manner of — or based on — Epiphanius. But independently of the question of how Epiphanius suddenly acquired such a familiarity with contemporary art, it is worth asking whether this description really squares with what we know about Christian depictive art of the period. As for the Apostles Peter and Paul there is no problem, since the traits of their portraiture seem to have been fixed by the mid-fourth century with minor exceptions.48 This may be due to the description of their look by earlier apocrypha.49 However, the same is hardly true about Christ. The variety is in fact so wide that Thomas Matthews in a recent study on Late Antique Christian art speaks about the Christ 47
«Epiphanius», 377 quoting Panarion 47,3,3; 30,19,1sqq; 45,4,3sqq, and again the ascetics with long hair: 80,6,6sqq. with De fide 13,3; 23,3. These latter are criticised for falsely imitating Christ, since the Nazirites were justified in wearing long hair only in virtue of being types («ôýðïò») of Christ. Holl is certainly right in pointing out that this idea lays behind the rather elliptic phrase in l. 26: «when they try to transfer the types onto Him». 48 The archaeological material shows a considerable uniformity: cf. M. SOTOMAYOR, S. J., Petrus und Paulus in der frühchristlichen Ikonographie // Spätantike und frühes Christentum / Ed. H. Beck, P. C. Bol (Frankfurt am Main, 1983) 199–210 and F. BISCONTI, Pietro e Paolo: l’invenzione delle immagini, la rievocazione delle storie, la genesi delle teofanie // Pietro e Paolo: La storia, il culto, la memoria nei primi secoli / Ed. A. Donati (Milano, 2000) 43–53; and IDEM, L’origine dell’iconografia di Pietro e Paolo // Pietro e Paolo: il loro rapporto con Roma nelle testimonianze antiche: XXIX incontro di studiosi dell’antichità cristiana, Roma 4–6 maggio 2000 (Roma, 2001) (Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum 74) 393–401. The motif of recognizing saints in visions from their common appearance on images, attested from the fifth century also points to such standard physiognomy of depictions: Inventio et passio SS. Gervasii et Protasii (CPL 2194) = [Ambrose] Epistula II/LIII, PL 17, 742–747, CPL 2195, cf. M. AUBINEAU, Jean Damascène et l’epistula de Inventione Gervasii et Protasii attribuée a Ambroise // AB 90 (1972) 1–14, (with a Greek translation used also by St. John Damascene [Apol. II 64] also published); for dating, see also F. SAVIO, Due Lettere falsamente attribuite a S. Ambroggio // Nuovo Bulletino di archeologia cristiana 3 (1897) 153–177, esp. 158–165 (situates the letter in late fith/ early sixth c. Ravenna); C. SALIOU, Du légendier au sermonnaire: avatars de la Passio Sebastiani // Revue des Études Augustiniennes 36 (1990) 286 n. 8 (holds that the older dating and Ambrosian authorship in the case of the Inventio is much more probable than in the case of the Passio Sebastiani); I could not obtain access to B. AGOSTI’s article in Rivista Cistercense 7 (1990) 215–217; concerning the images of the Apostle Paul, the recognition-motif is discussed by G. DAGRON, Holy Images and Likenesses // DOP 45 (1987) 30–33. 49 J. E. WEIS-LIEBERSDORF, Christus- und Apostelbilder: Einfluss der Apokryphen auf die ältesten Kunsttypen, (Freiburg-im-Breisgau, 1902).
82
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
chamaeleon,50 which actually again corresponds to some apocrypha’s describing him as polymorphic.51 Although the later standard bearded type with long hair (the so-called Zeus or Asclepius type) seems to emerge exactly in Rome in the 380s,52 it is 50 T. F. MATHEWS, The Clash of Gods: A Reinterpretation of Early Christian Art (Princeton, N. J., 1993) 115–41. 51 E. JUNOD, Polymorphie du Dieu Sauveur // Gnosticisme et monde hellénistique / Ed. J. Ries, Y. Janssens, J.-M. Sevrin (Louvain, 1982) (Publications de l’Institut orientaliste de Louvain: Actes du colloque de Louvain-la-Neuve (11–14 mars 1980) 27) 38–46. Cf. especially Acta Petri 21. 52 In general, see J. SAUER, Das aufkommen des bärtigen Christentyps in der frühchristlichen Kunst // Strena bvliciana: commentationes gratvlatoriae Francisco Buliæ ob XV vitae: lvstra feliciter peracta oblatae a discipvlis et amicis A.D. IV non Oct. MCMXXI / Ed. M Abramiæ, V. Hoffiller (Zagreb, 1924) 303–329; J. SAUER, Die ältesten Christusbilder (Berlin, 1920) (Wachsmuths Kunsthefte 7); W. SCHÖNE, Die Bildgeschichte // Das Gottesbild im Abendland / Ed. G. HOWE (Witten—Berlin, 1957) (Glaube und Forschung 15) 7–56; W. N. SCHUMACHER, Altchristliche Giebelkompositionen // Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts R. A. 67 (1960) 133– 149; G. STUHLFAUTH, Die ältesten Porträts Christi und der Apostel (Berlin, 1918); W. J. A. VISSER, Die Entwicklung des Christusbildes im Literatur und Kunst der frühchristlichen und frühbyzantinischen Zeit (Bonn, 1934). According to Kollwitz in the fourth century after Nicaea the bearded type comes to prevail, except on scenes of the enthronement in the Passion cycle and on scenes of miracles. From Theodosius this tendency continues in the West except Milan, but in the East still the figure of the young Christ dominates the representations (see Lexikon der Christlichen Ikonographie / Ed. E. KIRSCHBAUM. Vol. 1: Algemeine Ikonographie, s.v. «Christus, Christusbild 1: Das Christusbild der frühchristlichen Kunst», by J. KOLLWITZ). The finest examples are in the catacomb of Commodilla, fresco in the vault of the «Cubicle of Leo» (J. G. DECKERS, G. MIETKE, A. WEILAND, Die Katakombe «Commodilla»: Repertorium der Malereien (Città del Vaticano, 1994) (Roma sotterranea cristiana 10) No. 5/1 ceiling, with coloured plate 23.) and Christ as Pantocrator in the catacomb of SS. Petrus and Marcellinus (J. G. DECKERS, H. R. SEELIGER, G. MIETKE, Die Katakombe «Santi Marcellino e Pietro»: Repertorium der Malereien (Città del Vaticano, 1987) (Roma sotterranea cristiana 6) No. 3, ceiling, with coloured plate 2–3); cf. also the Traditio legis in Santa Constanza, Rome (G. BOVINI, Edifici cristiani di culto d’età costantiana à Roma. Vol. 1. (Bologna, 1968) 288–297, and S. Gennaro, the baptistery of S. Giovanni in Fonte, Naples (M. VAN BERCHEM, E. CLOUZOT, Mosaïques chrétiennes (Genève, 1924; repr.: Rome, 1965) 105–110 with plate 120 on p. 107), and the Panel with bust of Christ, opus sectile, Ostia Antica, end of fourth century, Ostia, Museo as reproduced in Age of Spirituality… 523–524, cat. No. 468 (K. A. KELLY, Motifs in Opus Sectile and its Painted Imitations from the Tetrarchy to Justinian. Diss. Columbia University, 1986 (Ann Arbor, Mich., 1987) No. 20, pp. 225–226 with plate 97; and the Theodosian sarcophagi reproduced in F. GERKE, Christus in der Spätantiken Plastik (Berlin, 1941) Plates 70, 71 and 74 — all these representations are from the late fourth century. An early specimen is the polychrom fragment in the Museo Nazionale, Palazzo Massimo, Rome: E. DINKLER, Ikonographische Beobachtungen zum Christustyp der poly-
I. M. Buga; r
83
far from being generally accepted. Theodorus Lector, writing some two hundred years later, still considers the representation with short curly hair as the authentic one.53 Christ is very commonly represented as young with long frizzy hair, the so-called Apollo or Helios type, as incarnating eternal youth.54 Though Epiphanius speaks explicitly only about the long hair, not the beard, this type hardly conforms to how we imagine a Nazirite in his thirties. Interestingly enough these two types often appear on the same monument. I suspect that in such a case the bearded figure represents Christ as resurrected and glorified, while the youth stands for him in his earthly life.55 There is, however, a type with definitely short hair, current throughout the fourth century especially in Rome.56 This type still has a long career to chromen Fragmente des Museo Nazionale Romana // Gesta 19 (1979) 77–88. Generally, for the bearded Christ in the early period, see Reallexikon zur byzantinischen Kunst, s.v. «Christusbilder», by K. WESSEL, vol. 1. 972–974. 53 THEODORUS LECTOR, Historia Ecclesiastica 107,11–108,3 (PG 86,137; preserved in the quotation of Damasc., Apol. III 130, the story concerned Patriarch Gennadius [458–471]); English translation in MANGO, The Art of the Byzantine Empire, 312– 1483… 40. 54 E. g. sarcophagus fragment, Palazzo Massimo, Theodosian period: J. DRESKEN-W EILAND, Repertorium der christlich-antiken Sarkophage II: Italien mit einem Nachtrag Rom und Ostia, Dalmatien, Museen der Welt (Mainz, 1998) No. 132; or on the beautiful sarcophagus of Junius Bassus, see E. S. MALBON, The Iconography of the Sarcophagus of Junius Bassus (Princeton, N.J., 1990); cf. W. F. DEICHMANN, Repertorium der christlich-antiken Sarkophage / Ed. and revised by G. BOVINI, H. BRANDENBURG (Wiesbaden, 1967) No. 680. Cf. Reallexikon zur byzantinischen Kunst, s.v. «Christusbilder», by K. WESSEL. Vol. 1. 968–972. 55 See e. g. Passion Sarcophagus, ca. 380–400, Museo Pio Cristiano cat, no. 31487 (ex. Lateran 151), cf. DONATI, Pietro e Paolo… Cat. no. 49 (p. 208) with reproduction on p. 128; DEICHMANN, Repertorium… No. 58 (p. 56) with pl. 19. Cf. also the sarcophagus at Ravenna, Museo Nazionale: Ibid. II no. 379 where Christ appears young with definitely short hair in the Gospel scene of raising Lazarus (side), and bearded with long hair on the front in His full glory. 56 «Haemorrhoissa», fresco, Catacomb of SS Pietro e Marcellino Deckers-Seeliger-Mietke no. 65/2, with coloured plate 4/3; The Samaritan Woman at the Well, wall painting, catacombs under Via Latina, Rome, as reproduced in A. FERRUA, S. J, Catacombe sconosciute: una pinacoteca del IV secolo sotto la Via Latina (Firenze, 19902) 90, plate 93; Christ Seated in an Assembly of Standing Apostles, wall painting, n.d., Catacomb of Domitilla, Rome, as reproduced in GRABAR, plate 112); sarcophagus with miracles of Christ and scenes from the life of St. Peter, Vatican, Museo Pio Cristiano, early fourth century, as reproduced in E. KITZINGER, Byzantine Art in the Making: Main Lines of Stylistic Development in Mediterranean Art, 3rd–7th century (Cambridge, Mass., 1977) Plate 35 (see also Age of Spirituality… 417, cat. No. 374, Matthews 55 fig. 35); sarcophagus, early fourth century, Frankfurt am Main, Liebighaus as reproduced in A. LEGNER, Zum Fragment eines konstantinischen Sarkophages im Liebighaus // Tortulae: Studien zu altchristlichen und byzatinischen Monu-
84
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
run.57 It again can be mixed with the Helios type.58 One finds even the other menten / Ed. W. N. SCHUMACHER (Rome—Freiburg—Wien, 1966) Plates 51–54; sarcophagus, Ravenna, S. Maria in Porto fuori, DEICHMANN, Repertorium… II. 382-2 (p. 159); sarcophagus fragment with Paul and Christ, in DONATI, Pietro e Paolo… Cat. no. 81; SS. Peter and Paul crowned by Christ, gilded glass bottom of bowl, Rome, mid-fourth century, New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Rogers Fund, cat, no. 1911,11.91.4; above; Disc or Fragment of Plate with Christ and Saints, Rome, first half of fourth century, gold glass, Oxford, Pusey House (on loan to the Ashmolean Museum), Wilshere Collection, as reproduced in Age of Spirituality… 527, cat. No. 472; silver amula (for keeping Eucharistic wine and water), DONATI, Pietro e Paolo… No. 65 with plate on p. 143, cf. H. HARVARD ÁRNASON, Early Christian Silver from North Italy and Gaul // Art Bulletin 20 (1938) 193–226; esp. 193–205 with plate I. Cf. Reallexikon zur byzantinischen Kunst, s. v. «Christusbilder», by K. WESSEL. Vol. 1. 967–968. 57 For later examples outside Italy, see the papyrus fragment from Oxyrrhynchus with Christ on the lake Tiberias, Florence, Museo Archaeologico Nazionale, Museo Egizio inv. no. 8683: DONATI, Pietro e Paolo… No. 42 with plate on p. 123; or the ivory pyxis in A. EFFENBERGER, H.-G. SEVERIN, Das Museum für spätantike und byzantinische Kunst (Mainz am Rhein, 1992), under # 48. The Holy Women at the Tomb, an ivory panel, c. 400A.D., Milan, Civico Museo dell’Arte, Castello Sforesco, cat. No. 9 is usually thought to represent a wingless angel with halo at the tomb. Weitzmann, however, has identified the figure as Christ through the close analogy of a preiconoclastic encaustic icon from the Sinai Monastery representing the «chairete» scene from the account of the resurrection according to Matthew, an illustration of the same scene in the Rabbula gospels (fol. 13r) and the Holy Women at the Tomb and the Ascension, ivory panel, Munich, Bayerische Nationalmuseum, c. 400 A.D.: K. WEITZMANN , Eine vorikonoklastische Ikone des Sinai mit der Darstellung des Chairete // Tortulae: Studien zu altchristlichen und byzatinischen Monumenten / Ed. W. N. Schumacher (Rome—Freiburg —Wien, 1966) 317–325, with plates 80–81. On the Munich diptych Christ is represented at the Ascension holding a scroll like the figure on the Milan panel, while the figure before the tomb is still that of an angel according to Weitzmann (no halo, no scroll in his hands though he is holding it in a similar position as the figure on the Milan ivory; to my eye, however, he is identical with he ascending Christ — both beardless with loose long hair). Indeed, on the top of the Milan panel the symbols of Matthew and Luke appear suggesting that the composition follows these gospels. In Luke we read about two angels (24,4) and three, or even more women (24,10), which does not correspond to the representation. In Matthew an angel rolls the stone closing the sepulchre and sits on it (28,2). This may correspond to our representation, which may have misunderstood the stone as a rock blocking the door. Nonetheless in Matthew the women fall on the ground before the angel, while on the ivory panel one of them grabs the leg of the sitting figure, as they indeed did in Matthew when returning from the tomb they met Christ (28,9). Even the gestures of the two women pointing to the figure seem to me to represent the 58 Sarcophag Museo Pio Cristiano ex. 173; DEICHMANN, Repertorium… No. 20 with plate 6. The presence of the two types on this monument has obviously confused the restaurateur.
I. M. Buga; r
85
combination around 400: Christ with trimmed beard and hair.59 Another type with short hair appears exactly under Theodosius. Their hairstyle is typical of the fashion under this Emperor.60 Even if one attributes the bearded type especially to Palestine, that does not solve the problem. If the image mentioned in the Letter to John was unique as a portrait in the Holy Land, Epiphanius must have gained his knowledge elsewhere. And he did travel to Egypt, Rome, and Constantinople. It is hardly conceivable that he has not noticed the flourishing contemporary Christian art in the old and the new capital.
Conclusion So how can we settle the issue? The argument about images seems to be later than Epiphanius and forged. On the other hand the letter is evidenced before iconoclasm. There remains one solution: a forger has inserted the passage about images in the existing letter. Such a procedure was not uncommon recognition of Christ. Thus, according to Weitzmann, the artist conflated the two episodes. To Weitzman’s examples, I would add Auferstehungszene, 6tes Jh, Scheibenfiebel, Keszthely-Fenékpuszta (Horreum), as represented in Z. KÁDÁR, Die Menasampulle von Szombathely (Steinamanger, Ungarn) in Beziehung zu anderen frühchristlichen Pilgerandenken // Akten des XII. Internationalen Kongresses für Christliche Archäologie, Bonn 1991 / Ed. E. DASSMANN, J. ENGEMANN (Münster, Germany, 1995) (Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum, Suppl. 20; Studi di antichità cristiana 52) Plate 116e, cf. L. BAKÓCZ, A Sixth Century Cemetary from Keszthely-Fenékpuszta // Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiae Hungariae 20 (1968) 289 with plate LXX-6. 59
Bottom of Bowl with the Traditio Legis, gold glass, Rome, late fourth-early fifth century, Toledo, Ohio, The Toledo Museum of Art, as reproduced in Age of Spirituality… 560, cat. no. 503; San Apollinare Nuovo, Miracle of Cana, drawing made by Ciampiani before the restoration, as reproduced in KUHN, Die Darstellung des Kanawunders im Zeitalter Justinians… Plate 48/c. 60 E. g. «XP enthroned» silver casket, Milan as represented in W. F. VOLBACH, M. HIRMER (photographs), Early Christian Art [translation of «Frühchristliche Kunst: Die Kunst der Spätantike in West- und Ostrom (München, 1958)»] (London, 1961) Pl. 111; Sarcophag fr., Ravenna, Museo Nazionale, beginning of fifth century, as reproduced in J. KOLLWITZ, H. HERDEJÜRGEN, Die Sarkophage der Westlichen Gebiete des Imperium Romanum. Teil 2: Die Ravennatischen Sarkophage (Berlin, 1979) (Antiken Sakophagrelielfs 8.2) No. B2 with plate 26,4 (cf. DEICHMANN, Repertorium… II no. 377 with no reproduction); and for an object of debated authenticity: E. KITZINGER, A Marble Relief of the Theodosian Period // The Art of Byzantium and the Medieval West: Selected Studies by Ernst Kitzinger / Ed. W. E. Kleinbauer (Bloomington, Ind., 1976) 1–32, cf. S. A. BOYD, G. VIKAN, Questions of Authenticity Among the Arts of Byzantium: Catalogue of an Exhibition Held at Dumbarton Oaks, January 7 – May 11, 1981 (Washington, D.C., 1981) 4–7.
86
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
during the Iconoclastic Controversy. One can produce a nice example, where indeed both versions have survived: the letter of St. Nilus (†430) to a certain Olympiodorus. Whether the iconodules inserted the debated section, as Thümmel argues,61 or the iconoclasts censured the letter, as I believe it happened, in any case, the example proves that such practice existed. We must also remember the complaints of the Fathers at Nicaea about the iconoclasts’ working with extracts and about the fact that the manuscripts with the Letter are rare and quite recent.62 And although the iconodules at the Second Council of Nicaea or Nicephorus were not able to provide the authentic version of the Letter to Theodosius, my arguments indicate that such a version existed and was different from the one cited by the iconoclasts. Placing the iconoclastic passage in the context of the Iconoclastic Controversy explains a good number of details of the argument therein. First, the remark that after the heresies the devil has drawn people to the old idolatry63 appears to be an iconoclastic response to the iconophile apology that Epiphanius has no word about Christian idolatry enumerating, as he claims, all possible heresies.64 Secondly, the episode at the end of the letter, that nobody listened to the author’s warning against images, can also be a response to the iconodule’s defence that Epiphanius is a «single swallow» among the Fathers who otherwise all support the cult of images.65 There were times in Church history — the iconophiles may mean — when a single champion represented orthodoxy, as, for example, St. Maximus the Confessor during the Monothelite Controvesy, and nearly so Epiphanius in the fourth century Origenist debates. Thirdly, the exhortation that the cross should be alone depicted in every place — cultic and private66 — again coincides with the iconoclast’s program. Finally, we may surmise the motivation why to chose the Letter to Theodosius to insert the iconoclastic passage. According to the Vita the letter spoke about the Carpocratians. Ostrogorsky67 rightly remarks that the clearest reference in the Panarion that reveals hostility towards images — a reference that is often quoted in this respect — is a vague remark about the Carpocratians. The passage is in fact a repetition of Irenaeus’ testimony68 concerning the usage of images with Christian subjects by the gnostic Carpocratians: «“...having set up the images, next they perform pagan customs there”. What are these pagan customs?» — asks Epiphanius, interpret61
H. G. THÜMMEL, Neilos von Ankyra und die Bilder // BZ 71 (1978) 10–21. See p. 75–76 with n. 23 above. 63 Fr. 2,3. 64 Panarion I 156,28sqq Holl. 65 St John Damascene, Apology I 25. 66 Fr. 2,38–9. 67 OSTROGORSKY, Die pseudo-epiphanischen Schriften… 95. 68 Adversus haereses I 25,6. 62
I. M. Buga; r
87
ing Irenaeus, to which he replies «Sacrifice and the like».69 One might think that prompted by Irenaeus Epiphanius himself thought that the making of images is the first step in falling back to full idolatry. It would be well in accordance with St. John of Damascus’ explanation of Epiphanius’ possible viewpoint.70 And although the text quoted does not say even as much as this, the iconoclasts must have understood it in this sense, and if it was repeated from the Panarion in the Letter to Theodosius, it could be a good starting point to insert an iconoclastic argument there. Conversely, if one assumes that the passage, together with the other iconoclastic fragments attributed to Epiphanius, is by him, the result is an absurd picture of the old Epiphanius. After arguing for the authenticity of the Epiphanian fragments on images, Holl drew an intellectual biography of Epiphanius’ old age.71 Let us now resume its supposed details. In 394, in extrema senectute Epiphanius describes how in the previous year he saw for the first time a Christian representation and destroyed it immediately. He then spread his worries in his extensive network of acquaintances, circled also a Dogmatic Letter on the issue, but — as the Letter to Theodosius testifies — finds no ears to listen to him: the great hierarchs of the time are all favourable to this rapidly spreading cult. In his final despair he turns to the Emperor. Now he is already an expert on Christian iconography, which expertise he must have gained through extensive travels, since we cannot suppose that the new phenomenon of the cult of images spread in his diocese during that year of his extensive campaign against images. All this must have happened within a single year, since Theodosius died in 395. Was it his death or his well-known patronage of art that prevented the Emperor from issuing legislation in this respect? In any case, Epiphanius must have given up the struggle for the last eight years of his life. Instead, from 400–403 he is again fully dedicated to his former fight against Origen. Was it so because this case proved to be more 69
Panarion I 310,14–311,9. Murray rightly remarks that Kitzinger has mistranslated the Greek: «Art and the Early Church», 341–342. Like in a Chinese whisper, Belting has carried Kitzinger’s mistake further: «Stellt Bilder auf, und ihr werdet sehen, die Bräuche der Heiden tun den Rest» (H. BELTING, Bild und Kult: Eine Geschichte de Bildes vor dem Zeitalter der Kunst (München, 1990) 165). 70 In his Apology Against the Iconoclasts (I 25, written shortly after 730) he metions a logos attributed to Epiphanius, which may refer either to the so-called Tractatus contra imagines or the Testamentum Epiphanii (Damascene describes Epiphanius’ writing act as díïìïèÝôçóåí). He does not refute the authorship of Epiphanius directly, but remarks that such forgery is common. He concedes that Epiphanius may have rebuked some extravagant practices that were dangerous in a pagan environment — just as St. Athanasius called for precautions in connection with the cult of relics. 71 HOLL, Die bilderfeindliche... 859–862.
88
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
promising? He convokes a synod in Cyprus and condemns the writings of Origen, writes several letters to Chrysostom trying to gain his support and finally travels to Constantinople to investigate Theophilus’ charges against John. On the voyage back, he delivers his last will to his disciples. He returns once to the issue of images, but already with resignation: it seems that his contemporaries had not even noticed his struggle (as we may gather from the church-historians Socrates and Sozomen). On his deathbed he drops the charge of idolatry, and warns only his pupils to concentrate on inner recollection. An exciting piece of intellectual history. But are we to believe it all? Is it not more than a piece of early twentieth century enlightened hagiography?
APPENDIX Epiphanius Salamiensis, Epistula ad Theodosium Imperatorem 1.a1 {ôí âáóéëÝá ìåôN ô§í ôÝêíùí dãêùìéÜæùí} <½ ðßóôéò> Pår ìcí ï¤óá êár ð ëßãùí ðÜëáé öõëá÷èåsóá äéN äc ôxí ôï EÁñåßïõ êáêïäïîßáí ð ïkêïõìåíéêyò óõíüäïõ Qãßùí ðáôÝñùí ½ì§í dðéóêüðùí dí Íéêáßu ô ðüëåé ¿ìïëïãçèåsóá, êáß dóôéí áôç, ©ò ©ìïëüãçóáí êár ðÝãñáøáí ôñéáêüóéïé äåêáïêô¦ dðßóêïðïé, ï ðñüóöáôïí dêèÝìåíïé ðßóôéí, PëëN ôxí Pår ï¤óáí ¿ìïëïãÞóáíôåò, ïpò êár ½ìåsò ©ò õjïr Pêïëïõèïíôåò Pð íÝáò ½ëéêßáò, áôïß ôå êár ïj ½ì§í ãïíåsò dí áô ãåãåííçìÝíïé, ôxí áôxí ¿ìïëïãïìåí ôå êár êáôÝ÷ïìåí· ©ò êár óý, åóåâÝóôáôå âáóéëå. Êáß dóôéí áôç· Ðéóôåýïìåí åkò fíá èåí ðáôÝñá ðáíôïêñÜôïñá {êár ôN eîyò ôï óõìâüëïõ.} 1.b.2 q\oL e`cN ¢pCJ h\} m[JOg ¡cJ m\cMc ml\gTg 1.c3 {LÇóáí äc êár Tëëáé ðëåsóôáé ájñÝóåéò dí ô Êõðñßùí ÷þñu álôéíÝò åkóéí á£ôáé· Óïöéóôár,4 Óáâåëëéáíïß, Íéêïëásôáé, Óéìùíéáíïß, Âáóéëåéäéáíïß, Êáñðïêñáôéáíïß. Ðåñr ôïýôùí EÅðéöÜíéïò hãñáøåí dðéóôïëxí ô² âáóéëås Èåïäïóßv, ðùò Pð äéáôÜîåùò âáóéëéêyò ôïýôïõò äéþîåé ôyò íÞóïõ. LÇóáí ãNñ Tíäñåò ðëïýäéïé dí áôïsò, ïlôéíåò êár díåðéóôåýïíôï ÷ñåßáò äçìïóßáò, êár dôáðåßíïõí ôïò ñèïäüîïõò. 1 THÜMMEL # 37, 8–15. Cf. Ostrogorsky fr. 28. I have used braces to mark paraphrase or indirect testimony. 2 A. VAN ROEY, Un traité cononite contre la doctrine de Jean Philopon sur la résurrection // ÁÍÔIÄÙÑÏÍ: Hommage à Maurits Geerard pour célébrer l’achèvement de la Clavis Patrum Graecorum. I, 131 (Wetteren, 1984) Fr. 19 (from British Library Add. 14532, fol 217). 3 Vita Epiphanii 59 // PG 41. Col. 100BC. 4 an EÏösôáé?
I. M. Buga; r
89
ÄåîÜìåíïò ï¤í ¿ âáóéëåò ôN ãñÜììáôá ðáñN EÅðéöáíßïõ, êár dðïßçóåí ôýðïí ôïéïôïí. Ån ôéò ô² Ðáôñr EÅðéöáíßv ô² dðéóêüðv ôyò Êõðñßùí ÷þñáò ï÷ ðáêïýåé äéN èåßùí ëüãùí, dîåñ÷Ýóèù ôyò íÞóïõ, êár ðïõ èÝëåé êáôïéêåßôù. Åk äÝ ôéíåò ößëïé íôåò êár ôÝêíá ôyò ìåôáíïßáò, êár ¿ìïëïãïóéí ô² êïéí² Ðáôñr, ôé ðëáíçèÝíôåò âïõëüìåèá åkò ôxí ¿äí ôyò Pëçèåßáò ¦ dëèåsí· ìåéíÜôùóáí dðr ôyò íÞóïõ äéäáóêüìåíïé ð ôï êïéíï Ðáôñüò. Ôï ï¤í ôýðïõ ðáñN óôñáôåõïìÝíïõ dëèüíôïò êár dìöáíéèÝíôïò, ðïëëïr dðåßóèçóáí dî áô§í EÅðéöáíßv. Ïj äc ìx ðåéóèÝíôåò åèÝùò däéþ÷èçóáí dê ôyò íÞóïõ.} 2.5 ôxí åkäùëïëáôñåßáí dí ô² êüóìv ô eáõôï êáêïôå÷íßu ¿ äéÜâïëïò dìç÷áíÞóáôï êár dí ô² êüóìv hóðåéñå ôïôï êár dèåìåëßùóå êár ôïò Píèñþðïõò Pð ôï èåï PðÝóôñåøå· íí äc ðÜëéí ìåôN ôNò ájñÝóåéò êár ôN ånäùëá åkò Pñ÷áßáí åkäùëïëáôñåßáí ôïò ðéóôïò êáèåßëêõóå êár zðÜôçóå. ÍïÞóåé ãNñ ½ óx åóÝâåéá êár ½ dê èåï óïé äïèåsóá óïößá êár dí âÜèåé íïçìÜôùí dñåõíÞóåé, åk ðñÝðïí dóôrí èåí h÷åéí ½ìOò æùãñáöçôí äéN ÷ñùìÜôùí. <Ôßò }êïõóå ôïôï ðüôå;=6 Ôßò }êïõóå ôïéáôá ðþðïôå; ôßò ô§í ðáëáé§í ðáôÝñùí ×ñéóôï åkêüíá æùãñáöÞóáò dí dêêëçóßu ~ dí ïnêv käßv êáôÝèåôï; Ôßò dí âÞëïéò èõñ§í ô§í Pñ÷áßùí dðéóêüðùí ×ñéóôí PôéìÜóáò dæùãñÜöçóå; Ôßò ôí EÁâñáNì êár EÉóáNê êár EÉáêþâ, ÌùõóÝá ôå êár ôïò ëïéðïò ðñïöÞôáò êár ðáôñéÜñ÷áò, ~ ÐÝôñïí ~ EÁíäñÝáí ~ EÉÜêùâïí ~ EÉùÜííçí ~ ôïò ëïéðïò Pðïóôüëïõò dí âÞëïéò ~ dí ôïß÷ïéò æùãñáöÞóáò, ïôùò ðáñåäåéãìÜôéóåí êár dèñéÜìâåõóå; Rìá äc êár øåýäïíôáé, dî käßáò áô§í dííïßáò ìïñöNò ô§í Qãßùí Tëëùò êár Tëëùò Píáôõðïíôåò, ðïôc ìcí ãÝñïíôáò ðïôc äc íåùôÝñïõò ôïò áôïò, S ìx eùñÜêáóéí dìâáôåýïíôåò. <Êár áô ãNñ ðåñ ðëÜóóïõóéí Pð käßáò dííïßáò äéáíïïýìåíïé, øåýäïíôáé·=7 ãñÜöïõóé ãNñ ÐÝôñïí ôí Rãéïí Pðüóôïëïí ïj ðëÜíïé ãÝñïíôá Tíäñá, ôxí êåöáëÞí êár ô ãÝíåéïí êåêáñìÝíïí· ãñÜöïõóé äc êár ôí Rãéïí Ðáëïí Tëëïé ìcí PíáöáëáíôÝá, Tëëïé äc öáëáêñí ãåíåéÞôçí êár ôïò Tëëïõò ìáèçôNò øéë§ò êåêáñìÝíïõò. Êüìçí äc8 h÷ïíôá ôí óùôyñá ãñÜöïõóéí dî ðïíïßáò äéN ô Íáæùñásïí áôí êáëåsóèáé, ånðåñ ïj Íáæùñásïé êüìáò h÷ïõóéí. ÓöÜëëïíôáé äc ïj ôïò ôýðïõò áô² óõíÜðôåéí ðåéñþìåíïé· ïqíïí ãNñ hðéíåí ¿ óùôÞñ, í ïj Íáæùñásïé ïê hðéíïí. 5
Thümmel # 37, 2–7; 17–24a; 27b–30; 24b–27a; 31–47; 53–58. Cf. Ostrogorsky frr. 22–24a; 25; 24b; 26–27; 30. Spurium. 6 seclusi. 7 seclusi. 8 scripsi: ãNñ cod.; THÜMMEL.
90
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
Åk ôïßíõí êüìçí åq÷åí ¿ óùôÞñ, ïj äc Tëëïé ìáèçôár óáí êåêáñìÝíïé êár ìx í áôò êåêáñìÝíïò êár nóïò áôïsò öáéíüìåíïò, ôßíé ëüãv Öáñéóásïé êár ïj ãñáììáôåsò ôñéÜêïíôá Pñãýñéá däßäïõí ô² EÉïýäu ìéóèï ÷Üñéí, ðùò öéëÞóáò áôí ðïäåßîw áôïsò ôé >Ï£ôüò dóôéí í æçôåsôå?, äõíÜìåíïé êár äéE eáõô§í êár ðE Tëëùí ãí§íáé äéN ôï óçìåßïõ ôyò êüìçò í dæÞôïõí åñåsí êár ìx ìéóèí äïíáé; Ï÷ ¿ñZò, èåïöéëÝóôáôå âáóéëå, ô hñãïí ï ðñÝðïí èå²; Äé ðáñáêáë§, âáóéëå èåïóåâÝóôáôå êár ìéóïðüíçñå, ðOóáí ðëÜíçí dëÝã÷ùí, ô² dí óïr æÞëv èåï dí Pëçèåßu äéN óôåñåOò óïõ íïìïèåóßáò ìåôN ðñïóôßìïõ ¿ñéæïìÝíçò, åk äõíáôüí, ðéóôåýù äc ôé Uí èÝëwò dí èå² äýíáóáé, ðùò ôN âyëá, ðïõ Uí åñåè h÷ïíôá øåõä§ò ìcí ìùò äc ~ Pðïóôüëùí ~ ðñïöçô§í æùãñáößáò ~ áôï ôï êõñßïõ êár ×ñéóôï, ôáôá ðÜíôá óõëëåãÝíôá Pð dêêëçóé§í ~ âáðôéóôçñßùí ~ ïkêé§í ~ ìáñôõñßùí åkò ôáöxí ðôù÷§í ðñï÷ùñÞóåé, ôN äc dí ôïß÷ïéò äéN ÷ñùìÜôùí ëåõêáíèyíáé. ôN äc dí ìïõóáñßv ðñïëçöèÝíôá ãñáöyíáé, dðåéäx äõó÷åñÝò dóôé ô ôïéïôïí Píáóêåýáóìá, dí ô äïèåßów óïé ð ôï èåï óïößu åkäÝíáé, ð§ò ðñïóôÜîåéò. Åk ìcí äõíáôí Píáóêåõáóèyíáé, å¤ Uí h÷ïé· åk äc Päýíáôïí, Pñêåóèyíáé ôïsò ðñïãåãïíüóé êár ìçêÝôé ôéíN æùãñáöåsí ïôùò. Êár ãNñ ïj ½ìÝôåñïé ðáôÝñåò ïäcí Tëëï hãñáöïí, åk ìx ô óçìåsïí ôï ×ñéóôï ôí óôáñïí dí ôásò áô§í èýñáéò êár ðáíôá÷ï. {Ðñ§ôá ìcí ¿ìïëüãçóåí, ôé ãÝëùò êár ÷ëåýç ôyò öëõáñßáò ôáýôçò fíåêåí ôïsò ðïëëïsò ðñüêåéôáé· hðåéôá äc dðÞãáãåí, ôé·} ÐïëëÜêéò ôïsò äïêïóé óïöïsò ôáôá ðåñéáéñåèyíáé óõìâïõëåýóáò, êáßôïé ãå dðéóêüðïéò ï¤óé êár äéäáóêÜëïéò êár óõëëåéôïõñãïsò, ð ðÜíôùí ïê zêïýóèçí, PëëE ðE díßùí êár ôïýôùí ëßãùí ðáíôåë§ò.9 3.a10 {dîåsíáé áôïsò êár ôïsò óÜââáóéí ï ôyò ôåóóáñáêïóôyò ìüíïí, PëëN êár dí Tëëïéò êáéñïsò Póéôåsí T÷ñéò díÜôçò ªñáò, ìåèE |í Pðïíçóôßæåóèáé êár êáôáëýåéí ôyò Póéôåßáò}. 3.b11 {dê ôyò ðñò Èåïäþóéïí 12 âáóéëÝá dðéóôïëyò ôï EÅðéöáíßïõ Êýðñïõ} 9 MANSI XIII, 293D: {|í ãNñ dðéóôïëÞí ôéíåò áô§í ðñïóöÝñïíôáé øåõä§ò dðéãåãñáììÝíçí ½ìåsò ôáýôçí ìåôN ÷åsñáò ëáâüíôåò êár Píáãíüíôåò dñåõíçôéê§ò êár ï ðáñäåõôéê§ò, åñïìåí dí ô² ôÝëåé ôyò dðéóôïëyò hìöáóéí ôïéÜäå ðåñéÝ÷ïõóáí, ôé·} ðïëëÜêéò ëáëÞóáò ôïsò óõëëåéôïõñãïsò ìïõ ðåñéáéñåèyíáé ôNò åkêüíáò ïê däÝ÷èçí ðáñE áô§í ïäc ðñò âñá÷ Pêïóáé ôyò dìyò öùíyò zíÝó÷ïíôï. 10 THÜMMEL # 37, 49–51; cf. OSTROGORSKY fr 29. 11 Vat. gr. 375. foll. 153v–154r. 12 : Èåïäþñçôïí cod.
I. M. Buga; r
91
EÁëëN ìåôN ðÜíôùí óïõ ô§í Pñåô§í èåüóôåðôå13 êár dí ôïsò eùèéíyò êár ëõ÷íéêyò óõíÜãåóèáé ìx ðáñáëßìðáíå· dðår ôýðïé14 åkór ô§í äýï ákþíùí· ãßíåôáé ãNñ eóðÝñá, êár åkò ðíïí ôñåðüìåèá·15 PíáôÝëåé äc ¿ {ëéïò Pëåêôñïöùíßáò 16 êár PíéóôÜìåèá· dóôé ôyò ìåëëïýóçò PíáóôÜóåùò ô§í íåêñ§í ôýðïò êár ÷áñáêôxñ ôï ìÝëëïíôïò ák§íïò· êár dí ìcí ô eóðÝñu ôNò å÷Nò äéä§ìåí17 Èå² ÷ñåùóôïíôåò ¦ åkò ô öõëá÷èyíáé Pð ðÜóçò18 öáíôáóßáò êár dðéâïõëyò äáéìüíùí ôc êár eñðåô§í19 êár ðôþóåùò êár óåéóì§í· PëëN êár ðÜóçò Qìáñôßáò, êár ìéóïýíôùí ½ìOò díåñãåßáò· ðñùéOò äå ðÜëéí å÷üìåèá, eùèéíNò ëáôñåßáò20 dðéôåëïíôåò åkò ô äïèyíáé ½ìOò21 ðáñN êõñßïõ åçìåñßáí ôc êár åkñçíéêxí22 äéáâßùóéí· êár ôï ¼õóèyíáé Pð ðáíôò óêáíäÜëïõ êár ðÜóçò Qìáñôßáò· óðïýäáóïí äc óí ô áãïýóôw êár dããõçô å¡÷åóèáé êár dí ½ìÝñu díäåëå÷¦ò· ðïëëN ãNñ dóôé ôN híåäñá ôï äéáâüëïõ.
SUMMARY The letter to Emperor Theodosius attributed to Epiphanius of Salamis played a major role in the Iconoclastic Controversy and is a crucial document for the early history of Christian images. In my paper I provide a new and fuller reconstruction of the text, and argue that (1) a letter to Theodosius by Epiphanius had been known before the Iconoclastic Controversy and (2) it was interpolated during the controversy by adding an iconoclastic passage partly modelled on the «iconoclastic» episode in Epiphanius’ Letter to John of Jerusalem. Our fragments of the Letter to Theodosius come from both the authentic and the inserted sections of the text.
èåüóôåðôáé cod. ôýðïò cod. 15 ôñåðþìåèá cod. 16 Pëë dê ôñïö§íáò cod. 17 äéäüáìåí cod. 18 ðáóÜí cod. 19 dñðåô§í cod. 20 ëáôñÀéáò cod. 21 ìOò cod: an ½ìsí? 22 åkñéíéêxí cod. 13 14
Sevir B. Chernetsov
ETHIOPIAN MAGIC LITERATURE* The first scholar greatly impressed by the role of magic in Ethiopia was Hiob Ludolf himself, the father of Ethiopian studies in Europe.1 Much later his compatriot, Enno Littmann, called Ethiopia «a real well» of superstitions and magic,2 while the Russian scholar Boris Turaiev described the local religious situation as follows: «In Christian, though culturally backward Abyssinia, almost no borderline exists between the faith and the superstitions, religion and magic. Priests and clergymen trade in writing and selling magic prayers, which are venerated together with canonical ones; the latter may in their turn be used for magic ends, as well as the Scripture itself, by the way of its mechanical reading, or by wearing on neck, or even by the very fact of its possession».3 Philologists were fascinated with these written amulets which constituted a peculiar kind of literature designed not at all for reading, but for protection of its owner, and called these Ethiopian written amulets magic scrolls both for their specific form of scroll and its protective function. Russian scholar Ignaty Kratchkowski wrote about these specific literary pieces: «They may contain various texts, sometimes even the canonical ones, to which, however, magic power is ascribed. More often they are filled with charms and spells, and sometimes it is just a collection of mysterious names, whose meaning and origin is almost impossible to determine. It is of no importance for a scroll holder, because the efficiency and protective function are usually ascribed not so much to the reading of a scroll, as to wearing of it, or just to its presence in a dwelling place».4 So their function was quite obvious and clear-cut: they were written protective amulets — a phenomenon common and typical for many religious cultures, Judaic, Christian and Muslim as well. As for the content of this
* This paper has been left by the late author basically ready to publication but somewhat unpolished in details. The Editorial Board took the liberty to add some notes to the text, in [square brackets]. 1 H. LUDOLF, Historia Aethiopica sive brevis et succincta descriptio Regni Habessinorum, quod vulgo male Presbyteri Iohannis vocatur (Francofurti ad Moenum, 1681) Lib. III, cap. IV. 2 [The author means the following work: E. LITTMANN, Ardeet: The Magic Book of the disciples // Journal of the American Oriental Society 25 (1904) 148.] 3 Á. À. ÒÓÐÀÅÂ, Àáèññèíñêèå ìàãè÷åñêèå ñâèòêè // Ñáîðíèê ñòàòåé â ÷åñòü ãðàôèíè Ï. Ñ. Óâàðîâîé (Ì., 1916) 178. 4 È. Þ. ÊÐÀ×ÊÎÂÑÊÈÉ, Àáèññèíñêèé ìàãè÷åñêèé ñâèòîê èç êîëëåêöèè Ô. È. Óñïåíñêîãî // Äîêëàäû ÀÍ ÑÑÑÐ (1928) 2.
S. B. Chernetsov
'!
specific magic literature Russian scholars called it «orationes falsae»,5 or «interdicted literature», because the very practice of «writing amulets with names» had been officially prohibited by the Church at the Councils of Ephesus and Galata. As for the popularity of such written amulets in Ethiopia, Kratchkowski remarked: «Quantitatively the most significant part of Abyssinian literature is probably presented by all kinds of «interdicted literature», from Bible apocrypha to various charms and spells. The main interest of this particular literary field lies in the fact that it, being no less bookish than all the Ethiopian literature, it reflects more often than other works do the popular views and ideas. Sometimes they take us away in the very thick of not only Semitic, but also of the neighboring Cushitic tribes as well».6 I am afraid that the latter thesis (about «the very thick of not only Semitic, but also of the neighboring Cushitic tribes») is a kind of a priori opinion. After all, Kratchkowski himself was a great Arabist, he also knew well Ethiopian literature, but not folklore, let alone Cushitic languages. As for precisely these «charms and spells, and collection of mysterious names, whose meaning and origin is almost impossible to determine», Kratchkowski was mistaken: as it was demonstrated much later by a prominent Polish scholar Stefan Strelcyn in his fundamental monograph «Prières magiques éthiopiennes pour délier les charmes»7 even these «mysterious names», which are so abundant in written spells, they are no less bookish and international, than other subjects and themes, used for magic ends in these scrolls, quite literary in their own right. The mistake of the Russian scholar had, however, its deep roots, its theoretical raison d’être. At the turn of the 20th century most scholars believed (and still believe, I am afraid) that such a kind of a written magic, found so regularly in many parts of the world, is the result of a peculiar synthesis of pagan (polytheistic) views and attitudes and the domineering monotheistic (in Ethiopian case — Christian) religion. The very phenomenon of such a «Christian magic» in Russia was discovered rather early, and Russian scholar Feodor Buslaiev called this synthesis «double faith». He wrote on the origin of this «double faith»: «Christianity had taken by surprise the popular imagination, full of pagan ideas, and stigmatized them as devil’s delusions. However, common people did not renounce their native heritage, though it had to abandon its ancient vast domain and to confine itself to a limited area of many petty superstitions, which nevertheless enfolded and still enfolds the whole life of common people, all its social activities of larger and smaller Á. À. ÒÓÐÀÅÂ, Ýôèîïñêèå orationes falsae et exorcismi // Recueil des travaux rédigé en mémoire du jubilé scientifique de M. Daniel Chwolson, 1846–1896 (Berlin, 1899) 242–267. 6 ÊÐÀ×ÊÎÂÑÊÈÉ, Àáèññèíñêèé ìàãè÷åñêèé ñâèòîê... 3. 7 S. STRELCYN, Prières magiques éthiopiennes pour délier les charmes // Rocznik Orientalistyczny (Warszawa, 1955) XVIII. 5
'"
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
scale... Therefore, in spite of its fantastic background, superstitions are of vital importance for common people for practical applicability to the needs of their everyday life».8 So the situation was understood as a result of superficial imposition of a foreign monotheistic religion on native popular beliefs, producing a peculiar alloy of heterogeneous monotheistic and polytheistic elements into which they were melted in the popular ideology. Feodor Buslaiev sounds rather poetic, and it was with reason that both he and his scholastic confederates were called «archaeological romantics» in Russia. However, as for Ethiopian magic scrolls there is every reason to doubt that they were products of «popular imagination». Magic scrolls had, beyond any doubt, their «practical applicability to the needs of their everyday life», but these were no oral charms and spells in vernacular languages intelligible to common people and created by them, but texts written (or, more often, just copied) by clergy invariably in Ge’ez, the dead Ethiopian language of liturgy and classical literature. In fact they were never read by or for the owner, and in any case their content remained obscure to him/her. So there was always a definite borderline between oral magic and written amulets. What are these magic scrolls after all? The usual form of an Ethiopian written amulet is scroll made of parchment or more or less well tanned hide. Sometimes, however, these amulets may have a form of tiny books with wooden cover. In Amharic these scrolls are called «ketab» (zfa) «a charter», but books may be also called simply «mäs³haf» (ÃìÂ;), i. e. «book». The size of a scroll may vary from 4 to 25 cm in width, and from 40 to 200 cm in length. Long scrolls are usually sewn together of two or three parts with little straps of the same material. Text is usually written on the smooth side of the scroll. Sometimes the other, more rough side, is also covered with writing, but these records are usually made by another hand and another qalam, and have nothing to do with the text of the right side. According to their size, and partly to their use magic scrolls can be divided into two categories: 1. Small scrolls, no wider than 6 cm and no longer than 50 cm which are rolled up and tied with a piece of cloth or tucked into a leather cylindrical container to wear them on neck.9 They are worn also on a strap tied to shoulder or forearm. 2. Larger scrolls, up to 25 cm in width and up to 200 cm in length, which Prof. Oscar Löfgren called Wandamuletten, i. e. wall amulets,10 because they are designed not for wearing on neck, but for hanging up at a wall of a dwelling Ô. È. ÁÓÑËÀÅÂ, Î íàðîäíîé ïîýçèè â äðåâíåðóññêîé ëèòåðàòóðå (ÑÏá., 1920) 2, 32. 9 W. H. WORRELL, Charms and Amulets (Abyssinian) // Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics / Ed. J. Hastings. III (Edinbourgh, 1910) 398–401. 10 O. LÖFGREN, Äthiopische Wandamuletten // Orientalia Suecana XI (1962) 95–120. 8
S. B. Chernetsov
'#
unfolded.11 This functional division is not strict at all. For example, the scrolls, which Prof. Dmitry Olderogge brought from Ethiopia and donated to Peter the Great Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography (Kustkammer) (Nos. 6607-14 and 6607-15) were made precisely in the manner of Wandamuletten, but nevertheless they were rolled up and tied by a piece of cloth for wearing on body. However, the genuine Wandamuletten do exist besides Uppsala collection described by Prof. Oscar Löfgren, and quite recently Ato Girma Fisseha demonstrated me a beautiful and extraordinary large (up to 60 cm in width) amulet in the depositary of the Staatliches Museum für Völkerkunde in Munich. Meanwhile, if there is no stricter borderline between these two types of magic scrolls in their usage, than it certainly exists in their design. The scrolls of the first type intended for wearing on body in a rolled form, usually contain only a text without any decorations and often even have no magic designs. Even if there are some, they are made in ink in rather awkward and careless style. Larger Wandamuletten are by contrast made with art and assiduity, the text is framed in a colorful ornament, and magic drawings are always present there. These drawings are painted in colors, sometimes so artfully, that they resemble miniatures of rich handwritten books. The handwriting in Wandamuletten is remarkable for more accuracy and calligraphic skill than that of minor scrolls. Magic drawings serve the necessary elements of Ethiopian handwritten amulets. In this respect Ethiopian written magic is very similar to the analogous works of other peoples, because in the magic not only sounds, words and letter which were considered magic-working, but also images and figures as well.12 Ethiopian magic drawings, diverse as they are, can be nevertheless divided into the following categories: 1) images; 2) mysterious «marks» or «letters»; 3) illustrations to the text; 3) magic geometrical designs. The common images are figures of one or two winged angels with a drawn sword in right hand and a scabbard in the left. Sometimes their names are written next to them: Gabriel, Michael, Fanuel, or some other angels who are reputed for their function of custodians of good Christians and persecutors of evil forces. Thus, «persecutor of demons» is a regular epithet of Fanuel. The images of St. George with a lance on a white mount, or King Solomon on his throne are also rather common for Wandamuletten. The images of popular Ethiopian saints, such as that of Samuel of Waldebba on lion-back and of St. Gäbrä Mänfäs Qeddus, the persecutor of demons and healer of lepers, also penetrated into magic scrolls’ artistic repertoire. As an image can be considered the socalled «Devil’s face» as well, with eight horns it is framed in. In a scroll the 11 C. CONTI ROSSINI, Notice sur les manuscrits éthiopiens de la collection d’Abbadie // Extrait de Journal Asiatique (Paris, 1912–1914) 218. 12 ÒÓÐÀÅÂ, Àáèññèíñêèå ìàãè÷åñêèå ñâèòêè... 184.
'$
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
latter image is usually confined between the lines of spells written in red ink. It is a «tied devil». Confined between the spells, he, probably, serves an example the evil forces’ defeat, teaching a lesson for other demons, who may endanger the scroll-holder. As for mysterious «marks» or «letters» these signs which called as «Hebrew», sometimes «Arabic», letters and have on both ends small circles. For the latter reason in scientific literature they got a name of «letters in spectacles» (caractères à lunettes, Brillenbuchstaben). Such «letters» can be found already in Greek and Coptic magic texts and amulets (the oldest go back to the 4th century). This is, probably, the source from which they were borrowed. Ethiopian literati explain them as «leg-fetters» (wÅ µ aÅg) for demons. As a matter of fact, illustrations are found rather rarely in the scrolls. Usually they follow an extensive magic text, which tells a story about saintly persecutors of demons or presents a shorter Synaxarium version of their vitae. The most popular one is a story about St. Socinius and a witch Werzelya. What is most remarkable in the story that in Ethiopian literature its text can be found in magic scrolls only. In Ethiopian Synaxarium we have quite another version of a witch-killing story and a Salam (a small verse), also brief. But it is precisely the magic version, which is popular in Ethiopia to the extent that there are a number of separate paintings on the subject, where St. Socinius on horse back is piercing the black witch Werzelya with a dart. The artistic virtues of these illustrations, varied much from scroll to scroll, depending, naturally, from the artist’s qualification. Sometimes they are as good as in handwritten books. Magic geometrical designs are the most difficult to interpret one way or another. The Ethiopians who put them into their handwritten amulets just follow an age-long tradition, and their interpretations of these magic geometrical designs are hardly reliable. More often can be found a stylized grating design which is called in Amharic «tälsem» (ÞDUI), i. e. talisman. As it was explained to me by Ethiopian priest Solomon Gäbrä Sellasé (then a student of the Theological Academy in Leningrad, who later played such an improper role in the modern history of Ethiopian Church13 ) this design represents the throne of the Devil and all evil forces. It is depicted in a scroll in order to make an evil spirit, which, probably, possessed the owner of the scroll, to leave him when he looks at the design and occupy it as his proper seat. To prevent the reverse resettlement the «throne» is confined in red lines of spells. This explanation is both interesting and logical, but it is difficult to say how much conventional it is. Written charms can be also supplied with magic squares with human or demons’ faces in them, the drawings of eyes, separate
13 F. HEYER, Die orthodoxe Kirche Äthiopiens in den 17 Jahren des sozialistischen Systems (Heidelberg, 2002) 9.
S. B. Chernetsov
'%
«letters in spectacles» and other minor details. It seems that the Ethiopians care neither for the significance of any element, nor for any logic, but first and foremost for the precise and literal copying of the original scroll. From their point of view it is precisely this exactness, which guarantees the effectiveness of an amulet. Though there is no strict order of arrangement of drawings within a scroll, a certain sequence can be noticed. Usually they are arranged in the following way: in the beginning of a scroll angels or crosses are designed. These crosses deserve some special mentioning. Usually they can be of two types. The first is a typical Ethiopian octangular cross, but the second is most interesting. It is «Cross without the Crucified» with the moon and the sun on both sides. In 1997 Prof. Ewa Balicka-Witakowska published a wonderful monograph «La Crucifixion sans Crucifié dans l’art éthiopien», where she submitted a long and complicated history, both artistic and theological, of this particular design in Ethiopian and international Christian art,14 which had found its way into Ethiopian written magic as well. In the middle of a scroll there is usually put a «tied devil», and at the end — a grating design of «Devil’s throne» or Ethiopian octangular crosses. Thus, the very arrangement of magic drawings in handwritten amulets pursues the end to demonstrate God’s victory over evil forces with the purpose to threaten and evict them. Magic «marks» or «letters» have no special position of their own in a scroll and can be added to any drawing or text. The presence of illustrations depends mostly upon the content of magic texts, and also upon the cost of the scroll itself. That is how magic scrolls look like. But what they are, however? They are certainly amulets, effective by their mere presence and intended, unlike oral charms and spells, neither for reading, nor for recital. Nevertheless, they are most personal. Any Ethiopian magic scroll is made for a certain man, woman, or child. This is obvious from the fact that in the very text of a scroll the name of its owner is mentioned invariably and repeatedly. If such a scroll changes hands, the name of the previous owner is always scraped out, and a new name is entered in its stead. This is a trait, which is common also for oral charms and spells, but quite foreign for pieces of literature. And nevertheless, the texts of magic scrolls is literature, a specific magic literature, sharing common Ethiopian literary tradition (its Ge’ez language including), and still being clearly separated from it, a literature, which is not intended for reading — a rather widespread phenomenon among the adherents of those religions, which had their own Holy Writ: Jews, Christians, Moslems. So, it was precisely the sacred language (Hebrew, Arabic, and in the Ethiopian case — Ge’ez), which made written charms and spells amulets. Here is the 14 E. BALICKA-WITAKOWSKA, La Crucifixion sans Crucifié dans l’art éthiopien: Recherches sur la survie de l’iconographie chrétienne de l’Antiquité tardive (Warszawa, 1997) (Bibliotheca Nubica et Aethiopica 4).
'&
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
principle and very important difference between oral and written charms and spells, because if in the case of the former men are impressed by sounds of recital, which they understand, in the case of the latter they are impressed by mere vision of sacred writing. Therefore these two different types of charms and spells (i. e. oral and written ones) have also different sources of their own. For the former it is oral magic folklore in vernacular languages, while for the latter it is writings in sacred language, the most part of which was, probably, borrowed from the very cultural center whence their religion had arrived. Certainly, this bold suggestion should be tested and proved by the concrete material, i. e. by texts of these magic scrolls. Let us proceed to the analysis of this material. We may well omit here without analysis Bible texts used in magic scrolls (mainly John 1:1–6; Mt. 8:28–32; Mark 1:23–28 and Luke 8:43–44) and Bible apocrypha, because their origin is quite clear. However, other popular magic texts also reveal their foreign extraction. What is here of special interest is the ways of this obviously literary borrowing. So there is every reason to consider them at some length: A legend, which tells a story of the victory of St. Socinius over witch Werzelya who killed newly born babies, used as a charm against such a disaster, quite common in pre-industrial societies, is very popular in Ethiopian magic scrolls for obvious reasons. Children mortality was a burning problem, and the need for magic protection against this plague was great both in Ethiopia and elsewhere, as it was demonstrated at length by Rumanian scholar Moses Gaster in his article «Two thousand years of a charm against childstealing witch».15 In fact St. Socinius as a saintly protector against this horrible witch was very popular in Byzantine cultural and religious area, the area of Slavia Orthodoxa (i. e. Serbia, Bulgaria, Russia and Ukraine) including.16 Some scholars studied this legend in Ethiopia both in its magic and Synaxarium version.17 It is remarkable, that the magic version is not borrowed from the Synaxarium one. In the former the witch is called Werzelya, and she kills a child of St. Socinius’ sister, while in the latter she herself is his sister who 15
M. GASTER, Two thousand years of a charm against child-stealing witch // FolkLore XI, 2 (1900) 129–162. 16 È. Ä. ÌÀÍÑÂÅÒÎÂ, Âèçàíòèéñêèé ìàòåðèàë äëÿ ñêàçàíèÿ î äâåíàäöàòè òðÿñàâèöàõ // Äðåâíîñòè. Òðóäû Èìïåðàòîðñêîãî Ìîñêîâñêîãî àðõåîëîãè÷åñêîãî îáùåñòâà XI (1881) 35; Ì. È. ÑÎÊÎËÎÂ, Ìàòåðèàëû è çàìåòêè ïî ñòàðèííîé ñëàâÿíñêîé ëèòåðàòóðå (Ì., 1888) 2647; À. Í.  ÅÑÅËÎÂÑÊÈÉ, Ìîëèòâà ñâ. Ñèñèííèÿ è Âåðçèëîâî êîëî // ÆÌÍÏ (1895, ìàé). 17 K. FRIES, The Ethiopia legend of Socinius and Ursula // Actes du 8me Congrès international des Orientalistes, tenu en 1889. II, Section I B (Leiden, 1893) 55–70; R. BASSET, Les apocryphes éthiopiens. IV. Les Legendes de S. Tertag et de Sousnyos (Paris, 1894); W. H. WORRELL, Studien zum abyssinische Zauberwesen // Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und verwandte Gebiete XXIII (1909) 163; E. ULLENDORFF, Ethiopia and the Bible (London, 1968) 80.
S. B. Chernetsov
''
does witchcraft. More than this, the entire story about infanticide witchcraft seems to be an inserted episode in the Synaxarium version:18 ÑÃ µ «Ô¦ ÁHò ¸ Ê
ÌÚ µ Ág µ {Ï µ [ñU µ ÆñUqU µ ÆHg µ ÔDÙ µ VD µ àôSU µ ÁqÌ# µ [ñU µ {Ï µ ÑÊñÀñ µ ÑRÒñ µ ÁòØ[DrU µ Ò@ò µ ÖÏÄ · ÔÑUÌRÑØ µ ÃDÑÒ µ wÖòÑaÂôR µ ÔÑìq µ Db µ Òà µ Òñq µ UHÌ · Ô{Ï µ qÌ# µ ÏÜR µ ÔñUÌ µ FÁòpÀñ · ÔwImÅ µ ãÏ µ qÜñL µ ÎÊ µ ÀÜÅ µ Ïò\I µ ÔãÏÔ µ ÎÊôBÃñ µ ÃìÂã µ Òà µ ØÂÆñ µ ÑID{ µ fg · ÔVÊ µ RwØ µ [ñU µ ÖqÌ µ lÖÏ µ ãþÙ · ÔwI µ ãÏ µ ÔÑaì µ Á¡ ÈÆòU µ ÔÌIAÅ µ wIÏôÀñ µ gIARÌ µ ÊôÌ µ zRUÌÚq µ ÔÑÃ\ µ IÈÌ µ zRUgp ¸ ÔwImÅ µ ÌÃÞ µ ÎÊ µ ÀÜÅ µ ÑqíÒò · ÔÅÒb µ wI µ ÔÁÙg µ wmÌ# µ ÔDÙ µÔÁñ µ ;ÅÌ# µ ÖwI[HôÀñ µ ÔÁÙg µ ÔÁÌ µ ÔÈÌÁf µ ÔÆgØg µ ÙH µ ÔÎÙÅ µ ÔñUÌÝf µ Æq · Ô{Ï µ UÌRÑò µ ÊLP µ ÊÑITÁ µ ; µ ÔÒÆò ¸ ÔVÊ µ gÔÁ µ Fîq µ wIÔñÁñÙ µ ÆaÑ µ ÀÜR µ gÔR µ ÎÊôÀñ µ ÔgÈgÁø µ ÊLP µ ÔgUÌ# µ ÙI · ÔVÊ µ RwØ µ [ñU µ ÆñUqU µ ÖqÌ µ ÏLÑ µ Òúph µ ÊwôÀñ µ ÔÈÌÁ µ ÁwmÌ# µ ÔÁÔD µ wUà µ wÌ# µ ÔDÙ µ Æq µ ÔÈÌÁø µ ÁIf ¸ ÔÁÑÊñÀñ µ ÃÄRq µ wUà µ wÃñqÌ# µ ØÂII µ ÁÆaw µ ÔÌ[gD µ ÊLP · ÔwmÅ µ ÌÃÞ µ ÎÊ µ ÀÜÅ µ Ïò\I µ ÔÊì µ ÎÊ µ wÌ# µ ÈÆòU µ ÖÑÃ\ µ IÈÌ µ zRUgp · ÔÏÜS µ ÒúÁø µ Ö{Ï µ wIÏôÀñ µ ÔVÊ µ ÌÃØÞ µ ÎÊ µ ÀÜN · ÔÑwÃÅ µ ÑÊñÀñ µ Ö{Ï µ wIÏôÀñ µ ÔãÈÙ µ Òà µ [gÁø · ÔÑUÌõÙ µ ÎÊ µ qÜñL µ wÌ# µ ÜòÖô µ GÅ µ [ñU µ ÆñUqU µ ÎÊ µ ÊôÌ µ g · ÔÑÖÃñ µ ÊlÁñ µ ÁzRUfU µ Òà µ Åñ µ ÔñUÌ µ ÆòxD · ÔVÊô@ µ ÒÄÌg µ Ñþ@ µ IR µ ÔÎÞhà · ÔÌÆI µ ÖôpÀñ µ Á[ñU µ ÆñUqU µ Òà µ wÌ# µ Ñ;Ñ µ fÌÚBÃñ · ÔÑUÌõÙ µ yÊ µ ÑÊñÀñ µ ÎÊ µ qÜñL µ ÔÑÖÖ µ Òà µ Òøqq µ ÒúÏÏô µ Êò · ÔÖÊ µ ÊqÊñTg µ ÖaRg µ ÔÑÒô µ ÊÃqÒøPÒúR µ ÔÖÊ µ ÊÃz µ ÖÒñ µ bÌ# µ wzÁ ¸ ÔwI µ ÆÂa µ ÔñUÌ µ ÀÜR · Ô{Ï µ wÖòÑaÂôR µ ìq µ ÔUÌÝM µ ÔñUÌ µ ÖqÌ µ ÒúÁñ µ ÒúÏÏô · ÔÃDÑÒ µ wÖòÑaÂôR µ ÒúÁø µ ÜòÖô µ :U µ ÈúUCÌÚBÃñ µ ÔÏLÑ µ ÕñØ µ ÖwqÊÁ µ ÃñUp µ ÔaÖñlq µ Æaw µ wÁ µ ÑIÏñ µ ÊwqÌÚÑÀñ µ ÊwÖòwÏ µ ÑòØÆñU µ zRUhU µ ÁøÌ# µ UaÂg · Ô{Ï µ UIÌ · ÔVÊ µ ÙÒà µ 18 [See the same recension in a critical edition: G. COLIN, Le Synaxaire éthiopien. Mois de Miyâzyâ (Turnhout, 1995) (PO 46, fasc. 4, No 208) 578 [98]–581 [101].]
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
qÜñL µ wIÒúÏÏôÀñ µ ÑÖÖ µ Òà µ IgN µ RwV µ [UÌ µ ÊÆ; · ÔÏLÑ µ ÑzÁòÁ µ UI µ ÊÃqLÌ µ ÆHg ¸ Ô{Ï µ ÎúD\Ãñ µ ÁwÁ µ ÆHÏ µ ÊÑHÏ µ ÒúÏÏôÀñ µ ÁqÌ# µ [ñU µ ª³Ô¡³Ô² ÆHfg µ ÊÅÒhÃñ µ gÒñq µ IUÁôÏ µ ÑHôq ¸19
Translation Miyazya 26. In this day St. Socinius, son of Sol Petros, became martyr. The father of this saint was friend of renegade Diocletian who was reigning (at that time). An angel of God appeared to him and strengthened his heart to become a martyr, and this became his thought. Then the King sent him to the city of Nicomedia and sent to him a charter to restore idolatry. And when the saint saw this, he grieved much, and then he sent for and brought a priest, and learned from him the learning of the Church, and received Christian baptism. Then he returned to the city of Antioch and found there that his sister gave birth to a son of perverted nature. And before him she gave birth to a daughter, and killed her and drank her blood, and Devil abode inside of hers, and by magic she turned into the appearance of bird or snake. And when at the people of the city a child was born, she came over him and killed him by magic, and drank his blood. And when St. Socinius saw this, he took a spear at his hand and killed his sister and her son, because he was a son of Devil, and he killed her husband and his father, the sorcerers, because they did harm to the people and killed them by magic. And then he returned to the city of Nicomedia and came to the priest, who had given to him Christian baptism, and told him everything which had happened to him. When he returned to the city, his father learned what had happened to him, and he wanted to kill him and accused before the King. At that time St. Socinius went to the temple of idols and ordered them by the might of Christ to come down to hell, and immediately the mouth of the earth yawned and swallowed them. There spread the news that St. Socinius had destroyed the idols, and again his father accused him before the King, and he ordered to convict him by a great execution, and they beat him by iron cudgels and to break him on the wheel, and they beat him on the threshing floor, where they threshed corn. And then they dragged him to the city, and God was strengthening him and gave him patience to endure all this execution, and the angel of God was curing his wounds all the time and was raising him quite sound without any injury, and because of him many people believed in our Lord Jesus Christ, glory to Him! And he became martyr. And when the King was tired of all these convictions, he ordered to 19
Uppsala universitetsbibliotek. Handskrifts- och musikavdelningen, No. O Etiop. 32, ff. 46v–47r. I had an opportunity to make acquaintance with this Ms. thanks to the support rendered by Svenska Institutet in autumn 2002 within the framework of Visby Programme.
S. B. Chernetsov
cut his holy head with a sword, and he received the martyr’s crown of the Kingdom of Heaven. And the number of those who became martyrs through the same execution like his is 1190 martyrs. Let their blessing be with us. Amen. This version is practically identical to that of Coptic Synaxarium,20 from which it was evidently borrowed. Here a story of St. Socinius’ victory over an infanticider witch is framed into the epoch of Diocletian, this famous martyr-maker, and, probably, it is precisely this story which is responsible for St. Socinius’ popularity. In fact the magic and Synaxarium versions are so different, that it seems improbable that the former was borrowed from the Synaxarium. They obviously developed into two independent stories, though a historical analysis21 reveals, that both go back to a Byzantine legend, two versions of which were recorded by Leo Allatius.22 The texts of Allatius contain all the elements, which received their later development in various Socinius versions, which exist from Orthodox Balkans to Monophisite Ethiopia. But what seems to me of particular interest and importance is the fact that already Allatius’ texts had been used precisely as written amulets, and further literary borrowing went from one magic literature to other ones, from Byzantine, this undisputed center of Christian Orient, to its distant periphery. Certainly, this magic theme had its «practical applicability», and very important indeed for common people, but if it was a product of «popular fantasy», originally it was Byzantine fantasy, not Ethiopia’s one. For Ethiopia it was an imported idea, just as Christianity was. Ethiopian own contribution to the theme was not in literature, but in painting, and it is quite revealing that Ethiopian pictures of St. Socinius follow exactly the magic version, when the hero is depicted invariably horse back, not the Synaxarium one. Another magic text, quite international by origin and very popular in Ethiopian magic scrolls, is the so-called «Net of Solomon». King Solomon always had a solid reputation of subjugator of demons through a special magic seal, or ring granted to him by the God, and this «net» of his, by which he catches demons, is as a matter of fact this very «seal», invariably depicted in a scroll, i. e. Sator-palindrome.23 The palindrome is also quite an international magic element, as William Worrell wrote in J. Hastings’ Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics: «This palindrome, well known in European folk-lore, seems to 20
F. AMÉLINEAU, Les actes des martyrs de l’église copte (Paris, 1890) 183–184. ÌÀÍÑÂÅÒÎÂ, Âèçàíòèéñêèé ìàòåðèàë äëÿ ñêàçàíèÿ... 22 L. ALLATIUS. De quorundam graecorum opinationibus (Coloniae Agrippinae, 1645) 133–135. 23 F. GROSSER, Ein neuer Vorschlag zur Deutung der Sator-Formel // Archiv für Religionwissenschaft. XXIV. 1 (1929). [H. HOFMANN, Das Satorquadrat. Zur Geschichte und Deutung eines antiken Wortquadrats (Bielefeld, 1977) (Bielefelder Papiere zur Linguistik und Literaturwillenschaft VI).] 21
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
have originated in the early Middle Ages... The place of the origin is, we believe, unknown».24 The magic text itself is so fragmentary, that the same Worrell pessimistically wrote: «It is impossible to restore the precise form of this narration, as it is badly confused and fragmentary».25 Nevertheless, later Sebastian Euringer and Oscar Löfgren did their best to study this text, fragmentary as it is.26 What is most remarkable in this case, is the fact, that all the copies of this text, both published by Sebastian Euringer and those, which are known to me (two Mss. of Peter the Great Museum in St. Petersburg (Nos. 4055-10 and 6607-15) and two Mss. of the St. Petersburg branch of the Institute of Oriental Studies (Nos. Eth. 112 and Eth. 113), and Mss. of Uppsala collection as well (Nos. 44, 46, 47, 49 and 55) are not only all equally fragmentary, but contain precisely the same fragments! Such a phenomenon would be absolutely impossible with oral charms and spells, where an oral text once destroyed, would be either restored by one way or another, or would disappear altogether. By contrast, in written texts, which were copied slavishly without any attempt of improvement, because the very effectiveness of magic depended first and foremost upon the rigid observance of the prescribed pattern, this situation was only natural. Nobody cared for reading or understanding, but everybody cared for exactness and therefore effectiveness of the amulet. It was not a story after all, which the scribe was writing, it was an amulet that he was making. As for the text of the «Net of Solomon», it seems, that it may be divided into two parts: the first, dealing with questions of the King of Evil to Solomon, and the second, which narrates about the Solomon’s triumph and his own interrogation of demons about their habitual villainies. The idea of the first text goes back, probably, to the Old Testament story about the extolling of Shalmanesser, King of Assyria, over Hezekiah (II Kings 18), and that of the second — to «Testamentum Solomonis».27 The Ethiopians have their own cycle of legends connected with King Solomon, where he is regarded first and foremost as King of Jerusalem and forefather of many royal dynasties. Here, however, we meet quite another Solomonic cycle, where he is treated primarily as the great magician, — the cycle originated in the Near East, which later became widespread both at the East and the West precisely in the magic literatures.28 King Sulaiman and magicians in his kingdom are also 24
WORRELL, Charms and Amulets… 400–401. [Two earliest depictions of the Sator-palindrome were then found in Pompeii, 1st cent. A.D.] 25 WORRELL, Charms and Amulets… 400. 26 S. EURINGER, Das Netz Salomos // Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und verwandte Gebiete VI (1928) 77–100, 179–199, 301–314; VII (1929) 68–65; O. LöFGREN, Äthiopische Wandamuletten… 117. 27 Testamentum Solomonis // PG 122 [C. C. MCCOWN, The Testament of Solomon (Leipzig, 1922)]. 28 ÌÀÍÑÂÅÒÎÂ, Âèçàíòèéñêèé ìàòåðèàë äëÿ ñêàçàíèÿ... 25–27.
S. B. Chernetsov
!
mentioned in the second surah of the Koran. So, William Worrell was, certainly, absolutely right when he was doubtful about the possibility of disentangle this complicated fabric. One thing is quite certain here: this theme was imported to Ethiopia as a magic theme already and became an integral part of its magic literature. In Ethiopian magic scrolls there is another text which usually follows the story about St. Socinius. It is the text of «Anathematizing of the Devil». As a matter of fact it presents a more or less long chain of spells against the Devil where the latter is conjured and anathematized by names of Christian God, His angels and saints. Among them there are met also the names of some Bible characters. As for number of these exorcisms these spells may vary considerably, but their structure remains practically the same: any exorcism begins with the words «I anathematize you, Devil...». and then follows the precise name by which the Devil is exorcised here. It is hardly possible to consider these texts an Ethiopian invention, because such are found as well in Greek collections published by Leo Allatius29 and Sathas.30 This is obviously the Byzantine magic heritage, which was readily adopted also in the Slavia Orthodoxa cultural area,31 and in Coptic magic literature,32 with the natural confessional difference in names by which Devil is conjured. So Coptic magic literature seems to be the immediate source for this text in Ethiopian magic scrolls. So we have discovered two literary sources for Ethiopian magic scrolls, i. e. some Bible texts and foreign written amulets, from which Ethiopian texts were borrowed in the regular literary way, i. e. by the way of translating. However, these were not the only literary sources for Ethiopian written amulets. Scholars often mention (usually in passing, as a matter of fact) apocrypha as one of such sources. There are such writings indeed in Ethiopian literature, being if not regular Bible apocrypha, than something of similar nature. Russian scholars called them «orationes falsae», or «interdicted literature», as I have mentioned before, and Deborah Lifchitz gave them a name of «textes magico-religieux».33 Deborah Lifchitz, a remarkable woman, who died martyr in a Nazi camp of extermination, was to my knowledge the first scholar, who concentrated her attention on those Ethiopic texts which occupy the overlapping area on the border of magic and religion, and called them «textes magico-religieux». The very idea of such a phenomenon was not new 29
LEO ALLATIUS, De templis Graecorum recentrioribus (Coloniae Aggrippinae, 1645). 30 Ê. Í. ÓÁÈÁ, Ìåóáéùíéêx âéâëéïèÞêç. Ô. 5 (EÅí Ðáñéóßïéò, 1876) 573–578. 31 ÑÎÊÎËÎÂ, Ìàòåðèàëû è çàìåòêè ïî ñòàðèííîé ñëàâÿíñêîé ëèòåðàòóðå... 39 48; Í. Ñ. ÒÈÕÎÍÐÀÂÎÂ, Ïàìÿòíèêè ñòàðèííîé ðóññêîé ëèòåðàòóðû. III (Ì., 1863) 13. 32 V. STEGEMANN, Die koptische Zaubertexte der Sammlung Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer in Wien (Heidelberg, 1934). 33 D. LIFCHITZ, Textes éthiopiens magico-religieux // Travaux et Mémoires de l’Institut d’Ethnologie XXXVII (1940).
"
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
at all. A Russian scholar Orest Miller, who considered magic spell as «a predecessor of prayer», wrote about the major difference of both as early as in 1865: «If the latter sets the hope upon good will of a deity; its efficiency depends upon his mercy, the spell... should have simply a compulsory influence upon him».34 Polish scholar Nikolai Poznanski defined a spell as «an oral formula which has a reputation of a sufficient and irresistible means for achieving definite result under conditions of fulfilling all the necessary prescriptions. The means is irresistible for both the laws of nature and individual will, if some other spell is not used against it».35 Certainly, Christianity here had brought some new development, which offered new possibilities now. In addition to, or substitution of the native oral spells in vernacular languages Christianity brought with it written charms and spells, written in a sacred language, which were quite new for the local culture. It seems that local people had received their Christianity like yolk in an egg, i. e. with white, and shell, and everything. So they had received their religion of salvation together with Christian protective amulets with the same reputation of a safe remedy. No wonder indeed, because to the writing itself at its very emergence and early stages of its development was attributed divine origin, and it was closely associated with magic. It is quite significant in this particular respect that God Toth of Ancient Egypt was considered as the protector of both the art of magic and the art of writing. So in a way this tradition survived. Besides, these magic scrolls were first of all amulets and were used precisely as such. Probably, their usage hindered the little old pagan magic practices, closely connected with ritual. Christian written amulets had nothing to do with any ritual, were no obliging at all, which, probably, made a lot for their prevalence. What they were really connected with, that is new Christian literature. The Christians, who were now reluctant to dare to coerce their God, did their best to coerce evil spirits instead, to frighten them with the power of God and His numerous agents, such as angels, saints, etc. God’s names were also instrumental here. These new attitudes produced, besides written amulets, a special branch of a new protective literature, quite Christian already. The main difference between them was that the works of this new protective literature were no amulets at all: they were not intended for wearing on body, had no name of their owner in the text, and other features specific for amulets. These were regular literary works for reading, may be for loud reading on certain occasions, but still it was literature, which Deborah Lifchitz called «textes magico-religieux». The Ethiopians themselves call these texts Temhertä Hebu’at, i. e. «Secret Learning». Stephen Wright, an expert in Ethiopian book and manuscript Î. ÌÈËËÅÐ, Îïûò èñòîðè÷åñêîãî îáîçðåíèÿ ðóññêîé ñëîâåñíîñòè. I, 1 (ÑÏá., 1865) 84, ïðèì. 2. 35 Í. ÏÎÇÍÀÍÑÊÈÉ, Îïûò èññëåäîâàíèÿ ïðîèñõîæäåíèÿ è ðàçâèòèÿ çàãîâîðíûõ ôîðìóë (Ïåòðîãðàä, 1917) 102. 34
S. B. Chernetsov
#
culture, wrote about this temhert, or «learning»: «In the popular mind, however, temhert retains its old sense, of erudition founded upon the sacred doctrines of the Christian church; it inspires awe and respect, and is regarded as beyond the comprehension of common folk. It is a mysterious thing, a sort of temhertä hebu’at, to use the Ge’ez title of the Doctrina Arcanorum, which its editor, Deborah Lifchitz, included among her «textes magico-religieux». (This text is, by the way, obtainable in Addis Ababa in cheap printed editions, and is often acquired by the literate devout as an inexpensive gateway to esoteric knowledge, though of course the Ge’ez is in fact incomprehensible to most of them)».36 However, this «learning» was called by the Ethiopians secret not so much due to the fact that it was (and is) «incomprehensible to most of them». For this there were other reasons as well. The thing is that these «literate devouts» were cunning when they pretended they did not dare to coerce their God. In fact they did their best to compel Him to protect them, as one magic text shows. It is the «Bandlet of Righteousness» to be dealt at some length later. There is with a story, how Jesus Christ demonstrated Our Lady hell, where her parents and relatives were suffering. Our Lady was horrified and asked her Son for some sure remedy against hell’s tortures. He refused to do it and presented a reasonable explanation: «I shall not tell you this, for a thing said to one goes to another, so people will sin and say: “We have with what to be rescued”». Our Lady cried and said to her Son bitterly: «What for have I borne you for nine months and five days?» Jesus Christ could not help but surrender to the demand of His mother and told her the remedy, which occurred to be His numerous secret names. However, He asked His mother not to reveal this to «wicked evil people», but only to «pious and righteous ones», and she promised this. That is why this «learning» is considered «secret», and why people are so eager to get acquainted with it. Certainly, it is not at all a Christian idea of sin and retribution which prevails here, but quite an opposite idea of avoiding retribution for sin by using magic means. Both the subject and the entire entourage of these texts belong to Christian lore, but the idea is purely magic, i. e. to compel God to save them by His secret «mysterious names» as irresistible means of coercion. In fact, it was, probably, René Basset, who first paid attention to these texts in 1896 and considered them as Ethiopian apocrypha.37 The next was Boris Turaiev, who called them «orationes falsae at exorcismi» in his article in Festschrift Daniel Chwolson in 1899; and then followed Enno Littmann in 1904 with his edition of one of these texts (namely Arde’et — «Disciples») in Publications of Princeton University.38 He was so impressed with the popularity of this particular 36
S. WRIGHT, Book and manuscript collections in Ethiopia // Journal of Ethiopian Studies. II (1964) Nr. 1. 11–12. 37 BASSET, Les apocryphes éthiopiens... 38 [Mistake of memory. See the correct reference above, n. 2.]
$
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
genre in Ethiopian literature, that wrote bluntly: «The greater part of Ethiopian literature is magic literature».39 But it was only Deborah Lifchitz who make a systematic study of this «greater part of Ethiopian literature» in ethnologo-philological way, so characteristic for French school of Ethiopistics up to now. So it was only logical that her monograph was published in the series of Travaux et Mémoires de l’Institut d’Ethnologie in 1940. The Second World War put a tragic end to both her research and life. However, a younger member of a rather small Paris circle, which had produced a genuine constellation of brilliant Ethiopisants, i. e. Stephan Strelcyn, after the war resumed this work in Warsaw already, and younger generation owes him much for the continuation of this noble tradition. Will it be continued any further? I hope it will. This particular field is like an icon-lamp, not a torch: it never shines brightly, but it never goes out, though. So these «textes éthiopiens magico-religieux» constitute a specific branch of Ethiopian literature with a characteristic repertoire of it own, which goes back, probably, to Byzantine literary heritage. Certainly, it deserves a thorough investigation and study with a special attention given to the question of cultural influences and ways of migration of certain subjects and texts. This formidable task, however, goes far beyond the sphere of my topic, limited, as it is, to Ethiopian magic scrolls only. Still as for these «textes éthiopiens magicoreligieux», I am reluctant to label them «magic literature», because, as a matter of fact, they cannot serve «a sufficient and irresistible means for achieving definite result under conditions of fulfilling all the necessary prescriptions..., irresistible for both the laws of nature and individual will», as Nikolai Poznanski put it. They are precisely apocrypha, as they were called by their first student René Basset, apocrypha in their original Greek sense, i. e. secret, concealed literature, but not magic one in a strict sense of the word. Its ancient readers called it in their natives tongues precisely this way, i. e. Doctrina arcanorum, or Temhertä Hebu’at. It was a learning for the initiated only, but such was the entire Christian literature in Ethiopia written in Ge’ez. So it was just a specific branch of this literature, Christian, as far as both readers and compilers understood their own faith, intended for reading and learning. By contrast, what can be called a genuine magic literature in its own right, are texts of written amulets, i. e. of Ethiopian magic scrolls. One can raise a question, however, how could these numerous and diverse magic writings intended for magic use, constitute a particular and coherent kind of literature, namely the magic literature. On what criteria can one combine together these diverse writings «from Bible apocrypha to various charms and spells»? What a specific place do they occupy as against equally magic oral charms and spells? A student of Ethiopian magic literature cannot escape these questions. 39
L ITTMANN, Ardeet: The Magic Book of the disciples... 2.
S. B. Chernetsov
%
The first criterion on which one can single out the works of Ethiopian magic literature out of other literary pieces in their protective function as amulets not intended for reading the text itself. The second one is their personal nature. Each magic scroll is made for a certain individual, and his name is mentioned in the very text of the scroll repeatedly and invariably. If such a scroll changes hands, the name of the previous owner (or should I call him/her a protégé?) is always scraped out, and a new name is entered in its stead. Thus, besides the functional criterion, there is also a formal one, which is extraneous to other literary genres, Temhertä Hebu’at including. Besides in these texts there can be found sometimes instructions on the use of a particular scroll: to wear it on neck, to wrap it round body, to keep at home, etc. Such instructions are typical not only for Ethiopian magic literature, but for Russian, Greek, Coptic, and others as well. However, these two characteristics are typical not only for magic literature, but for oral charms and spells as well. However, there exist two major differences between these types of charms, an oral and a written ones: firstly, the former is heard and more or less understood by listeners, while the latter remains for them incomprehensible, and secondly, if an oral spell is usually accompanied by the necessary ritual, a written one is effective by its mere existence. The only conditio sine qua non is the exactness in its copying, and Deborah Lifchitz wrote in her monograph, that those of Ethiopian clergy, who produced magic scrolls for sale, had special written «originals» for copying. However, there is undoubted structural similarity between oral and written spells for the obvious reason that the latter had descended from the former. Historically the transition from an oral spell into a written one made an epoch in the development of human thought and culture, pregnant with farreaching consequences. It was, probably Tadeusz Zelinski who was the first to declare, that a spell was born by rite, and magic action preceded a magic word. The first step in the development of magic was made when action began to be accompanied by words; thus action turns into rite, as Zelinski wrote: «...to produce the desired effect they do a sorcery, i. e. an action similar to the desired one and associated with it... We have worded the sorcery and its aim, and thus was produced a formula of a spell».40 The second stage was marked by such a transformation, when rite, i. e. magic action, and spell switched their places, and now it were not words, which accompanied a rite, but the rite accompanied the words, thus transforming into though quite significant, but no more the main element of magic practice. The transition of a spell from an oral into written one, which we are considering at present, is the third stage in the development of the idea of magic, when rite was losing its independent significance, and in its stead magic cult was emerging. I mean 40 Ô. ÇÅËÈÍÑÊÈÉ, Î çàãîâîðàõ // Ñáîðíèê Õàðüêîâñêîãî èñòîðèêî-ôèëîëîãè÷åñêîãî îáùåñòâà (Õàðüêîâ, 1897) 24.
&
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
a more or less coherent system of magic notions and ideas, such as a highly developed magic cult of god Toth of Ancient Egypt.41 Toth was a god of both magic and art of writing, the author of the «Book of Dead». However, it seems, that any cult of any polytheistic deity can be usefully defined as a magico-religious one. Certainly, such a definition is rather vague, but it is hardly possible to draw a clear-cut line between magic and religion (especially a polytheistic one), between religious cult and magic act. Here it seems rather relevant and interesting the remark made by Edward Westermarck: «There may perhaps be some reason to believe that the affinity between magic and religion had found expression in the word religion itself. It has been conjectured that the Latin religio is related to religare, which means “to tie”. The relationship between these words has been supposed that in religion man was tied by his god. But the connection between them — if there is any connection at all — seems to allow of another and more natural interpretation, namely, that it was not the man who was tied by the god, but the god who was tied by the man... This is we should call magic, but the Romans might in ancient days have called it religio. They were much more addicted to magic than to true religion; they wanted to compel the gods rather than to be compelled by them».42 It is precisely on this stage of magic cult falls the development and heyday of magic literature, which was to meet the needs of the cult. If for texts of oral magic, i. e. oral charms and spells, their preservation and transmission from generation to generation intact were provided by rite, which was the backbone of oral tradition, on the next stage of development, when the rite was replaced by the cult, it was the written form, which guaranteed the invariability of magic texts. Thus, it was a significant change in transmission of magic works, when oral tradition was substituted with a written one. No wonder, that developed written magic is found in the countries of «Classical Orient», where an ancient tradition of writing and a lasting and stable development made the emergence of magic cults possible. However, not all peoples of the world were able to develop their own magic views and ideas into a mature magic cult. In many cases this development was cut short by introduction of genuine religious (i. e. monotheistic) cults, which usually did their best to uproot the previous popular beliefs and traditions, now considered as pagan. As for Ethiopia, the introduction of Christianity hindered and suppressed local magic cults, if they ever existed. Such cults were mercilessly suppressed and persecuted both by the Church and rigorous secular rules, such as King Zär’a Ya’eqob, for example. The irony of situation was in the fact, that the Christians, who were so eager to exterminate paganism for the sake of their faith, had accepted Chris41 Á. À. ÒÓÐÀÅÂ, Áîã Òîò // Çàïèñêè èñòîðèêî-ôèëîëîãè÷åñêîãî ôàêóëüòåòà Èìïåðàòîðñêîãî Ñ.-Ïåòåðáóðãñêîãî Óíèâåðñèòåòà 46 (1898). 42 E. WESTERMARCK, Early Beliefs and Their Social Influence (London, 1932) 10.
S. B. Chernetsov
'
tianity together with its superstitions. It was a sack of grain where wheat was heavily mixed with tares, but even the learned ones among these Christians were unable to distinguish them, let alone to separate. As a prominent Ethiopian historian Taddese Tamrat wrote about the above-mentioned Zär’a Ya’eqob, «Zär’a Ya’eqob displayed a strong sense of mission throughout his reign, and he set himself very high objectives: “And God raised Us to this orthodox throne so that we may disperse all idol-worshippers”. Judged against this high ideal, however, his attempts to bring about a radical change in the religious life of his people did not bear substantial results. Perhaps the most telling illustration of this drastic failure is the basic contradiction of his own life. Despite his eloquent commentaries on the Apostolic Canons, and on the constitutions of the early Christian Church, Zär’a Ya’eqob remained polygamous to the end of his days. His superstitious fears of black magic seem also to have been considerable, and his ruthless judgements convey very little of the sense of justice of a deeply religious man».43 Well, Zär’a Ya’eqob indeed believed in black magic, and in protective Christian white magic as well, but one should realize also, that these «superstitions», as they are called by Taddese Tamrat and others as well, were part and parcel of his Christianity, borrowed from the very source, whence it had been borrowed. All these were imported items, and Zär’a Ya’eqob did his best to substitute native pagan superstitions with imported Christian ones. There was no contradiction at all. As Taddese Tamrat remarked, «the dichotomy between Good and Evil — God and Satan — in Ethiopian cosmology did not at all rule out the existence, nor the strong arbitrary powers, of evil spirits in the world, which were only the manifestations of the malign forces of the Fallen Angels... It was also, apparently, a common practice among the Christians... was the use of magical prayers by members of the Christian community, including the clergy».44 Thus, this new development, i. e. introduction of Christian clergy-made magic scrolls, marked quite a new magic phenomenon, which was new as regards to both its language and content. The language was invariably Ge’ez, the language of Ethiopian Christian literature, and so was to a great extent the content. Let alone Bible texts and apocrypha, other texts used in magic scrolls were mostly borrowed either directly from foreign Christian written amulets, or from other literary sources, which were considered undoubtedly Christian. The texts of the above-mentioned Temhertä Hebu’at are quite revealing in this particular respect. Not only they were used in somewhat abbreviated version in Ethiopian magic scrolls alongside with other magic texts, but the same versions can be found as well in tiny books, which served, evidently, as written amulets, though no name of an owner is mentioned in the 43 TADDESE TAMRAT, Church and state in Ethiopia 1270–1527 (Oxford, 1972) 242–243. 44 Ibid. 235.
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
texts of such books. So, one can hardly draw a clear-cut line between magico-religious texts and regular magic texts of written amulets. In these amulets we find a strong belief in not only written word as such, but precisely in the word of Christian literature. Well, it was a funny development indeed. Magic texts assumed a literary character, and therefore became incomprehensible for common users, because they were written in literary, not vernacular language. Meanwhile written form provided magic creativity with new and wider possibilities. The volume of a spell grew considerably, and an epic (i. e. narrative) element could develop widely. Also foreign themes and borrowing poured into written magic in floods; they were not only possible, but most welcome. Among them we find apocryphal legends, biblical passages, and foreign magical subjects, equally revered by Ethiopian Christians. In contrast to oral magic, foreign influence is very strong in magic literature; the borrowing is carried out in a «literary» way, and there are few extensive subjects in Ethiopian magic literature which do not have its prototypes in magic literatures of Copts, Christian Arabs, and even Greeks. More than this, Ethiopian magic literature is most conservative, as probably other magic literatures as well, due to the fact, that the tradition of preserving and transmitting these works consists of precise rewriting of them, when only a name of the owner is changed. It is precisely this that makes Ethiopian magic literature a real depository of ancient texts, magic and otherwise, which offers a vast area for research, fascinating and arduous as it is, of the writings, that had fallen into disuse and disappeared altogether in the lands of their own origin. A famous Ethiopian magic text, known as «The Scroll of Justification»,45 «The Bandlet of Righteousness»,46 or «Die Binde der Rechtfertigung»47 may serve a good example here. It is a long text, which takes up an entire scroll, and its bulk is not the only reason for this. In fact it is not so much a magic scroll, which guarantees its owner protection in his earthly life, but a funerary scroll, which serves a safe pass to Heavens to the soul of the deceased quite irrespective to his own virtues or vices. This utterly unchristian idea is formulated in the text bluntly: «The one, who obtains this book, will never fall into condemnation and hell. The one, who wears it and twist it round his neck, will be purified of the dirtiness of sin. The one, who will repeat it during the mess, will be free of sins. If it be made at one’s funeral a Seal of Solomon by this book, angels will take him and bring before God in the Kingdom of Heaven». The first researcher of the text, Boris Turaiev, wrote: «First of all it is obvious, that it Á. À. ÒÓÐÀÅÂ, Ñâèòîê Îïðàâäàíèÿ // Ñáîðíèê â ÷åñòü 70-ëåòèÿ Ã. Í. Ïîòàíèíà. Çàïèñêè Èìïåðàòîðñêîãî Ðóññêîãî àðõåîëîãè÷åñêîãî îáùåñòâà ïî îòäåëåíèþ ýòíîãðàôèè XXXIV (1909) 359–378. 46 E. W. BUDGE, The Bandlet of Righteousness (London, 1922). 47 S. EURINGER, Die Binde der Rechtfertigung // Orientalia XI (1940) 76–99, 244–259. 45
S. B. Chernetsov
presents not a collection of orationes falsae, but a quite mechanical set of formulae and apocalyptic narrative treatises, while the number, volume and even order of these formulae is not always the same. In this respect our texts reminds surprisingly the Egyptian «Book of Dead», which also presents a set of «chapters» of most diverse content and of different number in various copies».48 To the best of my knowledge, Turaiev was the first, who made a parallel between these two works, the Ethiopian and the Egyptian one. This idea was repeated later by other researchers. The similarity between these two writings, the Egyptian and the Ethiopian one, is not limited to the structure only. It includes also the idea of a «mighty secret name of a god», the knowledge of which gives to the learned mighty power of not only over natural forces, but over god himself. This idea was inherent to magic ideology of many peoples, but it was precisely in Ancient Egypt, where this universal belief developed into a special magic cult of god Toth and a funerary text of the «Book of Dead» came into use. As Boris Turaiev wrote, «this time the god of wisdom and justice brings this moral element almost to naught. He teaches the deceased the formulae, which make his judges harmless: the knowledge of these formulae and of the names of judges make moral purity unnecessary... his role of merciful protector of the deceased gains sometimes the upper hand over the function of an impartial prototype of Egyptian official and patron of exact sciences: he permits himself to outweigh the scales for the benefit of the deceased».49 In Ethiopian «Bandlet of Righteousness» it is precisely the same role, which is assigned to Jesus Christ. It is Him, Who at the most persistent plea of Our Lady betrays numerous «secret names» of Him, the supreme Judge at the future Doomsday; the names, which make Him safe for a sinful soul. So it is to Him that is the plea of this scroll for help addressed, «when I die, and when my soul separates from my body». So there is every reason to compare these two funerary magic works, this of Ancient Egypt, and that of Ethiopia. However, there hardly can be any direct succession. The temporal gap between them is enormous. Besides, the Egyptian text, though it was called a «book», never had a form of any book, or scroll and could not and did not function as amulet in Ancient Egypt. It was a religious text within the cult. Therefore its narration and, certainly, «names» had their source in the polytheistic lore of Ancient Egyptian religion. As for Ethiopian «Bandlet of Righteousness», the epic elements of its components are, certainly, borrowed from quite another source: it was Christian writing, rather specific, however. Most researchers usually define them as «apocryphal», a vague definition, which can be hardly called a term. Certainly, the problem deserves a much more thorough consideration and analysis, than I am able to present here. What I want to draw 48 49
ÒÓÐÀÅÂ, Ñâèòîê Îïðàâäàíèÿ
375. ÒÓÐÀÅÂ, Áîã Òîò
52.
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
a special attention to such a peculiar source as the so-called «homilies» (RTpg), especially «homilies» to archangels Mika’el, Gabriel, Rufa’el and Fanu’el. They are studied absolutely insufficiently yet, especially the liturgical function of theirs. It is most interesting, that some liturgical texts (sometimes, indeed, connected with apocryphal tradition) served as a source for Christian magic literature. Moreover, some of such texts were even incorporated into liturgy in some particular cases as healing means, as it was demonstrated recently by two scholars, Bulgarian (Georgi Minchev) and Polish (Malgorzata Skowronek), who work at present at Lodz University.50 Some years ago I have bought near St. George Cathedral in Addis Ababa a tiny Ge’ez paper book typographically printed. It is a genuine written amulet, though printed, not handwritten, entitled precisely Ketab (zfa), i. e. amulet, with heading ÑUHÌ ÃC{g ¸ RTÏ µ HòyÑôD µ ÔÜaRÑôD µ ÔN&ÑôD ¸ RTÏ µ &ÏñÑôD, i. e. “Names of the Divine. Homily of Mikael and Gabriel and Rufael. Homily of Fanuel.” It seems to me no funny curiosity, but an important symbol, in many respects quite revealing. As a matter of fact, such a cultural phenomenon as magic scrolls is usually treated by scholars as a component of the so-called «folk culture», or «folk religion», a kind of corrupted version of a higher culture, or religion, for the simple reason, that these are «superstitions». Accordingly, these scrolls are considered to be the products of common folk creativity, based on the ideas of precisely this corrupted «folk Christianity», certainly rejected by the Church. This scholastic attitude is a great misunderstanding, I am afraid. What is quite characteristic for medieval culture is the existence of two basically different cultures within it: a written and an oral one; I mean medieval literature and folklore. As for concrete medieval people, a certain person may enjoy both, or may not, but these cultures are different indeed, sometimes even in language, and always in their producers. And magic scrolls are certainly the products of written culture and their producers are literati, i. e. clergymen. You may call it superstition, if you want, but again, it is superstition inherent to medieval Christianity, that is why the Church tolerates these scrolls and books, which we call magic. In Ethiopia they are considered as undoubtedly Christian. However, these Christian written amulets are widely used in Ethiopia not only by the Christians. Why? We cannot attribute this to their protective power only. Non-Christians do have their own native amulets, use them and believe in their efficiency. And still Christian amulets are very popular. What is the reason for this? We have here a vast field for speculation. I would dare to make some suggestions of my own. In contrast to Christian religion, magic scrolls as such were never specially imposed on pagan popu50 Ãåîðãè ÌÈÍ×ÅÂ, Ìàëãîæàòà ÑÊÎÂÐÎÍÅÊ, Öèêúëúò çà öàð Àâãàð âúâ âèçàíòèíî-ñëàâÿíñêàòà ðúêîïèñíà òðàäèöèÿ // Ñðåäíåâåêîâíà õðèñòèÿíñêà Åâðîïà: Èçòîê è Çàïàä. Medieval Christian Europe: East and West (Ñîôèÿ, 2002) 324348.
S. B. Chernetsov
!
lation in Ethiopia. However, these magic scrolls were certainly considered by this population as an element of the culture of the center, the obvious focus of wealth, military might and political authority, just as Christianity was. But in contrast to Christian religion, these magic scrolls introduced their owners into higher culture without any breach of their habitual traditions, because amulet is no religion and imposes no obligations whatsoever. Magic scrolls demanded of their owner nothing: neither reading, nor understanding, just a sheep for the scribe. Christian religion may come later, or may not. This is a question of vicissitudes of history and of deliberate activities led and organized by the Church and Christian state. But these seeds fall on a soil already prepared inter alia also by magic scrolls. Certainly, there are other factors as well, such as fashions, clothes, weapons and mannerisms of the center, also readily adopted.51 The latter, however, could afford mostly higher classes, while magic scrolls were easily available to common people as well. The process was protracted and went on for centuries. To my mind, it was a process of neither assimilation, no acculturation in the strict sense of the word, but of creating in the periphery the inner feeling of their implication in the center, of their involvement into the same culture and, probably, the same state, of their belonging to the vast entity, which Donald Levine called «Greater Ethiopia».52
–≈«fiÃ≈* ›‘»Œœ— ¿fl ÿ√»◊≈— ¿fl À»“≈–¿“”–¿ Ïðèâîäèòñÿ îáçîð ýôèîïñêîé ìàãè÷åñêîé ëèòåðàòóðû ñîîòâåòñòâåííî åå ñîäåðæàíèþ, ñ îäíîé ñòîðîíû, è åå ñïîñîáó áûòîâàíèÿ â òðàäèöèîííîé ýôèîïñêîé êóëüòóðå, ñ äðóãîé ñòîðîíû. Îïðîâåðãàåòñÿ ðàñïðîñòðàíåííîå äî ñèõ ïîð ìíåíèå, áóäòî ýòà ëèòåðàòóðà èìååò ÿçû÷åñêèå êîðíè è ïðèíàäëåæèò ê òîìó ñëîþ íàðîäíîé êóëüòóðû, ïðîòèâ êîòîðîãî âñåãäà áîðîëàñü öåðêîâü.  äåéñòâèòåëüíîñòè ýôèîïñêèå ìàãè÷åñêèå òåêñòû âîñõîäÿò èñêëþ÷èòåëüíî ê òðàäèöèÿì èóäåî-õðèñòèàíñêîãî ìèðà, ïðè÷åì èíîãäà îíè ñàìè ÿâëÿþòñÿ ïåðåâîäàìè âåñüìà äðåâíèõ ïðîèçâåäåíèé. Ïî ñïîñîáó áûòîâàíèÿ îíè ïðèíàäëåæàò îòíþäü íå ê óñòíîìó íàðîäíîìó òâîð÷åñòâó èëè âîîáùå ôîëüêëîðó, à ê òîé ñàìîé ïèñüìåííîé êóëüòóðå, êîòîðàÿ ïîðîæäàëàñü èñêëþ÷èòåëüíî â öåðêîâíîé ñðåäå.
51
H. MARCUS, Methods and some results of the unification of Ethiopia during the reign of Menilek II // Proceedings of the III International Conference of Ethiopian Studies. I (Addis Ababa, 1970) 275–276. 52 D. N. LEVINE, Greater Ethiopia. An evolution of multiethnic society (Chicago, 1974). * Ñîñòàâëåíî Ðåäàêöèåé.
Vincent Desprez Abbaye Saint-Martin de Liguge;
DIADOQUE DE PHOTICE: ET LE PSEUDO-MACAIRE UN E T: AT DES QUESTIONS Les rapports entre le Pseudo-Macaire et Diadoque de Photicé ont été diversement évalués par les critiques, à partir de corpus progressivement connus et édités. Actuellement, les textes conservés dans les bibliothèques sont suffisamment inventoriés,1 sinon tous exploités,2 et nous disposons d’un corpus, tant de Diadoque que du Ps.-Macaire, qui à moins de nouvelles découvertes ou de désaveux critiques paraît stable. Beaucoup de données sont donc disponibles pour un bilan de leurs relations. Si périlleux que soit un tel exercice, on essaiera de contribuer à le préparer en rappelant quelques points du débat des années 1935–1970, en proposant une relecture de Diadoque effectuée (en 1985) du point de vue du Pseudo-Macaire, en citant des travaux récents et en dégageant quelques aperçus sur la transmission des textes pseudo-macariens en direction de Constantinople.
I. Le de;bat des anne;es 1935ñ1970. Ce débat est tributaire des œuvres alors disponibles et de l’interprétation générale qu’elles recevaient. Quelles étaient les œuvres éditées3 jusqu’en 1970? 1 La base de données PINAKES de l’Université de Toronto, progressivement affinée par la Section grecque de l’Institut de Recherche et d’Histoire des Textes, donne pour chaque écrivain grec classique et patristique une liste des manuscrits contenant ses œuvres. Je projette de publier un tel inventaire pour le Pseudo-Macaire. 2 C’est le cas pour la version géorgienne de la Collection IV du Pseudo-Macaire, qu’a recensée Michel van Esbroeck dans OCP 49, 1983, p. 493 s. Je ne puis répondre à son souhait que tout éditeur de Macaire devienne géorgianisant. M. van Esbroeck a eu l’indulgence de me collationner le début du Logos 2 (lettre du 25 novembre 1986). B. Outtier m’a lu le début de la Grande Lettre et le logos 22, et se propose de continuer. Bienvenues sont aussi les indications de M. van Esbroeck sur des manuscrits arabes du Sinaï dans An. Boll. 95, 1977, p. 433 s. 3 Les œuvres de Diadoque seront citées d’après l’édition: Diadoque de Photicé, Œuvres spirituelles / Éd. É. DES PLACES (Paris, 1955) (SC 5bis) (cité Diadoque, Œuvres...); les Chapitres gnostiques seront cités «ch.», par page et lignes de l’édition des Places. — Pour les œuvres du Pseudo-Macaire: Grande Lettre (CPG 2415/2 et 4034): MakariosSymeon, Epistola Magna. Eine messalianische Mönchsregel und ihre Umschrift in Gregors von Nyssa «De instituto christiano» / Hrsg. R. STAATS (Göttingen, 1984) (AAWG III, 134) (cité GL, puis chapitre et paragraphe). Collection I (CPG 2410): Makarios/Sy-
V. Desprez
#
De Diadoque étaient connus les Chapitres gnostiques par la Philocalie de Venise 1782 et ses rééditions d’Athènes, puis par les éditions critiques de Popov (Kiev 1903) et de Weis-Liebersdorf (Leipzig 1912), et par la traduction latine de F. Torrès (PG 65, 1167–1212); le Sermon pour l’Ascension, édité par Mai (Rome 1840), puis par Migne (PG 65, 1141–1148) et par Popov; la Vision, éditée par Beneeviè (Saint-Pétersbourg 1908) et larchimandrite Ioustinos Bithynos (Néa Siôn 9, 1909). Du Pseudo-Macaire, l’on pouvait lire les Cinquante Homélies plusieurs fois éditées et traduites depuis 1559, reprises par Migne (PG 34, 449–822), dotées d’une édition critique par Dörries, Klostermann et Kroeger en 1964 (Berlin, De Gruyter); sept homélies éditées par G. L. Marriott en 1918; des lettres et des pièces disparates (PG 34, 405–448), auxquelles se rattachaient la vision (ibid. 221–230) et le sermon de Macaire d’Alexandrie (ibid. 385–392), puis le Sermon de Syméon de Mésopotamie (éd. Cozza-Luzi dans Mai, PNB VIII, 3, p. 1– 3, déjà sous le nom d’Éphrem — Assemani grec III, 356 s., CPG 4035, — signalé par Dörries 1941) — la lettre la plus importante, Epistula II, est un centon réunissant des fragments du logos I, 40 du Ps. Macaire et du De Instituto christiano de Grégoire de Nysse (PG 34, 409–420B et 420C–442, d’après Floss); la vraie Grande Lettre éditée sous le nom d’Éphrem par Assemani (Rome 1746, CPG 4034) puis sous le nom de Macaire par W. Jaeger (Leyde 1954); les Opuscules édités par Poussines (repris par Migne, PG 34, 821–968) et en partie par la Philocalie; et en 1961, les pièces de la Collection III non contenues dans les Cinquante Homélies (éditées par E. Klostermann et H. Berthold, TU 72). Différentes éditions et traductions se greffaient sur ces recueils. L’ensemble des œuvres du Ps.-Macaire (y compris la collection arabe syméonienne, qui inclut une quinzaine de pièces de la Collection III) était analysé par H. Dörries et W. Strothmann dès 1941 dans Symeon von Mesopotamien. Les pièces sous le nom d’Éphrem étaient idendifiées par D. Hemmerdinger-Iliadou en 1960 dans le DSp 4/1, 808–810. Rares cependant étaient ceux qui tenaient compte de tout ce matériel, notamment des mentions du baptême dans la Grande Lettre et les Logoi I, 25, 43 et 52, et III, 28; le silence presque total des Cinquante Homélies sur ce point faisait taxer le Pseudo-Macaire d’indifférence aux sacrements par F. Dörr4 et invitait à l’assimiler assez étroitement aux messaliens. meon, Reden und Briefe. Die Sammlung I des Vaticanus graecus 694 / Hrsg. H. BERTHOLD (GCS) 2 volumes (Berlin, 1973) (cité I, puis numéros du logos et des subdivisions). Collection II (CPG 2411): Die 50 Geistlichen Homilien des Makarios / Hrsg. und erläut. H. DÖRRIES, E. KLOSTERMANN, M. KROEGER (Berlin, 1964) (PTS 4) (cité II, puis numéros de l’homélie et du paragraphe). Collection III (CPG 2412): Pseudo-Macaire, Pièces propres à la Collection III / Introd., trad. et notes par V. DESPREZ (avec le texte grec) (Paris, 1980) (SC 275) (cité III, puis numéro du logos et des subdivisions). 4 F. DÖRR, Diadochos von Photike und die Messalianer. Ein Kampf zwischen wahrer und falscher Mystik im fünften Jahrhundert (1937) (cité DÖRR, Diadochos...) 38 n. 2; 45, n. 2.
$
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
Les autres ensembles furent édités ensuite par H. Berthold (Collection I, GCS, Berlin 1973) puis par W. Strothmann (Göttinger Orientforschungen, I. Reihe: Syriaca, chez Harrassowitz) en 1975 (pièces propre à l’arabe, t. 11) et en 1981 (corpus syriaque, corpus sous le nom d’Éphrem, parallèles textuels des Cinquante Homélies, dans les t. 21 à 23). Enfin, R. Staats donnait une édition critique de la Grande Lettre d’après une base manuscrite très élargie (Göttingen 1984). En ce qui concerne l’interprétation de ces sources, le débat sur les relations entre les deux auteurs avait pris un tour nouveau en 1920, quand L. Villecourt découvrit qu’un groupe de propositions messaliennes condamnées, citées par Jean Damascène, se trouvait dans les Homélies du PseudoMacaire: celui-ci devait donc être un messalien. Dès lors intervenaient d’autres termes de comparaison: les propositions messaliennes de Théodoret, Timothée de Constantinople et Jean Damascène, et l’Ascéticon messalien condamné à Éphèse:5 quel était-il au juste? Un document dont le Pseudo-Macaire avait tiré son messalianisme affiné?6 Un corpus primitif du Pseudo-Macaire?7 Des extraits de celui-ci colligés par les messaliens de Pamphylie, faisant de lui le pourvoyeur involontaire en mots d’ordre du messalianisme?8 Le Pseudo-Macaire est ainsi passé du statut de messalien (Villecourt, Hausherr), de messalien modéré (Dörr, Dörries et ses disciples, Gribomont, Desprez jusqu’en 1998), de non-messalien (auteurs orthodoxes, W. Jaeger, J. Daniélou, Dörries 1978) représentant du pneumatisme syriaque (Quispel, Guillaumont), à celui de maître spirituel antérieur aux messaliens, dont une des branches de l’entourage a donné naissance au messalianisme (Fitschen). Nous nous limiterons ici, autant que possible, aux rapports entre le Ps.Macaire et Diadoque.9 Revenons en 1935. 5 Nous avons traduit des extraits de Théodoret, reproduisant des déclarations d’Adelphios, et la liste de Jean Damascène, répartie entre ce qui fait écho à Adelphios et ce qui est extrait du Pseudo-Macaire, en indiquant les passages-sources, dans V. DESPREZ, Le monachisme primitif. Des origines jusqu’au concile d’Éphèse (Bégrolles-en-Mauges, 1998) (Spiritualité Orientale 72) 333–337. 6 DÖRR, Diadochos... 20, n. 2. 7 DÖRRIES, Symeon... 9–10; 121–143; 425–441. Ce corpus consistait surtout en Questions-réponses, voir déjà DÖRR, Diadochos... 21, n. 1; 34 n. 1. 8 C’est Adelphios qui aurait recueilli des traditions orales et écrites du Ps.-Macaire, en durcissant et radicalisant sa doctrine: cf. Kl. FITSCHEN, Messalianismus und Antimessalianismus. Ein Beispiel ostkirchlicher Ketzergeschichte (Göttingen, 1998) (Forschungen zur Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte 71) 214–218; 238. On s’explique mieux ainsi que les censeurs aient trouvé répréhensibles des passages qui, originellement, étaient équilibrés. 9 Sur fond de notre exposé sur le messalianisme et le Pseudo-Macaire dans DESPREZ , Le monachisme primitif... 331–337, 401–412, et maintenant de l’interprétation de Kl. Fitschen, la synthèse récente la plus approfondie, prenant en compte tout le dossier du messalianisme. Nous mettons cependant particulièrement en relief la réac-
V. Desprez
%
I. Hausherr a voulu laver Diadoque de tout soupçon de messalianisme,10 ce qui n’a pas convaincu H.-U. von Balthasar. M. Rothenhäusler a montré les similitudes entre la theologia de Diadoque et le «ministère de la parole» chez le Ps.-Macaire.11 F. Dörr a mis en évidence dans la Centurie de Diadoque une polémique contre des messaliens (abréviations: D = Diadoque, Chapitres gnostiques; H = Ps.-Macaire, Collection II). Il distingue I. La thèse fondamentale: 1. Coexistence de la grâce et du péché (H 16, 6 et D 83; H 17, 4; 26, 25 et D 76); 2 Deux «personnages» dans l’âme (H 26, 18; 40, 7 et D 80 et 78; H 16, 2.4 et D 88); 3. Actions divergentes de la grâce et du péché (H 17, 6.4; 26, 15 et D 76). — II. Les justifications scripturaires: 1. Matth. 12, 29, le brigand dans la maison (H 15, 14–15.48; 16, 1; D 84); 2. Jn 1, 5, lumière et ténèbres (H 16, 3.5; 7, 2; 17, 5 et D 80); 3. Mt 15, 19, les mauvaises pensées qui sortent du cœur (H 16, 3; 17,6; 27,13; 12, 2–3; 15, 21.13–15 et D 83, 85, 88). É. des Places s’est coulé dans cette problématique pour son édition de Diadoque, puis dans une lecture de l’article de 1965 de H. Dörries.12 Dans une étude détaillée, H. Dörries montrait en Diadoque non un adversaire, mais un disciple probablement direct du Pseudo-Macaire.13 Si dans sa Centurie Diadoque critique Macaire ou certains de ses disciples, dans les Homélies de Macaire on entend les objections de Diadoque à son maître.14 Diadoque se réfère à un passage de l’Ascéticon avec grands éloges, et son portrait de l’homme de Dieu idéal emprunterait plusieurs traits à MacaireSyméon.15 Même quand Diadoque s’en prend à la doctrine macarienne de la simultanéité de la grâce et du péché, cela ressemblerait à une querelle d’école plutôt qu’à un procès ecclésiastique intenté par un évêque à un hérétique.16 tion du Ps. Macaire à l’évolution et au durcissement de ce mouvement (ainsi FITSCHEN, Messalianismus... 238, LMP p. 411, à la suite de Dörries). 10 I. HAUSHERR, Les grands courants de la spiritualité orientale // OCP 1 (1935) 114– 138; IDEM, L’erreur fondamentale et la logique du messalianisme // Ibid. 328–360. 11 M. ROTHENHÄUSLER, La doctrine de la «Theologia» chez Diadoque de Photicé // Irénikon 14 (1937) 536–553, spéc. 544–547 (ministère de la parole chez le Ps.- Macaire) et 547–552 (ministère de l’Esprit et de la parole dans le Liber Graduum). IDEM, Zur asketischen Lehrschrift des Diadochos von Photike // Heilige Überlieferung. Ausschnitte aus der Geschichte des Mönchtums und des heiligen Kultes. Festschrift I. Herwegen / Hrsg. O. Casel (Münster, 1938) 86–95. 12 Diadoque de Photicé, Oeuvres spirituelles / Éd. É. DES PLACES (Paris, 1966) (SC ter 5 ) (nous citons la 2ème édition, SC 5bis, 1955, et l’Appendice, p. 205 de la 3ème édition). 13 H. DÖRRIES, Diadochos und Symeon. Das Verhältnis der kefa¢laia gnwstika¢ zum Messalianismus // IDEM, Wort und Stunde, I. Gesammelte Studien zur Kirchengeschichte des vierten Jahrhunderts (Göttingen, 1966) (cité DÖRRIES, Diadochos...) 352–422, spéc. 390; 411–414. — Voir aussi l’analyse de C. STEWART, plus loin n. 87. 14 DÖRRIES, Diadochos... 396–399. 15 Ch. 37; 13; 91; DÖRRIES, Diadochos... 354; 377–387. 16 Ibid. 402–404.
&
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
Diadoque est beaucoup moins sévère envers cette opinion qu’envers ceux qui entrent dans la vie ascétique pour avoir des visions, c’est-à-dire les messaliens les plus primitifs.17 Pour rétablir une meilleure estimation des effets du baptême, Diadoque s’appuierait sur la doctrine du Pseudo-Macaire.18 Et en dehors de ces chapitres polémiques, il n’est plus question du baptême, tandis que l’appel au sentiment de la grâce — typique du climat messalien — est constant d’un bout à l’autre de la Centurie.19 Sous ce rapport, Diadoque est au moins aussi messalien que Macaire; de même, sa croyance au démon «gîtant» dans l’homme avant le baptême le rend passible des sentences synodales au même titre que son maître.20 Indépendamment de Dörries, H. U. von Balthasar a remarqué que Diadoque, par son constant appel au sentiment, est au moins aussi subjectiviste que Macaire; le critère d’orthodoxie défini par I. Hausherr: ne pas confondre la grâce avec le sentiment que l’on en a, atteint Diadoque aussi bien que Macaire.21 H. Dörries laissait ouverte la possibilité que Diadoque ait connu Macaire aussi par des écrits perdus pour nous,22 et que dans sa polémique autour de la grâce baptismale, il ait introduit la mention indéterminée «certains» (ti¢ne») pour pouvoir contester la doctrine de son maître sans paraître s’attaquer à lui.23 É. des Places, qui en 1965 avait pris en compte des études de J. Gribomont et J. Daniélou dédouanant Macaire du messalianisme, répondit en 1970 à l’article de Dörries 196524 en exprimant objections et nuances à la thèse exposée par celui-ci.25 17
DÖRRIES, Diadochos... 358–361. P. 360, cf. n. 17, H. Dörries conjecture que cela peut viser Adelphios; Diadoque serait ainsi le plus ancien témoin de l’histoire de ce dernier, que nous rapporte Philoxène de Mabboug (Lettre à Patrice d’Édesse // PO 30 (1964) 850). Mais les allusions de Diadoque sont bien passe-partout. 18 DÖRRIES, Diadochos... 399–401. De même, le Ps.-Macaire annonçait déjà Marc le moine pour K. WARE, The Sacrament of Baptism and the Ascetic Life in the Teaching of Mark the Monk (Berlin, 1970) (SP 10 = TU 107); V. DESPREZ, Le baptême chez le Pseudo-Macaire // Ecclesia Orans 5 (1988) 121–155. 19 ai s à qhsi» et ses dérivés paraissent 60 fois dans la Centurie: DÖRRIES, Diadochos... 411, n. 135; étude p. 406–411. 20 Timothée de Constantinople, Proposition 1 // PG 86. Col. 45C–48A; Jean Damascène, Proposition 1 // PG 94. Col. 729A; Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos / Éd. KOTTER. IV (PTS 22) 42; DÖRRIES, Diadochos... 401, n. 116. 21 H.-U. VON BALTHASAR, La Gloire et la Croix. T. 1 (Paris, 1965) (Théologie 61) 222. 22 DÖRRIES, Diadochos... 396. 23 Ibid. 391, n. 97. 24 É. DES PLACES, Diadoque de Photicé et le Messalianisme // Kyriakon. FS Johannes Quasten (Münster, 1970) 591–595 (cité DES PLACES, Messalianisme...). Cf. n. 9 et 17, renvoyant à SC 5ter, p. 205. 25 DES PLACES, Messalianisme... 593 s.
V. Desprez
'
Nous suivrons une voie plus ouverte. En effet, Diadoque ne nous semble avoir connu le problème messalien qu’indirectement, et notamment par certains écrits macariens. On peut supposer qu’il ait eu accès à la liste synodale de Constantinople (426), que nous transmet peut-être Timothée de Constantinople (VIe s.). Diadoque a-t-il connu la liste de Jean Damascène (provenant d’Éphèse d’après Dörries,26 mais c’est loin d’être clair), qui incrimine l’idée de la coexistence du péché et de la grâce. Mais Diadoque ne semble pas au contact des ascètes mésopotamiens comme le Pseudo-Macaire;27 il dialogue plutôt avec les écrits de ce dernier. Il n’y a donc pas de raison contraignante pour rejeter l’attribution de la Centurie et des autres œuvres à Diadoque, évêque de Photicé en Epire, qu’attestent les manuscrits et, vers 600, André de Césarée,28 ni son identification avec Didacus episcopus Fotice qui en 457 signa une réponse à l’empereur Léon.29 L’insistance sur l’efficacité du baptême révèle un esprit soucieux d’orthodoxie, déjà évêque ou apte à la charge épiscopale.30 La présence d’écrits macariens au monastère de Rouphinianes avant 447 rend plausible leur présence à Constantinople31 et possible leur diffusion en direction et de la Grèce et de l’Épire, peut-être par le monastère Halmyrisse 26
H. DÖRRIES, Symeon von Mesopotamien. Die Überlieferung der messalianischen «Makarios»-Schriften (Leipzig, 1941) (TU 55, 1) 425–441; Urteil und Verurteilung. Kirche und Messalianer: Zum Umgang der Alten Kirche mit Häretikern // DÖRRIES, Wort und Stunde... 334–351. Voir aussi nos notices sur Photios et Paul de l’Évergétis, ci-dessous, n. 99 et 102. 27 C’est cependant sans doute contre le quiétisme messalien que la doctrine diadochéenne de l’a¦ pa¢qeia reste dynamique: l’a¦ pa¢qeia «brûle» (ch. 17, p. 94, 3–7 et note, p. 190; étude dans l’introduction, p. 30–33). Diadoque insiste également, avec Macaire, sur l’importance du combat spirituel: voir les ch. 90, 93–96. 28 Cf. Diadoque, Œuvres... 84, 85, et 163 pour la catéchèse. André de Césarée utilise le ch. 90 de la Centurie dans sa Thérapeutique, éd. F. Diekamp, Analecta patristica (Rome, 1938) (OCA 117) 168; signalé par DÖRRIES, Diadochos... 417. 29 Voir Diadoque, Œuvres... 9–10; DÖRRIES, Diadochos... 416, citant l’édition de E. SCHWARTZ (ACO II, V, p. 95, 11). 30 Ainsi DES PLACES, Messalianisme... 593; DÖRRIES, Diadochos... 416. Athanase a écrit la Vie d’Antoine étant évêque; Basile, le Grand Ascéticon, après ou avant son épiscopat selon J. GRIBOMONT // Basil of Caesarea, Christian, Humanist, Ascetic (Toronto, 1981) 42; étant évêque selon P. J. FEDWICK // Ibid. 14; Bibliotheca basiliana universalis III, p. 1–2, 46– 48, 62 s.; Augustin, sa Règle (Praeceptum) peu après son ordination épiscopale, en 397–400 (cf. L. VERHEIJEN, La Règle de Saint Augustin (Paris, 1967) T. 1. 95–96, 115; Sr MARIE-ANCELLE, La Règle de saint Augustin (Paris, 1996) 54 s.). 31 Voir plus loin notre IVème partie. — Sur les monastères de la capitale, cf. G. DAGRON, Les moines et la ville // TM 4 (1970) 229–276; IDEM, Naissance d’une capitale. Constantinople et ses institutions de 330 à 451 (Paris, 1974) (Bibliothèque byzantine. Études 7) 513–517.
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
de Thrace où Hypatios avait débuté dans l’ascèse.32 Diadoque aura sans doute été formé — dans les années 430–440, donc après la condamnation du messalianisme par le concile d’Éphèse et longtemps après le floruit du Ps.Macaire — dans un monastère de mouvance constantinopolitaine, donc eustathienne. Sa Centurie reflète un enseignement ascétique inspiré de Basile, d’Evagre, de la Vie d’Antoine, de Grégoire de Nysse peut-être, parmi d’autres.33 Les points de contact de son œuvre avec le Ps.-Macaire suggèrent qu’il a connu et utilisé avec discernement un corpus macarien. C’est dans cette perspective que nous relirons la Centurie.
II. Une lecture de Diadoque Les premiers chapitres (1–11) sont assez évagriens. La foi est le premier mot de la vie spirituelle (lère définition) C’est par les vertus théologales que l’on parvient à la contemplation (ch. 1). Le mal n’est pas substantiel et n’existe que par celui qui le commet (ch. 3): trait antimanichéen et antimessalien.34 L’illumination trop vive de l’Esprit pousse à jouir de la gloire du Seigneur dans le silence de la voix (ch. 8, cf. Ps.-Macaire, II, 8, 4). Dans la section sur le discernement des esprits (ch. 26–35), la distinction entre «amour naturel» et «amour venant du Saint-Esprit» (ch. 34) rappelle le Pseudo-Macaire.35 Dans la ligne d’Origène et d’Évagre, la théorie du «sens naturel de l’âme» semble vouloir ramener à l’unité les «cinq sens de l’âme» du Ps.-Macaire.36 La définition du «sens de l’intellect» comme «un goût exact des choses que l’on discerne» (ch. 30) tempère l’image macarienne, subjective, du goût, par la rigueur, chère à Basile, du discernement moral.37 32 Callinicos, Vie d’Hypatios. 7, 1 // SC 177. 82, 84, 94–96, et introduction de G. J. M. BARTELINK, p. 17 s. 33 É. DES PLACES, introduction à SC 5bis: mentions d’Évagre, p. 10 s.; 31; 412; 443–446; 53; 57; 59–60; 65; 73. 34 Cf. S. FOLGADO FLOREZ, Mal // Dict. Enc. du Christ. Anc. II (1990) 1520–1522. Le Pseudo-Macaire dénonce aussi la thèse de la substantialité du mal (I, 46 = II, 16), mais prend à la lettre la personnification par Paul du péché présent en l’homme, selon l’Épître aux Romains (cf. V. DESPREZ, Les citations de Romains, 1–8 dans les «Homélies» macariennes // Parole de l’Orient 3 (1972) 75–103 et 197–240; voir 200– 217). Voir aussi l’analyse de K.-J. Fricke (cf. n. 85). 35 Voir plus loin la note 49. Mais voir aussi Évagre, Lettre 18 // FRANKENBERG. 579, et Sur les pensées, 31 / Éd. P. GÉHIN // SC 438. 260–262: À la pensée démoniaque s’opposent la pensée angélique, celle qui provient de notre volonté quand elle penche vers le mieux, et celle qui est formée par la nature humaine. Aucune pensée mauvaise ne sort de la nature, puisque Dieu a semé de bonnes semences dans le champ. 36 Voir plus bas les notes 72 et 86. 37 Goût: voir la note de Dörries dans Die 50 geistlichen Homilien des Makarios / Hrsg. und erläutert von H. DÖRRIES, E. KLOSTERMANN, M. KROEGER (Berlin, 1964) (PTS 4) 123, 27 sur H 14; DÖRRIES, Theologie... 472, index, «Erfahrung».
V. Desprez
La section sur les visions et les songes commence par une polémique contre les messaliens: quiconque espère voir la gloire de Dieu en cette vie (ch. 36) ou embrasse dans cet esprit la vie ascétique (40) s’expose à de graves illusions; «Beaucoup, pour en avoir été victimes, se sont fourvoyés par ignorance hors de la vérité»38 (36). Toute vision ne peut venir que de l’ennemi, puisque Satan se déguise en ange de lumière. Diadoque rend plus absolue la mise en garde de Paul (II Cor. 11, 14; ch. 40). Seuls des songes sont admissibles: «Ceux qui en ont eu l’expérience» (ch. 38) fournissent à Diadoque des critères de discernement. Or on reconnaît dans le chapitre qui vient d’en traiter (37), à côté de traits venant de la Vie d’Antoine,39 la substance de deux réponses macariennes; le conseil de ne se fier à aucun songe et de repousser toute vision (ch. 38), peut s’appuyer sur Macaire40 ainsi que la comparaison qui l’illustre41 (39). Toutefois Macaire aspire souvent à la vue des «beautés célestes»;42 pour Diadoque comme pour son devancier, l’âme séparée du corps n’est plus que vision, comme les puissances célestes; on pense ici à la vision d’Ézéchiel interprétée par Macaire.43 Diadoque reconnaît que l’âme peut se voir ellemême quand elle resplendit sous l’effet du bien.44 La partie centrale (ch. 41–66, 70–71) traite de vertus et de problèmes ascétiques concrets. Elle peut se rattacher à Basile, à Évagre ou à des sources égyptiennes. Sur le problème de savoir s’il faut recourir aux soins médicaux (ch. 53), Diadoque adopte un compromis entre Basile (Grande Règle 55) et Macaire (Homélie II, 48); le rigorisme de ce dernier, au nom de la foi au Christ, n’est souhaitable que chez les anachorètes, tandis que les cénobites et les moines urbains feront mieux de suivre la doctrine modérée de Basile qui n’expose pas à la vanité.45 Le charisme de la qeologi¢ a selon Diadoque tiendrait de la contemplation évagrienne et du «ministère de la parole» selon Macaire.46 Avec le ch. 69, le dialogue au plan psychologique avec le Ps.-Macaire se précise. La grâce se laisse d’abord percevoir par les débutants,47 puis n’opère plus qu’invisiblement et semble parfois abandonner l’âme.48 Aux ch. 73–74 38
Sur les prétentions messaliennes à la vision, voir supra la note 17. Vie d’Antoine 35–36, voir Diadoque, Œuvres... 106, n. 1. 40 I, 2, 10, 2, voir Diadoque, Œuvres... 106, n. 1; cf. Évagre... 107, n. 1 41 La comparaison de Diadoque pourrait fusionner l’épreuve de l’épouse (Ps.Macaire I, 2, 10, 2) et la loyauté envers l’ami (I, 2, 10, 3). 42 Voir ici les Logoi I 4, 7, 4; 4, 18, 2; cf. III, 6, 3, 2; 7, 5; 25, 2, 4. Chez Diadoque: Vision 12, p. 172; 15–16, p. 173; 21, p. 175. 43 Vision, 17, p. 173; cf. Macaire, I, 9, 1, 2 = II, 1, 2. 44 Centurie, 59; Vision, 18, p. 174; Macaire, I, 4, 22–23 = II 7, 5–6; cf. I, 5, 1. 45 DÖRRIES, Diadochos... 361–365. 46 Cf. Ibid. 367–377. 47 Cf. Ps.-Macaire, I, 31, 1 = II, 29, 1–5. 48 Voir la note de Dörries dans Die 50 geistlichen Homilien... 144, 402; cf. Collection III, 3, 1, 5, l’âme est comme abandonnée. 39
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
est reprise la distinction macarienne entre deux stades de la vie spirituelle, l’un marqué par l’effort de la nature, l’autre par l’action du Saint-Esprit.49 La polémique occupe les longs chapitres 76–89.50 «Certains» croient que le Saint-Esprit et Satan, le péché et la grâce cohabitent dans l’homme (ch. 83) comme deux «personnages» (pro¢ swpa) 76, 78, 80, p. 134, 9; 136, 9; 137, 23), deux substances ou principes (u¥posta¢ sei», 88, p. 148, 8). Curieusement, «la thèse centrale du messalianisme» (Dörr51 ) à laquelle s’en prend Diadoque se trouve bien chez le Pseudo-Macaire et dans la troisième proposition de Jean Damascène,52 mais elle contredit formellement le point critique du schéma ascétique messalien / d’Adelphios: le Saint-Esprit succède au démon dans l’âme après un temps de prière.53 Cela semble montrer que Diadoque n’a connu le problème messalien qu’indirectement, par des écrits, ou qu’il n’est plus directement concerné par ses controverses de terrain. Diadoque lie de suite la coexistence grâce-péché au baptême (ch. 76). C’est surtout en évêque (s’il l’était déjà) et en théologien, semble-t-il, qu’il défend la grâce baptismale contre les négations messaliennes. À vrai dire, peu d’écrits monastiques anciens se fondent sur la grâce baptismale; Diadoque lui-même n’en traite que dans cette section polémique.54 D’ailleurs, Macaire comme Diadoque mettent en relation le baptême et l’image paulinienne des «arrhes».55 Les chapitres antimessaliens de Diadoque exposent surtout une théologie et une anthropologie de la grâce baptismale: avant le baptême, Satan et les mauvais esprits gîtent (e¦mfwleu¢ ei)56 dans l’intellect et dans le corps. Mais 49
Deux amours: Diadoque, Œuvres... Ch. 34; 73 s.; deux joies: Ch. 60; 73; deux fruits: Ch. 73; deux humilités: ch. 95. Macaire distingue de même entre «fruits naturels» et «fruits de l’Esprit», I, 7, 9 = II 26, 21–23; I, 56 = II, 19. «Violence»: Diadoque, Œuvres... 151, 10; 155, 4; Macaire, I, 56 = II, 19, passim. 50 Cf. Diadoque, Œuvres... Introduction, p. 12–22; DÖRRIES, Diadochos... 390–405. 51 DÖRR, Diadochos... 15–21. 52 Jean Damascène, 3e proposition: «Que Satan et l’Esprit-Saint cohabitent dans l’homme...» (supra, n. 20; PG 94. Col. 729A; PTS 22. 42). 53 Timothée, Propositions 3, 9, 11, 16 // PG 86. Col. 48BC, 49BC, 52AB; cf. J. Damascène, Prop. 4 // PG 94. Col. 729B; PTS 22. 42. 54 Voir l’analyse, DIADOQUE, Oeuvres... 24–26. 55 Le «selon l’image» est, par le baptême, arrhes de la ressemblance (Diadoque, 78, 12). Pour le Ps.-Macaire, I, 43, 3 (Berthold II, p. 74, 22), comme le grain de sénevé, «Dans le croyant, nous disons que grandissent le don de l’Esprit et les arrhes de l’héritage jusqu’à ce qu’on soit jugé digne de l’héritage entier (c’est-à-dire l’Esprit Paraclet de l’adoption filiale), en progressant par toute vertu et zèle et en courant droitement» (en s’élevant des charismes à la charité). 56 Diadoque utilise six fois (Diadoque, Oeuvres, p. 193) ce terme dont Macaire use dans les Logoi B 9, 2, 3 = H 1, 5; 16, 3, 7 = H 17, 15; 21, 2–3; 53, 3, 5 = H 11, 11. Cf. Basile, De Iudicio Dei, 3 // PG 31. Col. 656D; Grégoire de Nysse, Homélie IV sur
V. Desprez
!
dès la régénération baptismale, ils sont relégués dans la partie passionnée de l’âme et dans le corps.57 Dès lors, Satan ne peut plus agir sur l’intellect que de l’extérieur, par les sens qui le sollicitent. Si l’intellect porte à la fois des pensées bonnes et mauvaises (ch. 25), c’est que Satan les lui inspire (ch. 83) ou qu’il a gardé le souvenir du mal (ch. 8358 ). Sous-jacente à ces discussions est la question anthropologique. Pour Macaire, «l’homme intérieur», le cœur, est un réceptacle comportant de nombreux «membres», juxtaposés plus qu’articulés. Dans cet espace intérieur, il y a place pour les esprits mauvais aussi bien que pour l’Esprit-Saint,59 puisque Paul écrit lui-même: «Le péché habite en moi» (Rm. 7, 17.20, cité ch. 25). Pour Diadoque au contraire, «le sens naturel de l’âme» est unique, et plus simple encore le «sens de l’intellect» inspiré par l’Esprit.60 Après le baptême, «la grâce s’est cachée dans l’intellect» (ch. 81, p. 139, 12), dans le fond de l’âme (ch. 82, p. 140, 15), les «profondeurs du cœur» (81, p. 139, 10). Il ne reste plus à Satan que «les parties du cœur» (81, p. 139, 13) et surtout le corps (79, p. 137, 10 s. 18) où circulent les esprits démoniaques, assaillant le lutteur à distance, par leurs flèches (85, p. 145, 4–11).61 Avec le progrès dans la grâce, les sens extérieurs eux-mêmes sont gagnés peu à peu par l’amour et la paix de l’Esprit.62 Cela suppose (ch. 82) une exégèse de Romains 7 plus réle Cantique // GNO 6. P. 116, 8.11 (en liaison avec Ps. 103, 20); déjà Hippolyte de Rome, Comm. sur Daniel, I, 19, 7 // SC 14. 108 s. 57 Ch. 79; 82, p. 141, 2l s.; 142, 7, 14 s.; ch. 76 et 85. Pour Cassien également, le mal agit de l’extérieur. Un sermon exégétique sur la prière et la garde des sens, sous le nom d’Éphrem de Nisibe, garantit à l’auditeur: «En toi est Dieu, et hors de toi, Satan», Ephraem Syri Opera syriace et latine. II (Rome, 1740) 332C; cité par F. DÖLGER, Sphragis... 125 (cf. n. 3). 58 Sur le nou¤» chez le Ps., Macaire, cf. I 4, 25 = II 7, 8: il est comme l’œil du corps; I 32, 8, 5 = II 15, 20; 33, 1, 4 = II 15, 33. 59 Cf. DESPREZ, Les citations de Romains... 202–217 (référence). Sur la circulation des «pensées» dans l’être humain, voir DÖRRIES, 50 Homilien... 6, 118 (notes); 66, 45.55; 112, 126. 60 Cf. Diadoque, Œuvres... 36 s. (Introduction, § 37); DÖRRIES, Diadochos... 407– 411; K. RAHNER, Le début d’une doctrine des cinq sens spirituels chez Origène // Revue d’ascétique et de mystique 13 (1932) 142; C. STEWART, «Working the Earth of the Heart». The Messalian Controversy in History, Texts and Language to AD 431 (Oxford, 1991) (Oxford Theological Monographs) 116–138; B. FRAIGNEAU-JULIEN, Les sens spirituels et la vision de Dieu selon Syméon le Nouveau théologien (Paris, 1985) (Théologie historique 67). 61 Ce chapitre 85 de Diadoque serait à citer en DESPREZ, Les citations de Romains... 214 s. 62 Chez Macaire aussi, les spirituels ne voient plus le mal qu’à l’extérieur d’euxmêmes (I, 5, 2, 3). Selon l’homélie II, 56, 3 (éd. Marriott, p. 44), l’âme s’attache naturellement à Dieu, le corps encore travaillé par Satan s’attache aux choses de la terre, le discernement est donc nécessaire pour gérer cela.
"
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
fléchie, sinon plus exacte, que celle de Macaire, distinguant entre le nou¤» ou homme intérieur, gagné à la loi de Dieu, et la «chair» (c’est-à-dire le corps pour Diadoque), où réside la «loi du péché».63 Tandis que le mal n’agit plus que de l’extérieur, la grâce ne cesse d’agir de l’intérieur, en révélant et cachant alternativement sa présence à l’esprit (ch. 77; 85; 87), pour l’exciter à «goûter comme est bon le Seigneur» (Ps. 33, 9). Plus le «lutteur» s’accorde à la grâce, plus le règne de celle-ci gagnera «toute sa nature».64 C’est au nom d’une telle expérience autant que d’après l’Écriture (Jn 1, 5 et Mt 15, 18–19, interprétés contra Macaire aux ch. 80 et 83) que Diadoque confirme sa thèse.65 Diadoque prépare d’une certaine manière la distinction tridentine entre le péché originel, remis par le baptême, et la concupiscence qui demeure chez le baptisé.66 Le rapport entre le bien et le mal est abordé à nouveau par le biais du «retrait» de la grâce, ou «abandon» de l’homme par celle-ci (paraxw¢ rhsi», entendu intransitivement ou transitivement). Au ch. 86, Diadoque critiquerait l’idée de Macaire, suivant laquelle la grâce «cède le terrain» (paraxwrei¤, intransitif), «se retire» (u¥poste¢llei ) ou «laisse» (paraxwrei ¤ transitif) l’homme être affligé par le mal. Si l’on prend cette expression à la lettre, en se retirant, l’Esprit-Saint laisserait le coeur de l’homme entièrement à la disposition de Satan, ce que Diadoque ne peut admettre.67 Diadoque répond à cette difficulté par la distinction entre un retrait «éducatif» (paideutikh¢) et le retrait «quand Dieu se détourne» (kat' a¦ postrofh£ n qeou¤ 68 ). Ces qualificatifs ne se lisent pas chez Macaire, mais la substance lui en est familière: pour lui, toute paraxw¢rhsi» est éducative;69 mais il agite parfois 63
DÖRRIES, Diadochos... 401–404. Ch. 85, p. 145, 8. Chez Macaire, la grâce gagne peu à peu les «membres», les «rameaux» du coeur et du corps: cf. DESPREZ, Le monachisme primitif... 434–437. 65 DÖRRIES, Diadochos... (392 s., n. 100) montre comment Macaire et Diadoque suivent chacun une exégèse de Jn 1, 5 répandue chez les Pères grecs. L’exégèse de Matth. 15 par Diadoque prend en considération la théologie du baptême, mais l’introduit de manière forcée dans ce texte matthéen prépascal. Macaire garde au logion sa force existentielle. 66 Concile d’Orange (Denzinger-Schönmetzer 200) et surtout concile de Trente, Decretum super peccato originali, 5: «Manere autem in baptizatis concupiscentiam uel fomitem» (DS 792; Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, 19733, p. 667). 67 «Mais, diront-ils, cela se produit quand Dieu se retire (kata£ a¦ postrofh£ n); ils n’en seront pas plus avancés» (ch. 86, p. 146, 2–4). Diadoque admet cependant plus loin que Dieu abandonne (paraxwrei ¤) parfois le pécheur à la malice des démons, «laissant son intellect sans lumière» (ch. 85, 145, 14). Sur l’action de la grâce, voir DESPREZ, Le monachisme primitif... 442–446. 68 Cf. Diadoque, Œuvres... Introduction, p. 46–48. 69 I, 31, 3, 7; 49, 6, 1 = H 4, 24; III, 25, 2, 3. 64
V. Desprez
#
la menace d’un abandon définitif du pécheur obstiné à la colère de Dieu. Les deux auteurs sont donc assez proches. Diadoque dégage l’expression «en toute perception et plénitude (ou: certitude)», parmi un lot de groupements semblables du Pseudo-Macaire. Il est curieux que Diadoque emploie fréquemment cette locution, réprouvée par la liste de Jean Damascène.70 Mais ce n’est là qu’un cas-limite du vocabulaire de l’expérience (pei¤ ra) par laquel Diadoque s’apparente à Macaire: le goût (geu¤ si»), la perception spirituelle (aiÃsqhsi») et la certitude-plénitude (plhrofori¢ a),71 l’«action» (e¦ne¢ rgeia ) des facteurs spirituels, est généralement perçue de manière moins matérielle que chez Macaire, et la puissance (du¢ nami», terme paulinien) disparaît complètement. Le «sens (aiÃsqhsi») de l’âme», «de l’intellect», est une conscience de l’âme très épurée.72 D’autres points de détail sont communs aux deux auteurs. D’après le discours (I, 56 = II, 19) du Ps.-Macaire, il est nécessaire dans les débuts de se faire violence (cf. Matth. 11, 12; Lc 16, 16) pour pratiquer les vertus même contre son gré, dans l’attente que le Seigneur donne d’accomplir les commandements en vérité et sans plus se faire violence. On retrouve cette idée chez Diadoque (ch. 90; 93). De part et d’autre, le diable accomplit maintenant en personne contre les chrétiens par les afflictions ce qu’il perpétrait autrefois contre les martyrs par l’intermédiaire de leurs bourreaux.73 Plus généralement, la langue de Diadoque «n’est ni celle d’Évagre ni celle d’aucun auteur ascétique se rattachant à Origène»: outre les termes déjà étudiés, d’autres parmi ses tours familiers se retrouvent chez le Ps.Macaire: a¦gwnisth¢» faisant écho au combat spirituel si fréquent chez le Ps.-Macaire74; loipo¢n, mnh¢mh, nhpia¢zw, oiÃhsi», oÀlw», para¢klhsi», pneumatiko¢», po¢no», fwtismo¢», wÀsper introduisant une comparaison75; des expres-
70
Preuve de la faible diffusion, vingt ans après Éphèse, de ce décret annexe? ou que cette liste ne provient pas de ce concile? 71 Cf. Diadoque, Œuvres... 38 s., 189 et 199; P. MIQUEL, Plèrophoria // DS 12 (1986) Col. 1819 s.; V. DESPREZ, «Plèrophoria» chez le Pseudo-Macaire: Plénitude et certitude... en pays grec // CCist (1984) 89–111; STEWART, «Working the Earth of the Heart»... 97–116. 72 Voir supra n. 36 et 60. 73 Cf. Macaire I, 55, 3, et Diadoque, Œuvres... Ch. 94; notamment Macaire, éd. H. BERTHOLD, t. II, p. 169, 5 s., et Diadoque, Œuvres... 156, 26; 157, 2. De même l’expression «fils de dérobade» (u¥postolh¤ », Hébr. 10, 39 cité ch. 86; 146; 17, nous semble aussi devoir être rattachée à ce passage: cf. Sammlung I, éd. H. BERTHOLD, t. II, p. 168, 20; 169, 10; il s’agit de ceux qui se sont dérobés dans la persécution, des lapsi. 74 É. des Places, dans Diadoque, Œuvres... 31 s. Ainsi ch. 76, p. 134, 9s.; 83, p. 143, 13–18, sur les suggestions diaboliques. 75 Diadoque, Œuvres... 60–63.
$
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
sions comme «la terre du cœur»;76 «les membres de l’âme» ou «du cœur»,77 la profondeur.78 Que faut-il penser de l’identification proposée par H. Dörries de l’amant de Dieu (ch. 13 et 91) avec Macaire-Syméon79? É. Des Places pense plutôt à une confidence personnelle voilée, comme Pallade en insère à la fin de l’Histoire lausiaque.80 Mais le Ps.-Macaire dévoile aussi certains aspects de sa vie spirituelle, et Diadoque a pu connaître de tels passages.81 De même Jean de Dalyatha82 et Isaac de Ninive83 font parfois appel à leur propre expérience. De tels exemples incitent à la prudence. Diadoque lirait donc Macaire avec discernement. Si Diadoque est succinct et relativement limpide — subtil pourtant, — c’est peut-être grâce aux bouillonnements enthousiastes déjà canalisés et décantés par Macaire en ses entretiens bruts et rugueux, notés au jour le jour, avec leurs tâtonnements et leurs redites. Diadoque recadre et affine ainsi certains de ses concepts, tout en tirant profit de ses métaphores parlantes et de ses intuitions hardies.
III. E; tudes re;centes Principaux travaux: H. DÖRRIES revient brièvement dans Die Theologie des Makarios/Symeon (1978), sur le rapport entre Gnosis et Theologia chez Diadoque. Ce dernier a 76
«Terre du cœur», ch. 73, p. 132, 11 s.; Macaire, I 7, 9, 2 = II 26, 21. «Membres de l’âme»: Macaire, voir les notes de Dörries, PTS 4, p. 26, 29 et 276; l’index de Berthold, Reden und Briefe, t. II, p. 282. Chez Diadoque, ce sont les «membres du cœur», SC 5bis, p. 103, 22; 148, 6. 78 Profondeur de l’âme, du cœur, de l’intellect, Diadoque, index p. 191; Macaire, index de Berthold, II, p. 255; notes de Dörries, PTS 4, 77 et 290; index de SC 275, p. 366; Dörries dans Die Theologie... (infra n. 84), index «Herz» p. 4 et «Seele» p. 476. C. MENGUS, Le cœur dans les «Cinquante Homélies spirituelles» du PseudoMacaire // Collectanea cisterciensia 58 (1996) 3–18 (surtout 13–18); 59 (1997) 32– 43 et 118–131. 79 DÖRRIES, Diadochos... 377–387; DES PLACES, Messalianisme... 593. 80 Diadoque, Œuvres... 12 (Introduction, § 4). 81 I, 4, 9–10 = II, 8, 2.3.6; I, 13 = II, 18; cf. peut-être II, 32, 7–8; 45, 4. 82 Jean de Dalyatha, Lettre XII, 6–7 (Éd. R. BEULAY // PO 39/3. 341 s.): «Je vais te donner comme témoignage les paroles d’un frère digne de foi qui disait: “Quand la grâce de mon Dieu se complaît en moi et entraîne mon esprit vers l’émerveillement que provoque sa vision...”». 83 Isaac de Ninive, Chapitres de connaissance IV, 25 (Édition en préparation par P. Bettiolo dans le CSCO); traduction italienne: Isacco di Ninive, Discorsi spirituali e altri opuscoli / Trad. P. BETTIOLO (Magnano 19902) 159. — Saint Isaac le Syrien, Œuvres spirituelles II, 41. Discours ascétiques récemment découverts / Trad. A. LOUF (Bégrolles-en-Mauges, 2003) (Spiritualité orientale 81) 245 s. Ps.-Macaire I, 4, 8–11 aurait-il eu une traduction syriaque qui nous reste inconnue? 77
V. Desprez
%
«lié l’action de l’Esprit en une ordonnance/disposition stable»; sans renier le caractère charismatique de cet enseignement sur le monde supérieur, «il voulait le soustraire à l’arbitraire des charismatiques — et sur ce point, en accord avec l’intention de Syméon»84 . En une étude serrée, appuyée sur le chapitre correspondant de Die Theologie des Makarios/Symeon de Dörries, K.-J. FRICKE, étudiant le mal chez Diadoque85 , montre que cet auteur s’en tient généralement au plan du combat ascétique vécu, sans exposé systématique sur la question du mal; cependant «la conception de la puissance mauvaise dont il s’agit est dans l’ensemble étroitement apparentée à celle de Macaire Syméon, mais présente plus clairement que celle-ci des traits dualistes, voire des représentations quasi manichéennes» fondées scripturairement (p. 137). D’après Dörries, «Macaire-Syméon a saisi la radicalité du mal et la mission de Jésus Christ plus profondément que son élève et critique Diadoque et la doctrine ecclésiastique orthodoxe» (p. 138 s.). Quant au triomphe de la grâce sur le mal dans l’homme, il est assuré par le baptême, que Diadoque évalue d’après le Nouveau Testament et d’après sa propre expérience: «La théologie baptismale de Diadoque avec sa tonalité fondamentale fortement dualiste [le mal garde pouvoir sur le corps, l’Esprit sur l’intellect], sa distinction entre image et ressemblance, Hexis et Rhypos, son ancrage biblique soigneux, et avec le rôle que jouent en elle foi et décision, a des traits complètement indépendants, comparée à Macaire-Syméon, et comme telle mérite attention» (FRICKE, p. 144). Pour préparer une étude sur Syméon le Nouveau Théologien, B. FRAIGNEAUJULIEN parcourt la thématique des sens spirituels chez Origène, Grégoire de Nysse, le Ps.-Macaire, Diadoque et Maxime le Confesseur, en montre la permanence et le progrès.86 Comme Origène, Macaire croit à une certaine vision de la lumière divine; plus que Grégoire de Nysse, Diadoque fait confiance à la perception spirituelle comme fruit de la grâce baptismale. C. STEWART, dans ses soigneuses études sur le vocabulaire de l’expérience chrétienne, examine Diadoque et Marc le moine aussitôt après le Ps.-Macaire, comme ses deux héritiers.87 Marc est indépendant de Diadoque. Macaire innove par rapport à la tradition en chargeant la plhrofori¢ a, assurance et consolation du chrétien in via, de la plénitude de l’achèvement final; jointe 84
Die Theologie des Makarios/Symeon (Göttingen, 1978) (AAWG III, 103) 349
n. 11. 85
K.-J. FRICKE, Das Böse bei Diadochos von Photike // Makarios-Symposium über das Böse. Vorträge der finnisch-deutschen Theologentagung in Goslar 1980 / Hrsg. W. Strothmann (Göttinger Orientforschungen I/24) (Wiesbaden, 1983) 123–149. 86 FRAIGNEAU-JULIEN, Les sens spirituels et la vision de Dieu... Ch. 3, «Les œuvres spirituelles du Pseudo-Macaire», p. 57–70; ch. 4, «Diadoque de Photicé», p. 71–78; conclusion de la Ière partie, p. 93–95. 87 STEWART, «Working the Earth of the Heart»...
&
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
aux autres termes expérimentaux que sont ai s à qhsi» et pei ¤ra , elle crée un effet collectif pour décrire la riche expérience de la grâce de l’Esprit Saint (p. 116). Le «sens de l’intellect» a chez Diadoque une tendance unitaire qui contraste avec la division des cinq sens physiques, tandis qu’il préserve l’identité de l’expérience par rapport aux deux autres termes (p. 137 et 153). Marc et Diadoque sont beaucoup plus réservés que Macaire dans l’usage métaphorique du «mélange», sans doute à cause de l’évolution de la christologie au début du Ve s. (p. 186 s.). M. PLESTED a lu nos deux auteurs et critiqué88 le cliché qui lie Évagre à une mystique de l’intellect, Macaire à une spiritualité du cœur; il identifie la coexistence du péché et de la grâce dans l’âme comme le seul point où Diadoque corrige Macaire. Kl. FITSCHEN semble avoir élucidé définitivement les rapports entre le Ps. Macaire et les listes antimessaliennes.89 Sur l’historiographie des rapports entre le Ps.-Macaire et Diadoque, il note: H. Dörries allait si loin dans la vue des ch. 76–89 de celui-ci comme une doctrine empruntée à Macaire, qu’il n’y aurait qu’une légère différence entre les niveaux de la force exorcistique qu’ils reconnaissent au baptême;90 K. Ware faisait de Diadoque une synthèse entre Macaire et Évagre et n’était même pas sûr que Diadoque soit un adversaire des messaliens. Fitschen note que, débutant vers 450, Diadoque, comme évêque, ne pouvait être sympathisant du messalianisme condamné en 426, 428, 431. Il ne nomme aucun adversaire. Il s’explique avec le Ps.-Macaire, mais comme avec un auteur ascétique déjà renommé, pas compromis avec le messalianisme (ses dates interdisent que Diadoque ait été son élève). Les tine£ » qu’il combat ne sont pas un corpus littéraire, mais des adversaires réels (p. 259). Les passages ou Diadoque débat avec la tradition macarienne (ch. 76–88) se cristallisent autour de la question de la coexistence du mal et du bien dans l’homme, avec la position de deux pro¢ swpa habitant dans le nou¤ ». (P. 261). Ce point, auquel répond la 3ème proposition de Jean Damascène, est traité dans la section 5.1.2 de Fitschen: ce thème n’est pas à proprement parler du Ps.-Macaire, mais de disciples; il reflète une perception courante des choses, et c’est à ce niveau que Diadoque discute avec des adversaires réels (p. 261). En conclusion (p. 264), après examen de quelques autres points: «La position de Diadoque est donc à établir comme suit: il critique des adversaires ou des disciples qui empruntent le dualisme intérieur à l’âme, avec le dis88
M. PLESTED, Macarius and Diadochus: an Essay in Comparison // SP 30 (1997) 235–240. 89 FITSCHEN, Messalianismus und Antimessalianismus... 257–264, section 6.1.4. «Diadochos von Photike» (Voir notre recension dans le Bulletin de spiritualité monastique 15, annexé à Collectanea cisterciensia 63 (2001/4) 67 s.). 90 DÖRRIES, Diadochos... 401.
V. Desprez
'
cours des du¢ o pro¢ swpa — avec la plus haute vraisemblance, et on ne peut ici rien dire de plus assuré — à une tradition pseudo-macarienne. Diadoque souligne là-contre l’action du baptême, qui rend ce dualisme impossible. Quelles parties de la tradition du Pseudo-Macaire sont à la base de la controverse, on ne peut le décider». Quelques publications récentes ou à paraître P. ARGÁRATE, «La Luz de tu Rostro: Teología de la ‘Gloria’ en Diádoco de Fótice», OCP 65, 1999, p. 257–278 (Diadoque, Ch. 36, nie fermement, comme Macaire, la possibilité de voir la gloire de Dieu en cette vie). V. BONATO, Percepire Dio. La dottrina sulla «percezione spirituale» nei Capita centum de perfectione spirituali di Diadoco di Foticea, Thèse de l’Istituto monastico, Ateneo Sant-Anselmo, Rome, 1995. (signalé dans Studia anselmiana, Simposio, I, 2002, p. n. ). — ID., «Verso la luce infinita. L’itinerario spirituale secondo Diadoco di Foticea», Vita monastica t. 46, 1992, n° 189–190, 17–40. — ID., «Il monaco: immagine del Signore», 48, 1994, 196, 75–82 (p. 75, cite Macaire, II, 43, 1; p. 79, cite II, 15, 8). — ID., «L’incontro tra Dio e l’uomo», 48, 1994, 197, 87–94. — ID., «Le tappe del cammino monastico», t. 48, 1994, n° 198, 93–100. — ID., «I sensi spirituali», Vita monastica 49, 1995, 200, 81–88 [p. 83 s.: Le phénomène de la perception a contribué à résoudre, par voie d’expérience, un problème inextricable, du point de vue conceptuel: Dieu est incompréhensible et en même temps aussi connaissable. Qui vit l’amour de Dieu connaît l’Incompréhensible et touche l’Insaisissable (Macaire, II, 4, 11); Grégoire de Nysse parle plutôt d’une «perception de la présence» (In Cant. Hom. 11, 5, 2)]. M.-H. CONGOURDEAU, introduction à DIADOQUE DE PHOTICÉ, La perfection spirituelle en cent chapitres; Sermon pour l’Ascension (Pères dans la foi, 41), Paris 1990, p. 7–13 (cf. REAug 38, 1992, p. 206 Vianès) (Loin d’être un adversaire de Macaire comme on l’a longtemps cru, Diadoque en est un des plus prestigieux disciples). K. S. FRANK, traduction allemande de Diadoque, Einsiedeln 1982. D. HESTER, «Memory and its purification», SP 23, p. 53–60. Ch. JOEST, «“Gott haben/ halten? in voller Empfindung des Herzens”, Diadochos von Photike und seine Lehre der Unterscheidung», OS 41, 1992, p. 149–186: analyse dans l’APh 63, 1992, n° 1539: «Vie et oeuvre; insertions dans l’histoire des idées du monachisme. Piété expérimentale; doctrine sur le discernement. Début et fin du chemin spirituel; l’amour de Dieu». N. MADDEN, ‘Aisthesis noera’ in Diadochos and Maximus Confessor, SP 23, p. 49–52. V. MESSANA, «Diadoco di Fotica e la cultura cristiana in Epiro nel V secolo», Augustinianum 19, 1979, p. 151–166. P. 156: «Probabilmente sono epiroti che Diadoco ha personalmente incontrato quei tine£» del c. 76». Le Ps.Macaire n’est pas mentionné, Évagre per transennam, Dörries n’est pas cité. ID., traduction italienne de Diadoque, Rome 1978.
!
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
P. MIQUEL, Le vocabulaire de l’expérience spirituelle dans la tradition patristique grecque du IVe au XIVe s. (Théologie historique, 86), Paris, 1989, «Diadoque de Photicé», p. 109–112. 20 emplois de peira chez Diadoque, joint à aisthèsis et plèrophoria, diakrisis et parachôrèsis (les deux dérélictions). C. RIGGI, «Il movimento messaliano da Epifanio di Salamina a Diadoco di Fotica», Annali della Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia di Cágliari VI, 1985 (1987), p. 183–205. Cf. APh 59, 1988, n° 14165: «Hérésie multiforme (…), le messalianisme prétendait accomplir l’union mystique avec le Christ à travers la prière et la contemplation... Diadoque de Photicé est très proche du messalianisme, mais garde toujours ses distances, hostile surtout à l’oisiveté que prônent les hérétiques». K. WARE, «Diadochos von Photike», TRE 8, 617–620 (cité par P. Argárate). ID., «The Jesus Prayer in Diadochus of Photice», in Aksum-Thyateira: A Festschrift for Archbishop Methodios of Thyateira and Great Britain, Athènes, 1985 (cité par M. Plested). M. PLESTED, The Macarian Legacy: The Place of Macarius-Symeon in the Eastern Christian Tradition, thèse à paraître en 2004 à l’Oxford University Press, sur la réception du Ps.-Macaire, notamment chez Diadoque, Marc le moine, Isaïe et Maxime le Confesseur. J. RUTHERFORD, Diadochos of Photike in the «Synagoge», Thèse de Belfast, cf. M. Mullett dans The Theotokos Evergetis and eleventh-century monasticism, Belfast 1994, p. 364. Vasile BIRZÚ, Spiritualité ascétique et mystique chez Diadoque de Photicé (Thèse en roumain).
IV. Aperçu sur la diffusion des e;crits macariens vers Constantinople R. Staats a montré que des ascètes mésopotamiens étaient présents au début du concile de Constantinople (381); leur ascèse et leurs charismes témoignaient de l’œuvre du Saint-Esprit. Dans son discours In suam ordinationem, prononcé plus vraisemblablement pour l’installation épiscopale de Grégoire de Nazianze,91 il emploie une comparaison que l’on retrouve chez le Ps.-Macaire. Des écrits de celui-ci ont-ils été apportés à cette occasion? La présence d’écrits ou de traditions remontant au Pseudo-Macaire est très vraisemblable au monastère de Rouphinianes en Bithynie avant 447, date probable de rédaction de la Vie d’Hypatios par Callinicos.92 De même que 91
R. STAATS, Die Asketen aus Mesopotamien in der Rede des Gregor von Nyssa «In suam ordinationem» // VC 21 (1967) 165–179; IDEM, Die Basilianische Verherrlichung des Heiligen Geistes auf dem Konzil zu Konstantinopel 381 // Kerygma und Dogma 25 (1979) 232–253. 92 Cf. Callinicos, Vie d’Hypatios (VH) / Éd. G. J. M. BARTELINK (SC 177) Introduction, p. 38–41. Au ch. 5, 1, extrait de Ps.-Macaire I, 7, 6, 5 = II, 26, 11: e¦a£ n
V. Desprez
!
pour J. Gribomont, Valérien d’Iconium aurait pu dénicher entre les mains d’Alexandre l’Acémète l’Ascéticon messalien,93 on pourrait voir en Alexandre un vecteur d’écrits macariens vers Constantinople; mais d’après sa Vie, il n’avait pour référence que l’évangile. Cassien pourrait avoir connu des écrits macariens94 (I, 56; Grande Lettre — ou De Instituto christiano de Grégoire de Nysse): ne serait-ce pas lors de son passage dans la capitale de 399 à 404? Ces deux jalons, ainsi que le monastère Halmyrisse de Thrace où se forma Hypatios,95 peuvent baliser l’un des chemins par lesquels des écrits macariens auraient rejoint l’Épire — si Diadoque ne les a pas trouvé ailleurs, lors de sa période de formation, probablement près de la capitale. La schedula (xarti¢ on ) synodica contre les messaliens, composée à Constantinople sous Sisinnius († 427) et apportée au concile d’Éphèse96 est-elle reflétée dans la liste de propositions messaliennes de Timothée de Constantinople (seconde moitié du VIe s.; PG 86, 45C–52C) ou dans celle de Jean Damascène? Fut-elle composée dans la capitale à partir d’écrits macariens, ou rapportée de Pamphylie ou Lycaonie? Bien que Théodore Stoudite ne nomme pas Macaire parmi les Pères qui font autorité, dans le Livre I de ses Grandes catéchèses,97 prononcées à Sacsh¢ meron ou¦ k e¦lutrw¢ qhn, auÃrion lutrou¤ mai; ch. 48, 1, extrait de I, 7, 11, 4 = II, 27, 4: ou¦ k e¦stin ouÅn to£ tuxo£n o¥ xristianismo£ ». Moins net est le rapprochement entre VH 28,
57 et II, 30, 7. La dépendance de la VH est admise comme possible par Kl. Fitschen, p. 256 s. 93 Cf. J. GRIBOMONT, Le dossier des origines du messalianisme // Epektasis. Mélanges patristiques offerts au cardinal J. Daniélou / Dir. J. Fontaine et Ch. Kannengiesser (Paris, 1972) 611–625, référence p. 619. 94 C’est ce que pensait d’abord A. KEMMER, Charisma Maximum. Untersuchung zu Cassians Vollkommenheitslehre und seiner Stellung zum Messalianismus (Louvain, 1938) 92 ss. A. KEMMER a ensuite estimé que Cassien avait plutôt connu le De Instituto christiano de Grégoire de Nysse: Gregorius Nyssenus estne inter fontes Joannis Cassiani numerandus? // OCP 21 (1955) 451–466, mais dans cet article il est sous l’influence de l’interprétation de W. JAEGER dans Two Rediscovered Works anf Ancient Christian Literature (Leyde, 1954), et son hypothèse mérite d’être réévaluée. Pl. DESEILLE, À propos de l’épilogue du chapitre VII de la Règle // Collectanea Ord. Cisterc. Ref. 21 (1959) 282–301, cite l’homélie II, 19, § 3, 39 et 6, 90 parallèlement à Cassien, Inst. IV, 39; cf. DESPREZ, Les citations de Romains... 206 s. 95 Callinicos, Vie d’Hypatios. 3, 9–12 et 7, 1 (éd. BARTELINK. 82, 84, 94). 96 ACO, éd. E. SCHWARZ, I, 1, 7, p. 117. 97 Cf. Théodore Stoudite, Les Grandes catéchèses (Livre I), Les Épigrammes (I– XXIX) (précédées d’une étude de Julien Leroy sur le monachisme stoudite) / Prés., trad. et notes par Fl. DE MONTLEAU (Abbaye de Bellefontaine, 2002) (SO 79) Index des auteurs anciens, p. 621, s.v. «Pseudo-Macaire»; dates, p. 26. J. Leroy nomme les auteurs sur lesquels Théodore s’est appuyé dans La réforme studite // Il monachesimo orientale (Rome, 1958) (OCA 153) 181–214.
!
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
coudion près du Mont Olympe de Bithynie, en 797–798, puis à Stoudios jusqu’en 803, quelques points de contact suggèrent une possible connaissance de la Grande Lettre, voire du logos I, 56 du Pseudo-Macaire. Voici les moins incertains: Cat. 2, verset 9, n. 7 p. 143: «Ceux qui détiennent l’autorité de par leur ministère, même si en apparence ils sont les maîtres, qu’ils soient par l’intention esclaves de ceux qui leur obéissent (t$¤ de£ proqe¢ sei dou¤ loi toi¤» u¥phko¢ oi» eÃstwsan); ainsi seront-ils les premiers, comme le Seigneur l’a dit», cf. Basile, GR 30, 993 A; Ps.-Macaire, GL 6, 5–6, Staats p. 128 ei¦» de£ to£ krupto£ n kata£ to£ n nou¤ n w¥ » dou¢ lou» a¦ naci¢ ou» pa¢ ntwn tw¤ n a¦ delfw¤ n e¥autou£ j h¥gei¤sqe; Grégoire de Nysse DIC, Jaeger p. 69, Staats p. 129. Cat. 50, 3, n. 5 p. 377 s.: v. 3: «Elle s’est manifestée la grâce du Seigneur, source de salut pour tous, selon le divin Paul, afin qu’après avoir renoncé aux désirs du monde, nous surtout, qui avons embrassé la vie monastique, nous vivions avec tempérance, sainteté et justice...», cf. Ps.-Macaire, GL 6, 1, 1–2, Staats p. 124; Jaeger p. 256, 5. Cat. 59, 15, p. 436 s. «En effet, selon les saints pères, celui qui se distingue par cette vertu [l’humilité, v. 14] ne peut pas tomber et il se montre précieux comme un or purifié…», Cf. Ps.-Macaire, II, 19, 8, PTS 4, p. 187; mais Théodore aura plus probablement lu Barsanuphe, Ep. 70, SC 426, p. 342, 44–45. Photios, par lequel nous connaissons les Actes du concile de Sidè, ne cite pas le corpus du Pseudo-Macaire. Mais la Bibliothèque98 (avant 858), série de fiches de lectures pour son frère Taraise, ne prétend pas à l’exhaustivité; elle ne mentionne pas non plus les sources pachômiennes ni les auteurs de l’école de Gaza, Climaque ni même l’Histoire lausiaque de Pallade dont Photios analyse pourtant le Dialogue sur la Vie de Jean Chrysostome, ni les opuscules de Nil d’Ancyre, plus proches de la capitale. Photios voit en Diadoque un adversaire des monophysites mais non des messaliens.99 98 Cf. P. STÉPHANOU, Photius // DSp 12/1 (1984) Col. 1397 et 1404 sur la Bibliothèque; Photius, Bibliothèque / Éd. R. HENRY. T. I (Paris, 1959) (Bibliothèque byzantine, puis CUF) Introduction. xx; H.-G. BECK, Kirche und theologische Literatur im byzantinischen Reich (Munich, 1959) 526. 99 Photius, Bibliothèque...: Codex 201, Diadoque de Photicé (T. 3 (1962) 100 s.); Codex 231 (T. 5 (1967) 65, l. 3); Diadoque professe la double opération dans le Christ. Diadoque fait partie d’un ensemble monastique qui comprend les Ascétiques de Basile (191), Maxime le Confesseur (192–195), Éphrem (196), Cassien (197), la collection systématique des Apophtegmes (198), le Pré spirituel de Jean Moschus (199), Marc le moine (n° 200, t. 3, p. 97–99). Diadoque est jumelé au n° 200 avec le De oratione d’Évagre sous le nom de Nil, et la notice s’achève par une évocation de Jean de Carpathos. Cf. le t. 9 d’Index par J. SCHAMP (Paris, 1991) 25. — On s’étonne de ne pas trouver trace du corpus macarien chez Photius (sauf peut-être de l’Homélie II, 3 comme Parénèse d’Éphrem aux frères dans les cénobia, codex 196, t. 3 p. 89?):
V. Desprez
!!
Syméon Métaphraste100 (ou Logothète, 2ème moitié du Xe s.) est nommé comme auteur de la paraphrase des 150 Képhalaia par le Kapsokalubion 11 (s. 14–15; ff. 308–316v: Makari¢ ou tou¤ ai¦gupti¢ ou kefa¢ laia peri£ th¤» kata£ pneu¤ma teleio¢ thto» parafrasqe¢ nta u¥po£ Sumew¤ no» tou¤ metafra¢ stou) et par la Filokali¢ a, éd. Venise 1782, p. 699; éd. Athènes 1976, t. III, p. 171. Des mêmes 150 Képhalaia, Syméon Logothète est mentionné comme auteur par le Vindob, theol. gr. 104 (2ème moitié XIVe s.) selon GALLAND, Bibliotheca Veterum Patrum, t. VII, 1770, p. 161: kefa¢ laia tou¤ a¥ g i¢ ou makari¢ ou metafrasqe¢ nta para£ sumew£ n tou¤ logoqe¢ tou. Migne reproduit cette information (PG 34, 821), mais ne mentionne que Macaire comme auteur (PG 34, 323–352, 821, 841, 853, 865, 889, 907, 935), comme Poussines dont il reproduit le texte. Poussines avait établi son texte d’après un Codex Turrianeus perdu (Ibid., c. 332 s.). Ces attributions tardives à Syméon Métaphraste (y joindre le Paris BNF gr. 874) se sont ensuite imposées, mais les manuscrits des XIe–XIIe et plusieurs autres ne se réclament que de Macaire. L’attribution au Métaphraste semble donc secondaire. Les deux manuscrits du XIe s. (le Paris gr. 1598 est daté de 1072–1073) proviennent de Saint-Sabas. Cette réécriture est-elle issue de Palestine, ou est-elle malgré tout d’origine constantinopolitaine? Elle attesterait alors la présence de la Collection IV dans la capitale. Syméon le Nouveau Théologien (949–1022) présente une grande parenté avec la spiritualité du Ps.-Macaire, mais l’on n’a pas encore trouvé de contacts littéraires précis.101 Paul de l’Évergétis († 1054) cite le fragment I, 4, 7, 1–2, résumé à travers l’Apophtegme systématique XI, 49, dans sa Sunagwgh¢ (éd. Athènes 1967, IV, 8, 6, 5, p. 224). — Dans ses Catéchèses, il paraphrase les nos 84–86, 130–
était-il absent des bibliothèques que fréquentait Photius (dans la capitale ou proches d’elle)? Est-il sous-entendu dans la condamnation de l’Ascéticon messalien à Éphèse, dans la notice sur les Actes du concile de Side (codex 52 (T. I. 36–40, spéc. 39))? Mais les Vies de Pachôme, l’école de Gaza, Jean Climaque, la série alphabétique des Apophtegmes, l’Histoire lausiaque et l’Historia monachorum sont également absents de la Bibliothèque. 100 KRUMBACHER—EHRHARD, Geschichte der byzantinischen Literatur (Munich, 1897²) 200–203; BECK, Kirche... 570–575; M. H. CONGOURDEAU, Syméon Métaphraste (Syméon Magistros ou le Logothète) // DSp 14 (1990) 1383–1387. 101 Cf. G. DAGRON, dans Histoire du christianisme... T. IV. 320–326; W. VÖLKER, Praxis und Theoria bei Symeon dem Neuen Theologen (Wiesbaden, 1974) 342, n. 2; 345, n. 5; 357; V. DESPREZ, Plèrophoria. 2°, Le Pseudo-Macaire Diadoque et Syméon le Nouveau Théologien // DSp 10 (1986) 1819 s.; Simeone il Nuovo Teologo e il monachesimo a Constantinopoli / Ed. S. CHIALÀ, L. CREMASCHI (Magnano, 2003): index p. 369; p. 114 (B. Crostini-Lappin), Syméon se réfère surtout à son expérience personnelle (et à sa relation à Syméon le Pieux) comme base de ses exhortations.
!"
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
131, 135–136 des 150 Képhalaia.102 C’est la première attestation sûre de la présence du Pseudo-Macaire à Byzance. Michel Glykas,103 né à Corfou, un temps fonctionnaire impérial, aveuglé partiellement en 1159, moine ensuite (dans la région de Constantinople?) cite le fragment pseudo-macarien I, 2, 2, 5 (Berthold I, p. 4, 16) dans un dossier patristique sur le péché de Satan. Le florilège compilé (au Mont Athos?) par Marc hiéromoine104 entre 1259 et 1267 pour Eulogia, sœur de Michel Paléologue, comprend une section macarienne (Vat. Chisianus 27, ff. 14–26) essentiellement basée sur la Collection I mais comprenant aussi des extraits des homélies II, 6, 30 et 53. Le Halki Panhagias 75, le plus ancien manuscrit de la Collection II, probablement du XIe s. d’après le futur catalogue, provient de Lavra.105 Le Halki Panhagias 13 (XVe s.) contient I, 55 et II, 48 sous le nom d’Éphrem;106 le Halki, Sainte Trinité 105 comprend, dans sa partie du XVe s., l’homélie II, 25 comme prologue ascétique sous le nom de Basile.107 Donc après la possible apparition de textes du Ps.-Macaire dans la capitale à partir de Rouphinianes et leur diffusion vers l’Épire, pour Diadoque ou grâce à Diadoque, quelques lueurs apparaissent à la fin du VIIIe s. avant la présence certaine des 150 Képhalaia (à Stoudios? et) à l’Évergétis dans la première moitié du XIe s. Si
102
Cf. J. LEROY, Un nouveau témoin de la Grande Catéchèse de Théodore Stoudite // RÉB 15 (1957) 73–88 et fonds Leroy à la Section Grecque de l’I.R.H.T. — L’Évergétis était à deux milles à l’Ouest de la porte de Pégé, au quart Sud de la muraille de Théodose, cf. R. JANIN, La géographie ecclésiastique de l’empire byzantin, I. Le Siège de Constantinople et le patriarcat œcuménique, 3 Les églises et les monastères (Paris, 1953) 186–191. — L. RODLEY, Evergetis: where it was and what it looked like // The Theotokos Evergetis and eleventh-century monasticism / Ed. M. Mullett, A. Kirby (Belfast, 1994) 17–29, plan p. 19. B. CROSTINI, Towards a study of the scriptorium of the monastery of the Theotokos Evergetis: preliminary remarks // Ibid. 176–197; B.C. date fin XIIe – début XIIIe le Marc.gr. II. 40, qui contient les fragments du Ps.-Macaire, p. 192 s. — B. CROSTINI-LAPPIN, Fondatori a confronto: Simeone il Nuovo Teologo e Paolo Everghetinos attraverso le «Catechesi // Simeone il Nuovo Teologo... 103–128, voir p. 110 et la conclusion, p. 126 s., Paul tempère l’aspect mystique des textes qu’il cite. Voir le site web Evergetis Project, Belfast. 103 Annalium Pars I, éd. Bekker, Bonn 1836 (CSHByz.) p. 200 s. = PG 158, 212C– 213A (référence due à J. Paramelle). Cf. KRUMBACHER—EHRHARD, Geschichte der byzantinischen Literatur... 382 s. (Weltchronik); J. DARROUZÈS, Glykas (Michel) // DSp 6 (1967) 505–507. 104 Cf. M. RICHARD, Florilèges spirituels grecs // DSp 5. 506 s.; BECK, Kirche… 692 s. 105 M. KROEGER, introduction à la Collection II (PTS 4) XIV. 106 Aux ff. 132v–137 et 142–144; cf. TSAKOPOULOS... 34 s. 107 Aux ff. 185–190v., cf. FEDWICK, Bibliotheca basiliana universalis. T. III. VIII et 705–707.
V. Desprez
!#
ces 150 Képhalaia sont vraiment l’œuvre de Syméon Métaphraste, il aura disposé d’un exemplaire de la Collection IV. Le corpus macarien ne viendra pas à l’Athos de la capitale, mais bien plutôt de Palestine, de Syrie, d’Asie. Bien plus tard sans doute, la Collection II et quelques pièces sous les noms d’Éphrem et de Basile descendront de la Sainte Montagne dans la bibliothèque de la Panhagia Kamariotissè, sur l’une des îles des Princes. Quel rôle les documents antimessaliens (le début de Haer. 100 de Jean Damascène est-il vraiment la liste d’Éphèse?) ont-ils joué pour freiner la diffusion de ces textes et de mots comme plhrofori¢ a? Bien des incertitudes demeurent. Addendum: La IVème partie de cet article sera développée et précisée dans notre étude: «Textes, florilèges et citations byzantines de la Collection I du Corpus Macarianum», annexée à l’édition bilingue grec-russe de la Collection I par A. Dunaev, à paraître dans la série Sma¢ragdoj Filokali¢aj, éditée par le Monastère St Panteleimon du Mont Athos.
SUMMARY In this paper, 1. is revisited the debate about the relationship between Ps.Macarius and Diadochus in the historiography of the years 1935–1970: Diadochus was seen either as a contradictor of Ps. Macarius (Dörr, Des Places), or his disciple (Dörries). — 2. A reading of Diadochus related to Macarius shows Diadochus influenced by others sources, but having in common with Macarius many terms and themes, although often treated with different nuances. Diadochus read Macarius with discernment, and could have brought into order and simplicity the rich and rough Macarian material. — 3. Amongst recent studies about Diadochus, K. J. Fricke sees him clearer dualist as Macarius about the evil and about the effects of grace in baptism, and often independent of Macarius. For Kl. Fitschen, Diadochus debates with Macarian tradition about coexistence of good and evil in the man, a theme witch is no properly of Macarius, but reflects a common perception of things; at that level, Diadochus discusses with real adversaries. For M. Plested, «Diadochus reveals himself to be a disciple of the experiential epistemology pioneered by Macarius»; «the most significant revision Diadochus makes of Macarius’ teaching is on the subject of the coexistence of sin and grace in the intellect». — 4. Something of the Corpus Macarianum was known to Callinicos and to Diadochus, perhaps to Cassian; in the Middle Ages, it is surely present near Constantinople with Paul of Evergetis and Michael Glykas, perhaps with Symeon Metaphrastes.
Anna M. Kuznetsova Moscow
DEMONS VERSUS SAINTS IN THE EARLY EASTERN ORTHODOX MONASTIC LITERATURE Barbara Newman, in her study of devout women, demoniacs, and the apostolic life in thirteenth-century Europe proposed that in her material (thirteenth-century exempla) the demoniacs «played a necessary part on the stage of the evangelical drama so necessary, indeed, that if they had not existed, clerics would have had to invent them».1 I believe, this is also true of the importance of demonic presence in Christian literature in times earlier and later than the thirteenth century and in places other than Western Europe. Demons as the counterparts of saints appear in many contexts in Byzantine and ancient Russian literature. There saints fight demons2 that seduce and compromise them, exorcise demons from those possessed by evil spirits, but are also seen as possessed by demons. Some saints, mainly the «fools for Christ sake», were themselves perceived as demoniacs. The hagiographers of the first, Byzantine, holy fools were aware of this popular perception. In the Lives of the Symeon the Fool (7th C.) and Andrew the Fool (9 10th C.) it is recorded that the communities not only regarded them as mad, but tended to explain their prophetic abilities by their ties to demons. In the story of Andrew the Fool, when the saint tells the man in a tavern who refused to give him alms, how much money he had spent during that day and where, the wine-dealer explains such a revelation by stating that «demons know all the deeds of men and reveal them to their friends and mad people are, of course, friends of theirs».3 However, the problem of the «popular» 1
B. NEWMAN, Possessed by the Spirit: Devout Women, Demoniacs, and the Apostolic Life in the Thirteenth Century // Speculum 73 (1998) 733–770. 2 On the problem of fight between demons and saints see P. DINZELBACHER, Der Kampf der Heiligen mit den Dämonen // Santi e demoni nell’alto medioevo occidentale (secoli V–XI). Settimani di studio del centro Italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo 36. T. II (Spoleto, 1989) 647–695. In the saints’ fight with demons he sees three main ways: holy men resisting temptation and exorcising demons during their lifetime; doing the same after their death; and assisting believers in their resistance to the demonic assaults. His examples are very much paralleled in Eastern and Russian saints’ Lives, though he does not mention cases of doubtful outcome for the saints. 3 Æèòèå Ñâ. Àíäðåÿ, Õðèñòà ðàäè þðîäèâîãî [The Life of St. Andrew, the fool for Christs sake] (Êèåâ, 1897) 33.
A. Kuznetsova
137
perception of demonic presence in individuals or the discernment of spirits in a wider sense,4 is not my subject here, since it does not really belong to the group of questions concerning the actual fight between demonic and saintly powers. In the early Eastern Orthodox literature the interaction between demons and humans seems to be closely connected to their life-style. While an ordinary man, «living in the world», could be possessed by unclean spirits, an ascetic could only be seduced by them. As far as I can see, a demon could not enter the body of an ascetic.5 Yet, as it is well known, demons caused plenty of trouble to monks as early as the times of the desert fathers. I intend to select and analyse some episodes from two collections of saints’ lives and monastic stories: the «Lives of the Eastern Saints» by John of Ephesus (6th C.) and the Paterikon of the Kievan Caves monastery (put together in the beginning of the 13th C., but containing texts as early as of the 11th C.). Both contain rich material on the diverse forms of the saints-demons interaction, many of which are well known in other, «Western», sources as well. It seems to me that they, however, emphasise the aspect less widely treated in studies about the struggle against evil spirits as they are addressing the issues of ascetic purity being challenged in different ways and the actors of these challenges are seen as of demonic nature. The danger coming from demons was one of the serious concerns of John of Ephesus. In his narrative the fight between demons and saints takes various forms. Demons could, for example, scandalise ascetics, compromise them in the eyes of the community. In the «Life of James metropolitan of Edessa», we come across a story in which a fiend goes out of a monks cell in the form of a laughing young woman. Surely, this episode would have caused serious harm to the ascetics reputation in the eyes of community. James prayed, breathed upon her, made the sign of a cross, and she turned into smoke.6 Another way of demonic assault, also well known in hagiographic sources, was to cause bodily sickness to saints. The blessed monk Habib fell ill some years after he had expelled demons from two possessed women. His disciples convinced him to suspend the inhibitions he laid on demons to save his own life. As soon as Habib released the demons, they went back into the women. The saint was right away healed, and then drove the demons out of their victims again. Unfortunately, John of Ephesus does not 4
On these issues see the Ph.D. dissertation of Nancy Caciola: Discerning Spirits: Sanctity and Possession in the later Middle Ages. UMI, 1994. 5 DINZELBACHER (Der Kampf... 659–660) lists askesis as an actual fight against demons: ascetic life in itself is seen in his material as a weapon against evil spirits. 6 John of Ephesus, Lives of the Eastern Saints / Ed. and transl. E. W. BROOKS // PO 17–19 (1923–1925) 19: 250–251.
138
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
report on the blessed Habibs health after the second exorcism, thus we do not know, whether the demons finally gave up or not.7 Yet, the audience of this story was appropriately informed about one more kind of danger related to fight with demons.8 The most serious threat that demons caused to saints was, however, related to the sin of pride, and this is the aspect I wish to dwell upon. Ascetics were in danger of committing this mortal sin by their success of driving demons out of possessed people or fighting demons trying to seduce them in their cells. Both narratives contain stories where saints risk to fall into vanity being provoked by demons in two ways: when a holy man performs successful exorcisms and thus allows himself to be proud of his achievements, or when an ascetic is convinced that he can get fame by being in reclusion. In both cases, it is very often the conviction of «proud ascetics» that the divine persons may appear to them that serves as indication of their sinfulness and is punished by demonic attacks. John of Ephesus emphasized that only a highly spiritual and ascetic person could gain power over demons. Yet, this power appears to be highly ambiguous. On the one hand it is a holy ascetic who can receive the gift of performing successful exorcisms and thus win over demons. Yet, on the other hand, this victory can turn into a defeat, as success can lead to the sin of pride. The blessed virgin Susan, who lived in the desert near Alexandria and did not talk nor laugh, was given the gift of healing. She also received power over fiends, who were convinced that she was made of iron. Once a blessed man came to her to confess that demons had defeated him. «The fiends have been mighty and have taken away my wits, since the whole week we have been [
] fighting, and this night and day they have shown terrible sights of fear [
] and I fled, and I am afraid to enter my cell». Susan chided the man saying that «Christ now seems to be a runaway and one that can be overcome by demons, and they are found to be strong and vanquishers of the power of God. But for my part I know that the Lords power surrounds my weakness like a wall of bronze, and there is no other power that can resist it».9 This wall of bronze seems to be precisely humility: the perception by the ascetic that the miracles or the victories over the fiends are due to God and not to him or her. (By the way, John of Ephesus may be seen as one of the first feminist writers, since it was a woman whom he made an example to be followed by a men less successful in resisting demons.) 7
John of Ephesus... 17: 12. On the exorcism as the resolution of demonic possession in the early Byzantine world see P. HORDEN, Responces to Possession and Insanity in the Earlier Byzantine World // Journal of The Society for the Social history of Medicine (1993) 177–194. 9 John of Ephesus… 18: 558. 8
A. Kuznetsova
139
The wall of bronze that protected Susan was her belief that her strength and her power over demons is Gods protecting power and not hers. By denying her own merits in this fight with demons she avoided the sin of pride. The same lesson is to be learned from the other story of John of Ephesus, about Paul the Anchorite, who practiced «for many years heavy and severe labours of asceticism and great abstinence». Finally, he became strong enough to fight malignant fiends who lived in a certain cave. In order to drive them out, the saint went into the cave and was immediately surrounded by demons in all forms and shapes. He prayed for seven days. On the eighth day «he erected the cross in the middle of the cave and hung a bag of saints relics at the east end of it». Then he prayed more and demons left the cave, telling Paul that it wasnt he but the cross that drove them out. To that the saint only agreed.10 In this story the «wall of bronze» was the ascetes awareness of the power of the cross and the relics that protected him from demons and in turn saved him from the sin of pride. Both the exorcist and the exorcised believed that it was due to divine power and its symbols which led to the saints victory. His belief in the success of the fight being due not to him, but to the powers above made this victory not being reversed into defeat by falling into the sin of vanity. In cases when the belief in the «wall of bronze» is missing, ascetics are easily tempted by demons. The author of the Kievan Paterikon emphasizes the importance of perfectly abstinent life as a precondition for a recluse, but demonstrates that that is not enough. The monk Nikita is reported to have desired fame of holiness and to have pleaded with Abbot Nikon to let him be reclused. Nikon did not allow him to do so, reminding him of an experience of Isaac who was seduced by demons in his cell. Yet Nikita insisted and «closed the doors behind himself». In a while the Devil seduced him. The monk was praying and heard that someone else is praying with him. He smelled pleasant essences and decided that an angel was present. So, he appealed to this «angel» that Christ should appear to him. The Devil who had disguised himself as an angel promised Nikita that Christ will appear to him if he would stop praying and only read. Soon after this «pact with the angel» the monk became known for his ability to fortell the future sinse the Devil retold him all his deeds. The author of the narrative stressed that demons had had no power over future, they could only describe what they already have done. Nikita became also famous for his knowledge of languages.11 The monks 10
John of Ephesus… 17: 111–114. The problem of knowledge of languages as being divine or demonic goes back to the Bible. On different ways of treating this question see: Á. À. ÓÑÏÅÍÑÊÈÉ, Âîïðîñ î ñèðèéñêîì ÿçûêå â ñëàâÿíñêîé ïèñüìåííîñòè: ïî÷åìó äüÿâîë ìîæåò ãîâîðèòü ïî-ñèðèéñêè? [The question of Syriac in Slavic literature: why does the Devil speak in Syriac?] // Âòîðè÷íûå ìîäåëèðóþùèå ñèñòåìû (Òàðòó, 1979) 7982. 11
140
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
figured that their brother had been seduced by demons: «because ... he knew only the Old Testament and never wanted to talk about the New». Then the hegumen and all the blessed elders came to him and prayed and chased out the demon of him so that Nikita never saw him again. But he never could read again and showed no sign of knowing the Old Testament.12 Isaac of the Kievan Caves monastery, who was mentioned by Abbot Nikon as an warning example to Nikita, has attracted considerable interest by scholars mainly as a «part time» holy fool.13 Yet, some points in his story still deserve study like the one related to his experience as a recluse. After having spent seven years in the monastery, he was shamed by demons while being in reclusion. He had a vision of two beautiful young men who said that they were angels and came to tell him that Jesus Christ is coming to see him: «You must greet him and bow to him». So, Isaac did and at the same moment fiends unveiled themselves, saying: «You are ours, Isaac, dance with us». After they danced, Isaac was left half dead in his cell and recovered only thanks to the loving care of the monks. Later he entered a strange way of behaviour, þðîäñòâî, holy folly, as a way to overcome demons. He suceeded in defeating the fiends and returned to his cell.14 The message of the first part of his career, when he was seduced by demons, is that the true ascetic cannot be convinced that he can see the Christ himself. Isaac believed that the one who entered his cell is Christ and thus fell into the sin of pride, for which he was duly punished. It was no coincidence that the abbot used his story as a warning to monk Nikita: Isaac was seen as the one seeking fame by the life of a recluse. A very similar story that suggests that conviction of ability to have visions of divine persons was in itself considered to be a part of a sin of pride, is contained in the «Life of Two Monks» by John of Ephesus. A certain monk James, who became famous as an exorcist, used to gather demoniacs in a chapel, where they had to stay for two days, before exorcism could take place. The number of demoniacs grew and that caused disturbance to the other monks and the rest of the community. Therefore, James had to leave and he went to reside in another monastery. And again, he expelled demons in masses. But demons in their turn decided to mock him. They dressed a certain young woman a demoniac who was waiting for the exorcism in the chapel in 12 Êèåâî-Ïå÷åðñêèé Ïàòåðèê. Ñëîâî 25 // Ïàìÿòíèêè ëèòåðàòóðû Äðåâíåé Ðóñè, XII âåê [Monuments of the Old Russian literature: 12th C.] (Ìîñêâà, 1980) [henceforth: Ïàìÿòíèêè
] 517521. 13 See: Ñ. ÈÂÀÍÎÂ, Âèçàíòèéñêîå þðîäñòâî [Byzantine Holy Folly] (Ìîñêâà, 1994). See also A. KUZNETSOVA, Holy Fools in medieval Russia: more Questions than Answers // Annual of Medieval Studies at CEU, Budapest, Central European University (1996/1997) 212–216. 14 Ñëîâî 36 // Ïàìÿòíèêè
607615.
A. Kuznetsova
141
«awe-striking forms of phantasmal rays», sat her on the bishops throne and lit the martyrs chapel with rays so that they were seen as angels of God. And when James and another monk entered, they said to them: «We are angels, this is the Virgin Mary bow to her». And as soon as they did so, the demons showed their real nature. The shamed monks had to leave and never exorcised demons again.15 Both the Lives of the Eastern saints and the Paterikon of the Kievan Caves monastery emphasise, just as other texts, the power of askesis in the fight against demons. But they are very much concerned that ascetics may gain fame by exorcising evil spirits. One way to overcome the sin of pride caused by a recluse deciding that he (or she) could acquire power over demons was that the demoniacs (or, in fact, the demons) named their exorcists themselves even if the latter did not know that they are capable of driving out demons. Two typical examples of this are the case of a demoniac from the Paterikon and the story of monk James from the John of Ephesuss narrative. In the first, a demoniac was shouting that he is afraid to go to the Kievan Caves monastery as there are 30 monks (and he named them all) whom he is afraid of. The sign of his possession was again his ability to speak many languages, which vanished as soon as he approached the monastery and the monks whom he named came out to him. Nor did the ex-demoniac know the names of these thirty monks-exorcists any more, thus proving that it was the evil spirits knowledge.16 The already mentioned monk James, the one shamed by demons, did initially not know that he had the gift as an exorcist. Demons named him speaking out of the possessed by telling: «James can drive us out». And when he was persuaded to come out to the demoniacs, they started to foam as soon as they saw him and James healed them with the sign of the cross.17 The motive of demons knowing the names of their exorcists is mentioned in the Bible. Yet, it is a slightly different message that the episode from the Acts of Apostles (19:1316) suggests. There, certain Jewish exorcists came to the city of Ephesus and said they could drive out evil spirits using the name of Jesus Christ, about whom Paul was preaching. But the demon was not as optimistic as they were: «I know Jesus, and Paul is also familiar to me. But who are you?» With these words, the demoniac attacked and bit the exorcists. So, they had to leave. In the two cases from the monastic narratives knowledge of the exorcists names by the demons was a way to solve the controversy between holy power and the sin of pride, while the Biblical concern was rather that of «all rights reserved» for using the name of Christ for driving out demons. 15
John of Ephesus… 17: 220–224. Ñëîâî 26 // Ïàìÿòíèêè... 521523. 17 John od Ephesus… 17: 220. 16
142
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
I do not want to by-pass a counter-example, in which mass exorcism is performed, so to say «officially». In the last story of the «Lives of the Eastern Saints», James, the metropolitan of Edessa is called upon to stop the demonic possession that came upon people as a punishment for their sympathising with Nestorianism. This «political» demonic possession demanded «political» exorcism: the ambiguity of the ascetic-demons conflict is irrelevant here. The «public» holy man has to deal with the case in a public manner. James had to drive demons out of the almost entire population of four cities in Mesopotamia, where «God had sent on account of the sins of men raging madness and blindness of heart, and the population became possessed by demons, except a few. Men wailed and jumped and were mad and ran as if horsemen were riding after them, and they barked like dogs and howled, and in their madness they bit their flesh». James was asked to visit the city of Amida, where the madness prevailed. After the people promised to become Orthodox, the metropolitan exorcised them successfully.18 Besides this exceptional case of «ecclesiastical politics», we have seen that the fight against demons functioned in an ambiguous way. In our narratives, evil spirits acted as both the instruments for the demonstration of the saint’s God-given powers but also as challengers of ascetic purity. In a most radical way, some saints entirely refused to drive demons out of possessed humans to avoid the falling into the sin of pride. The best known example of this escape is that of the stylite Maro, who chased away demoniacs from his side by saying: «To me, the madman and man of evil life, why do you come?» He was convinced that would he agree to perform exorcisms, demons would at once size many persons just to mock him.19 His humility went so far as to abstain from fighting demons, even though his holy life might have given him the power to do so. The issue of pride, which most of the stories I quoted are concerned with, has been succintly summarised by the famous Jesuit theologian, Karl Rahner (1904–1984), when he stated: «The Devil has all what we have, but he has no humility».20 As we have seen, in the eyes of Eastern hagiographers it is precisely the presence or absence of humility, this «wall of bronze» built by holy men around themselves, by which the battle against the Devil can be won — or lost, as the case may be.
18
John of Ephesus… 19: 259–261. Ibid. 17: 65. 20 M. VILLER, K. RAHNER, Askese und Mystik der Väterzeit (Freiburg, 1939) 48; quoted by DINZELBACHER (Der Kampf… 662). 19
143
A. Kuznetsova
SUMMARY ¿Ì̇ Ã. ÛÁ̈ӂ‡
œ–Œ“»¬Œ—“ŒflÕ»≈ —¬fl“¤’ » ƒ≈ÌՌ¬ ¬ –¿ÕÕ≈… ¿√»Œ√–¿‘»» ¬Œ—“Œ◊ÕŒ… ÷≈– ¬» » »≈¬— Œ… –”—»  ñòàòüå ðàññìàòðèâàåòñÿ áîãàòåéøèé ìàòåðèàë «Æèòèé ñâÿòûõ Âîñòî÷íîé öåðêâè» Èîàííà Ýôåññêîãî è Êèåâî-Ïå÷åðñêîãî Ïàòåðèêà, èëëþñòðèðóþùèé ïðåäñòàâëåíèÿ î ïðîòèâîñòîÿíèè ñâÿòûõ è äåìîíîâ, áûòîâàâøèå â ìîíàøåñêîé ñðåäå Âîñòî÷íîé öåðêâè. Ðàçáèðàþòñÿ ïîâåñòâîâàíèÿ, ãäå ñâÿòûå âñòóïàþò â áîðüáó ñ äüÿâîëüñêèìè èñêóøåíèÿìè, ïðîÿâëÿþò ñåáÿ êàê ýêçîðöèñòû, íî è îêàçûâàþòñÿ ñàìè «ïîñðàìëåííûìè áåñàìè».  ðàáîòå îòìå÷åíû íåêîòîðûå ïîðàçèòåëüíûå ñîâïàäåíèÿ â îïèñàíèè «ïîñðàìëåíèÿ» âîçãîðäèâøèõñÿ ìîíàõîâ, ñîäåðæàùèåñÿ â îáîèõ ïàìÿòíèêàõ, êîòîðûå íèêàê íå ìîãëè áûòü ðåçóëüòàòîì ïðÿìîãî òåêñòóàëüíîãî çàèìñòâîâàíèÿ. Íåóäèâèòåëüíî, ÷òî îñíîâíûì îðóæèåì â áîðüáå ñ äåìîíàìè àâòîðû ýòèõ äâóõ âàæíåéøèõ ìîíàøåñêèõ ñáîðíèêîâ æèòèé ñ÷èòàþò ñìèðåíèå, âàæíåéøóþ õðèñòèàíñêóþ äîáðîäåòåëü.
¿ÎÂÍÒÂÈ ¬. ÃÛ‡‚¸Â‚ ÃÓÒÍ‚‡
«¿¡¤“¤… Ô◊≈Õ» SUB JULIANO APOSTATA: √–”«»Õ— Œ≈ Ô◊≈Õ»≈ —¬. À” »¿Õ¿ ¡¿¿À‹¡≈ — Œ√Œ Ãîíåíèå èìïåðàòîðà Ôëàâèÿ Êëàâäèÿ Þëèàíà, õîòÿ è íå áûëî îñîáåííî æåñòîêèì, íè ìàññîâûì, íî âñåãäà âñïîìèíàëîñü â õðèñòèàíñêîé òðàäèöèè êàê îäíî èç ñàìûõ ëþòûõ. Ïðè÷èíîé ýòîãî áûëè õðèñòèàíñêîå ïðîøëîå ñàìîãî Îòñòóïíèêà, à òàê æå åãî ïîïûòêà îòëó÷èòü õðèñòèàí îò ãðå÷åñêîé êóëüòóðû. Ñðåäè ïðî÷èõ ïðè÷èí, ïîçâîëÿþùèõ ïîíÿòü, êàê ïåðåæèâàëè õðèñòèàíå ýòî ãîíåíèå â ñðàâíåíèè ñ ïðåäûäóùèìè, ìîæíî ïðèâåñòè ñëåäóþùèé îòðûâîê èç îáëè÷èòåëüíîé ðå÷è æèâîãî ñâèäåòåëÿ ýïîõè åï. Êîíñòàíòèíîïîëüñêîãî ñâò. Ãðèãîðèÿ Áîãîñëîâà: «Âñÿêàÿ âëàñòü äåéñòâóåò óáåæäåíèåì èëè ïðèíóæäåíèåì; è îí ïîñëåäíåå, êàê ìåíåå ÷åëîâåêîëþáèâîå, òî åñòü íàñèëèå ïðåäîñòàâèë íàðîäó è ãîðîäàì, êîòîðûå â äåðçîñòè îñîáåííî íåóäåðæèìû ïî íåðàññóäèòåëüíîñòè è íåîñìîòðèòåëüíîìó ñòðåìëåíèþ êî âñåìó; âïðî÷åì, è íà ýòî äàë íå âñåíàðîäíîå ïîâåëåíèå, íî êàê áû íåïèñàíûé çàêîí, îáíàðóæèâ ñâîþ âîëþ òåì, ÷òî íå îñòàíàâëèâàë íàðîäíûõ âîëíåíèé. À ïåðâîå, êàê áîëåå êðîòêîå è äîñòîéíîå öàðÿ, òî åñòü óáåæäåíèå, ïðåäîñòàâèë îí ñåáå
Íî â ýòîì ÷åëîâåêå çëîáà ïîìðà÷èëà ðàññóäîê, è ïîòîìó ðàâíî ïðîñòèðàåò îí ãîíåíèå è íà ìàëîå, è íà âåëèêîå»1 . Ãðèãîðèé, êàê è äðóãèå ïèñàòåëè-ñîâðåìåííèêè þëèàíîâûõ ìåð ïî èñêîðåíåíèþ õðèñòèàíñòâà, óëîâèë âàæíóþ äåòàëü ãîíåíèÿ ïåðåäà÷ó «ïðàêòè÷åñêîé» èíèöèàòèâû ãîíåíèÿ ìåñòíûì ìàãèñòðàòàì2 . Þëèàí íåîäíîêðàòíî ïûòàëñÿ ïðîèçâåñòè ðåôîðìû ìóíèöèïèé, èñïîëüçîâàòü èõ ýôôåêòèâíåå. Ìîæíî ñêàçàòü, ÷òî ïåðåäà÷à èíèöèàòèâû ãîíåíèé â èõ ðóêè áûëà ÷àñòüþ ìóíèöèïàëüíîãî ïðîåêòà èìïåðàòîðà. Ðàçíèöà áûëà â ìåòîäàõ ïîâûøåíèÿ èíèöèàòèâû ìàãèñòðàòîâ. È ýòà ïåðåäà÷à ïîëíîìî÷èé âïîëíå óäàëàñü. Ñî÷èíåíèÿ öåðêîâíûõ èñòîðèêîâ Ñîêðàòà, Ñîçîìåíà, Ôåîäîðèòà è Ôèëîñòîðãèÿ ïîëíû ïîâåñòâîâàíèÿìè î ðàçëè÷íûõ æåñòîêîñòÿõ, ó÷èíåííûõ ðåòèâûìè ÷èíîâíèêàìè. Íî íå ñëó÷àéíî, ÷òî â àãèîãðàôè÷åñêîé ëèòåðàòóðå îñòàëîñü íåìàëî äîêóìåíòîâ, êîòîðûå ïî òåì èëè èíûì ïðè÷èíàì îñòàëèñü íåèçâåñòÀ. Â. ÌÓÐÀÂÜÅÂ, Ôëàâèé Êëàâäèé Þëèàí â Àíòèîõèè â ïðåääâåðèè ïåðñèäñêîé êàìïàíèè 363 ã. // Âåñòíèê äðåâíåé èñòîðèè 4 (2004) 179–190. 2 G. W. BOWERSOCK, Julian the Apostate (Bristol, 1978) 96. 1
А. В. Муравьев
"#
íû êîíñòàíòèíîïîëüñêèì èñòîðèêàì, ïðîèçâîäèâøèõ îòñåâ «íå âïîëíå äîñòîâåðíîãî» ìàòåðèàëà3 . Íåêîòîðûå òàêèå äîêóìåíòû ïðîäîëæàëè áûòîâàòü ñàìîñòîÿòåëüíî, äðóãèå âîâñå èñ÷åçëè èç ãðåêîÿçû÷íîãî öåðêîâíîãî îáèõîäà. Òèïîëîãèçàöèÿ, æåðòâàìè êîòîðîé ñòàëè íåìàëî âïîëíå èñòîðè÷íûõ äîñüå, çàñòàâëÿëà àãèîãðàôîâ âû÷èùàòü èñòîðè÷åñêèé ìàòåðèàë, äåòàëè, íå óêëàäûâàâøèåñÿ â ñõåìó. Âî âòîðîì òîìå äðåâíåãðóçèíñêèõ äîìåòàôðàñíûõ âåðñèé, ò. í. êèìåíîâ (éèëäìè îò ãðå÷. êåßìåíá, òî åñòü ïðîñòî «òåêñòû») âåëèêèé ãðóçèíñêèé ôèëîëîã Ê. Ñ. Êåêëèäçå îïóáëèêîâàë îäèí ëþáîïûòíûé äîêóìåíò, ïðîëèâàþùèé ñâåò íà èñòîðèþ ãîíåíèÿ â IV â. Ïîä ÷èñëîì 22 àâãóñòà ççóäñà àâåèñòíññà éâ) çäåñü áûë îïóáëèêîâàí òåêñò ãðóçèíñêîãî ïåðåâîäà íåêîåãî ãðå÷åñêîãî ìó÷åíè÷åñòâà. Òåêñò ïåðåâîäà âçÿò èç ðóêîïèñè Õ â., â òî âðåìÿ êàê ñàì îí ïî ìíåíèþ Ê. Êåêåëèäçå áûë ñäåëàí â IX â4 . Íàçûâàåòñÿ îí ñèë%ìä ãà ëíùóàüäáà{ üëèãèñà ëíüàëèñà êóéèàìíæèñè, ðíëäêè èüàëà õàêàõñà øèìà áàêáàõñ (= ðáññçóßá êár Tèëçóéò ôï Qãßïõ ìÜñôõñïò Ëïõêéáíï ò dìáñôýñçóåí dí ô FÇëßïõ ðüëåé). Ëóêèàí (èëè Ëóêèé, ýòî èìÿ â ìó÷åíèè âàðüèðóåòñÿ), ò. î. æèòåëü Ôèíèêèéñêîãî Ëèâàíà, êîíêðåòíî Áààëüáåêà.  äàëüíåéøåì äëÿ îáîçíà÷åíèÿ ýòîãî äîêóìåíòà ìû áóäåì ïîëüçîâàòüñÿ òåðìèíîì «Ëóêüÿíîâî ìó÷åíèå». Ëþáîïûòíî, ÷òî èìÿ ýòîãî ìó÷åíèêà íå ñîäåðæèòñÿ íè â îäíîì èç èçâåñòíûõ íàì ïîâåñòâîâàíèé î þëèàíîâîì ãîíåíèè. Íå óïîìèíàåòñÿ îí òàêæå è â ãðå÷åñêèõ äîêóìåíòàõ, òàê ÷òî äàæå î. Ô. Àëüêýí íå âêëþ÷èë Ëóêèàíà â ñâîé èíâåíòàðü àãèîãðàôè÷åñêèõ òåêñòîâ BHG. Ïîýòîìó «Ëóêüÿíîâî ìó÷åíèå» ýòî óíèêóì. Âîçìîæíî, êëþ÷ ê ðàçãàäêå êðîåòñÿ â èñêàæåíèè èìåíè ìó÷åíèêà, èáî â ãðóçèíñêîì òåêñòå îí èìåíóåòñÿ òî Ëóêèé, òî Ëóêèàí.  êîëîôîíå ãîâîðèòñÿ, ÷òî ñâ. Ëóêèàí ïîñòðàäàë 22 àâãóñòà, íî òàêîãî ìó÷åíèêà ãðå÷åñêàÿ àãèîãðàôèÿ ïîä ýòîé äàòîé íå çíàåò. Âïðî÷åì, ïîä 9 àâãóñòà (ïî íîâîìó ñòèëþ êàê ðàç 22-å) åï. Ñåðãèé (Ñïàññêèé), (ò. 1, ñ. 717: óêàçàòåëü âîñòî÷íûõ ñâÿòûõ, íå âîøåäøèõ â ãðåêî-âîñòî÷íûå ìåñÿöåñëîâû) óêàçûâàåò íà ïî÷èòàíèå èìåííî Ëóêèÿ. Êðîìå òîãî, ìîæíî îòìåòèòü, ÷òî è çíàìåíèòûé Ëóêèàí Àíòèîõèéñêèé íàçûâàåòñÿ â àãèîãðàôèè òî Ëóêèàíîì, òî Ëóêèåì. »ÒÚÓ˘ÂÒÍËÈ ÍÓÌÚÂÍÒÚ Ðàññìîòðèì èñòîðè÷åñêîå ñîäåðæàíèå «Ëóêüÿíîâà ìó÷åíèÿ». Äåëî ïðîèñõîäèò â Áààëüáåêå (áàêáàõè) â Âîñòî÷íîì Ëèâàíå, ÷òî íàâîäèò 3 F. SCORZA-BARCELLONA, Martiri e confessori dell’età di Giuliano l’Apostata // Pagani e cristiani de Giuliano l’Apostata al sacco di Roma. Atti del Convegno internazionale di Studi / A cura di F. E. CONSOLINO (Rubettino, 1995) 53–83. 4 Ê. ÊÅÊÅËÈÄÇÅ. Êèìåíè (Òáèëèñè, 1942) 226.
"$
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
íà ìûñëü î êàêîì-òî ìåñòíîì ïðåäàíèè, ñîõðàíåííîì â äîñüå Ëóêèàíà. Îäíàêî, íàøè ñâåäåíèÿ î Áààëüáåêå â ïîçäíåàíòè÷íóþ ýïîõó êðàéíå ñêóäíû.  ìó÷åíè÷åñòâå ãîâîðèòñÿ î ïðîèñõîæäåíèè Ëóêèàíà èç ìåñòå÷êà Òàôàðäàíîí (òàôàðãàìíì). ×òî êðîåòñÿ çà ýòèì ãðóçèíñêèì íàçâàíèåì íå âïîëíå ÿñíî. Ñ îäíî ñòîðîíû, åñëè ïðåäïîëàãàòü ìåæäó ãðóçèíñêîé âåðñèåé è ïðåäïîëàãàåìûì ãðå÷åñêèì ïðîòîòèïîì ìèíèìàëüíûé øàã â îäíî çâåíî, òî ëîãè÷íî ïðåäðîëàãàòü ñèðèéñêîå èëè äàæå àðàáñêîå ïîñðåäñòâî. Ïî-ñèðèéñêè íàçâàíèå äîëæíî áûëî âûãëÿäåòü êàê jOkJxW, ÷òî ìîæåò ðàñøèôðîâûâàòüñÿ êàê ô ðáñèåíþí èëè ðáñèÝíéïí. Íå èñêëþ÷åíû, âïðî÷åì, è âàðèàíòû ñ èðàíñêîé ýòèìîëîãèåé çàãàäî÷íîãî òîïîíèìà (Tepe erdenon?). Òðóäíî îöåíèòü ñòåïåíü èñòîðè÷íîñòè ìàòåðèàëà, ñîäåðæàùåãîñÿ â «Ìó÷åíè÷åñòâå» ïî ïðè÷èíå ïðèíàäëåæíîñòè òåêñòà ê æàíðó «ýïè÷åñêèõ ìó÷åíè÷åñòâ», ÷òî ïðåäïîëàãàåò âûñîêóþ òèïèçàöèþ îáñòîÿòåëüñòâ ìó÷åíèÿ. Åäèíñòâåííûìè äåòàëÿìè, êîòîðûå ìîæíî ïðîâåðèòü, îñòàþòñÿ èìåíà ïåðñîíàæåé. Êîëîôîí íàïèñàí îò ëèöà áààëüáåêñêîãî åïèñêîïà Ïàìôèëà (èëè Ïàìôèëèÿ îíëôèêèíñ), â òåêñòå óïîìèíàåòñÿ è åãî ïðåäøåñòâåííèê åïèñêîï Êîíäðàòèé (èëè Êîäðàò).  ñàìîì Áààëüáåêå óïîìÿíóòû äâå öåðêâè îäíà âî èìÿ ïåðâîìó÷åíèêà Ñòåôàíà, à âòîðàÿ ïîñâÿùåííàÿ íåïîñðåäñòâåííî ìó÷åíèêó Ëóêèàíó. Âñå ýòè èñòîðè÷åñêèå äåòàëè ÿâíî ñâèäåòåëüñòâóþò î ñâÿçè çàãàäî÷íîãî äîêóìåíòà, íà êîòîðûé ññûëàåòñÿ Ïàìôèëèé, ñ öåðêîâüþ, à ñòàëî áûòü, è ñ ìó÷åíè÷åñêèì êóëüòîì â Áàëëüáåêå (Èëèîïîëå). Îäíèì ñëîâîì, ñ÷èòàòü ìó÷åíèêà Ëóêèàíà ïëîäîì ôàíòàçèè Ïàìôèëèÿ ó íàñ íåò îñîáûõ îñíîâàíèé ñëèøêîì äåòàëüíà ïðèâÿçêà ê èñòîðè÷åñêèì ðåàëèÿì. Ãðå÷åñêèå äîêóìåíòû, ïî êðàéíåé ìåðå, äîñòóïíûå íà ñåãîäíÿøíèé äåíü, íå óïîìèíàþò íèêàêîãî Ëóêèàíà Èëèîïîëüñêîãî (èëè Áààëüáåêñêîãî). Îäíàêî, Èåðóñàëèìñêî-ïàëåñòèíñêèé êàëåíäàðü, èçäàííûé Æ. Ãàðèòòîì5 óïîìèíàåò ìó÷åíèêà Ëóêèÿ èëè Ëóêèàíà, ïîñòðàäàâøåãî â Áààëüáåêå. Ãàðèòò óêàçûâàåò, ÷òî â ãðóçèíñêèõ êàëåíäàðÿõ Ëóêèàí ôèãóðèðóåò ïîä 22 èëè 21 àâãóñòà. Âîò óæå âòîðîå ñâèäåòåëüñòâî î ïî÷èòàíèè ãðóçèíñêîé òðàäèöèåé ñåãî ñâÿòîãî ìó÷åíèêà. Ñàìîå èíòåðåñíîå çàêëþ÷àåòñÿ â òîì, ÷òî ïàìÿòü Ëóêèàíà Èëèîïîëüñêîãî ïðàçäíóåòñÿ 6 ÿíâàðÿ (òî åñòü íà Áîãîÿâëåíèå!) â ñèðèéñêîì êàëåíäàðå 411412 ãã. Åñëè ìû óæå â ñòîëü ðàííåì äîêóìåíòå âñòðå÷àåì èìÿ Ëóêèàíà, òî ýòî ïîâûøàåò øàíñû íà àóòåíòè÷íîñòü ýòîãî ìó÷åíèêà. Ñòîëü ðàííèå êàëåíäàðè, õîòÿ è ñîäåðæàò íåêîòîðûå íàëîæåíèÿ, íî âñå æå î÷åíü ðåäêèå. Ñàì Æ. Ãàðèòò ïðåäïîëîæèòåëüíî îòîæäåñòâëÿåò åãî è ñ ìó÷åíèêîì Ëóêèàíîì â Òðèïîëèñå (Èåðîíèìîâ ìàðòèðîëîãèé äàåò äàòó 24 äåêàáðÿ), îäíàêî è ýòî îòîæäåñòâëåíèå êðàéíå óñëîâíî. 5
G. GARITTE, Le calendrier palestino-géorgien (1958) 308309.
А. В. Муравьев
"%
Èìÿ íàøåãî Ëóêèàíà, ÷àùå âñåãî àññîöèèðóåòñÿ ñî çíàìåíèòûì ìó÷åíèêîì Ëóêèàíîì Àíòèîõèéñêèì, êîòîðûé ïîñòðàäàë ïðè èìïåðòàîðå Ìàêñèìèíå, à òàêæå áûë èçâåñòåí êàê ó÷åíûé-áèáëåèñò è îñíîâàòåëü àíòèîõèéñêîãî íàïðàâëåíèÿ â áîãîñëîâèè. Âòîðàÿ ïðè÷èíà åãî èçâåñòíîñòè åãî îðèãèíàëüíîå òðèíèòàðíîå èñïîâåäàíèå. Íåñìîòðÿ íà åãî ÿâíîå ïðîòèâîðå÷èå ñ ñîâðåìåííîé è ïîñëåäóþùåé öåðêîâíîé îðòîäîêñèåé, Ëóêèàí ïî÷èòàëñÿ ñâÿòûì çà ñîâå ìó÷åíè÷åñêîå äåÿíèå. Âîò, ÷òî ïèøåò î íåì Ñóäà: «LoukianÕj Ð m£rtuj· oátoj k Samosatîn tÁj Sur
aj Ãn, ¢n¾r tîn eâ gegonÒtwn. par¦ d t¾n prèthn ¹lik
an Makar
J tini toÜnoma suggenÒmenoj t¾n Edessan okoànti ka t¦j er¦j b
blouj xhgoumnJ, p©n Ó ti k£lliston fere per toàton kenoj n oÙ pollù sunlabe crÒnJ. ka prÒj te tÕn monaÚlion ¢pkline b
on ka ej ¤pan ¢retÁj ¢nqrwpe
aj ¢f
keto mtron. proÜbh d ka ej erwsÚnhn, presbÚteroj n 'Antioce
v genÒmenoj, ka didaskaleon mga ke sunest»sato, kastacÒqen spoudaiot£twn æj aÙtÕn ¢llacÒqen ¥llwn ¢fiknoumnwn. oátoj t¦j er¦j b
blouj qeas£menoj polÝ tÕ nÒqon esdexamnaj, toà te crÒnou lumhnamnou poll¦ tîn n aÙtaj ka tÁj sunecoàj ¥f' trwn ej tera metaqsewj, ka mntoi ka
tinwn ¢nqrèpwn ponhrot£twn, o toà `Ellhnismoà proest»kesan, paratryai tÕn n aÙtaj qelhs£ntwn noàn ka polÝ tÕ k
bdhlon nskeuasamnwn, aÙtÕj ¡p£saj ¢nalabën k tÁj `Ebradoj aÙt¦j paneneèsato glètthj, ¿n ka aÙt¾n ºkribwkëj j t¦ m£lista Ãn, pÒnon tÍ panorqèsei pleston esenegk£menoj. oÙ m¾n d ¢ll¦ ka t¾n kaqarÒthta tîn qe
wn dogm£twn par¦ toÚtJ tij ¨n m£lista tîn kat' kenon tÕn crÒnon genomnwn p' ¥kron eÛroi fulattomnhn. xqeto g¦r ka pistol¦j ¢mlei gennaiot£taj, x ïn fwr£sai tij ¨n eâ m£la ·vd
wj, ¿n Ð ¢n¾r per tîn qe
wn sJze gnèmhn. martÚrhse d p Maximianoà n Nikomhde
v tÁj Biqun
aj». Òàêèì îáðàçîì, èç òåêñòà ìîæíî çàêëþ÷èòü, ÷òî ñïóòàòü ýòîãî ìó÷åíèêà Ëóêèàíà ñ ãðóçèíñêèì ñîâåðøåííî íåâîçìîæíî âðåìÿ êîí÷èíû ðàçíîå, äà è îáñòîÿòåëüñòâà íå ñîâïàäàþò. Èìåííî ïàìÿòè ýòîãî «äðåâíåãî» Ëóêèàíà ïîñâÿòèë ðå÷ü «In sanctum Lucianum martyrem» (CPG 4348/BHG 998)6 Èîàíí Çëàòîóñò, îòðàçèâøèé â ñâîèõ ïðîïîâåäÿõ ìíîãèå ÷åðòû àíòèîõèéñêîãî áîãîñëóæåáíîãî ïî÷èòàíèÿ ìåñòíûõ ñâÿòûõ. Íåñêîëüêî ýòèõ ðå÷åé áûëè ïîñâÿùåíû ìó÷åíèêàì þëèàíîâîé ýïîõè èëè ñàìîé ýòîé ýïîõå: CPG 4347 «Î ñâÿùåííîìó÷åíèêå Âàâèëå», CPG 4348 «Î ñâ. Âàâèëå è ïðîòèâ Þëèàíà è ÿçû÷íèêîâ» è CPG 4349 «Íà ñâ. Èóâåíòèíà è Ìàêñèìèíà». Ëþáîïûòíî îòìåòèòü, ÷òî àíàëèç ýòîãî ñëîâà Çëàòîóñòà (CPG 4348) ïîêàçûâàåò îïðåäåëåííîå ðîäñòâî åãî ñ «Ëóêüÿíîâûì ìó÷åíèåì». Òàì Ëóêèàí Íèêîìèäèéñêèé (BHG 997998) ãîâîðèò: «`O CristianÕj oÙk cei pÒlin p tÁj gÁj, 6
Èçä. PG 50. 519–526
"&
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
¢ll¦ t¾n ¥nw `Ierousal»m· `H g¦r ¥nw `Ierousal¾m, fhsn, leuqra stn, ¼tij st m»thr ¹mîn. `O CristianÕj oÙk cei g»non pit»deuma, ¢ll' ej t¾n ¥nw polite
an tele· `Hmîn g¦r, fhs, tÕ pol
teuma n oÙranoj Øp£rcei· Ð CristianÕj suggenej cei toÝj ¡g
ouj ¤pantaj ka sumpol
taj· Sumpoltai g£r smen tîn ¡g
wn, fhs, ka okeoi toà Qeoà. Wste n r»mati, ka t
j eh, ka pÒqen, ka t
nwn, ka t
pr£ttwn diatelo
h, met¦ ¢kribe
aj d
daxe». Ýòî ïîðàçèòåëüíûì îáðàçîì íàïîìèíàåò ñëîâà Ëóêèàíà Èëèîïîëüñêîãî: «ùóäì õðèñò@ñëñàþóðçà{ õàêàõè äðçè àðñ, æäúèñà èäðóñàê@ëè, ðíëêèñà þóðíçëíûðóàð ãà øäëíõëäã àðñ ùëäðçè».  òåêñòå «Ëóêüÿíîâà ìó÷åíèÿ» áîëüøå íå íàáëþäàåòñÿ ïàðàëëåëåé ñ äîñüå Ëóêèàíà Íèêîìèäèéñêîãî, îäíàêî ìíå êàæåòñÿ åñòåñòâåííûì, ÷òî àãèîãðàô ïîëóñîçíàòåëüíî êîïèðîâàë ðå÷ü «äðåâíåãî» Ëóêèàíà.  íàñòîÿùåé ñòàòüå ìû ïðèâîäèì òåêñò ìó÷åíè÷åñòâà ïî èçäàíèþ àêàäåìèêà Ê. Ñ. Êåêåëèäçå7 ïàðàëëåëüíî ñ ïåðåâîäîì íà ðóññêèé ÿçûê.
Òàê êàê òáèëèññêîå èçäàíèå 1942 ã. ñòàëî î÷åíü ðåäêèì, ìû âîñïðîèçâîäèì çäåñü ýòîò òåêñò. 7
А. В. Муравьев
"'
#
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
А. В. Муравьев
#
#
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
А. В. Муравьев
#!
#"
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
А. В. Муравьев
##
#$
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
А. В. Муравьев
#%
œÂ‚Ӊ 1. È êàê íå äèâèòüñÿ åñòåñòâó ëþäñêîìó íà ñåé Ïðîìûñë öàðÿ Áîãà è Ñïàñà íàøåãî Èñóñà Õðèñòà, êîòîðûé ñâîèì ñìèðåíèåì è ïðèøåñòâèåì â òåëå îáëàãîäåòåëüñòâîâàë ðîä ëþäñêîé? Èáî Îí íå ïðåðûâàë è íå ïðåñòàâàë, äàæå è íà ìàëîå âðåìÿ, ïðîñâåùàòü çåìíîé óäåë ñâåòîì Ñâîåãî âåäåíèÿ. Îí îòâðàòèë ëþäåé îò çàáëóæäåíèÿ ìíîãîáîæèÿ è [ïðèâëåê èõ] ê èñòèííîìó åäèíîáîæèþ, Îí ñîáðàë ìíîæåñòâî ñëóæåíèé ïîä ÿðìî åäèíîãî ñîâåðøåííîãî ñëóæåíèÿ, Îí ðàññåÿë ìãëó çàáëóæäåíèÿ è èñïîëíèë ñâåòà ñëåïîòñòâóþùèå äóøè âåðóþùèõ, à òåõ, êòî ïî÷èòàë ñëàâó, óòåõè è äåëà ïëîòè, Îí âîçâåë Ïðîìûñëîì Ñâîèì êî ñëàâå è óòåøåíèþ äóõîâíîìó. Îí ðàññåÿë ìíîãîîáðàçíóþ òèðàíèþ ÿçû÷íèêîâ è ïðèâåë èõ ïîä åäèíñòâåííûé èñòèííûé äóõîâíûé çàêîí, îòìåíèë ïî÷èòàíèå è ðàáñòâî òâàðè è âîçâðàòèë åãî Òâîðöó, Îí óíè÷òîæèë ââîäÿùåå â îáìàí èäîëîñëóæåíèå è âêîðåíèë è óòâåðäèë âåðó â íàøå ñïàñåíèå áëàãîäàðÿ ñâÿòûì Ñâîèì! 2.  ïåðâûé ãîä öàðñòâîâàíèÿ áåçáîæíîãî öàðÿ Þëèàíà, åãî îòñòóïíè÷åñòâî ñòàëî èçâåñòíî ïî âñåé ñòðàíå. Âûøåë óêàç, ÷òîáû ïðèíîñèëèñü æåðòâû ëîæíûì áîãàì, õðàìû èäîëîïîêëîííèêîâ îòêðûëèñü ñ áîëüøîþ ïîñïåøíîñòèþ. Ñëåäîâàëî ïî÷èòàòü âåùè, ñäåëàííûå ðóêàìè ÷åëîâå÷åñêèìè, è ÷òèòü ÿçû÷åñêèõ ñâÿùåííèêîâ, èáî îí íàçûâàë ñâÿùåííèêàìè òåõ, êòî èìè íå áûë, è âñÿ âñåëåííàÿ âûïîëíÿëà ìåðçîñòíûé óêàç íå÷åñòèâîãî öàðÿ. À òå, êòî ñîïðîòèâëÿëñÿ è íå ïîêîðÿëñÿ ýòîìó óêàçó, ïðåäàâàëèñü æåñòîêèì è íåìûñëèìûì ìó÷åíèÿì.  ýòî âðåìÿ â ãîðîä Áààëüáåê, íàçûâàåìûé ãîðîäîì Ñîëíöà, ïðèøåë íåêèé êðóïíûé ÷èíîâíèê (¸äêëüèô@), æåñòîêèé çëîäåé, êîòîðûé ïðîòèâèëñÿ Ãîñïîäíåé âîëå, è áûë êðàéíå ïðåäàí îäíîñòîðîííåìó ñëóæåíèþ áåçäóøíûì èäîëàì. Îí ïðèíÿë óêàç îá àòåèçìå è âìåñòå ñ æèòåëÿìè ãîðîäà âîññòàíîâèë æåðòâû è ïðèíîøåíè÷ èäîëàì áåç èìåíè. Ïðèøëè ê íåìó ÿçû÷åñêèå ñâÿùåííèêè (êîòîðûå íå ñóòü ñâÿùåííèêè) è ãîâîðÿò âåëüìîæå òîìó: «Åñòü ó íàñ îäèí ÷åëîâåê íåïîêîðíûé, êîòîðûé íå ÷òèò áîãîâ è íå æåðòâóåò èì, íàñ õóëèò è äåòåé íàøèõ, ïîñâÿùåííûõ áîãàì. Êîãäà îí âñòðå÷àåò èõ, îí îáðåçàåò èì âîëîñû, ÷òîáû îíè íå áûëè îáðåçàíû ïåðåä íèìè [ò. å. áîãàìè], ñïåöèàëüíî, ÷òîáû íàñìåõàòüñÿ íàä íèìè». Êîãäà óñëûøàë î òîì âåëüìîæà, òî ïîòðåáîâàë ïðèâåñòè åãî.
#&
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
3. Êîãäà ïðèâåëè ñâÿòîãî Ëóêèÿ, ïðåôåêò ãîâîðèò åìó: «Êàê òåáÿ çâàòü?» Ñêàçàë åìó ñâÿòîé Ëóêèé: «Åñëè òû ñïðàøèâàåøü î âåòõîì, òî ìåíÿ çâàëè Ëóêèé, âå÷íîå æå ìîå èìÿ õðèñòèàíèí». Ãîâîðèò åìó ïðåôåêò: «Èç êàêîãî òû ãîðîäà?». Ñêàçàë åìó â îòâåò Ëóêèé: «Î, ïðåôåêò, ó íàñ õðèñòàí åñòü ëèøü îäèí ãîðîä íåáåñíûé Èåðóñàëèì, àðõèòåêòîð è ñòðîèòåëü êîòîðîãî åñòü Áîã. Åñëè æå ìîé çåìíîé ãîðîä èíòåðåñóåò òåáÿ, òî ÿ ïðîèñõîæó èç ñåëà, êîòîðîå íàçûâàåòñÿ Òàôàðäàíóí (òàôàðãàìíì),8 à æèâó ñåé÷àñ â ýòîì ãîðîäå». Ãîâîðèò åìó ïðåôåêò: «Âî èìÿ ÷åãî òû òâîðèøü çäåñü òî, î ÷åì ðàññêàçàëè ìíå æðåöû?» Ãîâîðèò Ëóêèé: «À ÷òî îíè ãîâîðÿò ïðî ìåíÿ?» Ãîâîðèò åìó ïðåôåêò: «×òî òû íå ñëóæèøü áîãàì». Îòâå÷àë åìó Ëóêèé: «ß õðèñòèàíèí è ñëóæó èñêëþ÷èòåëüíî Áîãó Æèâîìó Ãîñïîäó Èñóñó Õðèñòó, ñîçäàâøåìó âåñü ìèð, è íå ïîä÷èíÿþñü ìåðçêèì áåñàì, êîòîðûì ïðåäíàçíà÷åí Äåíü ãíåâà è âå÷íûå ìó÷åíèÿ âìåñòå ñ èõ ïî÷èòàòåëÿìè. Êîãäà ÿ óâèäåë íåâåðèå âî Õðèñòà ñî ñòîðîíû ÿçû÷íèêîâ, òî ÿ ðàçãîðÿ÷èëñÿ è ðåøèë ïîêàçàòü è ÿâèòü èì, ÷òî ÿ õðèñòèàíèí, è ÿ äîêàçàë èì èõ íåâåðèå. Èáî ãîâîðèò ïðîðîê: áîçè, èæå íåáåñå è çåìëè íå ñîòâîðèøà, äà ïîãèáíóòú îò çåìëè”9 , òàê êàê âñå èäîëû áåñû, òîãäà êàê Ãîñïîäü ñîçäàë íåáåñà. Ñêàæè ìíå: åñëè îíè áîãè, ïî÷åìó îíè íå ñìîãëè ïîìî÷ü ñâîèì äåòÿì (áóêâ. þíîøàì — ÷ðëà), âëàñû êîòîðûõ áûëè ïîñòðèæåíû ïðåä íèìè, êîòîðûå áûëè ïðèíåñåíû â æåðòâó èäîëàì è ïîãèáëè? Êàêóþ ðåâíîñòü âûçîâóò îíè ó òîãî, êîòîðûé íåçàìåäëèòåëüíî óáèâàåò äåòåé, åìó ïðèíåñåííûõ, è ðàçðóøàåò ïðèíîøåíèÿ èõ? Êàê ìîãóò ýòè ëþäè íàçâàòü áîãàìè òåõ, êîòîðûå íå ìîãóò ïîìî÷ü ñåáå ñàìèì». Ïðåôåêò ñïðàøèâàåò: «À êàê æå òû ïîêëîíÿåøüñÿ ÷åëîâåêó, ðîæäåííîìó æåíîé»? Ëóêèàí ãîâîðèò: «ß âåðóþ â Íåãî, èáî Îí Ñëîâî Îòöà Áîãà Íàøåãî, Êîòîðûé âîïëîòèëñÿ äëÿ íàøåé æèçíè îò Ñâÿòîãî Äóõà è îò Ìàðèè, ñîõðàíèâøèé Åå äåâñòâî! Ïðèðîäà Åãî íåèçìåííà è íåâèäèìà, êàê íåâèäèìà ïðèðîäà Áîæåñòâà. È êðîìå Âîïëîùåíèÿ íåâîçìîæíî áûëî ïîêàçàòü ýòó ïðèðîäó. Ñâîåþ ïëîòèþ Îí ïîòåðïåë ñòðàäàíèÿ è Îí åñòü Áîã â ïîäîáèè ÷åëîâåêà». Ïðîêîíñóë ãîâîðèò: «Ðàçâå òåáå íå ñòûäíî èìåíîâàòü Áîãîì ÷åëîâåêà? Áîãà ðàñïÿëè, è Îí óìåð, êàê ãîâîðÿò âàøè ãëóïûå áàñíè»? Ëóêèàí îòâå÷àë: «Òàê êàê Õðèñòîñ ïîìèëîâàë ÷åëîâåêà, êîòîðûé áûë îáìàíóò äèÿâîëîì, Îí ïðèíåñ Ñåáÿ äîáðîâîëüíî, à íå ïî ïðèíóæäåíèþ è ïðåäàë Ñåáÿ íà ñìåðòü è ïðîïÿòèå, äàáû óíè÷òîæèòü âðàæåñêóþ ñèëó è îñâîáîäèòü ÷åëîâåêà îò ñåòè. È êàê òû ñëûÔ ðáñèåíüí? Âîçì. ÷åðåç àðàáñê. èëè , èëè Ïàðôåíèé. Ã. Ó. Áàóýðñîê â ëè÷íîì ïèñüìå îò 2/12/2005 âûñêàçàë ìíåíèå, ÷òî Òàôàðäàíîí ýòî Êàïåðíàóì (Tafar-danon could, I think, easily represent Kafar Nahum, which exists in the by-form Kafar Tanhum). 9 Èåð 10:11 8
А. В. Муравьев
#'
øàë, ýòî ñëó÷èëîñü áëàãîäàðÿ Åãî ñìåðòè. Ñëóøàé òåïåðü âíèìàòåëüíî: Îí âîññòàë è âîçíåñéñÿ êî Îòöó, èæå íà íåáåñåõ è âîññåë îäåñíóþ Åãî. È áóäåò Âòîðîå ïðèøåñòâèå äëÿ ñóäà íàä æèâûìè è ìåðòâûìè». Ïðîêîíñóë ãîâîðèò: «Êàê òû ìíå ýòî äîêàæåøü?» Ëóêèàí îòâå÷àë: «Åñëè áû èìïåðàòîð Þëèàí áûë çäåñü è èñêàë áû èñòèíó Ó÷åíèÿ è õîòåë ýòîãî, îí áû òåáå ýòî ñêàçàë. Èáî íåêîãäà ñ íèì áûë Áîã, è îí â Íåãî âåðèë è ÷èòàë ñâÿùåííûå êíèãè è èñêàë ñëîâî èñòèíû». Ïðîêîíñóë ñïðîñèë: « Íî îòêóäà òû ïðîñòåö óçíàë î òàêèõ âåùàõ? Êòî æå íàó÷èë òåáÿ òàêîé áåñåäå?» Ëóêèàí îòâå÷àë: «Õðèñòîñ ó÷èò ëþäåé óìó, à þðîäèâûì äàåò çíàíèå!» Ïðîêîíñóë ñïðîñèë: «Çíà÷èò òû íåðàçóìíûé?» Ëóêèàí ãîâîðèò: «Ðàíüøå ÿ áûë áåçóìíûì, à òåïåðü, áëàãîäàðÿ Õðèñòó Áîãó ÿ âñå ðàçóìåþ, òàê êàê Õðèñòîñ ñêàçàë çàðàíåå ó÷åíèêàì Ñâîèì, ÷òî äîëæíî ïðîèçîéòè ñ Åãî ñëóæèòåëÿìè è ñ òåìè, êòî èñïîâåäóåò èìÿ Åãî. Âàñ ïîâëåêóò ïåðåä öàðÿìè è êíÿçüÿìè, äàáû [ñâèäåòåëüñòâîâàòü è èìåíè Ìîåì] ÿâèòü èõ íåâåðèå, èõ è âñåõ èäîëîïîêëîííèêîâ. Êîãäà ïðåäàäóò âàñ, íå çàáîòüòåñü, î òîì, ÷òî âû ñêàæåòå, Äóõ Îòöà âàøåãî ñòàíåò ãîâîðèòü â âàñ»10 . Ïðîêîíñóë ãîâîðèò: «Çíàåøü, äîâîëüíî ÿ óæå ïîòåðïåë îò òåáÿ; âîò, ÿ äàë òåáå ïðàâî ãîâîðèòü, ÷òîáû òû èçáàâèëñÿ îò ãîðäûíè (îò íà÷àëüíîé íàãëîñòè, ïðîèñõîäÿùåé îò íåâåæåñòâà). Òåïåðü æå óâàæü è èñïîëíè èìïåðàòîðñêèé äåêðåò; êàêèå ìåðû ïðèâåäåíèÿ ê ìîë÷àíèþ ïðèêàçàíî ïðèìåíÿòü ê íåïîêîðíûì áóíòîâùèêàì?» Ëóêèé ãîâîðèò åìó: «ß õðèñòèàíèí, ìîå ñïàñåíèå Õðèñòîñ Ñûí Áîæèé, è ÿ íå ïîêëîíþñü äðåâó è êàìíÿì, èáî îíè áåñ÷óâñòâåííûå ïðåäìåòû, ñäåëàííûå ðóêîé ÷åëîâåêà!» Ïðîêîíñóë îòâåòèë: «ß íå ïîçâîëþ, ÷òîáû òû íå ïîä÷èíèëñÿ ñàìîäåðæàâíîìó êåñàðþ Þëèàíó, è ÿ áîëüøå íå áóäó ïðîùàòü òåáå è ïðåäàì òåáÿ óæàñíûì è æåñòîêèì ìóêàì, îò êîòîðûõ òû óìóäðèøüñÿ è íå ñòàíåøü áîëüøå ïðîòèâèòüñÿ ìîãóùèì! ß äîëãîäóøåí è òåðïëþ âñå ýòî îò òåáÿ, ÷òîáû òåáÿ îáðàçóìèòü è íàó÷èòü òåáÿ ïîä÷èíÿòüñÿ áîãàì è èìïåðàòîðàì! Åñëè ÿ íàðóøó ýòîò öàðñêèé óêàç èç æàëîñòè ê òåáå, òî ñàì ïîäâåðãíóñü îïàñíîñòè». Ñâÿòîé Ëóêèàí ãîâîðèò: «Òàêæå êàê òû áîèøüñÿ ñâîåãî öàðÿ è åãî óêàçà, òàêæå è ÿ áîþñü çà ñåáÿ è çà òî, ÷òîáû ìíå íå ïðèøëîñü îòðåêàòüñÿ îò ìîåãî Áîãà. ß áîþñü îñêîðáèòü èñòèííîãî Âëàäûêó. Íå ïîïàäó ëè ÿ â àä è â ãååííó è òüìó (áìäêè) âíåøíþþ? Çíàé òîëüêî, ÷òî òâîé öàðü, êîòîðîãî òû íàçûâàåøü ñàìîäåðæöåì (çåçëî÷ðíáäêè), íèêîãäà íå áûë ïîáåäèòåëåì, òàê êàê îí ñëóæèò áåñàì. Áîã íèçâåðãíóë èõ â ìîðå è óíè÷òîæèë èõ ñèëó. È êàê áåñû, êîòîðûõ ñîêðóøèë è óíèçèë ìîé Ãîñïîäü è Õðèñòîñ, òàêæå òû è òâîé êåñàðü âû ïîáåæäåíû Åãî ñëóæèòåëÿìè è òåðÿåòå ñèëó»! 10 U ïðåäÚ âëàäêè æå U öàðX âåäPíè á}äåòå ìåíL ð@äè, âî ñâèäòåëüñòâî Wìú U ¯çêÌìú. Mãä@ æå ïðåäàòú â, íå ïåöòåñÿ, ê@êÌ UëT ÷òi âîçãëàãhëåòå: ä@ñòáîñÿ â@ìú âú òhé ÷@ñú, ÷òi âîçãëàãhëåòå: íå â áî á}äåòå ãëàãhëþùÈè, íî äÕú kÖA â@øåãÌ ãbÿé âú â@ñú (Ìô. 10:1821).
$
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
4. Ïðåôåêò ðàçãíåâàëñÿ è ïðèêàçàë ïðåäàòü åãî íà ìó÷åíèå è ñå÷ü åãî ðåìíÿìè èç ñóøåíûõ âîëîâüèõ æèë. È êîãäà ñõâàòèëè åãî è íà÷àëè èçáèâàòü, ñâÿòîé âîçâåë î÷è ê íåáó è âîñêëèêíóë, ãîâîðÿ: «Õðèñòå, Áîæå ìîé, ïðèäè íà ïîìîùü ñëóæèòåëþ Òâîåìó â ñåì ñòðàøíîì ñòðàäàíèè!» Ïðîêîíñóë ãîâîðèò åìó: «Ïðèíåñè æåðòâó áîãàì è ïîéäåøü, êóäà óãîäíî, èíà÷å íàâëå÷åøü íà ñåáÿ êàçíè áîëüøèå, ÷åì áûëè äî ýòîãî!» Ñâÿòîé Ëóêèé ñêàçàë åìó: «Èìåííî ê ýòîìó ÿ è ñòðåìëþñü, ÷òîáû çàêàëèòüñÿ ñòðàäàíèåì òåëåñíûì è ñòàòü íàñëåäíèêîì Öàðñòâèÿ Íåáåñíîãî. Äåëàé âñå, ÷òî õî÷åøü, èáî Õðèñòîñ ìîÿ îïîðà è ÿ ïðåçèðàþ òâîè ïûòêè. Ñàì Îí ïóòåâîäèòåëü êî ñïàñåíèþ çàïîâåäàë íå áîÿòüñÿ ðàçðóøàþùèõ òåëî, íî íå ìîãóùèõ óáèòè äóøó. Óáîéòåñü æå ïà÷å ìîãóùåãî è äóøó, è òåëî ïîãóáèòè â îãíåííîé ãååííå. È åùå: Âñÿê óáî èæå èñïîâåñòü ìÿ ïðåä ÷åëîâåêè, èñïîâåì åãî è Àç ïðåä Îòöîì Ìîèì, èæå íà íåáåñåõ! Âîò ïî÷åìó ÿ íå îñòàâëþ Áîãà ìîåãî è íå ñòàíó ïîêëîíÿòüñÿ ãíóñíûì èäîëàì»! Ïðîêîíñóë ñêàçàë ïàëà÷àì: «Ñåêèòå åãî åùå áîëåå æåñòîêî è ïîñìîòðèì, ïðèäåò ëè Áîã íà ïîìîùü åìó!» Ñâÿòîé ìó÷åíèê Ëóêèé ñêàçàë: «Íå áîþñü ÿ ýòèõ òâîèõ ïûòîê. Åñëè ó òåáÿ åñòü è áîëåå æåñòîêèå, ïðèìåíè èõ êî ìíå, èáî ÿ âåðþ âî Õðèñòà, ìîþ îïîðó, è íå ïî÷óâñòâóþ ðàí îò òâîèõ ïûòîê. Èáî ïîêà ìåíÿ áèëè êàê áû ìå÷åì, à ÿ íå çàìå÷àë ýòîãî!» Êîãäà ñâ. ìó÷åíèê ñêàçàë ñèå, ïðîêîíñóë ïðèêàçàë ïðåêðàòèòü èçáèåíèå, ñâÿçàòü åãî è çàêðûòü â òåìíèöå â íàäåæäå, ÷òî òîò ìîæåò áûòü èçìåíèò ìíåíèå è ñîãëàñèòñÿ ïîêëîíèòüñÿ áîãàì. 5. È êîãäà òàùèëè ñâÿòîãî ìó÷åíèêà â òåìíèöó, îí ãîâîðèë â ñåáå ñîìîì: «Ïîòùèñü, Ëóêèå, ñòÿæàòü ÷àñòü òåáå äàííîãî äîñòîÿíèÿ!» È êîãäà ïðèâåëè åãî â òåìíèöó, îí ïðîâåë íî÷ü â ñîçåðöàíèè è ìîëèòâå è ñëàâîñëîâèè. Îí ñëàâèë Áîãà çà âñå òî, ÷òî ñëó÷èëîñü. È êîãäà íàñòàëà ïîëíî÷ü, îí ñòàë ëèòü ñëåçû, ãîâîðÿ: «Ãîñïîäè, Áîæå ìîé, ñïàñàþùèé è èçáàâëÿþùèé ìÿ, Èñóñå Õðèñòå, Óòåøèòåëþ óíèæåííûõ è ïîìîùíè÷å îò÷àÿííûõ, èñòÿçàåìûõ è ìó÷èìûõ, èçáèâàåìûõ çà Èìÿ Òâîå, íå ïðåçðè óáîãîãî ñëóæèòåëÿ Òâîåãî, íî äàðóé ìíå ñèëó è âûäåðæêó äàæå äî êîíöà, äà íå ðå÷åò âðàã ìîé: Óêðåïèõñÿ íà íåãî!» Êîãäà îí îêîí÷èë ìîëèòâó, àíãåë Ãîñïîäåíü ñîøåë ñ íåáåñå è êîñíóëñÿ åãî, è òîò÷àñ æå âñå ðàíû òåëà åãî óâðà÷åâàëèñü. È ñêàçàë Ãîñïîäü åìó: «Áóäü õðàáð è ñòîåê, èáî ß ñ òîáîé». Íà ñëåäóþùèé äåíü ïðîêîíñóë âíîâü âîññåë íà ìåñòî òðèáóíà è âîêðóã íåãî áûëà îãðîìíàÿ òîëïà åãî ñëóæèòåëåé. Òîãäà îí ïðèêàçàë ïðèâåñòè ïîäâèæíèêà Õðèñòîâà, ñâ. Ëóêèÿ. 6. È êîãäà ïîñòàâèëè åãî íàïðîòèâ, ïðîêîíñóë ïîñìîòðåë íà íåãî è ñêàçàë: «×òî ñêàæåøü, Ëóêèàíå, ñòàë ëè òû óìíåå, îòâåðãíóâ ñâîå íåâåæåñòâî èëè ïðåáûâàåøü â òîì æå íåâåæåñòâå è õî÷åøü ïðåòåðïåòü åùå õóäøèå ìó÷åíèÿ? Ìîæåò, õîòü ñåé÷àñ òû ïðèçíàåøü áîãîâ è çàñëóæèøü ìîå óâàæåíèå?» Íî ñâÿòîé Ëóêèé ñêàçàë åìó: «ß íå áîþñü òâîèõ óãðîç. Òî, ÷òî ÿ óæå ãîâîðèë òåáå, ÿ ãîòîâ ïîâòîðèòü: ÿ õðèñòèàíèí è íå ïîêëîíÿþñü áåçäóøíûì èäîëàì è íå îñòàâëþ Áîãà, Ñîçäàòåëÿ íåáà è çåìëè,
А. В. Муравьев
$
ìîðÿ è âñåãî, ÷òî òàì íàõîäèòñÿ. ×òî æå äî ÷åñòè, êîòîðóþ òû ìíå ñóëèøü è ìèëîñòè òâîèõ áîãîâ, ñèëó êîòîðûõ ÿ, ÿêîáû, óçíàþ, íå ãîâîðÿò ëè îíè ñî ìíîþ ëèöîì ê ëèöó? Ðàçâå íå îíè ââåðãëè ìåíÿ â ñâîþ âëàñòü, ñåé÷àñ è ïîòîì, ÷òîáû ÿ ïî÷òèë èõ æåðòâàìè?». Ïðîêîíñóë òîãäà ñêàçàë: «Îíè íå õîòÿò íè äîáðîãî, íè çëîãî íèêîìó!» Ñâÿòîé Ëóêèé òîãäà ãîâîðèò: «Î, áåçáîæíûé ñûí áåñîâñêèé! ×òî æå òû ìíå âåëèøü ïîêëîíÿòüñÿ ãëóõèì è íåìûì?» Ïðîêîíñóë ãîâîðèò åìó: «Âîò, ÿ òåáÿ ïîäâåðã òîìó, ÷òî òû èñïûòàë, à òû âñå äåðæèøüñÿ ñâîåé ãëóïîñòè è íåìóäðèÿ? Ïîñëóæè áîãàì è ñïàñåøü ñåáÿ îò ìó÷åíèé è íåìèíóåìûõ ïûòîê!» Ñâÿòîé Ëóêèé ãîâîðèò åìó: «Âñå êàçíè, êîòîðûì òû ïðåäàåøü ìåíÿ Áîã ïîìîùíèê ìíå! ÿ ãîòîâ ê íèì ñ áëàãîäàðíîñòüþ. È ïóñòü çíàþò âñå, ñëóæèòåëè Õðèñòà ñèëüíåå ìîùè òâîåãî îòöà äèÿâîëà è âàøèõ ìåðçêèõ èäîëîâ. È ïóñòü óçíàþò áåçáîæíûå, ÷òî ñ íàìè Áîã»! Êîãäà ñâÿòîé ìó÷åíèê ïðîèçíåñ ýòî, òîëïà, ñòîÿâøàÿ ñíàðóæè òðèáóíàëà, ñòàëà âîïèòü è êðè÷àòü: «Êàçíè ýòîãî âðàãà íàøèõ áîãîâ, êàçíè ðàçðóøèòåëÿ íàøèõ àëòàðåé è òîãî, êòî îñòðèãàåò âîëîñû íàøèõ ïîñâÿùåííûõ äåòåé»! Òîãäà íàðîäíûå âîæäè óãîìîíèëè òîëïó. Ïðîêîíñóë ñêàçàë áëàæåííîìó: «Äîêîëå áóäåøü åùå âîçíîñèòüñÿ è íå áóäåøü ïîä÷èíÿòüñÿ èäîëàì è ïðèêàçàì èìïåðàòîðà?» Òîãäà âîñêëèêíóë ñâÿòîé ìó÷åíèê è ñêçàë òîëïå òàê: «ß ðåøèëñÿ èñïîâåäîâàòü Õðèñòà è ïðåòåðïåòü çà Íåãî âñå ìóêè, áëàãîäàðÿ êîòîðûì ÿ ïîëó÷ó âåíåö íåáåñíûé. Íî âû, êàêîå ñïàñåíèå ïîëó÷èòå âû îò âàøèõ áåçäóøíûõ èäîëîâ, êîòîðûå ñóòü íè÷òî? Âû âòóíå ïî÷èòàåòå è áóäåòå ñîêðóøåíû âìåñòå ñ íèìè!» 7. Òîãäà ïðîêîíñóë ðàçãíåâàëñÿ è ïðèêàçàë áèòü åãî äóáîâûìè ïðóòüÿìè è ïðèêàçàë èçáèâàëüùèêàì: «Ñêàæèòå åìó, ÷òîáû íå õóëèë áîãîâ!» Ñâÿòîé îòâåòèë: «×åì áîëüøå âû óñèëèâàåòå ìîè ñòðàäàíèÿ, òåì áîëüøå ÿ ñòàíîâëþñü äîñòîèí âåíöà ìîåãî ñîñòÿçàíèÿ». Êîãäà æå ïðîêîíñóë óâèäåë, ÷òî åãî ñîâåðøåííî èçáèëè, îí ïðèêàçàë ïàëà÷àì ïðåêðàòèòü èçáèåíèå è ñêàçàë ñâÿòîìó: «Î òðèæäû æàëêèé! Òû âèäèøü, ÷òî óìèðàåøü è îòâå÷àåøü òàêèìè ñëîâàìè è íå æàëêî òåáå ñåáÿ ñàìîãî; íåò áû ñòàòü äîñòîéíûì ñëóæåíèÿ è íå áîÿòüñÿ ñòðàäàíèé. Îòâðàòèñü è ïîñëóæè áîãàì, à ÿ òåáÿ îòïóùó.  ïðîòèâíîì ñëó÷àå ÿ ïðèêàæó áèòü òåáÿ äî ëþòîé ñìåðòè». Ñâÿòîé Ëóêèé ãîâîðèò åìó: «Ìåíÿ íèìàëî íå çàáîòÿò òâîè çàÿâëåíèÿ, è ÿ íå äðîãíó ïåðåä ñìåðòüþ. ß íå ó÷åí, ÷òîáû îòâåòèòü è íå çíàþ, êòî ñóòü òâîè ýòè áîãè, íî ÿ çíàþ Åäèíîãî Áîãà Ãîñïîäà Èñóñà Õðèñòà, äàðîâàâøåãî ìíå ýòó æèçíü, è Åìó îäíîìó ÿ ñëóæó»! Êîãäà æå ñóäèÿ íåïðàâåäíûé óâèäåë, ÷òî òîëïà ãðàæäàí ïîääåðæèâàåò åãî è íå ìîæåò íàñûòèòüñÿ ìó÷åíèÿìè, êîòîðûå îí ïðèìåíèë ê ñâÿòîìó, îí äàë òàêîé ïðèêàç: «Ëþáîé, êòî ïðèëîæèò ðóêó ê ñìåðòè Ëóêèÿ, íå äîëæåí áîÿòüñÿ íàêàçàíèÿ ãîñóäàðñòâà çà ýòî!» 8. Êîãäà æå íàðîä óñëûøàë äàðîâàíèå ñóäüè, áåñ÷èñëåííàÿ òîëïà ñîáðàëàñü ïðîòèâ íåãî, îíè ñõâàòèëè äîáðîïîáåäíîãî ìó÷åíèêà, êàê äè-
$
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
êèå çâåðè, çèÿþùå ïîæðàòü åãî ñ ÿðîñòüþ, êîòîðóþ âñàäèë â íèõ çëîáíûé áåñ. È îíè îáðåêëè åãî íà ñìåðòü. Îíè ïðèâÿçàëè âåðåâêó ê åãî íîãàì è ïîâëåêëè ìó÷èìîãî çà ïðåäåëû ãîðîäà. Îäíè áèëè åãî áàòîãàìè, äðóãèå êèäàëè âî âëåêîìîãî êàìíè. È îíè èçäåâàëèñü íàä âåðîé ðàáà ïðàâåäíîãî è òàñêàëè åãî ïîâñþäó, âîëî÷à åãî ïî êàìíÿì (? áóêâ.: íàãðîìîæäàÿ êàìíè) áåç æàëîñòè. Êàê æàäíûå äî äîáû÷è ïñû îíè ïðåäàëè ñâÿòîãî ñìåðòè. Ñâÿòîé ïîäâèæíèê Õðèñòîâ Ëóêèé, êîãäà åãî òàêèì îáðàçîì ñõâàòèëè, ïîäíÿë ãëàçà ãîðå è ñêàçàë äóõîâíûì ãëàñîì: «Ãîñïîäè, Áîæå ìîé, ñîçäàòåëü âåêîâ, ê Íåìóæå îò þíîñòè ïðèòåêàþ, äàðîâàâûé ìíå äàæå äî êîíöà ïðåòåðïåòè, ïðèáåæèùå âñåõ òåêóùèõ, ñïàñåíèå ïðèíîñèìûõ â æåðòâó, ïðèèìè äóøó ìîþ â ìèðå è â÷èíè åå â ëèê Òâîèõ ñâÿòûõ ðàáîâ, ÷òîáû ñ íèìè êóïíî ÿ ñòàë áû äîñòîèí Öàðñòâèÿ íåáåñíîãî è æèçíè âå÷íîé, ÿêî Òâîå åñòü öàðñòâî è ñèëà è ñëàâà Îòöà è Ñûíà è Ñâÿòàãî Äóõà, íûíå è ïðèñíî è âî âåêè âåêîì, àìèíü». 9. Êîãäà æå ñâÿòîé îêîí÷èë ìîëèòüñÿ, áåçáîæíèêè è çëîäåè ïîäâåñèëè ñâÿòîãî è åãî òåëî ïî÷òè íà ñîëíöåïåêå è íåêîòîðîå èç íèõ ïåðåáèëè åìó ðóêè áàòîãàìè, à äðóãèå [ðåçàëè] ðóêè îáîþäîîñòðûìè íîæàìè. Åãî ïðåäàëè íàðîäó è ïðèâÿçàëè ê ëîøàäÿì è íà÷àëè âîëî÷èòü ïî çåìëå. Çàòåì îíè ïîâåñèëè åãî ââåðõ íîãàìè è íà÷àëè îòðóáàòü òîïîðîì (òàáðûäìè) ÷ëåíû òåëà. È åãî îòñå÷åííûå ÷ëåíû óïàëè íà çåìëþ. Êîãäà æå íå÷åñòèâûå âåðøèëè ñèå, ÷åëîâåê Áîæèé, ìó÷èìûé çà Èñòèíó, ñâÿòîé Ëóêèé çàâåðøèë ñâîå ìó÷åíè÷åñòâî äîáðûì ñâèäåòåëüñòâîì è ìèðíî ïðåäàë äóøó â ðóöå Áîæèè. 10.  òî âðåìÿ ïðèåõàë íåêèé ïîãîíùèê âåðáëþäîâ, îñòàíîâèëñÿ ñðåäè áåçáîæíèêîâ, êîòîðûå îòðóáàëè ñâÿòûå ÷ëåíû ìó÷åíèêà. Êîãäà îí óâèäåë ýòî, åìó ýòî ïîêàçàëîñü ïîõîæèì íà äèêîñòü è æåñòîêîñòü äèêèõ âåðáëþäîâ, êîòîðûõ îí âîäèë. Îí âûòàùèë ñâîé ìå÷ è íà÷àë ñàì îòðóáàòü êóñêè ñâÿòûõ ÷ëåíîâ àãíöà Áîæèÿ è ïîãðóæåííûé â òàêóþ ÿðîñòü, çàïóñòèë ðóêè [â òåëî ñâÿòîãî], ñõâàòèë âíóòðåííîñòè áåñïîðî÷íîé æåðòâû è íà÷àë æåâàòü èõ çóáàìè. È â òîò æå ìèã îí ïîëó÷èë âîçäàÿíèå, ñîðàçìåðíîå åãî ïîâåäåíèþ, èáî [ñëó÷èëîñü, ÷òî] è ó íåãî, è ó âñåõ âåðáëþäîâ åãî âûïàëè ãëàçà. Î÷è óïàëè íà çåìëþ, êàê áóäòî èçâåðãíóòûå îðóæèåì, è îíè îñëåïëè. Êîãäà áåçáîæíûå óâèäåëè ñå, îíè âåñüìà ïîðàçèëèñü ÷óäó, ïîèçîøåäøåìó ñ ïîãîíùèêîì. Îäèí èç íèõ îòâÿçàë âåðáëþäîâ è, âçÿâ ñ ñîáîþ ïîãîíùèêà, ïðèâåë èõ â ãîðîä. Êîãäà æå îíè ïîäîøëè ê âîðîòàì ãîðîäà, ïîãîíùèê âñòàë, à òå, êòî âçèðàë íà íåãî, îáðàòèëè ñâîè äóøè ê ïîõâàëå è ïðîñëàâëåíèþ Áîæèþ è ê ïîìèíîâåíèþ ïðåñëàâíîãî ìó÷åíèêà. 11. Òîãäà ïî Ïðîìûñëó Áîæèþ âîðîí óòàùèë îäèí èç ÷ëåíîâ ñâÿòîãî ìó÷åíèêà è íåâðåäèìî ïðèíåñ åãî â ãîðîä Ñèäîí, íàõîäÿùèéñÿ íà áåðåãó ìîðÿ. È ïîëîæèë åãî ïåðåä äâåðüþ îäíîé âåðóþùåé ñèäîíÿíêè. Êîãäà æå æåíùèíà óâèäåëà ñâÿòûå ìîùè ìó÷åíèêà Õðèñòîâà, îíà, áóäó÷è õðèñòèàíêîé, ïðîñâåùåííîé îò Áîãà, èñïîëíèëàñü ðàäîñòè. Îíà ïðèíÿ-
А. В. Муравьев
$!
ëà â ðóêè ñâÿòûå ìîùè ìó÷åíèêà è óâåðîâàëà â íèõ è ñêàçàëà òàê: «Ñèå îò ÷ëåíîâ ñâÿòûõ, ïîñòðàäàâøèõ çà Õðèñòà». Çàòåì îíà îìûëà èõ â âèíå, óìàñòèëà áëàãîâîíèÿìè è çàøèëà â ñâÿùåííóþ òêàíü, ñïðÿòàâ â áåçîïàñíîì ìåñòå â äîìå. Íà âòîðóþ íî÷ü ñâÿòîé ìó÷åíèê Õðèñòîâ ÿâèëñÿ ê íåé è ñêàçàë: «ß Ëóêèé, êîòîðûé çà âåðó âî Õðèñòà áûë áèåí èçðÿäíî â ãîðîäå Áààëüáåê. Èìåé âåðó è ñèè ìîè ìîùè îñòàíóòñÿ ó òåáÿ êàê ó ðåâíîñòíîé õðèñòèÿíêè!» Îíà ïîâåðèëà ýòîìó âèäåíèþ, òàê êàê áûëà âåðóþùåé è áîãîáîÿçíåííîé æåíùèíîé. È õðàíèëà îíà ñâÿòûå ìîùè â äîìó ñ áîëüøîé ÷åñòüþ è äóõîâíîé îïàñíîñòüþ è íå îòêðûâàëà ñåãî íè îäíîìó ÷åëîâåêó, èáî æèòåëè ãîðîäà â òå ïîðû áûëè ïîêëîííèêàìè èäîëîâ. Íî íåêîòîðîå âðåìÿ ñïóñòÿ êðàòêîå ãîíåíèå íà õðèñòèàí çàêîí÷èëîñü, è îíà ðàññêàçàëà î ñâÿòûõ ìîùàõ ñâÿòîìó àðõèåðåþ, êîòîðûé â òå äíè íàõîäèëñÿ â Ñèäîíå. È Áîã, âñåãäà ïðîñëàâëÿþùèé ñâîèõ ñâÿòûõ, ïðîñëàâèë è óòâåðäèë åãî. È îí ïîñòðîèë ïðåêðàñíóþ öåðêîâü âî ñëàâó Áîæèþ è äëÿ ïðîñëàâëåíèÿ ìó÷åíèêà. È òàì îí ïîìåñòèë ÷åñòíûå ìîùè, è ìíîæåñòâî íåäóæíûõ ïîëó÷èëî òàì èñöåëåíèå îò ñâîèõ õâîðåé, à çëûå áåñû îòãîíÿþòñÿ òàì äàæå è äî ñåãî äíÿ. Âïðî÷åì, ÿ âîçâðàùàþñü ê ìîåìó ïåðâîìó ðàññêàçó è ïîâåäàþ âàì óäèâèòåëüíóþ èñòîðèþ è òî, ÷òî èç íåå âûøëî. 12. Ïîñêîëüêó ñâÿòûå îñòàíêè ïîäâèæíè÷åñêîãî ìó÷åíèêà çà Õðèñòà áûëè ðàññåÿíû, áûë íåêèõ âåðóþùèé ÷åëîâåê, êîòîðûé øåë ïî äîðîãå è íàáðåë íà ìåñòî, ãäå ñèè ìîùè áûëè ðàññåÿíû. Îí ñïéøèëñÿ è óâèäåë òî, ÷òî ïðîèçîøëî ïî ïðè÷èíå âåëèêîé âåðû, êîòîðóþ îí èìåë â óãîäíèêîâ Áîæèèõ. Îí âçÿë ÷àñòèöó îò ñèõ ñâÿòûõ îñòàíêîâ è îòïðàâèëñÿ â ñòðàíó Ñàìïñâèÿ (ñàëôñåá), êîòîðàÿ íàõîäèòñÿ â äâåíàäöàòè ìèëÿõ îò ãîðîäà Ýìåñ. Áîã ñóäèë, ÷òî ëþäè ñåãî ãðàäà áûëè äðóçüÿìè Áîæèèìè è èìåëè áîæåñòâåííóþ ðåâíîñòü. Îíè ïîñòðîèëè ñ îãðîìíûì âîîäóøåâëåíèåì è ðàäîñòüþ öåðêîâü è àëòàðü â îäíîì ìåñòå âî ñëàâó Áîæèþ è â ïðîñëàâëåíèå ìó÷åíèêà. È êàê íåëîæíîå ñîêðîâèùå ïîëîæèëè îíè òàì â íàäåæíîå ìåñòî ñâÿòûå ìîùè ñ áîëüøèìè ïî÷åñòÿìè è êðåñòíûì õîäîì. È âî âñåé îêðóãå ðàññêàçûâàëè îá ýòîì ñîáûòèè âñåì æèòåëÿì òîé ìåñòíîñòè, è ìíîæåñòî ÷óäåñ è èñöåëåíèé ñâåðøèëîñü â òîì ìåñòå ñèì ñâÿòûì. 13. Æèëà íåêàÿ æåíà ãðå÷àíêà âåñüìà áëàãî÷åñòèâàÿ è áîãîáîÿçíåííàÿ. Îáèòàëà îíà â ñàìîé ñåðäöåâèíå ãîðîäà Áààëüáåê, è êîãäà áåçáîæíûå ðàçðûâàëè íà ÷àñòè òåëî ñâÿòîãî Ëóêèÿ, îíà âèäåëà èç îêíà, êàê ýòî ïðîèñõîäèëî. È êîãäà ëæèâîå ñîáîðèùå, ñîâåðøèâøåå ñâîå äåÿíèå, ðàññåÿëîñü, æåíà ñèÿ âîçãîðåëàñü îãíåì áîæåñòâåííîãî ðåâíîâàíèÿ. Îáëåêøèñü ñèëîþ è õðàáðîñòèþ ìóæåñêîé, îíà óêðåïèëàñü âåðîþ ñâîåþ. Ñ ñîáîþ îíà âçÿëà äâóõ âåðóþùèõ è áîãîáîÿçíåííûõ ìóæåé. Îíè ïîøëè íà òî ìåñòî, ñîáðàëè ÷åñòíûå îñòàíêè ñâÿòîãî ìó÷åíèêà, ðàçáðîñàííûå ïî ó÷àñòêó çåìëè, è ïåðåíåñëè èõ â äîì òîé æåíùèíû. Îíà èçìûëà èõ â âèíå, íàïèòàëà áëàãîâîíèÿìè, îáåðíóëà â ñâÿùåííûé ëèíòîí è ñîêðûëà â òàéíå è áåçîïàñíîñòè â ñâîåì äîìå.
$"
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
14. È ïîñëå ñåãî, êîãäà çàêîí÷èëîñü ãîíåíèå, ÿâèëñÿ åïèñêîï Êîíäðàòèé, æèâøèé â òî âðåìÿ â ãîðîäå Áààëüáåê, ìóæ èñòèííûé, àïîñòîëüñêèé, èñïîâåäíèê Õðèñòîâ, ñêðûâàâøèéñÿ âî âðåìÿ ãîíåíèÿ. È ðàññêàçàëè åìó î ïðîèçîøåäøåì è î ãåðîè÷åñêîì ïîäâèãå ñâÿòîãî ìó÷åíèêà Õðèñòîâà Ëóêèàíà è î òîì, ãäå áûëè ñîêðûòû åãî ÷åñòíûå ìîùè.  ñåé æå ÷àñ îí ñîáðàë ñâîèõ ñâÿùåííèêîâ è îòêðûë ìîùè ñâÿòîãî ìó÷åíèêà ñî ñëàâîñëîâèÿìè è äóõîâíûìè ïåñíüìè è ïîìåñòèë èõ áåðåæíî â öåðêâè ïåðâîìó÷åíèêà Ñòåôàíà. È êîãäà áûëà áëàãîäàòü Áîæèÿ íà òî, îí âîçäâèã áîãàòóþ è ïðåêðàñíóþ öåðêîâü, óêðàøåííóþ [èçîáðàæåíèÿìè] ïîäâèãîâ è ñòðàäàíèé ñâÿòîãî ãåðîÿ ïîäâèæíèêà, íà òîì ñàìîì ìåñòå, ãäå ðàñòåðçàëè åãî ÷åñòíûå ÷ëåíû. Ñ áîëüøèìè ïî÷åñòÿìè ñîâåðøèëè ïåðåíåñåíèå ìîùåé, èñòåðçàííûõ ïûòêàìè. È ïîìåñòèëè èõ òàì â áåçîïàñíîì ìåñòå â äåíü åãî ñëàâíîé êîí÷èíû. Ìíîæåñòâî ÷óäåñ è áåñ÷èñëåííûå èñöåëåíèÿ ïðîèñõîäÿò òàì äàæå äî ñåãî äíÿ. 15. Ñâÿòîé ìó÷åíèê Õðèñòîâ Ëóêèé ïîñòðàäàë ìó÷åíè÷åñêè â ãîðîäå Áààëüáåê â öàðñòâîâàíèå Þëèàíà áåçáîæíîãî, â ïðàâëåíèå êîíñóëà Ôèíèêèè Ëèâàíñêîé äâàäöàòü âòîðîãî àâãóñòà, â öàðñòâèå íåáåñíîå è çåìíîå æå Ãîñïîäà íàøåãî Èñóñà Õðèñòà, Åìóæå ÷åñòü è ñëàâà ñî Îòöîì è Äóõîì íûíå è âñåãäà è âî âåêè âåêîì. Àìèíü. ß, óáîãèé Ïàìôèë (îíëôèêèíñ), ñûé ïî èçâîëåíèþ è ñíèñõîæäåíèþ Áîæèþ åïèñêîï ãîðîäà Áààëüáåê, îáðåë ñòàðóþ õàðòèþ (õàðòè), íà êîåé íàïèñàñÿ ïîìèíîâåíèå (%ñäìäáà{) ñâÿòîãî ìó÷åíèêà, è äîáàâèë ñèå ñâèäåòåëüñòâî â ÷åñòü åãî ãåðîè÷åñêîãî ñòðàäàíèÿ íà ïîëüçó ÷òóùèì è âíåìëþùèì, èáî íå ìàëàÿ ñèÿ áûëà áû ïîòåðÿ ñêðûòü ïîä ñïóäîì ïîâåñòâîâàíèå î òàêîâîì ïîäâèãå â ïîñëåäíåì èñïûòàíèè. Òàê, ñ áîëüøîþ ðåâíîñòèþ ïîâåñòâóþ âàì ïî äîëãó è â ìåðó ìîèõ ñèë, î âîçëþáëåííûå!
SUMMARY Alexey V. MURAVIEV.
A FORGOTTEN MARTYR SUB JULIANO APOSTATA: A GEORGIAN MARTYRIUM OF ST LUCIAN OF BAALBEK The Georgian text published by K. Keklidze in 1942 reveal a forgotten martyr of the time of Julian the Apostate. Although we seem to know everything about martyrs who suffered under Julian this person of Lucian or Lucius seems to be ignored by the sources which have come down to us. In the course of time the dossier was somewhat combined with the Passion of Lucian of Antioch (BHG 998). Still the Greek tradition preserved no trace of the cult of this Lucian. The Georgian text thus is a unique witness of the pagan reaction in Heliopolis / Baalbek in the Bekaa valley in 362 and local cult of this martyr. The original text is reproduced alongside with the Russian translation.
Andrei Orlov Marquette University, Milwaukee
´THE LEARNED SAVANT WHO GUARDS THE SECRETS OF THE GREAT GODSª: EVOLUTION OF THE ROLES AND TITLES OF THE SEVENTH ANTEDILUVIAN HERO IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ENOCHIC TRADITIONS (Part II: Enochic Traditions)* Enoch was found blameless, and he walked with the Lord and he was taken away a sign of t(d for generations (Cairo Geniza Ms. B Sirach 44:16)
Tracing the evolution of the traditions linked to the roles and titles of the seventh antediluvian hero leads us to investigate these notions in the Enochic traditions, where one encounters a set of conceptual developments similar to the Mesopotamian one examined in the first part of our study. In the early Enochic lore, reflected in the composition that has survived entirely only in its Ethiopic translation and is known to scholars as 1 Ethiopic Enoch, the seventh antediluvian patriarch is depicted in several roles that reveal striking similarities to those of Enmeduranki. Just like his Mesopotamian counterpart, the patriarch is skilled in the art of divination, being able to receive and interpret mantic dreams. He is depicted as an elevated figure who is initiated into the heavenly secrets by celestial beings, including the angels and God himself. He then brings this celestial knowledge back to earth and, similar to the king Enmeduranki, shares it with the people and with his son. This investigation of the patriarch’s roles and titles as they appear in the early Enochic writings does not aim to give an exhaustive treatment of these concepts but rather is intended to serve as a sketch that will briefly outline * The first part of this study which was dedicated to the Mesopotamian traditions about the roles and titles of the seventh antediluvian hero was published in: Scrinium 1. Varia Aethiopica. In Memory of Sevir B. Chernetsov (1943–2005) / Eds. D. Nosnitsin et al. (2005) 248–264
166
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
major developments pertaining to the offices and the appellations of the main hero of the Enochic writings. It is impossible within the limited scope of the investigation to trace all the evidence pertaining to the patriarch’s roles and titles in early Second Temple materials. A thorough treatment of this evidence would require at least a monograph for each Enochic role or title. The task of this investigation is more modest as it concentrates only on some of the evidence pertaining to the major offices and appellations. Several words must be said about the exposition of the Enochic roles and titles. One of the difficulties of such a presentation is that some roles of the patriarch have a composite nature, often encompassing several functions that can be linked to his other roles. For example, Enoch’s role as a mediator is closely tied to his other roles as a scribe, an expert in secrets, a witness of the divine judgment, etc. Because of the composite nature of some Enochic roles, it is sometimes very difficult to delineate strictly their boundaries, as some of their functions can be interchangeable. The situation is even more complicated with the titles. The exact title used often depends on the perspectives of various subjects and parties in the texts represented by divine, angelic, and human agents who have different perceptions of the patriarch’s offices and activities and, as a consequence, name them differently. Some of Enoch’s titles also have a composite nature since one appellation can often include references to the patriarch’s several qualities or roles. The descriptions of such complexities pertaining to the roles and titles always involve repetitive explanations. Wherever possible I will try to avoid tautologies, but it should be recognized that repetitions are inevitable in view of the highly complicated nature of the phenomena under investigation.
Enoch as the Diviner 1 Enoch 1 introduces the seventh antediluvian patriarch in a role that appears to be quite different from his roles described in the Genesis story. 1 Enoch 1:1–3a reads: The words of the blessing of Enoch according to which he blessed the chosen and righteous who must be present on the day of distress (which is appointed) for the removal of all the wicked and impious. And Enoch answered and said: (there was) a righteous man whose eyes were opened by the Lord, and he saw a holy vision in the heavens which the angels showed to me. And I heard everything from them, and I understood that I saw, but not for this generation, but for a distant generation which will come. Concerning the chosen I spoke, and uttered a parable concerning them...1 1 M. KNIBB, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch: A New Edition in the Light of the Aramaic Dead Sea Fragments. 2 vols (Oxford, 1978) Vol. 2. 57–58.
A. Orlov
167
Evaluating this account, James VanderKam observes that Enoch’s description here appears to reveal him in a new role as a mantic seer and a diviner, «a Jewish version of the Mesopotamian diviner-king Enmeduranki».2 In entertaining this possibility VanderKam draws attention to the feature, previously noted also by other commentators, that 1 Enoch 1 uses some phrases borrowed from the Balaam stories in Num 22–24. In VanderKam’s opinion, in Num 22–24 Balaam «is unmistakably depicted as a diviner who hails from the northern Euphrates region»,3 and the narratives of these chapters of Numbers employ standard mantic terms.4 VanderKam further proposes that 1 Enoch 1:3a introduces Enoch as a diviner-seer in the mold of Balaam,5 since both of these figures (Balaam and Enoch) «belong in mantic contexts, both speak under divine inspiration in such circumstances, and both pronounce future blessings upon the people of God and curses on their enemies».6 The important feature of Enoch in his office as a diviner, which denotes similarity to the practitioners of the bârû guild, is his connection to the practice of inducing and interpreting mantic dreams.7 Although the members of 2 J. C. VANDERKAM, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition (Washington, DC, 1984) (The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series, 16) 116. For the criticism of VanderKam’s position, see: A. BEDENBENDER, Jewish Apocalypticism: A Child of Mantic Wisdom? // Henoch 24 (2002) 189–196, esp. 193. See also: M. A. KNIBB, Enoch Literature and Wisdom Literature // Henoch 24 (2002) 197–203. 3 Balaam’s connections with the world of divination, and specifically with the practices of the Babylonian diviner gild of the barutim, were explored in several studies. See S. DAICHES, Balaam — a Babylonian Baru: The Episode of Num 22, 2– 4, 24 and Some Babylonian Parallels // Hilprecht Anniversary Volume: Studies in Assyriology and Archeology (Leipzig, 1909) 60–70; R. LARGEMENT, Les oracles de Bilecam et la mantique suméro-akkadienne // École des langues orientales anciennes de l’Institut catholique de Paris: Mémorial du cinquantenaire 1914–64 (Paris, 1964) (Travaux de l’Institut catholique de Paris 10) 37–50; M. S. MOORE, The Balaam Traditions: Their Character and Development (Atlanta, 1990) (SBLDS, 113). 4 VANDERKAM, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition… 116–17. 5 VanderKam observes that «it seems odd that a Jewish writer would present his hero in language dripping with reminders of the diviner who tried to curse Israel, but the author did just that, and he did so at the most visible place in his book. He may have recognized that Enoch’s associations with divinatory subjects (such as astronomy/astrology) brought him into the same sphere as Balaam, however differently the two carried out their functions». J. VANDERKAM, Enoch: A Man for All Generations (Columbia, 1995) 27. 6 VANDERKAM, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition… 118. 7 It is noteworthy that the culture of oneiromantic divination transcends the literary-historical boundaries of the Mesopotamian texts and the Hebrew Bible, representing an influential office of revelation in the pseudepigrapha and even in rabbinic writings. Indeed, in the Babylonian Talmud famous Tannaitic authorities sometimes appear as mantic oneirocritics: For example in b. Ber. 55b the following oneiroman-
168
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
the bârû guild were mainly involved in such divinatory techniques as extispicy, lecanomancy, ornithomancy (reading messages from the gods in the blemishes and unusual colorations of bird’s skins)8 and libanomancy (reading omens from configurations of rising smoke), some scholars suggest that it is possible that a bârû practitioner «was expected to know at least some of the literature of oneiromancy, though this seems not to have been a field of divination with which he was very closely associated».9 Haldar observes that in the bârû divinatory rituals mantic dreams were often interpreted through the omens associated with hepatoscopy and other divinatory techniques.10 Moreover, in his opinion, «the bârû priests did not only interpret dreams; they also received revelation in them».11 VanderKam’s research shows that the practice of oneiromancy, widespread in Mesopotamian traditions, constituted the basis for the subsequent Enochic developments. He points to a significant detail often found in the Mesopotamian materials when the standard omen series for dreams was called Ziqîqu after one of the gods of dreams, who normally was invoked in the first line of the text. This Ziqîqu was considered a son of Shamash, the solar deity. Another Mesopotamian mythological character, the dream goddess Mamu, also was closely associated with Shamash, regarded as his daughter.12 If one keeps in mind that Enmeduranki, the prototype of Enoch, was a servant of the god Shamash, it appears to be significant, at least for undertic account can be found: «A certain woman came to Rabbi Eliezer and said to him: “I saw in a dream that the granary of my house came open in a crack”. He answered; “You will conceive a son”. She went away, and that is what happened. She dreamed again the same dream and told it to Rabbi Eliezer who gave the same interpretation, and that is what happened. She dreamed the same dream a third time and looked for Rabbi Eliezer. Not finding him, she said to his disciples: “I saw in a dream that the granary of my house came open in a crack”. They answered her: “You will bury your husband”. And that is what happened. Rabbi Eliezer, surprised by the lamentations, inquired what had gone wrong? His disciples told him what had happened. He cried out, “Wretched fools! You have killed that man. Is it not written: ‘As he interpreted to us, so it was?’” And Rabbi Yohannan concludes: “Every dream becomes valid only by its interpretation”». 8 MOORE, The Balaam Traditions… 43. 9 VANDERKAM, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition… 61; MOORE, The Balaam Traditions… 44. 10 Haldar mentions the archeological discovery of the tablet in the form of liver, found at Mari, where the following text was inscribed: «in his dream I have seen …». He also directs his attention to the fact that in Mesopotamian materials some dreams could be explained «in the cup of the seer». A. HALDAR, Associations of Cult Prophets Among the Ancient Semites (Uppsala, 1945) 7. 11 Ibid. 7. 12 VANDERKAM, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition… 60.
A. Orlov
169
standing Enoch’s background in oneiromancy, that in the Mesopotamian traditions the dream divinities belonged to the family of Shamash and this deity «himself retained direct control of dreams as a means of communication between gods and men».13 One cannot fail to notice that 1 Enoch’s materials constantly refer to the oneiromantic activities of the patriarch. When Enoch describes one of his dream experiences in the Book of the Watchers (1 Enoch 13:7–9a), this description vividly recalls the model often attested in similar cases of oneiromantic practices. The text reads: «And I went and sat down by the waters of Dan in Dan which is south-west of Hermon; and I read out the record of their petition until I fell asleep. And behold a dream came to me, and vision fell upon me, and I saw a vision of wrath…».14 David Suter observes that what one can say about Enoch in 1 Enoch 13 (and this applies to Daniel and Ezekiel also) is that the narrative has a seer or a prophet engage in the ritual for an incubation oracle by sleeping at a sacred spring. So one has a pseudepigraphic character (at least for Enoch and Daniel) depicted as engaging in an actual ritual.15 Suter’s reference to Daniel, another sage involved in oneiromantic rituals, is significant for understanding the nature and origins of Enoch’s mantic practices. As with Enoch’s situation which draws on the prototype(s) of Mesopotamian diviners, Daniel’s Sitz im Leben also seems to entail these connections. John Collins stresses that the court legends in Daniel 1–6 also have Mesopotamian settings. In these legends Daniel is trained as a Babylonian sage and even appears to be depicted as a member of a guild.16 Despite this affiliation, Daniel’s way of handling mantic dreams is different from known Mesopotamian counterparts, in which these rituals coincide with other divinatory techniques, such as auspicy or lecanomancy.17 In this relation Collins observes that Daniel, like Enoch, too outdoes the Chaldeans at their own task of interpreting dreams and mysterious writings, but he does so by the power of the God of Israel. Daniel, like Enoch, endorses the dream as a medium of revelation but does not resort to the divinatory techniques of the bârû. In each of these cases, the Jewish prophet or wise man is in competition with his
13
VANDERKAM, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition… 60. KNIBB, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch… Vol. 1. 45; Vol. 2. 94. 15 On the practice of incubation in Greco-Roman world, see: J. S. HANSON, Dreams and Visions in the Graeco-Roman World and Early Christianity // Aufstieg und Niedergang der Romischen Welt II (Berlin, 1980) 1395–1427. 16 J. J. COLLINS, Seers, Sybils and Sages in Hellenistic-Roman Judaism (Leiden, 1997) (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 54) 46. 17 See BEDENBENDER, Jewish Apocalypticism… 189–196, esp. 191–193. 14
170
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
Babylonian counterparts and accepts some of their presuppositions but also maintains a distinctive identity. The competitive aspect is not so explicit in the case of Enoch but is implied by the comparison with Enmeduranki.18 In conclusion to the analysis of the oneiromantic ritual from Chapter 13, it should be noted that in 1 Enoch 13:7–9 the terms «dream» and «vision» seem to be used interchangeably.19 VanderKam notes that «Enoch, whom tradition associated with mantic traits, here obtains knowledge about the future through one of the most popular of divinatory media».20 Other parts of 1 Enoch also attest to the patriarch’s visions as mantic dreams. Thus, when in 1 Enoch 83 and 86, the seventh antediluvian patriarch describes his revelations, the text makes explicit that these visions are received in dreams.21 These passages also point to the fact that Enoch’s oneiromantic experiences occurred through his lifetime, possibly even from his early days, which the seer spent in the house of his grandfather Malalel. It is not surprising that other Enochic traditions associated with the Book of Jubilees and the Book of Giants highlight dreams as important media for the patriarch’s revelations. Thus, Jub 4:19 alludes to a vision that Enoch received in sleep-dream in which he saw all the history of humankind until its eschatological consummation: «While he [Enoch] slept he saw in a vision what has happened and what will occur — how things will happen for mankind during their history until the day of judgment».22 Another feature of Enoch’s oneiromantic activities is that the patriarch not only routinely received dreams himself, but as with the Mesopotamian practitioners, was involved in the ritual of interpreting the dreams for others. John Collins points to an important tradition attested in the Book of Giants which also seems to affirm this practice. In this text the rebellious group of the Watchers and Giants seeks the services of Enoch, «the scribe of distinction», asking him to interpret a troubling dream received by a giant, a son of their leader. Collins observes that this «role of dream interpreter provides an 18
COLLINS, Seers, Sybils and Sages in Hellenistic-Roman Judaism… 46. Martin Hengel observes that Enoch «receives his wisdom through dreams (13.8; 14.1; 85.1) and visions (1.2; 37.1; 83.1f.; 93.1f.) — the two can hardly be separated…». M. H ENGEL, Judaism and Hellenism. 2 vols. (Philadelphia, 1974) Vol. 1. 204. 20 VANDERKAM, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition… 134. 21 «I had laid down in the house of my grandfather Malalel, (when) I saw in a vision (how) heaven was thrown down and removed...». «And again I looked with my eyes as I was sleeping, and I saw heaven above…». KNIBB, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch… Vol. 2. 192 and 196. 22 J. C. VANDERKAM, The Book of Jubilees. 2 vols. (Leuven, 1989) (CSCO 510– 11, Scriptores Aethiopici 87–88) Vol. 2. 26–27. 19
A. Orlov
171
interesting association of Enoch with Daniel, and may also be taken to reflect the actual practice of a class of sages in the ancient Near East».23 Finally, the oneiromantic practices of Daniel resemble those routinely performed by Enoch in that both diviners record their dreams immediately upon receiving them. This custom appears to follow a typical Near Eastern oneiromantic rule according to which a diviner usually first records a dream and only then discerns its meaning. In Mesopotamian oneiromantic circles, the dreams/visions were often written down before their interpretation. A classic example of this oneiromantic practice can be found in Dan 7:1, where a visionary, after having a dream vision, proceeds with its exposition only after writing it down. The same oneiromantic practice can be observed in the early Enochic traditions, where Enoch habitually writes down the revelations received from angelic and divine agents. The references to the celestial and terrestrial tablets in Mesopotamian and Enochic lore might also implicitly connect these media of revelation(s) with the aforementioned mantic practices of recording the dream visions.
Enoch as the Primeval Sage Scholars have observed that it is possible that «the oldest feature connected to Enoch is that of the primeval sage».24 This role of the patriarch as a sage preoccupied with primeval knowledge and wisdom often has been considered by students of Enochic traditions to be principally responsible for shaping the patriarch’s legendary profile. Enochic materials often name wisdom as one of the features of the patriarch’s teaching. Thus, for example, 1 Enoch 82:2–3 refers to the knowledge that Enoch transmitted to his son Methuselah as «wisdom»: I have given wisdom to you [Methuselah] and to your children, and to those who will be your children, that they may give (it) to their children for all the generations for ever — this wisdom (which is) beyond their thoughts. And those who understand it will not sleep, but will
23
J. J. COLLINS, Sage in the Apocalyptic and Pseudepigraphic Literature // The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East / Ed. J. G. GAMMIE, L. G. PERDUE (Winona Lake, IN, 1990) 343–354, s. 345. 24 H. S. KVANVIG, Roots of Apocalyptic: the Mesopotamian Background of the Enoch Figure and of the Son of Man (Neukirchen—Vluyn, 1988) (Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 61) 149. Martin Hengel observes that in 1 Enoch «Enoch appears as the prototype of the pious wise man of the primal period… A whole series of features of the Babylonian wise men of the primal period were transferred to his figure, which probably derives from the Babylonian primal king Enmeduranki». HENGEL, Judaism and Hellenism… Vol. 1. 204
172
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
incline their ears that they may learn this wisdom, and it will be better for those who eat (from it) than good food.25 Although the attachment of the predicate «wisdom» to the teaching or personality of other elevated patriarchs and prophets is not an uncommon feature in Jewish pseudepigrapha and can be found even in the Enochic materials (for example, 2 Enoch 30:12 describes the prelapsarian Adam as a possessor of the divine wisdom), the claim that this wisdom has an everlasting nature is rare. It is therefore notable that the passage specifically stresses that the wisdom of the patriarch has perennial value and must be transmitted for the future generations, and even «for all the generations for ever». This eternal quality of the wisdom conveyed by the seventh antediluvian hero to humans is also stressed in the Cairo Genizah manuscript of Sir 44:16 which defines Enoch as the sign of knowledge for all generations (rwdw rwdl t(d tw)).26 Among other early Enochic materials, Jubilees also refers to the wisdom of the patriarch. Thus, Jub 4:17 mentions that «he [Enoch] was the first of mankind who were born on the earth who learned (the art of) writing, instruction, and wisdom…».27 This text seems to stress too the omniscience of the patriarch’s wisdom and understanding, referring to Enoch as the one who saw and understood everything.28 Besides the references to the patriarch’s role as a person endowed with eternal wisdom, some of the Enochic materials seem also to disclose his distinctive title as the wisest person among humans. One such bit of textual evidence can be found in 1 Enoch 92:1, where he is called the wisest person29 (in the Aramaic)30 or the writer of wisdom for future generations (Ethiopic):31 «Enoch, skilled scribe and wisest of men, and the chosen of the sons of men and judge of all the earth…».32
25
KNIBB, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch… Vol. 1. 271; Vol. 2. 187–88. Cairo Genizah MS Ben Sira 44:16. 27 VANDERKAM, The Book of Jubilees… Vol. 1. 24; Vol. 2. 25–26. 28 VANDERKAM, The Book of Jubilees… Vol. 2. 27. The same motif of the omniscience of Enoch’s expertise is repeated in 2 Enoch 40. 29 Josef Milik first proposed that this expression might designate one of Enoch’s titles which he rendered as «wiser than all men». J. T. MILIK, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4 (Oxford, 1976) 262; M. BLACK, The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch (Leiden, 1985) (Studia in Veteris Testamenti pseudepigrapha 7) 283. 30 )#wn) Myk[xw] — [and the wis]est of men (4Q212 ii.23). The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition / Ed. F. GARCÍA MARTÍNEZ, E. J. C. TIGCHELAAR. 2 vols. (Leiden—New York—Köln, 1997) Vol. 1. 442–443. 31 VANDERKAM, Enoch: A Man for All Generations… 113. 32 BLACK, The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch… 84. 26
A. Orlov
173
Besides the patriarch’s title of wise man, this passage also tells its readers about the composite nature of the designation. The appellation «wisest of men» accompanies here three other titles, pointing to the complex nature of the patriarch’s role as the wisest person among humans; this role appears to be interconnected with his other roles or maybe even construed through these designations. In this regard it should be noted that while several early investigations on the Enochic traditions sought to single out Enoch’s title as a sage as his most important designation and demarcate this function from his other roles and titles, they often paid little attention to the significance of other celestial and terrestrial titles and roles of the seventh antediluvian hero which helped shape his role as a sage in various Enochic materials.33 It must therefore be stressed that although Enoch’s role as a sage appears to be important, this function represents a composite office which necessarily includes some of his other roles — for example, an expert in secrets, a mediator, or a diviner — which unfold the various facets of Enoch’s acquisition, handling and transmission of wisdom. This research, therefore, will try to explicate the specific functions of Enoch as a sage through the exposition of his activities in various other offices, such as a scribe, an expert in the secrets, a mediator, among others.
Enoch as the Expert in Secrets Helge Kvanvig observes that the seventh patriarch’s role as a sage cannot be separated from his expertise in celestial mysteries since «in Jewish tradition Enoch is primarily portrayed as a primeval sage, the ultimate revealer of divine secrets».34 The patriarch’s prowess in the heavenly secrets is deeply embedded in the fabric of the Enochic myth and is set against the expertise in the celestial knowledge that the fallen Watchers once possessed.35 John Collins observes that «most significantly, Enoch is implicitly cast as a revealer of mysteries.
33
Thus, for example, Ludin Jansen in his research differentiates between the heavenly and terrestrial profiles of the seventh antediluvian patriarch and argues that in his terrestrial or earthly profile Enoch is portrayed in the roles of a sage and a prophet. H. L. JANSEN, Die Henochgestalt: Eine vergleichende religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (Oslo, 1939) (Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo II. Hist.-Filos. Klasse 1) 13. 34 KVANVIG, Roots of Apocalyptic… 27. 35 Pierre Grelot observes that «Enoch is the originator of prophesy understood as revelation of divine secrets». P. GRELOT, La légende d’Hénoch dans les apocryphes et dans la Bible: Origine et signification // Recherches de science religieuse 46 (1958) 5–26, 181–210; s. 15.
174
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
The Watchers are angels who descend to reveal a worthless mystery.36 Enoch is a human being who ascends to get true revelation».37 The traditions about the patriarch’s expertise in esoteric knowledge are attested in a variety of Enochic materials. In the Astronomical Book the possession and revelation of cosmological and astronomical secrets becomes a major function of the elevated Enoch. The origin of this role in Enochic traditions can be traced to 1 Enoch 72:1, 74:2, and 80:1, which depict the patriarch as a recipient of angelic revelations, including the celestial knowledge of astronomical, meteorological, and calendarical lore. He remains in this capacity in the majority of the materials associated with the early Enochic circle. In 1 Enoch 41:1 Enoch is portrayed as the one who «saw all secrets of heaven».38 Jub. 4:17 also attests to this peculiar role of the seventh patriarch. A large portion of 2 Enoch is devoted to Enoch’s initiation into the treasures of meteorological, calendarical, and astronomical lore during his celestial tour. The Slavonic apocalypse differs from the earlier materials in that it places special emphasis on the secrecy of cosmological revelations, thus demonstrating intriguing similarities with the later rabbinic developments with their stress on the secrecy of ty#)rb h#(m. Later Merkabah developments also underscore the role of Enoch as the «Knower of Secrets». Thus, according to Sy-
36 1 Enoch 16:3 «You were in heaven, but (its) secrets had not yet been revealed to you and a worthless mystery you knew». KNIBB, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch… Vol. 2. 102–103. On the motif of the Watchers’ illicit instruction see: A. Y. REED, What the Fallen Angels Taught: The Motif of Illicit Angelic Instruction and the ReceptionHistory of 1 Enoch in Judaism and Christianity (Ph.D. Dissertation, Princeton University, 2002). 37 COLLINS, Seers, Sybils and Sages in Hellenistic-Roman Judaism… 49. In the same vein Christopher Rowland observes that «there does appear to be a contrast between the Watchers and Enoch. One of the great sins of Azazel is that he has ‘revealed the eternal secrets which were in heaven, which men were striving to learn’ (1 Enoch 9.6). This charge seems a strange one in an apocalypse which sets out to do precisely that for which the angels were condemned. Indeed, in Jub. 4:18ff. Enoch’s fame is based on the fact that he introduced many secrets, including astronomy (cf. 1 Enoch’s 8.3), which the angels are also said to have done. One can only assume that the major difference between Enoch and the angels is the fact that man receives the heavenly mysteries by means of revelation, whereas the angels are guilty of exposing the heavenly mysteries to man without God’s permission. Enoch reveals exactly what he is told to reveal, and, as a result, God only allows man to know sufficient for man’s well-being. The angels, however, usurp God’s right to reveal his mysteries and indulge in a profligate disclosure of the secrets of God». C. ROWLAND, The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity (New York, 1982) 93–94. 38 KNIBB, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch… Vol. 2. 128.
A. Orlov
175
nopse § 14 (3 Enoch 11:2), Enoch-Metatron is able to behold «deep secrets and wonderful mysteries».39 Martin Cohen, in his analysis of the Shicur Qomah materials, observes that this tradition depicts Metatron as «the revealer of the most recondite secrets about Godhead».40 Several remarks should be made about the sources of Enoch’s knowledge. J. Collins’s research points to the passage in the Apocalypse of Weeks (1 Enoch 93:2) that succinctly summarizes the possible means by which the patriarch acquires the esoteric information.41 In this text Enoch informs us that he received it according to that which appeared to him in the heavenly vision, and which he knew from the words of the holy angels and understood from the tablets of heaven.42 The mention of these three sources underscores the fact that the revelations to the patriarch were given on various levels and through various means of mystical perception: seeing (a vision), hearing (oral instructions of angelus interpres) and reading (the heavenly tablets). It is curious that the terminology pertaining to secrets began to play an increasingly significant role in the later stages of the development of the Enochic tradition. While in the earliest Enochic booklets, such as the Astronomical Book and the Book of the Watchers, the terminology pertaining to secrets and mysteries is barely discernable, it looms large in the later Enochic materials such as the Book of the Similitudes,43 2 Enoch and finally the Merkabah
39 P. ALEXANDER, 3 (Hebrew Apocalypse of) Enoch // The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha / Ed. J. H. Charlesworth (New York, 1985 [1983]) Vol. 1. 264; P. SCHÄFER, with M. SCHLÜTER and H. G. VON MUTIUS, Synopse zur Hekhalot-Literatur (Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 2) (Tübingen, 1981) 8–9. 40 M. S. COHEN, The Shi’ur Qomah: Liturgy and Theurgy in Pre-Kabbalistic Jewish Mysticism (Lanham, 1983) 127. 41 COLLINS, Sage in the Apocalyptic and Pseudepigraphic Literature… 345. 42 KNIBB, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch… Vol. 2. 223. 43 See 1 Enoch 71:1–4: «And it came to pass after this that my spirit was carried off, and it went up into the heavens…. And the angel Michael, one of the archangels, took hold of me by my right hand, and raised me, and led me out to all the secrets of mercy and the secrets of righteousness. And he showed me all the secrets of the ends of heaven and all the storehouses of all the stars and the lights, from where they come out before the holy ones». KNIBB, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch… Vol. 2. 165–166. See also 1 Enoch 40:2: «I looked, and on the four sides of the Lord of Spirits I saw four figures different from those who were standing; and I learnt their names, and showed me all the secret things». KNIBB, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch… Vol. 2. 127. Cf. 1 Enoch 41:1–3: «And after this I saw all the secrets of heaven, and how the kingdom is divided, and how the deeds of men are weighed in the balance…. And there my eyes saw the secrets of the flashes of lightning and of the thunder, and secrets of the winds, how they are distributed in order to blow over the earth, and the secrets of the clouds and of the dew». KNIBB, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch… Vol. 2. 128–129. See also 1 Enoch 46:2: «And I asked one of the holy angels who went with
176
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
developments. This growing importance of terminology pertaining to secrets can be illustrated by 2 Enoch. While various manuscripts of 2 Enoch are known under different titles, most of them include the word «secrets».44 In some of these titles the term is connected with Enoch’s books — «The Secret Books of Enoch».45 In other titles, «secrets» are linked either to God («The Book[s] [called] the Secrets of God, a revelation to Enoch»)46 or to Enoch himself («The Book of the Secrets of Enoch»).47 This consistency in the use of the term «secrets», in spite of its varied attribution to different subjects, indicates that the authors or the transmitters of the text viewed the motif of secrets as a central theme of the apocalypse. Finally, one must note that Enoch’s role as one who was initiated into the highest secrets of the universe might be implicitly reflected in his name. While several etymologies for the patriarch’s name have been proposed, many scholars suggest that the patriarch’s name might be related to the Hebrew root h³nk, in the sense «to train up», «to dedicate», or «to initiate» (Deut 20:5; 1 Kings 8:63; 2 Chron 7:5).48 En och… Vol. 2. 131–132. Cf. 1 Enoch 68:1: «And after this my greatgrandfather Enoch gave me the explanation of all the secrets in a book». KNIBB, The Ethiopic me, and showed me all the secrets, about that son of Man, who he was, and whence he was, (and) why he went with the Head of Days». KNIBB, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch… Vol. 2. 131–132. Cf. 1 Enoch 68:1: «And after this my great-grandfather Enoch gave me the explanation of all the secrets in a book». KNIBB, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch… Vol. 2. 158. 44 tainy. 45 MSS A: «From the secret book(s) about the taking away of Enoch the just», Tr.: «Which are called the secret books of Enoch», U: «From the secret books about the taking away of Enoch the just», and Rum.: «From the secret books of Enoch». F. ANDERSEN, 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch // The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha / Ed. J. H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. (New York, 1985 [1983]) Vol. 1. 103; Ì. È. ÑÎÊÎËÎÂ, Ìàòåðèàëû è çàìåòêè ïî ñòàðèííîé ñëàâÿíñêîé ëèòåðàòóðå. Âûï. 3. VII. Ñëàâÿíñêàÿ Êíèãà Åíîõà Ïðàâåäíîãî / Òåêñòû, ëàò. ïåð. è èññëåäîâàíèå. Ïîñìåðòíûé òðóä àâòîðà ïîäãîò. ê èçä. Ì. ÑÏÅÐÀÍÑÊÈÉ // ×òåíèÿ â Îáùåñòâå Èñòîðèè è Äðåâíîñòåé Ðîññèéñêèõ 4 (1910) 1.161; 1.111; and 1.153. 46 MSS V, N: «And these are the books (called) the secrets of God, a revelation to Enoch». ÑÎÊÎËÎÂ, Ìàòåðèàëû è çàìåòêè
Ñëàâÿíñêàÿ Êíèãà Åíîõà
1.83. See also B2: «This is the book of the secrets of God, a revelation to Enoch». Òàì æå. 1.133. 47 P: «The book (about) the secrets of Enoch, the son of Ared», and R: «The books of the holy secrets of Enoch». A. VAILLANT, Le livre des secrets d’Henoch: Texte slave et traduction française (Paris, 1952) 1, and ÑÎÊÎËÎÂ, Ìàòåðèàëû è çàìåòêè
Ñëàâÿíñêàÿ Êíèãà Åíîõà
1.1. 48 VANDERKAM, Enoch: A Man for All Generations… 11. On the etymology of Enoch’s name, see also GRELOT, La légende d’Hénoch dans les apocryphes et dans la Bible… 186; KVANVIG, Roots of Apocalyptic… 41–43.
A. Orlov
177
Enoch as the Scribe This section on the unique scribal functions of the seventh antediluvian patriarch begins with the passage found in 2 Enoch 22, which provides a graphic picture of the patriarch’s initiation into scribal activities. This initiation takes place near the Throne of Glory when the Lord himself commands the archangel Vereveil to give a pen to Enoch so that he can write the mysteries explained to him by the angels. This tradition about the scribal functions of the patriarch reflected in the Slavonic apocalypse was already documented in the earliest Enochic literature.49 The Book of Giants fragments label Enoch a distinguished scribe.50 In Jub. 4:17, he is attested as the one who «learned (the art of) writing, instruction, and wisdom and who wrote down in a book the signs of the sky…».51 In the Merkabah tradition, Enoch/Metatron is also depicted as a scribe who has a seat (later a throne) in the heavenly realm.52 The theme of Enoch-Metatron’s scribal functions became a prominent motif in the later rabbinic traditions where, according to b. Hag. 15a, the privilege of sitting beside God was accorded to Metatron alone by virtue of his character as a scribe, for he was granted permission as a scribe to sit and write down the merits of Israel. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Gen 5:24 describes Metatron as the Great Scribe ()br )rps).53 The important aspect of the early portrayals of Enoch as a scribe is that they depict him in the capacity of both the celestial scribe and the terrestrial
49
In 1 Enoch 74:2, Enoch writes the instructions of the angel Uriel regarding the secrets of the heavenly bodies and their movements. KNIBB, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch… Vol. 2. 173. William Adler draws the reader’s attention to an interesting passage from M. Glycas which refers to Uriel’s instruction to Seth in a manner similar to Uriel’s revelation of the calendarical and astronomical secrets to Enoch in the Astronomical Book of 1 Enoch. «It is said that the angel stationed among the stars, that is the divine Uriel, descended to Seth and then to Enoch and taught them the distinctions between hours, months, seasons, and years». W. ADLER, Time Immemorial: Archaic History and Its Sources in Christian Chronography from Julius Africanus to George Syncellus (Washington, 1989) (Dumbarton Oaks Studies 26) 105. For the Greek text, see Michaelis Glycae Annales / Ed. I. BEKKER (Bonn, 1836) (CSHByz) 228. 50 4Q203 8: «Copy of the seco[n]d tablet of [the] le[tter...] by the hand of Enoch, the distinguished scribe…». The Dead Sea Scrolls… Vol. 1. 411. 51 VANDERKAM, The Book of Jubilees… Vol. 2. 25–26. 52 This tradition can be seen already in 2 Enoch 23:4–6, which depicts the angel Vereveil commanding Enoch to sit down: «“You sit down; write everything...”. And Enoch said, “And I sat down for a second period of 30 days and 30 nights, and I wrote accurately”». ANDERSEN, 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch… 141. 53 Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis / Tr. M. MAHER (Collegeville, 1992) (The Aramaic Bible 1B) 36.
178
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
scribe, as the one who not only records messages from his heavenly guides, but also composes petitions at the request of the creatures from the lower realms, for example, the fallen Watchers/Giants who ask him for mediation. The celestial and terrestrial sides of Enoch’s duties as a scribe reveal the composite nature of this important role. Indeed the patriarch’s scribal office can be seen as a mixture of various activities which the Near Eastern scribe was expected to perform.54 Besides writing, this occupation also presupposes the ability to understand various scripts and languages, since scribal duties required proficiency in copying, i.e., duplicating written materials.55 One will see later the significance of this dimension of Enoch’s scribal activities during his encounters with the celestial tablets from which he often reads and which he also occasionally copies. Another facet of the patriarch’s scribal duties linked to his involvement in the Watchers/Giants’ situation highlights how his scribal duties resemble the functions of the legal scribe whose activities necessarily include settling disputes and writing petitions.56 J. Collins remarks that «Enoch is apparently modeled on the familiar figure of the scribe, whose skill in writing gives him importance not only in communication but also in legal proceedings».57
54
On the scribes and the scribal culture in Mesopotamian and Jewish environments, see M. BAR-ILAN, Writing in Ancient Israel and Early Judaism: Scribes and Books in the Late Second Commonwealth and Rabbinic Period // Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism in Early Christianity / Eds. M. J. Mulder, H. Sysling (Philadelphia, 1989) (Compendia rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum 2.1) 21–38; J. BLENKINSOPP, The Sage, the Scribe, and Scribalism in the Chronicler’s Work // The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East / Ed. J. G. Gammie, L. G. Perdue (Winona Lake, IN, 1990) 307–315; COLLINS, Sage in the Apocalyptic and Pseudepigraphic Literature… 343–354; L. R. MACKFISHER, The Scribe (and Sage) in the Royal Court at Ugarit // The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East / Ed. J. G. Gammie, L. G. Perdue (Winona Lake, IN, 1990) 109–115; D. E. ORTON, The Understanding Scribe: Matthew and the Apocalyptic Ideal (Sheffield, 1989) (JSNTSup 25); A. SALDARINI, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees (Edinburgh, 1989); C. SCHAMS, Jewish Scribes in the Second-Temple Period (Sheffield, 1998) (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament supplement series 291); E. E. URBACH, The Halakha, Its Sources and Development (Jerusalem, 1906) (Yad La-Talmud). 55 This aspect of the scribe as a translator looms large in 2 Enoch 23:2, where Vereveil (Uriel) teaches the elevated patriarch «every kind of language» (the longer recension) and, specifically, «the Hebrew language» (the shorter recension). See ANDERSEN, 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch… 140–141. 56 Kvanvig draws attention to the similar role of Ezra whose title «scribe of the law» indicates the conflation of scribal and legal duties. KVANVIG, Roots of Apocalyptic… 101. 57 COLLINS, Sage in the Apocalyptic and Pseudepigraphic Literature… 344.
A. Orlov
179
Another detail which shows the composite nature of the patriarch’s scribal role is that this office cannot be separated from his initiation into the celestial lore. In early Enochic traditions these two functions appear to be conjoined. The motif of initiation into the secrets as the beginning of scribal activities occupies a substantial role in the Astronomical Book of 1 Enoch, the oldest Enochic material. 58 The same feature is discernable in the Enmeduranki material where the initiation of the practitioner is combined with the motif of the transference to him of a tablet and a stylus. James VanderKam observes that the Astronomical Book not only expands several traits of the patriarch that are briefly mentioned in Genesis 5, but also assigns an entirely new role59 to him, that of a writer60 of angelic discourses.61 VanderKam points out that the beginning of this new activity can be traced to one of the important testimonies in the Astronomical Book that reveals Enoch in his new celestial office. In 1 Enoch 74:262 the patriarch is depicted as the one who writes down the instructions of the angel Uriel regarding the secrets of the heavenly luminaries and their movements: «And Uriel, the holy angel who is the leader of them all, showed me everything, and I wrote down their positions as he showed (them) to me; and I wrote down their months, as they are, and the appearance of their light until fifteen days have been completed».63
58 Both R. H. Charles and M. Black argue that the possible biblical parallel to Enoch’s role as the Scribe could be the passage from Ezekiel 9, which depicts a man clad in white linen with an ink-horn by his side. R. H. CHARLES, Book of Enoch // The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament / Ed. R. H. Charles. 2 vols. (Oxford, 1913) 28; BLACK, The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch… 143. 59 In 1 Enoch 89:62 the scribal function is assigned to Michael. 60 A number of scholars traced the role of Enoch as a celestial scribe back to the Mesopotamian lore about the scribe Nabu. See: H. GUNKEL, Der Schreiberengel Nabû im A. T. und in Judentum // Archiv für Religionswissenschaft 1 (1989) 294–300; H. ZIMMERN, Urkönige und Uroffenbarung // Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament / Eds. E. Schrader et al. 2 vols. (Berlin, 1902–1903) Vol. 2. 530–543, see 400– 406; CHARLES, The Book of Enoch… 28; BLACK, The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch… 143. J. VanderKam criticizes this parallel pointing out that «nothing that is said in either of the compositions [the Astronomical Book and the Book of the Watchers] about his [Enoch] writing corresponds in distinctive ways with the traditions about Nabu, the scribe of the gods». VANDERKAM, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition… 133. 61 VANDERKAM, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition… 104. 62 See also 1 Enoch 82:1: «And now, my son Methuselah, all these things I recount to you and write down for you; I have revealed everything to you and have given you books from the hand of your father, that you may pass (them) on to the generations of eternity». KNIBB, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch… Vol. 2. 187. 63 Ibid. 173.
180
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
It can hardly be a coincidence that the text here names the angel Uriel as the one who initiates Enoch into the scribal activities; this angel is often depicted in the Enochic lore as a scribe himself.64 Later in the Astronomical Book (1 Enoch 81:6), Uriel advises the patriarch to write down the knowledge received in the celestial realm, so that Enoch can share it with his children during his upcoming visitation of the earth. The patriarch’s records made in heaven thus seem to play an important role in the transmission of the celestial secrets to humans in general and in particular to the patriarch’s son Methuselah, who, like Enmeduranki’s son in the Mesopotamian materials, occupies a special place in the mediating activities of the seventh antediluvian hero. One encounters this motif again in 1 Enoch 82:1, when Enoch assures his son Methuselah that he wrote a book for him. It is puzzling that despite these numerous references to the patriarch’s scribal activities, the Astronomical Book does not overtly label Enoch as a scribe. This title with different variations, however, appears in other early Enochic books, including the Book of the Watchers, the Epistle of Enoch, and the Book of Giants. In these writings the patriarch’s scribal duties are surrounded by several titles and honorifics, including «scribe», «scribe of righteousness», «scribe of distinction», and «the most skilled scribe».
Scribe of Righteousness The origin of the scribal titles in Enochic traditions can be traced to the Book of the Watchers, in which Enoch possesses several such titles. Although in 1 Enoch 12:3 the patriarch modestly refers to himself as a scribe, in 1 Enoch 12:4 and 15:11 he is defined by others by the honorific «scribe of righteousness», which, according to Milik can be related to the Aramaic term rps )+#wq. 65 One must note that in extant Enochic materials the patriarch’s scribal honorifics never appear as Enoch’s self-designation, but always come from the mouth of various clients who benefit from the fruits of his scribal expertise. It is therefore natural that the occurrences of the title «scribe of righteousness» are located in the narrative devoted to Enoch’s mission to the Watchers group. 64 For example, in 2 Enoch, Vereveil=Uriel is depicted as a scribe. The exchange in the roles between Enoch and Uriel is intriguing and goes both ways. H. Kvanvig observes that in Pseudo-Eupolemus «Enoch was placed into the same position as Uriel in the Astronomical Book». KVANVIG, Roots of Apocalyptic… 239. 65 MILIK, The Books of Enoch… 191. George Nickelsburg proposes that the title can be related to the Aramaic )+#wq yd rps. G. NICKELSBURG, 1 Enoch I: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36; 81–108 (Hermeneia, Minneapolis, 2001) 65.
A. Orlov
181
In 1 Enoch 12:3–4 Enoch is asked by the faithful Watchers of the heaven to go to their rebellious brethren in order to announce God’s upcoming punishment for the iniquities they committed on earth. The faithful angels address66 the patriarch as «scribe of righteousness»: «And I Enoch was blessing the Great Lord and the King of Eternity, and behold the Watchers called to me, Enoch the scribe, and said to me: «Enoch, scribe of righteousness, 67 go, inform the Watchers of heaven…».68 Chapter 13 of 1 Enoch portrays the patriarch as one who delivers the message of the upcoming judgment for Azazel and other Watchers. The terrified Watchers solicit the patriarch’s help in writing a petition to God, asking for forgiveness. With Enoch’s help the petition is prepared, and during its reading the patriarch falls into a mantic dream in which he sees a vision of wrath. 1 Enoch 14 subsequently emphasizes that the Watchers’ petition will not be granted and that they will be «bound in the earth for all the days of eternity».69 Enoch then travels to the throne of God where the Deity himself addresses him as «righteous man» and «scribe of righteousness», telling the patriarch the truth about the sins of the rebellious angelic group: «And he answered me and said to me with his voice: Hear! Do not be afraid, Enoch, (you) righteous man and scribe of righteousness…» (1 Enoch 15:11).70 It is significant that the title «scribe of righteousness» appears in the narrative dealing with the group of fallen angelic beings and a righteous human destined to play the role of their mediator before God. It is quite possible that the title reflects not only the role of the elevated Enoch as an expert in writing, but his other roles, such as a righteous person, an expert in the «secrets of righteousness», and a witness of the divine judgment.71 Christine Schams observes that the title «scribe of righteousness» suggests that «Enoch was not regarded as a mere professional writer».72 In her opinion the title might be used «in conjunction with other attributes of the person. Most likely, Enoch’s expertise in writing and reading and his reputation as a righteous man, that is
66
It is significant that Enoch’s scribal titles are used by various parties in the Enochic materials. He is recognized with these titles by various subjects including the Watchers (12:4) and God himself (15:1), who like to address the patriarch by referring to his scribal office. In 12:3 the scribal office also becomes the patriarch’s self-definition: «me, Enoch the scribe». 67 In Codex Panopolitanus Enoch is designated as grammateu_j thj~ dikaiosu&nhj. 68 KNIBB, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch… Vol. 1. 41; Vol. 2. 92. 69 Ibid. Vol. 2. 96. 70 Ibid. 100. 71 Schams’ idea that here we deal with one of the composite titles which include several roles of the main character appears to be plausible. 72 SCHAMS, Jewish Scribes in the Second-Temple Period… 94.
182
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
his teaching and knowledge of righteousness and God’s righteous judgment, were combined in his composite title of “scribe of righteousness”».73 The composite nature of the epithet «scribe of righteousness» can be further illuminated through the reference to the Testament of Abraham (recension B) in which Enoch’s title as «scribe of righteousness» is combined with his role as a witness of the divine judgment. Testament of Abraham 11:2–4 reads: And Michael said to Abraham, «Do you see the judge? This is Abel, who first bore witness, and God brought him here to judge. And the one who produces (the evidence) is the teacher of heaven and earth and the scribe of righteousness, Enoch. For the Lord sent them here in order that they might record the sins and the righteous deeds of each person. (B 11:2–4).74 It is intriguing that the Testament of Abraham also brings the scribal title into connection with Enoch’s role as the teacher of heaven and earth, which emphasizes the validity of the patriarch’s teaching not only for the citizens of earth but also for the inhabitants of heaven, i. e. angels. It should be noted that in previous studies scholars tried to illuminate the etymology of the title «scribe of righteousness» by the reference to Enoch’s righteousness. Thus, Josef Milik connects the title with Enoch’s designation as a righteous man. He observes that the epithet «the scribe of righteousness» might underline Enoch’s moral rectitude in a way consonant with the patriarch’s designation as «the righteous man» in 1 Enoch 1:2.75 George Nickelsburg also points to the possible connection of the title «scribe of righteousness» with numerous analogies in Jewish writings from the Greco-Roman period which employ appellations for righteous individuals. He highlights possible links to the Teacher of Righteousness from the Qumran writings including 1 QpHab 1:13 and CD 6:11.76
Scribe of Distinction Qumran Enochic fragments of the Book of Giants (4Q203 8:4 and 4Q530 ii. 14) attest to another of the patriarch’s honorifics, «the scribe of distinction», or «the distinguished scribe», )#rp rps.77 Despite the extremely 73
SCHAMS, Jewish Scribes in the Second-Temple Period… 94. E. P. SANDERS, Testament of Abraham // The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha / Ed. J. H. Charlesworth (New York, 1985 [1983]) Vol. 1. 900. 75 MILIK, The Books of Enoch… 262. 76 NICKELSBURG, 1 Enoch I: A Commentary… 65. 77 MILIK, The Books of Enoch… 260–262 and 305; The Dead Sea Scrolls… Vol. 1. 410–411; Vol. 2. 1062–1063. John Reeves translates the title as «the scribe set apart», 74
A. Orlov
183
fragmentary character of the extant Qumran materials associated with the Book of Giants, the context of the original story can be partially restored with the help of portions of this book extant in the fragments of the Manichean Book of Giants78 and in the later Jewish account known as the Midrash of Shemhazai and Azael.79 One of the fragments (4Q203 8:4–3) in which the title «scribe of distinction» occurs possibly refers to a situation in which a written material (a tablet or a letter) must be delivered to one of the leaders of the rebellious group, Shemihazah, and his companions: «Copy of the seco[n]d tablet of [the] le[tter...] by the hand of Enoch, the distinguished scribe ()#rp rps) [...] and holy (one), to Shemihazah and to all [his] com[panions...]».80 Despite its fragmentary nature, the passage unambiguously connects Enoch with his scribal title, demonstrating that the context of the appellation is linked with his role as an envoy to the Watchers. Here again, as in the case of the previous title «scribe of righteousness», the scribal honorific is not presented as Enoch’s self-definition, nor is it fashioned as an address. The title is rather given as a description, although the context of the narrative or the identity of its possible narrator is difficult to establish. The second fragment in which the identical designation occurs is from another section of the Book of Giants in which the giant Ahya, son of Shemihazah, sees a symbolic dream, the meaning of which the Watchers cannot understand. They decide to approach Enoch and ask the patriarch to interpret the dream: «[…] The Giants could [not] find (someone) to explain to the[m] [the dream … to Enoch,] the scribe of distinction ()#rp rpsl), and he will interpret the dream for us» (4Q530 ii. 13–14).81 The important feature found in the passage is that Enoch’s designation as «distinguished scribe» is combined with the patriarch’s expertise in the intera rendering which underlines Enoch’s separation from human society. Reeves, Jewish Lore, 77. Loren Stuckenbruck highlights another aspect of the title, namely its possible connection with r#p. He argues that in view of this connection, the honorific can be translated as «the scribe of interpretation». L. STUCKENBRUCK, Angel Veneration and Christology (Tübingen, 1995) (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2/70) 117–118. 78 W. B. HENNING, The Book of the Giants // Bulletin of the School of the Oriental and African Studies 11 (1943–46) 52–74; P. O. SKJÆRVØ, Iranian Epic and the Manichean Book of Giants. Irano-Manichaica III // Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae XLVIII (1–2) (1995) 187–223; W. SUNDERMANN, Ein weiteres Fragment aus Manis Gigantenbuch // Hommages et opera minora 9: Orientalia J. Duchesne-Guillemin emerito oblata (Leiden, 1984) (Acta Iranica 23 / Second Series 9) 491–505. 79 This study uses the Hebrew texts and the English translation of the Midrash published in MILIK, The Books of Enoch… 321–328. 80 The Dead Sea Scrolls… Vol. 1. 410–411. 81 Ibid. Vol. 2. 1062–1063.
184
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
pretation of mantic dreams. This detail points to the fact that the honorific «distinguished scribe» also, as the previously analyzed cognomen «scribe of righteousness», represents a composite title. Besides Enoch’s writing skills, this title most likely also expresses his mastery as a mantic diviner who is able to record and interpret mantic dreams. It might further allude to his expertise in legal matters. Milik suggests that this title might qualify Enoch as a professional, distinguished copyist who writes distinctly, clearly, and perhaps also as a redactor of laws which have the force of the judge’s decisions.82 It is possible that the epithets of the patriarch as the righteous scribe and the scribe of distinction are related to his scribal designations by creatures of the upper and lower realms. It was demonstrated above that Enoch is often addressed as the scribe of righteousness by angels and the Deity in the celestial realm. In the Testament of Abraham the same designation comes again from the mouth of an angel in the heavenly realm. In contrast to these addresses, the title «scribe of distinction» appears to be connected with Enoch’s designation(s) in the terrestrial realm. This title may be linked to Enoch’s earthly scribal duties and his distinguished reputation among his earthly clients, including the Watchers/Giants group who are able to discern his «distinction» from other scribes. Such differentiation is less appropriate in the upper realm where the scribal function(s) are usually performed solely by Enoch, and only occasionally by other angels. One must not forget that the great bulk of information about Enoch’s scribal roles and honorifics found in Enochic literature may implicitly point to the social profile of the authors of these writings. John Collins notes that the description of Enoch as «scribe of righteousness» suggests that the author and his circle may have been scribes too.83 He observes that although we know little about the authors of the Enochic writings, the books of Enoch «often speak of a class of the ‘righteous and chosen’ and Enoch, the righteous scribe, must be considered their prototype».84 He further suggests that it is possible that these people «were, or at least included in their number, scribes who were familiar with a wide range of ancient lore and who wrote books in the name of Enoch».85
Enoch as the Mediator The patriarch’s mediatorial functions loom large in Enochic lore and constitute another highly complex and multifaceted role of this character. Early Enochic sources indicate that this role appears to be more complicated than 82
MILIK, The Books of Enoch… 262. COLLINS, Seers, Sybils and Sages in Hellenistic-Roman Judaism… 49. 84 COLLINS, Sage in the Apocalyptic and Pseudepigraphic Literature… 346. 85 Ibid.; COLLINS, Seers, Sybils and Sages in Hellenistic-Roman Judaism… 49. 83
A. Orlov
185
the similar mediatorial duties of Enmeduranki attested in the tablet from Nineveh. In contrast to the king of Sippar, whose mediation involves the task of bringing celestial knowledge to humans, the seventh antediluvian patriarch is portrayed as the one who not only dispatches knowledge from the celestial to the terrestrial realm but also conveys messages received in the lower realms to God and other celestial beings. 86 Of prime importance is that this two-way communication involves specific media of knowledge represented respectively by the heavenly tablets and Enoch’s petitions and testimonies written on behalf of fallen creatures. The patriarch’s mediating duties comprise a whole range of topographical and chronological dimensions. His functions as mediator are not confined to a particular realm or a particular petitioner, since his clients include a range of divine, angelic, human, and composite creatures. In the Book of the Watchers faithful angels of heaven ask him to assist their brethren in the lower realm. In this text he mediates on behalf of the rebellious group which includes the fallen Watchers and the Giants. In 2 Enoch the elders of the earth ask him for intercession. In the Genesis Apocryphon his son Methuselah is successful in obtaining through him special knowledge about the puzzling situation of Lamech. Enoch’s mediating activities also are not limited by specific chronological boundaries. He mediates in the generation of the Flood, but he is also expected to be a mediator and the witness of the Divine judgment in the eschatological period. The shorter recension of 2 Enoch 36:3 stresses the long-lasting scope of the patriarch’s mediating activities when it mentions the Lord’s invitation to Enoch to become his celestial scribe and witness of the divine judgment forever. The range of the patriarch’s mediating activities is also very broad. He mediates knowledge, sharing the esoteric information which he received from various angelic and divine agents with humans. He mediates as intercessor, helping various creatures to record and deliver their petitions to the Creator. He also mediates judgment by recording the sins of humans and writing testimonies. It is apparent that Enoch’s role as mediator interacts with a wide range of other roles and functions: he mediates through his scribal role when he writes petitions and testimonies and copies tablets. He mediates as a diviner who receives and interprets dreams and visions which serve as important mediums between the upper and lower realms. He mediates through the office of 86
Jansen notes that Enoch serves as a mediator between God and the world. JANSEN, Die Henochgestalt... 13. This present study will demonstrate that this Enochic role lays the foundation for the future role of Metatron as the Prince of the World.
186
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
expert in the secrets, transmitting celestial wisdom to human beings. The aforementioned range of Enoch’s mediating activities demonstrates the highly complex nature of this office. Although it is extremely difficult to offer a comprehensive rationale that can effectively schematize all facets of this role, some general comments can be made. One notices that Enoch’s mediating activities can be divided into two major categories: his mediation of knowledge and his mediation of divine judgment. Both spheres seem to represent important centers of the patriarch’s mediating activities. Although mediation of divine judgment cannot be completely separated from Enoch’s mediation of knowledge since the former necessarily includes knowledge of the upcoming judgment that the patriarch possesses and sometimes shares with others, it is useful to confine Enoch’s mediation of divine judgment to a separate category. Indeed, this category appears to be more complex than his mediation of knowledge and can be viewed as encompassing two major activities taking place in two temporal loci. First, a few words must be said about the temporal loci of Enoch’s mediating activities in reference to divine judgment. It appears that the patriarch is predestined to mediate judgment in two significant temporal loci. One of them is the historical locus associated with the generation of the Flood; in this locale Enoch acts as an intercessor and a writer of testimonies to the Watchers, giants and humans. The second locus is eschatological and involves Enoch’s future role as witness of the divine judgment at the end of time.87 These two loci might be seen as the boundaries that demarcate the period covered by Enoch’s prominent role as God’s assistant in divine judgment. Indeed, in the time between the generation of the Flood and the upcoming final judgment, Enoch does not completely abandon his role as the witness of the divine judgment, since early Enochic traditions often depict him as the one who meticulously collects knowledge about the sins and righteous deeds of God’s creatures; this knowledge will be used at the time of the final arbitration. The seventh antediluvian patriarch’s mediation of the divine judgment includes two roles that exhibit his unique position as the middleman between humans and God: the role of the intercessor and the role of a herald of the judgment. In his role as the intercessor, the seventh antediluvian hero acts as a special envoy from creatures to their Creator, bringing petitions and pleas to God. In his role as the herald of judgment the patriarch behaves as a messenger from the Creator warning the creatures of lower realms about future punishment. The role of envoy to both parties, divine and human, becomes possible not only through the patriarch’s knowledge of the «secrets of the divine judg87 2 Enoch 36:3 (the longer recension): «you will be for me a witness of the judgment of the great age». ANDERSEN, 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch… 161.
A. Orlov
187
ment» but also through his understanding of the secrets of the human heart. The later Hekhalot materials specifically stress Enoch-Metatron’s expertise in the mysteries not only of the Creator but also of the creatures. In Synopse §14 (3 Enoch 11) Enoch-Metatron conveys to R. Ishmael that «before a man thinks in secrets, I see his thought; before he acts, I see his act. There is nothing in heaven above or deep within the earth concealed from me».88 In view of the multifaceted nature of the Enochic mediation, the further investigation of this role will be divided into three sections. The first section will deal with Enoch’s mediation of knowledge; this mediation is mainly represented by his transmission of sacred knowledge to people of earth in general and to his son in particular. The second section will deal with the historical locus of his mediation of judgment, and in particular with his dealings with the Watchers/Giants. Finally, the third section will deal with the patriarch’s role as the eschatological witness of the divine judgment and the writer of testimonies to the sinners of the earth.
Mediation of Knowledge It has been previously noted that the patriarch’s roles as the expert in secrets and the scribe are interconnected in the early Enochic booklets. One of the significant links that unifies these two roles is the special knowledge that Enoch receives from angels and then must write down. The function of mediating knowledge is also what connects these two roles with the patriarch’s role as mediator. This tripartite cluster in which the seventh antediluvian patriarch acts simultaneously as a scribe, an expert in secrets, and a mediator is prominent in the Enochic materials and can be found already in the Astronomical Book (1 Enoch 82:1) where Enoch is depicted as a transmitter of special knowledge to his son Methuselah: «And now, my son Methuselah, all these things I recount to you and write down for you; I have revealed everything to you and have given you books about all these things. Keep, my son Methuselah, the books from the hand of your father, that you may pass (them) on to the generations of eternity».89 In the passage from the Astronomical Book, as in the previously analyzed text about Enmeduranki,90 three roles of the seventh antediluvian hero, namely, 88
ALEXANDER, 3 (Hebrew Apocalypse of) Enoch… 264. KNIBB, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch… Vol. 2. 187. 90 Collins’ research highlights the importance of Enmeduranki’s mediating functions for the development of Enoch’s role as a mediator. He points out that in the Mesopotamian tradition Enmeduranki, who receives the tablet and the instructions about the divinatory knowledge in the assembly of the gods, later transmits this knowledge to the bârû guild. Collins observes that «Enoch too is taken into the heavenly council and shown the tablets of heaven. While the Jewish text does not pick up the 89
188
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
his expertise in the secrets, his scribal activities and his role as a mediator, are tied together through the reference to the tablet dispatched to the hero, which serves as an important unifying symbol for this cluster of his roles.91 There is little doubt that Enoch’s writings in themselves represent the mediatorial tools, the media that are able to bridge the vertical and horizontal boundaries: the frontier lines between celestial and earthly realms, as well as the line of catastrophic demarcation between antediluvian and postdiluvian generations. The motif of Enoch’s writings as a mediatorial device for bridging the flood catastrophe is recurrent in Enochic traditions. Enoch’s writings serve the purpose of preserving knowledge in light of the impending flood. In 2 Enoch 33 God reveals to Enoch that the main function of his writings is the dissemination of knowledge and its preservation from the impending catastrophe: And give them the books in your handwriting, and they will read them and they will acknowledge me as the Creator of everything… And let them distribute the books in your handwritings, children to children and family to family and kinfolk to kinfolk.... So I have commanded my angels, Ariukh and Pariukh, whom I have appointed to the earth as their guardians, and I commanded the seasons, so they might preserve them [books] so they might not perish in the future flood which I shall create in your generation.92 Here again the three aforementioned roles of the patriarch are observable: Enoch’s scribal activities, his mediatorial role, and his role as an expert in secrets. The last role is hinted at through the reference to the guardian angels of Enoch’s writing. Despite the apparent esoteric character of the knowledge conveyed by the angels and God to the seventh antediluvian patriarch, the dissemination of this information remains one of the major functions of Enoch-Metatron in various Enochic materials. They depict him as the one who shares astronomical, meteorological, calendarical, and eschatological knowledge with his sons and others during his short visit to the earth. He also delivers knowledge about the future destruction to the Watchers/Giants. In the Merkabah tradition, Enoch-Metatron is also responsible for transmitting the highest secrets to the Princes under him, as well as to humankind.
Babylonian methods of divination, Enoch corresponds to Enmeduranki insofar as he is a primeval archetypal mediator of revelation». COLLINS, Sage in the Apocalyptic and Pseudepigraphic Literature… 346. 91 Compare with the Enmeduranki tradition: «The learned savant, who guards the secrets of the great gods, will bind his son whom he loves with an oath before Shamash and Adad by tablet and stylus and will instruct him». 92 ANDERSEN, 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch… 156.
A. Orlov
189
A significant aspect of this Enochic role is that this transmission of knowledge from celestial to earthly agents is executed not only through the written medium of the celestial books or the tablets, but also orally. In 1 Enoch 82:1 the patriarch says that for his son’s sake, he will recount and write down the things that he learned himself. Commenting on this passage, James VanderKam observes that «there is no mistaking the fact that Enoch relayed Uriel’s revelations to Methuselah both orally and in writings».93 The event of oral instruction leads us to another Enochic role, teacher or instructor, which becomes a prominent theme later in the Merkabah tradition.94 Here Enoch-Metatron is portrayed as the Prince of Torah (Sar Torah) whose function is to instruct the visionaries in the secrets of the Torah and to educate the souls of the deceased infants in the wisdom of the Scriptures.95 This aspect of oral instruction plays a significant role already in 2 Enoch. Despite the explicit references to the Enochic books, a large body of the text is devoted to the extended oral instructions of Enoch to his sons, including Methuselah and the people of the earth. Later Hekhalot materials refer to the adjuration of the Prince of Torah, who sometimes is identified in these texts with Metatron. One must not however forget that already in some early Enochic traditions as in the later Merkabah developments, the oral transmission of celestial knowledge can be initiated not simply by the elevated Enoch or some other angelic agent but also upon the request of humans. Here one can possibly see the beginning of the adjuration pattern prominent in later Jewish mysticism in general and in Hekhalot literature in particular. Thus, in some early Enochic texts, Methuselah is often depicted not only as a passive recipient of the traditions passed on to him by his elevated father but also, in a manner similar to the later Merkabah visionaries who invoke the Sar Torah, as someone who can actively initiate the quest for special knowledge from his heavenly patron. This motif is evident in 1 Enoch 106 and the Genesis Apocryphon, where Methuselah approaches Enoch in order to obtain knowledge about Lamech’s puzzling situation. According to these narratives, when Methuselah learned about Lamech’s suspicions, he decided to ask advice from Enoch. The Genesis Apocryphon reads: «he (Methuselah) left for the higher level, to Parvaim, and there he met Enoch, [his father...]».96 The 93
VANDERKAM, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition… 104. On Metatron’s role as a teacher in rabbinic literature, see COHEN, Liturgy and Theurgy… 126ff. 95 See also Enoch’s designation as the «teacher of heaven and earth» in the Testament of Abraham 11. 96 The Dead Sea Scrolls… Vol. 1. 31. The similar tradition in 1 Enoch 106:8 reads, «And when Methuselah heard the words of his son, he came to me [Enoch] at the ends of the earth, for he had heard that I was there». KNIBB, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch… Vol. 2. 245. 94
190
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
active role of Methuselah is highlighted by the motif of his travel to «the higher level», Parvaim, where he encounters Enoch. Genesis Apocryphon further tells us that «he (Methuselah) said to Enoch, his father: O my father and lord, to whom I have co[me...] [...] I say to you: Do not be annoyed with me because I came here to [...] you [...] fear (?) before you [...]».97 This ability of Methuselah to initiate the request for urgently needed information might also be reflected in the testimony preserved by Pseudo-Eupolemus, which attests to a tradition according to which «Methuselah ... learned all things through the help of the angels of God, and thus we gained our knowledge».98 A related motif is found in 2 Enoch 38, which depicts Enoch’s transition to earth after his transformation near the throne of Glory. The passage specifically mentions Methuselah as the one who was anticipating Enoch’s arrival, «mounting strict guard»99 at his bed. Although 2 Enoch 38 does not contain any explicit references to adjurational practices, this motif of awaiting the descent of the angel coupled with the reference to the ascetic practice of «mounting strict guard», is provocative and can be compared to the later Hekhalot Sar Torah accounts with their emphasis on ascetic preparations for the adjuration of the Sar Torah.
Mediation of the Divine Judgment: Enochís Intercession for the Watchers It has been previously mentioned that Enoch’s mediation of the divine judgment is connected with two important chronological points: the generation of the Flood, when he was appointed by God as a special envoy to the rebellious group of the Watchers, and the eschatological locus, where he is predestined to become the witness of the divine judgment at the end of times.100 This section of the investigation will deal with Enoch’s functions as a mediating force between God and the fallen Watchers/Giants, both as an intercessor and as a witness of judgment. In various Enochic materials, the patriarch is pictured as a special messenger of the Deity to the Watchers/Giants — a messenger with a unique, long-lasting mission to this rebellious group, both on earth and in other realms. The Book of the Watchers depicts him as the intercessor for the fallen angels. His mission entails not only compassion for the fallen creatures but also the message of condemnation of their sins. According to Jub. 4:22, Enoch «testi97 98
The Dead Sea Scrolls… Vol. 1. 31. C. HOLLADAY, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors (Chico, Calif., 1983)
I.175. 99
ANDERSEN, 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch… 162. Martin Hengel stresses the multifaceted nature of the patriarch’s duties in the economy of the divine judgment. HENGEL, Judaism and Hellenism… Vol. 1. 204. 100
A. Orlov
191
fied to the Watchers who had sinned with the daughters of men…. Enoch testified against all of them».101 In the Book of Giants Enoch delivers the written sermon, reprimanding the Watchers/Giants’ sinful behavior and warning them about the upcoming punishment.102 Enoch’s mediating efforts are not limited solely to the fallen Watchers, but also include their faithful counterparts in heaven, who remained untouched by sin. 2 Enoch 18 portrays Enoch’s preaching to the Watchers of heaven during his celestial tour; he encourages them and suggests that they start the liturgy before the face of the Lord.103 Enoch’s role as the envoy to angels tells us something new about his position. VanderKam observes that «in 1 Enoch 12–16 the patriarch assumes a status far higher than he had enjoyed in earlier descriptions of him. In the Astronomical Book he relayed to his son and posterity the scientific information that Uriel had divulged to him, but here he becomes a mediating envoy between the Lord and the angels on whose behalf he intercedes».104 This observation points to a significant difference in two mediating events. In the Astronomical Book the patriarch serves as a liaison between his angelic guide who entrusted him with celestial knowledge and the creatures of flesh and blood whom he must enlighten about the angelic secrets. In the Book of the Watchers Enoch’s status as mediator is much higher because he serves as an intermediary between the fallen angels and God. In this capacity as a middleman between the angelic group and the Deity, his status as intercessor is even higher than that of angels, since their sins (or the sins of their associates, as in the case of the faithful watchers of heaven) place them now below the elevated humanity of the patriarch. The patriarch’s role as intercessor thus poses a paradox, resisting the traditional understanding of the intercession in which an angelic being must assume the role of intercessor on behalf of the creatures of flesh and blood. In 1 Enoch 15:2 God himself points to the paradox of Enoch’s role: «And go, say to the Watchers of heaven who sent you to petition on their behalf: “You ought to petition on behalf of men, not men on behalf of you”».105 VanderKam observes that «Enoch becomes an official mediator for the angels because their crimes had made them too ashamed to approach their former heavenly home again».106 The important aspect here is that the Watchers are not only ashamed to approach the Deity, they also seem to have lost their ability to serve effectively as mediators even on their own behalf. It is inter101
VANDERKAM, The Book of Jubilees… Vol. 2. 27–28. See 4Q203 8. 103 ANDERSEN, 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch… 130–33. 104 VANDERKAM, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition… 131. 105 KNIBB, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch… Vol. 2. 100. 106 VANDERKAM, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition… 132. 102
192
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
esting to note that the text implies that under current conditions even the faithful Watchers of heaven are not able to serve as mediators between God and their former colleagues in the lower realm. Thus, 1 Enoch 12:3–13:1 implies the superiority of Enoch as a mediator even over the angels of heaven. The text depicts the faithful Watchers of heaven asking the patriarch to serve as an intermediary between God and their fallen brethren: And I Enoch was blessing the Great Lord and the King of Eternity, and behold the Watchers called to me, Enoch the scribe, and said to me: «Enoch, scribe of righteousness, go inform the Watchers of heaven who left the high heaven and the holy place, and have corrupted themselves with the women…».107 VanderKam observes that in Chapters 12–16 of 1 Enoch, «Enoch plays an intriguing and suggestive role: though he is a human being, he serves as an intermediary between angelic groups. He brings to the evil Watchers, who sinned with women and thereby unleashed all manner of evil on the earth, the announcement that they will have no peace…».108 In 1 Enoch 13:3–4 one can hear a similar request for mediation by the patriarch from the fallen Watchers who, trembling before Enoch, ask him to write a petition from them to the Lord of heaven: «Then I went and spoke to them all together, and they were all afraid; fear and trembling seized them. And they asked me to write out for them the record of a petition that they might receive forgiveness, and to take the record of their petition up to the Lord in heaven».109 Chapters 12–16 of 1 Enoch depict the patriarch repeatedly crossing the boundaries between celestial and terrestrial worlds on behalf of his clients in the lower and upper realms. Observing Enoch’s voyages, VanderKam notes that «Enoch, like the sinful angels, was one who crossed boundaries, but he, unlike them, retained the ability to retrace his steps. The angels, once they had committed themselves to the life of flesh and blood, lost the ability to return».110 One must note that in the mediating encounters with the Watchers’ group the patriarch uses the medium of the written word. The fragments of the Book of Giants testify to the multifaceted nature of these activities. Here again the scribal role of the patriarch is closely connected with his office as mediator. Collins recognizes the connection between both duties, noting that «Enoch … is introduced initially in the role of scribe, and his function is one of intermediary between the angels in heaven and their fallen brethren on earth».111 107
KNIBB, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch… Vol. 2. 92. VANDERKAM, Enoch: A Man for All Generations… 28. 109 KNIBB, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch… Vol. 2. 93. 110 VANDERKAM, Enoch: A Man for All Generations… 44. 111 COLLINS, Sage in the Apocalyptic and Pseudepigraphic Literature… 344. 108
A. Orlov
193
Mediation of the Divine Judgment: Enoch as Eschatological Witness Chapter 36 of the short recension of 2 Enoch depicts the Lord appointing the elevated patriarch to several newly-acquired celestial offices, including those of the expert in secrets, the heavenly scribe, and the servant of the Divine Face: «and you will be in front of my face from now and forever. And you will be seeing my secrets, and you will be scribe for my servants … and you will be for me a witness of the judgment of the great age».112 The significant feature of this description is that, besides the three roles previously explored in the investigation, it contains a reference to Enoch’s office as a «witness of the divine judgment». This eschatological role of the patriarch will later occupy a prominent part in early Jewish mysticism, where Metatron is named as )twdhs)d hbr )r#, a great angel (prince) of testimony. In the Merkabah tradition he appears also as the heavenly advocate defending Israel in the celestial court. It is possible that Enoch’s role as a witness of the divine judgment has Mesopotamian roots. Alfred Haldar’s research demonstrates that in some Mesopotamian texts a bârû practitioner was considered an assistant to the «lords of decision», Shamash and Adad, the deities responsible for judgment. According to one Mesopotamian text, «the bârû shall seat himself before Shamash and Adad on the tribunal and then judge a judgment of right and righteousness. Shamash and Adad, the great gods, the Lords of vision, the Lords of decision, appear before him in order to decide a decision (and) answer him with a faithful yea».113 In early Enochic materials the patriarch’s roles as a witness and the author of a testimony occur often. Their significance is effectively summarized in the Book of Jubilees,114 where a relatively short account of Enoch’s activities is literally saturated with the motifs and themes pertaining to his position as a witness of the divine judgment. According to Jub 4:19,115 He saw in a vision what has happened and what will occur — how things will happen for humankind during their history until the day of judgment. He saw everything and understood. He wrote a testimony 112
ANDERSEN, 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch… 161. HALDAR, Associations of Cult Prophets… 3. 114 See also 4Q227 2 (Pseudo-Jubilees): «[… E]noch after taught him [ ] six jubilees of years [the ea]rth among the sons of mankind. And he testified against all of them. [ ] and also against the watchers. And he wrote all the [ ] sky and the path of their host and the [mon]ths [ s]o that the ri[ghteous] should not err». VANDERKAM, Enoch: A Man for All Generations… 128. 115 For a through analysis of this role in the Book of Jubilees, see NICKELSBURG, 1 Enoch I: A Commentary… 75–76. 113
194
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
for himself and placed it upon the earth against all mankind and for their history.116 As with Enoch’s mediation in knowledge, which was carried out through distinctive written materials (tablets/books and petitions), the mediation of divine judgment again is executed through the written medium: Enoch’s testimony, depicted as a writing placed on the earth. This latter feature may indicate that this written evidence, just like some of Enoch’s other records, also bridged the boundaries between the earthly and celestial realms.117 One must note that Enoch’s role as the witness of the divine judgment is rooted in his extraordinary personal situation: he was able to become a righteous person in the generation prominent for its iniquities. This is why according to the Greek text of Ben Sira 44:16, Enoch is predestined to serve as the «sign of repentance for the generations». This unique destiny also makes him the witness of the divine judgment at the time of the final condemnation. Jub 4:23–24 attests to this peculiar role of the patriarch: He was taken from human society, and we led him into the Garden of Eden for (his) greatness and honor. Now he is there writing down the judgment and condemnation of the world and all the wickedness of mankind. Because of him the flood water did not come on any of the land of Eden because he was placed there as a sign and to testify against all people in order to tell all the deeds of history until the day of judgment.118 It has been already mentioned that Enoch’s role as witness of the divine judgment appears to have two loci: historical and eschatological. He was able to testify in a temporal locus which was situated in the antediluvian generation: «he testified to the Watchers who had sinned with the daughters of men because these had begun to mix with earthly women so that they became defiled. Enoch testified against all of them».119 He also will testify against sinners of all generations in the final day of judgment at the end of the times. 120 116
VANDERKAM, The Book of Jubilees… Vol. 2. 26–27. In 4Q530 II the information about Enoch’s roles as the scribe of distinction and a dream interpreter is found in the scene of the divine judgment in which «[book]s were opened and the sentence was proclaimed. And the sentence [… in a book] was [wri]tten, and recorded in an inscription […] for all the living and the flesh and upon…». The Dead Sea Scrolls… Vol. 2. 1065. 118 VANDERKAM, The Book of Jubilees… Vol. 2. 28. 119 Jub 4:22. VANDERKAM, The Book of Jubilees… Vol. 2. 27–28. 120 In the Similitudes Enoch appears to be identified with the messianic figure enthroned in heaven to whom all judgment is deferred. It is suggestive that in one of the Ethiopic witneses of 1 Enoch 92:1, the patriarch is labeled as «the praiseworthy 117
A. Orlov
195
A passage found in one of the recensions of the Testament of Abraham seems to allude to this eschatological role of the seventh patriarch; Enoch is depicted as witness of the divine judgment,121 helping Abel, who is the eschatological judge: And Michael said to Abraham, «Do you see the judge? This is Abel, who first bore witness, and God brought him here to judge. And the one who produces (the evidence) is the teacher of heaven and earth and the scribe of righteousness, Enoch. For the Lord sent them here in order that they might record the sins and the righteous deeds of each person». And Abraham said, «And how can Enoch bear the weight of the souls, since he has not seen death? Or how can he give the sentence of all the souls?» And Michael said, «If he were to give sentence concerning them, it would not be accepted. But it is not Enoch’s business to give sentence; rather the Lord is the one who gives sentence, and it is this one’s (Enoch’s) task only to write. For Enoch prayed to the Lord saying, “Lord, I do not want to give the sentence of the souls, lest I become oppressive to someone”. And the Lord said to Enoch, “I shall command you to write the sins of a soul that makes atonement, and it will enter into life. And if the soul has not made atonement and repented, you will find its sins (already) written, and it will be cast into punishment”» (B 11:2–10).122 At the conclusion of this section, another detail connected with Enoch’s role as witness of the divine judgment must be mentioned. It appears that this prominent role includes the duty of visiting places connected with the scenes of the current and the eschatological judgments. In a variety of Enochic traditions, the patriarch is depicted as a seer led by his angelic guides to the places of the execution of the divine judgment, as well as to the terrifying places where various sinful creatures await their final trial(s).123 He must travel to the frontiers of the abyss, where in the fiery cosmic prisons, angelic hosts are punished for their iniquities. On these journeys Enoch often sees both preliminary and final places of the punishment of the fallen angels. One of the passages found in 1 Enoch 21:1–8 might give a hint of the emotions that judge of all the earth». MILIK, The Books of Enoch… 263. Black observes that «the epithet ‘judge’ as applied to Enoch would anticipate the role of the Son of Man at 69.27». BLACK, The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch… 283. 121 J. VanderKam defines Enoch’s role in the Testament of Abraham as «the prosecuting attorney». VANDERKAM, Enoch: A Man for All Generations… 157. 122 SANDERS, Testament of Abraham… 900. 123 On cosmological space as a place for punishment see P. M. VENTER, Die funksie van ruimte in die reisverhale in 1 Henog 12–36 // Hervormde Teologiese Studies 56 (2000) 38–62.
196
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
Enoch is predestined to experience in his encounter with the places of the divine judgment: And I saw a terrible thing — neither the high heaven, nor the (firmly) founded earth, but a desert place, prepared and terrible. And there I saw seven stars of heaven bound on it together like great mountains, and burning like fire. … And from there I went to another place, more terrible than this, and I saw a terrible thing: (there was) a great fire there which burned and blazed, and the place had a cleft (reaching) to the abyss, full of great pillars of fire which were made to fall; neither its extent nor its size could I see, nor could I see its source. Then I said: «How terrible this place (is), and (how) painful to look at!»124
Enoch as the Heavenly Priest Enmeduranki’s priestly office, which is only implicitly hinted at in the text from Nineveh, finds its possible Enochic counterpart in the priestly role of the seventh patriarch. In contrast to Enmeduranki’s appointments in the earthly sanctuary Ebabbara, the Enochic tradition shifts emphasis from the earthly to the celestial locale in depicting the seventh antediluvian hero, not in his terrestrial priestly role, but in the role associated with the heavenly temple. This role is attested with varying degrees of clarity by early Enochic traditions found in the Book of the Watchers, the Book of Dreams and the Book of Jubilees. Enoch’s affiliations with the priestly office in the aforementioned texts can be seen as the gradual evolution from the implicit hints of his heavenly priesthood in the early materials to a more overt recognition and description of his celestial sacerdotal function in the later ones. While later Enochic traditions attested in the Book of Jubilees unambiguously point to Enoch’s priestly role, referring to his incense sacrifice in the celestial sanctuary, the earlier associations of the patriarch with the heavenly Temple hinted at in the Book of the Watchers take the form of rather enigmatic depictions. A certain amount of exegetical work is therefore required to discern the proper meaning of these initial associations of the patriarch with the celestial sanctuary. Martha Himmelfarb’s research helps us better understand Enoch’s possible connections with the celestial sanctuary in the Book of the Watchers, the account which depicts the ascension of the seventh antediluvian patriarch to the Throne of Glory as a visitation of the heavenly Temple.125 1 Enoch 14:9– 18 reads: 124
KNIBB, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch… Vol. 2. 107–8. M. HIMMELFARB, The Temple and the Garden of Eden in Ezekiel, the Book of the Watchers, and the Wisdom of ben Sira // Sacred Places and Profane Spaces: Essays in the Geographics of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam / Eds. J. Scott, P. Simp125
A. Orlov
197
And I proceeded until I came near to a wall which was built of hailstones, and a tongue of fire surrounded it, and it began to make me afraid. And I went into the tongue of fire and came near to a large house which was built of hailstones, and the wall of that house (was) like a mosaic (made) of hailstones, and its floor (was) snow. Its roof (was) like the path of the stars and flashes of lightning, and among them (were) fiery Cherubim, and their heaven (was like) water. And (there was) a fire burning around its wall, and its door was ablaze with fire. And I went into that house, and (it was) hot as fire and cold as snow, and there was neither pleasure nor life in it. Fear covered me and trembling, I fell on my face. And I saw in the vision, and behold, another house, which was larger than the former, and all its doors (were) open before me, and (it was) built of a tongue of fire. And in everything it so excelled in glory and splendor and size that I am unable to describe to you its glory and its size. And its floor (was) fire, and above (were) lightning and the path of the stars, and its roof also (was) a burning fire. And I looked and I saw in it a high throne, and its appearance (was) like ice and its surrounds like the shining sun and the sound of Cherubim.126 Commenting on this passage, Himmelfarb draws the readers’ attention to the description of the celestial edifices which Enoch encounters in his approach to the Throne. She notes that the Ethiopic text reports that, in order to reach God’s Throne, the patriarch passes through three celestial constructions: a wall, an outer house, and an inner house. The Greek version of this narrative mentions a house instead of a wall. Himmelfarb observes that «more clearly in the Greek, but also in the Ethiopic this arrangement echoes the structure of the earthly temple with its vestibule (Mlw)), sanctuary (lkyh), and holy of holies (rybd).127
son-Housley (New York, 1991) 63–78; IDEM, Apocalyptic Ascent and the Heavenly Temple // Society of Biblical Literature 1987 Seminar Papers (Atlanta, GA, 1987) (Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 26) 210–217. Martha Himmelfarb’s research draws on the previous publications of Johann Maier and George Nickelsburg. See: J. MAIER, Das Gefährdungsmotiv bei der Himmelsreise in der jüdischen Apocalyptik und «Gnosis» // Kairos 5 (1) (1963) 18–40, esp. 23; J. MAIER, Vom Kultus zur Gnosis (Salzburg, 1964) (Kairos 1) 127–128; G. W. E. NICKELSBURG, Enoch, Levi, and Peter: Recipients of Revelation in Upper Galilee // JBL 100 (1981) 575–600, esp. 576–582. See also KVANVIG, Roots of Apocalyptic… 101–102; D. HALPERIN, The Faces of the Chariot: Early Jewish Responses to Ezekiel’s Vision (Tübingen, 1988) (Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 16) 81. 126 KNIBB, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch… Vol. 1. 50–52; Vol. 2. 98–99. 127 HIMMELFARB, Apocalyptic Ascent and the Heavenly Temple… 210.
198
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
God’s throne is located in the innermost chamber of this heavenly structure and is represented by a throne of cherubim (14:18). It can be seen as a heavenly counterpart to the cherubim found in the Holy of Holies in the Jerusalem temple. In drawing parallels between the descriptions of the heavenly Temple in the Book of the Watchers and the features of the earthly sanctuary, Himmelfarb observes that the fiery cherubim which Enoch sees on the ceiling of the first house (Ethiopic) or middle house (Greek) of the heavenly structure represent not the cherubim of the divine throne, but images that recall the figures on the hangings on the wall of the tabernacle mentioned in Exod 26:1, 31; 36:8, 35 or possibly the figures which, according to 1 Kings 6:29, 2 Chr 3:7 and Ezek 41:15–26, were engraved on the walls of the earthly temple.128 Several comments must be made about the early traditions and sources that may lie behind the descriptions of the upper sanctuary in 1 Enoch 14. Scholars observe that the idea of heaven as a temple was not invented by the author of the Book of the Watchers; the concept of the heavenly temple as a celestial counterpart of the earthly sanctuary was widespread in the ancient Near East129 and appears in a number of biblical sources.130 Students of Jewish priestly traditions have observed that the existence of such a conception of the heavenly sanctuary appears to become increasingly important in times of religious crises, when the earthly sanctuaries were either destroyed or defiled by improper rituals or priestly successions.131 Returning to the analysis of 1 Enoch 14, one must examine the motif of the servants of the heavenly sanctuary depicted in that text. Himmelfarb argues that the priests of the heavenly temple in the Book of the Watchers appear to be represented by angels,132 since the author of the text depicts them 128
HIMMELFARB, Apocalyptic Ascent and the Heavenly Temple… 211. R. J. CLIFFORD, The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament (Cambridge, Mass., 1972) 177–180. 130 HIMMELFARB, The Temple and the Garden of Eden… 68. 131 For an extensive discussion of this subject, see Gemeinde ohne Tempel/Community without Temple: Zur Substituierung und Transformation des Jerusalemer Temples und seines Kults im Alten Testament, antiken Judentum und frühen Christentum / Eds. B. EGO et al. (Tübingen, 1999) (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 118); R. ELIOR, From Earthly Temple to Heavenly Shrines: Prayer and Sacred Song in the Hekhalot Literature and Its Relation to Temple Traditions // Jewish Studies Quarterly 4 (1997) 217–267; IDEM, The Priestly Nature of the Mystical Heritage in Heykalot Literature // Expérience et écriture mystiques dans les religions du livre: Actes d’un colloque international tenu par le Centre d’études juives Université de Paris IV — Sorbonne 1994 / Eds. R. B. Fenton, R. Goetschel (Leiden, 2000) (Etudes sur le judaïsme médiéval 22) 41–54. 132 David Suter’s and George Nickelsburg’s earlier research pointed to the possibility that the Fall of the Watchers in the Book of the Watchers can be interpreted as a 129
A. Orlov
199
as the ones who are «standing before God’s throne in the heavenly temple».133 In her opinion, such identification can also be implicitly supported by the motif of intercession, which represents «a central priestly task». Himmelfarb also points to the possibility that in the Book of the Watchers the patriarch himself in the course of his ascent becomes a priest,134 similarly to the angels.135 In this perspective the angelic status of patriarch and his priestly role136 are viewed as mutually interconnected. Himmelfarb stresses that «the author of the Book of the Watchers claims angelic status for Enoch through his service in the heavenly temple» since «the ascent shows him passing through the outer court of the temple and the sanctuary to the door of the holy of holies, where God addresses him with his own mouth».137 George Nickelsburg’s earlier research on the temple symbolism in 1 Enoch 14 provides important additional details relevant to this discussion. Nickelsburg argues that Enoch’s active involvement in the vision of the Lord’s throne, when he passes through the chambers of the celestial sanctuary, might indicate that the author(s) of the Book of the Watchers perceived him as a servant associated with the activities in these chambers. Nickelsburg points to the fact that Enoch’s vision of the Throne in the Book of the Watchers is «qualitatively different from that described in the biblical throne visions» because
typological reference to the exogamy of priests who, similar to the fallen angels, violated the boundaries of the cultic purity by marrying non-Israelite women. For the detailed discussion of the subject, see D. SUTER, Fallen Angel, Fallen Priest: The Problem of Family Purity in 1 Enoch // Hebrew Union College Annual 50 (1979) 115–35. NICKELSBURG, Enoch, Levi, and Peter... See also C. N. T. FLETCHER-LOUIS, All the Glory of Adam: Liturgical Anthropology in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Leiden, 2002) (STDJ 42) 22. 133 HIMMELFARB, Apocalyptic Ascent and the Heavenly Temple… 211. 134 David Halperin’s research also stresses the «apocalyptic» priestly function of Enoch in the Book of the Watchers. He observes that «Daniel and Enoch share an image, perhaps drawn from the hymnic tradition of merkabah exegesis (think of the Angelic liturgy), of God surrounded by multitudes of angels. But, in the Holy of Holies, God sits alone....The angels, barred from the inner house, are the priests of Enoch’s heavenly Temple. The high priest must be Enoch himself, who appears in the celestial Holy of Holies to procure forgiveness for holy beings». HALPERIN, Faces of the Chariot… 81–82. 135 HIMMELFARB, Apocalyptic Ascent and the Heavenly Temple… 213. 136 Enoch’s sacerdotal duties in the Book of the Watchers also involve his intercession and transmission of the judgment against Asael. Crispin Fletcher-Louis observes that «Enoch’s intercession and transmission of the judgment against Asael is throughly priestly and related closely to that of the high priest on the Day of Atonement whose ministry involves the sending of a scapegoat into the wilderness to Azazel (Lev 16)». FLETCHER-LOUIS, All the Glory of Adam… 40. 137 HIMMELFARB, Apocalyptic Ascent and the Heavenly Temple… 212.
200
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
of the new active role of its visionary.138 This new, active participation of Enoch in the vision puts 1 Enoch 14 closer to later Merkabah accounts which are different from biblical visions. Nickelsburg stresses that in the biblical throne visions, the seer is passive or, at best, his participation is reactional. But in the Merkabah accounts, Enoch appears to be actively involved in his vision.139 In Nickelsburg’s view, the verbal forms of the narrative («I drew near the wall», «I went into that house») serve as further indications of the active participation of the seer in the visionary reality of the heavenly Throne/ Temple.140 Biblical visions are not completely forgotten by Enochic authors and provide an important exegetical framework for 1 Enoch 14. Comparing the Enochic vision with the Ezekiel account of the temple, Nickelsburg suggests that the Enochic narrative also represents a vision of the temple but, in this case, the heavenly one. He argues that «the similarities to Ezek 40–48, together with other evidence, indicate that Enoch is describing his ascent to the heavenly temple and his progress through its temenos to the door of the holy of holies, where the chariot throne of God is set».141 The possibility that the author of 1 Enoch 14 was trying to describe Enoch’s celestial trip as a tour through the heavenly temple can be supported, in Nickelsburg’s judgment, by three significant details: a. the «house» (14:10) of the Deity is by definition a temple; b. both 12:4 and 15:3 speak about the eternal sanctuary; c. the language about the fallen Watchers and the angels approaching God indicates that some of the angels are understood to be priests.142 The traditions about the seventh patriarch’s heavenly priesthood are not confined solely to the materials found in the Book of the Watchers, since they are attested in other materials associated with the Ethiopic Enoch, including the Animal Apocalypse. If in the Book of the Watchers, Enoch’s associations with the heavenly temple are clothed in ambiguous imagery, his portrait in the Animal Apocalypse does not leave any serious doubts that some of the early Enochic traditions understood the patriarch to be intimately connected with the heavenly sanctuary. Chapter 87, verses 3 and 4 of 1 Enoch portrays the patriarch taken by three angels from the earth and raised to a high tower, where he is expected to remain until he will see the judgment prepared for the Watchers and their earthly families: 138
NICKELSBURG, Enoch, Levi, and Peter... 575–600, esp. 579. Ibid. 580. 140 Crispin Fletcher-Louis stresses that the language of Enoch’s approach («to draw near») is cultic. FLETCHER-LOUIS, All the Glory of Adam… 23. 141 NICKELSBURG, Enoch, Levi, and Peter... 580. 142 Ibid. 580–581. 139
A. Orlov
201
And those three who came out last took hold of me by my hand, and raised me from the generations of the earth, and lifted me on to a high place, and showed me a tower high above the earth, and all the hills were lower. And one said to me: «Remain here until you have seen everything which is coming upon these elephants and camels and asses, and upon the stars, and upon all the bulls».143 VanderKam notes a significant detail in this description, namely, Enoch’s association with a tower. He observes that this term144 is reserved in the Animal Apocalypse for a temple.145 The association of the patriarch with the tower is long-lasting, and apparently he must have spent a considerable amount of time there, since the text does not say anything about Enoch’s return to the earth again until the time of judgment, so the patriarch is depicted as present in the heavenly sanctuary for most of the Animal Apocalypse.146 Although the traditions about Enoch’s associations with the heavenly Temple in the Book of the Watchers and in the Animal Apocalypse do not refer openly to his performance of priestly duties,147 the account attested in the Book of Jubilees explicitly makes this reference. Jubilees 4:23 depicts Enoch as taken from human society and placed in Eden148 «for (his) greatness and honor».149 Jubilees then defines the Garden as a sanctuary150 and 143
KNIBB, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch… Vol. 1. 294; Vol. 2. 198. 1 Enoch 89:50: «And that house became large and broad, and for those sheep a high tower was built on that house for the Lord of the sheep; and that house was low, but the tower was raised up and high; and the Lord of the sheep stood on that tower, and they spread a full table before him». KNIBB, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch… Vol. 2. 208; 1 Enoch 89:73: «And they began again to build, as before, and they raised up that tower, and it was called the high tower; and they began again to place a table before the tower, but all the bread on it (was) unclean and was not pure». KNIBB, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch… Vol. 2. 211. 145 VANDERKAM, Enoch: A Man for All Generations… 117. 146 Ibid. 147 Yet, some implicit references are discernable. Fletcher-Louis suggests that «Enoch’s intercession and transmission of the judgment against Asael is thoroughly priestly and related closely to that of the high priest on the Day of Atonement whose ministry involves the sending of a scapegoat into the wilderness to Azazel (Lev 16)». FLETCHER-LOUIS, All the Glory of Adam… 40. 148 For Enoch’s place in the heavenly Paradise, see: Testament of Benjamin 10:6; Apocalypse of Paul 20; Clementine Recognitions 1:52; Acts of Pilate 25; and the Ascension of Isaiah 9:6. C. ROWLAND, Enoch // Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible / Eds. K. van der Toorn et al (Leiden, 1999) 302. 149 VANDERKAM, The Book of Jubilees… Vol. 2. 28. 150 VanderKam argues that there are other indications that in the Book of Jubilees Eden was understood as a sanctuary. As an example, he points to Jub 3:9–14, which «derives the law from Lev 11 regarding when women who have given birth may enter 144
202
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
Enoch as one who is offering an incense sacrifice on the mountain of incense: «He burned the evening incense of the sanctuary which is acceptable before the Lord on the mountain of incense».151 James VanderKam suggests that here Enoch is depicted as one who «performs the rites of a priest in the temple».152 He further observes that Enoch’s priestly duties153 represent a new element154 in «Enoch’s expanding portfolio».155 Alexander stresses the significance of Enoch’s priestly role for the subsequent Jewish developments,156 noting that «Enoch in the Jubilees in the second century BCE is a high priest. Almost a thousand years later he retains this role in the Heikhaloth texts, though in a rather different setting».157 Indeed in the later rabbinic and Hekhalot sources, Metatron is often associated with the priestly office.158 One such source is a fragment from the Cairo Genizah in which he is directly named as the high priest:
the sanctuary from the two times when Adam and Eve, respectively, went into the garden». VANDERKAM, Enoch: A Man for All Generation… 117. 151 VANDERKAM, The Book of Jubilees… Vol. 2. 28. 152 VANDERKAM, Enoch: A Man for All Generations… 117. 153 Fletcher-Louis notes that in Jubilees 4:7, «the patriarch’s observation of the heavens and their order so that the sons of man might know the (appointed) times of the year according to their order, with respect to each of their months … is knowledge of a thoroughly priestly and cultic nature». FLETCHER-LOUIS, All the Glory of Adam… 24. 154 Scholars point to the possible polemical nature of the patriarch’s priestly role. Gabriele Boccaccini observes that «Enochians completely ignore the Mosaic torah and the Jerusalem Temple, that is, the two tenets of the order of the universe». In his opinion, «the attribution to Enoch of priestly characteristics suggests the existence of a pure predeluvian, and pre-fall, priesthood and disrupts the foundation of the Zadokite priesthood, which claimed its origin in Aaron at the time of the exodus, in an age that, for the Enochians, was already corrupted after the angelic sin and the flood». G. BOCCACCINI, Beyond the Essene Hypothesis: The Parting of the Ways between Qumran and Enochic Judaism (Grand Rapids, 1998) 74. 155 VANDERKAM, Enoch: A Man for All Generations… 117. 156 Enoch’s role as a priest is also attested in several Christian sources, including Apostolic Constitutions 8:5; the Cave of Treasures, and the Book of Rolls. ROWLAND, Enoch… 302. 157 P. ALEXANDER, From Son of Adam to a Second God: Transformation of the Biblical Enoch // Biblical Figures Outside the Bible / Ed. M. E. Stone, T. A. Bergen (Harrisburg, 1998) 102–111, see 107. 158 Passage from Sefer Hekhalot reads: «Metatron is the Prince over all princes, and stands before him who is exalted above all gods. He goes beneath the throne of glory, where he has a great heavenly tabernacle of light, and brings out the deafening fire, and puts it in the ears of the holy creatures, so that they should not hear the sound of the utterance that issues from the mouth of the Almighty». ALEXANDER, 3 (Hebrew Apocalypse of) Enoch… 303.
A. Orlov
203
I adjure you [Metatron], more beloved and dear than all heavenly beings, [Faithful servant] of the God of Israel, the High Priest, chief of [the priest]s, you who poss[ess seven]ty names; and whose name [is like your Master’s] … Great Prince, who is appointed over the great princes, who is the head of all the camps.159 In one further note, I must comment on particular details surrounding the depiction of Enoch’s priestly duties in early Enochic lore. The Book of the Watchers does not refer to any liturgical or sacrificial rituals of the patriarch; on the other hand, Jubilees depicts the patriarch offering incense to God. The absence of reference to any animal sacrificial or liturgical practice in Enoch’s sacerdotal duties might indicate that his office may have been understood by early Enochic traditions from the divinatory angle, that is as the office of oracle-priest, practiced also by the Mesopotamian diviners who, similarly to Enoch’s preoccupation with incense, widely used the ritual of libanomancy, or «smoke divination», a «practice of throwing cedar shavings onto a censer in order to observe the patterns and direction of the smoke».160
Enochís Titles in the Similitudes It has been mentioned that the Book of the Similitudes endows the seventh antediluvian patriarch with several roles and titles previously unknown in the early Enochic lore. The analysis of these roles and titles is important for this investigation of the evolution from Enoch to Metatron since in the Similitudes, for the first time in the Enochic tradition, the patriarch is depicted as a preexistent enthroned figure whose mission is to become an eschatological leader in the time when the wicked of this world will be punished. The reference to this highly elevated office recalls the future profile of the supreme angel Metatron known in some rabbinic and Hekhalot accounts. The enigmatic figure of the eschatological leader, possibly associated with Enoch, is designated in the Similitudes by four titles: righteous one, anointed one, chosen one, and son of man.161 These designations occur with various 159
L. H. SCHIFFMAN, M. D. SWARTZ, Hebrew and Aramaic Incantation Texts from the Cairo Genizah (Sheffield, 1992) 145. 160 MOORE, The Balaam Traditions… 43. 161 J. VANDERKAM, Righteous One, Messiah, Chosen One, and Son of Man in 1 Enoch 37–71 // The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity. The First Princeton Symposium on Judaism and Christian Origins / Eds. J. H. Charlesworth et al. (Minneapolis, 1992) 169–170. My presentation of the titles from the Book of the Similitudes is based on the positions reflected in James VanderKam’s article. See also M. BLACK, The Strange Visions of Enoch // Bible Review 3 (1987) 20–23; IDEM, The Messianism of the Parables of Enoch: Their Date and Contribution to Christological Origins // The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism... 145–
204
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
degrees of frequency in the Ethiopic text; while the first two titles are used rather sparingly, the other two designations are quite widespread and appear many times in the Similitudes.
´Righteous Oneª Although the expression «righteous one» occurs at least four times in the Ethiopic text of the Similitudes, not all of these references are equally valuable for the ongoing investigation of Enoch’s titles. VanderKam suggests that one of these occurrences is «text-critically doubtful», and two of them do not constitute an individual title but rather represent collective designations. He is confident, however, that the single case in which «righteous one» is used as an individual title of the eschatological leader is 1 Enoch 53:6.162 1 Enoch 53 describes the upcoming destruction of the wicked, including the kings and the powerful of this world, by the hands of the angels of punishment. In 1 Enoch 53:6–7 an eschatological figure of great significance appears; the text applies two titles, «righteous one» and «chosen one» to this figure: And after this the Righteous and Chosen One will cause the house of his congregation to appear; from then on, in the name of the Lord of Spirits, they will not be hindered. And before him these mountains will not be (firm) like the earth, and the hills will be like a spring of water; and the righteous will have rest from the ill-treatment of the sinners.163 The title «chosen one» will be examined in a later section. First I direct my attention to «righteous one». It is significant for this investigation of the provenance of the Enochic titles that this title appears to be rooted in biblical traditions. Scholars have suggested that the possible provenance of the title «righteous one» might be Isa 53:11.164 In this text the epithet «the righteous one» is applied to the servant of the Lord: «the righteous one, my servant, shall make many righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities». VanderKam points out that in the Similitudes the title «righteous one» is never used alone in application to an eschatological figure; it is found only in conjunction with another title, «chosen
168; J. DAVILA, Of Methodology, Monotheism and Metatron // The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism. Papers from the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus / Eds. C. C. Newman, J. R. Davila, G. S. Lewis (Leiden, 1999) (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 63) 9–12. 162 VANDERKAM, Righteous One, Messiah, Chosen One… 170–171. 163 KNIBB, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch… Vol. 1. 146; Vol. 2. 138. 164 VANDERKAM, Enoch: A Man for All Generations… 136.
A. Orlov
205
one».165 This conjunction serves as a significant clue that in the Similitudes all four titles of the elevated messianic character are closely interconnected.
´Anointed Oneª Another title associated with the elevated hero of the Similitudes is «anointed one». This title occurs two times in Chapters 48 and 52 of the book.166 In 1 Enoch 48:10 the title is introduced in the eschatological context in which the wicked of this world represented by rulers of the earth will fall down before the son of man but «there will be no one who will take them with his hands and raise them» because they «denied the Lord of Spirits and his Messiah («anointed one»)».167 Scholars have observed that the author of this passage appears to be relying on biblical terminology, more precisely, on the expressions from Ps 2:2 that refer to rulers and kings of the earth taking «counsel together, against the Lord and his anointed».168 Here again, as in the case of «righteous one», the author(s) of the Similitudes prefers to seek the background of the hero’s titles not in Mesopotamian but in biblical sources. The second occurrence of the same title appears in 1 Enoch 52. The patriarch, carried off by a whirlwind, beholds the secrets of heaven, which include several mountains associated with particular metals: «a mountain of iron, and a mountain of copper, and a mountain of silver, and a mountain of gold, and a mountain of soft metal, and a mountain of lead».169 Enoch is further instructed by his angelus interpres that these mountains are predestined to «serve the authority of his Messiah (‘anointed one’)».
´Chosen Oneª This title is used many times in the Similitudes, designating again, as in the case of the previous two designations, an eschatological character.170 The 165
VANDERKAM, Righteous One, Messiah, Chosen One… 170. Scholars have previously questioned whether these designations belong to the original layer of the texts. See especially E. SJÖBERG, Der Menschensohn im äthiopischen Henochbuch (Lund, 1946) (Skrifter Utgivna av kungl. Humanistiska Vetenskapssamfundet I Lund 41) 140–141; J. THEISOHN, Der auserwählte Richter (Göttingen, 1975) (Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments 12) 55–56. 167 KNIBB, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch… Vol. 2. 134. 168 VANDERKAM, Righteous One, Messiah, Chosen One… 170. James Davila observes that «the language of the passage echoes Psalm 2:2 and thus evokes the messianic traditions drawn in the Second Temple period out of the royal psalms, despite the anachronism of associating ideas with the antediluvian patriarch Enoch». DAVILA, Of Methodology, Monotheism and Metatron… 10. 169 KNIBB, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch… Vol. 2. 136. 170 The title occurs in 1 Enoch 40:5; 45:3, 4; 49:2, 4; 51:3, 5; 52:6, 9; 53:6; 55:4; 61:5, 8, 10; 62:1. 166
206
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
description of the «chosen one» in the Similitudes paints a picture of a highly elevated celestial being. This being apparently has his own throne in the celestial realm since one of the passages, found in 1 Enoch 45:3–4, depicts the chosen one as the one who has been installed on the throne of glory: On that day the Chosen One will sit on the throne of glory, and will choose their works, and their resting-places will be without number; and their spirits within them will grow strong when they see my Chosen one and those who appeal to my holy and glorious name. And on that day I will cause my Chosen One to dwell among them, and I will transform heaven and make it an eternal blessing and light.171 The significant detail in this description is that the «chosen one» was set on his throne of glory by the Lord of Spirits (61:8).172 From this elevated seat he will then judge Azazel and the angels associated with this rebellious leader (55:4).173 As in the case of the previous two, this title appears to rely on imagery drawn from biblical materials. Scholars point to the possible roots of the title «chosen one» in Isa 41:8, 9; 42:1; 43:10, where this designation is applied to the servant of the Lord.174
´Son of Manª This title is formulated in the Similitudes with three different Ethiopic expressions.175 It appears multiple times and can be found in 1 Enoch 46:2, 3, 4; 48:2; 62:5, 7, 9, 14; 63:11; 69:26, 27, 29 [two times]; 70:1; 71:14; 71:17. 171
KNIBB, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch… Vol. 1. 126–127; Vol. 2. 131. Larry Hurtado notes that the «chosen one» seems «to act as judge on God’s behalf (“in the name of the Lord of Spirits”, e. g., 1 Enoch 55:4) and in this capacity sits upon a throne that is closely linked with God: “On that day the Chosen One will sit on the throne of Glory” (45:3; see also 51:3; 55:4; 61:8; 62:2,3,5–6; 70:27). The meaning of this is not that the figure rivals God or becomes a second god but rather that he is seen as performing the eschatological functions associated with God and is therefore God’s chief agent, linked with God’s work to a specially intense degree». L. HURTADO, One God, one Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism (Philadelphia, 1988) 53. 173 The passage found in 1 Enoch 51:3 again stresses the motif of the throne in connection with this title: «And in those days the Chosen One will sit on his throne, and all the secrets of wisdom will flow out from the counsel of his mouth, for the Lord of Spirits has appointed him and glorified him». KNIBB, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch… Vol. 2. 135–136. 174 D. W. SUTER, Tradition and Composition in the Parables of Enoch (Missoula, 1979) (Starobulgarska Literatura Dissertation Series 47) 26–27; VANDERKAM, Enoch: A Man for All Generations… 138. 175 VANDERKAM, Enoch: A Man for All Generations… 135. 172
A. Orlov
207
The profile of the «son of man» as an elevated celestial being recalls the figure of the «chosen one» analyzed in the previous section.176 As with the «chosen one», «son of man» is a character associated with the celestial secrets who also has a throne of glory (62:5; 69:27,29) from which he will judge sinners. Scholars have observed that some features of the «son of man» traditions in the Similitudes recall details found in Daniel 7, where one can find a messianic figure designated as «one like a son of man».177 The parallels with the Daniel «son of man» can be illustrated by reference to 1 Enoch 46:1–4, where the title is introduced and then repeated several times: And there I saw one who had a head of days, and his head (was) white like wool; and with him (there was) another, whose face had the appearance of a man, and his face (was) full of grace, like one of the holy angels. And I asked one of the holy angels who went with me, and showed me all the secrets, about that Son of Man, who he was, and whence he was, (and) why he went with the Head of Days. And he answered me and said to me: «This is the Son of Man who has righteousness, and with whom righteousness dwells; he will reveal all the treasures of that which is secret, for the Lord of Spirits has chosen him, and through uprightness his lot has surpassed all before the Lord of Spirits for ever. And this Son of Man whom you have seen will rouse the kings and the powerful from their resting-places, and the strong from their thrones, and will loose the reins of the strong, and will break the teeth of the sinners.178 In this passage, an enigmatic character appears whose designation as «the head of days» recalls the Daniel figure of the «ancient of days». The significant feature of the son of man’s profile in the Similitudes is that the text understands this character as preexistent, even possibly a divine being who received his name before the time of creation. One sees this in 1 Enoch 48:2–7:
176
David Suter notes the interplay of the traditions about the chosen one and the son of man in chapter 62 of the Similitudes. He observes that this «chapter begins with the Elect one being seated on the throne of his glory by the Lord of Spirits to judge the kings and mighty of the earth; however, in the midst of the passage, at 1 En. 62:5, the poet changes from “the Elect One” to “that Son of Man”». SUTER, Tradition and Composition… 26. 177 Suter observes that «in the parables of Enoch, “that Son of Man” appears largely in the context of an exegetical tradition based on Dan. 7:9–14 and derives his judicial function from “the Elect one” as this tradition is used to amplify the latter title». SUTER, Tradition and Composition… 26 178 KNIBB, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch… Vol. 1. 128–129; Vol. 2. 131–132.
208
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
And at that hour that Son of Man was named in the presence of the Lord of Spirits, and his name (was named) before the Head of Days. Even before the sun and the constellations were created, before the stars of heaven were made, his name was named before the Lord of Spirits. He will be a staff to the righteous and the holy, that they may lean on him and not fall, and he (will be) the light of the nations, and he will be the hope of those who grieve in their hearts. All those who dwell upon the dry ground will fall down and worship before him, and they will bless, and praise, and celebrate with psalms the name of the Lord of Spirits. And because of this he was chosen and hidden before him before the world was created, and for ever.179 One can see that, as with the previous titles from the Similitudes, biblical traditions play a pivotal role in inspiring the author(s) of this book in their portrayal of the «son of man». For such inspiration, they go not only to the prominent account found in the Book of Daniel but also to other biblical materials. VanderKam observes that the reference to the fact that the «son of man» was in the mind of God before the creation recalls the passage from Isa 49:1. In this text the servant of the Lord defines himself in similar terms, saying that «the Lord called me before I was born, while I was in my mother’s womb he named me».180 VanderKam argues that «there is no mistaking the author’s appeal to the servant of the Lord in 2 Isaiah, in which he is to be a light to the nations (42:6; 49:6)».181
Interdependence of the Four Titles and Their Identification with Enoch in the Similitudes An important feature in the four titles is that they seem to be used interchangeably in the Similitudes and appear to be referring to one composite figure. George Nickelsburg notes that «the identification of these figures with one another is understandable; for all their differences, their characteristics and functions can be seen to be compatible and complementary».182 Indeed, as was already shown in this present investigation, the combination of the titles «righteous one» and the «chosen one» in 1 Enoch 53:6–7 indicates that they were used here for the same protagonist. The same interchangeability is observable in the titles «son of man» and «chosen one». Here, however, the equivalency is established not through the combination of the titles but through their separation. Scholars previously observed that the titles «son of man» and «chosen one», the two most widely used titles in the Similitudes, always 179
KNIBB, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch… Vol. 1. 134; Vol. 2. 133–134. VANDERKAM, Enoch: A Man for All Generations… 139. 181 Ibid. 139. 182 G. NICKELSBURG, Son of Man // Anchor Bible Dictionary 6.137–149. 180
A. Orlov
209
occur in separate sections of the text, and never together.183 Morna Hooker’s research demonstrates that, while Chapters 38–45 use the title «chosen one», Chapters 46–48 operate with «son of man». This pattern continues further as the material from 1 Enoch 49–62:1 applies the title «chosen one», and 1 Enoch 62:1–71 chooses to use «son of man».184 The separation of these two titles appears to indicate that the author(s) or editor(s) of the Similitudes perceived them to be interchangeable. A large group of scholars believe that all four eschatological titles found in the Similitudes refer to one individual, namely the patriarch Enoch himself, who in 1 Enoch 71 is identified185 with the «son of man».186 The crucial issue for the possible identification of the four titles with the seventh antediluvian patriarch is the status of Chapters 70–71.187 Some scholars believe that these chapters might represent later interpolation(s) and do not belong to the original text of the Book of the Similitudes;188 they note that these two chapters do not appropriately correspond with the tripartite structure of the Similitudes. The content of these chapters also raises some critical questions. First, 1 Enoch 70–71 exhibits repetitiveness that might indicate the attempt to expand the original material. Second, for a long time students of the Enochic traditions were puzzled by the fact that the son of man, who in the previ-
183
M. D. HOOKER, The Son of Man in Mark (London, 1967) 34–37; THEISOHN, Der auserwählte Richter... 47–49; VANDERKAM, Righteous One, Messiah, Chosen One… 175. 184 Morna Hooker observes that «two sources can be distinguished, one speaking of the “Son of man” and the other of the “Elect One”, and in spite of the fact that scholars have mostly followed them in regarding the material in its present form as a mosaic, discussion of the figure of the “Son of man” has not generally drawn any distinction between these two titles, but has regarded passages referring to the “Elect One” and those which speak of the “Son of man” as descriptive of the same figure». HOOKER, The Son of Man in Mark… 34. 185 Scholars previously observed the significance of this identification for future Metatron developments. Alan Segal points out that «this is an extraordinarily important event, as it underlines the importance of mystic transformation between the adept and the angelic vice-regent of God». A. SEGAL, The Risen Christ and the Angelic Mediator Figures in Light of Qumran // Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls / Ed. J. Charlesworth (New York, 1992) 305. 186 VANDERKAM, Enoch: A Man for All Generations… 140; NICKELSBURG, «Son of Man»… 6.138. 187 James VanderKam stresses that «the status of chs. 70–71 is … absolutely crucial to one’s understanding of the phrase ‘son of man’ and eventually of all the other epithets». VANDERKAM, Righteous One, Messiah, Chosen One… 177. 188 George Nickelsburg observes that «the text is probably an addition to an earlier form of the Book of Parables, but an addition with important parallels». NICKELSBURG, «Son of Man»… ABD 6.140.
210
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
ous chapters of the Similitudes has been distinguished from Enoch, suddenly becomes identified in 1 Enoch 71 with the patriarch. This identification seems to contradict the rest of the text since it appears impossible for a seer to fail to recognize himself in the vision. John Collins points to the uniqueness of such a misidentification in the Jewish apocalyptic literature, where a visionary would scarcely fail to recognize himself in such an auto-vision.189 Moreover, in view of the preexistent nature of the son of man in 1 Enoch 48:2–7, it is difficult to reconcile this character with the figure of the seventh patriarch who was born from human parents in the antediluvian era. Several explanations have been proposed to resolve this puzzling situation. Scholars have observed190 that the Similitudes seems to entertain the idea of the heavenly twin (counterpart) of a visionary when they identify Enoch with the son of man.191 James VanderKam suggests that the puzzle of the Similitudes can be explained by the Jewish belief, attested in several ancient Jewish texts, that a creature of flesh and blood could have a heavenly double or counterpart. 192 As an example, VanderKam points to Jacob traditions in which the patriarch’s «features are engraved on high».193 He stresses that this theme of the visionary’s ignorance of his higher angelic identity is observable in other Jewish pseudepigrapha, including the Prayer of Joseph. In the light of the Jewish traditions about the heavenly counterpart of the visionary, VanderKam’s hypothesis appears to be plausible, and it is possible that in the Similitudes the seventh antediluvian patriarch was indeed identified with the son of man and the other titles pertaining to this figure.
189
J. COLLINS, Heavenly Representative: The «Son of Man» in the Similitudes of Enoch // Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism / Eds. G. W. E. Nickelsburg, J. J. Collins (Chico, Calif., 1980) (Septuagint and Cognate Studies series 12) 122–124, esp. 122. 190 See VANDERKAM, Righteous One, Messiah, Chosen One… 182–183; M. KNIBB, Messianism in the Pseudepigrapha in the Light of the Scrolls // Dead Sea Discoveries 2 (1995) 177–180; J. FOSSUM, The Image of the Invisible God: Essays on the Influence of Jewish Mysticism on Early Christology (Fribourg, 1995) (NTOA 30) 144–145; C. H. T. FLETCHER-LOUIS, Luke-Acts: Angels, Christology and Soteriology (Tubingen, 1997) (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, Reihe 2:94) 151. 191 It is important to note that in the Similitudes, the son of man is depicted as seated on the throne of glory. See 1 Enoch 62:5, 1 Enoch 69:29. Jarl Fossum observes that «in the “Similitudes” the “Elect One” or “Son of Man” who is identified as the patriarch Enoch, is enthroned upon the “throne of glory”. If “glory” does not qualify the throne but its occupant, Enoch is actually identified with the Glory of God». Fossum further concludes that «...the “Similitudes of Enoch” present an early parallel to the targumic description of Jacob being seated upon the “throne of glory”». FOSSUM, The Image of the Invisible God… 145. 192 VANDERKAM, Righteous One, Messiah, Chosen One… 182–183. 193 Ibid.
A. Orlov
211
In the conclusion of this paper, several observations can be offered in connection with Enochic titles attested in the Similitudes. First, one cannot fail to recognize that in contrast to other designations of Enoch found in the early Enochic materials, the titles from the Book of Similitudes exhibit strong roots and connections with the motifs and themes found in the Bible, particularly in the Book of Isaiah, Psalm 2, and the Book of Daniel. Scholars have therefore proposed that these titles might be shaped by familiar biblical characters, such as the Servant of the Lord found in Deutero-Isaiah and the Son of Man found in Daniel 7.194 Such explicit reliance on known biblical characters demonstrates a striking contrast to the provenance of other titles of Enoch not found in the Similitudes (like the scribe, the expert in secrets, and the priest). It seems that these do not have explicit biblical roots but are rather based on independent Mesopotamian traditions.195 Second, the peculiar feature of the titles found in the Similitudes is that they can be found only in this part of the Ethiopic Enoch. Other booklets of this Enochic composition, such as the Astronomical Book, the Book of the Watchers, the Book of Dreams, and the Epistle of Enoch, do not refer to these titles of the patriarch. It is also curious that other early Enochic materials, including the Genesis Apocryphon, Jubilees, Book of Giants, and 2 Enoch, do not provide any references either to these titles or to the features associated with them. For example, early Enochic booklets are silent about Enoch’s enthronement on the seat of glory. This absence of allusions and cross-references with other Enochic writings appears to be quite puzzling and unusual since the information about other titles not found in the Similitudes, such as the scribe, the expert in the secrets, the priest, are typically employed as sets of recurring motifs supported by various texts, including the various booklets of 1 Enoch, Jubilees, the Genesis Apocryphon, the Book of Giants and 2 Enoch. It is also baffling that the later rabbinic and Hekhalot materials are silent 194 George Nickelsburg observes that the portraits of the composite hero found in the Similitudes draw much of their language and imagery «from three biblical sources or traditional interpretations of these sources. The basic texts are: Daniel 7; Isaiah 11 and Psalm 2; Isaiah 42,49, and 52–53. Through the use and elaboration of this material, the author has created a composite figure whom he considers to be the referent in texts about the heavenly one like a son of man, the Davidic king, and Second Isaiah’s servant of the Lord». NICKELSBURG, «Son of Man»… ABD 6.138. 195 One must add that the later Hekhalot titles and offices of Enoch-Metatron also appear to maintain certain independence from the imagery of the exalted figures found in the Bible. Peter Schäfer observes that «the Hekhalot literature appears to be basically independent of the Bible. To formulate it even more sharply: it appears to be autonomous». P. SCHÄFER, The Aim and Purpose of Early Jewish Mysticism. Gershom Scholem Reconsidered // Hekhalot-Studien, 277–295. [Gershom Scholem Reconsidered: The Aim and Purpose of Early Jewish Mysticism. The Twelfth Sacks Lecture Delivered on 29th May 1985 (Oxford, 1986) 1–21] 14.
212
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
about the Enochic titles found in the Book of the Similitudes.196 James Davila’s research points to the fact that the titles found in the Similitudes, like messiah, son of man and righteous one, are dropped almost entirely197 in the Merkabah tradition.198 Finally, another puzzling characteristic of the Similitudes’ titles must be mentioned. In the ambiguous identification of Enoch with the «son of man» depicted in 1 Enoch 71, one finds a unique way of introducing this Enochic title which never occurs in the case of Enoch’s other titles. In early Enochic booklets each designation is usually introduced through the gradual unfolding of the patriarch’s activities pertaining to the particular title. In contrast, the Book of the Similitudes refuses to depict in any way Enoch’s participation in various offices which stand behind the Similitudian titles. Nothing is said about the patriarch’s messianic mission or his role in judging the mighty ones of the world. Enoch is rather depicted as a mere beholder of these deeds, which the text unambiguously associates with one or another eschatological figure. He is only named as a «son of man», who in no way attempts to execute the offices pertaining to this and other titles. 196
Scholars suggest that the absence of such titles as the son of man in later rabbinic and Hekhalot developments can be partially explained by their christological appropriations. Martin Hengel proposes that titles like the Youth could function as the substitutes for the original titles found in the Similitudes. See M. HENGEL, The Son of God: The Origins of Christology and the History of Jewish Hellenistic Religion (Philadelphia, 1976) 46. See also A. SEGAL, Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Leiden, 1977) (Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 25) 65. 197 David Suter argues that Enoch-Metatron’s identification with «an elect one» (rwxb) in Synopse §9 (3 Enoch 6:3) might be related to his title in the Similitudes. He observes that «while it does not have the messianic sense that it does in the Parables of Enoch, there is a remote possibility of a connection between its use in the Parables as the major messianic title and in 3 En. 6:3. Greenfield does not specifically relate the identification of Enoch as the Son of Man in the Parables to Enoch/ Metatron in 3 Enoch, but he may have had it in mind». SUTER, Tradition and Composition… 16. H. Odeberg observes that «many of the features of the Elect One and the Son of Man in 1 Enoch are transferred to Metatron in 3 Enoch. The differences are, however, greater than the resemblances». H. ODEBERG, Föreställningarna om Metatron i äldre judisk mystic // Kyrkohistorisk Årsskrift 27 (1927) 1–20, see 1.47. On the connections between the Similitudes and 3 Enoch, see also M. BLACK, Eschatology of the Similitudes of Enoch // JTS (1952) 1–10, esp. 6–7. 198 J. R. DAVILA, Melchizedek, The «Youth», and Jesus // The Dead Sea Scrolls as Background to Postbiblical Judaism and Early Christianity: Papers from an International Conference at St. Andrews in 2001 / Ed. J. R. Davila (Leiden, 2003) (STDJ 46) 264. James Davila observes that «in 3 Enoch — which has a close relationship of some sort with the Similitudes, whether literary, oral, or both — Enoch’s role changes once again. His titles in the Similitudes — Son of Man, Messiah, Righteous One, Chosen — are dropped almost entirely (only the last is applied to him once)». Ibid. 264.
A. Orlov
213
SUMMARY The article investigates the evolution of the roles and titles of the seventh antediluvian patriarch Enoch in early Enochic materials, including the Astronomical Book, the Book of the Watchers, the Book of Dreams, the Epistle of Enoch, the Book of Jubilees, the Genesis Apocryphon, the Book of Giants and the Book of the Similitudes. The research shows that the early Enochic tradition puts emphasis on such roles of the seventh antediluvian hero as diviner, scribe, sage, visionary, witness of the divine judgment in the generation of the Flood, and envoy to the Watchers/Giants. Although the majority of the early Enochic roles are based on the Mesopotamian prototypes, the study demonstrates that in the later Enochic materials, including the Book of the Similitudes, the imagery of Enoch’s roles and titles becomes more dependent not on the Mesopotamian, but on the Biblical counterparts, borrowing features from the familiar biblical characters, such as the Servant of the Lord found in Deutero-Isaiah and the Son of Man found in Daniel 7. Such explicit reliance on known biblical characters demonstrates a striking contrast to the provenance of the earsly Enochic roles and titles which are dependent on the Mesopotamian traditions about the seventh antediluvian king Enmeduranki.
Bernard Outtier Saint-Martin-de-la-Mer
FRAGMENTS ONCIAUX INE D : ITS DE LíE V : ANGILE DE MARC EN GE O : RGIEN EREVAN, MATENADARAN 2660 Au service de la tradition chrétienne orientale, j’ai souvent croisé Michel van Esbroeck dans les fonds de manuscrits en Arménie et en Géorgie. En souvenir de ce long compagnonnage trop tôt et si brutalement interrompu, je lui dédie l’édition de fragments évangéliques. Le manuscrit du Matenadaran Machtots d’Erevan, n° 2660 a été relié en 1599 au monastére de ©ØîÑæã/©ØòÑæã/¤îÑæë. Ce monastére se trouvait dans le vilayet d’Erzeroum, caza de Karin, à 10–12 km au nord-est d’Erzeroum. Il n’est pas mentionné dans Erzeroum ou topographie de la haute Arménie. Texte arménien de Hakovb Karnétsi (XVII° siècle) / Publié par K. KOSTANEANTS (1903), traduit et annoté par M. FRÉDÉRIC Macler // Journal asiatique, XIe série XIII (1919) 153–237, ni chez H. OSKEAN, Die Klöster Hocharmeniens (en arménien) (Wien, 1951) (Nationalbibliothek 167), ni chez M. THIERRY, Répertoire des monastéres arméniens (Turnhout, 1993). Le copiste et enlumineur ¡ìÑôÕÜ £ÕâÑäÕñÛ nous a laissé sept manuscrits copiés dans ce monastère entre 1588 et 1632. Un seul, Matenadaran Machtots d’Erevan, n° 8931, n’a pas de feuilles de garde. Quatre autres ont des fragments tirés d’un évangéliaire arménien en erkat’agir: les n° 4100, 7555 et 7646 de la même bibliothèque, et le n° 615 du Patriarcat arménien SaintsJacques de Jérusalem. On peut repérer ces manuscrits grâce à la Bibliographie des enlumineurs arméniens des IXe–XIXe siècles d’Astghik GUEVORKIAN (Erevan—Le Caire, 1998) (en arménien). Grâce au Catalogue des Archives Sirarpie Der Nersessian, dont Silvia AGÉMIAN vient de publier le tome I (Antélias, 2003), p. 270, on peut ajouter à cette liste: un Psautier (vente Sotheby du 14 février 1968). Comme le manuscrit 2660, le manuscrit 7634 a, selon le catalogue, deux feuilles de garde d’un tétraévangile géorgien; je n’ai pas de notes sur ce dernier manuscrit, et c’est dommage, car on peut penser que le relieur a pris du même tétraévangile. On sait qu’il y avait une population géogienne dans le vilayet d’Erzeroum, et de célèbres centres monastiques géorgiens. C’est sans doute de l’un d’eux que viennent les fragments que je vais maintenant éditer. En effet, paléographiquement, on remarque les í et } assez carrés, semblables à ceux des manuscrits copiés à Chatberdi en 973 (è. àáóêàûä, õàðçóêè üäðèñ ìèëóøäáè. îàêäíâðàôèóêè àêáíëè (Tbilisi, 19732) Pl. 18–20).
B. Outtier
215
Il reste deux morceaux de feuillets de parchemin, incomplets, mais sans perte de texte, mesurant 260×174 mm. Ces feuillets proviennent d’un tétraévangile: en effet, les renvois aux sections des canons sont présents en bas des feuillets. L’écriture est une majuscule (asomtavruli) de la seconde moitié du Xe siècle. Il y a 22 lignes de texte, sur deux colonnes. La largeur d’une colonne est de 70 mm, l’intervalle entre les colonnes, de 17 mm. Il y a 8 à 9 mm entre les lignes, les lettres sont hautes de 3 à 4 mm. Quatre lignes à la pointe sèche sont tracées en bas de feuillet pour les indications renvoyant aux canons. Le texte est de l’Évangile de Marc, c. 5 pour le feuillet I, c. 8 pour le feuillet II. Le voici: f. I v
Ir
216
IIv
IIr
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
B. Outtier
217
L’orthographe est sans surprises. ä et @ sont interchangeables, comme on le remarque dans bien des manuscrits (voir æ. ñàðÿåäêàûä, õàðçóêè ñàêèòäðàòóðí äìèñ èñòíðèèñ øäñàåàêè (çáèêèñè, 1984) 276–282) 5, 26: í}û}ðäññà; 8, 23: âàðäø@; 8, 27: ôèêèîäñàñà; 8, 31: ãö@ñà. On observe un cas de désonorisation assimilative, puis perte de la consonne double: 8, 31: ëàçãà > ëàççà > ëàçà (om. æ. ñàðÿåäêàûä). Une fois aussi, l’infixe sujet de la deuxième personne est omis: 8, 33: (ñàðÿåäêàûä, õàðçóêè... 383–386). On aura reconnu le texte, qui est celui de la recension «proto-vulgate». Les accords les plus nombreux sont avec les manuscrits Sinaï, Monastère Sainte-Catherine, géo 15 (de l’an 978) et géo 30 (de 979), puis Tbilisi, Institut K. Kekelidzé des manuscrits, H-1660 (de 936), Tbeti (de 995), Tbilisi, Institut K. Kekelidzé des manuscrits, A-98 (non daté, dixième siècle) et Berta (avant 988). Quelques leçons propres: 5, 16: om. ëàç. 5, 19: àöåäã. 8, 19: om. þíêí. 8, 27: èò÷íãà. 8, 28: âèìà = Mt 16, 14. 8, 30: add.: èäñí}. Naturellement, on note la présence de variantes anciennes, telles 5, 22 à¸à = WA et l’imparfait äåäãðäáíãà en 5,23 = WB.
218
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
Concluons: il n’est jamais insignifiant de trouver des fragments géorgiens des évangiles remontant au dixième siècle.
RES: UME : Le manuscrit 2660 du Matenadaran d’Erevan possède des feuilles de garde géorgiennes du dixième siècle, qui sont des fragments d’un tétraévangile. Deux passages de l’Évangile selon saint Marc sont ici édités pour la première fois.
Vadim B. Prozorov Moscow
THE PASSION OF ST. DOMNIUS: THE TRADITION OF APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION IN DALMATIA St. Domnius (Lat. Domnius, Domnio, Ital. Doimo, Croat Dujam, Duje) was, in fact still is, the holy protector of the metropolis of Salona-Spalato. Late antique Salona, the capital city of the Roman province of Dalmatia was a very important Christian centre in the Mediterranean region without any exaggeration comparable with Ravenna and Aquileia in Italy.1 Spalato (Croat Split) originated very close to ancient Salona and indeed was her successor in respect to ecclesiastical authority when Salona perished in the seventh century. The early history of the Church of Salona is mainly known due two medieval Histories — the History of Archbishops of Salona and Spalato written in the mid-thirteenth century by Archdeacon Thomas of Spalato and the anonymous History of Archbishops of Salona whose earliest manuscript dates back to the early sixteenth century. The latter finishes its narrative in 1185 while the former continues to the middle of the thirteenth century. Both texts are almost identical except some vital interpolations added to the History of Archbishops of Salona. Both Histories, the common text as well as supplementary documents, glorified the Church of Spalato and enhanced its apostolic foundation and old metropolitan status. Who else but a bishop-saint, a bishop-martyr could be a more positive proof of the apostolicity of this Church! And indeed the Histories appeal to this figure of a saintly and apostolic founder — St. Dom1
See an overview of early Christian antiquities in Salona in E. DYGGVE, History of Salonitan Christianity (Oslo, 1951) (Instituttet for sammenlignende Kulturforskning. Serie A: Forelesninger 21). Besides, there are following useful reports: Forschungen in Salona, veröffentlicht vom Österreichischen Archäologischen Institute. 3 vols. (Vienna, 1917–1939); Recherches à Salone, publié aux frais de la Fondation Rask-Ørsted. 2 vols. (Copenhague, 1928–33); E. CECI, I Monumenti cristiani di Salona (Milan, 1963); Excavations at Salona, Yugoslavia, 1969–1972 / Conducted for the Department of Classics, Douglass College, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, by Ch. W. CLAIRMONT, with the collaboration of S. HANDLER AUTH, V. VON GONZENBACH (Park Ridge, N. J., c1975); Salona Christiana (Arheološki muzej — Split, 25.9– 31.10.1994) / Ed. E. MARIN (Split, 1994); Salona: recherches archéologiques francocroates à Salone / Conduites par le Centre A. Merlin (C.N.R.S., Paris — Sorbonne) et le Musée archéologique de Split, dirigées par N. Duval et E. Marin. 3 vols. (Rome— Split, 1994–2000).
220
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
nius. Thomas of Spalato reported only basic facts about Salona’s patron saint.2 His more elaborate Passion was inserted among the supplementary documents in the History of Archbishops of Salona (see appendix).3 According to the Passion, Domnius, a native Syrian from Antioch, was sent to Salona by St. Peter the Apostle immediately after St. Titus had been there. The latter’s mission is mentioned in St. Paul’s Second Letter to Timothy (4.11). At the same time as Domnius Pancratius was dispatched to Sicily, Apollinaris went to Ravenna and Marcus — to Aquileia. Domnius successfully preached in Dalmatia and erected here the first church which he dedicated to genetrix Dei (Mother of God). Disturbed by his progress pagan priests accused Domnius before prefectus urbis Maurilius, lamenting that he was seducing people to overthrow cults of pagan gods. The prefect had him imprisoned and tortured. As all his strict measures failed to make Domnius reject the Christian faith Maurilius tried to bribe him, but the saint was adamant and determined to be a martyr. Meanwhile Salonitan Christians supporting the holy prisoner raised a revolt and many of them were executed by the order of the prefect. At this point the Passion turns to St. Domnius’s miraculous power and reports that the prefect along with some prominent citizens of Salona had to approach Domnius asking him to raise from the dead a son of a certain noble widow. Condemning Maurilius’s hypocrisy Domnius worked this miracle. Consequently the number of converts into Christianity increased further. Annoyed pagan priests bribed Maurilius and even threatened him to be punished according to the Roman legislation. Finally, as the Passion goes, Maurilius promulgated the law that sentenced Domnius to death, and the saintly bishop was beheaded. The story of St. Domnius is very simple and recognizable but the background of the Passion is very dim. It caused many questions. First, when did the martyrdom actually take place? Second, when was the Passion compiled? And third, when was the cult of St. Domnius tied with St. Peter, i. e. to what time the tradition of apostolic foundation can be ascribed? If the first question can be easily answered, the second and the third ones are more complicated since we do not have any positive indication of when the Passion was compiled and when the apostolic legend emerged, and can only suggest some moments in history when the compilation and further development of the legend were most possible. The ancient tradition attributed St. Domnius’s mission to the second half of the first century, and his martyrdom to the time of Emperor Trajan (to be THOMAS ARCHIDIACONUS, Historia Salonitana / Ed. F. RAÈKI (Zagreb, 1894) (Monumenta spectantia historiam slavorum meridionalium 26) 89. 3 Historia Salonitana maior / Ed. N. KLAIÆ (Belgrade, 1967) 73–75. In fact, several later versions of the Passion are extant. In general they demonstrate a close similarity. D. FARLATI, Illyricum sacrum (Venice, 1751) Vol. 1. 412–427. 2
V. B. Prozorov
221
more precise his death was fixed in 107).4 But if all the information available to us is deployed it is obvious that Domnius was martyred sometime under Emperor Diocletian. The grounds for this certainly were found in the text of his Passion. While some names here perhaps have symbolic meanings5 the others can be ascribed to real persons. The strongest argument in favour of the martyrdom of the holy protector of Salona in the fourth century is the fact that so-called Prefect Maurilius of Rome who ordered to execute the saint was found in the list of the governors (presides) of Salona under Emperor Diocletian (between 299– 304). His real name was Ì. Aurelius Iulius and thus he can be easily identified as Domnius’s prosecutor Maurilius.6 FARLATI, Illyricum sacrum... Vol. 1. 432. Domnius’s mother’s name is Migdonia which is probably connected with Macedonia, since she is said to be Greek by birth and Mygdonia was a region to the north of modern Thessaloniki (J. ZEILLER, Les origines chrétiénnes dans les provinces romaine de Dalmatie (Paris, 1906) (Bibliothèque de l’École des Hautes Études. Sciences historiques et philologiques 155) 28) or with a region around Antioch (Nisibis) which was named after Greek Mygdonia under Alexander the Great (Der Neue Pauly Enzyklopädie der Antike (Stuttgart—Weimar, 2000) Vol. 8. Col. 569). Domnius is said to have been born in Syria and some names of immigrants from Nisibis were discovered on the funeral tombs in Salona (A. CARAMANEO-MATIASSEVICH, Riflessioni sopra l’istoria di S. Dojmo primo vescovo di Salona e martire // Supplemento al Bullettino di arheologia e storia dalmata (hereafter BASD) 23/12 (1900) 5; DYGGVE, History of Salonitan Christianity… 25–30, 81–82, 100, 134; G. ALFÖLDI, Bevölkerung und Gesellschaft der römischen Provinz Dalmatien. Mit einem Beitrag von Andras Moscy (Budapest, 1965) 83, 113; J. NIKOLAJEVIÆ, O poreklu orijentalnih uticaja u ranokræanskoj umetnosti u Dalmaciji [On Roots of Oriental Influences on Early Christian Art in Dalmatia] // Çáîðíèê ðàäîâà ôèëîñîôñêîã ôàêóëòåòà 12 (1974) 125–126). The name of a pagan philosopher Pyrgus who had disputes with Domnius can be derived from the Greek word ¿ ðýñãïò (a tower, a dice-box). The name of a late Roman patrician Diginanus (Dignatius in a later version) whose child was raised from the dead by Domnius could come from the Latin word dignitas and indicate his noble status, although the family of Dignatii was known in Rome. His widow’s name Febronia can be associated with the Latin word febris (fever) and symbolize the illness and death of her child (I. BABIÆ, Splitske uspomene na salonitanske kršcanske starine [Spalato’s Memories of Christian Salonitan Antiquities] // Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku (hereafter VAHD) 85 (1992) 50). The name of Theodosius, Domnius’s father, can also have a symbolic significance, at the same time it is a real name although almost unknown in the first century. 6 F. BULIÆ, M. Aurelius Julus. Praeses provinciae Dalmatiae // BASD 38 (1914) 118–119. The confusing reading Julus suggested by Bulic was corrected into Julius (see Cambi’s conclusion in F. BULIÆ, Izabrani spisi [Collected Papers] / Ed. N. CAMBI (Split, 1984) 633). A. JAGENTEUFEL, Die Statthalter der römischen Provinz Dalmatia von Augustus bis Diokletian (Vienna, 1958) (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Schriften der Balkankommission. Antiquarische Abteilung 12) 105, 107, 4 5
222
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
Further in the Prologi Paschae ad Vitalem Anni CCCXCV, whose earliest manuscript (Ms. Köln) dates from 798–805, St. Domnius was mentioned as a martyr of the late third century. It says: «In the seventh year of the consulship of Diocletian and in the sixth year of the consulship of Maximian (that is 299. — V. P.) Christians suffered the sixth persecution. During this persecution Peter and Marcellinus were martyred in Rome, Domnius and Felix were martyred in Salona».7 Nineteenth century Dalmatian archeologist and historian Frane Buliæ grounding his conclusions on the results of large-scale archeological excavations on the site of ancient Salona thought that St. Domnius’s pontificate fell on 284–304 and Domnius was martyred on 10 April 304 in the Salonitan amphitheatre together with four Diocletian’s bodyguards.8 Thus the antichristian laws of the emperors mentioned in the Passion might be in fact the edicts promulgated by Diocletian and Maximian between 25 February 303 and December 304. Most of the scholars preferred to split the basic sujet of the legend and the formal Passion which stated the apostolic tradition. Their dating vacillates from the fourth to as late as the eleventh century. The composition of the Passion perfectly fits in the pattern of the passions called by Hyppolite Delehaye les passions artificielles, épiques.9 This term designates the passions which were composed considerably later than the events described there took place. Delehaye, having in mind the sujet of the Salonitan legend, considered that its simplicity revealed early emergence, perhaps, in the very time of Diocletian’s persecutions.10 Jacques Zeiller dated the preserved Passion at not 113. A. H. M. JONES, J. R. MARTINDALE, J. MORRIS, The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire (Cambridge—London, 1971) Vol. 1 (AD 260–395) 482; J. J. WILKES, Dalmatia (London, 1969) (History of the Provinces of the Roman Empire 2) 422. His name was discovered on two inscriptions: 1) in Salona (H. DELEHAYE, Santi dell’Istria e della Dalmazia // BASD 23 (1900) 100) — «Fortunae Conservatrici pro salute Marci Aureli Iuli v(iri) c(larissimi) auguris praesidi (sic) provinciae Dassius notarius votum solvit», 2) in Moesia. Besides, there were preases M. Avr. Tiberianus, mentioned on the inscription of Narona c. 280 (JONES, MARTINDALE, MORRIS, The Prosopography… Vol. 1. 912) and Avr. Marcianus c. 277 (Ibid. 557). 7 Prologi Paschae ad Vitalem Anni CCCXCV // MGH. Auctorum antiquissimorum. T. IX: Chronica minora saec. IV. V. VI. VII. / Ed. T. MOMMSEN (Berlin, 1892) Vol. 1. 736–738: «Diocletiano septies et Maximiano sexies consulibus Christiani persecutionem sextam passi sunt. in ea persecutione passi sunt Petrus et Marcellinus Romae et Domnius et Felix martyres passi sunt Salona». 8 F. BULIÆ, Po ruševinama stare Salone [Through the Ruins of Old Salona] // Prilog VAHD 79 (1986) 134. 9 H. DELEHAYE, Les passions des martyrs et les genres littéraires (Bruxelles, 1921) 236–316. 10 DELEHAYE, Santi dell’Istria e della Dalmazia… 97 (H. DELEHAYE, Saints d’Istrie et de Dalmatie // AB 18 (1899) 369–411).
V. B. Prozorov
223
earlier than the tenth — eleventh centuries,11 though he conceded that the legend might date back to the eighth century.12 Most recently Victor Saxer has supposed that the cult of St. Domnius emerged immediately after his martyrdom and during the second half of the fourth century his name was already inserted into the Syrian martyrology.13 But he attributes the motivation of the legend and its author’s attempts to show Domnius as a disciple of St. Peter to the tenth century, when the canon 1 was interpolated in the acts of the council of Spalato in 925. This canon definitely connected the metropolitan rights of the bishop of Salona (in that time his residence was long established in Spalato) with the foundation of the Church in Dalmatia by St. Domnius. Nothing contradicts Delehaye’s opinion which was grounded on his profound knowledge of the whole corpus of late antique and early medieval passions.14 The usage of ancient topographical terms and imperial terminology (Salonae,15 praefectus urbis, mons Masaron,16 leges augustorum, the river Salona designating the medieval and present-day Jader17 etc.), which were out of date by at least the tenth century, supports his conclusion about the early dating of the composition of St. Domnius’s Passion. However, this conclusion does not clarify the question when the Salonitan apostolic legend emerged. What can be done for the more precise timing of it? I think, looking at similar traditions which flourished in the major Christian centres in the Adriatic that is in Aquileia and Ravenna can shed some light on the mystery. In the end of Late Antiquity and in the beginning of the early Middle Ages some major ecclesiastical centres in Gaul and Italy acquired their own patron saints. They were considered to be disciples of St. Peter the Apostle (other apostles like St. Mark are also mentioned) and founders of their ecclesiastical communities. The main pattern was provided by the letter of Pope Innocent I to Bishop Decentius of Gubbio in 416. It says «everywhere in Italy, Gauls, Spains, Africa and Sicily, and on the adjacent islands there is no Church ZEILLER, Les origines chrétiénnes dans les provinces romaine de Dalmatie… 26. J. ZEILLER, Une légende hagiographique de Dalmatie: S. Doimus de Salone // Revue d’histoire et de littérature religieuses 11 (1906) 193–218. 13 V. SAXER, Les saints de Salone. Examen critique de leur dossier // U slubi èovjeka. Zbornik nadbiskupa-metropolite Dr. Frane Franiæa / Ed. D. ŠIMUNDA (Split, 1987) 298. 14 DELEHAYE, Les passions des martyrs… 15 A plural form of Óáëùíá. — DYGGVE, History of Salonitan Christianity… 5– 6, fig. I, 4–5; WILKES, Dalmatia… 223. 16 FARLATI, Illyricum sacrum… Vol. 1. 415; BULIÆ, Po ruševinama stare Salone… 11. 17 Farlati (Illyricum sacrum… Vol. 1. 415) refers to Chapter 15 from Miho Madij’s History which says that the river Jader near Spalato was called Salonae (flumen Salonae) in the ancient chronicles and poems. BULIÆ, Po ruševinama stare Salone… 11: Croat Solin, Greek Salanchon, Salon, Lat. Jader. 11
12
224
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
which had not been founded by either Blessed Peter the Apostle or his sacerdotal successors».18 Later the letter was included by Dionysius the Little in his Collection of the Decretals of Roman Pontiffs and thus was widely known.19 The Church of Arles promptly responded to this message and after 400, perhaps, under Pope Zosimus (417–418), established its metropolitan jurisdiction over Southern Gaul referring to the legend of the pupil of St. Peter St. Trophimus who allegedly was the first bishop of Arles.20 Between the mid-fifth and mid-seventh century in Ravenna there appeared the legend of the foundation of the Church by St. Apollinaris, another disciple of St. Peter (this compatriot of St. Domnius was named in his Passion). He was first mentioned in the sermon of St. Peter Chrysologus (d. c. 450).21 A hundred years later the Emperor bestowed the title of archbishop on Bishop Maximian of Ravenna (546–556) who fulfilled the project of the elevation of the Basilica in honour of St. Apollinaris started by his predecessors. This title was a sign of appreciation of the support which Maximian provided for the Byzantine authority in Italy during the schism of the «Three chapters». The popes tacitly recognized this title while they maintained their right to consecrate Ravennese bishops in Rome. But in the seventh century Pope Vitalianus (657–672) formerly acknowledged the archiepiscopal title of the bishops of Ravenna. At the same time Archbishop Maurus (644–673) secured a diploma issued of 1 March 666 by Emperor Constans II Pogonatus who conceded the autocephaly to the Church of Ravenna during the new conflict of Rome and Constantinople over Monotheletism. The imperial privilege was PL 20. Cols. 551–552; R. CABIÉ, La lettre du pape Innocent Ier à Décentius de Gubbio (19 mars 416) / Texte critique, trad. et comm. (Louvain, 1973) (Bibliothèque de la Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 58) 18–20: «2. Quis enim nesciat aut non advertat, id quod a principe Apostolorum Petro Romanae Ecclesiae traditum est, ac nunc usque custoditur, ab omnibus debere servari; nec superduci aut introduci aliquid, quod auctoritatem non habeat, aut aliunde accipere videatur exemplum? praesertim cum sit manifestum, in omnem Italiam, Gallias, Hispanias, Africam atque Siciliam, et insulas interjacentes, nullum instituisse ecclesias, nisi eos quos venerabilis apostolus Petrus aut ejus successores constituerint sacerdotes. Aut legant, si in his provinciis alius Apostolorum invenitur, aut legitur docuisse. Qui si non legunt, quia nusquam inveniunt, oportet eos hoc sequi, quod Ecclesia Romana custodit, a qua eos principium accepisse non dubium est, ne dum peregrinis assertionibus student, caput institutionum videantur omittere». 19 PL 67. Cols. 237–238. 20 L. LEVILLAIN, Saint Trophime confesseur et métropolitain d’Arles et la Mission des sept en Gaule // Revue d’histoire de l’Église de France 13 (1927) 145–189, esp. 180–189. V. Saxer refers to some parallels between the traditions in Arles and Salona: SAXER, Les saints de Salone… 307. 21 Petrus Chrysologus, Sermo 128 // PL 52. Cols. 552–555 (in CCSL 24B / Ed. A. OLIVAR. 790–791). R. BUDRIESI, Le origini del cristianesimo a Ravenna (Ravenna, 1970) 11–17. 18
V. B. Prozorov
225
grounded on the forged charter of Emperor Valentinianus III (425–455) granting the metropolitan rights to famous Bishop John of Ravenna (452–494) and on St. Apollinaris’s apostolic legend (BHL 623) which probably was composed shortly before Emperor Constans’s document was issued.22 The legend was later used by Agnellus (805–c. 846) in his Book of Pontiffs of the Church of Ravenna. All these facts testify that the Ravennate apostolic tradition was already regarded as a foundation of the special status of the Church of Ravenna by the seventh century. Further some scholars have linked the emergence of the Passion of St. Apollinaris as an apostolic disciple to the events of the fifth and sixth centuries, i. e. to the jurisdictional conflict between the Churches of Ravenna and Milan.23 Unfortunately, this period of Ravenna’s history is meagerly documented and practically as in the case with Salona we do not have much local evidence to definitely tie the use of the apostolic succession in the Life of St. Apollinaris with specific century. In Aquileia, another Adriatic city, an ecclesiastical metropolitanate already in the fourth century, St. Hermagoras, the disciple of St. Mark the Evangelist, was venerated as the first bishop. According to his Passion the earliest versions of which were preserved in the codices of the eleventh — twelfth centuries,24 St. Peter the Apostle took active part in the Christianization of Venice and Istria: he sent St. Mark to Aquileia and consecrated Hermagoras as its first bishop. Austrian scholar Rudolf Egger has demonstrated that the holy protector of Aquileia was in fact a mythical person who, due to scribe’s mistakes, might acquire the name of St. Hermogenes of Singidunum (present-day Belgrade) distorted in one of the manuscripts of the Martyrology of Acta sanctorum. Julii 5. 344–350. The earliest manuscript of the Passio Sancti Apollenaris (Codice fuldense) dates back to the ninth century (G. MONTANARI, Culto e liturgia dal iv al ix secolo // Storia di Ravenna. Vol. 1.2: Dall’età bizantina all’età ottoniana. Ecclesiologia, cultura e arte / Ed. A. Carile (Venezia, 1992) 276, note 1. H. DELEHAYE, L’hagiographie ancienne de Ravenne // AB 47 (1929) 1–30; A. SIMONINI, Autocefalia ed esarcato in Italia (Ravenna, [1969]) 75–96. See the principal bibliography: J.-Ch. PICARD, Les souvenir des évêques. Sépultures, listes épiscopales et culte des évêques en Italie du Nord des origines au Xe siécle (Rome, 1988) 658–659, n. 266–267. 23 G. LUCCHESI, Note agiografiche sui primi vescovi di Ravenna (Faenza, 1941); O. VON SIMSON, Sacred Fortress: Byzantine Art and Statecraft in Ravenna (Chicago, 1948) 52; M. MAZZOTTI, Per una nuova datazione della Passio S. Apollinaris // Studi romagnoli 3 (1952) 123–129. 24 The earliest manuscript of the Passio sanctorum Hermagorae episcopi et Fortunati diaconi which dates from the eleventh — twelfth centuries was published by R. Egger in Carinthia 1 (1947) 40–55 (BHL 3841). See the list of the earliest manuscripts and its editions in T. E. A. DALE, Relics, Prayer, and Politics in Medieval Venetia. Romanesque Painting in the Crypt of Aquileia Cathedral (Princeton, NJ, 1997) 124, n. 1 to chapter 1. 22
226
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
Jerome (the fifth century) as Hermagoras.25 The relics of St. Hermogenes the Lector were brought to Aquileia from Singidunum in the early fifth century.26 Egger ascribed the appearance of the Passion of St. Hermagoras to the period immediately after the destruction of Aquileia by Attila in 452, when the previous tradition could be transformed, and the legend of the holy protector of Aquileia St. Hermagoras, the disciple of St. Mark, could emerge.27 Something more important for us here is that towards the middle of the sixth century the mythical disciple of St. Mark could acquire much more significance. From the mid-sixth century Aquileia was one of the centres of the schism of the «Three chapters» ended in 699, and Aquileian bishops appropriated the title of patriarch (since 557). After the Lombard invasion the bishop of Aquileia had to flee and moved his residence to Grado under the Byzantine control. In the first decade of the seventh century the division of the Aquileian clergy over the «Three chapters» led to the establishment of two metropolitan sees — in Byzantine Grado and Lombard Aquileia. In the late eighth century with Charlemagne’s support Aquileia started the campaign in order to maintain its patriarchal title and metropolitan prerogatives in Venice and Istria. For the first time Aquileia’s apostolic tradition was explicitly stated by Paul the Deacon in the eighties of the eighth century.28 As Jacques Zeiller, Richard Adelbert Lipsius and Pio Paschini showed, the Passion of St. Hermagoras composed in the eighth century was a weighty argument for the resolution of the conflict between Aquileia and Grado over metropolitan rights in the province at the synod of Mantua in 827 (?), when Aquileia was acknowledged as the first Church in Italy after Rome.29 BHL 3838–3844, pp. 572–573. R. EGGER, Der heilige Hermagoras, eine kritische Untersuchung // Carinthia 1 (1948) 208–225. Most Italian scholars have not accepted Egger’s hypothesis: S. TRAMONTIN, Origini e sviluppi della leggenda marciana // Le origini della Chiesa di Venezia / Ed. E Tonon (Venice, 1987) 167–186; G. CUSCITO, Martiri cristiani ad Aquileia e in Istria. Documenti archeologici e questioni agiografiche (Udine, 1992) 17–26. 27 E GGER, Der heilige Hermagoras… 228, 238. Pio Paschini and Silvio Tramontin ascribed the Passion of St. Hermagoras to the eighth century while they dated the Marcian tradition to the sixth century: TRAMONTIN, Origini e sviluppi della leggenda marciana… 167–186; P. PASCHINI, Le fasi di una leggenda aquileiese // Rivista di storia della chiesa in Italia 8 (1954) 161–168. 28 Paul the Deacon, Liber de episcopis Mettensibus // MGH. Scriptores. Vol. 2 / Ed. G. H. PERTZ (Hannover, 1829) 261. 29 MANSI , Conciliorum 14. Cols. 493–499; MGH. Concilia / Ed. A. WERMINGHOFF. Vol. 2: Concilia aevi Karolini (Hannover, 1908) Pars 2. 589f. J. ZEILLER, Les origines chrétiennes dans les provinces Romaines danubiennes (Paris, 1918) (Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 112) 34–35; R. A. LIPSIUS, Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und Apostellegenden. Ein Beitrag zur altchristlichen Literaturgeschichte und zu einer zusammenfassenden Darstellung der neutestamentlichen Apokryphen (Amsterdam, 1976) Vol. 2/2. 346–347; P. PASCHINI, Sulle origini 25 26
V. B. Prozorov
227
For a long time the Roman popes who had actually suggested this pattern to their fellow bishops did not recognize the tradition of apostolic foundation of other Churches. This is evidenced by the letters of Popes Zosimus and Leo I (5 May 450) to the bishops of Southern Gaul concerning apostolic foundation of the Church of Arles, and by the letter (558–560) of Pope Pelagius I to Exarch John of Ravenna concerning the claim of the bishop of Aquileia to the title of patriarch.30 However the legends of holy martyrs continued to circulate and turned into local traditions or even gained wider European approval. For example, St. Bede popularized the legend of St. Apollinaris of Ravenna and finally the Roman Church firstly referred to it under Pope Gregory VII.31 In the eighth — eleventh centuries even minor Churches in Italy acquired their patron saints, who were considered to be disciples of the apostles, mainly of St. Peter and St. Paul.32 Since the eighth century the prominent Italian sees tried to switch to the strategy of the highlighting of their associations with the apostles (or cults) different from St. Peter (or St. Peter’s): in Aquileia with St. Mark, though St. Peter’s disciple, in Ravenna with St. Andrew, St. Peter’s brother, in Milan with St. Barnabas, the co-worker of St. Paul).33 Regardless of the local background the emergence of the apostolic legends can be very often explained either by the ambition of a particular Church to establish metropolitan rights in its province or by the maintenance of some special privileges and relations with Rome. In Arles and Aquileia as well as in Ravenna the apostolic traditions being a part of the Churches’ opposition to Rome later turned to be crucial arguments against the ambitious claims of the Church of Milan.34 The Passion of St. Domnius is very similar to its Italian counterparts.35 The sujet and some topoi of the Passion of St. Hermagoras of Aquileia are della chiesa d’Aquileia // Rivista di scienze storiche 1 (1904) 24–26; P. PASCHINI, La Chiesa aquileiese ed il periodo delle origini (Udine, 1909) 36; P. PASCHINI, Storia del Friuli (Udine, 19532) Vol. 1: Dalle origini alla metà del duecento. 35–37. First Paschini thought that the council influenced the hagiographer but later he adopted the opposite stance. L.-S. LE NAIN DE TILLEMONT, Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire ecclesiastique des six premiers siècles (Venice, 1732) Vol. 2. N. 6. 497–498, 507–508; Acta sanctorum. Julii 3. 250–252, c. 9. 30 EGGER, Der heilige Hermagoras… 225–232. 31 F. L ANZONI, Le diocesi d’Italia dalle origini al principio del secolo VII (an. 604) studio critico (Faenza, 1927) (ST 35) 737–748. 32 Ibid. 78–79. For later similar examples in other parts of Europe (Metz, Trier, Reims, Paris) see: E. EWIG, Spätantikes und fränkisches Gallien (München—Zürich, 1979) Vol. 2. 64–74; FLODOARDUS, CANONICUS REMENSIS, Historia Remensis ecclesiae // PL 135. Col. 32. 33 PICARD, Les souvenir des évêques… 698–699. 34 Acta sanctorum. Septembris 7. 10–22. 35 SAXER, Les saints de Salone… 308.
228
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
especially close to the Passion of the first Salonitan pontiff. It is important to note that the three sees actually had special relations. In particular, there is some evidence that the Aquileian and Ravennese cults indeed existed in Christian Salona. According to his Passion exiled St. Apollinaris worked many miracles in Salona.36 Aquileian saints Hermogenes, Fortunatus and Anastasius was also venerated here.37 Since the cult of the first bishops was closely tied with the struggle for metropolitan rights, can we indicate any moment or period in the history of the Church of Salona when, as in Aquileia and Ravenna, the emergence of its own apostolic legend would be most beneficial to the promotion of its primatial ambitions in Dalmatia? At this point I should turn for a while to the question of when the Church of Salona acquired the metropolitan status. The old Salonitan tradition attributes the authorship of the Passion of St. Domnius to Bishop Hesychius of Salona (the early fifth century). Some features of St. Domnius’s legend can be really ascribed to the time not earlier than the fourth or fifth centuries, e. g. Trinitarian arguments deployed by Domnius in the dispute with a philosopher Pyrgus and the dedication of the church to Mary, Mother of God. Dedication of churches to Mary was quite unprecedented for the fourth century (to say nothing of the first). Even in the beginning of the fifth century Bishop Hesychius dedicated a new basilica to Christ and only later the double dedication to Christ and Blessed Mary was introduced.38 Bishop Hesychius was the most noted leader of the Church of Salona after Domnius.39 He was in touch with his prominent contemporaries — John Chrysostom40 and Augustine who in response to Hesychius composed a treatise on the last days.41 Codex pontificalis ecclesiae Ravennatis // Rerum Italicarum scriptores / Ed. L. MURATORI (Bologna, 1924) Vol. 2. Part 3/1. 25. 37 In the Breviary of the Church of Spalato (1291) there is a feast of St. Fortunatus and St. Domnio on April 11 (DELEHAYE, Santi dell’Istria… 90): «In Salona sancti Domnionis episcopi et Fortunati et aliorum CCXL martirum», Martyrology of Jerome. April 18 is a feast day of St. Hermogenes: «Salona ciuit. Septimi diaconi. Uicturici. et alibi Hermogenis». Hippolyte Delehay thought that this should be St. Hermogenes martyred on December 10 in Egypt (DELEHAYE, Santi dell’Istria… 89, 104). 38 DYGGVE, History of Salonitan Christianity… 36; N. CAMBI, The cult of the Blessed Virgin Mary at Salona and Split from the fourth till the eleventh century in the light of archeological evidence // De Cultu Mariano Saeculis VI–XI. Acta Congressus Mariologici-Mariani Internationalis in Croatia Anno 1971 Celebrati (Rome, 1972) Vol. 5. 43–71 (repr.: Bogoslovska smotra 44/2–3 (1974) 273–292); J. PELIKAN, Mary Through the Centuries. Her Place in the History of Culture (New Haven— London, 1996) 55–65. 39 FARLATI , Illyricum sacrum… Vol. 1. 417. 40 PG 52. Col. 715. 41 PL 32. Cols. 899–925. J.-P. BOUHOT, Hesychius de Salone et Augustin // Saint Augustin et la Bible / Ed. A.-M. La Bonnardière (Paris, 1986) 229–250. 36
V. B. Prozorov
229
The letter of Pope Zosimus (21 February 418) to Bishop Hesychius has special significance.42 Bishop Hesychius asked papal admonitions concerning the procedure of the ordination of monks and lay people. In his reply the Pope instructed Hesychius to inform bishops of Dalmatian and neighbouring provinces of the papal views.43 Zosimus’s choice of the bishop of Salona as a papal messenger has often been interpreted in the historiography as an indication that Hesychius acted as a metropolitan bishop of Dalmatia.44 Personally I doubt if the text of the letter gives us sufficient evidence for such a definite conclusion. But I am quite convinced that already in the sixth century the Church of Salona indeed had a metropolitan status. For the beginning of the sixth century we have the acts of the councils held in Salona in 530 and 533 which were preserved in the sixteenth century manuscript of the History of Archbishops of Salona. My research on the problem of their reliability demonstrated that their agendas correspond in many points to the agendas of the contemporary councils in Europe (mainly in Italy and Gaul) and there is no reason to doubt their reliability.45 At these councils Bishop Honorius of Salona is shown as a real acting metropolitan of Dalmatia.46 He is called a papa and archbishop. The latter designation is an obvious anachronism, that is, an interpolation of the later period when metropolitan bishops were necessarily granted by archiepiscopal title. But the metropolitan status of the Bishop of Salona in the early sixth century is also testified by other sources. PL 20. Cols. 669–673. Excerpts from the papal letter were included into the Decretum Gratiani (Ñorpus Iuris Canonici / Ed. I. H. BOEHMER (Halae Magdeburgicae, 1747) Vol. 1. Cols. 182–183), distinctio 59: «...nos ne quid meritis dilectionis tuae derogaremus, ad te potissimum scripta direximus, quae in omnium fratrum, et coepiscoporum nostrorum facies ire notitiam, non tantum eorum, qui in ea provincia sunt, sed etiam qui vicinis dilectionis tuae provinciis adjunguntur». 44 FARLATI , Illyricum sacrum… Vol. 1, 301; A. S. DABINOVIÆ, Kada je Dalmacija pala pod jurisdikciju carigradske patriaršije? [When was Dalmatia subjected to the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople?] // Rad JAZU 239 (1930) 179. Dyggve and Wilkes named Hesychius the metropolitan bishop of Dalmatia (DYGGVE, History of Salonitan Christianity…; WILKES, Dalmatia… 430). 45 Â. Á. ÏÐÎÇÎÐÎÂ, Ïîçäíåàíòè÷íàÿ è ðàííåñðåäíåâåêîâàÿ èñòîðèÿ Ñàëîíñêîé öåðêâè â îòðàæåíèè àíîíèìíîé «Ñàëîíñêîé èñòîðèè» [Late Antique and Early Medieval History of the Church of Salona through the Anonymous Salonitan History] (Candidate dissertation, Moscow State University, 1997); Â. Á. ÏÐÎÇÎÐÎÂ, Ñîáîð 530 ãîäà â Ñàëîíå è ïðîáëåìà äîñòîâåðíîñòè äîêóìåíòîâ, âêëþ÷åííûõ â Áîëüøóþ Ñàëîíñêóþ èñòîðèþ [The Council of Salona in 530 and the Problem of the Reliability of the Documents Included into the Greater History of Salona] // Âåñòíèê Ðîññèéñêîãî ãóìàíèòàðíîãî íàó÷íîãî ôîíäà 3 (2000) 48–61 (http://www.krotov. org/acts/06/530salo.html). 46 Historia Salonitana maior… 77–85. 42 43
230
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
The mid-sixth century Church of Salona imitated Aquileian example in its relations with Rome. After the Ostrogothic domination and Arian infestation in Dalmatia the schism of the «Three chapters» separated the Salonitan metropolis from the Roman Church under Bishops Frontinianus, Peter and Probinus (the latter later replaced Bishop Paulinus of Aquileia).47 In the second half of the sixth century Dalmatia returned to the communion with Rome and the Salonitan bishops were bestowed with the pallium, a sign of their metropolitan dignity, by the Pope. However this province still was a source of disturbance for the Roman pontiffs. The Salonitan bishops under Gregory the Great were negligent, corrupt and not complying.48 They were very closely linked with the Church of Ravenna and the Byzantine administration and often rejected to subject themselves to the Roman Pope. This alienation of the Church of Salona from Rome in the sixth century created a situation quite similar to Ravennate and Aquileian ones and the Church of Salona needed to establish metropolitan prerogatives on the solid basis of the apostolic legend. There is some evidence that in sixth century Salona the cult of St. Domnius was already tied with the cult of St. Peter. The latter’s relics brought to Salona from Rome were deposited in the Basilica in the cemetery in Manastirine (coemeterium legis sanctae christianae), where St. Domnius and his successors were buried.49 In 640s after the alleged destruction of Salona by the barbarians and translation of St. Domnius’s relics to Rome the mosaic in the Lateran Chapel of St. Venantius in Rome represented him as a bishop to the right of Christ just after St. Peter and John the Baptist.50 As we know from the narratives of Constantine Porphyrogenitus and later of Thomas of Spalato Salona was ruined by the Avars and the Slavs of the Avar Empire.51 Soon after this event, as Thomas reports, the archiepiscopal organization of Salona was renewed on a new site — in the palace of Emperor Diocletian — by a certain John of Ravenna sent by the pope.52 This could BULIÆ, Po ruševinama stare Salone… 46–47. THOMAS ARCHIDIACONUS, Historia Salonitana / Ed. F. Raèki (Zagreb, 1894) 2428. On the correspondence of Pope Gregory I with Dalmatia see F. BULIÆ, S. Gregorio Magno papa nelle sue relazioni colla Dalmazia — a. 590–604 // Supplemento al BASD 27 (1904); R. A. MARKUS, Gregory the Great and His World (Cambridge, 1997) 156–159. 49 E. DYGGVE, History of Salonitan Christianity… 74; E. MARIN, Civitas Splendida Salona. Geneza, profil i transformacija starokršcanske Salone [Civitas Splendida Salona. Genesis, Profile and Transformation of Early Christian Salona] // Salona Christiana (Arheološki muzej — Split, 25.9–31.10.1994) / Ed. E. Marin (Split, 1994) 46–54, 56–58. 50 G. BOVINI, I mosaici dell’oratorio di S. Venanzo a Roma // XVIII Corso di Cultura sull’Arte Ravennate e Bizantina (Ravenna, 1971) 141–154. 51 THOMAS A RCHIDIACONUS, Historia Salonitana… 30. 52 According to the History of Archbishops of Salona, it was John IV (640–642). 47 48
V. B. Prozorov
231
have happened approximately in the middle of the seventh century.53 The pope consecrated him and transferred all privileges of Salona to the Church of Spalato.54 Archbishop John as a real metropolitan of Dalmatia and Sclavonia «restored churches, appointed bishops, established parishes» and started the missionary work in the territories of Dalmatia.55 One of the components of John’s programme, according to Thomas, was the translation of the bodies of SS. Domnius and Anastasius (a martyr from Aquileia in the beginning of the fourth century and member of the holy Salonitan doublet)56 from Salona to Spalato’s church of the Virgin Mary. Thus the 53 THOMAS ARCHIDIACONUS , Historia Salonitana… 33: «Venerabilis ergo Johannes cepit clerum et populum exhortari, ut archiepiscopatum ciuitatis antique intra se instaurare deberent». Nada Klaiæ argued that the story about John of Ravenna was the legend and there was no metropolitan organization in Dalmatia until the first council of Spalato (925), although the idea of the establishment of the metropolitanate was delivered by Pope John VIII. She identified John of Ravenna with Archbishop John of Spalato under whom the tenth century councils of Spalato were held. (N. KLAIÆ, Ivan Ravenjanin i osnutak Splitske nadbiskupije [John of Ravenna and the Foundation of the Archbishopric of Spalato] // VAHD 65–67 (1971) 209–249; N. KLAIÆ, Povijest Hrvata u ranom srednjem vijeku [A History of the Croats in the Early Middle Ages] (Zagreb, 1971) 122–125, 238). Ivo Goldstein considered John of Ravenna the personification of the fact that the metropolis of Salona — Spalato was restored by the pope. The time of that event, according to Goldstein, is unknown (I. GOLDSTEIN, Hrvatski rani srednji vijek [Croatian Early Middle Ages] (Zagreb, 1995) 135 139). Radoslav Katièiæ tried to prove that Thomas of Spalatos story was based on certain old sources, and proposed new arguments in favour of the authenticity of the persons involved into the restoration of the metropolis of Salona by John of Ravenna (R. KATIÈIÆ, Vetustiores Ecclesiae Spalatensis Memoriae // Uz poèetke hrvatskih poèetaka (Split, 1993) 99130; N. BUDAK, Prva stoljeæa Hrvatske [The First Centuries of Croatia] (Zagreb, 1994) 83–86). 54 T HOMAS ARCHIDIACONUS, Historia Salonitana… 33: «Ipsi [John of Ravenna] concessum est a sede apostolica, ut totius dignitatis priuilegium quod Salona antiquitus habuit, optineret ecclesia Spaltensium». 55 T HOMAS ARCHIDIACONUS , Historia Salonitana…: «Etenim per Dalmatie et Sclavonie regiones circuendo restaurabat ecclesias, ordinabat episcopos, parochias disponebat, paulatim rudes populos ad informationem catholicam attrahebat». In the catalogue of the archbishops (Ibid. 35) Thomas writes: «Fuerunt autem in ecclesia Spalatensi archiepiscopi multi, quibus ex priuilegio Salonitane ecclesie omnes episcopi superioris et inferioris Dalmatie obediebant utpote suffraganei ab antiquo». Certainly we should remember that Thomas’s aim was to show the antiquity and priority of the metropolitan Church of Spalato over all the bishops of Dalmatia and Croatia. The very word suffraganeus used by Thomas was being introduced from the end of the eighth century (History of the Church / Ed. H. JEDIN (Kent, 1991) Vol. 3. 288). 56 P. BROWN , The Cult of the Saints: Its Rise and Function in Late Christianity (Berkeley, 1982) 97. Delehaye’s article on St. Anastasius was published in BASD 21 (1898) 57–72. Three versions of the Life of St. Anastasius are represented in FARLATI,
232
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
right of the bishopric of Spalato as a successor to the archbishopric of Salona was definitely established.57 Thomas highlighted the continuity of ecclesiastical organization as he pointed out that despite their residence in Spalato (since the time of John of Ravenna) the archbishops still «were called not of Spalato but of Salona».58 Obviously, this relatively short period of transition in the seventh century was the time, when the Church needed the tradition of its holy protector most. The bishopric on the new site was going to reinforce metropolitan rights of the Church of Salona on the apostolic foundation. The history of the following centuries is obscure due to the lack of information. We can only suppose that it was the period of accommodation of various Slavic and non-Slavic peoples in the Balkans and attempts of the Byzantine administration to secure the remains of its authority at least on the Adriatic coast.59 This period in Dalmatia was marked by the emergence of the bishopric of Nin (ancient Nona) close to Zadar, the capital of Byzantine Dalmatia. Seemingly this bishopric was founded sometime in the mid-ninth century, perhaps under Pope Nicholas I (858–867).60 The first bishop of Nin known to histoIllyricum sacrum… Vol. 1. 720–725. On its eleventh — twelfth century manuscripts see R. EGGER, Die Passio Sancti Anastasii und ihr Fortleben // Forschungen in Salona (Vienna, 1939) Vol. 3. 131–148. 57 THOMAS A RCHIDIACONUS, Historia Salonitana… 34. 58 Ibid. 35: «Ipsi autem archiepiscopi non spalatenses sed salonitani appellabantur». 59 I. GOLDSTEIN, Bizant na Jadranu od Justinijana I. do Bazilija I. [Byzantium in the Adriatic from Justinian I until Basil I] (Zagreb, 1992). 60 This famous fragment of the letter of Pope Nicholas I was included into the Decretum Gratiani. There were a lot of opinions concerning the foundation and subordination of the bishopric of Nin in historiography. Several scholars put the date of the foundation in the seventh century: FARLATI, Illyricum sacrum… Vol. 3. 123; Vol. 4. 205; T. SMIÈIKLAS, Hrvatska povijest [Croatian History] (Zagreb, 1882) Vol. 1. 155, 188. However, most of the authors fixed the establishment of the bishopric of Nin in the ninth century: 1) Priruènik izvora hrvatske historije [A Handbook of the Sources of Croatian History] / Ed. F. IIÆ (Zagreb, 1914) Vol. 1. 190–191: the early ninth century, the suffragan of Spalato; 2) F. RAÈKI, Nutarnje stanje Hrvatske prije XII. stoljeæa [The Situation in Croatia until the Twelfth Century] // Rad JAZU 116 (1894) 41–42 and S. RITIG, Povjest i pravo slovenštine u crkvenom bogosluju [History and Right of the Slavonic Language in the Liturgy] (Zagreb, 1910) Vol. 1. 131, 149: under Pope Nicholas I (858–867), the suffragan of Spalato; 3) M. PEROJEVIÆ, Ninski biskup Teodozije [Bishop Theodosius of Nin] // Prilog VAHD 1 (1922) 1–37, assumed that the bishop of Nin (the bishop of the Croats), a former chorbishop, received the title of bishop in the mid-ninth century and was subordinated to the patriarch of Aquileia; 4) M. BARADA, Episcopus Chroatensis // Croatia sacra 1 (1931) 161–215, wrote that the bishopric of Nin was founded between 864 and 867 under Croatian Prince Domagoj, when Dalmatian cities supported Patriarch Photius, whereas the
V. B. Prozorov
233
rians was Theodosius who lived in the second half of the ninth century and was translated to the metropolitan see of Salona.61 Emperor Basil I (867–886) reestablished the Byzantine authority over all the Dalmatian cities. Probably at that time their ecclesiastical organisation was separated from the Roman Church. But there is sofar no evidence that it was joined to the patriarchate of Constantinople. At least, there are no Dalmatian bishops in the lists of the suffragan sees of the patriarchate.62 The problem of the ecclesiastical organization of Dalmatia and Croatia was the main issue on the agenda of the councils of Spalato in 925 and 928.63 Their acts were preserved earliest in the sixteenth century manuscript of the History of Archbishops of Salona and their reliability was questioned many times. I tried to verify it and demonstrated that in some issues their agendas corresponded to the contemporary or slightly earlier councils and synods in Gaul, Germany and Italy and there was no need to falsify these acts.64 They named Bishop Gregory of Nin who was present at the council «the bishop of the Croats».65 It means that at that time the bishopric of Nin was the ecclesiastical centre of the Croatian state and its bishop somehow represented Croatian flock of the Dalmatian metropolitanate. Bishop Gregory even claimed metropolitan rights over Dalmatia and Croatia and challenged the metropoliCroats remained loyal to Rome. The bishop of the Croats was subordinated to the pope, since Dalmatian cities were not under the jurisdiction of Rome, and, although the bishop of Spalato had the title of archbishop, he was not a metropolitan of Dalmatia; 5) KLAIÆ, Povijest Hrvata u ranom srednjem vijeku… 232–239, posed a hypothesis, according to which, the bishopric of Nin was founded under Croatian Duke Trpimir, somewhere in the mid-ninth century, and supervised by the patriarchate of Aquileia; 6) N. BUDAK, Prva stoljeæa Hrvatske [The First Centuries of Croatia] (Zagreb, 1994) 92–96, referring to the fact that the Church of Nin continued to exist from Late Antiquity, pointed out that the archpriest of Nin may have been under the jurisdiction of Zadar. He thought that the bishopric of Nin was founded by the clergy of Nin without the pope’s consent. However, it was later subordinated to the Roman Church. 61 Codex diplomaticus regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae. T. 1: Diplomata annorum 743–1100 / Continens, ed. M. KOSTRENÈIÆ, J. STIPIIÆ, M. AMALOVIÆ (Zagreb, 1967) (hereafter CD) 16, no. 12. 62 Vizantijski izvori za istoriju naroda Jugoslavije [Byzantine Sources of the History of the Peoples of Yugoslavia] / Ed. J. FERLUGA et al. (Belgrade, 1966) Vol. 3. 1–4. 63 Historia Salonitana maior… 95–106. Canons 1, 2, 3; canons 8, 9, 11 and 12 deal with the cases of particular bishoprics, although the two last canons have great importance for the ecclesiastical organization of Dalmatia and Croatia in general. 64 V. P ROZOROV, The Councils of Split in 925 and 928: An Attempt at a Comparative Approach. Abstract of the M. A. Thesis // Annual of Medieval Studies at the CEU 1994–1995 / Ed. M.-B. L. Davis, M. Sebõk (Budapest, 1996) 68–69; ÏÐÎÇÎÐÎÂ, Ïîçäíåàíòè÷íàÿ è ðàííåñðåäíåâåêîâàÿ èñòîðèÿ Ñàëîíñêîé öåðêâè... 65 We can suppose it from the introduction to the letter of Pope John X to the Dalmatian bishops (CD I, no 25. 35).
234
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
tan status of the Church of Spalato. There is no evidence of the legality of this claim, and the anonymous composer of the conciliar texts, a partisan of Salona — Spalato, asserted that the bishop of Nin never had the primacy in Dalmatia. This demarche of the bishop of Nin gave the council of 925 an opportunity to confirm in its acts the rights of the Church of Spalato for the legacy of ancient Salona. According to the canon 1, the primacy of the archbishop of Spalato in Dalmatia and Croatia and his right to convoke councils and consecrate suffragan bishops were confirmed by the authority of the patron saint of Salona — Spalato and the disciple of St. Peter, St. Domnius himself.66 This authority was translated from declined Salona together with the relics of the martyr. This canon is the first direct reference to the Salonitan tradition of apostolic succession apart from the Passion of St. Domnius. The conciliar argumentation echoes the reference of the synod of Mantua to the apostolic legend in the debate of Aquileia and Grado. This decision of the council of Salona coincided with the revival of the interest towards this theme in the late eighth and ninth century Europe.67 The falsified preface to the acts of the council in Nicaea, included in the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, clearly connected the foundation of all the archbishoprics (in the initial sense of this institution) with the activities of the Apostles, thus suggesting the pattern of proving the primatial rights for the other metropolises.68 It is interesting to note that, whatever political reasons, the liturgical calendar of Spalato, perhaps, retained the memory of the early version of St. Domnius’s martyrdom. The Calendar of the Church of Spalato of 1291 (supported by the Statute of Spalato of 1312) had two separate feasts, connected with St. Domnius. It celebrated the memory of St. Domnius the Bishop on April 11, and dedicated May 7 to St. Domnius the Martyr.69 66 CD I, No. 23, p. 23: «Quoniam antiquitus beatus Domnius ab apostolo Petro predicare Salonam missus est constituitque, ut ecclesia ipsa et civitas ubi sancta eius membra requiescunt inter omnes ecclesias provintie huius primatis habeat et metropolis nomine super omnes episcopatus legitime sortiatur, ita dumtaxat, ut ad eius iussionem episcopi, qui per divinam gratiam cathedram ipsam retinuerint, et sinodus celebretur et consecratio episcoporum; quia dicente domino: ubi fuerit (corpus) illuc congregabuntur et aquile». 67 Paul the Deacon, Liber de episcopis Mettensibus // MGH. Scriptores. Vol. 2 / Ed. G. H. PERTZ (Hannover, 1829) 261. 68 PL 130. Cols. 251–253. 69 A. BERTOLDI, Breviario ad uso della chiesa di Spalato già Salonitana // Archivio Veneto 85–86 (1886) 221–251; Statut grada Splita [The Statute of Spalato] (Split, 1985) 11, cap. 5. The epigraphic material and one more or less reliable manuscript of the Martyrology of Jerome established the exact date of Domnius’s martyrdom on April 10 (not 11) (SAXER, Les saints de Salone… 299–300).
V. B. Prozorov
235
There is nothing strange that the Church celebrated two feasts of St. Domnius. But I find it suspicious that in his History Thomas of Spalato tries to specifically explain why Spalatians had two festivals in honour of St. Domnius. He reported that once upon a time certain pilgrims from Spalato stole the body of St. Domnio of Fidenza (Domninus, Ital. Donnino), a martyr of the early fourth century, and since that time there was a confusion of St. Domnius of Salona and St. Domnio of Fidenza who were both venerated in Spalato.70 Though we know St. Domnio of Fidenza, we have no evidence, apart from Thomas’s explanation, that his relics were ever brought to Spalato. Thus the historian’s remark can be explained as an attempt to reconcile the conflicting traditions of Domnius the Martyr and Domnius the Apostolic Bishop. To sum up, I have tried to demonstrate the striking similarity of the development of the apostolic tradition in Dalmatia with apostolic traditions in Ravenna and Aquileia. They probably emerged as a strong argument in favour of the autonomy of the Churches in their tensions with Rome in the fifth and sixth centuries and were further developed in order to secure the leading status of the Churches in their provinces in the seventh — tenth centuries. I think that this comparison supports the hypothesis that the apostolic tradition in Salona could emerge as early as in the sixth century, when the Salonitan Church started to play the role of the real metropolis of Dalmatia, had some tensions with Rome vaguely echoed in the available sources and finally in the first half of the seventh century moved to the new site — the palace of Diocletian, present-day Split. In conclusion I would like to highlight the fact that the figure of St. Domnius and the question of apostolic succession did in no way lose their significance in the modern history of Dalmatia and Croatia. The versions of St. Domnius’s Passion were first published by a prominent Jesuit Daniele Farlati in his Illyricum sacrum in the mid-eighteenth century.71 He did not doubt that the martyrdom and the Passion dated back to the first Christian centuries and all the components of the narrative were reliable.72 Farlati’s tradition domineered the eighteenth and nineteenth century historiography. It totally ignored the suggestion of an early eighteenth century Farla70 Acta sanctorum. Octobris 4. 988–992; BHL 2264–2267. 341–342. His feast day is October 9. His name appears in the Martyrology of Jerome and the Martyrology of Rabanus Maurus (776 or 784–856). See also G. LAURINI, San Donnino martire e la sua cittá (memorie storiche) (Borgo S. Donnino, 1924); LANZONI, Le diocesi d’Italia… 803–805. 71 F ARLATI, Illyricum sacrum… Vol. 1. 412–427. 72 Ibid. 408: «…nec dubitarie sint, quin exemplaria illa germana fuerint atque incorrupta, unde Acta S. Domnii, veluti in varios rivos diducta, sine ulla falsitatis admistione, tam pura et sincera manarunt».
236
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
tis precursor Ante Karamaneo-Matijaeviæ (16581721) (Farlati called him oppugnator Actorum S. Domnii)73 who demonstrated that Domnius could only be a martyr of the period of Diocletian and Maximian’s persecutions. In the end of the nineteenth century Dalmatian archeologist and historian Don Frane Buliæ challenged Farlatis misattributions.74 Buliæs dating of martyrdom of St. Domnius to the fourth century led to a heated discussion with partisans of the previous point of view, mostly local clergy (Ivan Devich, Petar Kaer, Ivan Markoviæ)75 and met full support of prominent scholars of that time (Hyppolite Delehaye, Jacques Zeiller and Furio Lenzi).76 The Congregation of Rites in the Vatican accepted Buliæs argumentation in 1899,77 although debates were still going and acquired political character.78 It is important to note that the crux of the problems lay in the sphere of ecclesiastical authority and political orientation. As local proponents of St. Domnius the apostolic disciple were the Italianized citizens of Dalmatian towns, they were A. CARAMANEO-MATIASSEVICH, Riflessioni sopra l’istoria di S. Dojmo primo vescovo di Salona e martire // Supplemento al BASD 23/12 (1900) 12, 15, 17; FARLATI, Illyricum sacrum… Vol. 1. 410–411. 74 F. BULIÆ, Storia e leggenda di S. Domnione o Doimo, vescovo e martire di Salona e delle sue reliquie. Saggio storico — critico // Supplemento al BASD 24/1–2 (1901). The same opinion was expressed by DELEHAYE, Santi dell’Istria e della Dalmazia… 95–100. F. BULIÆ, J. BERVALDI, Kronotaksa solinskih biskupa [The Catalogue of the Salonitan Bishops] // Bogoslovska smotra 1–4 (1912) 15, 19. 75 Don G. D EVICH, Apologia del festeggiamo il nostro patrono san Doimo, discepolo di san Pietro, primo vescovo di Salona le cui sacre e venerate ossa riposano a Spalato (Spalato, 1900). 76 DELEHAYE, Saints d’Istrie et de Dalmatie… 393–411; IDEM, L’hagiographie de Salone d’après les dernières découvertes archéologiques // AB 23 (1904); ZEILLER, Une légende hagiographique de Dalmatie: saint Domnius de Salone… 193–218, 385– 407; J.S.B.L. (J. BERVALDI), Sveti Dujam. Biskup i mucenik solinski. Povjesno-arheološka rasprava [St. Domnius, the Salonitan Bishop and Martyr. Historical and Archaeological Study] (Split, 1906); J. BERVALDI, Alcune osservazioni ai due ultimi opuscoli del sac. Pietro Kaer e del P. G. M. intorno a S. Doimo vescovo e martire di Salona (Fiume, 1910); F. LENZI, San Domnio, vescovo e martiri di Salona (†303) (Roma, 1913); F. BULIÆ, Razvoj arheoloških istraivanja i nauka u Dalmaciji kroz zadnji milenij [The Progress of Archeological Research in Dalmatia through the Last Millennium] // Zbornik Matice Hrvatske o tisucoj godišnjci Hrvatskog kraljevstva (Zagreb, 1925) Vol. 1 / Ed. F. LUKAS. Part 1. 158. 77 BULIÆ, Razvoj arheoloških istraivanja i nauka u Dalmaciji... 148. 78 (Don K. EGVIÆ), Storia e leggenda di S. Doimo e Domione vescovo e martire di Salona e delle sue reliquie. Saggio storico-critico // Supplemento al BASD 24 (1901); I. MARKOVIÆ, Nešto o sv. Dujmu. Poslanica ... otcu Petru-Krstitelju Baèiæu (Some Words on St. Domnius. The Letter …to Father Petar-Krstitelj Baèiæ] (Split, 1906); Don P. KAER, San Doimo, vescovo e martire di Salona nell’archeologia e agiografia (Sebenico, 1908). 73
V. B. Prozorov
237
highly concerned with the growing Croatian nationalism and wished to stress and maintain the historical identity of Dalmatia. Quite contrariwise the tenth century events in Dalmatia were used by the politicians in the twentieth century. Bishop Gregory of Nin who lost his case at the council of Spalato in 925 gained the status of a symbolic figure in Croatia. The partisans of the Croatian national idea represented him as a fighter for the national Church and national state. The Croats in Dalmatia in opposition to the strong Italian influence regarded him as a symbol of the struggle for their national identity and at the same time for the union of all the Southern Slavs under Croatian leadership. The Gregorian myth culminated during the celebration of the millennium of the Croatian kingdom which was thought to be established in the time of the council of Spalato in 925. The festivities in Dalmatia were crowned by the opening of a monumental statue of Bishop Gregory sculptured by a famous Croatian artist Ivan Metroviæ. The monument was inserted into the very heart of Split. It was erected in the Peristyle of the Palace of Diocletian, close to the entrance of the Cathedral where the relics of St. Domnius were deposited. The Italianized clergy of Split regarded this act as a challenge to the ancient metropolitan rights and the authority of Spalato and openly protested. Later the image of Gregory of Nin was deployed in the Yugoslav propaganda against the Vatican concordat and the Papacy which was associated with the political interests of Italian fascists in the Balkans. In fact, when Dalmatia was occupied by Italian troops Gregory’s statue was removed and restored only after the end of the World War II on a new site, namely out of the Palace of Diocletian, near its Golden Gate. Gregory of Nin is still passing by the entrance of Old Split, the citadel of St. Domnius, and never comes in.
APPENDIX Passio Sancti Domnii (according to the HISTORY OF ARCHBISHOPS OF SALONA) SANCTUS DOMNIUS EPISCOPUS, natione Antiocenus, patre Theodosio ex Syria, matre vero Migdonia ex Grecia, quos cathecuminos fecit et baptizavit beatus Petrus apostolorum princeps qui primus sedit in cathedra episcopatus urbis Antiocene, ubi Domnius puer septem annorum divinitus inspiratus, relictis parentibus et huius mundi diviths, secutus est apostolum. Tempore vero Claudii placuit beato Petro visere populum Cesaree, in cuius fenibus quodam a domino potestatem ligandi atque solvendi suscepit. Inde abiens peragravit Sebastem Capadotiam, Galatiam, Pontum, Bithiniam, Ephesum, Patmos, Athenas, demum ad hostia Tyberina applicuere ingressi sunt. Ubi beatus Petrus multis iam ad fidem Chrysti conversis alias quoque orbis terre partes ab erroris pernitie liberare cupiens, Pancratium destinavit in Siciliam, Appolinarem Ravenam Marcum evangelistam Aquilegiam Domnium vero multis coram positis
238
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
dixit: Ecce fili, ab infantia tua mecum ingressus et egressus es; omnem doctrinam catholicam didicisti. Pete littus maris adriatici et, recto cursu trans mare contra boream vectus veniens in Dalmatiam, que per te non post multos annos Chrysto creditura est. Vade, pax dei sit tecum. Domnius igitur satis prospero cursu mare emersus, Salonas devenit Christique misteria publice ac palam exponere cepit. Ad cuius predicationem multi, corde compuncti, Christo crediderunt, quos omnes in flumine Salono baptizabat. Quendam Pirgum falsum philosophum secum disputantem, cum a suo errore non posset in sua obstinatione reliquens, verbum dei populis predicabat spiritu sancto operante et sermonem confirmante. Ecclesiam in honorem. sancte dei genitricis Marie in eadem urbe construxit pulcherrimo opere, ubi sacerdotes dei, presbiteros et levitas ceterosque sacri ministerii ordines in ea ordinavit. Quibus per Dalmatiam dimissis brevi onmem ferre provinciam diabolo ereptam deo lucratus est. Post multum vero temporis, cum iam dominus servum suum ad coronam et triumphum certaminis provehero vellet, accidit prefectum urbis Maurilium nomine ad predictam civitatem Salonarum venisse, missum a senatu totas provintias Orientis iudicare. Qui cum civitatem intrasset, sacerdotes templorum occurerunt ei dicentes: Seductor quidam Romana urbe profugus ad hanc urbem venit, qui culturam deorum nostrorum non cessat subvertere et Jesum quendam a iudeis crucifixum summum deum astruere. His superba mente prefectus auditis beatum Domnium ad se accersiri iussit, cui et dixit: Ex quo genere es tu aut de qua civitate oriundus? Beatus Domnius respondit: Patre Syro, matre vero Greca progenitus, in civitate Antiocena educatus; ibidem lavacrum regenerationis a beato Petro apostolo suscepi et ab eodem ad hanc provinciam missus pro salute animarum veni. Tunc prefectus iussit eum recludi in carcere quousque exquireret, quibus eum modis aut ad culturam deorum revocaret aut crudelissimis tormentis interire faceret. Peractis quibusdam negotiis et educto eo de carcere, cepit multis sermonibus suadere, quatenus pecunia accepta atque inter amicos eius ascriptus denegaret ac this sacrificaret. Tunc beatus Domnius igne divino succensus dixit: Insane Maurili, pecunia me movere speras cum ego multo majus patrimonium sponte reliquerim, ut cum Christo paupere pauper viverem. Non est opus chrystiano diviths istis, sed fide atque virtute, quibus divitie nunquam interiture parantur in celo. Videns autem prefectus omnia que temptaverat in cassum cedere, expoliari hominem iussit et fustibus nudum cedi. Dum autem Domnius cederetur, fit chrystianorum concursus ad pretorium, insultant Maurilio frementes pre dolore et opprobriantes, quod inique ageretur hominem innocentem per ludibrium suppliciis opprimi. Ille vero, ira percitus, repente emissa armatorurn manu, quadraginta quinque ex his conprehensos nolentesque idolis sacrificare, statim capite truncari iussit. Quorum corpora, noctu a fidelibus inde sublata, ad radices Massaron monte humata sunt. Per eos dies, dum talia geruntur, Febronie vidue filius, cuius pater nomine Diginanus urbis Rome senator fuerat, deffunctus est. De cuius morte tam prefectus quam ceteri Salonarum cives mestiores facti, beatum Domnium submisso capite ac sedata voce poscebant, dicentes: Nunc apparebit virtus Chrysti tui, si in nomine eius, quem tu dicis mortuos suscitasse, cecos illuminasse, demonibus im-
V. B. Prozorov
239
perasse, hunc poteris mortuum suscitare. Ad hec vir dei respondit prefecto: Licet noverim cor tuum a diabolo obcecatum, ne credens salvus fias, propter eos tamen, qui crediderunt, vel qui credituri sunt, ut agnoscant veritatem Chrysti, exurgere hunc feciam. Tunc iuxta cadaver flexit genibus, manibus vero atque oculis in celum sublatis cum orasset, imperavit mortuo in nomine Chrysti, ut resumpto spiritu sese in pedes errigeret atque iterum vivere super terram inciperet. Vix verba finierat et adolescens: tam facile surrexit, ut non a morte suscitatus, sed quasi a somno expergefactus videretur. Quo viso miraculo plurimi ad fidem Chrysti conversi sunt. Sacerdotes vero templorum videntes, quod tanta turba senum, iuvenum, mulierum ac parvulorum ad hoc miraculum confluxerat, quanta theatralibus ludis vel sacrificiis olympici Iovis vix unquam convenerat, omnes maiores natu, vel quorum auctoritas pollebat, in pretorium congregare fecerunt et data pecunia prefecto suggesserunt ei atque dixerunt: Non consideras quantum hic magus, prestigiis suis seducens populum, tibi quoque, nisi caveris, maximum conflat detrimentum et certum interitum. Nam si eius vite peperceris, populum usquequaque subvertentis, senatus Populusque romanus iudicabunt te contrarium legibusque augustorum et donabunt te proscriptioni et morti, nec erit, qui possit succurere tibi. Tunc Maurilius, donis obcecatus ac perversis seductus consiliis, firmato in malum animo, dedit legem: Domnium contrarium legibus imperatorum contemptorem deorum, iubemus capitalem subire sententiam. Mox lictores eum aprehensum extra ciuitatem, ut decolloraretur, eduxerunt. Ubi cum diu in oratione genuflexo procubuisset, unus ex ministris Sathane, impetu facto, amputavit caput eius nonis maii. Historia Salonitana maior / Ed. N. KLAIÆ (Belgrade, 1967) (SANU, Posebna izdanja 299) 73–75
SUMMARY ¬‡‰ËÏ ¡. œÓÁÓÓ‚ ÃÓÒÍ‚‡
Ô◊≈Õ»◊≈—“¬Œ —¬. ƒŒÃÕ»fl: œ–≈ƒ¿Õ»≈ Œ¡ ¿œŒ—“ŒÀ‹— ŒÃ œ–≈≈ד¬≈ ¬ ƒ¿Àÿ÷»»  äàííîé ñòàòüå èññëåäóåòñÿ àãèîãðàôè÷åñêàÿ òðàäèöèÿ îñíîâàíèÿ Ñàëîíñêîé öåðêâè, êîòîðàÿ âåñüìà ðàíî íà÷àëà ïðåòåíäîâàòü íà ðîëü ìèòðîïîëèè ïðîâèíöèè Äàëìàöèÿ. Åå ïðèòÿçàíèÿ áûëè îñíîâàíû íà ëåãåíäå î ìèññèè ó÷åíèêà ñâ. àïîñòîëà Ïåòðà ñâ. Äîìíèÿ (èëè Äîìíèîíà) â Äàëìàöèè è ñîçäàíèè èì öåðêîâíîé îðãàíèçàöèè â Ñàëîíå. Àâòîð äåìîíñòðèðóåò âåðîÿòíîñòü òîãî, ÷òî ëåãåíäà î ñâÿòîì ïîêðîâèòåëå Ñàëîíû îáðåëà ÷åðòû, õàðàêòåðíûå äëÿ å¸ âåðñèè â àíîíèìíîé «Áîëüøîé Ñàëîíñêîé èñòîðèè» óæå ê VII â., à ãëàâíîå, óæå òîãäà ìèññèÿ ñâ. Äîìíèÿ â Äàëìàöèè áûëà ñâÿçàíà ñ èìåíåì ñâ. àïîñòîëà Ïåòðà è, òàêèì îáðàçîì, ñëóæèëà îñíîâàíèåì äëÿ ñàëîíñêîé òðàäèöèè àïîñòîëüñêîãî ïðååìñòâà.
“‡Ú¸ˇÌ‡ ¿. —ÂÌË̇ (ÏÓ̇ıËÌˇ ‡ÒÒˡ) —‡ÌÍÚ-œÂÚ·ۄ
ƒ»¿ÀŒ√ ‘≈Œ‘»À¿ » ¿——»»: À»“≈–¿“”–Õ¿fl ¬¤ƒ”à ¿ »À» –≈¿À‹ÕŒ—“‹?* The family history of the Amorian house is notoriously obscure. (C. Mango)
Î òîì, êîãäà è êàê ïðîõîäèë âûáîð íåâåñò äëÿ èìïåðàòîðà Ôåîôèëà (829842), áûë ëè îí âîîáùå, è ó÷àñòâîâàëà ëè â íåì áóäóùàÿ çíàìåíèòàÿ ïåñíîïèñèöà èíîêèíÿ Êàññèÿ, ñóùåñòâóåò äîâîëüíî áîãàòàÿ ëèòåðàòóðà.  ïîñëåäíåå âðåìÿ â íàóêå óòâåðäèëîñü ìíåíèå, ÷òî åñëè äàæå âûáîð íåâåñò è ÿâëÿåòñÿ èñòîðè÷åñêèì ôàêòîì, òî Êàññèÿ â íåì íå ó÷àñòâîâàëà, è âñÿ èñòîðèÿ îáìåíà ðåïëèêàìè ìåæäó íåþ è èìïåðàòîðîì ïîçäíåéøàÿ ëèòåðàòóðíàÿ âûäóìêà.1  ÷àñòíîñòè, ýòó âåðñèþ ïîääåðæèâàåò ðîññèéñêèé èññëåäîâàòåëü Ä. Àôèíîãåíîâ, âíîâü èçëîæèâ åå â ñâîåé ïîñëåäíåé ìîíîãðàôèè î ñîáûòèÿõ ýïîõè âòîðîãî èêîíîáîð÷åñòâà.2 Îñíîâíûå àðãóìåíòû àâòîðà ñâîäÿòñÿ ê ñëåäóþùåìó: âî-ïåðâûõ, Êàññèÿ íå ìîãëà ïîïàñòü íà âûáîð íåâåñò, áóäó÷è, ïî-âèäèìîìó, ñòàðøå Ôåîôèëà;3 âî-âòîðûõ, ñàì äèàëîã Êàññèè è Ôåîôèëà çàèìñòâîâàí èç Ñëîâà íà Áëàãîâåùåíèå Ïðåñâÿòîé Áîãîðîäèöû (BHG 1128f), «÷òî âíó* Çà ðàçíîãî ðîäà ïîìîùü ïðè íàïèñàíèè äàííîé ñòàòüè âûðàæàþ ãëóáîêóþ áëàãîäàðíîñòü Â. Ì. Ëóðüå (èåðîìîíàõó Ãðèãîðèþ), À. Ã. Äóíàåâó, Â. À. Áàðàíîâó, À. Â. Ìóðàâüåâó, Ä. À. Íîñíèöèíó, Ê. Â. Õðóñòàëåâó è À. Ì. Øóôðèíó. 1 Ýòîé òî÷êè çðåíèÿ ïðèäåðæèâàåòñÿ è àâòîð íàèáîëåå ïîäðîáíîé ìîíîãðàôèè î Êàññèè: I. ROCHOW, Studien zu der Person, den Werken und dem Nachleben der Dichterin Kassia (Berlin, 1967) (Berliner Byzantinische Arbeiten 38) 5–19. 2 Ä. Å. ÀÔÈÍÎÃÅÍÎÂ, «Ïîâåñòü î ïðîùåíèè èìïåðàòîðà Ôåîôèëà» è Òîðæåñòâî Ïðàâîñëàâèÿ (Ì., 2004) (Scrinium Philocalicum IV) 5556. Ðàíåå òåìà âûáîðà íåâåñò äëÿ Ôåîôèëà ðàññìàòðèâàëàñü â ñòàòüÿõ òîãî æå àâòîðà: D. AFINOGENOV, The Brid-Show of Theophilos: Some Notes on the Sourse // Eranos (Acta Philologica Suecana) 95 (1997) 1018; Ä. ÀÔÈÍÎÃÅÍÎÂ, Þ. ÊÀÇÀ×ÊÎÂ, Ëåãåíäà î Ôåîôèëå: íîâûå ðàçîáëà÷åíèÿ // Ó÷åíûå çàïèñêè Ðîññèéñêîãî Ïðàâîñëàâíîãî Óíèâåðñèòåòà àï. Èîàííà Áîãîñëîâà 5 (2000) 5–13. 3 Ýòîò æå àðãóìåíò âûäâèãàëè È. Ðîõîâ è íåêîòîðûå äðóãèå èññëåäîâàòåëè, â ÷àñòíîñòè M. D. LAUXTERMANN, The Byzantine Epigram in the Ninth and Tenth Centuries. A Generic Study of Epigrams an Some Other Forms of Poetry (Amsterdam, 1994) 109.
Т. А. Сенина
241
øàåò ñèëüíûå ïîäîçðåíèÿ îòíîñèòåëüíî èñòîðè÷íîñòè âñåãî ðàññêàçà».4 Êðîìå òîãî, èññëåäîâàòåëü ñ÷èòàåò, ÷òî Ôåîôèë, âçÿâ â æåíû Ôåîäîðó, âî ìíîãîì ðóêîâîäñòâîâàëñÿ ïîëèòè÷åñêèìè ñîîáðàæåíèÿìè; íî ýòîò àñïåêò â ðàìêàõ äàííîé ñòàòüè ÿ ðàññìàòðèâàòü íå áóäó, ïîñêîëüêó ñòðåìëåíèå Ä. Àôèíîãåíîâà îáúÿñíÿòü äåéñòâèÿ âèçàíòèéñêèõ èñòîðè÷åñêèõ äåÿòåëåé ïðåèìóùåñòâåííî ñ òî÷êè çðåíèÿ ïîëèòè÷åñêèõ è «êëàíîâûõ» èíòåðåñîâ, çàñëóæèâàåò îòäåëüíîãî ðàçãîâîðà.5
¡˚Î ÎË ‚˚·Ó Ì‚ÂÒÚ? Ë. Ðþäåí, ïî ìíåíèþ Ä. Àôèíîãåíîâà, «ñ î÷åâèäíîñòüþ äîêàçàë», ÷òî âûáîð íåâåñò «ëèòåðàòóðíàÿ ôèêöèÿ».6 Îäíàêî ìíå äîêàçàòåëüñòâà Ðþäåíà íå ïðåäñòàâëÿþòñÿ ñòîëü óæ óáåäèòåëüíûìè.7 Âñå øåñòü èñòîðèé î âûáîðàõ íåâåñò äëÿ èìïåðàòîðîâ IX âåêà, ïî óòâåðæäåíèþ Ðþäåíà, âûäóìàíû: âûáîð íåâåñò äëÿ Êîíñòàíòèíà VI, îïèñàííûé â Æèòèè ñâ. Ôèëàðåòà Ìèëîñòèâîãî «÷èñòî ëèòåðàòóðíûé ìîòèâ, èñïîëüçîâàííûé Íèêèòîé äëÿ äîñòèæåíèÿ ëèòåðàòóðíîãî ýôôåêòà»;8 âûáîð íåâåñò äëÿ Ñòàâðàêèÿ, ñûíà èìïåðàòîðà Íèêèôîðà, î êîòîðîì ïîâåñòâóåò «Õðîíîãðàôèÿ» Ôåîôàíà Èñïîâåäíèêà, ïðèäóìàí íå òî Ôåîôàíîì, íå òî Ãåîðãèåì Ñèíêåëëîì ïðîñòî èç æåëàíèÿ âûñòàâèòü Íèêèôîðà Ãåíèêà â ñìåøíîì âèäå;9 âûáîð íåâåñò äëÿ Ôåîôèëà âûäóìêà èêîíîÀÔÈÍÎÃÅÍÎÂ, «Ïîâåñòü î ïðîùåíèè èìïåðàòîðà Ôåîôèëà»
55. Îòìå÷ó ëèøü, ÷òî òàêîé ïîäõîä óæå ïîäâåðãñÿ íåêîòîðîé êðèòèêå: Ïðîòîèåðåé ÂÀËÅÍÒÈÍ ÀÑÌÓÑ, [ðåö. íà:] Ä. Å. Àôèíîãåíîâ, Êîíñòàíòèíîïîëüñêèé ïàòðèàðõàò è èêîíîáîð÷åñêèé êðèçèñ â Âèçàíòèè (784847) (Ì., 1997) // Áîãîñëîâñêèé Âåñòíèê 4 (2004) 497–511. 6 AFINOGENOV, The Bride-Show of Theophilos
10; òàêîãî æå ìíåíèÿ î äîêàçàòåëüñòâàõ Ë. Ðþäåíà ïðèäåðæèâàåòñÿ è Ì. Ëàóêñòåðìàíí. 7 Â. Òðåäãîëüä, ïîñâÿòèâøèé äîêàçàòåëüñòâó èñòîðè÷íîñòè âûáîðîâ íåâåñò îòäåëüíóþ ñòàòüþ (W. T. TREADGOLD, The Bride-Shows of the Byzantine Emperors // Byz 49 (1979) 395413) íåäàâíî, â îòâåò íà êîíòðàðãóìåíòàöèþ Ðþäåíà, îïóáëèêîâàë íîâóþ ðàáîòó, ãäå âíîâü îòñòàèâàåò ñâîè âçãëÿäû: W. T. TREADGOLD, The Historicity of Imperial Bride-Shows // JÖB 54 (2004) 39–52. Îäíàêî, åãî ïîçäíÿÿ àðãóìåíòàöèÿ íå ñëèøêîì ìíîãî ïðèáàâëÿåò ê ñêàçàííîìó â åãî áîëåå ðàííèõ ñòàòüÿõ; â ÷èñëå ó÷åíûõ, îïðîâåðãøèõ, ïî åãî ìíåíèþ, àðãóìåíòû Ðþäåíà, Òðåäãîëüä óïîìèíàåò ëèøü äâîèõ (p. 39, n. 3), íî èõ äîâîäû â äàëüíåéøåì ïî÷åìó-òî íèêàê íå èñïîëüçóåò, à â îñíîâíîì ïîâòîðÿåò â ñëåãêà ìîäèôèöèðîâàííîé ôîðìå ñîáñòâåííûå ðàññóæäåíèÿ. Õîòÿ Òðåäãîëüä çàÿâëÿåò â íà÷àëå ñòàòüè, ÷òî ñîáèðàåòñÿ äàòü «áîëåå äåòàëüíûé îòâåò» íà «àòàêó ïðîòèâ èñòîðè÷íîñòè êîíêóðñîâ íåâåñò», åãî ðàáîòà äîâîëüíî áåäíà è íîâûìè àðãóìåíòàìè, è ññûëêàìè. 8 L. RYDÉN, The Bride-shows at the Byzantine Court — History or Fiction? // Eranos 83 (1985) 175191; öèò. 181. 9 Ibid. 179–180. 4 5
242
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
ïî÷èòàòåëåé, æåëàâøèõ óíèçèòü èìïåðàòîðà-èêîíîáîðöà,10 è ò. ä. Íî çàòåì èññëåäîâàòåëü, âñòàâ ïåðåä âîïðîñîì, ïî÷åìó è îòêóäà ðàññêàçû î âûáîðå íåâåñò ïîÿâèëèñü â âèçàíòèéñêîé ëèòåðàòóðå IX âåêà è èñ÷åçëè ïîñëå Õ âåêà, ïðèçíàåòñÿ: «ß íå ìîãó äàòü òî÷íîãî îòâåòà íà ýòîò âîïðîñ»,11 è ïðåäïîëàãàåò, ÷òî ñþæåò âîîáùå áûë ñâîéñòâåíåí «àíîíèìíîé ëèòåðàòóðå».12 Ýòî, îäíàêî, ñîâåðøåííî íå îáúÿñíÿåò, ïî÷åìó èìåííî â IX âåêå âîçíèêëî ñòîëüêî «ëèòåðàòóðíûõ ñþæåòîâ» íà äàííóþ òåìó, è ïî÷åìó àâòîðû õðîíèê è æèòèé íåïðåìåííî âûäóìûâàëè èñòîðèè ñ âûáîðàìè íåâåñò îò íà÷àëà è äî êîíöà, à íå âïëåòàëè â ñþæåò ñâîåãî ïîâåñòâîâàíèÿ ðåàëüíûå ñîáûòèÿ.13 Äà è â öåëîì ïîñòðîåíèÿ Ë. Ðþäåíà, íà ìîé âçãëÿä, íåäîñòàòî÷íî óáåäèòåëüíû.14 10
RYDÉN, The Bride-shows at the Byzantine Court... 188. Ibid. 190. 12 Ibid. 191. 13 Êàê ìîãëî áûòü, íàïðèìåð, â ñëó÷àå âûáîðà íåâåñò äëÿ èìïåðàòîðà Ìèõàèëà III.  Æèòèè ñâ. Èðèíû Õðèñîâëàíòû ãîâîðèòñÿ, ÷òî îíà áûëà îäíîé èç êàíäèäàòîê, íî îïîçäàëà ïðèåõàòü âîâðåìÿ íà âûáîð íåâåñò. Ë. Ðþäåí çàìå÷àåò íåñòûêîâêó â äàòèðîâêàõ ðàçíûõ ñîáûòèé èç æèçíè Èðèíû è äåëàåò âûâîä, ÷òî åå ó÷àñòèå â âûáîðå íåâåñò âîîáùå ÿâëÿåòñÿ âûäóìêîé ñ öåëüþ ïîêàçàòü, ÷òî îíà, êî âñåì ïðî÷èì ñâîèì äîáðîäåòåëÿì, áûëà åùå è êðàñàâèöåé (RYDÉN, The Bride-shows
190). Ýòî âåñüìà âåðîÿòíî, íî èç ýòîãî ñîâåðøåííî íå ñëåäóåò, ÷òî íå áûëî ñàìîãî âûáîðà íåâåñò. 14 Â ñòàòüå I. SORLIN, La plus belle ou la meilleure? Note sur les concours de beauté à Byzance et dans la Russie Moscovite des XVIe–XVIIe siècles // EÙyuc
a. Mélanges offerts à Hélène Ahrweiler (Paris, 1998) (Byzantina sorbonensia 16) T. II. 635–650, çàíîâî ðàññìàòðèâàåòñÿ òåìà âûáîðà íåâåñò. È. Ñîðëýí çàìå÷àåò, ÷òî ëèòåðàòóðíûå ïàðàëëåëè, ïðîâåäåííûå Ðþäåíîì ìåæäó èñòîðèÿìè î âèçàíòèéñêèõ êîíêóðñàõ íåâåñò è Êíèãîé Ýñôèðü èëè ñêàçêàìè ïðî Çîëóøêó, äàëåêî íå ñòîëü î÷åâèäíû, êàê ìîæåò ïîêàçàòüñÿ. Êðîìå òîãî, èññëåäîâàòåëüíèöà îòìå÷àåò (p. 636) ïàðàëëåëü, èìåþùóþñÿ â Æèòèè ñâ. Êîíñòàíòèíà-Êèðèëëà, ïðîñâåòèòåëÿ ñëàâÿí: â âîçðàñòå 7 ëåò ìàëü÷èê âèäèò ñîí, ãäå ñòðàòèã ñîáèðàåò âñåõ äåâóøåê ãîðîäà è ïðåäëàãàåò Êîíñòàíòèíó èçáðàòü ïîíðàâèâøóþñÿ ñåáå â ñóïðóãè; Êîíñòàíòèí âûáèðàåò ñàìóþ êðàñèâóþ ïî èìåíè Ñîôèÿ, ò. å. Ìóäðîñòü. Á. Ôëîðÿ çàìåòèë, ÷òî õîòÿ «ðàññêàç î ÷óäåñíîì ñíå ñëîæèëñÿ ïîä âëèÿíèåì ñî÷èíåíèé» ñâ. Ãðèãîðèÿ Áîãîñëîâà, â ÷àñòíîñòè, îäíîãî èç åãî ñòèõîòâîðåíèé, îäíàêî, «êàê óêàçûâàë óæå Ô. Äâîðíèê, íàëèöî è ñóùåñòâåííûå îòëè÷èÿ ìåæäó ñòèõîòâîðåíèåì Ãðèãîðèÿ è ðàññêàçîì Æèòèÿ.  ñòèõîòâîðåíèè îòñóòñòâóåò ìîòèâ âûáîðà, äà åùå èç ñðåäû äåâóøåê ãîðîäà, ñîáðàííûõ ñòðàòèãîì.  Æèòèè ñîí Êîíñòàíòèíà êàê áû ïðèñïîñîáëåí ê óñëîâèÿì æèçíè IX â., êîãäà ðàñïðîñòðàíåííûì ÿâëåíèåì áûëè òàê íàçûâàåìûå êîíêóðñû êðàñîòû» (Á. Í. ÔËÎÐß, Ñêàçàíèå î íà÷àëå ñëàâÿíñêîé ïèñüìåííîñòè (ÑÏá., 2004) (Ñëàâÿíñêàÿ áèáëèîòåêà) 206). Åñëè ó÷åñòü, ÷òî Æèòèå ñâ. Êîíñòàíòèíà áûëî íàïèñàíî ìåæäó 869 è 880 ãã. (ñì.: Òàì æå. 17), òî â íåì ìû èìååì åùå îäíî äîñòàòî÷íî ðàííåå óïîìèíàíèå î âûáîðå íåâåñò; à ââèäó òîãî, ÷òî ìîòèâ âûáîðà ïðèáàâëåí ê óæå ñóùåñòâîâàâøåìó äåéñòâèòåëüíî ëèòåðàòóðíîìó è ñèìâîëè÷åñêîìó ìîòèâó èç11
Т. А. Сенина
243
Ïåðâûì ïî âðåìåíè îïèñàíèÿ â èñòî÷íèêàõ ÿâëÿåòñÿ âûáîð íåâåñò äëÿ Ñòàâðàêèÿ, ñîñòîÿâøèéñÿ, ñîãëàñíî «Õðîíîãðàôèè» Ôåîôàíà Èñïîâåäíèêà, â 807 ã. «Çà÷åì óñòðàèâàòü âûáîð íåâåñò, åñëè Ôåîôàíî áûëà óæå ïîìîëâëåíà è, ïî-âèäèìîìó, íå î÷åíü êðàñèâà?»15 íåäîóìåâàåò èññëåäîâàòåëü è â òî æå âðåìÿ îòìå÷àåò, ÷òî õðîíèñò, ðàññêàçûâàÿ î âûáîðå íåâåñò, íå óêàçûâàåò, ÷òî îòåö Ñòàâðàêèÿ èìïåðàòîð Íèêèôîð âûäóìàë íîâûé îáû÷àé. Íî åñëè, êàê óòâåðæäàåò Ë. Ðþäåí, õðîíèñò ïðèäóìàë èñòîðèþ ñ âûáîðîì íåâåñò ëèøü äëÿ òîãî, ÷òîáû âûñòàâèòü Íèêèôîðà â ñìåøíîì âèäå,16 òî ëîãè÷íî áûëî áû óïîìÿíóòü î òîì, ÷òî ýòî áûëî òàêîå ñòðàííîå íîâøåñòâî, ââåäåííîå «íå÷åñòèâûì öàðåì». Âïðî÷åì, õðîíèñò íå óïîìèíàåò è î ïðåäøåñòâîâàâøåì âûáîðå íåâåñò äëÿ èìïåðàòîðà Êîíñòàíòèíà VI; îäíàêî, íà ýòîì îñíîâàíèè åùå íå ñòîèò îòâåðãàòü åãî èñòîðè÷íîñòü. Ñâîé àíàëèç ðàññêàçà Ôåîôàíà î æåíèòüáå Ñòàâðàêèÿ Ë. Ðþäåí çàêëþ÷àåò âûâîäîì: «Íåñìîòðÿ íà òî, ÷òî îí áûëà íàïèñàí ñîâðåìåííèêîì, ñîâñåì íå ïîõîæå, ÷òîáû îí áûë íàäåæíûì».17 Ïî ñóòè àðãóìåíòû Ðþäåíà ñâîäÿòñÿ ê óòâåðæäåíèþ, ÷òî îí íå âåðèò õðîíèñòó ïðîñòî ïîòîìó, ÷òî åìó íå âåðèòñÿ. Çàòåì èññëåäîâàòåëü ïåðåõîäèò êî âòîðîìó îïèñàííîìó â èñòî÷íèêàõ è ïåðâîìó ïî âðåìåíè âûáîðó íåâåñò äëÿ Êîíñòàíòèíà VI, ñîñòîÿâøåìóñÿ â 788 ã.; íà ýòîé èñòîðèè ÿ îñòàíîâëþñü íåìíîãî ïîäðîáíåå.18 Íåïîíÿòíî, ïî÷åìó Íèêèòà, ââåäøèé â îáîðîò äàííûé ñþæåò, äîëæåí áûë íåïðåìåííî åãî âûäóìàòü, äàæå åñëè îí ïðîñòî «ðåøèë ñäåëàòü ñâÿòîãî» èç ñâîåãî äåäà è äëÿ ýòîãî íàïèñàë êðàñèâóþ èñòîðèþ.19 áðàíèÿ â ñóïðóãè Ìóäðîñòè, ìîæíî ïðåäïîëîæèòü, ÷òî ïîâîäîì ê òàêîìó äîïîëíåíèþ ïîñëóæèëè ðåàëüíûå ñîáûòèÿ. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, ýòîò ýïèçîä èç Æèòèÿ ñâ. Êîíñòàíòèíà ìîæåò ðàññìàòðèâàòüñÿ êàê êîñâåííîå äîêàçàòåëüñòâî â ïîëüçó òîãî, ÷òî âûáîðû íåâåñò â IX âåêå â Âèçàíòèè äåéñòâèòåëüíî èìåëè ìåñòî. Îáå óïîìÿíóòûå çäåñü ðàáîòû Â. Òðåäãîëüä â ñâîåé ñòàòüå (The Historicity of Imperial Bride-Shows
) íå ó÷èòûâàåò. 15 RYDÉN, The Bride-shows
179. Ïî÷åìó Ôåîôàíî áûëà íå î÷åíü êðàñèâà, îñòàåòñÿ íåÿñíûì; âåðîÿòíî, àâòîð äåëàåò òàêîé âûâîä íà îñíîâàíèè ñëîâ õðîíèñòà, ÷òî ñðåäè ó÷àñòâîâàâøèõ â êîíêóðñå íåâåñò áûëè åùå äâå äåâèöû, êðàñèâåå íåå (Theophanis Chronographia / Ed. C. DE BOOR (Lipsiae, 1883) 483), íî Ôåîôàíî áûëà âûáðàíà çà ñâîå âûñîêîå ïðîèñõîæäåíèå; îäíàêî èç ýòîãî åùå íå ñëåäóåò, ÷òî îíà áûëà íåõîðîøà ñîáîé. 16 RYDÉN, The Bride-shows… 179. 17 Ibid. 180. 18 Ñâîè âçãëÿäû, èçëîæåííûå â óïîìÿíóòîé ñòàòüå, Ðþäåí ïîâòîðÿåò è â êîììåíòàðèè ê êðèòè÷åñêîìó èçäàíèþ Æèòèÿ ñâ. Ôèëàðåòà Ìèëîñòèâîãî: The Life of St. Philaretos the Merciful Written by his Grandson Niketas / Critic. Ed., Intr., Transl., Notes, Indices L. RYDÉN (Uppsala, 2002) (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Byzantina Upsaliensia 8); ýòî èçäàíèå ìíå îñòàëîñü íåäîñòóïíûì. 19 Ibid. 181.
244
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
Ïî ìíåíèþ Ðþäåíà, Íèêèòà ïðè íàïèñàíèè Æèòèÿ áûë âäîõíîâëåí Êíèãîé Èîâà è àãèîãðàôè÷åñêèìè ïðîèçâåäåíèÿìè; íî íè÷åãî ïîõîæåãî íà âûáîð íåâåñò íåò â ýòèõ èñòî÷íèêàõ. Èññëåäîâàòåëü óïîðíî ïûòàåòñÿ îáúÿñíèòü âñå ðàññêàçû î âûáîðàõ íåâåñò «ëèòåðàòóðíûìè ìîòèâàìè» è, ðàññìàòðèâàÿ ïåðâîå ïî âðåìåíè ïîÿâëåíèå äàííîãî «ìîòèâà» â «Õðîíîãðàôèè» Ôåîôàíà, ïðåäïîëàãàåò, ÷òî õðîíèñò ìîã ïî÷åðïíóòü âäîõíîâåíèå èç îïèñàííîé â õðîíèêå Èîàííà Ìàëàëû èñòîðèè î æåíèòüáå èìïåðàòîðà Ôåîäîñèÿ II; îäíàêî, íåïîíÿòíî, ïî÷åìó ýòà æå èñòîðèÿ íå ìîãëà ïîäàòü ìûñëü èìïåðàòðèöå Èðèíå óñòðîèòü âûáîð íåâåñò äëÿ Êîíñòàíòèíà VI, ÷òîáû óòåøèòü åãî ïîñëå ðàçðûâà ïîìîëâêè ñ äî÷åðüþ Êàðëà Âåëèêîãî è óñòðîèòü åìó áëåñòÿùèé áðàê ñ âèçàíòèéñêîé äåâèöåé âìåñòî æåíèòüáû íà çàãðàíè÷íîé ïðèíöåññå.20 Êðîìå òîãî, èçäàòåëè Æèòèÿ ñâ. Ôèëàðåòà îòìå÷àþò, ÷òî â Annales regni Francorum ïîä 819 ãîäîì ãîâîðèòñÿ, ÷òî Ëþäîâèê Áëàãî÷åñòèâûé âûáðàë ñâîþ æåíó Þäèôü «inspectis plerisque nobilium filiabus», è ÷òî ýòî ìîãëî áûòü êàêîé-òî àíàëîãèåé âèçàíòèéñêîãî âûáîðà íåâåñò.21 Åñëè ýòî òàê, òî ìîæíî ïðåäïîëîæèòü, ÷òî çàòåÿ èìïåðàòðèöû Èðèíû, èìåâøàÿ îäíîé èç öåëåé, ïî ïðåäïîëîæåíèþ Â. Òðåäãîëüäà, ïðîäåìîíñòðèðîâàòü çàïàäíûì âëàäûêàì, ÷òî îíà è áåç íèõ óñòðîèò áëåñòÿùóþ æåíèòüáó äëÿ ñâîåãî ñûíà, â íåêîòîðîì ðîäå óäàëàñü. Ïî ìíåíèþ Ë. Ì. Õàíñ, «ìîæíî óòâåðæäàòü, ÷òî èäåÿ ïðîâåäåíèÿ ñìîòðèí äëÿ ìîëîäîãî èìïåðàòîðà Êîíñòàíòèíà â 788 ã. èìåëà ñâîåé öåëüþ âñåèìïåðñêóþ ïðîïàãàíäó ýòîé ñâàäüáû, îòâå÷àÿ íàðîäíûì ïîíÿòèÿì î ðîìàíòèêå».22 Åñëè âñïîìíèòü õàðàêòåðèñòèêó, äàííóþ Ð. Äæåíêèíñîì ïîñëåäíåìó èìïåðàòîðó-èêîíîáîðöó: «Ôåîôèë áûë ýñòåòîì è ðîìàíòèêîì»,23 òî ìîæíî ñêàçàòü, ÷òî íà èìïåðàòîðñêèé äîì Âèçàíòèè â êîíöå VIII IX âåêå íàøëî «ðîìàíòè÷åñêîå ïîâåòðèå». Âîçìîæíî, îíî áûëî ñâÿçàííî ñî «ñâåòñêèì» óêëîíîì, êîòîðûé ïðèäàëè èìïåðàòîðû-èêîíîáîðöû ïðèäâîðíîé æèçíè, ñèñòåìå îáðàçîâàíèÿ è ïð.24 È. Ñîðëýí ïðåäïîëàãàåò, ÷òî â ðàññìàòðèâàåìóþ ýïîõó ëèòåðàòóðíûå ñþæåòû, ñâÿçàííûå ñ «ñóäîì Ïàðèñà», ìîãëè ñïðîâîöèðîâàòü äåéñòâèòåëüíûå èçìåíåíèÿ â ïðèäâîðíûõ îáû÷àÿõ, ñâÿçàííûõ ñ çàêëþ÷åíèåì áðàêà.25 20 Êàê ýòî ïðåäïîëàãàåò Òðåäãîëüä: TREADGOLD , The Bride-Shows of the Byzantine Emperors… 396–397. 21 M.-H. FOURMY, M. LEROY, La vie de S. Philarète // Byz 9/1 (1934) 85170; ñì. 104, n. 4. 22 L. M. HANS, Der Kaiser als Märchenprinz // JÖB 38 (1988) 3352; öèò. 51. 23 R. JENKINS, Byzantium. The Imperial Centuries A.D. 610–1071 (New York, 1969) 147. 24 Ñì., íàïð.: G. OSTROGORSKY, Geschichte des byzantinischen Staates (München, 1963) 145. 25 SORLIN, La plus belle ou la meilleure?
641.  ñâÿçè ñ ýòèì ñòîèò çàìåòèòü, ÷òî, íàïðèìåð, ñâ. ïàòðèàðõ Ôîòèé ÷èòàë â ÷èñëå ñâåòñêèõ êíèã è òàêîå «ñëàäî-
Т. А. Сенина
245
Æ. Äàãðîí ñ÷èòàåò èñòîðèè î âûáîðå íåâåñò äëÿ èìïåðàòîðîâ «ïî áîëüøåé ÷àñòè äîñòîâåðíûìè»26 è çàìå÷àåò, ÷òî «êîíêóðñû êðàñîòû» ïîÿâèëèñü â Âèçàíòèè êàê ðàç òîãäà, êîãäà ïîíÿòèå «ïîðôèðîðîäíûé» ñòàëî íàïîëíÿòüñÿ îñîáûì ñìûñëîì: âûáîðû íåâåñò, ïðîèñõîäèâøèå ñ 788 ïî 882 ã., «òî÷íî ñîîòâåòñòâóþò ïåðèîäó, êîãäà òåðìèí [ïîðôèðîðîäíûé] ïîÿâëÿåòñÿ è ñàêðàëèçèðóåòñÿ. Ìû íàõîäèìñÿ â çàìêíóòîì ìèðå, ïðîíèçàííîì âåòõîçàâåòíûìè îáðàçöàìè, òðàäèöèè êîòîðîãî ïîñòîÿííî âîñïðîèçâîäÿòñÿ èêîíîáîð÷åñòâîì. Çäåñü ïðàçäíóþò ñèìâîëè÷åñêèé áðàê òîãî, êòî ïîëó÷èë ïîìàçàíèå îò ÷ðåâà ìàòåðè ñ ñàìîé ïðåêðàñíîé èç åãî ïîääàííûõ».27 Òàêèì îáðàçîì, Äàãðîí íàïðÿìóþ ñâÿçûâàåò ïîÿâëåíèå «êîíêóðñîâ íåâåñò» ñ âëèÿíèåì èêîíîáîð÷åñêîãî ïåðèîäà. Èññëåäîâàòåëü çàìå÷àåò, ÷òî æåíèòüáà ïîðôèðîðîäíîãî (â ñîáñòâåííîì ñìûñëå èëè â ñìûñëå ñèìâîëè÷åñêîì, êàê «ïîìàçàííèêà Áîñòðàñòíîå» ïðîèçâåäåíèå, êàê ðîìàí Àõèëëà Òàòèÿ «Ëåâêèïïà è Êëèòîôîíò». È õîòÿ Ôîòèé â ñâîåé «Áèáëèîòåêå» îöåíèë êíèãó îòðèöàòåëüíî çà åå «÷ðåçâû÷àéíóþ íåïðèñòîéíîñòü è ïîðî÷íîñòü ìûñëåé» (Êîäåêñ 87), åãî ñîâðåìåííèê Ëåâ Ìàòåìàòèê íàïèñàë íà òó æå êíèãó ýïèãðàììó, òîëêóþùóþ ðîìàí àëëåãîðè÷åñêè, â î÷åíü ïîëîæèòåëüíîì ñìûñëå ãåðîè àíòè÷íîãî ýðîòè÷åñêîãî ðîìàíà ñòàíîâÿòñÿ çäåñü óæå îáðàçöàìè öåëîìóäðèÿ; ñì.: Anthologia Graeca / Ed. H. BECKBY (München, 1975) T. 3. 124; î ïðèíàäëåæíîñòè ýòîé ýïèãðàììû Ëüâó Ìàòåìàòèêó ñì: P. LEMERLE, Le Premier humanisme byzantin. Notes et remarques sur enseignement et culture à Byzance des origins au Xe siècle (Paris, 1972) (Bibliothèque Byzantine: études 6) 169; â àíãë. ïåð.: P. LEMERLE, Byzantine Humanism. The First Phase. Notes and remarks on education and culture in Byzantium from its origins to the 10th century (Canberra, 1986) (Byzantina Australiensia 3) 195. Êàññèÿ íàïèñàëà ïî ìîòèâàì ýòîãî ðîìàíà öåëûõ äâå ýïèãðàììû-ïåðèôðàçû, ãäå ðå÷ü èäåò î æåíñêîé êðàñîòå (ñì.: E. V. MALTESE, Una contemporanea di Fozio, Cassia. Osservazione sui versi profani // La poesia tardoantica e medievale. Atti del I Convegno Internazionale di Studi. Macerata, 4–5 maggio 1998 / A cura di M. SALVADORE (Alessandria, 2001) 71–83; ñì. 7778). Î÷åâèäíî, ÷òî ëèòåðàòóðíûå âêóñû îáðàçîâàííûõ ìîíàõîâ è ñâåòñêèõ ëþäåé òîé ýïîõè íå îòëè÷àëèñü íåðàçóìíûì ïóðèòàíñòâîì; òåì áîëåå ýòî ìîæíî ñêàçàòü îá èìïåðàòîðàõ. Ìåæäó ïðî÷èì, â ðîìàíå Àõèëëà Òàòèÿ òåìå æåíñêîé êðàñîòû îòâîäèòñÿ çíà÷èòåëüíîå ìåñòî. ßáëîêî êàê ñèìâîë èçáðàíèÿ íåâåñòû ïîÿâëÿåòñÿ â èñòîðèè ñ æåíèòüáîé Ôåîôèëîì òîæå íå ñëó÷àéíî, ïîñêîëüêó ÿáëîêî åùå ñ àíòè÷íîñòè áûëî ñâÿçàíî ñ îïðåäåëåííîé ñèìâîëè÷åñêîé íàãðóçêîé (â ÷àñòíîñòè, áûëî ñèìâîëîì ëþáâè è ãîñïîäñòâà íàä ìèðîì), è ýòîò ñèìâîëèçì â Âèçàíòèè íèêîãäà íå çàáûâàëñÿ; ñì. ñïåöèàëüíî ïîñâÿùåííóþ ýòîìó âîïðîñó ðàáîòó: A. R. LITTLEWOOD, The Symbolism of the Apple in Byzantine Literature // JÖB 23 (1974) 3359. Òî, ÷òî ÿáëîêî èç âñåõ èñòîðèé î âûáîðå íåâåñòû ïîÿâëÿåòñÿ òîëüêî â ïîâåñòâîâàíèè î Ôåîôèëå, òîæå ïðåêðàñíî ñîãëàñóåòñÿ ñ «ðîìàíòè÷åñêèì» õàðàêòåðîì è âûñîêîé îáðàçîâàííîñòüþ ýòîãî èìïåðàòîðà. 26 G. DAGRON, Empereur et Prêtre. Étude sur le «césaropapisme» byzantin (Paris, 1996) 67. 27 G. DAGRON, Nés dans la pourpre // TM 12 (1994) 105142, öèò. 140.
246
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
æèÿ») íà «ñàìîé êðàñèâîé» äåâóøêå ÿâëÿåòñÿ êàê áû çåðêàëüíîé ïðîòèâîïîëîæíîñòüþ æåíèòüáû èìïåðàòîðà-«âûñêî÷êè» íà îñîáå öàðñêîé êðîâè: â ïîñëåäíåì ñëó÷àå èìïåðàòîð êàê áû ïîëó÷àåò ëåãèòèìíîñòü ÷åðåç ñâîé áðàê, à â ïåðâîì íàîáîðîò, äàåò ëåãèòèìíîñòü â ñèëó ñâîåãî ïîìàçàíèÿ, à ïðîèñõîæäåíèå íåâåñòû íå èìååò çíà÷åíèÿ. Ìîäåëüþ äëÿ ïîäîáíîãî áðàêà ïîñëóæèë, ïî ìíåíèþ Äàãðîíà, áðàê èìïåðàòîðà Ôåîäîñèÿ II, êîòîðîãî èññëåäîâàòåëü ñ÷èòàåò íàèáîëåå ÷èñòûì òèïîì «ïîðôèðîðîäíîãî».28 Ë. Ðþäåí óòâåðæäàåò, ÷òî Æèòèå ñâ. Ôèëàðåòà áûëî íàïèñàíî â ñâÿçè ñ æåíèòüáîé èìïåðàòîðà Ìèõàèëà II íà äî÷åðè Êîíñòàíòèíà VI Åâôðîñèíå, ðîäñòâåííèêîì êîòîðîé áûë íàïèñàâøèé Æèòèå Íèêèòà. Íî Æèòèå äàòèðóåòñÿ 821/822 ãîäîì,29 à ïåðâàÿ æåíà Ìèõàèëà II Ôåêëà óìåðëà ïîçæå îê. 824 ã.30 Òàêèì îáðàçîì, ãèïîòåçà Ë. Ðþäåíà îêàçûâàåòñÿ íåñîñòîÿòåëüíîé.31 Íî êàêîâ æå äåéñòâèòåëüíî ìîã áûòü ïîâîä Ñì.: DAGRON, Nés dans la pourpre… 137–140. FOURMY, LEROY, La vie de S. Philarète... 96. 30 Ñì.: Á. ÌÅËÈÎÐÀÍÑÊÈÉ, Èç ñåìåéíîé èñòîðèè Àìîðèéñêîé äèíàñòèè //  8 (1901) 137; ñì. 1011; ß. Í. ËÞÁÀÐÑÊÈÉ, Êîììåíòàðèè // Ïðîäîëæàòåëü Ôåîôàíà, Æèçíåîïèñàíèÿ âèçàíòèéñêèõ öàðåé / Ïåð., ñòàòüè, êîìì. ß. Í. ËÞÁÀÐÑÊÎÃÎ (Ì., 1993) (Ëèòåðàòóðíûå ïàìÿòíèêè) [äàëåå ÏÔ] 277278, ïðèì. 71; Prosopographie der Mittelbyzantinischen Zeit. Erste Abteilung (641–867) / Ed. R.-J. LILIE, C. LUDWIG, TH. PRATSCH, I. ROCHOW (Berlin, 1998) # 7259 (ð. 331). Òî, ÷òî Ôåêëà âðÿä ëè ìîãëà óìåðåòü â 821/822 ã., ïîäòâåðæäàåòñÿ íå òîëüêî ïðÿìûì ñîîáùåíèåì Ìèõàèëà Ñèðèéöà (Michel le Syrien, Chronique / Ed. J. B. CHABOT. T. IIV (Paris, 18991924) T. III. 72), íî è êîñâåííûìè ñâèäåòåëüñòâàìè. Íàïðèìåð, Ïðîäîëæàòåëü Ôåîôàíà ñîîáùàåò î ñìåðòè ïåðâîé æåíû Ìèõàèëà II è åãî íîâîì áðàêå óæå ïîñëå îïèñàíèÿ îêîí÷àíèÿ âîéíû ñ Ôîìîé Ñëàâÿíèíîì (ÏÔ II, 24; Theophanes Continuatus // Theophanes Continuatus, Ioannes Cameniata, Symeon Magister, Georgius Monachus / Åd. I. BEKKER (Bonnae, 1838) (Corpus scriptorum historiae Byzantinae) 1481 [äàëåå ThCont]; ñì. 78:979:12); èç êîíòåêñòà 74-ãî Ñëîâà èç Ìàëîãî Îãëàøåíèÿ ñâ. Ôåîäîð Ñòóäèòà («Ïðîòèâ Ìèõàèëà, íå÷åñòèâî öàðñòâîâàâøåãî
») òàêæå âèäíî, ÷òî çàêëþ÷åíèå âòîðîãî áðàêà îïèñûâàåòñÿ êàê òîëüêî ÷òî ïðîèñøåäøåå ñîáûòèå, à «íèñïðîâåðæåíèå âåðû» óïîìèíàåòñÿ, êàê óæå èçâåñòíîå, ÷òî íèêàê íå ìîãëî èìåòü ìåñòî â 821 ã., êîãäà ïðàâîñëàâíûå åùå áûëè ïðåèñïîëíåíû íàäåæä íà áëàãî÷åñòèå íîâîãî èìïåðàòîðà. Òî, ÷òî âòîðîé áðàê Ìèõàèëà ñîñòîÿëñÿ ïîçæå, ÷åì áûëî íàïèñàíî Æèòèå ñâ. Ôèëàðåòà, îòìå÷àåò è Â. Òðåäãîëüä (TREADGOLD, The Historicity of Imperial Bride-Shows
40), îäíàêî, íè íà ÷òî íå ññûëàÿñü è âñêîëüçü. 31 Âçãëÿä Ðþäåíà íà ðàññêàçû î âûáîðå íåâåñò â öåëîì ðàçäåëÿåò Ì. Âèíñîí (M. VINSON, The Life of Theodora and the Rhetoric of the Byzantine Bride Show // JÖB 49 (1999) 3160), óòî÷íÿÿ ëèøü, ÷òî âñå îïèñàíèÿ âûáîðà íåâåñò, áóäü òî â õðîíèêàõ èëè â æèòèÿõ, íå ïðîñòî ëèòåðàòóðíûå ìîòèâû, íî «ðèòîðè÷åñêèå òîïîñû, õàðàêòåðíûå äëÿ ýíêîìèÿ èëè èíâåêòèâû» (p. 33, n. 10). Ïî åå ìíåíèþ, ìîòèâ âûáîðà íåâåñò âîøåë â âèçàíòèéñêóþ ëèòåðàòóðó ñ ïîäà÷è Ôåîôàíà 28 29
Т. А. Сенина
247
äëÿ íàïèñàíèÿ Æèòèÿ Ôèëàðåòà Ìèëîñòèâîãî? Ñîãëàñíî òîé õðîíîëîãèè, êîòîðóþ ÿ ñ÷èòàþ áîëåå ïðàâäîïîäîáíîé (î ÷åì íèæå), â 821 ã. ñîñòîÿëñÿ âûáîð íåâåñò äëÿ èìïåðàòîðà Ôåîôèëà.32 È âîò òóò ìîæíî îòìåòèòü èíòåðåñíûå ïàðàëëåëè. Êàññèÿ òåðÿåò êîðîíó ïîòîìó, ÷òî íå ñìîë÷àëà ïåðåä èìïåðàòîðîì; Ôåîäîðà, íàïðîòèâ, ñòàíîâèòñÿ Àâãóñòîé êàê áû çà ñêðîìíîñòü, ñìèðåíèå è ìîë÷àíèå.33 Òåïåðü çàãëÿíåì â Æèòèå Ôèëàðåòà: «Èç äðóãèõ ìåñò òîæå áûëè ñîáðàíû äåâóøêè, ÷èñëîì äåñÿòü; ñðåäè íèõ è äî÷ü îäíîãî áîãàòîãî ñòðàòèëàòà Ãåðîíòèàíà, äåâóøêà î÷åíü êðàñèâàÿ, íî çàíîñ÷èâàÿ èç-çà ñâîåãî áîãàòñòâà. È âîò, èõ ïîâåëè ê èìïåðàòîðó. Âíóêà ìèëîñòèâöà Ìàðèÿ ïðîñèëà ñâîèõ òîâàðîê, ãîâîðÿ: Ñåñòðû, äàâàéòå óãîâîðèìñÿ äðóã ñ äðóæêîé òàê: òà èç íàñ, êîòîðàÿ ïî Áîæèåé âîëå ñòàíåò èìïåðàòðèöåé, ïóñòü íå Èñïîâåäíèêà, êîòîðûé â ñâîåé «Õðîíîãðàôèè» èñïîëüçîâàë ðàññêàç î âûáîðå íåâåñò äëÿ Ñòàâðàêèÿ, ÷òîáû â î÷åðåäíîé ðàç ïîõóëèòü èìïåðàòîðà Íèêèôîðà Ãåíèêà (p. 4246), à ïðî÷èå õðîíèñòû èñïîëüçîâàëè ýòîò ñþæåò âñëåä çà íèì; è íè î òîì, êàê íà ñàìîì äåëå ïðîèñõîäèë âûáîð íåâåñòû äëÿ èìïåðàòîðñêèõ ñûíîâåé, íè îá èçáðàííûõ â èòîãå äåâóøêàõ êàê ðåàëüíûõ ëè÷íîñòÿõ ìû èç ïîäîáíûõ ðàññêàçîâ óçíàòü íå ìîæåì (ð. 60). «Âûáîð íåâåñò ó Ëîãîôåòà íå ìåíüøàÿ ôàëüñèôèêàöèÿ, ÷åì âûáîð íåâåñò â Æèòèè Ôåîäîðû, è ðàñõîæäåíèÿ ìåæäó íèìè ìîãóò áûòü îáúÿñíåíû ðàçíûìè ðèòîðè÷åñêèìè öåëÿìè ýòèõ äâóõ ñî÷èíåíèé» (ð. 41), óòâåðæäàåò èññëåäîâàòåëüíèöà; îíà íàñòîëüêî óâåðåíà â ýòîì, ÷òî äàæå íå ðàññìàòðèâàåò ðàññêàç Ëîãîôåòà â äðóãîé ñâîåé ðàáîòå, ïîñâÿùåííîé âèçàíòèéñêèì «êîíêóðñàì íåâåñò», ñ÷èòàÿ, ÷òî ñîîáùåíèÿ Ëîãîôåòà ïîëíîñòüþ çàâèñèò îò Æèòèÿ ñâ. Ôåîäîðû (M. VINSON, Romance and reality in Byzantine bride shows // Gender in the Early Medieval World: East and West, 300– 900 / Ed. L. BRUBAKER, J. M. H. SMITH (Cambridge, 2004) 102120, ñì. 115, n. 8). Íî â òàêîì ñëó÷àå íåïîíÿòíî, êàêèì îáðàçîì ïîïàë ê Ëîãîôåòó ðàññêàç î Êàññèè (ñîìíèòåëüíî, ÷òîáû ôàêò åå ó÷àñòèÿ â âûáîðå íåâåñò îí âçÿë, òàê ñêàçàòü, ñ ïîòîëêà); äà è ðàñõîæäåíèÿ ìåæäó äâóìÿ ðàññêàçàìè ñëèøêîì âåëèêè, ÷òîáû èõ ìîæíî áûëî îáúÿñíèòü îäíèìè çàêîíàìè ðèòîðèêè, êàê ýòî ïûòàåòñÿ äåëàòü Âèíñîí (VINSON, The Life of Theodora
3841), äàâàÿ äèàëîãó ìåæäó Êàññèåé è Ôåîôèëîì ñòàíäàðíîå òîëêîâàíèå îáëè÷åíèÿ èêîíîáîðöà áëàãî÷åñòèâîé äåâèöåé è áóäóùåé çíàìåíèòîé ïåñíîïèñèöåé. Îäíàêî íèæå áóäåò ïîêàçàíî, ÷òî äèàëîã íà ñàìîì äåëå èìåë, ñêîðåå âñåãî, ñîâåðøåííî äðóãîé ñìûñë. 32 E. W. BROOKS, The Marriage of the Emperor Theophilos // BZ 10 (1901) 540– 545. 33 Ë. Ðþäåí ñ÷èòàåò, ÷òî ïîáåäà Ôåîäîðû «áëàãîäàðÿ ñâîåìó áëàãî÷åñòèþ, à íå êðàñîòå» «äåëàåò âûáîð íåâåñò áåññìûñëåííûì, ïî êðàéíåé ìåðå, ñ èñòîðè÷åñêîé òî÷êè çðåíèÿ» (RYDÉN, The Bride-shows
188189, n. 52). Ýòî óòâåðæäåíèå íåïîíÿòíî: âî-ïåðâûõ, èçâåñòíî, ÷òî Ôåîäîðà òîæå áûëà î÷åíü êðàñèâà (ñì.: ÀÔÈÍÎÃÅÍÎÂ, «Ïîâåñòü î ïðîùåíèè èìïåðàòîðà Ôåîôèëà»
5657); âî-âòîðûõ, áëàãî÷åñòèå íåâåñòû öåíèëîñü íå ìåíüøå êðàñîòû ýòî âèäíî èç òîãî æå Æèòèÿ Ôèëàðåòà Ìèëîñòèâîãî.
248
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
îñòàâèò ñâîåé çàáîòîé îñòàëüíûõ. À äî÷ü ñòðàòèëàòà Ãåðîíòèàíà îòâåòèëà: ß òî÷íî çíàþ, ÷òî âëàäûêà âûáåðåò ìåíÿ, òàê êàê ÿ ñàìàÿ èç âàñ áîãàòàÿ, çíàòíàÿ, êðàñèâàÿ ëèöîì è îáëèêîì; âû æå íèùåíêè è íå èìååòå íè÷åãî, êðîìå ïðåëåñòè ëèöà, êîòîðîé êðàñóåòåñü, è ïîòîìó äîëæíû îñòàâèòü íàäåæäó. Äåâóøêà, óñëûøàâ ýòè ðå÷è, ñìóòèëàñü è ìîë÷àëà, íî â óìå ïðèçûâàëà ñòàðöà ìîëèòüñÿ çà óñïåõ è óäà÷ó».34
Çäåñü ñðàçó âñïîìèíàåòñÿ Æèòèå Ôåîäîðû, ãäå èñòîðèÿ ñ çîëîòûì ÿáëîêîì êàê çíàêîì èçáðàíèÿ, ïðåâðàùàåòñÿ â ôàíòàñòè÷åñêóþ èñòîðèþ ñ ñåìè êàíäèäàòêàìè è ñåìè ÿáëîêàìè è ñ âîçâðàùåíèåì Ôåîäîðîé Ôåîôèëó äâóõ ÿáëîê âìåñòî îäíîãî, ïðè÷åì Ôåîäîðà ðàññêàçûâàåò î òîì, êàê ïî ïóòè â Êîíñòàíòèíîïîëü îíà ïðîñèëà ìîëèòâ ó ñâÿòîãî ñòàðöà:35 «Îí ñêàçàë ìíå: Àíãåë ñëàâû Áîæèåé âåí÷àåò òåáÿ öàðèöåé; ïðèìè ÿáëîêî, êîòîðîå äàñò òåáå öàðü, è ýòî, êîòîðîå ÿ äàþ òåáå; è êîãäà ãëóìÿùèåñÿ íàä òîáîþ áóäóò æàëîñòíî çàáûòû çà äâåðüìè, òû âðó÷èøü åãî öàðþ».36
Èòàê, ïàðàëëåëè î÷åâèäíû: «ãîðäàÿ» è «çëîÿçû÷íàÿ» Êàññèÿ37 íå õî÷åò ñìèðåííî ïåðåíåñòè âûïàä èìïåðàòîðà ïðîòèâ æåíùèí, è êîðîíà â ðåçóëüòàòå äîñòàåòñÿ «ñìèðåííîé» Ôåîäîðå, êîòîðàÿ ìîë÷èò è óïîâàåò íà ìîëèòâû ñâ. ñòàðöà, ãîðäÿ÷êà Ãåðîíòèàíà, çëîñëîâÿùàÿ ñâîèõ ñîïåðíèö, ïðîèãðûâàåò ñìèðåííîé Ìàðèè, ïðèçûâàþùåé ìîëèòâû ñâîåãî äåäà ñâ. Ôèëàðåòà.38 Ìîæíî ñäåëàòü ïðåäïîëîæåíèå, ÷òî Íèêèòà äåéñòâèòåëüíî ìîã íàïèñàòü Æèòèå Ôèëàðåòà, èìåÿ â âèäó óãîäèòü èìïåðàòðèöå íî íå Åâôðîñèíå, à Ôåîäîðå, ïðîâåäÿ ëåñòíûå äëÿ íåå ïàðàëëåëè, è äåéñòâèòåëüíî ïåðåáðàòüñÿ áëèæå êî äâîðó, òåì áîëåå ÷òî Ôåîäîðà áûëà ðîÖèòèðóþ ðóñ. ïåð. ïî èçäàíèþ: Âèçàíòèéñêèå ëåãåíäû / Èçä. ïîäã. Ñ. Â. ÏÎ(ÑÏá., 2004) (Ëèòåðàòóðíûå ïàìÿòíèêè) 107. 35 Ýòî áûë ñâ. Èñàèÿ, çàòâîðíèê Íèêîìèäèéñêèé. 36 Ïðèâîæó ðóñ. ïåð., ñäåëàííûé Á. Ìåëèîðàíñêèì â åãî ñòàòüå (Èç ñåìåéíîé èñòîðèè Àìîðèéñêîé äèíàñòèè
1213). Èññëåäîâàòåëü, ïî âñåé âèäèìîñòè, âåðíî ïðåäïîëîæèë, ÷òî ïîâåñòü î âûáîðå íåâåñò â «Æèòèè Ôåîäîðû» ïðåäñòàâëÿåò ñîáîé «ïîëåìè÷åñêèé pendant ê ïîâåñòè î Êàññèè, ïåðåøåäøåé â õðîíèêó Ëîãîôåòà» (ñ. 12). 37 Èçâåñòíàÿ êàê àâòîð ìíîãî÷èñëåííûõ ýïèãðàìì, ïîðîé äîâîëüíî åäêèõ è ðåçêèõ. 38 Ýòó ïàðàëëåëü îòìåòèë è Ë. Ðþäåí, íî ñäåëàë ñâîé îáû÷íûé âûâîä, ÷òî âûáîð íåâåñò ÿâëÿåòñÿ «ëèòåðàòóðíûì ìîòèâîì», â òîì ÷èñëå è ïîòîìó, ÷òî ðàññêàç î Êàññèè áûë ïðèäóìàí, ÷òîáû ëèøíèé ðàç óïðåêíóòü Ôåîôèëà â èêîíîáîð÷åñòâå (RYDÉN, The Bride-shows
188); îäíàêî íèæå ÿ ïîñòàðàþñü ïîêàçàòü, ÷òî òåìà ïîëåìèêè ïðîòèâ èêîíîáîð÷åñòâà âî âðåìÿ âûáîðà íåâåñò äëÿ Ôåîôèëà âîîáùå íå ìîãëà âîçíèêíóòü. 34
ËßÊÎÂÀ
Т. А. Сенина
249
äîì èç Ïàôëàãîíèè, êàê è ñâ. Ôèëàðåò,39 à ïîñëå òîãî êàê Ôåîäîðà ñòàëà æåíîé Ôåîôèëà, åå ðîäñòâåííèêè çàíÿëè âèäíûå ìåñòà ïðè äâîðå. Ýòî íå îáÿçàòåëüíî îçíà÷àåò, ÷òî ñàìîãî âûáîðà íåâåñò â 788 ã. íå áûëî ñêîðåå âñåãî, îí áûë, íî ìîæåò îçíà÷àòü, ÷òî îáñòîÿòåëüñòâà, ñâÿçàííûå ñ òåì, êàê Ìàðèÿ ñòàëà èìïåðàòðèöåé, áûëè îïèñàíû ïîä âïå÷àòëåíèåì òîëüêî ÷òî ïðîèñøåäøèõ ïðè äâîðå ñîáûòèé. 40 Òåïåðü îáðàòèìñÿ ê õðîíîëîãèè.
821-È ËÎË 830-È? Âûáîð íåâåñò è æåíèòüáà èìïåðàòîðà Ôåîôèëà äàòèðóåòñÿ 821-ì41 èëè 83042 ãîäîì. Áîëüøèíñòâî ñîâðåìåííûõ èññëåäîâàòåëåé ïðèíèìàÁûòü ìîæåò, èõ ñåìüè äàæå çíàëè äðóã äðóãà. Òðåäãîëüä çàìå÷àåò, ÷òî íåñêîëüêî ñòðàííî âûãëÿäåëà áû çàòåÿ Íèêèòû ïåðåáðàòüñÿ áëèæå êî äâîðó ÷åðåç ïðåïîäíåñåíèå Ìèõàèëó ÉÉ è åãî íîâîé ñóïðóãå Æèòèÿ Ôèëàðåòà, åñëè áû èñòîðèÿ ñ âûáîðîì íåâåñò äëÿ Êîíñòàíòèíà VI áûëà áû âûäóìêîé, âåäü åñëè íå Ìèõàèë, òî Åâôðîñèíà äîëæíà áûëà òî÷íî çíàòü ðåàëüíûå îáñòîÿòåëüñòâà çàìóæåñòâà ñîáñòâåííîé ìàòåðè, è íåïîíÿòíî, êàê íàäåÿëñÿ Íèêèòà çàñòàâèòü èõ ïîâåðèòü â ñâîþ âûäóìêó (TREADGOLD, The Historicity of Imperial Bride-Shows
4041). Ýòî, îäíàêî, íå î÷åíü ñèëüíûé àðãóìåíò, âåäü ìîæíî ïðåäïîëîæèòü, ÷òî Íèêèòà ìîã íàäåÿòüñÿ íà ðåàêöèþ âðîäå: «åñëè áû ýòîãî íå áûëî, ýòî íàäî áûëî áû âûäóìàòü». Íî, êàê óæå áûëî ïîêàçàíî, ñâÿçü ìåæäó íàïèñàíèåì Æèòèÿ Ôèëàðåòà è âòîðîé æåíèòüáîé Ìèõàèëà Òðàâëà íåâîçìîæíà õðîíîëîãè÷åñêè. 41 BROOKS, The Marriage of the Emperor Theophilos…; J. B. BURY, A History of the Eastern Roman Empire (London, 1912) 81, 465–467; L. BRÉHIER, Vie et mort de Byzance (Paris, 1948) (L’évolution de l’humanité 32) 105; C. MANGO, Eudocia Ingerina, the Normans, and the Macedonian Dynasty // Çáîðíèê ðàäîâà Âèçàíòèëîøêîã èíñòèòóòà 14–15 (1973) 15–27; A. DIKIGOROPOULOS, The Constantinopolitan solidi of Theophilus // DOP 18 (1964) 353–361; JENKINS, Byzantium… 141; Ph. GRIERSON, A. R. BELLINGER, Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and in the Whittemore Collection. Vol. III: Leo III to Nicephorus III, 7171081. Pt. 1 (Washington, 1973) 406; Prosopographie der Mittelbyzantinischen Zeit
# 7286 (p. 344, 347, n. 1), # 8167 (p. 629, 632, n. 1). Ò. À. ÌÅÑÕÈ (Æèçíü è òâîð÷åñòâî âèçàíòèéñêîé ïîýòåññû IX â. Êàññèè. Àâòîðåôåðàò äèññåðòàöèè íà ñîèñêàíèå ó÷åíîé ñòåïåíè êàíäèäàòà ôèëîëîãè÷åñêèõ íàóê (Òáèëèñè, 1988) 6) äàòèðóåò âûáîð íåâåñò 823 ãîäîì. 42 Ê. KRUMÂACHER, Kasia // Sitzungsberichte der philosophisch-philologischen und der historischen Classe der k. b. Academie der Wissenschaften (1887) Bd. 1. 305– 370; ÌÅËÈÎÐÀÍÑÊÈÉ, Èç ñåìåéíîé èñòîðèè Àìîðèéñêîé äèíàñòèè
; Å. Ý. ËÈÏØÈÖ, Î÷åðêè èñòîðèè âèçàíòèéñêîãî îáùåñòâà è êóëüòóðû VIII ïåðâàÿ ïîëîâèíà IX âåêà (Ì.Ë., 1961) 309338; ROCHOW, Studien zu der Person… 18; W. T. TREADGOLD, The Problem of the Marriage of the Emperor Theophilus // Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 16 (1975) 325341; â ïîñëåäíåé ñâîåé ñòàòüå î âûáîðå íåâåñò îí ïðîäîëæàåò íàñòàèâàòü íà ýòîé äàòå: TREADGOLD, The Historicity of Imperial Bride-Shows… 43–44. 39
40
250
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
þò ïîñëåäíþþ äàòó, îñíîâûâàÿñü íà ñòàòüå Â. Òðåäãîëüäà,43 ïîýòîìó ÿ õî÷ó ðàçîáðàòü åãî àðãóìåíòàöèþ ïîäðîáíî.
»ÒÚÓ˜ÌËÍË Â. Òðåäãîëüä íàñòàèâàåò, ÷òî èç âñåõ äîøåäøèõ äî íàñ õðîíèê ìû äîëæíû áîëåå âñåãî äîâåðÿòü õðîíèêå Ñèìåîíà Ëîãîôåòà,44 à ê õðîíèêàì Ãåíåñèÿ è Ïðîäîëæàòåëÿ Ôåîôàíà îòíîñèòüñÿ î÷åíü êðèòè÷åñêè, ïîñêîëüêó â íèõ ñîäåðæèòñÿ ìíîãî õðîíîëîãè÷åñêîé ïóòàíèöû è ôàëüñèôèêàöèé.45 Ññûëàÿñü íà Æ. Áþðè, èññëåäîâàòåëü óòâåðæäàåò, ÷òî Ïðîäîëæàòåëü Ôåîôàíà ïðè ñîñòàâëåíèè ñâîåé õðîíèêè èñïîëüçîâàë Ãåíåñèÿ è êàêèå-òî èç èñòî÷íèêîâ ïîñëåäíåãî.46 Íî Ï. Êàðëèí-Õàéòåð47 è ß. Ëþáàðñêèé ïîêàçàëè, ÷òî ýòà òåîðèÿ Áþðè íåïðèåìëåìà: Ïðîäîëæàòåëü Ôåîôàíà è Ãåíåñèé ïèñàëè íåçàâèñèìî äðóã îò äðóãà, õîòÿ è èñïîëüçîâàëè íåêèé îáùèé èñòî÷íèê, èç êîòîðîãî êàæäûé àâòîð áðàë ñâîå, «ïðè÷åì îòíþäü íå îáÿçàòåëüíî òî æå ñàìîå, ÷òî è åãî êîëëåãà», ïðè ýòîì Ïðîäîëæàòåëü è åãî èñòî÷íèê «ãîðàçäî áëèæå ê èñòèíå, íåæåëè Ãåíåñèé».48 43 Ìåòîäû èññëåäîâàòåëüñêîé ðàáîòû Òðåäãîëüäà îáùåèçâåñòíû (ñì., íàïð., ñîâåðøåííî óáèéñòâåííûé ðàçáîð îäíîé èç åãî ïîñëåäíèõ ìîíîãðàôèé: W. BRANDES, [ðåö. íà:] W. Treadgold, A History of the Byzantine State and Society (Stanford, 1997) // BZ 95/2 (2002) 716725; Áðàíäåñ ãîâîðèò î «øîêèðóþùåì» êîëè÷åñòâå îøèáîê è íåòî÷íîñòåé â ìîíîãðàôèè, ìàëóþ òîëèêó êîòîðûõ îí ðàçáèðàåò â ðåöåíçèè, è ýòî ïîìèìî êðèòèêè íàó÷íîãî ìåòîäà Òðåäãîëüäà â öåëîì, è äàæå ïðÿìî ïðåäîñòåðåãàåò ÷èòàòåëåé îò èñïîëüçîâàíèÿ ðåöåíçèðóåìîé êíèãè); îäíàêî åãî ñòàòüÿ, ïîñâÿùåííàÿ âûáîðó íåâåñò, ïî÷åìó-òî âûçâàëà ïðàêòè÷åñêè âñåîáùåå äîâåðèå ñðåäè ó÷åíûõ. 44 Ýòîìó âîïðîñó îí ïîñâÿòèë è îòäåëüíóþ ñòàòüþ: W. T. TREADGOLD, The Chronological accuracy of the Chronicle of Symeon the Logothet for the years 813– 845 // DOP 33 (1979) 157197, ãäå ðàçâèë è ïðîäîëæèë ñîîáðàæåíèÿ, èçëîæåííûå ïåðâîíà÷àëüíî â ñòàòüå î âûáîðå íåâåñò äëÿ Ôåîôèëà. Îäíàêî, íàïðèìåð, Ê. Ìýíãî çàìå÷àåò, ÷òî åñëè õðîíèêà ñåìüè Ëîãîôåòà äåéñòâèòåëüíî òî÷íà â õðîíîëîãèè äëÿ ïåðèîäà öàðñòâîâàíèé Âàñèëèÿ I è Ëüâà VI (äîêàçàòåëüñòâó ÷åãî Ð. Äæåíêèíñ ïîñâÿòèë îòäåëüíóþ ñòàòüþ: R. J. H. JENKINS, The Chronological accuracy of the «Logothete» for the Years A. D. 867–913 // DOP 19 (1965) 91112), òî äëÿ ïåðèîäà äî Âàñèëèÿ I îíà òî÷íà äàëåêî íå âñåãäà (C. MANGO, When was Michael III born? // DOP 21 (1967) 253258; ñì. 256257). Ï. Êàðëèí-Õàéòåð òàêæå îòìå÷àåò, ÷òî Ïðîäîëæàòåëü Ôåîôàíà è Ãåíåñèé áîëåå ïðàâäèâû, íåæåëè Ëîãîôåò (P. KARLIN-HAYTER, Études sur les deux histories du règne de Michel III // Byz 41 (1971) 452496; ñì. 469). 45 TREADGOLD, The Chronological accuracy… 160. 46 TREADGOLD, The Problem of the Marriage… 326. 47 KARLIN-HAYTER, Études sur les deux histories... 48 ß. Í. ËÞÁÀÐÑÊÈÉ, Ñî÷èíåíèå Ïðîäîëæàòåëÿ Ôåîôàíà. Õðîíèêà, èñòîðèÿ, æèçíåîïèñàíèÿ? // Ïðîäîëæàòåëü Ôåîôàíà, Æèçíåîïèñàíèÿ âèçàíòèéñêèõ öàðåé
201265; öèò. 227, 230.
Т. А. Сенина
251
Êðîìå òîãî, Ô. Áàðèøè÷ ïîêàçàë,49 ÷òî ïðè íàïèñàíèè êíèãè î Ìèõàèëå II Ãåíåñèé è Ïðîäîëæàòåëü ïîëüçîâàëèñü êàê îñíîâíûì èñòî÷íèêîì íå äîøåäøåé äî íàñ «Èñòîðèåé» Ñåðãèÿ Èñïîâåäíèêà, î êîòîðîé óïîìèíàåò ñâ. ïàòðèàðõ Ôîòèé â ñâîåé «Áèáëèîòåêå» (êîäåêñ 67).50 Ýòî 49 F. BARIIÆ, Les sources de Génésios et du Continuateur de Théophane pour l’histoire de Michel II (820–829) // BZ 31/2 (1961) 257–271. 50 Ä. Àôèíîãåíîâ îòêàçûâàåòñÿ ïðèíÿòü âåðñèþ Áàðèøè÷à, ÷òî «áîæåñòâåííûõ ìóæåé», íà ÷üè ïàìôëåòû ïðîòèâ Ìèõàèëà II îïèðàëñÿ Ïðîäîëæàòåëü Ôåîôàíà, ìîæíî èäåíòèôèöèðîâàòü ñ Ñåðãèåì Èñïîâåäíèêîì, îäíàêî åãî àðãóìåíòàöèÿ ìíå íå êàæåòñÿ óáåäèòåëüíîé. Åå ðàçáîð â ðàìêàõ äàííîé ñòàòüè óâåë áû íàñ äàëåêî â ñòîðîíó îò òåìû, ïîýòîìó îãðàíè÷óñü ëèøü íåñêîëüêèìè çàìå÷àíèÿìè. Âûçûâàåò óäèâëåíèå óòâåðæäåíèå, ÷òî èñòî÷íèê Ïðîäîëæàòåëÿ íå áûë «óëüòðà-èêîíîôèëüñêèì», ïîñêîëüêó «èêîíîáîð÷åñòâî äåéñòâèòåëüíî óïîìÿíóòî â ñîîòâåòñòâóþùåì ïàññàæå, íî èìïåðàòîð íåò. Íàïðîòèâ, òàì, ãäå îáëè÷àåòñÿ íå÷åñòèå Ìèõàèëà, èêîíû íå óïîìÿíóòû» (ÀÔÈÍÎÃÅÍÎÂ, «Ïîâåñòü î ïðîùåíèè èìïåðàòîðà Ôåîôèëà»
31, ïðèì. 65). Âîò ÷òî ãîâîðèò Ïðîäîëæàòåëü (ÏÔ II, 8; ThCont 47:16–48:11, 48:1949:4; öèòèðóþ ïåðåâîä ß. Í. Ëþáàðñêîãî, êóðñèâ ìîé): «Óæå êîãäà âçÿë Ìèõàèë â ñâîè ðóêè ñàìîäåðæàâíóþ âëàñòü è ðàñïîðÿæàëñÿ åþ ïî âîëå ñâîåé, íàïðàâèë åìó ïèñüìî áëàæåííûé Íèêèôîð, ïðîñÿ âîçðîäèòü âåðó è âîññòàíîâèòü ïî÷èòàíèå áîæåñòâåííûõ èêîí. È îòâåòèë åìó Ìèõàèë: Íå ââîäèòü íîâøåñòâà â äîãìàòû âåðû ïðèøåë ÿ è íå ðàçðóøàòü è óíè÷òîæàòü çàâåùàííîå è óñòàíîâëåííîå. Ïóñòü êàæäûé ïîñòóïàåò ïî ñâîåé âîëå è æåëàíèþ è äà íå ïîçíàåò ãîðÿ è íå âêóñèò ñòðàäàíèÿ. Íî íå ñîáëþë ñâîåãî ðåøåíèÿ äî êîíöà òîò, êòî è ñ ñàìîãî íà÷àëà íå áûë èñòèííûì õðèñòèàíèíîì. ×åì äîëüøå âëàäåë îí öàðñêîé âëàñòüþ, òåì ñ áîëüøåé æåñòîêîñòüþ è ïðèðîäíîé çëîáîé ðàçäóâàë Ìèõàèë ïëàìÿ âîéíû ïðîòèâ õðèñòèàí è ñîïëåìåííèêîâ è òî â ïðåçðåíèè ê ìîíàõàì ïîäâåðãàë èõ âñåâîçìîæíûì óæàñàì è âñå âðåìÿ âûèñêèâàë äëÿ íèõ íîâûå íàêàçàíèÿ, òî çàêëþ÷àë â òþðüìû è îòïðàâëÿë â ññûëêó ïðî÷èõ ïðåäàííûõ âåðå. Ïîòîìó-òî è èçãíàë îí èç ãîðîäà Ìåôîäèÿ, âñêîðå ïîòîì çàíÿâøåãî ïàòðèàðøèé ïðåñòîë, à òàêæå Åâôèìèÿ â òî âðåìÿ Ñàðäñêîãî ìèòðîïîëèòà, òàê êàê îáà îòêàçàëèñü ïîä÷èíÿòüñÿ åãî âîëå è íå îòðåøèëèñü îò ïî÷èòàíèÿ èêîí. (
) Æèâîïèñöû âîñïðîèçâîäÿò ïðåêðàñíåéøèõ èç æèâûõ ñóùåñòâ, à ýòîò çà ïðîîáðàç è îáðàçåö âçÿë äëÿ ñåáÿ æèçíü Êîïðîíèìà, êîòîðîé è ñòàðàëñÿ èçî âñåõ ñèë ïîäðàæàòü. Îí äîøåë äî âåðøèí íå÷åñòèÿ: ïðèêàçàë ïîñòèòüñÿ â ñóááîòó è îòòî÷èë ñâîé ÿçûê ïðîòèâ áîæüèõ ïðîðîêîâ, íå âåðèë â ãðÿäóùåå âîñêðåñåíüå (
)». Âî-ïåðâûõ, íåïîíÿòíî, ãäå òóò îñíîâàíèå äëÿ óòâåðæäåíèÿ, ÷òî «áîæåñòâåííûå ìóæè Ïðîäîëæàòåëÿ íè÷åãî îá èêîíàõ íå ãîâîðÿò» (ÀÔÈÍÎÃÅÍÎÂ, «Ïîâåñòü î ïðîùåíèè èìïåðàòîðà Ôåîôèëà»
31). Âî-âòîðûõ, î÷åâèäíî, ÷òî õðîíèñò (è åãî èñòî÷íèê) îáëè÷àåò Ìèõàèëà íå òîëüêî çà èêîíîáîð÷åñòâî, íî è çà ìíîãèå äðóãèå «íå÷åñòèâûå äåÿíèÿ»; è ïîíÿòíî, ÷òî ýòèõ «äåÿíèé» îêàçûâàåòñÿ ãîðàçäî áîëüøå, ÷åì âûñòóïëåíèé ïðîòèâ èêîí, âåäü Ìèõàèë íèêîãäà è íå áûë îæåñòî÷åííûì èêîíîáîðöåì. Âðÿä ëè Ñåðãèé Èñïîâåäíèê ïðè âñåì æåëàíèè ìîã íàéòè ìíîãî ñâèäåòåëüñòâ èêîíîáîð÷åñòâà Ìèõàèëà, êðîìå òîãî, ÷òî îí îòêàçàëñÿ âîññòàíîâèòü èêîíîïî÷èòàíèå è çàêëþ÷èë â òåìíèöó ñâ. Ìåôîäèÿ; ïîýòîìó âïîëíå îáúÿñíèìî ïîÿâëåíèå âî îáëè÷åíèå Ìèõàèëà ðàçíûõ äðóãèõ åãî «äåÿíèé». Àôèíîãåíîâ ññûëàåòñÿ íà «óáåäèòåëüíóþ àðãóìåíòàöèþ» Õ. ʸïøòåéí
252
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
î÷åíü âàæíûé ôàêò, ïîñêîëüêó Ñåðãèé Èñïîâåäíèê áûë ñîâðåìåííèêîì Ìèõàèëà Òðàâëà è îïèñàë, ïî ñëîâàì Ôîòèÿ, èñòîðèþ åãî öàðñòâîâàíèÿ äîâîëüíî ïîäðîáíî. Ìåæäó òåì, îáà õðîíèñòà, íåçàâèñèìî äðóã îò äðóãà, ïîâåñòâóþò î òîì, ÷òî Ôåîôèë âìåñòå ñ îòöîì çàùèùàë Êîíñòàíòèíîïîëü âî âðåìÿ îñàäû åãî Ôîìîé Ñëàâÿíèíîì çèìîé 821/822 ãã., à çíà÷èò, ýòîò ôàêò èìååò âñå øàíñû áûòü ðåàëüíûì, à íå âûäóìàííûì, è êðîìå òîãî, âçÿòûì èç ñîâðåìåííîãî ñîáûòèÿì èñòî÷íèêà.51 Â. Òðåä(èìååòñÿ â âèäó ñòàòüÿ: H. KÖPSTEIN, Zur Erhebung des Thomas // Studien zum 8. und 9. Jahrhundert in Byzanz / Hrsg. H. Köpstein, F. Winkelmann (Berlin, 1983) (Berliner Byzantinische Arbeiten, 51) 6187; ñì.: 64, n. 24), íî åå âûâîäû íà ñàìîì äåëå âåñüìà îñòîðîæíû: èññëåäîâàòåëüíèöà âñåãî ëèøü îòêàçûâàåòñÿ ñ÷èòàòü âåðñèþ Áàðèøè÷à îá àâòîðñòâå Ñåðãèÿ Èñïîâåäíèêà îêîí÷àòåëüíîé, çàìå÷àÿ, ÷òî õðîíèêà «äîõîäèò òîëüêî äî âîñüìîãî ãîäà ïðàâëåíèÿ Ìèõàèëà, òàê ÷òî îíà ìîãëà áûòü çàâåðøåíà åùå âî âðåìÿ åãî ïðàâëåíèÿ è â ýòîì ñëó÷àå íå ìîãëà áû áûòü ïîä÷åðêíóòî íåãàòèâíîé». Îäíàêî åñòü ïðåäïîëîæåíèå, ÷òî Ñåðãèé Èñïîâåäíèê íà÷àë ïèñàòü ñâîþ õðîíèêó óæå ïîñëå ñìåðòè Ìèõàèëà Òðàâëà (÷òî áûëî áû íàèáîëåå åñòåñòâåííî), íî íå óñïåë åå äîâåñòè äî êîíöà, ò. ê. áûë îòïðàâëåí â ññûëêó èìïåðàòîðîì Ôåîôèëîì îêîëî 833 ã. ìîæåò áûòü, âñëåäñòâèå òîãî, ÷òî îáíàðîäîâàë êàêèå-òî îòðûâêè èç ñâîåãî òðóäà (Ñ. MANGO, The Liquidation of Iconoclasm and the Patriarch Photios // Iconoclasm. Papers given at the Ninth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies. University of Birmingham. March 1975 / Ed. A. Bryer, J. Herrin (Birmingham, 1977) 133140; ñì. 139). Åùå îäèí àðãóìåíò Ä. Àôèíîãåíîâà ñîñòîèò â òîì, ÷òî ïàòðèàðõ Ôîòèé íàçûâàåò «Èñòîðèþ» Ñåðãèÿ Èñïîâåäíèêà «Îáëè÷èòåëüíûì ñëîâîì ïðîòèâ èêîíîáîðöåâ» («Ïîâåñòü î ïðîùåíèè èìïåðàòîðà Ôåîôèëà»
42). Îäíàêî ʸïøòåéí â êîíöå òîãî ñàìîãî ïðèì. 24 (íà êîòîðîå Àôèíîãåíîâ ññûëàåòñÿ íà òîé æå ñ. 42!) ïèøåò: «Íàäî îáðàòèòü âíèìàíèå, ÷òî íàïå÷àòàííûé åùå ó Ìèíÿ (PG 103, 164B) çàãîëîâîê Óåñãßïõ ôï FÏìïëïãçôéêï óôçëéåõôéêí ô§í åkêïíïìÜ÷ùí ïðåäñòàâëÿåò ñîáîé çàìåòêó íà ïîëÿõ, äàòèðóåìóþ 15-ì âåêîì, è, òàêèì îáðàçîì, íå èìåþùóþ êðèòè÷åñêîé âàæíîñòè», ñàì æå Ôîòèé ãîâîðèò òîëüêî, ÷òî «áûëà ïðî÷èòàíà [êíèãà] Ñåðãèÿ Èñïîâåäíèêà», íî Àôèíîãåíîâ îá ýòîì óìàë÷èâàåò, öèòèðóÿ Ôîòèÿ èìåííî ïî PG, õîòÿ ñ òîãî âðåìåíè óæå âûøëî êðèòè÷åñêîå èçäàíèå, â êîòîðîì óïîìÿíóòîãî çàãîëîâêà íå ñîäåðæèòñÿ (PHOTIUS, Bibliothèque / Ed. R. HENRY. 8 vols (Paris, 1:1959; 2:1960; 3:1962; 4:1965; 5:1967; 6:1971; 7:1974; 8:1977) ñì.: Vol. 1. 99). È óæ ñîâñåì ñòðàííî âûãëÿäèò óòâåðæäåíèå Àôèíîãåíîâà («Ïîâåñòü î ïðîùåíèè èìïåðàòîðà Ôåîôèëà»
4142), ÷òî íàèìåíîâàíèå «áîæåñòâåííûå ìóæè» ìîæåò áûòü ïðèëîæåíî ê Ñåðãèþ Èñïîâåäíèêó ëèøü «ñ íàòÿæêîé», ïîñêîëüêó îí «íå áûë íè ñâÿùåííèêîì, íè ìîíàõîì». Òî, ÷òî Ñåðãèé áûë èñïîâåäíèêîì è ïîñòðàäàë çà ïðàâîñëàâèå, âïîëíå äîñòàòî÷íûé ïîâîä äëÿ òàêîãî íàèìåíîâàíèÿ, ïîñêîëüêó «áîæåñòâåííûå ìóæè» ýòî íå òîëüêî «ïðèíàäëåæàùèå ê äóõîâíîìó ñîñëîâèþ», à âîîáùå ñâÿòûå, êîòîðûå ìîãóò è íå èìåòü íèêàêîãî ñàíà. 51 Õîòÿ «Èñòîðèÿ» Ñåðãèÿ Èñïîâåäíèêà ïðåäñòàâëÿëà ñîáîé ïàìôëåò íà èìïåðàòîðà Ìèõàèëà, îíà â òî æå âðåìÿ ñîäåðæàëà ìíîæåñòâî ðåàëüíûõ ôàêòîâ è ïîäðîáíîñòåé; à òàêèå ôàêòû êàê ó÷àñòèå Ôåîôèëà â ñðàæåíèÿõ è â êðåñòíîì õîäå ñ ðèçîé Áîãîìàòåðè ïî ñòåíàì îñàæäåííîãî Êîíñòàíòèíîïîëÿ íèêàê íå ìîãóò áûòü ÷àñòüþ çàâåäîìûõ ïàìôëåòíûõ âûäóìîê.
Т. А. Сенина
253
ãîëüä îòáðàñûâàåò åãî êàê íåäîñòîâåðíûé, àðãóìåíòèðóÿ ýòî òåì, ÷òî ðàññêàç áûë âçÿò èç íåêîåãî «àíîíèìíîãî, êîðîòêîãî è èñêàæåííîãî îïèñàíèÿ îñàäû», ÷òîáû ïðèïèñàòü Ôåîôèëó âîåííûå ïîäâèãè, «êîòîðûõ åìó çàìåòíî íåäîñòàâàëî».52 Ýòî óòâåðæäåíèå ïî ñóòè áåçäîêàçàòåëüíî,53 íî îáúÿñíèìî: âåäü îäèí òîëüêî ôàêò ó÷àñòèÿ Ôåîôèëà â âîåííîé êàìïàíèè 822 ãîäà ñîâåðøåííî ðàçðóøàåò âñþ õðîíîëîãèþ, âûñòðîåííóþ Òðåäãîëüäîì.
–ÓʉÂÌË ‘ÂÓÙË· Ôåîôèë áûë ñûíîì Ìèõàèëà II Òðàâëà îò åãî ïåðâîé æåíû Ôåêëû. Äæ. Õåððèí çàìå÷àåò, ÷òî îêîí÷àòåëüíûé âûâîä îòíîñèòåëüíî äàòû ðîæäåíèÿ Ôåîôèëà çàâèñèò îò ïðèìåðíîé äàòû ñâàäüáû Ìèõàèëà è Ôåêëû, íî, ïî ìíåíèþ èññëåäîâàòåëüíèöû, ýòó äàòó íåâîçìîæíî ÿñíî óñòàíîâèòü.54 Îäíàêî ìíå ýòî íå ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ ñîâåðøåííî íåâîçìîæíûì. Åñëè ïðèíÿòü çà äàòó ðîæäåíèÿ Ôåîôèëà (ñêîðåå âñåãî, ïåðâåíöà Ìèõàèëà) 812/813 ã., òî Ìèõàèë ìîã âñòóïèòü â áðàê îêîëî 811 ã.  òî æå âðåìÿ èçâåñòíî, ÷òî Ìèõàèë íà÷àë ñëóæáó â àðìèè åùå äî 803 ã., «êîãäà âîçìóæàë»,55 ò. å., âåðîÿòíî, äîñòèã âîçðàñòà 1820 ëåò.  òàêîì ñëó÷àå íå î÷åíü ïîíÿòíî, ïî÷åìó îí òàê ïîçäíî æåíèëñÿ; åñëè æå âåðèòü ñîîáùåíèÿì õðîíèñòîâ, æåíèëñÿ îí ñóùåñòâåííî ðàíüøå. Ïðàâäèâîé èëè íåò ÿâëÿåòñÿ èñòîðèÿ î æåíèòüáå Ìèõàèëà Òðàâëà íà äî÷åðè ñòðàòèãà, åå íàëè÷èå â õðîíèêàõ ãîâîðèò î òîì, ÷òî æåíèòüáà Ìèõàèëà, ñêîðåå âñåãî, èìåëà ìåñòî äî ìÿòåæà Âàðäàíà Òóðêà è, âîçìîæíî, åñëè âåðèòü Ïðîäîëæàòåëþ Ôåîôàíà, äàæå äî òîãî, êàê Âàðäàí áûë íàçíà÷åí ìîíîñòðàòèãîì âîñòî÷íûõ ôåì,56 è óæ ïî êðàéíåé ìåðå íå ïîçæå èþëÿ 52
TREADGOLD, The Problem of the Marriage… 336. Ñòðàííî âûãëÿäèò óæå òî, ÷òî Òðåäãîëüä îòâåðãàåò ôàêò ó÷àñòèÿ Ôåîôèëà â âîåííûõ äåéñòâèÿõ, íî ïðèíèìàåò, íàïðèìåð, ôàêò åãî ó÷àñòèÿ â êðåñòíîì õîäå (Ibid. 337), õîòÿ ÷åì ìîæíî äîêàçàòü, ÷òî ýòîò ïîñëåäíèé òîæå íå âçÿò èç «èñêàæåííîãî îïèñàíèÿ îñàäû», íåïîíÿòíî. 54 J. HERRIN, Women in Purple. Rulers of Medieval Byzantium (London, 2001) 282, n. 87. 55 Èëè «áûë â ðàñöâåòå ñèë» (ÏÔ II, 5; ThCont 44:11). 56 Ïðîäîëæàòåëü (ÏÔ II, 7; ThCont 46:810) ãîâîðèò, ÷òî ïðîðî÷åñòâî ìîíàõà-àôèíãàíèíà, â ðåçóëüòàòå êîòîðîãî Ìèõàèë æåíèëñÿ íà äî÷åðè ñâîåãî ñòðàòèãà, èìåëî ìåñòî ðàíüøå ïðîðî÷åñòâà ôèëîìèëèéñêîãî îòøåëüíèêà Âàðäàíó Òóðêó. Ä. Àôèíîãåíîâ ïîêàçàë, ÷òî òåñòü Ìèõàèëà è Âàðäàí íå îäíî è òî æå ëèöî (ÀÔÈÍÎÃÅÍÎÂ, «Ïîâåñòü î ïðîùåíèè èìïåðàòîðà Ôåîôèëà»
1619); â òî æå âðåìÿ ó Ïðîäîëæàòåëÿ ñêàçàíî, ÷òî Ìèõàèë è Ôîìà êî âðåìåíè íàçíà÷åíèÿ Âàðäàíà êîìàíäîâàòü âîñòî÷íûìè ôåìàìè «òîëüêî ÷òî ñòàëè èçâåñòíû âîèíñêèì íà÷àëüíèêàì» (ÏÔ I, 1; ThCont 7:45). Ìîæíî ïðåäïîëîæèòü, ÷òî ñòðàòèã, íà ÷üåé äî÷åðè æåíèëñÿ Ìèõàèë, áûë ñòðàòèãîì ôåìû Àíàòîëèê äî ïîÿâëåíèÿ òàì Âàðäàíà. 53
254
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
803 ã. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, Ôåîôèë ìîã ðîäèòüñÿ â 804/805 ã., à çíà÷èò, â 821 ã. åìó áûëî îêîëî 1617 ëåò êàê ðàç ïîäõîäÿùèé âîçðàñò äëÿ æåíèòüáû. Ïîñêîëüêó ïîñëå ïðîâàëà ìÿòåæà Âàðäàíà Ìèõàèë ñòàë êîìèñêîðòîì â ôåìå Àíàòîëèê,57 òî Ôåîôèë äåéñòâèòåëüíî, âèäèìî, ðîäèëñÿ â Àìîðèè; òàì æå åãî êðåñòèëè, è êðåñòíûì îòöîì åãî ñòàë Ëåâ Àðìÿíèí, ñ êîòîðûì, êàê äî åãî ññûëêè ïðè èìïåðàòîðå Íèêèôîðå, òàê è ïîñëå åãî âîçâðàùåíèÿ êî äâîðó ïðè Ìèõàèëå I, Ìèõàèë Òðàâë ñîñòîÿë â äðóæåñêèõ îòíîøåíèÿõ.58
ÓÓ̇ˆËˇ Àíàëèçèðóÿ îïèñàíèå êîðîíàöèè è ñâàäüáû Ôåîôèëà â õðîíèêàõ ñåìüè Ëîãîôåòà, Â. Òðåäãîëüä çàìå÷àåò, ÷òî òå îïèñàíèÿ, ãäå óïîìèíàåòñÿ ñîâåðøåíèå êîðîíàöèè è áðàêà â îäèí è òîò æå äåíü, íå ñîãëàñóþòñÿ ñ ïðîòîêîëîì «Êíèãè öåðåìîíèé», è ÷òî âðÿä ëè ïîäîáíàÿ ïóòàíèöà59 ìîãëà èìåòü ìåñòî ïðè äâîðå Ìèõàèëà II, à ïîòîìó ñâàäüáà íà ñàìîì äåëå íå ñîâåðøàëàñü â 821 ã. âìåñòå ñ êîðîíàöèåé.60 Òàêîé àðãóìåíò âûãëÿäèò íåóáåäèòåëüíî: õðîíèêà ýòî íå öåðåìîíèàëüíûé ïðîòîêîë, è ñòðàííî áûëî áû òðåáîâàòü îò íåå ñòðîãîé òî÷íîñòè âûðàæåíèé. Êðîìå òîãî, âûðàæåíèå ð (èëè äéÜ) ðáôñéÜñ÷ïõ äîâîëüíî óïîòðåáèòåëüíî ïðè îïèñàíèè êîðîíàöèè ñîïðàâèòåëÿ: íàïðèìåð, Ôåîôàí Èñïîâåäíèê, îïèñûâàÿ êîðîíàöèþ Ñòàâðàêèÿ, ãîâîðèò, ÷òî Íèêèôîð âåí÷àë ñûíà íà öàðñòâî «ñ ïîìîùüþ Òàðàñèÿ, ñâÿòåéøåãî ïàòðèàðõà»;61 à ïðè îïèñàíèè êîðîíàöèè Ôåîôèëàêòà Ìèõàèëîì Ðàíãàâå, óïîòðåáëÿåò êàê ðàç âûðàæåíèå ð ðáôñéÜñ÷ïõ: «âåí÷àë Ôåîôèëàêòà, ñûíà ñâîåãî, ÷åðåç ïîñðåäÑì.: ÀÔÈÍÎÃÅÍÎÂ, «Ïîâåñòü î ïðîùåíèè èìïåðàòîðà Ôåîôèëà»
18. Â. Òðåäãîëüä óòâåðæäàåò, ÷òî äî íà÷àëà öàðñòâîâàíèÿ Ëüâà ýòîãî íå ìîãëî áûòü, ïîñêîëüêó «Ìèõàèë è Ëåâ, êàê êàæåòñÿ, íå áûëè â õîðîøèõ îòíîøåíèÿõ â òî âðåìÿ», ïîñêîëüêó Ìèõàèë äàæå ãðîçèëñÿ óáèòü Ëüâà, åñëè òîò íå ïðèìåò ïðîâîçãëàøåíèÿ èìïåðàòîðîì â 813 ã. (TREADGOLD, The Problem of the Marriage
337). Îäíàêî, êàê ïîêàçàë Ä. Àôèíîãåíîâ, êàê ðàç ýòîò ýïèçîä ñâèäåòåëüñòâóåò î òîì, ÷òî â òî âðåìÿ Ìèõàèë óæå «ñ÷èòàëñÿ îäíèì èç ñàìûõ äîâåðåííûõ è ïðåäàííûõ ëþäåé ïðè áóäóùåì èìïåðàòîðå» (÷òî ñîãëàñóåòñÿ è ñ ñîîáùåíèåì Ïðîäîëæàòåëÿ Ôåîôàíà I, 4; ThCont 12:1014), è îòíîøåíèÿ èõ «áûëè áåçîáëà÷íûìè» (ÀÔÈÍÎÃÅÍÎÂ, «Ïîâåñòü î ïðîùåíèè èìïåðàòîðà Ôåîôèëà»
23–24). 59 Íàïðèìåð, ÷òî Ôåîôèë áûë êîðîíîâàí ïàòðèàðõîì (ð EÁíôùíßïõ ðáôñéÜñ÷ïõ), â òî âðåìÿ êàê îí, â êà÷åñòâå ñîïðàâèòåëÿ, äîëæåí áûë áûòü êîðîíîâàí èìïåðàòîðîì Ìèõàèëîì II ëèøü â ïðèñóòñòâèè ïàòðèàðõà; ÷òî ñëîâî óôÝöïò îáîçíà÷àåò âåíåö áðà÷íûé, à íå öàðñêèé; èëè ÷òî âåí÷àíèå ñîèìïåðàòîðà äîëæíî áûëî ïðîõîäèòü â Ñâÿòîé Ñîôèè, à íå â õðàìå Ñâ. Ñòåôàíà. 60 Ñì.: TREADGOLD, The Problem of the Marriage… 328–329. 61 hóôåøå Íéêçöüñïò ôí õjí áôï ÓôáõñÜêéïí äéN Ôáñáóßïõ, ôï QãéùôÜôïõ ðáôñéÜñ÷ïõ, dí ô² Tìâùíé ôyò ìåãÜëçò dêêëçóßáò åkò âáóéëÝá (Theophanis Chronographia / Ed. C. de BOOR (Lipsiae, 1883) 480:11–13). 57 58
Т. А. Сенина
255
ñòâî Íèêèôîðà ïàòðèàðõà».62 Ïîýòîìó âûðàæåíèå Ëîãîôåòà óôåöèårò ð EÁíôùíßïõ ðáôñéÜñ÷ïõ íå ïîçâîëÿåò äåëàòü òàêèõ äàëåêî èäóùèõ âûâîäîâ, êàêèå ñîäåðæàòñÿ â ñòàòüå Òðåäãîëüäà. Âîîáùå, åñëè ãîâîðèòü î «ïóòàíèöå», òî óæå ñàìà ôðàçà Ëîãîôåòà ñîäåðæèò åå: Ôåîôèë «âåí÷àåò Ôåîäîðó â åâêòèðèè Ñâ. Ñòåôàíà, âåí÷àâøèñü63 è ñàì ñ íåé Àíòîíèåì ïàòðèàðõîì».64 Íî, ñîãëàñíî ïðîòîêîëó «Êíèãè öåðåìîíèé», âåí÷àíèå Àâãóñòû ñîâåðøàåòñÿ íå â õðàìå Ñâ. Ñòåôàíà, à â Àâãóñòåå; Òðåäãîëüä çàìå÷àåò ýòî, íî íå ïðèäàåò íèêàêîãî çíà÷åíèÿ, çàìå÷àÿ ëèøü, ÷òî «òî÷íåå, êîðîíàöèÿ èìïåðàòðèöû ïðîâîäèëàñü êàê ðàç ñíàðóæè õðàìà Ñâ. Ñòåôàíà»,65 ïî÷åìó-òî íå âèäÿ çäåñü íèêàêîé «ïóòàíèöû».
∆ÂϘÛÊÌ˚È ÚËÍÎËÌ Äàëåå Â. Òðåäãîëüä âûäâèãàåò â êà÷åñòâå àðãóìåíòà òî, ÷òî Æåì÷óæíûé òðèêëèí, â êîòîðîì, ñîãëàñíî Ëîãîôåòó, ïðîõîäèë âûáîð íåâåñò, åùå íå áûë ïîñòðîåí â 821 ã., ò. ê. åãî ïîñòðîèë ñàì Ôåîôèë êàê ïðåäïîëàãàåò èññëåäîâàòåëü, ñïåöèàëüíî äëÿ âûáîðà íåâåñò.66 Îäíàêî ìû íå çíàåì, êîãäà èìåííî áûë ïîñòðîåí òðèêëèí; â õðîíèêàõ ñåìüè Ëîãîôåòà ñòðîèòåëüñòâî, ïðåäïðèíÿòîå Ôåîôèëîì, îïèñûâàåòñÿ áëèæå ê êîíöó åãî öàðñòâîâàíèÿ; åñëè æå ñóäèòü ïî îïèñàíèþ ïîñòðîåê Ôåîôèëà ó Ïðîäîëæàòåëÿ Ôåîôàíà, òî âðÿä ëè ìîæíî ñêàçàòü, ÷òî Ôåîôèë ïðèíÿëñÿ çà ñòðîèòåëüñòâî ñðàçó æå ïîñëå âîöàðåíèÿ. Óïîìèíàíèå î Æåì÷óæíîì òðèêëèíå â ñâÿçè ñ âûáîðîì íåâåñò äëÿ Ôåîôèëà ìîæåò ÿâëÿòüñÿ, íàïðèìåð, àíàõðîíèçìîì âîçìîæíî, â ýòîì òðèêëèíå ïðîõîäèë âûáîð íåâåñò äëÿ Ìèõàèëà III; â ëþáîì ñëó÷àå, çäåñü ìû íå âûõîäèì èç îáëàñòè ïðåäïîëîæåíèé è äîãàäîê.
´–„ÂÌÚÒÚ‚Óª ≈‚ÙÓÒËÌ˚ Îäíèì èç àðãóìåíòîâ â ïîëüçó ìàëîëåòñòâà Ôåîôèëà âî âðåìÿ öàðñòâîâàíèÿ åãî îòöà Â. Òðåäãîëüä ñ÷èòàåò ñîîáùåíèå Ëîãîôåòà î òîì, ÷òî ïîñëå ñìåðòè Ìèõàèëà II Ôåîôèë âîöàðèëñÿ âìåñòå «ñ ìàòåðüþ ñâîåþ Åâôðîñèíîþ».67 Òðåäãîëüä ñ÷èòàåò, ÷òî Åâôðîñèíà áûëà íàçíà÷åíà ðåãåíòøåé ïðè þíîì Ôåîôèëå è óäàëèëàñü â ìîíàñòûðü íå ïî ïðèíóæäå62 Ìé÷áxë ¿ ãáëçíüôáôïò hóôåøå Èåïöýëáêôïí, ôí õjí áôï, åkò âáóéëÝá ð Íéêçöüñïõ ðáôñéÜñ÷ïõ dí ô² Tìâùíé ôyò ìåãÜëçò dêêëçóßáò (Theophanis Chronographia... 494:26–28). 63 óôåöèåßò àîðèñòíîå ïðè÷àñòèå; ò. å. îí îáâåí÷àëñÿ ñ íåé äî òîãî, êàê âåí÷àë åå öàðèöåé. 64 Leonis Grammatici chronographia / Åd. I. BEKKER (Bonnae, 1842) (CSHByz) (äàëåå LeoGram) 213:19–21. 65 TREADGOLD, The Problem of the Marriage… 328, n. 17. 66 Ibid. 329. 67 LeoGram 213:6.
256
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
íèþ ïàñûíêà, à äîáðîâîëüíî, ïîñëå òîãî êàê îí óæå æåíèëñÿ, ññûëàÿñü ïðè ýòîì è íà çàìå÷àíèå Æ. Áüþðè, ÷òî Ôåîôèë, íåñìîòðÿ íà ñâîé «ýíåðãè÷íûé õàðàêòåð», íå ïðîÿâëÿëñÿ íèêàêîé àêòèâíîñòè âî âðåìÿ ñâîåãî ñîöàðñòâîâàíèÿ ñ îòöîì è íå îêàçûâàë âëèÿíèÿ íà åãî ïîëèòèêó.68 Îäíàêî ìû íå èìååì äàííûõ äëÿ ïîäîáíûõ óòâåðæäåíèé. Õðîíèñòû, îïèñûâàÿ öàðñòâîâàíèå òîãî èëè èíîãî èìïåðàòîðà, îáû÷íî äåëàþò óïîð èìåííî íà äåÿíèÿ ãëàâíîãî ãåðîÿ ïîâåñòâîâàíèÿ, à ñûíîâüÿ îñòàþòñÿ â òåíè äî âðåìåíè èõ åäèíîëè÷íîãî âîöàðåíèÿ.69 Íî Ôåîôèë êàê ðàç íå îñòàëñÿ â òåíè ïîëíîñòüþ: Ïðîäîëæàòåëü Ôåîôàíà è Ãåíåñèé óïîìèíàþò î åãî äåÿòåëüíîñòè âî âðåìÿ âîññòàíèÿ Ôîìû. Êðîìå òîãî, ïî êîñâåííûì äàííûì ìîæíî ïðåäïîëîæèòü, ÷òî Ôåîôèë áûë ïîìîùíèêîì îòöà: ñîõðàíèëîñü, íàïðèìåð, ïîñëàíèå Ìèõàèëà II ê Ëþäîâèêó Áëàãî÷åñòèâîìó; íî èçâåñòíî òàêæå, ÷òî Ìèõàèë áûë ÷åëîâåêîì íå î÷åíü ãðàìîòíûì,70 è, ñêîðåå âñåãî, ñûí è ñîïðàâèòåëü âî ìíîãîì ïîìîãàë åìó â ãîñóäàðñòâåííûõ äåëàõ. Íåïîíÿòíî, íà êàêîì îñíîâàíèè Òðåäãîëüä çàêëþ÷àåò, áóäòî èìåííî Åâôðîñèíà îñíîâàëà Ãàñòðèéñêèé ìîíàñòûðü è ó÷èëà ñâîèõ âíó÷åê, äî÷åðåé Ôåîôèëà, ïî÷èòàòü èêîíû.71 Èç «Êíèãè öåðåìîíèé» î÷åâèäíî, ÷òî Ãàñòðèÿ áûëà ôàìèëüíîé óñûïàëüíèöåé èìïåðàòðèöû Ôåîäîðû òàì áûëà ïîõîðîíåíà åå ìàòü Ôåîêòèñòà, îíà ñàìà è òðîå åå äî÷åðåé, à òàêæå åå áðàòüÿ Âàðäà è Ïåòðîíà è åå ïëåìÿííèöà.72 Åâôðîñèíà æå áûëà ïîõîðîíåíà ñîâñåì â äðóãîì ìîíàñòûðå, â ñîáñòâåííîé ôàìèëüíîé óñûïàëüíèöå, âìåñòå ñî ñâîèìè ðîäèòåëÿìè Êîíñòàíòèíîì VI è Ìàðèåé Àìíèéñêîé è ñ ñåñòðîé Èðèíîé;73 ïîýòîìó è çäåñü, áåçóñëîâíî, ïðàâ íå Ëîãîôåò, à Ïðîäîëæàòåëü Ôåîôàíà, êîòîðûé ãîâîðèò î òîì, ÷òî Ôåîôèë èçãíàë Åâôðîñèíó îáðàòíî â òîò ìîíàñòûðü, ãäå îíà íåêîãäà ïîñòðèãëàñü,74 è ÷òî íå îíà, à ìàòü Ôåîäîðû Ôåîêòèñòà ó÷èëà ñâîèõ âíó÷åê ïî÷èòàòü èêîíû, êîãäà îíè íàâåùàëè åå â Ãàñòðèè.75  ñâåòå ýòîãî ïðåä68 BURY, A History of the Eastern Roman Empire… 120; TREADGOLD, The Problem of the Marriage… 336, 339. 69 Íàïðèìåð, ýòî ìîæíî âèäåòü â îïèñàíèè öàðñòâîâàíèé Ëüâà Èñàâðà è Íèêèôîðà Ãåíèêà â «Õðîíîãðàôèè» Ôåîôàíà: íåñìîòðÿ íà òî, ÷òî è Êîíñòàíòèí V, è Ñòàâðàêèé äîñòèãëè âçðîñëîãî âîçðàñòà âî âðåìÿ öàðñòâîâàíèÿ èõ îòöîâ (è Êîíñòàíòèí, íåñîìíåííî, áûë íå ìåíåå ýíåðãè÷åí ïî õàðàêòåðó, íåæåëè Ôåîôèë), ïðàêòè÷åñêè íèêàêèõ èõ äåÿíèé, êðîìå æåíèòüáû, äî íà÷àëà èõ åäèíîëè÷íîãî öàðñòâîâàíèÿ õðîíèñò íå óïîìèíàåò. 70 Ñì.: ÏÔ II, 8; ThCont 49:12–15. 71 TREADGOLD, The Problem of the Marriage… 339. 72 Constantini Porphyrogeniti imperatoris, De ceremoniis aulae Byzantinae libru duo / Rec. I. I. REISKE (Bonnae, I:1829, II:1830) (äàëåå De cer) Vol. I. 647–648. 73 De cer I. 647. 74 ÏÔ III, 1; ThCont 86:8–12. 75 ÏÔ III, 5; ThCont 90:2–91:10.
Т. А. Сенина
257
ñòàâëÿåòñÿ, ÷òî ñâåäåíèÿ Ïðîäîëæàòåëÿ áîëåå òî÷íû, è íèêàêîãî ðåãåíòñòâà Åâôðîñèíû íà ñàìîì äåëå íå áûëî, ïîñêîëüêó Ôåîôèë â 829 ã. «áûë óæå âçðîñëûì ìóæåì».76
‘ÂÓÙËΠ̇ ÏÓÌÂÚ‡ı ÃËı‡Ë· II Êàçàëîñü áû, áîëåå ñåðüåçíûì àðãóìåíòîì ÿâëÿåòñÿ ïðîäåëàííûé Â. Òðåäãîëüäîì àíàëèç ìîíåò Ìèõàèëà II è Ôåîôèëà. Íî è òóò íà ïîâåðêó âñå îêàçûâàåòñÿ íå ñîâñåì òàê, êàê ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ èññëåäîâàòåëþ. Òðåäãîëüä ïðèçíàåò, ÷òî ìîíåòíûå èçîáðàæåíèÿ äîñòàòî÷íî óñëîâíû,77 íî, òåì íå ìåíåå, ðåøàåòñÿ ðåêîíñòðóèðîâàòü ïî íèì ïðåäïîëàãàåìûé âîçðàñò Ôåîôèëà âî âðåìÿ öàðñòâîâàíèÿ Ìèõàèëà Òðàâëà. Äåòè íà ìîíåòàõ, êàê çàìå÷àåò Òðåäãîëüä, èçîáðàæàþòñÿ ÷óòü ìåíüøå ðàçìåðîì, ñ áîëüøèìè ãëàçàìè è áîëåå êðóãëîëèöûìè, ÷åì âçðîñëûå, ïîäðîñòêè áåçáîðîÏÔ III, 1; ThCont 84:17. Â. Òðåäãîëüä ñàì ñåáå ïðîòèâîðå÷èò: òî îí óòâåðæäàåò, ÷òî Ôåîôèë â íà÷àëå ñâîåãî åäèíîëè÷íîãî ïðàâëåíèÿ áûë «âåñüìà þí», òàê ÷òî åìó òðåáîâàëàñü ïîìîùü ìà÷åõè (TREADGOLD, The Problem of the Marriage
336), òî ÷åðåç íåñêîëüêî ñòðîê ãîâîðèò, ÷òî Ôåîôèë áûë â ýòî âðåìÿ óæå «âçðîñëûì» è, êàê ïîêàçûâàþò ìîíåòû, ñ áîðîäîé (Ibid. 337). Äæ. Õåððèí ñ íåäîâåðèåì îòíîñèòñÿ ê ñâèäåòåëüñòâó Ïðîäîëæàòåëÿ Ôåîôàíà âçðîñëîñòè Ôåîôèëà ïðè âñòóïëåíèè íà ïðåñòîë, çàìå÷àÿ, ÷òî îäíè èç âèçàíòèéñêèõ õðîíèñòîâ (êàê Ëåâ Ãðàììàòèê) óïîìèíàþò î ðåãåíñòâå Åâôðîñèíû ïðè þíîì Ôåîôèëå, äðóãèå (Ãåíåñèé) ïðîñòî ãîâîðÿò, ÷òî Ôåîôèë ñòàë ïðàâèòü ïîñëå ñìåðòè îòöà; è «òîëüêî Ïðîäîëæàòåëü Ôåîôàíà óòâåðæäàåò, ÷òî Ôåîôèë áûë óæå âçðîñëûì ìóæ÷èíîé è íàñëåäîâàë ñâîåìó îòöó. Íî ýòîò èñòî÷íèê ... íàèáîëåå àãðåññèâíî íàñòðîåí ïðîòèâ èìïåðàòîðîâ-èêîíîáîðöåâ äåâÿòîãî âåêà è, ìîæåò áûòü, õîòåë ïðèïèñàòü âñå îøèáêè îäíîìó Ôåîôèëó» (HERRIN, Women in Purple
169). Ëîãèêà ýòîãî óòâåðæäåíèÿ íå î÷åíü ïîíÿòíà è ñîâåðøåííî íå ñîãëàñóåòñÿ ñ òåêñòîì Ïðîäîëæàòåëÿ. Õðîíèñò, ãîâîðÿ î ðàçíûõ íåäîñòàòêàõ Ìèõàèëà II, íèêàê íå óïîìèíàåò åãî ñûíà; è íàïðîòèâ, â êíèãå î Ôåîôèëå, íàðÿäó ñ îòðèöàòåëüíûìè ìîìåíòàìè ïðàâëåíèÿ ýòîãî èìïåðàòîðà (â îñíîâíîì èêîíîáîð÷åñòâîì) îïèñûâàþòñÿ ìíîãî÷èñëåííûå ïîëîæèòåëüíûå êà÷åñòâà Ôåîôèëà, òàê ÷òî ìåñòàìè ðå÷ü Ïðîäîëæàòåëÿ çâó÷èò, ñêîðåå, êàê ïàíåãèðèê, íåæåëè êàê îáëè÷åíèå «íå÷åñòèâîãî èìïåðàòîðà»: «îí ñòðåìèëñÿ ê ïðàâîñóäèþ è âñåì äóðíûì ëþäÿì áûë ñòðàøåí, à áëàãèì óäèâèòåëåí» (ÏÔ III, 2; ThCont 86:1921); ðåâíîñòíî ïî÷èòàë Áîãîìàòåðü, áûë äîñòóïåí äëÿ íàðîäà (ÏÔ III, 3, ThCont 87:910,13), ïðîÿâëÿë çàáîòó î ñòðîèòåëüñòâå è áëàãîóêðàøåíèè ñòîëèöû (ÏÔ III, 8, 42–44; ThCont 94:1995:7, 139:19148:3) è «âî âñåõ ïîäîáíûõ äåëàõ ÿâëÿë ñåáÿ Ôåîôèë è ïî÷èòàëñÿ âåëèêîëåïíûì è óäèâèòåëüíûì» (ÏÔ III, 10; ThCont 99:45; ïîäîáíûõ ýïèòåòîâ ó Ïðîäîëæàòåëÿ Ôåîôàíà íå ñïîäîáèëñÿ äàæå Âàñèëèé Ìàêåäîíÿíèí!). Ìåæäó ïðî÷èì, äàòèðîâêà âûáîðà íåâåñò 821 ãîäîì ðàçðóøàåò è îäèí èç àðãóìåíòîâ Ë. Ðþäåíà ÷òî íà ñàìîì äåëå íåâåñòó äëÿ Ôåîôèëà âûáðàëà åãî ìà÷åõà Åâôðîñèíà (RYDÉN, The Bride-shows
187188), à íå ñàì èìïåðàòîð, è ÷òî, òàêèì îáðàçîì, íèêàêîãî âûáîðà íåâåñò è èñòîðèè ñ Êàññèåé íå áûëî. 77 TREADGOLD, The Problem of the Marriage… 336. 76
258
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
äû, à âçðîñëûå ìóæ÷èíû èìåþò áîðîäó; ïî ìíåíèþ Òðåäãîëüäà, Ôåîôèë íà íåáîëüøîì ÷èñëå ìîíåò èçîáðàæåí ðåáåíêîì, íà áîëüøèíñòâå ìîíåò ïîäðîñòêîì.78 Íî åñëè ìû îáðàòèìñÿ ê êàòàëîãó Ô. Ãðèðñîíà, òî íèãäå íå íàéäåì ìàëåíüêîãî è êðóãëîëèöåãî Ôåîôèëà: ñîïðàâèòåëü Ìèõàèëà II âåçäå èçîáðàæàåòñÿ ñ áîëåå-ìåíåå ïðîäîëãîâàòûì ëèöîì, ïðèìåðíî ñ òàêèìè æå ãëàçàìè è òàêîãî æå ðîñòà, êàê è åãî îòåö.79 Íåìíîãî áîëåå þíûì Ôåîôèë âûãëÿäèò íà íåáîëüøîì êîëè÷åñòâå ìîíåò, ãäå îí èçîáðàæåí îòäåëüíî íà ðåâåðñå, íî èç ýòîãî íåëüçÿ ñäåëàòü âûâîä î òîì, ÷òî â 821 ã. îí áûë ðåáåíêîì 8 ëåò, êàê óòâåðæäàåò Òðåäãîëüä. Ìíå êàæåòñÿ, ÷òî ìîæíî áëèæå ïîäîéòè ê èñòèíå, åñëè ñðàâíèòü ìîíåòû Ìèõàèëà II ñ ìîíåòàìè äðóãèõ èìïåðàòîðîâ, èìåâøèõ ñûíîâåé-ñîïðàâèòåëåé. Ñðàâíèâ ìîíåòû Ìèõàèëà II ñ ñîïðàâèòåëåì Ôåîôèëîì è ìîíåòû Ëüâà III ñ ñîïðàâèòåëåì Êîíñòàíòèíîì, ìû óâèäèì ðàçèòåëüíûé êîíòðàñò. Íà ìîíåòàõ Ëüâà Èñàâðà, êîòîðûå Ô. Ãðèðñîí äàòèðóåò 725732 ãã., ò. å. âðåìåíåì, êîãäà áóäóùåìó Êîíñòàíòèíó V áûëî 712 ëåò, ìû âèäèì íà ðåâåðñå äåéñòâèòåëüíî ìàëü÷èêà î÷åíü êðóãëîëèöåãî, ñðåäíåãî ðîñòà;80 ëèöî ó Êîíñòàíòèíà ñòàíîâèòñÿ ïðîäîëãîâàòûì òîëüêî íà ìîíåòàõ, äàòèðóåìûõ 737741 ãã., ò. å. âðåìåíåì, êîãäà ñîïðàâèòåëþ Ëüâà III áûëî óæå 19 è áîëåå ëåò; ëèøü íà ïîñëåäíèõ ìîíåòàõ, î÷åâèäíî, íà òåõ, ãäå Êîíñòàíòèíó óæå çà 20, ó íåãî ïîÿâëÿåòñÿ áîðîäà è îí èçîáðàæàåòñÿ ñîâåðøåííî ïîõîæèì íà îòöà. Òî÷íî òàê æå óñû è áîðîäà ó Ôåîôèëà ïîÿâëÿþòñÿ íà ìîíåòàõ ñàìîãî êîíöà öàðñòâîâàíèÿ Ìèõàèëà II,81 ãäå Ôåîôèë óæå, î÷åâèäíî, ñîâåðøåííî âçðîñëûé ìóæ, âî âñåì ïîäîáíûé îòöó; î÷åíü ñîìíèòåëüíî, îäíàêî, ÷òîáû îí ìîã âûãëÿäåòü òàê óæå â 16 ëåò. Åñëè ìû ïðîäîëæèì ñðàâíèâàòü ìîíåòû ðàçíûõ èìïåðàòîðîâ, òî óâèäèì, ÷òî íà òåõ ìîíåòàõ, ãäå Ôåîôèë, ïî ìíåíèþ Òðåäãîëüäà, èçîáðàæåí ðåáåíêîì, îí âî âñåì ïîäîáåí ïî âèäó Ñòàâðàêèþ, ñûíó Íèêèôîðà Ãåíèêà,82 è Ôåîôèëàêòó, ñûíó Ìèõàèëà Ðàíãàâå.83 Ìåæäó òåì, ìû çíàåì, ÷òî Ñòàâðàêèé âî âðåìÿ ñîïðàâèòåëüñòâà ñî ñâîèì îòöîì óæå íå áûë ðåáåíêîì â 807 ã. îí æåíèëñÿ; à Ôåîôèëàêòó, êîðîíîâàííîì îòöîì 25 äåêàáðÿ 811 ã. áûëî íå ìåíüøå 18 ëåò êîãäà îí â 813 ã. ïîñòðèãñÿ â ìîíàõè âìåñòå ñî ñâåðæåííûì ñ ïðåñòîëà îòöîì, åìó, ñîãëàñíî Ïðîäîëæàòåëþ Ôåîôàíà, áûëî 20 ëåò.84 78
TREADGOLD, The Problem of the Marriage… 336–337. Ýòî õîðîøî âèäíî íà âñåõ ìîíåòàõ, íî îñîáåííî íà òåõ, ãäå îáà èìïåðàòîðà èçîáðàæåíû âìåñòå íà àâåðñå; ñì.: GRIERSON, BELLINGER, Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins… Part 1. Plates XX–XXI. 80 Ñì.: Ibid. Plate I (5.25.6, 5.95.10). 81 Ñì.: Ibid. Plate XXI (11). 82 Ñòàâðàêèé íà ðåâåðñå ñì.: Ibid. Plate XVI (2b.1, 2b.3, 2c.1, 2c.4, 2c.7). 83 Ôåîôèëàêò íà ðåâåðñå ñì: Ibid. Plate XVII (1à.1, 1à.4, 1b). 84 ÏÔ I, 10; ThCont 20:24. Ïðîäîëæàòåëü íàçûâàåò Ôåîôèëàêòà Åâñòðàòèåì; ýòî áûëî èìÿ, ïðèíÿòîå èì â ìîíàøåñòâå, î ÷åì ãîâîðèòñÿ â Æèòèè ïàòðè79
Т. А. Сенина
259
Òàêèì îáðàçîì, è íà îñíîâàíèè ñðàâíèòåëüíîãî àíàëèçà ìîíåòíûõ èçîáðàæåíèé, íåñìîòðÿ íà èõ ïîíÿòíóþ óñëîâíîñòü, ëîãè÷íåå áûëî áû ïðåäïîëîæèòü, ÷òî Ôåîôèëó â 821 ã. áûëî îêîëî 16 ëåò, à ê êîíöó öàðñòâîâàíèÿ Ìèõàèëà II îí áûë âïîëíå âçðîñëûì ìóæ÷èíîé 24 ëåò, êîãäà ó íåãî äåéñòâèòåëüíî óæå ìîãëè áûòü òàêèå æå óñû è áîðîäà, êàê ó îòöà.
ƒÓ˜¸ ‘ÂÓÙË· Ã‡Ëˇ Ë Â ·‡Í Ò ¿ÎÂÍÒÂÂÏ ÃÛÒÂΠÑîãëàñíî êàòàëîãó Ô. Ãðèðñîíà, ìîíåòû Ôåîôèëà äåëÿòñÿ íà ïÿòü òèïîâ:85 I Ôåîôèë îäèí íà àâåðñå, êðåñò èëè íàäïèñü íà ðåâåðñå (äàòèðîâêà ïî Ãðèðñîíó 829830/831 ãã.); II Ôåîôèë íà àâåðñå, åãî ñûí Êîíñòàíòèí íà ðåâåðñå (830 èëè 831 ã.); III Ôåîôèë íà àâåðñå, Ìèõàèë II è Êîíñòàíòèí íà ðåâåðñå (830/831840 ãã.); IV Ôåîôèë, Ôåîäîðà è Ôåêëà íà àâåðñå, Àííà è Àíàñòàñèÿ íà ðåâåðñå (êîíåö 830-õ ãã.); V Ôåîôèë íà àâåðñå, Ìèõàèë III íà ðåâåðñå (840842 ãã.). Â. Òðåäãîëüä ïðåäëàãàåò òèïà IV ïîñòàâèòü ïîñëå òèïà I, ïðåäïîëàãàÿ, ÷òî äåòè Ôåîôèëà ðîæäàëèñü â ñëåäóþùåì ïîðÿäêå: Ôåêëà (831), Àííà (832), Àíàñòàñèÿ (833), Êîíñòàíòèí (834), Ìàðèÿ (835), Ïóëüõåðèÿ (836), Ìèõàèë (840).86 Íàèáîëüøóþ ñëîæíîñòü äëÿ õðîíîëîãèè Òðåäãîëüäà ïðåäñòàâëÿåò äàòà ðîæäåíèÿ Ìàðèè è åå çàìóæåñòâî ïðè æèçíè îòöà. Èññëåäîâàòåëü ïûòàåòñÿ ñîâìåñòèòü ñîîáùåíèÿ Ëîãîôåòà è äðóãèõ õðîíèñòîâ î òîì, ÷òî Ìàðèÿ áûëà ìëàäøåé äî÷åðüþ, ñ åå çàìóæåñòâîì â öàðñòâîâàíèå Ôåîôèëà è äåëàåò ïðåäïîëîæåíèå, ÷òî îíà áûëà íå îáâåí÷àíà, à òîëüêî îáðó÷åíà,87 ïðè÷åì â âîçðàñòå 1 ãîäà.88 Ïûòàÿñü îáîñíîâàòü ýòî óòâåðæäåíèå, Òðåäãîëüä ïðèâîäèò â ïðèìåð èñòîðèþ æåíèòüáû äî÷åðè èìïåðàòîðà Ìàíóèëà I Ìàðèè, îáðó÷åííîé ñ æåíèõîì â âîçðàñòå 11 ëåò, ïîñêîëüêó Ìàíóèë íå èìåë íè íàñëåäíèêà ìóæñêîãî ïîëà, íè ñîâåðøåííîëåòíèõ äî÷åðåé. Íî ýòà ïàðàëëåëü íà ñàìîì äåëå íè÷åãî íå îáúÿñíÿåò: ñ îäíîé ñòîðîíû, 11 ëåò ýòî âñå æå íå 1 ãîä, à ñ äðóãîé ñòîðîíû, ó Ôåîôèëà, ïîìèìî Ìàðèè, áûëî åùå íåñêîëüêî äî÷åðåé, ñòàðøåé èç êîòîðûõ â 836 ã., ñîãëàñíî Òðåäãîëüäó, áûëî îêîëî 6 ëåò. Âñå ãîðàçäî ïðîùå, åñëè Ìàðèÿ áûëà ñòàðøåé äî÷åðüþ Ôåîôèëà è ðîäèëàñü îêîëî 822 ã.: â 836 ã. àðõà Èãíàòèÿ (PG 105. Col. 492B). Òðåäãîëüä óïîìèíàåò î òîì, ÷òî ñòàðøåìó ñûíó Ìèõàèëà II â 813 ã. áûëî 20 ëåò, íî ïðè ýòîì ïî÷åìó-òî óòâåðæäàåò, ÷òî ñûíîâüÿ Ìèõàèëà Ðàíãàâå è Ëüâà Àðìÿíèíà íå óñïåëè æåíèòüñÿ â öàðñòâîâàíèå ñâîèõ îòöîâ, «âåðîÿòíî âñëåäñòâèè èõ þíîñòè» (TREADGOLD, The Bride-Show
402), õîòÿ áîëüøèíñòâî èìïåðàòîðñêèõ ñûíîâåé âñòóïàëî â áðàê ãîðàçäî ðàíüøå 20 ëåò. 85 Ñì.: GRIERSON, BELLINGER, Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins… Part 1. 411–451. 86 TREADGOLD, The Problem of the Marriage… 333, 340–341. 87 Ibid. 330–331. 88 Ibid. 341. Òðåäãîëüä äàòèðóåò îáðó÷åíèå Ìàðèè 836 ãîäîì.
260
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
îíà áûëà êàê ðàç â áðà÷íîì âîçðàñòå, äàëüíåéøèå æå ñîáûòèÿ âîçâåäåíèå åå ìóæà Àëåêñåÿ Ìóñåëå â äîñòîèíñòâî êåñàðÿ, åãî ó÷àñòèå â òðèóìôàëüíîì âúåçäå â Êîíñòàíòèíîïîëü â 837 ã. è ñìåðòü Ìàðèè îê. 838/ 839 ã. âïîëíå óêëàäûâàþòñÿ â ýòó õðîíîëîãèþ.89 Òðåäãîëüä íàõîäèò åùå îäèí àðãóìåíò â ïîëüçó ñâîåé äàòèðîâêè ðîæäåíèÿ Ìàðèè òîò ôàêò, ÷òî åå ãðîá â «Êíèãå öåðåìîíèé» íàçâàí óìåíüøèòåëüíûì ñëîâîì ëáñíÜêéïí.90 Òðåäãîëüä êàòåãîðè÷íî çàÿâëÿåò, ÷òî ýòî ñëîâî «èñïîëüçóåòñÿ òîëüêî äëÿ îáîçíà÷åíèÿ ìîãèëû ðåáåíêà».91 Îäíàêî ýòî íå òàê.  òîé æå «Êíèãå öåðåìîíèé» ýòèì ñëîâîì è äàæå íå ïðîñòî ëáñíÜêéïí, à ëáñíÜêéïí ìéêñüí íàçâàíà ìîãèëà Ôåîêòèñòû, ìàòåðè èìïåðàòðèöû Ôåîäîðû, â Ãàñòðèéñêîì ìîíàñòûðå;92 ëáñíÜêéïí ìéêñüí íàçâàíû è äâå ãðîáíèöû â óñûïàëüíèöå Êîíñòàíòèíà â õðàìå Ñâÿòûõ Àïîñòîëîâ, ïðè÷åì â îäíîé èç íèõ ïîõîðîíåíû ñðàçó äâà ÷åëîâåêà Âàñèëèé, áðàò Êîíñòàíòèíà Ïîðôèðîðîäíîãî, è Âàðäà, ñûí Âàñèëèÿ Ìàêåäîíÿíèíà.93 Îòñþäà î÷åâèäíî, ÷òî ñàìî ïî ñåáå ñëîâî ëáñíÜêéïí óêàçûâàåò ëèøü íà ñàðêîôàã íåñêîëüêî ìåíüøåãî ïî ñðàâíåíèþ ñ «îáû÷íûì» ðàçìåðà, íî ñîâåðøåííî íè÷åãî íå ãîâîðèò î ðîñòå è âîçðàñòå ïîõîðîíåííîãî â íåì.94
ÓÌÒÚ‡ÌÚËÌ, Ò˚Ì ‘ÂÓÙË· Â. Òðåäãîëüä óòâåðæäàåò, ÷òî Êîíñòàíòèí óìåð óæå íà ñëåäóþùèé ãîä ïîñëå ðîæäåíèÿ â 835-ì.95 Èçâåñòíî, ÷òî Êîíñòàíòèí â ìàëîëåòÎ òîì, ÷òî Ìàðèÿ íà ñàìîì äåëå áûëà ñòàðøåé äî÷åðüþ Ôåîôèëà è ó õðîíèñòîâ íàçâàíà ìëàäøåé ïî îøèáêå âñëåäñòâèå òîãî, ÷òî îáû÷íî ëþáèìûìè ÿâëÿþòñÿ èìåííî ìëàäøèå äåòè, èññëåäîâàòåëè ïèñàëè óæå íåîäíîêðàòíî; ñì., íàïð.: ÌÅËÈÎÐÀÍÑÊÈÉ, Èç ñåìåéíîé èñòîðèè Àìîðèéñêîé äèíàñòèè
36; BURY, A History of the Eastern Roman Empire… 466. 90 Â. Òðåäãîëüä ññûëàåòñÿ íà ïðåäïîëîæåíèå Ô. Ãðèðñîíà î òîì, ÷òî ñûí Ôåîôèëà Êîíñòàíòèí óìåð â ìëàäåí÷åñòâå, ïîñêîëüêó åãî ãðîá â òîé æå «Êíèãå öåðåìîíèé» íàçâàí larn£kion (GRIERSON, BELLINGER, Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins… Part 1. 407; ñð.: De cer I. 645). Î òîì æå ïèøåò è À. Äèêèãîðîïóëîñ, íî âûðàæàåòñÿ îñòîðîæíî: «Êîíñòàíòèí óìåð ìîëîäûì, íî íàñêîëüêî ìîëîäûì, ìû íå ìîæåì ñêàçàòü» (DIKIGOROPOULOS, The Constantinopolitan solidi of Theophilus… 353). 91 TREADGOLD, The Chronological accuracy… 174. 92 De cer I. 648. 93 De cer I. 643. 94 Ô. Ãðèðñîí ïðåäïîëàãàåò, ÷òî íàëè÷èå íåñêîëüêèõ ñàðêîôàãîâ ìåíüøåãî ðàçìåðà â óñûïàëüíèöå Êîíñòàíòèíà îáúÿñíÿåòñÿ òåì, ÷òî ñî âðåìåíåì òàì îñòàâàëîñü âñå ìåíüøå ìåñòà, òàê ÷òî ïîñëåäíèé ñàðêîôàã (èìï. Êîíñòàíòèíà VIII) ïðèøëîñü ïîñòàâèòü óæå íå ó ñòåíû, à â öåíòð óñûïàëüíèöû: Ph. GRIERSON (with an additional note by C. MANGO and I. EVÈENKO), The Tombs and Obits of the Byzantine Emperors (337–1042) // DOP 16 (1962) 163; ñì. 2123. 95 TREADGOLD, The Problem of the Marriage… 340. 89
Т. А. Сенина
261
ñòâå óòîíóë â öèñòåðíå;96 íà «ïàìÿòíûõ» ìîíåòàõ (êëàññ III ïî Ô. Ãðèðñîíó) îí èçîáðàæåí êàê ìàëü÷èê.97 Îäíàêî òî, ÷òî îí ìîã â ãîäîâàëîì âîçðàñòå óòîíóòü â öèñòåðíå çà ïðåäåëàìè äâîðöà, ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ íåâåðîÿòíûì: êàê ìîã áû òóäà ïîïàñòü è îñòàòüñÿ áåç ïðèñìîòðà ñòîëü ìàëåíüêèé ðåáåíîê, íàâåðíÿêà îïåêàåìûé ìàòåðüþ è íÿíüêàìè, è ÷òî îí âîîáùå ìîã áû òàì äåëàòü? Ãîðàçäî âåðîÿòíåå, ÷òî Êîíñòàíòèí óòîíóë â âîçðàñòå 67 èëè äàæå áîëåå ëåò,98 êîãäà îí äåéñòâèòåëüíî âî âðåìÿ ïðîãóëêè ìîã ñòàòü æåðòâîé íåñ÷àñòíîãî ñëó÷àÿ. Ïî-âèäèìîìó, Êîíñòàíòèí ðîäèëñÿ åùå äî åäèíîëè÷íîãî âîöàðåíèÿ Ôåîôèëà, ïîñëå Ìàðèè, ìîæåò áûòü, â 824 ã., â 830 ã. áûë êîðîíîâàí îòöîì êàê ñîïðàâèòåëü è, âåðîÿòíî, âñêîðå ïîñëå ýòîãî óòîíóë, â 830/831 ã.99 Òàêèì îáðàçîì, êàê è ïðåäïîëîæèë Ãðèðñîí, ìîíåòû ñ Ôåîôèëîì íà àâåðñå è Êîíñòàíòèíîì íà ðåâåðñå îòíîñÿòñÿ ê ïåðèîäó 830831 ãã., à ìîíåòû ñ óæå ïîêîéíûìè Ìèõàèëîì II è Êîíñòàíòèíîì íà ðåâåðñå îòíîñÿòñÿ ê 831840 ãã., ò. å. âûïóñêàþòñÿ äî ñàìîé êîðîíàöèè Ìèõàèëà III.
´—ÂÏÂÈ̇ˇª ÏÓÌÂÚ‡ Ìîíåòó, ãäå èçîáðàæåíû Ôåîôèë ñ Ôåîäîðîé è òðåìÿ äî÷åðüìè, Â. Òðåäãîëüä îòíîñèò ê 833 ã., ñ÷èòàÿ, ÷òî îíà áûëà âûïóùåíà ïîñëå ðîæäåíèÿ òðåòüåé äî÷åðè è äî ðîæäåíèÿ Êîíñòàíòèíà.100 Íî ó÷èòûâàÿ, ÷òî ïîäîáíûå ìîíåòû ñ èçîáðàæåíèÿìè ñóïðóãè è äî÷åðåé èìïåðàòîðà âîîáùå î÷åíü ðåäêè, ëîãè÷íî ïðåäïîëîæèòü, ÷òî äëÿ åå âûïóñêà áûëà, î÷åâèäíî, áîëåå ñóùåñòâåííàÿ ïðè÷èíà, íåæåëè ïðîñòî ðîæäåíèå òðåõ äî÷åðåé. Ìíå ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ, ÷òî ïîäîáíàÿ ìîíåòà ìîãëà áûòü âûïóùåíà äî ðîæäåíèÿ Ìèõàèëà III, íî óæå ïîñëå ñìåðòè Êîíñòàíòèíà è Ìàðèè, ïðèáëèçèòåëüíî â 839 ã. Ñèòóàöèÿ ê ýòîìó âðåìåíè áûëà òàêîâà, ÷òî Ôåîôèë ñîñòîÿë â áðàêå óæå 18 ëåò; åãî åäèíñòâåííûé íàñëåäíèê ìóæñêîãî ïîëà óìåð; äî÷ü, ìóæà êîòîðîé Ôåîôèë íàäåÿëñÿ ñäåëàòü íàÑì.: ÏÔ III, 4; ThCont 88:8. GRIERSON, BELLINGER, Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins
Part 1. Plate XXII, 2à, 3àå. 98 Ýòî ñîãëàñóåòñÿ è ñ ìîíåòíûìè èçîáðàæåíèÿìè: Êîíñòàíòèí, ñûí Ôåîôèëà, íàïîìèíàåò Êîíñòàíòèíà V âðåìåí åãî ñîïðàâèòåëüñòâà ñ îòöîì, êëàññ 4 è 5 ïî êàòàëîãó Ô. Ãðèðñîíà, êîãäà Êîíñòàíòèí V áûë â âîçðàñòå îò 3 äî 7 è îò 7 äî 14 ëåò ñîîòâåòñòâåííî (ñì.: Ibid. Plate I, 4af, 5.25.10). 99 Åñòü ïðåäïîëîæåíèå, ÷òî Êîíñòàíòèí áûë êîðîíîâàí â 830 ã. íà Ïÿòèäåñÿòíèöó, è åãî êîðîíàöèÿ áûëà ïåðåïóòàíà õðîíèñòàìè ñåìüè Ëîãîôåòà ñ êîðîíàöèåé Ôåîôèëà è Ôåîäîðû (DIKIGOROPOULOS, The Constantinopolitan solidi of Theophilus… 360). 100 Ýòîé âåðñèè ïðèäåðæèâàåòñÿ è Ä. Àôèíîãåíîâ, ñ÷èòàÿ, ÷òî ïîñëå ðîæäåíèÿ ïåðâûõ òðåõ äî÷åðåé Ôåîôèë âûïóñòèë ñïåöèàëüíóþ ìîíåòó êàê ñâèäåòåëüñòâî ïðåêðàñíûõ ñåìåéíûõ îòíîøåíèé èìïåðàòîðñêîé ÷åòû (ÀÔÈÍÎÃÅÍÎÂ, «Ïîâåñòü î ïðîùåíèè èìïåðàòîðà Ôåîôèëà»
56). 96 97
262
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
ñëåäíèêîì, òîæå óìåðëà. Âèäèìî, èìåííî â ýòî âðåìÿ êàê áû óæå «îò îò÷àÿíèÿ» áûëè êîðîíîâàíû äî÷åðè Ôåîôèëà Ôåêëà, Àííà è Àíàñòàñèÿ, è êàê ðàç ïî ýòîìó ñëó÷àþ áûëà âûïóùåíà ñòîëü íåîáû÷íàÿ ìîíåòà. Ïðàâäà, âîçíèêàåò âîïðîñ, ïî÷åìó íà íåé íåò ìëàäøåé äî÷åðè Ïóëüõåðèè. Íåñêîëüêî ñîìíèòåëüíî, ÷òî â 839 ã. îíà åùå íå ðîäèëàñü, ò. ê. âî âðåìÿ èñòîðèè ñ «êóêëàìè», îïèñàííîé ó Ïðîäîëæàòåëÿ Ôåîôàíà, åé áûëî íå ìåíåå äâóõ ëåò îò ðîäó. Ñ äðóãîé ñòîðîíû, íåèçâåñòíî òî÷íî, êîãäà ïðîèçîøëà ýòà èñòîðèÿ; íè÷òî íå ìåøàåò ïîìåñòèòü åå è â 841 ã. Íî äàæå åñëè Ïóëüõåðèÿ ðîäèëàñü äî 839 ã., òî åå îòñóòñòâèå íà ìîíåòå ìîæåò áûòü îáúÿñíåíî, íàïðèìåð, òåì, ÷òî îíà åùå íå áûëà êîðîíîâàíà, êàê ïðî÷èå ñåñòðû.101 Ïî êðàéíåé ìåðå, äàòà ðîæäåíèÿ Ïóëüõåðèè âðÿä ëè ìîæåò ñóùåñòâåííî èçìåíèòü õðîíîëîãè÷åñêóþ êàðòèíó öàðñòâîâàíèÿ Ôåîôèëà.102 Íàäî çàìåòèòü, ÷òî ó Ïðîäîëæàòåëÿ Ôåîôàíà ìû ìîæåì íàéòè, êàê áóäòî áû, ïîäòâåðæäåíèå õðîíîëîãèè Òðåäãîëüäà, à èìåííî óïîìèíàíèå î «öâåòå þíîñòè» â ïðåäñìåðòíîé ðå÷è Ôåîôèëà;103 òàêîå âûðàæåíèå, êîíå÷íî, áîëåå ïîäîøëî áû ïðè ñìåðòè ÷åëîâåêà â âîçðàñòå 28 29, à íå 3738 ëåò. Íî, ñ îäíîé ñòîðîíû, è 28 ëåò ýòî íå òàêàÿ óæ «þíîñòü», à ñ äðóãîé ñòîðîíû, òîò æå Ïðîäîëæàòåëü â íà÷àëå êíèãè î Ôåîôèëå ãîâîðèò, ÷òî îí ïðèíÿë åäèíîëè÷íóþ âëàñòü, áóäó÷è «âçðîñëûì ìóæåì»; îáîðîò æå ðå÷è, âëîæåííîé õðîíèñòîì â óñòà óìèðàþùåãî èìïåðàòîðà, ïî-âèäèìîìó, ìîæíî ñ÷åñòü ðèòîðè÷åñêèì ïðåóâåëè÷åíèåì, ïðèçâàííûì ðàñòðîãàòü ÷èòàòåëÿ. Èòàê, åñëè ñâåñòè äàòû ñåìåéíîé æèçíè Ôåîôèëà â õðîíîëîãè÷åñêóþ òàáëèöó, òî ìû ïîëó÷èì ñëåäóþùåå: 804805
Ðîæäåíèå Ôåîôèëà â Àìîðèè.
821
Êîðîíàöèÿ Ôåîôèëà ñîïðàâèòåëåì (â âîçðàñòå 1617 ëåò) è åãî âåí÷àíèå ñ Ôåîäîðîé.
Òàêîå îáúÿñíåíèå, íàðÿäó ñ ïðåäïîëîæåíèåì, ÷òî Ïóëüõåðèÿ ê òîìó âðåìåíè åùå íå ðîäèëàñü, ïðåäëàãàåò Ô. Ãðèðñîí: GRIERSON, BELLINGER, Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins… Part 1. 407. 102 Â. Òðåäãîëüä ñòàðàòåëüíî îáúÿñíÿåò «îøèáêó» Ïðîäîëæàòåëÿ Ôåîôàíà, êîòîðûé íàçûâàåò ìëàäøåé äî÷åðüþ Ôåîôèëà íå Ìàðèþ, à Ïóëüõåðèþ, è â òî æå âðåìÿ ëåãêî îòáðàñûâàåò äðóãóþ «îøèáêó» òîãî æå Ïðîäîëæàòåëÿ ðàññêàç î òîì, êàê â 821 ã. Ôåîôèë âîåâàë âìåñòå ñ îòöîì. Êðèòåðèè, ïî êîòîðûì Òðåäãîëüä îöåíèâàåò âàæíîñòü òåõ èëè èíûõ ñîîáùåíèé äàííîãî õðîíèñòà, ñîâåðøåííî íåïîíÿòíû; ïîõîæå, ÷òî êðèòåðèé îäèí íàñêîëüêî ýòè ñîîáùåíèÿ ïîäòâåðæäàþò âûäâèíóòóþ èññëåäîâàòåëåì êîíöåïöèþ. 103 ÏÔ III, 40; ThCont 138:8. Îá ýòîì ôàêòå êàê îá àðãóìåíòå â ïîëüçó áîëåå ïîçäíåé, ÷åì 805 ã., äàòû ðîæäåíèÿ Ôåîôèëà, óïîìèíàåò Þ. Õåððèí: HERRIN, Women in Purple… 282, n. 87. 101
Т. А. Сенина
263
822
Ðîæäåíèå Ìàðèè.
824
Ðîæäåíèå Êîíñòàíòèíà.
îê. 824
Ñìåðòü Ôåêëû, ìàòåðè Ôåîôèëà, è áðàê Ìèõàèëà II ñ Åâôðîñèíîé.
829, 2 îêòÿáðÿ
Ôåîôèë âîöàðÿåòñÿ åäèíîëè÷íî è óäàëÿåò Åâôðîñèíó â ìîíàñòûðü. Ìîíåòû òèïà I ïî Ô. Ãðèðñîíó.
830, 5 èþíÿ Ôåîôèë êîðîíóåò Êîíñòàíòèíà (â âîçðàñòå îê. (Ïÿòèäåñÿòíèöà) 6 ëåò) ñîïðàâèòåëåì. Ìîíåòû òèïà II. 830 èëè 831
Êîíñòàíòèí òîíåò â öèñòåðíå. Ìîíåòû òèïà III.
832833
Ðîæäåíèå Ôåêëû
833834
Ðîæäåíèå Àííû
834835
Ðîæäåíèå Àíàñòàñèè104
836
Ôåîôèë âûäàåò Ìàðèþ (â âîçðàñòå 14 ëåò) çàìóæ çà Àëåêñåÿ Ìóñåëå.
839
Ñìåðòü Ìàðèè. Êîðîíàöèÿ Ôåêëû, Àííû è Àíàñòàñèè. Ìîíåòû òèïà IV.
840, 9 ÿíâàðÿ
Ðîæäåíèå Ìèõàèëà III.
840, Ïàñõà èëè Ïÿòèäåñÿòíèöà
Êîðîíàöèÿ Ìèõàèëà III ñîïðàâèòåëåì. Ìîíåòû òèïà V.
842, 20 ÿíâàðÿ
Ñìåðòü Ôåîôèëà (â âîçðàñòå 3738 ëåò).
Œ ˜ÂÏ ‘ÂÓÙËÎ ÒÔÓÒËÎ ‡ÒÒ˲? Ïî ìíåíèþ Ä. Àôèíîãåíîâà, Ñèìåîí Ëîãîôåò èñïîëüçîâàë ãîìèëèþ Èîàííà Çëàòîóñòà íà Áëàãîâåùåíèå, «÷òîáû ñîçäàòü æèâîé ýïèçîä, íå Ìíå ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ, ÷òî Ôåêëà è îñòàëüíûå äî÷åðè ðîäèëèñü, ñêîðåå, óæå ïîñëå ñìåðòè Êîíñòàíòèíà è ïîòîìó, ÷òî êàê ðàç ïîñëå ñìåðòè Êîíñòàíòèíà Ôåîôèë äîëæåí áûë âíîâü îçàáîòèòüñÿ ïîëó÷åíèåì íàñëåäíèêà, è ïîòîìó, ÷òî Ôåêëà ê 866 ã., êîãäà îíà ñòàëà ëþáîâíèöåé Âàñèëèÿ Ìàêåäîíÿíèíà, âñåòàêè íå äîëæíà áûëà áûòü ñëèøêîì óæ âåëèêîâîçðàñòíîé, êàê ýòî áûëî áû, åñëè åå ðîæäåíèå îòíåñòè ê 825826 ãã. Ïî âñåé âèäèìîñòè, âòîðàÿ äî÷ü Ôåîôèëà áûëà íàçâàíà â ÷åñòü åãî ïîêîéíîé ìàòåðè; Ìàðèÿ æå, âåðîÿòíî, áûëà íàçâàíà â ÷åñòü Áîãîðîäèöû, êîòîðóþ, êàê èçâåñòíî, î÷åíü ïî÷èòàë Ôåîôèë. 104
264
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
íàäåÿñü, ÷òî ÷èòàòåëü óçíàåò ïðîèñõîæäåíèå âûñêàçûâàíèÿ».105 Òàêîå ïðåäïîëîæåíèå ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ íå î÷åíü ïðàâäîïîäîáíûì, ïîñêîëüêó õðîíèêè ïèñàëèñü äëÿ îáðàçîâàííûõ ëþäåé, êîòîðûå ÷èòàëè îäíè è òå æå êíèãè, ïðè÷åì êîëè÷åñòâî êíèã áûëî äîñòàòî÷íî îãðàíè÷åííûì, à òàêèå ãîìèëèè, êàê óïîìÿíóòîå Ñëîâî Çëàòîóñòà, äîëæíû áûëè áûòü õîðîøî èçâåñòíû. Äåëî íå ìåíÿåò äàæå òî, ÷òî îáå ðåïëèêè-öèòàòû ïðåäâàðÿþòñÿ ó Ëîãîôåòà ââîäíûìè ñëîâàìè. Îáðàçîâàííûå âèçàíòèéöû, ñïîñîáíûå öèòèðîâàòü íàèçóñòü îòðûâêè èç ìíîæåñòâà ïðîèçâåäåíèé, óçíàëè áû èçâåñòíóþ öèòàòó è â òàêîì çàìàñêèðîâàííîì âèäå.106 Áîëåå òîãî, äëÿ ñîçäàíèÿ ïðîñòî «æèâîãî ýïèçîäà» õðîíèñòó âîîáùå íå îáÿçàòåëüíî áûëî èñïîëüçîâàòü ÷óæîé òåêñò; âðÿä ëè Ëîãîôåò áûë íàñòîëüêî ëèøåí âîîáðàæåíèÿ, ÷òî íå ìîã ñî÷èíèòü äèàëîã ñ íóæíûì åìó ñìûñëîì. Òî, ÷òî õðîíèñò ïîìåñòèë â ñâîå ñî÷èíåíèå èìåííî äèàëîã öèòàò, ãîâîðèò êàê ðàç î òîì, ÷òî îí ëèáî âçÿë åãî èç ãîòîâîãî èñòî÷íèêà, ëèáî ïðèäóìàë íàðî÷íî íî èìåííî ñ òîé öåëüþ, ÷òîáû ÷èòàòåëü åãî óçíàë. Åñëè æå äèàëîã öèòàò áûë â èñòî÷íèêå, èñïîëüçîâàííîì Ëîãîôåòîì, òî îïÿòü æå íå ñ öåëüþ «ìàñêèðîâêè», à èëè ÷òîáû âûðàçèòü êàêîé-òî ñèìâîëè÷åñêèé ñìûñë, èëè ïîòîìó, ÷òî äèàëîã â òàêîì âèäå èìåë ìåñòî íà ñàìîì äåëå. «Âàæíåå âñåãî äëÿ íàñ òî îáñòîÿòåëüñòâî, ïèøóò Ä. Àôèíîãåíîâ è Þ. Êàçà÷êîâ, ÷òî Ñëîâî íà Áëàãîâåùåíèå âõîäèëî â ñîñòàâ èìïåðàòîðñêîãî ìåíîëîãèÿ òèïà  (
). Ôàêò ïðèñóòñòâèÿ ãîìèëèè â ìåíîëîãèè ãîâîðèò î åå äîñòàòî÷íîé èçâåñòíîñòè â XXII ââ., à ìîæåò áûòü, è â IX â. Ýòî çíà÷èò, ÷òî íåîáõîäèìî ðàññìîòðåòü äâå âîçìîæíîñòè ïîÿâëåíèÿ öèòàò èç Ñëîâà â ðàññêàçå î êîíêóðñå íåâåñò. Âî-ïåðâûõ, ìîæíî äîïóñòèòü, ÷òî Ôåîôèë ïðîöèòèðîâàë èçâåñòíûé åìó òåêñò, à Êàññèÿ ïðîäåìîíñòðèðîâàëà, ÷òî çíàåò è ïðîäîëæåíèå.  ýòîì ñëó÷àå íè÷òî íå ìåøàåò ñ÷èòàòü ðàññêàç âåðíûì îòðàæåíèåì ñîáûòèé. Âî-âòîðûõ, àâòîð èñòî÷íèêà, êîòîðûì ïîëüçîâàëñÿ Ñèìåîí Ëîãîôåò, ìîã ïðîñòî âûäóìàòü îáìåí ðåïëèêàìè (ïî÷åðïíóâ ìàòåðèàë èç ãîìèëèè) ñ öåëüþ âûäàòü åãî çà ÷èñòóþ èìïðîâèçàöèþ, ïî êðàéíåé ìåðå, ñî ñòîðîíû 105
AFINOGENOV, The Bride-Show of Theophilos… 11. Ìàíåðó âèçàíòèéöåâ äàæå â áûòó âûðàæàòüñÿ öèòàòàìè õîðîøî èëëþñòðèðóåò õîòÿ áû èçâåñòíûé ýïèçîä èç «Õðîíîãðàôèè» Ìèõàèëà Ïñåëëà (VI.59), ãäå ðàññêàçûâàåòñÿ î òîì, êàê ïðèäâîðíûé ëüñòåö óñïîêîèë ñìóùåííûå óìû ïðèäâîðíûõ, âûíóæäåííûõ ñëåäîâàòü ñâèòîé çà ëþáîâíèöåé èìïåðàòîðà Êîíñòàíòèíà IX Ñêëèðåíîé, ïðîöèòèðîâàâ âñåãî äâà ñëîâà èç ïîýìû Ãîìåðà: «îñóæäàòü íåâîçìîæíî
» (ñì.: Michel Psellos, Chronographie ou histoire d’un siècle de Byzance (976–1077) / Ed. E. RENAULD. T. III (Paris, 19261928) Ò. I. 146; ðóñ. ïåð.: Ìèõàèë Ïñåëë, Õðîíîãðàôèÿ. Êðàòêàÿ Èñòîðèÿ / Ïåð., ñò. è ïðèì. ß. Í. ËÞÁÀÐÑÊÎÃÎ; ïåð. Ä. À. ×ÅÐÍÎÃËÀÇÎÂÀ, Ä. Ð. ÀÁÄÐÀÕÌÀÍÎÂÎÉ (ÑÏá., 2003) (Âèçàíòèéñêàÿ áèáëèîòåêà. Èñòî÷íèêè) 90). 106
Т. А. Сенина
265
Êàññèè. Òîãäà ôàêòè÷åñêàÿ äîñòîâåðíîñòü âñåãî ýïèçîäà îêàçûâàåòñÿ ïîä ñèëüíûì ïîäîçðåíèåì».107 Íî î äîñòàòî÷íîé èçâåñòíîñòè ýòîé ãîìèëèè â IX âåêå ñâèäåòåëüñòâóåò óæå òî, ÷òî îòðûâîê èç íåå ïðèâîäèò ïàòðèàðõ Íèêèôîð â ÷èñëå 26 ñâèäåòåëüñòâ, ïîìåùåííûõ ïîñëå åãî «Ñëîâà â çàùèòó íåïîðî÷íîé, ÷èñòîé è èñòèííîé íàøåé õðèñòèàíñêîé âåðû è ïðîòèâ äóìàþùèõ, ÷òî ìû ïîêëîíÿåìñÿ èäîëàì»,108 ïðè÷åì ýòó ãîìèëèþ ñâ. Íèêèôîð ïðèïèñûâàåò Èîàííó Çëàòîóñòó. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, âî âðåìåíà âòîðîãî èêîíîáîð÷åñòâà â îáðàçîâàííûõ êðóãàõ Âèçàíòèè íå òîëüêî çíàëè ýòî «Ñëîâî íà Áëàãîâåùåíèå», íî è àòòðèáóòèðîâàëè åãî èìåííî Çëàòîóñòó. Ãîìèëèÿ 109
Èç 26 ñâèäåòåëüñòâ, ïðèâîäèìûõ ñâ. Íèêèôîðîì110
…PðåóôÜëç Ãáâñéxë, äåéêíò ôí dí èñüív êár dí óðçëáßv· PðåóôÜëç óôñáôéþôçò, âï§í ô ôï âáóéëÝùò ìõóôÞñéïí· ìõóôÞñéïí· ãíùñéæþìåíïí ðßóôåé, ïê dñåõíþìåíïí ðïëõðñáãìïóýíw· ìõóôÞñéïí ðñïóêõíïýìåíïí, ï æèãïóôáôïýìåíïí· ìõóôÞñéïí èåïëïãïýìåíïí, ïê dñåõíþìåíïí· ìõóôÞñéïí ¿ìïëïãïýìåíïí, ï ìåôñïýìåíïí.
EÁðåóôÜëç Ãáâñéxë, äåéêíò ôí dí èñüív êár dí ô² óðçëáßv· PðåóôÜëç ¿ óôñáôéþôçò, âï§í ô ôï âáóéëÝùò ìõóôÞñéïí· ìõóôÞñéïí· ãíùñéæþìåíïí ðßóôåé, ïê dñåõíþìåíïí ðïëõðñáãìïóýíw· ìõóôÞñéïí ðéóôåõüìåíïí, ï æèãïóôáôïýìåíïí· ìõóôÞñéïí èåïëïãïýìåíïí, ïê dñåõíþìåíïí· ìõóôÞ ñéïí ¿ìïëïãïýìåíïí, ï ìåôñïýìåíïí.
Òàêèì îáðàçîì, è Ôåîôèë, è Êàññèÿ, ñêîðåå âñåãî, ìîãëè õîðîøî çíàòü ýòó ãîìèëèþ. Íî â îòíîøåíèè Êàññèè ìû èìååì åùå áîëåå î÷åâèäíîå ñâèäåòåëüñòâî: â ñâîåé ñòèõèðå íà Áëàãîâåùåíèå Ïðåñâÿòîé Áîãîðîäèöû111 ïåñíîïèñèöà öèòèðóåò ýòó æå ñàìóþ ãîìèëèþ. Ñðàâíèì:112 ÀÔÈÍÎÃÅÍÎÂ, ÊÀÇÀ×ÊÎÂ, Ëåãåíäà î Ôåîôèëå
PG 100. Col. 533B812Ñ (Ñëîâî); 812C832A (26 ñâèäåòåëüñòâ). 109 PG 50. Col. 793. 110 PG 100. Ñîl. 821À; ðóñ. ïåð. ñì.: Òâîðåíèÿ ñâÿòîãî îòöà íàøåãî Íèêèôîðà, àðõèåïèñêîïà Êîíñòàíòèíîïîëüñêîãî (Ìèíñê, 2001) (Ïðàâîñëàâíàÿ áèáëèîòåêà) 299. Ïîä÷åðêíóòû ðàçíî÷òåíèÿ ñ ãîìèëèåé. 111 Ýòà ñòèõèðà â ñîâðåìåííûõ ãðå÷åñêèõ è ñëàâÿíñêèõ ìèíåÿõ àíîíèìíà, íî âî ìíîãèõ ðóêîïèñÿõ âñòðå÷àåòñÿ ïîä èìåíåì Êàññèè, òàê ÷òî åå àâòîðñòâî âåñüìà âåðîÿòíî (ñì.: ROCHOW, Studien zu der Person
52). Ñ ó÷åòîì æå ïàðàëëåëåé ñ Ãîìèëèåé Çëàòîóñòà è äèàëîãîì ñ Ôåîôèëîì, ýòà âåðîÿòíîñòü åùå ïîâûøàåòñÿ. 112 Ïàðàëëåëüíûå ìåñòà ïîä÷åðêíóòû. 107 108
266
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
Ñòèõèðà Êàññèè113
Ãîìèëèÿ Çëàòîóñòà114
EÁðåóôÜëç Pããåëïò Ãáâñéxë, / ïñáíüèåí dê Èåï, / ðñò ðáñèÝíïí Pìüëõíôïí, / åkò ðüëéí ôyò Ãáëéëáßáò ÍáæáñÝô, / åáããåëßóáóèáé áô ôï îÝíïõ ôñüðïõ ôxí óýëëåøéí. / EÁðåóôÜëç äïëïò Póþìáôïò / ðñò ôxí hìøõ÷ïí ðýëçí êár ðýëåí íïåñÜí, / ìçíýóáé Äåóðïôéêyò ðáñïõóßáò ôxí óõãêáôÜâáóéí· / EÁðåóôÜëç óôñáôéþôçò ïñÜíéïò, / ðñò ô T÷ñáíôïí ôyò äüîçò ðáëÜôéïí, / ðñïåôïéìÜóáé ô² Êôßóôç êáôïéêßáí Tëçêôïí / êár ðñïóåëè¦í ðñò áôxí dêñáýãáæå. / ×ásñå, èñüíå ðõñßìïñöå / ô§í ôåôñáìüñöùí ðåñåíäïîïôÝñá· / ×ásñå, êáèÝäñá âáóéëéêx ïñÜíéå· / ×ásñå, ñïò Pëáôüìçôïí, / äï÷åsïí ðáôÝíôéìïí, / dí óïr ãNñ ðOí ô ðëÞñùìá êáô±êçóå / ôyò èåüôçôïò óùìáôéê§ò, / åäïêßu Ðáôñò ákäßïõ / êár óõíåñãåßu ôï Ðáíáãßïõ Ðíåýìáôïò· / ×ásñå, êå÷áñéôùìÝíç, / ¿ Êýñéïò ìåôN óï.
Ô² ìçír ô² fêôv, öçórí, PðåóôÜëç ¿ Pããåëïò Ãáâñéxë ð ôï Èåï ðñò ðáñèÝíïí ìåìíçóôåõìÝíçí Píäñß. (…) PðåóôÜëç Ãáâñéxë ðñò ô hìøõ÷ïí ôï âáóéëÝùò ô§í PããÝëùí ðáëÜôéïí· (…) PðåóôÜëç äïëïò Póþìáôïò ðñò ðáñèÝíïí Pìüëõíôïí· (…) PðåóôÜëç óôñáôéþôçò, âï§í ô ôï âáóéëÝùò ìõóôÞñéïí· (…) häåé ðñïïäïðïéyóáé ôí ìçíõôxí ôyò Äåóðïôéêyò ðáñïõóßáò. (…) Tðåëèå ðñò ôxí hìøõ÷ïí ðýëçí (…) ìÞíõóïí áýô ôyò dìyò ðáñïõóßáò ôí ìâñïí· (…) Åqôá íüìéóïí, ÄÝóðïôá, dêås ¬öèçò ô² ðáôñéÜñ÷w dí ô ðáñïäßv óêçí, êár ðáñÝäñáìåò ¿ ôN ðÜíôá ðëçñ§í. (…) FÏ èñüíïò óïõ öëÝãåôáé ô ánãëw ðåñéëáìðüìåíïò (…) ×ásñå, êå÷áñéôùìÝíç, / ¿ Êýñéïò ìåôN óï.
Èòàê, ãîìèëèÿ íàñòîëüêî ïðèâëåêëà âíèìàíèå Êàññèè, ÷òî îíà öèòèðóåò åå â ñâîåé ñòèõèðå î÷åíü îáèëüíî è ïðàêòè÷åñêè äîñëîâíî. Èíòåðåñíî è òî, ÷òî åå «äèàëîã» ñ Ôåîôèëîì íàõîäèòñÿ â ãîìèëèè î÷åíü âñêîðå ïîñëå çàêëþ÷èòåëüíîé ôðàçû-öèòàòû â ñòèõèðå: ×ásñå, êå÷áñéôùìÝíç, / ¿ Êýñéïò ìåôN óï. Ïê hôé ¿ äéÜâïëïò êáôN óï· ðïõ ãÜñ ô ðñ§ôïí hôñùóåí ¿ ðïëÝìéïò, dêås ôxí hìðëáóôñïí ¿ káôñò dðéôßèçóéí· èåí ôxí Pñ÷xí ôyò dîüäïõ 113 Ïðèâîæó òåêñò ñòèõèðû ïî èçäàíèþ: A. TRIPOLITIS, Kassia: the Legend, the Woman, and her Work (New York—London, 1992) 46. 114 PG 50. Col. 793–795.
Т. А. Сенина
267
èÜíáôïò hó÷åí, dêåsèåí ½ æùx ôxí ånóïäïí ôyò æùyò dôåêôÞôáôï. ÄéN ãõíáéêò dñýåé ôN öáëá, äéN ãõíáéêò ðçãÜæåé ôN êñåßôôïíá. ×ásñå, êå÷áñéôùìÝíç...115
Êîíå÷íî, ìîæíî âîîáðàçèòü, ÷òî àâòîðó óòðà÷åííîãî æèòèÿ Êàññèè, èñïîëüçîâàííîãî Ëîãîôåòîì,116 áûëà èçâåñòíà ýòà ñòèõèðà Êàññèè, ÷òî îí òîæå âèäåë ýòè ïàðàëëåëè è, ñîñòàâëÿÿ ñâîþ õðîíèêó, íàðî÷íî âçÿë «äèàëîã» èìåííî èç òîé ñàìîé ãîìèëèè Çëàòîóñòà, ó÷èòûâàÿ â ïðèäà÷ó è òî, ÷òî îòðûâîê èç íåå ïðèâîäèòñÿ ó ïàòðèàðõà Íèêèôîðà è, çíà÷èò, ÿâëÿåòñÿ îäíèì èç ñâÿòîîòå÷åñêèõ òåêñòîâ, áðàâøèõñÿ íà âîîðóæåíèå èêîíîïî÷èòàòåëÿìè ïðîòèâ èêîíîáîðöåâ
Íî ýòî çíà÷èëî áû ïðèïèñàòü ìîíàõèíÿì IÕ âåêà ñëèøêîì áîëüøóþ ëèòåðàòóðíóþ èçîáðåòàòåëüíîñòü; äà èì è íåçà÷åì áûëî áû ïðèäóìûâàòü ñòîëü õèòðîóìíûé ñþæåò, ÷òîáû âîçâåëè÷èòü ñâÿòóþ è óíèçèòü èìïåðàòîðà-èêîíîáîðöà ýòî ìîæíî áûëî áû ñäåëàòü è áîëåå ñòàíäàðòíûìè ñïîñîáàìè, îáû÷íî èñïîëüçîâàâøèìèñÿ â àãèîãðàôèè è õðîíèêàõ. Êðîìå òîãî, åñëè âûáîð íåâåñò è äèàëîã ìåæäó Ôåîôèëîì è Êàññèåé äåéñòâèòåëüíî ñîñòîÿëñÿ â òîì âèäå, êàê îí ïåðåäàí Ëîãîôåòîì, òî èíòåðåñ Êàññèè ê ãîìèëèè Çëàòîóñòà âïîëíå îáúÿñíèì åùå è ïñèõîëîãè÷åñêèìè ìîòèâàìè. Íî ÷òî ìîã îçíà÷àòü ýòîò äèàëîã? «Ïî÷òè íåâîçìîæíî ïðåäïîëîæèòü, ÷òî Ôåîôèë èñïîëüçîâàë öèòàòó, ÷òîáû ïðåäñòàâèòü âàæíóþ äëÿ íåãî èäåþ, çíàÿ, ÷òî ñëåäóþùàÿ ñòðî÷êà ïðåäñòàâëÿåò ñîáîé ïðîòèâîïîëîæíîñòü ýòîé èäåè, òàêèì îáðàçîì ëèøàÿ åå êàêîé-ëèáî ñèëû», ïèøåò Ä. Àôèíîãåíîâ.117 Äåéñòâèòåëüíî, âðÿä ëè áóäóùèé èìïåðàòîð ïûòàëñÿ çàòåÿòü ñî ñâîåé èçáðàííèöåé áîãîñëîâñêèé äèñïóò ýòî áûëî áû â äàííûõ îáñòîÿòåëüñòâàõ íå ñëèøêîì óìåñòíî.118 Íî âîçìîæíî, Ôåîôèë õîòåë èñïûòàòü óì èëè ñìèðåíèå 115
PG 50. Col. 795. Ä. Àôèíîãåíîâ ñ÷èòàåò, ÷òî «àâòîð ýòîãî æèòèÿ äîëæåí áûë ïèñàòü ìíîãî ëåò ñïóñòÿ ïîñëå ñìåðòè ñâîåé ãåðîèíè», îáîñíîâûâàÿ ýòî óòâåðæäåíèå òåì, ÷òî Êàññèÿ ïî âîçðàñòó íå ìîãëà ïîïàñòü íà âûáîð íåâåñò äëÿ Ôåîôèëà â 830 ã. Îäíàêî âûøå áûëî ïîêàçàíî, ÷òî ýòî íå òàê, è ïðåäïîëîæåíèå Àôèíîãåíîâà è Êàçà÷êîâà, ÷òî «ãèïîòåòè÷åñêèé àãèîãðàô ñî÷èíèë âåñü ýïèçîä îò íà÷àëà äî êîíöà, èñõîäÿ èç ÷èñòî õðîíîëîãè÷åñêîãî ñîñåäñòâà Êàññèè è Ôåîôèëà» (ÀÔÈÍÎÃÅÍÎÂ, ÊÀÇÀ×ÊÎÂ, Ëåãåíäà î Ôåîôèëå
), îêàçûâàåòñÿ íè÷åì íå îáîñíîâàííûì. 117 AFINOGENOV, The Brid-Show of Theophilos… 11. 118 Òàê æå íåóìåñòíî âûãëÿäåëà áû è ïîïûòêà Êàññèè îáëè÷èòü èêîíîáîð÷åñòâî Ôåîôèëà, âåäü â 821 ã. èêîíîïî÷èòàòåëè, íàïðîòèâ, î÷åíü íàäåÿëèñü, ÷òî Ìèõàèë II èçìåíèò öåðêîâíóþ ïîëèòèêó ñâîåãî ïðåäøåñòâåííèêà Ëüâà V, è ñâ. Ôåîäîð Ñòóäèò, íàñòàâíèê Êàññèè, íàïèñàë Ìèõàèëó âîñòîðæåííîå ïèñüìî. ×òî êàñàåòñÿ ñàìîãî Ôåîôèëà, òî, êàê çàìå÷àåò Ä. Àôèíîãåíîâ, âî âðåìÿ æåíèòüáû èìïåðàòîðà âðÿä ëè èíòåðåñîâàëè ðåëèãèîçíûå âîççðåíèÿ åãî èçáðàííèöû (ÀÔÈÍÎÃÅÍÎÂ, «Ïîâåñòü î ïðîùåíèè èìïåðàòîðà Ôåîôèëà»
5455), âåäü â èòîãå îí âñå ðàâíî æåíèëñÿ íà äåâóøêå èç ñåìüè èêîíîïî÷èòàòåëåé. 116
268
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
äåâóøêè? Ïî÷åìó æå òîãäà ïîñëå åå îòâåòà îí, êàê âûðàçèëñÿ Ëîãîôåò, «óÿçâëåííûé åå ñëîâàìè â ñàìîå ñåðäöå, îñòàâèë åå, à ÿáëîêî îòäàë Ôåîäîðå»? Åñëè áû Ôåîôèë ïûòàë Êàññèþ íà óì, òî óâèäåâ, ÷òî îíà ñâîáîäíî ïðîäîëæèëà öèòàòó, îí äîëæåí áûë áû, ñêîðåå, âîñõèòèòüñÿ, ÷òî åãî èçáðàííèöà îêàçàëàñü íå òîëüêî êðàñèâà, íî è óìíà; óÿçâèòüñÿ èç-çà ýòîãî îáñòîÿòåëüñòâà îí ìîã áû òîëüêî â ñëó÷àå, åñëè áû ñàì áûë íå î÷åíü îáðàçîâàí; íî î Ôåîôèëå èçâåñòíî ñîâåðøåííî ïðîòèâîïîëîæíîå.119 À åñëè áû ýòî áûëà ñ åãî ñòîðîíû ïðîâåðêà íà ñìèðåíèå, òî «äåðçîñòü» äåâóøêè åãî áû, ñêîðåå, ðàññåðäèëà.  ëþáîì ñëó÷àå òàêîå âûðàæåíèå, êàê «óÿçâëåí â ñàìîå ñåðäöå», òóò íå î÷åíü ïîäõîäèò. Ìîæíî, îäíàêî, ïðåäïîëîæèòü äðóãîå îáúÿñíåíèå. Ôåîôèë äåéñòâèòåëüíî ïîëþáèë Êàññèþ, íî, áûòü ìîæåò, ïî åå âçãëÿäó èëè åùå êàêèìòî îáðàçîì çàïîäîçðèë, ÷òî îíà íå î÷åíü-òî õî÷åò ñòàíîâèòüñÿ åãî æåíîé. Íà âûáîð íåâåñò Êàññèÿ, óæå ðåøèâøàÿ ê òîìó âðåìåíè ñòàòü â áóäóùåì ìîíàõèíåé, êàê ýòî âèäíî èç äâóõ îáðàùåííûõ ê íåé ïèñåì Ôåîäîðà Ñòóäèòà,120 ìîãëà ïîïàñòü âîîáùå ïðîòèâ ñâîåé âîëè ïîäîáíîå ïðåäïîëîæåíèå êîãäà-òî óæå áûëî âûñêàçàíî Ñ. Àâåðèíöåâûì.121 Ïîýòîìó ìíå ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ íåñîñòîÿòåëüíûì ïðåäïîëîæåíèå, ÷òî â ñâîèõ ñòèõàõ, íàïðàâëåííûõ ïðîòèâ ãëóïöîâ, â ò. ÷. â âûðàæåíèè íÝïò ¿ ìùñò êár äõíÜóôçò (KRUMÂACHER, Kasia
362, ñò. 140; TRIPOLITIS, Kassia... 124, ñò. 11), Êàññèÿ èìåëà â âèäó Ôåîôèëà, «íå îöåíèâøåãî» åå óì. 120 Theodori Studitae Epistulae / Ed. G. FATOUROS Vol. 12 (BerlinNew York, 1992) (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae, Series Berolinensis 31) Epp. 217, 370. Ïðèâîäÿòñÿ òàêæå ó ROCHOW, Studien zu der Person
2021. Ðóñ. ïåð.: Ïðåïîäîáíûé ÔÅÎÄÎÐ ÑÒÓÄÈÒ, Ïîñëàíèÿ (Ì., 2003) Êí. 2. 360, 470472. Ã. Ôàòóðîñ ïðèäåðæèâàåòñÿ äàòèðîâêè âûáîðà íåâåñò 821 ãîäîì, íî ñ÷èòàåò, ÷òî Êàññèÿ, ê êîòîðîé ïèñàë ñâ. Ôåîäîð, è îäíîèìåííàÿ ïåñíîïèñèöà âñå ðàâíî íå èäåíòè÷íû, ïîñêîëüêó àäðåñàò ïèñåì ê 821 ã. áûëà óæå «ïîñëóøíèöåé», â òî âðåìÿ êàê áóäóùàÿ ïåñíîïèñèöà óøëà â ìîíàñòûðü òîëüêî ïîñëå âûáîðà íåâåñò (Theodori Studitae Epistulae
365, fn. 719). Îäíàêî ýòîò äîâîä íå óáåäèòåëåí: èç ïèñåì ñâ. Ôåîäîðà ê Êàññèè ìû óçíàåì òîëüêî, ÷òî îíà â öàðñòâîâàíèå Ëüâà V Àðìÿíèíà ðåøèëà ïðèíÿòü ìîíàøåñòâî, êîãäà ãîíåíèÿ ïðåêðàòÿòñÿ; à íýìöç ×ñéóôï ãÝãïíáò (Ep. 217), ñóäÿ ïî êîíòåêñòó, îáîçíà÷àåò íå êàêîé-òî ôîðìàëüíûé ñòàòóñ, à ñàìî ðåøåíèå ñòàòü ìîíàõèíåé, ïðèíÿòîå åùå â äåòñòâå, êàê ÿâñòâóåò èç òîãî æå ïèñüìà. Ñîäåðæàíèå ïèñåì ñâ. Ôåîäîðà ñîãëàñóåòñÿ è ñ õðîíîëîãèåé: Êàññèÿ ìîãëà ïðèíÿòü ïîñòðèã êàê ðàç óæå ïîñëå âûáîðà íåâåñò, ïîñêîëüêó ñ âîöàðåíèåì Ìèõàèëà II ãîíåíèÿ äåéñòâèòåëüíî ïðåêðàòèëèñü. 121 «Åñëè äîâåðÿòü ðàññêàçó õðîíèñòîâ î ñìîòðå êðàñàâèö (
), åäâà ëè âîçìîæíî íàéòè àáñîëþòíîå ïðîòèâîðå÷èå ìåæäó ïîÿâëåíèåì Êàññèè ñðåäè íåâåñò Ôåîôèëà è åå ðàííèì ðåøåíèåì (ïðèíÿòûì åùå äî ýòîãî) äåâñòâîâàòü âî èìÿ Áîãà», âåäü ïîñëàíöû èìïåðàòðèöû, ïîäáèðàâøèå êàíäèäàòîê äëÿ âûáîðà íåâåñò, «åäâà ëè îñâåäîìëÿëèñü î æèçíåííûõ ïëàíàõ ñîáèðàåìûõ èìè äåâóøåê» (Ñ. Ñ. ÀÂÅÐÈÍÖÅÂ, [ðåö. íà:] I. Rochow, Studien zu der Person, den Werken und dem Nachleben der Dichterin Kassia (Berlin, 1967) //  32 (1971) 249251; öèò. 250, ïðèì. 8. 119
Т. А. Сенина
269
Èòàê, Ôåîôèë, çàìåòèâ ÷òî-òî «íå òî», ðåøèë, áûòü ìîæåò, óçíàòü ìûñëè Êàññèè, ïðè÷åì òàê, ÷òîáû îêðóæàþùèå íå ïîíÿëè åãî èñòèííûõ íàìåðåíèé, è ïðîöèòèðîâàë ôðàçó ïðî çëî, ïðîèñøåäøåå îò æåíùèíû, êàê áû âîïðîøàÿ: «Òû ñîãëàñíà ñòàòü ìîåé æåíîé?» Îòâåò Êàññèè âîçðàæåíèå îçíà÷àë: «Íåò».122 Èìåííî ïîòîìó Ôåîôèë è îòîøåë îò íåå, «óÿçâëåííûé â ñàìîå ñåðäöå». Ñìûñë äèàëîãà ìîã áûòü äàæå åùå áîëåå ñèìâîëè÷åñêèì, ñ ó÷åòîì òîãî, íàñêîëüêî âîîáùå âèçàíòèéöû ëþáèëè âñÿêèé ñèìâîëèçì, ñî÷åòàíèÿ ðàçíûõ ñìûñëîâ è ò. ï. Ôåîôèë ñêàçàë: «×ðåç æåíùèíó èçëèëîñü çëî íà çåìëþ», è çäåñü èìååòñÿ â âèäó Åâà, ïåðâàÿ âêóñèâøàÿ çàïðåòíûé ïëîä è ñòàâøàÿ âèíîâíèöåé èçãíàíèÿ èç ðàÿ è âñåõ äàëüíåéøèõ ëþäñêèõ áåäñòâèé, òðóäîâ è ñêîðáåé â òîì ÷èñëå è ñóïðóæåñòâà â òîì âèäå, â êîòîðîì ìû åãî çíàåì. Êàññèÿ æå, ïðîäîëæèâ öèòàòó, ñêàçàëà: «Íî è ÷ðåç æåíùèíó áüþò èñòî÷íèêè ëó÷øåãî», èìåÿ â âèäó Áîæèþ Ìàòåðü, ïîêðîâèòåëüíèöó äåâñòâà; «ëó÷øåå», ïðîèñòåêøåå îò Íåå, áûëî ñïàñåíèå è íåòëåíèå, Õðèñòîñ, ïðèçâàâøèé âñåõ æåëàþùèõ ñîâåðøåíñòâà ê äåâñòâåííîìó æèòèþ. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, äèàëîã Êàññèè è Ôåîôèëà, âîëüíî èëè íåâîëüíî, äåéñòâèòåëüíî ïîëó÷èë íåêîòîðûé áîãîñëîâñêèé ñìûñë íî âîâñå íå ñâÿçàííûé ñ èêîíîïî÷èòàíèåì. Ä. Àôèíîãåíîâ è Þ. Êàçà÷êîâ ïèøóò: «
âåñü ñþæåò ðàññêàçà, åãî äðàìàòè÷åñêîå íàïðÿæåíèå ñîõðàíÿåòñÿ òîëüêî â òîì ñëó÷àå, åñëè îòâåò Êàññèè çâó÷èò ñîâåðøåííî íåîæèäàííî äëÿ èìïåðàòîðà. Ñîáñòâåííî ãîâîðÿ, íàøè èñòî÷íèêè óïîòðåáëÿþò äîñòàòî÷íî ñèëüíûå âûðàæåíèÿ, ÷òîáû îõàðàêòåðèçîâàòü èçóìëåíèå (
). Âðÿä ëè òàêàÿ ðåàêöèÿ ìîãëà áûòü âûçâàíà òåì, ÷òî äåâóøêà âñåãî ëèøü ïðîäîëæèëà èçâåñòíóþ èìïåðàòîðó öèòàòó. Íàêîíåö, êàê âèçàíòèéñêèå, òàê è ñîâðåìåííûå èñòîðèêè åäèíû â òîì, ÷òî öàðñòâåííûé æåíèõ áûë ïîðàæåí èìåííî íàõîä÷èâîñòüþ Êàññèè, à íå åå ýðóäèöèåé».123 Îäíàêî, åñëè ïðèíÿòü âåðñèþ, ÷òî Ôåîôèë õîòåë íå èñïûòàòü Êàññèþ íà óì èëè ñêðîìíîñòü, à èìåííî óçíàòü ïî åå îòâåòó, ñîãëàñíà ëè îíà ïîéòè çà íåãî çàìóæ âèäèìî, îí áûë, ÷òî íàçûâàåòñÿ, áëàãîðîäíûì ÷åëîâåêîì è íå õîòåë åå áðàòü çà ñåáÿ ïðîòèâ âîëè, òî ðåàêöèÿ åãî êàê ðàç ïîíÿòíà. Ýòî òåì áîëåå âåðîÿòíî, ÷òî «èñïûòûâàòü íà ñêðîìíîñòü» âòîðóþ êàíäèäàòêó Ôåîäîðó Ôåîôèë íå ñòàë, à ïðîñòî ïðîòÿíóë åé ÿáëîêî íå ïîòîìó ëè, ÷òî âèäåë, ÷òî Ôåîäîðà êàê ðàç õî÷åò ñòàòü åãî æåíîé?124 Èç èñòî÷íèêîâ èçâåñòíî, ÷òî Ôåîäîðà ëþáèëà ñâîåãî ìóæà è î÷åíü âåðîÿòíî, ÷òî îíà Ïðåäïîëîæåíèå, ÷òî Êàññèÿ íàðî÷íî îòâåòèëà òàêèì îáðàçîì, ÷òîáû «íå ïîíðàâèòüñÿ» Ôåîôèëó, ïîòîìó ÷òî ñ äåòñòâà èçáðàëà ìîíàøåñêóþ ñòåçþ, âûñêàçàë åùå Ï. Ïåòðèäåñ: S. PÉTRIDÈS, Cassia // ROÑ 7 (1902) 218244; ñì. 227. 123 ÀÔÈÍÎÃÅÍÎÂ, ÊÀÇÀ×ÊÎÂ, Ëåãåíäà î Ôåîôèëå
124 ×òî ñîãëàñóåòñÿ è ñî ñêàçàííûì î âûáîðå íåâåñò â «Æèòèè Ôåîäîðû». 122
270
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
ïîëþáèëà åãî ñðàçó æå, êàê òîëüêî óâèäåëà íà âûáîðå íåâåñò, è Ôåîôèë ýòî ïîíÿë.125 Êîíå÷íî, ïîäîáíûå «ïñèõîëîãè÷åñêèå» îáúÿñíåíèÿ âñåãäà ãèïîòåòè÷íû è íå ìîãóò èìåòü ñèëû äîêàçàòåëüñòâà. Îíè ìîãóò òîëüêî ïðåäëàãàòüñÿ â êà÷åñòâå âîçìîæíîãî, áîëåå èëè ìåíåå ïðàâäîïîäîáíîãî, îáúÿñíåíèÿ îïèñàííûõ õðîíèñòàìè ôàêòîâ; íî âðÿä ëè ñ ïîìîùüþ òàêèõ ãèïîòåç ìîæíî äîêàçàòü, ÷òî òå èëè èíûå èñòîðèè, èçâåñòíûå íàì èç õðîíèê, íå ìîãëè èìåòü ìåñòî â äåéñòâèòåëüíîñòè. Êàê áûëî ïîêàçàíî âûøå, äàâ òåì æå ôàêòàì èíîå ïñèõîëîãè÷åñêîå èñòîëêîâàíèå, ìîæíî ñ òàêèì æå óñïåõîì óòâåðæäàòü, ÷òî îíè âïîëíå ìîãëè ïðîèçîéòè íà ñàìîì äåëå. Âî âñÿêîì ñëó÷àå, çäåñü ìû íå âûõîäèì èç îáëàñòè äîãàäîê. Ïî÷òè â ëþáîì ýïèçîäå, îïèñûâàåìîì âèçàíòèéñêèìè õðîíèñòàìè, ìîæíî óâèäåòü ñòîëü áîãàòóþ ïñèõîëîãè÷åñêóþ è ñèìâîëè÷åñêóþ ïîäîïëåêó, ÷òî îòìåòàòü äîñòîâåðíîñòü òåõ èëè èíûõ ñîáûòèé, îñíîâûâàÿñü íà ñóáúåêòèâíûõ ïðåäïîëîæåíèÿõ îòíîñèòåëüíî òîãî, ÷òî äîëæíû áûëè äóìàòü èëè ÷óâñòâîâàòü òå èëè èíûå èñòîðè÷åñêèå ïåðñîíàæè, íå ñëèøêîì ðàçóìíî. 125 Èíòåðåñíî, ÷òî â ëåãåíäàõ î Êàññèè è â åå æèòèÿõ íîâåéøåãî âðåìåíè ãîâîðèòñÿ, ÷òî Ôåîôèë âñþ æèçíü íå ìîã çàáûòü Êàññèþ è äàæå ïðèãëàñèë ïåðåä ñìåðòüþ âî äâîðåö íà ïîñëåäíåå ñâèäàíèå (ñì., íàïð.: Ìîíàõèíÿòà-õèìíîãðàô ñâåòà ïðåïîäîáíà Êàñèàíà (Àñåíîâãðàä, 1996) 1415), à çíàìåíèòàÿ ñòèõèðà Êàññèè ïðî áëóäíèöó «Ãîñïîäè, ÿæå âî ìíîãèÿ ãðåõè âïàäøàÿ æåíà
» ÿâëÿåòñÿ ñîâìåñòíûì òâîðåíèåì èãóìåíüè è èìïåðàòîðà (ñì.: Ó. ÅÕÓÔÑÁÔÉÁÄÇÓ, Êáóéáíx ½ ìåëùäüò // EÅêêëçóéáóôéêò ÖÜñïò 31 (1932) 94; Ã. É. ÐÁÐÁÄÏÐÏÕËÏÓ, Óýìâïëáé åkò ôxí jóôïñßáí ôyò ðáñE ½ìsí dêêëçóéáóôéêyò ìïõóéêyò (EÅí EÁèÞíáéò, 1890) 251–252; ROCHOW, Studien zu der Person
7781). Ä. Àôèíîãåíîâ îïèñûâàåò ñóïðóæåñêèå îòíîøåíèÿ Ôåîôèëà è Ôåîäîðû ïî÷òè êàê èäåàëüíûå (ÀÔÈÍÎÃÅÍÎÂ, «Ïîâåñòü î ïðîùåíèè èìïåðàòîðà Ôåîôèëà»
56), íî õðîíèêè, íà ìîé âçãëÿä, ãîâîðÿò î äðóãîì. Íå ñ÷èòàÿ âîçíèêøèõ ñî âðåìåíåì òðåíèé èççà âîïðîñà îá èêîíîïî÷èòàíèè, ñóïðóãè, êàæåòñÿ, âîîáùå äîâîëüíî ñèëüíî ðàñõîäèëèñü âî âêóñàõ: â òî âðåìÿ êàê èìïåðàòîð, «ýñòåò è ðîìàíòèê», ëþáèë öåðêîâíîå ïåíèå, ñî÷èíÿë è êëàë íà ìóçûêó ñòèõèðû ìåæäó ïðî÷èì, êàê è Êàññèÿ (ñì.: ÏÔ III, 16; ThCont 106:1718), áûë «ëþáèòåëåì êðàñèâûõ âåùåé» (LeoGram 215:12), çàíèìàëñÿ ñòðîèòåëüñòâîì, öåíèë îáðàçîâàíèå è îáðàçîâàííûõ ëþäåé, èìïåðàòðèöà
çàíèìàëàñü òîðãîâëåé; è êîãäà Ôåîôèë óëè÷èë â ýòîì ñóïðóãó, îí ïóáëè÷íî æàëîâàëñÿ íà åå ïîâåäåíèå ïåðåä ïðèäâîðíûìè, à åé äàæå ïðèãðîçèë ñìåðòüþ â ñëó÷àå, åñëè ïîäîáíîå ïîâòîðèòñÿ (ñì.: ÏÔ III, 4; ThCont 88:1089:14). È äåéñòâèòåëüíî, âðÿä ëè ìîãëî áûòü ìíîãî îáùåãî ìåæäó òåì, êòî ïîëó÷èë áëåñòÿùåå ñòîëè÷íîå îáðàçîâàíèå, è òîé, êîòîðàÿ «áûëà âîñïèòàíà òðàäèöèîííî âåðåòåíî è ïðÿëêà: ïðÿñòü íèòêè è òêàòü ïîëîòíî ïîäîáàþùèå çàíÿòèÿ äëÿ äåâèöû. ×åìó æå åùå ìîæíî áûëî íàó÷èòüñÿ â Ýâèññå?» (HERRIN, Women in Purple
189); íåëüçÿ íå îòìåòèòü, ÷òî Ôåîäîðà äîëæíà áûëà â ýòîì îòíîøåíèè ñîñòàâëÿòü ðàçèòåëüíûé êîíòðàñò ñ Êàññèåé âåðîÿòíî, óðîæåíêîé ñòîëèöû, ÷üèì óìîì è ñëîâîì âîñõèùàëñÿ ñâ. Ôåîäîð Ñòóäèò (ñì. Theodori Studitae Epistulae
Ep. 370).
271
Т. А. Сенина
Èòàê, íà îñíîâàíèè ïðîâåäåííîãî àíàëèçà, ìîæíî ñäåëàòü ñëåäóþùèå âûâîäû. 1) Íåñìîòðÿ íà òî, ÷òî îïèñàíèÿ «êîíêóðñàõ íåâåñò» äëÿ âèçàíòèéñêèõ èìïåðàòîðîâ â IX â. ñîäåðæàò â ñåáå îïðåäåëåííûå ñèìâîëè÷åñêèå ÷åðòû è ëèòåðàòóðíûå òîïîñû, ýòî íå ìîæåò ñëóæèòü äîêàçàòåëüñòâîì òîãî, ÷òî çà íèìè íå ñòîèò èñòîðè÷åñêîé ðåàëüíîñòè; íî äàæå íàïðîòèâ óïîìèíàíèå èõ â îïðåäåëåííîì êîíòåêñòå ìîæåò ÿâëÿòüñÿ àðãóìåíòîì â ïîëüçó èõ èñòîðè÷íîñòè. Ïî-âèäèìîìó, ïîÿâëåíèå «êîíêóðñîâ íåâåñò» â Âèçàíòèè íå â ïîñëåäíþþ î÷åðåäü áûëî ñâÿçàíî ñ îïðåäåëåííûì ñèìâîëèçìîì, ïðîÿâèâøèìñÿ â èêîíîáîð÷åñêóþ ýïîõó. 2) Êàê ïîêàçûâàåò àíàëèç èñòî÷íèêîâ è íóìèçìàòè÷åñêèõ äàííûõ, âûáîð íåâåñò äëÿ èìïåðàòîðà Ôåîôèëà ñîñòîÿëñÿ íå â 830-ì, à â 821 ã.  ñâÿçè ñ ýòèì õðîíîëîãèÿ ñîáûòèé ñåìåéíîé æèçíè Ôåîôèëà, ïðåäëîæåííàÿ Â. Òðåäãîëüäîì, äîëæíà áûòü ðàäèêàëüíî ïåðåñìîòðåíà. 3) Òîò ôàêò, ÷òî ôðàçû, êîòîðûìè îáìåíÿëèñü Ôåîôèë è Êàññèÿ íà âûáîðå íåâåñò, âçÿòû èç ãîìèëèè ñâ. Èîàííà Çëàòîóñòà íà Áëàãîâåùåíèå, íå äîêàçûâàåò, ÷òî âñÿ èñòîðèÿ ÿâëÿåòñÿ ëèòåðàòóðíîé âûäóìêîé; íàïðîòèâ, òî, ÷òî Ä. Àôèíîãåíîâ è Þ. Êàçà÷êîâ ñî÷ëè «ðàçîáëà÷åíèåì», ñêîðåå, ìîæåò ÿâèòüñÿ ïîäòâåðæäåíèåì òîãî, ÷òî äèàëîã äåéñòâèòåëüíî èìåë ìåñòî, ìû íàõîäèì ïàðàëëåëè ñ óïîìÿíóòîé ãîìèëèåé â îäíîé èç ñòèõèð, íàïèñàííûõ Êàññèåé, à ñàìà ãîìèëèÿ â IX âåêå áûëà õîðîøî èçâåñòíà âèçàíòèéöàì, ââèäó åå èñïîëüçîâàíèÿ ñâ. ïàòðèàðõîì Íèêèôîðîì äëÿ çàùèòû èêîíîïî÷èòàíèÿ. 4) Êàê ïîêàçûâàåò ïðèìåð ñî «Ñëîâîì íà Áëàãîâåùåíèå», ïðè èññëåäîâàíèè âèçàíòèéñêèõ èñòî÷íèêîâ íåëüçÿ èñêëþ÷àòü èç ïîëÿ çðåíèÿ ãèìíîãðàôèþ, èáî ýòî ìîæåò ïðèâåñòè ê äîñàäíûì íåäîñìîòðàì è îøèáêàì, à òî è âîâñå èñêàçèòü ðåêîíñòðóèðóåìóþ êàðòèíó äåéñòâèòåëüíîñòè.
SUMMARY Tatiana A. Senina (Nun Kassia) St-Petersbourg
DIALOGUE BETWEEN THEOPHILUS AND KASSIA: LITERARY FICTION OR REALITY? The paper deals with the story of the bride-show for the Emperor Theophilus and the possible role in this story of the hymnographer Kassia. L. Rydén’s opinion that such bride-shows for the royal sons in the 9th century are fictions is revised. It is most likely that such stories told by the chroniclers have some real facts behind them. In this connection, a new hypothesis of the reasons of composition of the Vita of Philarete the Merciful is put forward. The chronology of the life of the Emperor Theophilus in general and the date of his bride-show in particular are revised as well. It was shown that the dates of his life proposed by W. Treadgold
272
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
are accepted by many scholars rather uncritically while, in fact, they are far from being well-founded. According to the present analysis of the sources, including the numismatic data and the hymnography, Theophilus’ bride-show is to be dated by 821 and Kassia’s participation is to be admitted. The fact that dialogue between Theophilus and Kassia, as reported by Symeon Logothetus, contains a verbatim quote from the Homily on Annunciation by John Chrysostome, is not an argument to take the whole story as fiction (pace D. Afinogenov and Yu. Kazachkov) because this homily was widely known in this time and is quoted, for instance, in an anti-iconoclast treatise of the Patriarch Nicephorus and, that is most important, by Kassia herself in her sticheira on Annunciation. Finally, it was attempted to reveal the meaning of the interchange between Theophilus and Kassia that was traditionally interpreted as an attempt of an orthodox girl to hurt the iconoclastic emperor.
Dan D. Y. Shapira Open University of Israel, Raíanannah
´TABERNACLE OF VINEª: SOME (JUDAIZING?) FEATURES IN THE OLD GEORGIAN VITA OF ST. NINO1 St. Nino, «Mother of the Georgians», the traditional illuminator of Georgia,2 is believed to have brought Christianity to Eastern Georgia around 335 (her memory is celebrated on January 14th); Coptic and Byzantine writers of later dates called her theognosté, «she who made God known» to the Georgians.3 The Old Georgian Vita of St. Nino forms a part of Conversion of Georgia [henceforth: MK],4 which served as one of the sources of the Geor1 This article is mostly based on two papers read at the Institut für Iranistik (Freiuniversität, Berlin), 10th December 1994, and at the Eighth Caucasian Colloquium, Societas Caucasologica Europaea, University of Leiden, 7th June 1996. Earlier versions of this paper were read by Prof. Konstantin Lerner, Prof. Shaul Shaked, Prof. Michael Stone, by Dr. Mordechai Even-Vered, Mr. Michael Shneider (the Hebrew University of Jerusalem), Mr. Reuven Kipperwasser (Bar-Ilan University), Fr. Gregory [V. M.] Lourié (St. Petersburg), Prof. Ora Limor and Mr. Uri Gershovich (The Open University of Israel). I am very grateful to these persons for their remarks and insights. All the shortcomings are, of course, mine. 2 In fact, of Eastern Georgia, Kartli; Western Georgia, Lazica, was Christianized by King Tsate and the Byzantine Emperor Justinian (527–565) only in 523, although at least one city, Pytyus (Pityonte, Georgian Bièvinta, Russian Picunda) had a bishop as early as in 325. 3 Cf. now M. VAN ESBROEK, Nino, Théognosta et Eusthate: un dossier hagiographique oriental des IVe–Ve siècles (forthcoming). See also M. VAN ESBROEK, Le dossier de sainte Nino et sa composante copte // Santa Nino et Georgia. Storia e spiritualitácristiana nel paese del Vello d’oro. Atti del I Convegno Internazionale di Studi Georgiani. Roma 30 gennaion 1999 / Ed. G. SHURGAIA (Roma 2000) 99–123 (the volume reviewed by A. Muravjev in ÕÂ 3 (IX) (2002) 521–523). 4 Mokcevay Kartlisa [Mok>c>evai K>art>lisa] // Jveli K>art>uli agiograp>iuli literaturis jeglebi [Relics of Old Georgian Hagiographical Literature]. I / Ed. I. ABULAJE (Tbilisi, 1964) 81–163. For a new edition of the text, Cf. the recent Hebrew book by K. LERNER, The Chronicle The Conversion of K<art
274
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
gian Chronicle [henceforth: KC].5 The two collections are compiled of compositions of different character and date, such as, for example, the oldest Georgian chronicle preserved in MK as a part of it is attributed to one deacon Gregory, and perhaps goes back to the seventh century. The whole of the Vita of St. Nino found in MK was edited in the ninth century, but the sources of the compiler go back to material written at least as early as the seventh century.6 The question of interrelationship between MK and KC will not be dealt with here; however, it is worth notice that Leonti Mroveli, the redactor of KC proper (which forms only one of the parts of KC7 ), was placed in the eighth astica 1 (1909) 1–66; D. M. LANG, Lives and Legends of the Georgian Saints (London, 1956) 13–39; see also G. PÄTSCH, Die Bekehrung Georgiens Mokcevay Kartlisay (Verfasser unbekannt) // Bedi Kartlisa. Revue de kartvélogie 33 (1975) 288–337. For theoretizing about a Jewish setting, cf. T. MGALOBLISHVILI, I. GAGOSHIDZE, The Jewish Diaspora and Early Christianity in Georgia // Ancient Christianity in the Caucasus. Iberica Caucasica. Vol. 1 / Ed. T. MGALOBLISHVILI (Richmond, 1998) (Curzon Caucasus World) 39–58. Compare also J. VAN OORT, Judaeo-Christianity: the Rôle of the Hebrew Diaspora in the Origin of Christianity in the Roman North Africa // Proceedings of the International Symposium: Early Christianity and Georgia. Tbilisi, Mtsxeta, October 1991 (Tbilisi, 1992) 1–22; J. VAN OORT, Jewish Elements in the origin of North African Christianity // Ancient Christianity in the Caucasus. Iberica Caucasica... 97–105; M. VAN ESBROEK, La place de Jérusalem dans la «Conversion de la Géorgie» // Ancient Christianity in the Caucasus. Iberica Caucasica... 59–74; K. TSERETELI, Armazian Script // Ancient Christianity in the Caucasus. Iberica Caucasica... 155– 164. A new, older version of MK was recently found at St. Catahrina. 5 Êàðòëèñ Öõîâðåáà [K>art>lis C>xovreba]. I–II / Ed. S. QAUXCŠIŠVILI (Tbilisi, 1955); quoted (vol. I) as KC. See also F. BROSSET, Histoire de la Géorgie depuis l’Antiquité jusqu’au XIXe siècle (St Petersburg, 1856); cf. also W. E. D. ALLEN, History of the Georgian People (London, 1932; repr.: New York, 1971); G. PÄTSCH, Das Leben Karli's. Eine Chronik aus Georgien, 300–1200 (Leipzig, 1985); R. W. THOMSON, Rewriting Caucasian History. The Medieval Armenian Adaptation of the Georgian Chronicles. The Original Georgian Texts and the Armenian Adaptation / Transl. with Introd. and Comm. (Oxford, 1996). On Georgian literature in general: M. TARCHNISHVILI, Geschichte der kirchlischen georgischen Literatur (Vatican, 1955); G. DEETERS, Georgische Literatur // Handbuch der Orientalistik, Abt. 1. Bd. 7: Armenisch and kaukasische Sprachen (1963) 129–155; K. SALIA, La littérature géorgienne // Bedi Kartlisa. Revue de kartvélogie. Vol. 17–26 (1964–1969), esp. Vol. 17–18 (1964) 28– 61; H. FÄHNRICH, Die georgische Literatur (Tbilisi, 1981); R. BARAMIDZE, Die Anfänge der georgischen Literatur // Georgica (Jena, 1987) 39–43; D. RAYFIELD, The Literature of Georgia. A History (Oxford, 1994). 6 The Šatberdi MS is from 973 CE. For dating the older strata of this composition, cmp. Z. ALEKSIDZE, Sur le vocabulaire de la Conversion du Kartli: miap>ori, niap>ori ou minap>ori? // From Byzantium to Iran. Armenian Studies in Honour of Nina G. Garsoïan / Ed. J.-P. MAHÉ, R. W. THOMSON (Atlanta, GA, 1997) 47–52. 7 Only two or three (the first, the second, and probably, the fourth) of the six parts of KC were edited by him.
D. D. Y. Shapira
275
or the eleventh century,8 while the History of the King Vaxtang Gorgasal, another composition also found in KC (the third part) and describing the events from the 5th–6th centuries, was written in the eighth or the ninth century. The final redaction of KC was made only in the 18th century in Moscow, by the exiled Georgian carevicš (Russian for «prince-of-blood») Vahušti (or, Vaxušti) Bagrationi (Bagration). As noted by many scholars, the version of the Vita of St. Nino in MK, as compared to that of KC, preserved numerous traits going back to the period of the Georgian history in which her Christian tradition was not yet finally fixed. Here some episodes allegedly reflecting this primitive stage of the Georgian Christianity will be dealt with. Georgian traditions attribute the Christianization of Georgia exclusively to St. Nino and to her pupils, members of the local Jewish community (stressing the role of the female followers). Later, the so-called «Syriac fathers» were credited with establishment of Christian institutions. Nevertheless, the Georgian historical memory could not have ignored the all-too-obvious role played by St. Gregory the Parthian, the Illuminator (Lousaworiè>, ï öùóôÞñ) of the Armenians,9 and the legendary figure of St. Nino, whose name is attested not earlier that the seventh century, served with the Georgians to combine, or «to telescope», various layers of traditions about the early stages of the Georgian conversion. So she was said to be the daughter of Zaboulon / Zabilon of Cappadocia (who is said to vanquish the Branjis10 at the *Catalaunian Fields11 and to baptize them thereafter!), to be brought up in the Armenian community in Jerusalem, she speaks Armenian and the language of the Jews,12 has links K. KEKELIDZE (K<. K<EK<ELIJE), Jveli kartuli lit<erat
276
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
to the first Patriarch of Jerusalem, Jubenal (422–458)13 and St. Helene14 (and even some vague ones to St. George the Cappadocian Soldier!), is connected to Armenian virgin martyrs Rip>simç, Gayanç and others (who are commemorated on October 5th and whose connection to St. Gregory the Parthian is a subject to debates).15 In other words, she represents simultaneously the JudeoChristian, Armenian, Cappadocian, Jerusalemite and Byzantine origins of Georgian Christendom. In Georgian scholarship of the last decades there is a tendency to consider frequent references to Jews or Jewish traditions scattered in MK and KC as a proof of millennia-long ties between Jews and Georgians, and these texts were even used, by the Georgian hosts, several years ago, during official visits of high Israeli officials to Tbilisi, to cement the relations between two nations. The view of MK as a Judeo-Christian document of early times has received recently some support from other quarters, too. Nevertheless, in this author’s opinion, the Georgian accounts about St. Nino can be understood mostly against the background of the Armenian traditions about the conversion of Armenia — and Iberia and Albania — by St. Gregory and the problematic traditions about the Armenian holy virgins, and I have plans to publish my investigation of this subject on another occasion.16 However, on this stage the importance of the study of the vocabulary and imaginery of St. Nino accounts must be emphasized, and here we have a good parallel with the case of St. Gregory the Parthian as reflected by the testimonies of Agat>ange³os / Agathangelos and Vita Gregorii.17 Nevertheinclined to think (cf. THOMSON, Rewriting Caucasian History… 103) that she was learning Hebrew. 13 Who is said to «have the hope of all Christians in the Church of the Holy Resurrection (Anastasis)» and to pray there; Anastasis, built in 543, was the focus of Chalcedonite sympathizers, cf. Â. Ì. ËÓÐÜÅ [V. M. LOURIÉ], Èç Èåðóñàëèìà â Àêñóì ÷åðåç õðàì Ñîëîìîíà: àðõàè÷íûå ïðåäàíèÿ î Ñèîíå è Êîâ÷åãå Çàâåòà â ñîñòàâå Êåáðà Íåãåñò è èõ òðàíñëÿöèÿ ÷åðåç Êîíñòàíòèíîïîëü [From Jerusalem to Aksum through the Temple of Solomon: archaic traditions related to the Ark of Covenant and Sion in the Kebra Nagast and their translation through Constantinople] // XB 2 (VIII) (2001) 137–207, s. 176. 14 According to KC 80–81, St. Nino not only has baptized R>ipsimç (see further), but even almost converted St. Helene! 15 On the Armenian side, [pseudo]Movses Xorenac>i in the tenth century was the first to connect St. Nino (Nunç) with Rip>simç and Gayanç, apparently under the impact of the already recorded Georgian traditions. 16 D. SHAPIRA, Old Georgian Echoes of the Armenian Agathange³os Cycle (forthcoming). 17 See, e. g., G. GARITTE, Documents pour l’étude du livre d’Agathange (Citta del Vaticano, 1946); G. WIDENGREN, Sources of Parthian and Sasanian History // The Cambridge History of Iran 3 (2): The Seleucid, Parthian and Sasanian Periods / Ed. EHSAN YARSHATER (Cambridge—London etc. 1983) 1261–1283; G. WINKLER, Our Present Knowledge of the History of Agat>ange³os and its Oriental Versions // Réarm
D. D. Y. Shapira
277
less, the St. Nino traditions are no more historical than, e. g., those of the Ethiopian Kebrâ Negâst,18 and they should be studied, as a whole, in a general context of the split with the Armenian Mother Church in the early 7th century, and, as a consequence, of building an alternative, Judaizing, set of traditions claiming for the apostolic status of the Georgian Church.19 NS 14 (1980) 125–141. This work was composed of several independant parts put together after 456 CE (WINKLER, Our Present Knowledge of the History of Agat>ange³os... 125: after 450451), Agathangelos has Faustos Buzand as one of its major sources (R. W. THOMSON, Agathangelos: History of the Armenians (Albany, NY, 1976) xvi). Winkler (Our Present Knowledge of the History of Agat>ange³os... 137) stated that these texts «show tendentious insistence on the connections of Grigor with Cappadocia, and this despite the overwhelming traces of ties with Syria... Prior to the Christianization of Armenia through Cappadocia, there must have been a strong missionary activity from Syria which has come down to us only in obscure legendary reports, and which only can be detected through a careful investigation of the vocabulary...». 18 C. BEZOLD, Kebra Nagast, Die Herrlichkeit der Könige. Nach dem Handschriften in Berlin, London, Oxford und Paris zum ersten Mal im äthiopischen Urtext hrsg. und mit deutscher Uebersetzung versehen (Münich, 1905); D. A. HUBBARD, The Literary Sources of the Kebra Nagast (The University of St. Andrews, 1956), a PhD Thesis under supervision of Prof. E. Ullendorf; I. SHAHID, The Kebra Nagast in the Light of Recent Research // Mus 89 (1976) 133–178; cf. also the important study, Â. Ì. ÏËÀÒÎÍÎÂ, Êåáðà Íàãàñò (Îñíîâíûå èäåè ýôèîïñêîãî äèíàñòè÷åñêîãî ðîìàíà XIV â.) // Ïàëåñòèíñêèé ñáîðíèê 28 (91), (1986) 4550. Cf. now ËÓÐÜÅ, Èç Èåðóñàëèìà â Àêñóì ÷åðåç õðàì Ñîëîìîíà... 137207. 19 Judaizing tendencies were prominent in many of the national churches outside the Roman Empire, and in Armenia they were perhaps no less significant than in Aksum: beside legends, of a later date, about Jewish descent of certain noble families, we should ennumerate the legendary origin of the Armenian Arsacids from Abraham and Keturah, remnants of royal polygamy, hereditary character of the office of the head of the Church, later called «catholicos», and of the bishops, etc. Both Armenian and Georgian literacy began to flourish around the mid-5th century; until then, their languages of religious education were Syriac or Greek. It was in the context of the struggle against Nestorius and his views that the national scripts were invented, apparently, by St. Mesrop (cf. P. PEETERS, Jérémie, évèque de l’Ibérie perse (431) // AB 41/1–2 (1933) 5–33). Fighting against the armies of Yazdigird II the Sasanian, the Armenians and Georgians did not participate actively in the Council of Chalcedon in 451 and did not endorse the decisions made there, wrongly identifying them later with the teachings of Nestorius (cf. W. H. C. FREND, The Rise of the Monophysite Movement. Chapters in the History of the Church in the Fifth and Sixth Centuries (Cambridge University Press, 1979 (19721) 313. It should be remembered that Nestorius’ supporters believed that their views were vindicated by the Chalcedon Counsil.) Another reason for the Armenian rejection of Chalcedon was purely linguistic: the Armenian, at that time, had only one term, p>nout>iwn, for both physis and hypostasis, and only much later a new term for physis, ew>iwn or koiout>iwn, was coined).
278
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
They accepted the compromising Henotikon of the Emperor Zeno (481/2CE) under the Katholikos Babgen (490–515), apparently, in 491 (cf. now also Í. Ã. ÃÀÐÑÎßÍ, Áûë ëè Ñîáîð â Âàëàðøàïàòå â 491 ãîäó? // Õ 2 (VIII) (2001) 116–120), but when the Imperial Church returned to the Chalcedon formula in 518, they rejected it, and in 554 or 555 the Greek Church itself apparently, on hierarchial basis, not only her doctrine, was anathematized at the Second Duin Synod under the Katholikos Narsçs II (548557). Beginning from 591, Persarmenia, Albania and Kartli were under direct Persian domination, and the Byzantine established a Chalcedonite Armenian Catholicosate at Awan, to confront the Monophysite one at Persian Duin (Í. Ã. ÀÄÎÍÖ, Àðìåíèÿ â ýïîõó Þñòèíèàíà. Ïîëèòè÷åñêîå ñîñòîÿíèå íà îñíîâå íàõàðàðñêîãî ñòðîÿ (Åðåâàí, 1971) 343344; Â. À. ÀÐÓÒÞÍÎÂÀ-ÔÈÄÀÍßÍ, Àðìÿíî-âèçàíòèéñêàÿ êîíòàêòíàÿ çîíà (ÕÕI ââ.). Ðåçóëüòàòû âçàèìîäåéñòâèÿ êóëüòóð (Ìîñêâà, 1994) 60–61). In 606–608, the Georgians, under their Katholikos Kyrion, adopted Byzantine Orthodoxy, to which they had been inclined since the late 6th century, and it was then that the deep cultural split between the Armenians and the Georgians began, after Abraham I the Armenian (607–615) excommunicated Kyrion and the Georgians at Dwin in 609. Cf. UXTANÇS EPISKOPOS, Patmout>iwn Hayoc>, hatouac> erkrord. Patmout>iwn baanman Vrac> i Hayoc> (Va³arapat, 1871); Girk> T> ³t>oc> [Book of Letters] / Ed. Y. IZMEREANC> (Tiflis, 1901) (translation of the material relevant for this discussion in: N. GARSOÏAN, L’église arménienne et le grand schism d’Orient (Lovanii, 1999) (CSCO 574; Subsidia 100) 516–583; see also pp. 355–398); L. MELIK>SÇT>BEK, Vrac> a³byourner# Hayastani i hayeri masin (Erevan, 1934); UXTANESI, Ist
D. D. Y. Shapira
279
I First, Rip>simç, Gayanç, St. Nino and others 50 (or 49, i. e. 50 except Nino)20 holy virgins, having been expelled from the Roman Empire,21 arancienne de l’église de Géorgie // Mus 60 (1947) 29–50, and in: B. MARTIN-HISARD, Jalons pour une histoire du culte de Sainte Nino (fin IVe–XIIIe s. // From Byzantium to Iran... 53–78, s. 69–70. Under Monothelite Heraclius, the Armenian Church reunited though with the Catholic (629), but after the Arab Muslim onslaught, they relapsed into their national church and again denounced Chalcedon at Dwin in 645. But the final separation followed only the Manazkert Synod of 726, see ÀÄÎÍÖ, Àðìåíèÿ â ýïîõó Þñòèíèàíà
338; ÀÐÓÒÞÍÎÂÀ-ÔÈÄÀÍßÍ, Àðìÿíî-âèçàíòèéñêàÿ êîíòàêòíàÿ çîíà
62. As a result, and given the traditional rivalry between the two nations, the mere memory of the form of Christianity once shared by Georgians and Armenians (and Albanians) was suppressed in Georgian sources, and in fact, practically all the extant Georgian literature originates after the split. During the reign of Husraw II Parwçz, the Sasanian Empire favored the Monophysites rather than the traditionally tolerated Nestorian branch of Christianity (dubbed «the Church of Persia»), presumably, because of the influence of Ðîrîn, the Armenian wife of the King of Kings immortalized by Persian poets (see Â. Ã. ËÓÊÎÍÈÍ, Äðåâíèé è ðàííåñðåäíåâåêîâûé Èðàí. Î÷åðêè èñòîðèè êóëüòóðû (Ìîñêâà, 1987) («Õîñðîâ II è Àíàõèòà», pp. 177–206) 205), so, in 614, after Jerusalem was captured by the Sasanian Persians, they tried to impose the anti-Chalcedonian leadership on all the Christians in their realm, including those in the territories conquered from the Byzantines. We know next to nothing about the effect this Imperial decision had in Georgia; however, in 625/6, when Heraclius and his «Khazar» allies besieged Tbilisi, the city was defended by its local Georgian Christian ruler subject to Iran, and by a Persian garrison under a Persian officer. It seems that the genuine account of these events was lost, if it ever existed in a written form in Georgian, because for the later Georgian readers the prospect that their ruler had probably abandoned what was seen since then as the core of Georgian identity, was deemed to be offensive (on traces of the pre-Chalcedonite Christianity in Georgia in the context of Jerusalemite traditions, compare interesting remarks in: ËÓÐÜÅ, Èç Èåðóñàëèìà â Àêñóì ÷åðåç Õðàì Ñîëîìîíà
177–178 and n. 101; as I tried to demonstrate (D. SHAPIRA, Armenian and Georgian Sources on the Khazars: A Re-Evaluation // Proceedings of the First International Khazar Colloquium (in press)), Georgian accounts about the joint Byzantine-«Khazar» siege of Tbilisi drew upon Armenian sources and were composed long after the events they describe, with the intention to conceal the anti-Chalcedonite character of the rulers’ Christianity. 20 Thirty five, in Armenian accounts. 21 «After the Synod of Nicea» (325 CE), adds MS B; the reason for expulsion of Christians from a Christian Empire remains obscure. As to the date, that’s the date the Georgian text of MK provides. There is pointless to stress again and again that the chronology of the events connected with St. Nino — or even with St. Gregory — is hopelessly wrong, but one could recall that Aristakes, the son of St. Gregory, attended, as Armenia’s respresentative, the Nicean Counseil in 325. According to the Armenian sources of St. Nino’s Vita, namely, the History of Agathangelos, the holy virgins fled from Diocletian, whose protégé Trdat was.
280
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
rived in Armenia and stayed there, as properly to the «daughters of the bridal chamber of Christ», in the «garden booths» of the Armenian, still pagan, King Trdat. Few days later, the holy virgins were martyred by King Trdat, because of his limitless lust, on the day of Passover (the 15th of the first month, on Friday), and it was only St. Nino who survived among the rose thorns, because at this time the roses and almonds budded (MS B).22 The wording is a contamination of Ecclesiastes 12.5 and Song of Songs, 6.11, 7.13; «almonds» is taken from Ecclesiastes (Song of Songs has «pomegranades»), while the context of Song of Songs’ passages may be easily understood as containing references to the «booths» and bridal chamber, with the contexts of Eccl. and Song of Songs 7.13 understood as speaking of (martyr) death.23 The martyrdom of the virgins in their bride rooms makes them, of course, the perfect brides of Christ, and we will return to this subject later. We can state here but in passing that the very developed flower imaginery in Nino’s traditions has many Middle Eastern, including Syriac and Iranian, parallels and deserves a special study. As to the date of the martyrdom, obviously modeled upon the death of Jesus, one should note the remarkable emphasis on the features of the Jewish Feast of Tabernacles, whose motifs were early contaminated, in the Gospel tradition, with those of Passover (compare Jesus’ entrance into Jerusalem, with hossanas sung and lulabs waven). After her arrival (from Armenia) in Urbnisi, Kartli, St. Nino stays for a month with the local Jewish community there, at their bagini (sanctuary, synagogue), «because she spoke the Jewish language», as the text puts it; her 22
According to the same MS B, St. Nino experienced a vision of a deacon descending from heaven, with an censer in his hand, which was spreading fragrant smoke; the deacon was receiving the ascending souls of the martyrs. We will return to this later. St Nino asked God why should she be abandoned amongst asps and vipers, but the Voice answered here that likewise shall be her own ascend, when all these thorns around shall become rose-leaves. This account, appearing also in KC 84–85, is ascribed in MK to Salome of Ujarma, one of the early pupils of St. Nino, who was said to be the daugther of Trdat of Armenia and the wife of Rev, son of Mirian of Kartli; she is said to be the authoress of those parts of MK most flavored with parallels to the Agathangelos Cycle; however, she is unkown to the Armenian tradition; moreover, her name is Jewish / New Testamental, a strange feature for a daughter of a pagan king; we even know that the members of dynasty of her father continued to bear pagan names for generations after the conversion; queens and princesses bore Iranian names as well, together with the majority of the bishops, cf. N. G. GARSOÏAN, Prolegomena to a Study of the Iranian Elements in Arsacid Armenia // Handes Amsorya. Zeitschrift für armenische Philologie XC (1976) 176–234 (p. 13–14 n. 34; reprinted in N. G. GARSOÏAN, Armenia Between Byzantium and the Sasanians (London, 1985) (Variorum Reprints) Paper N. X). 23 Prof. Ora Limor kindly call my attention to Isaiah 1:8, äëñë ïåéö úá äøúðåå íøëá. This wording, from a Christian point of view, fits entirely the setting.
D. D. Y. Shapira
281
intention was «to learn the strength of their earth» (MS A, atberdi). But according to MS B, Èelii, she first came to Mc>xet>a,24 the capital city of Kartli; while living there for three years, she was secretly praying in the brambling bush, located outside the walls, and she erected there a cross made of vine twigs (KC ignores this episode). Later this cross became known in Georgia as «the Cross of St. Nino», «the Vine-Cross» or «the Cross of the Branches» (jvari sasxlevisa), highly venerated by Georgians;25 as to the spot of Nino’s prayer before the vine cross, on its place is now the altar of the Upper Church, being thus considered, together with the «Live-Giving Cross» transferred there later, the most sacred relics of the early Georgian Christianity. Later on, she witnessed the statue of the supreme sword-bearing god of Mc>xet>a, Armazi,26 having been shattered by rage of God, in accordance to Nino’s prayer, during a pagan festival. People fled in turmoil, while Nino 24
The Armenian author of uncertain date, Moses Khorenac>i, mentions [R. W. THOMMoses Khorenats>i. History of the Armenians. Translation and Commentary on the Literary Sources (Cambridge, Mass.London, 1980) II. 86] Nunç, one of the scattered holy helpers of Rip>simç, as the one who escaped to Mc>xet>a, the capital city of the Iberians. She is depicted as an auxilary to St.Gregory. The question of the genesis of the St. Nino legend and its relation to the Rip>simç / St. Gregory tradition is a complicated one and is still open. 25 One cannot but get reminded of the Mandaean drafša, which is a kind of cross with something similar to a tallith hung over it. 26 Armazi’s idol was erected under Parnavaz, the second Georgian king, in legendary times. The names of many ancient Georgian kings and their officials bore were of Scytho-Sarmatian origin (Ksefarnug, Saumarg, Vaxtang (kings); Radamist (prince), Sharagas, Zevax, Aspauruk (pitiaxš-s); Iodmangan (chancellor), cf. Â. È. ÀÁÀÅÂ, Ñêèôî-ñàðìàòñêèå íàðå÷èÿ // Îñíîâû èðàíñêîãî ÿçûêîçíàíèÿ. I (Ìîñêâà, 1979) 272– 365 (p. 361, n. 33). In Scythian legends, as reported by Herodot, iv 62, their Ares was seen as an antique iron sword on a platform surrounded by a huge wood pile to whom prisoners were sacrificed, with their blood poured over the sword. Such a «temple» was said to have been placed in the capital of every district in the vast territories of Scythia. A legend with similar motifs was told in Western China about the origin of the local Scythian (Saka) Buddhist dynasty to Hsu<eng-tsang, a Chinese pilgrim ca. 640 C.E. in Uèèiyâna (M. L. CARTER, A Scythian Royal Legend from Ancient Uèèiyâna // Bulletin of the Asia Institute 6 (1993) 67–78, p. 69). Though not without some Biblical (Genesis 2) impact, the sword of Armazd in Mc>xet>a must be of the same Scythian origin. The name of the supreme god of the ancient Georgians, Armazi, is generaly taken to be derived from the Iranian Ahûra Mazdå- (Í. ß. ÌÀÐÐ, Áîãè ÿçû÷åñêîé Ãðóçèè // Çàïèñêè Âîñòî÷íîãî Îòäåëåíèÿ Èìïåðàòîðñêîãî Ðóññêîãî Àðõåîëîãè÷åñêîãî Îáùåñòâà 14 (23) (1902); Ñ. Ñ. ÊÀÊÀÁÀÄÇÅ, Ê âîïðîñó î ñòîëèöå Äðåâíåé Êàðòëè (Èáåðèè) Àðìàçè-Ìöõåòà // Ýëëèíèñòè÷åñêèé Áëèæíèé Âîñòîê, Âèçàíòèÿ è Èðàí (Ìîñêâà, 1967) 112–123). There is however another opinion, deriving the name of this god from Asianic languages [Hittite etc.] (M. CERETELI, The Hittite Land, Its Peoples, Languages, History (Constantinopole, 1924) 84 [Georgian], who was unavailable to me; Ø. È. ÀÌÈÐÀÍÀØÂÈËÈ, Èñòîðèÿ ãðóçèíñêîãî èñêóññòâà. I SON,
282
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
found a beryl which was put in the idol’s eye. Then she rested on the mountain’s ridge near the old castle where stood a booth, sagrilobeli, built by king Bratman, under whom Jews first arrive in Mc>xet>a, according to MK. The booth, sagrilobeli, stood near the tree of brinj27 accacia.28 There she prays before the cross she has erected, and it was on the sixth day of the month when Immanuel shew on Mt. Tabor the likeness of His Father to the heads of the living and the dead, it is, the Feast of Transfiguration.29 (We should remind, to return to this later, that at Jesus’ transfiguration, he, Moses and Elijah sat in the booths.) It is important to note that in the preceding and following scenes, roses, vines and other plants and flowers are frequently referred (Òáèëèñè, 1944) 56; À. È. ÁÎËÒÓÍÎÂÀ, Ê âîïðîñó îá Àðìàçè // Âåñòíèê äðåâíåé èñòîðèè 4 (1949) 235ff.; Ã. À. ÌÅËÈÊÈØÂÈËÈ, Ê èñòîðèè Äðåâíåé Ãðóçèè (Òáèëèñè, 1960). According to M. ANDRONIKASHVILI, Studies in Iranian-Georgian Linguistic Contacts. I (Tbilisi 1966) 548, 570, Armazi is an Iranian loan of the Achemenian epoch, from Old Persian A(h)ûra Mazdâ: «the Georgian language avoids congestion of consonants at the end of a word — Vaštasab from Vištâsp, Luarsab from Lôhrasp, Artavaz from Artavazd, Armaz from Aramazd, etc.» (the case of Artavaz from Artavazd is especially important here). The name of the second god, Zaden-i, was connected to the Iranian word Yazata-; it seems that the particular Georgian form is from Parthian Plural, (*ya-)zadçn, which is very close in meaning to the Middle Persian yazdân, sometimes used in a singular sense. 27 The Georgian word, which means also «rice» and is Persian in origin, can be explained as the result of a mistranslation of Syriac < rz< or Arabic < rz (<arzâ / < arz means «cedar», < urzâ / < urz means "rice»). 28 The tree from which the Biblical tabernacle was built, Hebrew šiâh, was generally rendered as accacia. 29 Cf. Mat 17.1 and parallels: the transfiguration of Jesus took place six days after the events descripted previously in the New Testament text; on Transfiguration, cf., e. g., H. RIESENFELD, Jésus Transfiguré... (København, 1947) (Acta Seminarii Neotest. Upsaliensi XVI); J. A. MCGUCKIN, The Transfiguration of Christ in Scripture and Tradition (Lewiston/Queenston, 1986) (Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity 9); M. SAUCHOT, L’homélie pseudo-chrysostomienne sur la Transfiguration CPG 4724, BHG 1975... (Frankfurt am Main—Bern, 1981) (Publications Universitaires Européennes. Sér. XXIII. Théologie 151); F. BEST, The Transfiguration. A Select Bibliography // Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 24 (1981) 157–161; Joie de la Transfiguration d’aprés les Pêres d’Orient / Textes présentés par Dom Michel COUNE (Abbaye de Bellefontaine, 1985) (Sp. orientale 39); F. REFOULÉ, Jésus, nouveau Moése, ou Pierre, nouveau Grand Prêtre? // Revue théologique de Louvain 24 (1993) 145–162; B. E. REID, The Transfaguration. A Source — and Redaction-Cultural Study of Luke 9:28–36 (Paris, 1993) (Cahiers de la Revue biblique 32); J. E. FOSSUM, The Image of the Invisible God. Essays of the influence of Jewish Mysticism on Early Christianity (Freiburg Schweiz-Göttingen, 1995) (Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus 30). I am extremely grateful to V. M. Lourié for these and other references, as much as for his sensitive and sympathetic reading of two versions of this paper and sharing with me his ideas and knowledge.
D. D. Y. Shapira
283
to.30 Then, led by a vision of a man of light, St. Nino goes down to the Royal Garden,31 where she finds, under cypresses, «a place of vines prepared with love».32 St. Nino works wonders and experiences visions. Then Queen Nana 30 It seems that Nino, whose name alliterates with that of Anahit, the pagan / Zoroastrian patroness of Armenia, was born to explain the costums of the Christianized Vardavar³, corresponding to the Christian feast of Transfiguration as celebrated in Georgia. This pre-Christian feast was placed in 551 CE on the seventh Sunday after Pentacost (becoming thus the second «Šabhu>oth», Weeks), coinciding, in this way, with the ancient Zoroastrian New Year, Nawasard, celebrated by then on August the 6th. The Vardavar’ / Nawasard / Transfiguration celebrations are characterized by sprinkling of water, offering branches and flowers to the Virgin Mary and consecration of vines. In some places people used to drink beverages in gardens. J. Russell has noted that «such practices may go to the worship of Anahit and Nanç» (the underlining is mine), noting also the role played by roses in Armenian festivities on that day (the name Vardavar³ , according to Russell, contains this word as its first element, which was, however, frequently used in Iranian as the term for any flower; see J. R. RUSSELL, The Etymology of Armenian Vardavar // Annual of Armenian Linguistics 13 (1992) 63–69 (p. 69)); cf also S. H. TAQIZADEH, The Iranian Festivals Adopted by the Christians and Condemned by the Jews // Bulletin of the School of the Oriental and African Studies 9 (1940–1942) 632–653 (pp. 643–647). V. M. Lourié has noted, however, in a letter, that as to Vardavar, «its Armenian date (7th week after Pent.) corresponds to the ancient (and even modern Nestorian) date of the Twelve Apostle Feast (translated in the 6th century to June 29); so, we have to take vard- in another (homonymic) meaning of “(magical) word” combined with a component with a meaning of “fire”. So, Vardavar has to be etymologized as “word(s) of fire”, alluding to the Apostolic preaching after the tongues of fire at the Pentecost, and the later (Armenian) etymology through the meaning of “rose” is a pure popular etymology» (Â. Ì. ËÓÐÜÅ, Îêîëî Ñîëóíñêîé ëåãåíäû. Èç èñòîðèè ìèññèîíåðñòâà â ïåðèîä ìîíîôåëèòñêîé óíèè // Ñëàâÿíå è èõ ñîñåäè. Âûï. 6 (1996) 23–52). I believe Lourié is thinking of the first element of the word vardapet. 31 Later, after his conversion by St. Nino, King Mirian built in this garden a wooden church (the Lower Church), with the Column of Cross of Light; this church was called «the holy of holies», as in Aksum. Only priests were allowed to enter this church and see the Cross hidden by a curtain (again, a situation very reminiscent of that in Ethiopia). Under King Arè>il and Archbishop Iona this column was transferred to the Upper (Gareubani) Church, whose altar was on the previous place of St. Nino’s «brambling bush». 32 The sagrilobeli of Bratman as standing near the Brinj is mentioned, in MK, in the account of Sidonia. In the version of KC 92.13–14, she sat under the brinj [the Armenian version of the Georgian text: brinè] (accacia) tree, where king Bartam (Bratman in MK) made shade [sagrili]; as in MK, it was there that she made her cross. Then, St. Nino goes down to the Royal Garden (where King Mirian will have later built the Lower Church), where she finds, under cypresses, a place of vines prepared with love. This motif seems to be a variation of the episode from the flight of St. Rip>simç and her companions, when they lived in wine-presses (sac< nexelt
284
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
converts in the brumbling bush of St. Nino, and later, King Mirian, while going hunting in the forests, is said to have lost his way in the mountains, darkness has befallen on him, but God turned King’s mind to truth and light and he knew God. The King, believed by the people of Mc>xet>a to be lost and most probably dead, returnes to his city in peace, welcomed by the Queen and the people and preceedes directly to the brumbling bush, where St. Nino was praying at that hour as usual. There he aknowledged God, converted and built churches in the brumbling bush of St. Nino and in the place of his garden. More visions are described, with a Column of Light made of a Lebanon cedar descending from heavens to his proper place in the church of the royal garden. The Column of Light, or Life-giving Column, became renown for its many wonders and salvation, later to be hidden from the sight by a wooden box (kibot) built by Mirian. Then three crosses are made and erected in the church, and all the inhabitants of the city have seen every night a cross of fire crowned with stars descending from the heaven and standing above the church, etc.; more similar appearences are described in our text later.33 Then, as is well known, more churches were built in Mc>xet>a, given the names of landmarks in Jerusalem and its vicinity,34 a practice not unusual on the early stages of Christianization in different countries, with the aim to transform a pagan city into a new Jerusalem.35 In KC 93.17–94.1, it is a small bush under the pine trees, *planted /prepared for the Lord (cf. also THOMSON, Rewriting Caucasian History… 102, n. 96), babilo ars mcxet>a; after the Pentacost, two miracles occured; the description of the «second miracle» occured to the Cross is a variation of the «burning bush motive» contaminated with Habbakuk 3:9. 34 See, e. g., TARCHNIŠVILI, Sources arméno-géorgiennes de l’histoire ancienne de l’église de Géorgie... 29–50 (pp. 49–50). 35 On building of Zions in the 5th century, cf. cf. ËÓÐÜÅ, Èç Èåðóñàëèìà â Àêñóì ÷åðåç õðàì Ñîëîìîíà... 172ff. et passim; for the Ethiopian parallels to the stories about the 50 virgins martyred (in Edessa by Julian the Apostate), about the always curtained Column of Light, with the text of Abgar’ Letter on it, standing in the church of Mary in Roha (Edessa) / Lalibela, cf. ibid. 177ff.; Lourié (ibid. 178 n. 101) remarks that one is tempted to translate the Ethiopian name of the Column of Light, >Amdâ Berhân, into Russian as Sveti C>xoveli, Georgian for «Life-giving Column»!
D. D. Y. Shapira
285
There can be little doubt that these texts are modeled on Agathangelos: thrown into a pit for many (thirteen or more) years by Trdat, because of his refusal to worship Anahit, pagan Armenia’s patroness, St. Gregory survived, however. After having massacred the holy virgins, Rip>simç, Gayanç and others (in vat-stores, or wine-presses;36 cf. Lamnt. 1.15, úá úìåúáì 'ä êøã úâ äãåäé, and Isaia 1:8 referred to above), King Trdat is punished, while going hunting,37 by being transformed into a likeness of a wild boar (this noble animal was perceived by Iranians as the bearer of the royal xvarnah, «glory» or «charisma»);38 he repents, seeks remedy, and St. Gregory heals the King, having baptized him. Thereafter, St. Gregory had a vision, in which he saw the heavens open, and a blaze of glory (o³okat>) covers the earth, with Jesus descending with a golden hammer in his hand, with which he struck the earth. Then a golden Column of Glory arose, surmounted by a cross, later called «the Cross of Glory». Three smaller red crosses of light were around the big one, their bases were the color of blood, the columns were of cloud and the capitals of fire; above these St. Gregory saw a great temple with a golden throne surmounted by a cross as well, with a stream flowing from the temple and forming a lake. From the four columns, above the crosses, marvelous vaults fitted into each other, and above these was a canopy (xoran)39 of cloud Cf. also Â. Ì. Ë ÓÐÜÅ, Òðè Èåðóñàëèìà Ëàëèáåëû. Èíòåðïðåòàöèÿ êîìïëåêñà öåðêâåé Ëàëèáåëû â ñâåòå äàííûõ åãî Æèòèÿ // Warszawskie Studia Teologiczne XIII (2000) [2001] (= Miscellanea Aethiopica Reverendissimo Domino Stanislao Kur septuagenario professori illustrissimo, viro amplissimo ac doctissimo oblata) 117– 140. On Georgian texts of the Letter of Abgar, cf. now N. CHKHIKVADZE, The old Georgian Versions of The Epistle of Avgar: Analysis, Text, Glossary // Gza sameupo [The Royal Way] 1/4 (1996) 32–72. 36 The Arabic version published by Marr is more implicit on that point than the present Armenian Agathangelos: fî ma>§ irati fî-l-karm. 37 There is vast literature on the sacral and ceremonial aspects of royal hunting in Iran and Armenia, cf. e. g., N. G. GARSOÏAN, The Locus of the Death of Kings: Iranian Armenia — The Inverted Image // The Armenian Image in History and Literature / Ed. R. G. HOVANISSIAN (Malibu, Calif.—Undena, 1981) 27–64 (pp. 49ff.; repr. in GARSOÏAN, Armenia Between Byzantium and the Sasanians… Paper N. XI). 38 On Trdat’s tranformation into a boar, see N. G. GARSOÏAN, The Iranian Substratum of the ‘Agat>ange³os Cycle // East of Byzantium: Syria and Armenia in the Formative Period. Dumbatron Oaks Symposium, 1980 / Ed. N. G. Garsoïan, Th. F. Matthews, R. W. Thomson (Washington, 1982) 151–189 (p. 153ff.; repr. in GARSOÏAN, Armenia Between Byzantium and the Sasanians… Paper N. XII). 39 It was observed (ÌÀÐÐ, Êðåùåíèå àðìÿí, ãðóçèí, àáõàçîâ è àëàíîâ
150) that the text of Agathangelos substituted here the older Armenian vran by the newer xoran. Both Armenian words go back ultimatively to Iranian *vi-dâna; besides Armenian vr’an, Middle Persian wyd< n / wy
286
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
in the form of a dome. The larger golden column means the Primacy of Armenia, and the smaller red columns stand for the virgin martyrs Rip>simç, Gayanç and others. Then St. Gregory builds a church on the model of the temple seen in the vision and calls it Eèmiajin, «the Only-Begotten has descended». The point of the story to prove that the Armenian National Church, called later «Gregorian», was commissioned by Jesus and is thus independent from the See of Caesarea; no less important is the ascertion that Armenia became officially converted before the Milano Edict. However, it is evident that while the vision described in Agathangelos is modeled on the vision of Constatntine contaminated with the appearance of the Cross under Constntius on May 7, 352, the visions described in the Georgian texts cannot go directly to the latter and are of secondary character, being dependent on the Armenian version.40 The oldest account on St. Nino, named, however, simply captiva, is found in Rufinus; in MK and KC, too, St. Nino is spoken frequently of as «a captive and foreigner».41 Rufinus’ account was based on the information received from Bacurius, a Georgian prince and a Byzantine general (comes domesti«tent-like celestial sphere», and gorân, used in the sense «a bundle of crops», «so called because of its tent-like sphere», using Navabi’s explanation (for r, compare Armenian vr×an). In Judaeo-Persian, along with wy< n, other forms are found as well, such as gy< n in the Vatican Pentateuch, identical with the mu>arrab form ky< n (kiyân, *giyân, and the hybride gwy< n in the London Pentateuch, both rendersing Hebrew < ohel, «tent», with by< n in other translation). See D. SHAPIRA, Judeo-Persian Translations of Old Persian Lexica: A Case of Linguistic Discontinuity // Persian Origins — Early Judaeo-Persian and the Emergence of New Persian. Collected Papers of the Symposium, Goettingen 1999 / Ed. L. PAUL (Wiesbaden, 2003) 221–242, spec. 228. 40 D. SHAPIRA, Old Georgian Echoes of the Armenian Agathange³os Cycle (forthcoming). Cf. interesting insights in Â. Ì. ËÓÐÜÅ (èåðîìîíàõ Ãðèãîðèé), Âèäåíèå ñâ. Ãðèãîðèÿ Ïðîñâåòèòåëÿ: ñîøåñòâèå íåáåñíîé ñêèíèè íà Íîâûé Ñèîí // http: //hgr.narod.ru (Ñïèñîê ðàáîò); compare now also M. VAN ESBROECK, L’opuscule sur la Croix d’Alexandre de Chypre et sa version géorgienne // Bedi Kartlisa 37 (1979) 102–132 (pp. 129–131). 41 See F. THELAMON, Païens et chrétiens au IVe siècle. L’apport de l’Histoire Ecclésiastique de Rufin d’Aquilée (Paris, 1981) 85–122, where the relevant Latin text is given, translated into French, with a very good analysis; for an English version, see now The Chruch History of Rufinus of Aquileia… 20–23; cf. also B. MARTIN -HISARD, Jalons pour une histoire du culte de Sainte Nino (fin IVe–XIIIe s.) // From Byzantium to Iran. Armenian Studies in Honour of Nina G. Garsoïan / Ed. J.-P. MAHÉ, R. W. THOMSON (Atlanta, GA, 1997) 53–78, pp. 62–64; La Narratio De Rebus Armeniae / Edition critique et commèntaire par G. GARITTE (Louvain, 1952) (CSLO 132, Subsidia 4); cmp. TARCHNIŠVILI, Sources arméno-géorgiennes de l’histoire ancienne de l’église de Géorgie… 29–50 (the table on p. 32 is repeated in THELAMON, Païens et chrétiens au IVe siècle... 92).
D. D. Y. Shapira
287
corum and dux limitis) serving in Palestine between 380394 CE, who is frequently mentioned in both MK and KC. Numerous episodes occurring in MK and KC (and in [pseudo-]Movsçs Khorenac>i dependent on the relevant Georgian versions) have their exact correspondences, even in their chronological order, in Rufinus. The captiva passes her life in praying in her cellula («booth, hovel»), her prayer heals a child and then the Queen, the King refuses to convert, but one day he goes hunting and «a thick darkness fell upon the day», his companions flee, he has lost his way, then he vows in his heart to be Christ’s servant, the daylight comes back and the king returns happily to his city; he converts, and a church is having been put up; then a wooden column «which so many machines and people had been unable to move, suspended upright just above its base, not placed upon it,42 but hanging about one foot in the air».43 Though it is not difficult to see the similarities between the three accounts (the Georgian ones, that of Agathangelos, and that by Rufinus / Bacurius), there are significant differencies, too: the oldest source, that on Rufinus, mentiones a wooden column hanging in the air, but does not mentioned any Cross or Crosses, who later became so important in the Georgian accounts and in that of Agathangelos; the Georgian traditions are uncertain about the number of the Crossess and even confuse the Cross with the Column of Light and with the wooden column put up in the church.44 The Vine Cross of St. Nino is absent from Rufinus, too; however, she is told to dwell in a cellula, a word meaning a dwelling place propriate for a captiva, but it may have also some religious overtones; of course, it might easily refer to a booth in a garden. I will not deal here the motifs of the Crosses appearing in a vision,45 but rather concentrate myself on some episodes found in MK and absent from Rufinus and Agathangelos. 42
For the wording, compare Lament 4:6. The translation by Amidson (The Chruch History of Rufinus of Aquileia… 22). 44 Cf., e. g., TARCHNIŠVILI, Sources arméno-géorgiennes de l’histoire ancienne de l’église de Géorgie… 36–37. 45 Rufinus’ account on the convertion of Georgia was inserted into an Armenian translation of Historia Ecclesiastica of Socrates, made by Philon of Tirak in 696; there a mention of the «Cross of Mc>xet>a» is already found; see PEETERS, Les débuts du Christianisme en Géorgie… 46–47; P. PEETERS, A propos de la version arménienne de l’histore de Socrate // Annuaire de l’Institute de philologie et d’histoire orientales et slaves 2 (1934) 647–675 (pp. 650–651); TARCHNIŠVILI, Sources arménogéorgiennes de l’histoire ancienne de l’église de Géorgie… 35. One may suggest that the emphasis on the crosses in these rather early Armenian and Georgian traditions should have been seen also in the context of the extensive veneration of the cross in the Persian («Nestorian») Church; on the Georgian-Nestorian context in the mid-5th century, cf. PEETERS, Jérémie, évèque de l’Ibérie perse… 5–33. 43
288
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
I take it for granted that these episodes were intented to be not without some mystical implications. They deal with garden, bramble bush, booth, and the place prepared with love in the royal garden, all of them without parallels in Agathangelos (though in the last case, a contamination is possible or even inspiring). Now, I would present my attempt at interpretation.
II S neh and Sinai The word translated here as «bramble bush» (maqoulovani) which is outside the walls, where St. Nino prayed and erected her Vine Cross, is the Old Georgian word for «burning bush» revealed to Moses on Mt. Sinai / Horeb. The Hebrew for «burning bush» is s#neh,46 translated batos by the Greek; the botanic identification remains a problem.47 It is to be noted that Sinai was extremely closely associated, in Middle Eastern traditions, with Moses’ burning bush not only because the vision of the burning bush took place on this mountaine, but also because of similarity in sound. One might take it for certain that the original Hebrew Biblical text played with the alliteration between s#neh and Sinai, and, actually, the name of the mountain may mean «the mountain of the burning bush».48 In the Qur<ânic verses, surah 23.20, Sainâ< / Sînâ<, Sinai, and surah 95.2, sinîn, meaning, according to many Islamic authors, both Sinai and burning bush, show how close both notions were confused, probably not without some Christian and/or Jewish impact. In the latter Christian tradition the «burning bush», batoj, became identical with Mt. Sinai, symbolizing the Old Testamental revelation. In the New Testament, there are two slightly different usages of the word batoj [Lk 6.44, thornbush, elsewhere in the New Testament — bush], rendered by the New Testament Greek, having been based on the Septuagint text, invariably batos, which, according to Liddell-Scott,49 is «bramble-bush» or «wild raspberry»; the Armenian version, so close to the Georgian one, has in Luke 6.44 (thornbush) moreni, «blackberry, mulberry», moreni being «briIt must be a non-proper Hebrew [i. e., a dialectal] form of *ðçn, «tooth» > «thorny,» in Aramaic and Syriac sanyâ[<]. 47 Cf. The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon with an appendix containing the Biblical Aramaic (Massachusetts, 1979) 702: a thorny bush, perh. blackberry bush, Löw: rubus fruticosus, Meissner: blackberrybush; a kind of Rubus, Rubus sanctus. 48 This was, in fact, the view expressed by some medieval Jewish commentators (Nachmanides to Deutoronomy 1.6; Narboni to «Guide to Perplexed», I I.32; R. David Kimche, Sepher ha-Šorâšîm). 49 An Intermidiate Greek-English Dictionary, founded upon the seventh edition of Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon (18891; Oxford, 1991). 46
D. D. Y. Shapira
289
er, bramble, blackthorn, pyracantha»;50 this moreni is used in the Armenian Bible also in Exodus 3.2 (burning bush). To the best of my knowledge, it is the Old Georgian tradition only which identifies the «burning bush», i. e., the Greek batos, as «bramble bush» (maqoulovani).51 The bramble bush of St. Nino was located outside the Royal Garden and outside the walls. This must symbolize, from the Christian point of view, the Old Testamental deprival of Grace, as the Royal Garden stands for Paradise: who is the King if not God? This «Old Testamental» wilderniss (outside of the walls)52 of the Sinai’s brambling bush is, however, gracely shaded by the presence of the cross, and not simply a cross, but a cross of vine, with vine being almost proverbial symbol of Israel. It is in place to remind here that in Eastern Christendom, vines are consecrated at the feast of Transfiguration, being perhaps not only a reflection of the natural course of things, but also a hidden allusion to the transfer of Grace from Israel to Israel.53
50
On this word, cf. H. HÜBSCHMANN, Armenische Grammatik. I (Leipzig, 1897)
394. Cf. Yerušalmi, Ma>asçrôth 1.2, äðñ éáðò. Compare Heb 13.12; I owe this reference to V. M. Lourié. 53 Compare the account of Abiathar in the version of MK on the baptism of the princes (Georgian for «baptism, conversion to Christianity» means in fact «illumination, enlightment», cf. note 9 above) xolo saxÿli eliozisi iqquari). There was a small house of worship, their resting place, upon which St. Nino erected the Cross of the Christ». This resting place (samare) means in fact «grave» (samarxÿi, «burial place, funeral expenses»; samarxÿ o, «lenten fare»), so the Cross of the Christ was in fact erected on Jewish graves (said to be, by a characteristic «Freudian slip», «their place of worship»); the purpose of this erecting a cross was, apparently, redeeming the straying souls of the Jewish dead (an analogy to this Christian practice can be easily seen in the recent arising of a cross, by Catholics, in Auschwitz; I should note, in passing, that this small episode is sufficient to repell, once and forever, the widespread and confusing notion that St. Nino’s Vita may reflect some historical Jewish past). This place became later known as «the illumination / baptism of the princes». But this cross is a tree, samotxeyi in Old Georgian, and this word was used for «Paradise» (like Armenian draxt), cf. D. SHAPIRA, An Aramaic-Irano-Armenian Note // Iran & Caucasus II. Research Papers from the Caucasian Centre for Iranian Studies, Yerevan / Ed. G. ASATRIAN (Teheran, 1998) 92–101, see 95; on the other hand, in Armenian (gerezman), Persian and many Iranian and non-Iranian dialects of the area, the old Iranian word for «Paradise» became to be used in the sense of «tomb, grave», cf. ibid. 97, n. 15. So, establishing a cross on the graveyard means in Old Georgian, tautologically, leading to Paradise. 51 52
290
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
However, the said above seems to not contradict Ephrem’s view in his Hymns of Paradise,54 where Paradise is typified by Sinai. At the summit of Paradise, seen as a mountain, stands the Glorious One (Jesus). Upon the heights (rawmâ[<]) is where Moses resides. In Ephrem’s description, Aharon corresponds to the slopes (gabbç[<]) of Paradise, while the people of Moses are compared with the lower slopes (ðphûlç[<]) of Paradise.55 A text from Ephrem illustrative of this is as follows: A symbol of the divisions in that Garden of Life did Moses trace out in the Ark and on Mount Sinai too (HdP II.13).56 This implies that Ephrem ties together «Garden (of Life)», «tabernacle»57 and «Mt. Sinai», with the notion of «bramble bush» apparently included into the idea of «Sinai». Apparently, the Biblical festival of Tabernacles was reintrpreted by Christians as that of the Burning Bush. The «tabernacle» he keeps in mind is that connected with both «Mt. Sinai», i.e., that built by Moses in the wilderness, and with the «Garden (of Life)», Paradise, realized as «abode». Now we go straight into the «tabernacles of Paradise», rajskie kuèi.
III Mis=ka[n and sukka[h The booth built by king Bratman / Bartam where St. Nino rested after the statue of Armazi was shattered is designated as sagrilobeli [the version of KC called this structure simply sagrili, «shade»], which could be seen to be a specific Jewish or Judeo-Christian word taken from an ancient Judeo-Georgian parlance, used by Judaizers (or even Jews?) as a substitute for the Aramaic m ll<, sukkâh, the ritual booth built by the Jews at the festival of Tabernacles, or, Sukkôth.58 The Aramaic word is formed from the root Tÿ LL, «sha54
I am very thankfull to Christopher Back for calling my attention to Ephrem’s material and sharing with me his ideas. 55 Similar material is found also in Jewish sources (no Jesus, of course); cf., e. g., Mekhilta d’Rabbi Sim’on b. Jochai: Fragments in Geniza Cairensi digessit apparatu critico, notis, profatione instrucxit / Ed. J. N. EPSTEIN, E. Z. MELAMED (Jerusalem, 1956) 145 (19.24); Mechilta D’Rabbi Ismael cum variis lectionibus et adnotationibus / Ed. H. S. HOROVITZ, I. A. RABIN (Frankfurt, 1928–1931; Repr.: Jerusalem, 1960) 218 (par. 4). 56 ST. EPHREM THE SYRIAN, Hymns of Paradise / Trans. by S. BROCK (Crestwood, NY, 1990). 57 «Ark», «tent», «tabernacle», all of them stand stand for the same object; on the problem of translation, cf. N. D. OSBORN, Tent or Tabernacle? // The Bible Translator 41/2 (1990) 214–221. 58 On sukkâh, cf. R. PATAI, Man and Temple in Ancient Jewish Myth (London, 1947) (see index); J. RUBENSTEIN, The Sukka as Temporary or Permanent Dwelling //
D. D. Y. Shapira
291
dow», which means also «to cover»; the Georgian word sa-gril-obel-i is from «shade», gril-, thus rendering only one meaning of the Semitic word (shadow). In Semitic and Iranian both «shadow» and «canopy, pavilion» were frequently rendered by the same word;59 though from the architectonical point of view it is not entirely clear what exactly this sagrilobeli was, I suppose that sagrilobeli was not different from what is called now in Georgia by the word talvari; and in this case, Judeo-Persian sâyah would fit perfectly the Old Georgian usage of sagrilobeli.60 It is not implied here that the Georgian word sagrilobeli was coined especially by Jews in order to render their Aramaic word for «ritual booth»; they — or, Kartlian Judaizers — rather adopted an existing Kartvelian word. I suppose that the Jews — or, Kartlian Judaizers — did not use of talavari, Modern Georgian talvari, because it had already been appropriated by Christians and/or Manichaeans.61 As a matter of fact, the word talavari seems to be more suitable for all the additional religious overshades of «booth». Hebrew Union College Annual 64 (1993) 137–166; J. L. RUBENSTEIN, The Symbolism of the Sukkah // Judaism 43 (1994) 371–387; Y. NAGGAN (GANK), Arba>at ha-minim ke-qorban ba-halakhah šel îaZaL // Da>at 49 (2001–2002) 5–33, esp. 15–20. 59 Sogdian sayâk means both «shadow» and «canopy, pavilion», with Christian Sogdian texts rendering Greek óêÞíç by sy
292
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
on the mission to Georgia, cf. W. B. HENNING, Two Manichæan Magical Texts, with an Exursus on the Parthian ending çndçh // BSOAS 12.1 (1947) 39–66, p. 49, n. 1, and HALOUN, HENNING, The Compendium of the Doctrines and Styles of the Teaching of Mani… 206; S. N. C. LIEU, Manichaeism in Mesopotamia and the Roman East (Leiden, 1994) (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World / Ed. R. VAN DEN BROEK, H.-J. W. DRIJVERS, H. S. VERSNEL. 118) 35. Manichaeaism was spread in Georgia, as well in Armenia; Manichaean Parthian M216b and M2230 texts mention the land Waruèân, recounting the story of the conversion of Hbz< the šâh of Warûè; the country was identifyed with Wlwc
D. D. Y. Shapira
293
In Georgia nowadays talvari is used for a vineyard booth, an indispensable feature in every country house.62 Another meaning of the word is «trellis», as in Iranian dialects.63 Unlike sagrilobeli, which is purely Georgian, Old Georgian talavari (Modern Georgian talvari) is a Parthian loan word, known also in Armenian as ta³awar. It is impossible to decide whether the word entered Georgian via Armeniaca or independently.64 But the meaning attested for the word in the early Georgian literature is somewhat different from the modern («trellis») usage.65 In both Armenian and Georgian the word ta³awar, ta³avar, talavari, means «tabernacle», especialy as the designation of the ritual booth built by Jews at the Feast of Tabernacles, being thus synonimical with sagrilobeli. As to the the semantical range of meanings of talavari, it seems to be a «Bibleism», copying Hebrew / Aramaic miškân / mašk#nâ,66 meaning both «tabernacle» and «booth; tent; abode». In an apocryphical composition, the «Book of Adam and Eve»,67 whose date and provenance are still disputable,68 there is an incident preserved only
62
I owe this information to Prof. K. Lerner. As Benveniste (BENVENISTE, Mots d’emprunt iraniens en arménien
6768), has shown, in different Iranian dialects (Gîlâk", Velâtrû, Tâjîkî), tâlâr signifies both une construction de pieux ou de planches destinée à étayer des ceps de vigne and une grande salle. Georgian authors regard talvar in Azeri, where it has both meanings, as a Georgian loan word. However, it might be an old Iranian substratum word. 64 ANDRONIKASHVILI, Studies in Iranian-Georgian Linguistic Contacts… 171, 272– 173, derived the Georgian form from Parthian talvâr, via Armeniaca; unattested in J. GIPPERT, Iranica Armeno-Iberica. Studien zu den iranischen Lehnwörtern im Armenischen und Georgischen. I–II (Wien, 1993) (Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften). 65 Cf. Luke 9.33, Mattew 17.4. 66 Armenian ta³awar translates the Greek óêÞíç (Hebrew sukkâh and miškân; the Armenian translation was made from Syriac circa 415, according to the native tradition); Old Georgian has talavari for óêÞíç in the New Testament, but kÿ aravi for sukkâh, as in Leviticus 23.42; cf. BENVENISTE, Mots d’emprunt iraniens en arménien... 68; Bielmeier (R. BIELMEIER, Zu iranischen Lehnwörter im Georgischen und Armenischen // Sprachwissenschaftliche Forschungen. Festschrift für Johann Knobloch / Ed. H. M. Ölberg, G. Schmidt, H. Botlien (Insbruck, 1985) (Insbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft 23) 33–42, p. 35) reports of Old Georgian talari, «Laube»; as to the form and the meaning, cf. New Persian tâlâr. 67 The Armenian name is «Penitence of Adam», cf. M. E. STONE, The Penitence of Adam / Ed. R. DRAGUET (CSCO 429–430. Scriptores Armeniaci 13–14) (Leuven, 1981). 68 Cf. M. E. STONE, A History of the Literature of Adam and Eve (Atlanta, Georgia, 1992) (Society of Biblical Literature. Early Judaism and its Literature. Number 03). Cf. also Literature on Adam and Eve. Collected Essays / Ed. by G. ANDERSON, M. STONE, J. TROMP (Leiden, 2000) (Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha 15). 63
294
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
in Armenian and Georgian,69 where the word ta³awar / talavari appears. The so-called «Books of Adam and Eve» survive in a variety of languages and in diverse forms; none of these books derives from any of the others,70 but the Armenian and Georgian71 versions are of a great importance.72 Those two last versions kept a very old and genuine Jewish tradition: when the first human couple was expelled from Paradise, they built a booth (ta³avar in Armenian, talavari in Georgian), in the east of Eden (Armenian / Georgian 1:1; Latin, 1:1, without specification of location). One could suggest that in the archetype of this composition, the first human couple were bereft of the Divine Glory of š#khînâh, which was their garments, according to Jewish midrashic texts. This Jewish tradition was known to Armenian sources, sometimes regarded as «heterodox». In the Paulician treatise «The Key of Truth» it is stated:73 «furthermore he [Jesus] then put on that primal raiment of light which Adam lost in the garden», naes and zgec>aw zlousi¬çn patmouèann zar¡ajÔin zor koroys Adamn i draxtin.74 This reference to «that primal raiment of light» in the context of Adam’s story in the Paulician tradition is important, as, according to Garsoïan, ib., pp. 155, 233, the oldest strata of the Paulician tradition treats «the story of Adam and Eve in its traditional form», on the one hand, and represents the «original Christianity received from Syria», on the other. It is also plausible to suggest that the miškân, talavar, was supposed to substitute the š#khînâh (which is formed from the same root) that they had lost.
69
For the Armenian text, cf. STONE, The Penitence of Adam…; for the Georgian text, cf. C. K>URC>IKIDZE, Adamis Apokrifuli cxovrebis kartuli versia // Philological Studies 1 (1964) 97–136 [Georgian] and J.-P. MAHÉ, Le Livre d’Adam géorgien // Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religion / Ed. R. van den Broek, M. J. Vermaseren (Leiden, 1981) 227–260. 70 STONE, A History of the Literature of Adam and Eve… 6. 71 It is not unprobably that there existed an Armenian intermediary for the Georgian composition which was older that the extant Armenian, though the evidence for an Armenian Vorlage of the Georgian is not strong, cf. STONE, A History of the Literature of Adam and Eve… 38, n. 106; 39. 72 The Georgian version was even taken to be the best witness to the Adam Book, cf. STONE, A History of the Literature of Adam and Eve… x–xi, 69; J.-P. MAHÉ, Notes philologiques sur la version géorgienne de la Vita Adae // Bedi Kartlisa 41 (1983) 51–65 (p. 65). 73 Cf. N. G. GARSOÏAN, The Paulician Heresy. A Study of the Origins and Development of Paulicianism in Armenia and the Eastern Provinces of the Byzantine Empire (Paris, 1967) 153 n. 6. 74 On the meaning of that last Armenian word and its etymology, cf. SHAPIRA, An Aramaic-Irano-Armenian Note… 95 & 97, n. 15.
D. D. Y. Shapira
295
Building this talavar-booth thus was an attempt to return to the conditions of the lost Paradise,75 where the rightous ones «sit, when their crowns are on their heads, enjoying from the Divine Splendor»,76 «in their booths»,77 as it is obvious from the next description of Adam and Eve’s quest for food, being not just a «housing solution»: Adam and Eve are not described in this composition as Kulturträger of any sort or civilizing inventors. In the Babylonian Talmud we are told that «the Holy One Blessed Be He, will make seven booths for every single righteous one».78 It was noted that the mention of «wreaths»79 in Jubilees’ description of the first Feast of Tabernacles, held by Abraham, is striking as it implies soteriological dimensions of booth-dwelling.80 In traditions about the Rechabites, the righteous heterodox Hebrews, legends about whom were very early connected with the traditions about the Lost Tribes, we have some soteriological hints as reflected in the mention of «tabernacle»: in the Aramaic Targum to Jeremiah the Hebrew word for tents,
75
Note that Bartman’s sagrilobeli was placed outside the Royal Garden, on a mountainous (Azazel-like?) ridge. In the Islamic lore, especially, among heterodox groups of Western Iran and Kurdistan, Adam and Eve are said to be settled by Gabriel, in the Garden, in a green tent (khaimah). 76 Cf. Berrakhoth 17a: «The righteous are sitting and enjoying from the Splendor of š# khînâh», äðéëùä åéþî íéðäðå íäéùàøá íäéúåøèòå ïéáùåé íé÷éãö 77 TB Baba Bathra 75. Hence the otherwise badly attested rajskie kuèi? 78 Baba Bathra 75: ÷éêö ìëì úåôåç òáù úåùòì ä"á÷ä êéúò. 79 Hebrew úåøèò*: «...they should celebrate it and dwell in booths and set wreaths upon their heads and take leafy boughs and willows from the brook», Jubilees, XVI 31. stephanos tçs zwçs (Rev. 2.10, 2 Tim. IV 8) is known also from the Babylonian Talmud, Megillah 15b. 80 Cf. R. H. CHARLES, The Book of Jubilees (London, 1902) 118, n. 30. For this work, see now C. J. VANDERKAM, The Book of Jubilees (Sheffield, 2001). 81 Vulgata uses urbes tabernaculorum for úåðëñî éøò in Exodus 1.11; it means, Hieronimus did not discern here between * ïkÈñî and * ïkÈùî (because of his difficulty to discern between s and š?) and for him ïkÈùî is always «a tabernacle». On how to render the two Hebrew words into English, cf. N. D. OSBORN, Tent or Tabernacle? // The Bible Translator 41.2 (April 1990) 214–221. 82 Bar-Koni’s account on Manichaeaism is to be found in H. POGNON, Inscriptions mandates des coupes de Khouabir (Paris, 1898) 125–131 and in A. SCHER, Theodore bar Konai, Liber Scholiorum (Paris, 1912) (CSCO srip. syri, ser. II. 66) 311–318. 83 For the text and translation cf. now M. BROSHI, The Damascus Document Reconsidered (Jerusalem, 1992).
296
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
The Jewish commentator Rashi to Hosea 12.10, «[I] will yet make thee to dwell in tabernacles»,84 makes clearer the point about the eschatological functions of sukkâh when he writes «I will arise from your midst savants ... as in the days of the first mô> çd (period / tabernacle) when Jacob was a pious man, tabernacle-dweller»85 and the Targum has «I will make you to dwell in mišknayyâ< (Plural)86 ». So in the World to Come the pious ones will dwell in Tabernacles. It is worth notice that the Messiah will give to the Gentiles «a small commandment, the commandment of sukkâh» (mis³ wah qallah ... usukkâh š mâh),87 thus the deed attributed to St. Nino may reflect this particular Jewsih tradition. The parallels from the Jewish Intertestamental literature are important for better understanding of St. Nino’s sagrilobeli. The Talmudic parallels are also important, as they preserve ancient traditions, but may seem less relevant. However, the spiritualization of «tabernacle» is to be found also in the Mandaean tradition. As is well known, all the Mandaean cult is held by crowned priests called «kings»,88 malkiia, in ritual huts maškniia,89 nowadays called mand". The Proto-Mandaeans were called mškny< by Theodore bar Koni.90 But miškân has several meanings in Hebrew whence the Mandaean form derives: it is not only an old [and Aramaic] word for «tent», or a word for «tabernacle» (clearly similar in meaning to «Tabernacle of the Congregation», çd), it is also a general and archaic term for «dwelling place» and even for «palace» (like New Persian tâlâr). Aramaic Targums used ma lâlâ for both çd is obviously Feast of Tabernacles. 86 íã÷ éîåéë ïéðëùîá êðéáúåà. 87 Cf. Abodah Zara 3a. 88 «Angels» or «apostles» also seem to be a propriate rendering based on a popular etymology, especially possible in Mandaic, with a very complicating re-groupping of roots in this Aramaic dialect. It this context, I dare to make a suggestion: were not the presupposed links of Jesus’ community with the Proto-Mandaeans or with one of similar sects using similar semantics the reason why his pupils called themselves «apostles»? Cf. also D. SHAPIRA, Anuš and >Uèrâ Revised: Notes on AramaicIranian Linguistic Interaction and Mystical Traditions // Kabbala: International Journal for the Study of Jewish Mystical Texts 6 (2001) 151–182. 89 The Mandaic maškan / maškna, «a cult-hut» was studied by G. FURLANI, I Termini Mandei per Tempio, Santuario e Chiesa // Studi Orientalistici in Onore di Giorgio Levi Della Vida. Vol. I (Roma, 1956) 341–360 (pp. 348–352, inter alia). 90 Cf. K. RUDOLPH, Die Mandäer, I. Prolegomena: Das Mandäerproblem (Göttingen, 1960) 32, n. 5; cf. now D. KRUISHEER, «Theodor Bar Koni’s Ketâbâ d-Eskolyon as a Source for the Study of Early Mandaeism // Ex Oriente Lux. Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap 33 (1993–1994 [1995]) 151–169. 84 85
D. D. Y. Shapira
297
«Clouds of Glory» and «canopy», h³ uppâh, were used. It is exactly in this sense that the word sagrilobeli is used in the Old Georgian Vita Nino, one of the oldest Georgian texts, from gril-, «shade» (like the Aramaic mt³ll<, Arabic ma½allat-un, Hebrew sukkâh and s# khâkhâh), comparable in function to that of talavari. In Nestorian writings ganônâ[< ],91 formed from a root meaning «to cover»,92 «a wedding chamber»,93 is closely connected with the Tree of Life and the Spring of Paradise; the decriptions of the wedding hut in the Acts of Thomas (whose Manichaean relations are well established) and of the Mandaean bride chamber are identical; the original word for íõìöùí in the Manichaean Psalms, where we now have the Coptic manSeleet, must be *ganônâ[< ].94 This word, in the form of gnwn<, is found in Mandaic;95 one notes that this connection to the Tree of Paradise might have been inspired by Song of Songs 1:17, «the beams of our house[s] are cedar, and our rafters of fir / cypresses»,96 qôrôth bâttçnû < arâzîm, r hîçnû b rôthîm, where the notion of hieros gammos is obvious.97 It must be noted that ganônâ[<] means «a covered hid91
I had presupposed that the talvar word in Parthian must be identical in meaning also with the Syriac ganônâ[< ], and indeed, as Professor W. Sundermann (Berlin) kindly informed me, he found [after our conversation on this Parthian word] a new Manichaean Parthian version of the New Testament fragments where the Parthian talwâr stands for the Syriac ganônâ[< ]. 92 At least, as a popular etymology by contamination with an existing root; according to G. WIDENGREN, Culture Contact, Cultural Influence, Cultural Continuity, and Synkretism. Some Views on My Prevoius Work // Religios Synkretism in Antiquity. Essays in Conversation with Geo Widengren / Ed. B. A. PEARSON (Missoula, Montana, 1975) 1–20; p. 3, Akkadian ganûnu < Sumerian ganun > Syriac ganônâ[< ]. 93 The motif of Heavenly Bridegroom is stressed in the Armenian version of KC and in Teachings of St. Gregory, cf. R. W. THOMSON, The Teaching of St. Gregory: An Early Armenian Catechism (Cambridge, Mass. 1970) § 441, and THOMSON, Rewriting Caucasian History... 88. 94 Cf. G. WIDENGREN, Mesopotamian Elements in Manichaeism (Uppsala—Leipzig 1946) (King and Savior II) 118–120. 95 Cf. Ibid. 120, n. 1. 96 Both trees mentioned in this verse pay important role in the accounts of St. Nino discussed in Part I of this paper. 97 About ganônâ[<], referring to hieros gammos, cf. also W. B. HENNING, A Sogdian God // BSOAS 28.2 (1965) 242–254, esp. 242–244. In a Jewish wedding, the two to be married are standing under a Chuppah, h³ uppâh, which imitates a tent, being the word used by texts quoted above in our context of tabernacle (it stands as a synonym for sukkâh); in Revelation 21.2–3, Jerusalem, which is the tabernacle, decsends like a bride ornated for her bridegroom; cf. TB Sukkah 2ab; cf. also the forthcoming Hebrew article by Michael Shneider, «Hieros Gammos in Potiphera House: “Joseph and Asenath”, the Merkabah Literature and Sefer ha-Bahir».
298
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
ing place», some kind of sukkâh, and, on the other hand, one should observe that in Old Georgian, the word for «tree» is used simply for «Paradise».98 Important is that both the Song of Songs context and that of the Adam Book and Manichaean99 Parthian fragments to be refered to below speak about a human couple, a man and a woman, in a context with nuptial, if not sexual, overtones. The imaginery of a wedding as a royal ceremony is common in the Eastern-Meditteranean tradition, and I believe that the designation of Mandaean priests serving in their tabernacles as «kings» might also have something to do with it, as the bridegroom is called «king» in all the Near-Eastern languages. I believe that this episode with *talavar in the Armenian / Georgian versions of the Book of Adam and Eve is old and original. The better translation of the Parthian talavar would be «tabernacle, trellis», while in the Nino episode some other overtones may be traced. Nino was, after all, «the bride of Jesus», and there are indications that our *talavar word, being used in Georgian as synonymous with sagrilobeli, has had also some nuptial semantics. We will deal with this aspect also when we arrive to the third episode, that of the place «prepared with love», or, «prepared for flowers», siquarulod šemzadebuli. But now we turn to the traditional Jewish Midrâš to Song of Songs 5.1 (ed. Donsky 1980, p. 126), «I came to my garden, my sister, my bride...»; the Midrâš explains the word «garden» as if it means «tabernacle» and connects it with the Divine Glory, š#khînâh. The word used here for «tabernacle» is from the same root as the word «garden», like the Nestorian-Syriac and Mandaic terms discussed above, while the normal Jewish word for «tabernacle» is from the same root as the word š#khînâh: ø÷éòå äìçúî éø÷éò äéäù íå÷îì éðepâìÀ — épâìÀ àìà épâìÀ éúÄàaÈ ïkÈùî À Ä äúéä íéðåúçúá àì äðéëùä «I came to my garden... but «to my garden» means «to my tabernacle / bridal chamber», to the place where My origin used to be from the beginning. But was not the origin of the š#khînâh from the beginning among the the Terrestials?» Later on, the text of the Midrâš makes it clear that š#khînâh it means is actually miškân, the tabernacle. This Jewish tradition has several Christian parallels, and it explains easily why St. Nino built her booth in the garden. Actually, the word in question means also «bridal chamber» and is well attested in Syriac (cf. above). Jewish texts, too, do play on this meaning of the word, as well as on the words «my sister, my bride».100 98
Cf. SHAPIRA, An Aramaic-Irano-Armenian Note... 92–101. References to Adam are found in the Manichaean text in Greek called «Mani Cologne Codex», 48,15–50,7, cf. A. HENRICHS, L. KOENEN, Der Kölner Mani-Kodex (P. Colon. inv. nr. 4780). Edition der Seiten 1–85 // Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 19 (1975) 1–85 (pp. 48–51). 100 WaYiqra Rabbah 9.6, BaMidbar Rabbah 13.2. 99
D. D. Y. Shapira
299
In another Passage in Ephrem, HdP III.5, 13; XV.8, the Tree of Knowledge is described as the sanctuary curtain or veil, or, better, the inside of the palace (Syriac appay tar>â[< ]101 ), while the Tree of Life is the inner sanctuary or holy of holies (HdP III.5, 14; Syriac q#dûð qudðç[< ]; compare the tree of the Life-giving Column of Light installed — and wrapped in a veil — in the holy of holies of the Mc>xet>a church or in Aksum and Lalibela!). We remember that building a *talavar, a sukkâh, was caused by the first human eating from the Tree of Knowledge, and in Mc>xet>a, the altar of the church was built on the place of the brinji tree. The Tree of Knowledge is half-way up the mountain of Paradise, while the Tree of Life is at the summit of Paradise (HdP III.2). Paradise symbolizes both the Temple and the Church, and vice versa, of course: Tabernacle is equal to Paradise.102 The Manichaean milieu in Georgia was already refered to. Warûèân (Iranian for Georgia) is mentioned in an early Manichaean text in Iranian. In a Manichaean Parthian text, which one may call «a Manichaean Q#duššâh / Sanctus»,103 we find: qwfst
In Iranian and Aramaic [and in Hebrew of Esther], the word for gate means also palace. 102 As it is also in Breshit Rabbah 48.10 (sukkâh of Isaiah 4.6 understood as Paradise) and Mekhilta de-Rabbi Yishmael, Be-Šallaú (haqdamah). 103 M. BOYCE, A Reader in Manichaean Middle Persian and Parthian (Leiden, 1975) (Acta Iranica. 2e Série 2) VII. 104 (M 10 R 10 – V 22; E. WALDSCHMIDT, W. LENTZ, Die Stellung Jesu im Manichäismus (Berlin, 1926) (APAW, phil.-hist. Klasse) 126; cf. D. SHAPIRA, Manichaios, Jywndg Gryw and Some Other Manichaean Terms and Titles // Irano-Judaica IV / Ed. SHAUL SHAKED, AMNON NETZER (Jerusalem, 1999) 122– 150. 104 On this word, cf. now SHAPIRA, Judaeo-Persian Translations of Old Persian Material… 227–228. 105 Cf. also W. B. HENNING, The Book of Giants // BSOAS 11 (1943–1946) 52–74 (= Acta Iranica 15. W. B. Henning Selected Papers II (1977) 115–138) 73. 106 Cf. Psalms 114:4,6. 107 bc, see BOYCE, A Reader in Manichaean Middle Persian… 110–111, M33 II R i with M 367 V, W. B. HENNING, Mitteliranische Manichaica aus Chinesisch-Turkestan III // Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 27 (1934) 846–912, h 55–66; 912, n. 1. 108 Cf. SHAPIRA, Manichaios, Jywndg Gryw… 122–150.
300
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
cynd u (15) jywynd y< wyd< n < ndr whyšt o rwcš < st, «they receive (>stglwn
nxwyn ptbg; *patitapataka, M. BOYCE, Sadwes and Pesus // BSOAS 13 (1949– 1951) 908–915; p. 915, n. 3, where Henning is quoted. 110 Ibid. 915, Appendix (12). This text appeared as «bp» in M. BOYCE, Âtað-zôhr and Ab-zôhr // Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (1966) 100–118, see 120–121; the context speaks about the first human couple and the Fallen Angels / Watchers, known from the Henochic tradition. 111 The underlining is mine. The translation is by Boyce (M. BOYCE, The Manichaean Hymn-cycles in Parthian (Oxford, 1954) (London Oriental Series 3) 19, cf. n. 3); the underlined words are tlw< r w< c< fryyd, while w Greek parádeisos. New Persian pâlçz, Armenian p> art> çz, Kurdic pâr’çs, Hebrew pardçs, Aramaic pard#sâ, Arabic (Pl) farâdis > firdaus; Old Turkic borduz, «orchards, melon plantations», K. H. MENGES, The Turkic Languages and Peoples. An Introduction to Turkic Studies (Ural-Altaische Bibliothek, Fortsetzung
D. D. Y. Shapira
301
must have some indispensable features, including running water (including artificial canals), lawns, trees and some outdoor buildings.114 This Parthian word in question, tlwarš, >arîðatun, «a tabernacle, a trellis, a pavillion»,121 der «Ungarischen Bibliothek» / Hrsg. von O. PRITSAK, W. SCHLACHTER XV) (Wiesbaden, 1968) 167 [according to him, the word in Iranian itself is an old «Mediterranian» loan, cf. Basque barac, «garden», with bibliography]. Of course, pardçs in Hebrew does not mean «Paradise», nor does p>art>çz in Armenian (The Middle Persian word for the Garden of Paradise is bôstân [literally «the place of fragrance», whence Aramaic, Hebrew and Arabic bustân], used, e. g., in Bundahishn Ch. 30). On some Aramaic, Armenian and, especially, Georgian terms for «Paradise», cf. SHAPIRA, An Aramaic-Irano-Armenian Note... 92–101. 114 Cf. V. SACKVILLE-WEST, Persian Gardens // Legacy of Persia / Ed. A. J. ARBERRY (Oxford, 1953) 259–291. It is worth noting that the Arabic rauèatu < l-firdaus is completely Iranian, althoug unattested in Iranian proper: rauèah means «a cultivated wadi along a rivulet», from the Later Middle Persian rôdah/g. On gardens in Manichaean eschatology, cf. W. B. OERTER, Das Motiv vom Garten. Betrachtungen zur manichäschen Eschatologie // Manichaica Selecta. Studies Presented to Professor Julien Ries on the Occasion of his sevetieth Birthday / Ed. A. VAN TONGERLOO, SØREN GIVERSEN (Lovanii, 1991) 263–272. 115 BOYCE, Sadwes and Pesus… 915. 116 M. BOYCE, A Word-List of Manichaean Middle Persian and Parthian (Louvain, 1977) (Acta Iranica 9a) 86. 117 É. BENVENISTE, Éléments Parthes en Arménien // Réarm NS 1 (1964) 1–39 (p. 28, n. 99). Cf. also BENVENISTE, Mots d’emprunt iraniens en arménien… 67–68. 118 It seems that this translation was depending on the meaning of < pdn. Compare SHAPIRA, Judaeo-Persian Translations of Old Persian Material… 227–228. 119 G. GROPP, Mitteliranische Glossare und Index zu «Waldschmidt-Lentz» // Neue Methodologie in der Iranistik / Ed. by R. N. FRYE (Wiesbaden, 1974) 7– 48 (p. 19). 120 New Persian tâlâr, «hall», is another continuation of our MIr word. It seems that Gropp (GROPP, Mitteliranische Glossare und Index…) thought of this word when he translated talwâr as «Halle». A reference to the tâlâr-word was made in ANDRONIKASHVILI, Studies in Iranian-Georgian Linguistic Contacts… 273. 121 Compare Arabic >arš = óêÞíç, >arîš, «Bude, Gestall», see Th. NÖLDEKE, Lehnwörter in und aus Athuopischen // IDEM, Neue Beiträge zur semitischen Sprachissenschaft (Strassburg, 1910) 31–65, pp. 51–52. Cf. W. LESLAU, Comparative Dictionary of Ge>ez (Classical Ethiopic) (Wiesbaden, 1987) 71, who quotes South Arabian >ars2, «shed, hut», and Soqotri >ariš, «hut». For the usage of Arabic > arš in the sense of «booth, tabernacle», cf. M. J. KISTER, «A Booth like the Booth of Moses...». A Study
302
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
itself from Aramaic, cf. the Hebrew >arîsâh and also another Hebrew byform for «espalier», >arîs (according to Maimonides, «trellis»122 ); these Semitic words are used also, especialy the Arabic ones, as renderings of the Persian taxt, meaning both «a royal throne» and «a lecticulus» (cf. Syriac >arsônîthâ, Luke 5.19).123 It seems that one of the reasons in choosing talwâr for Aramaic mat³lâlâ was sound association (tal /t³ lâl124 . of an Early îad îth // BSOAS 25 (1962) 150–155: according to the early Muslim tradition, the Prophet refused to allow his followers to have built any masgid but «a booth like the booth of Moses, from a grass and wood ... with a covering of Moses», because the Day of Judgment is at hand (>arîš ka->arîð Mûsâ thumâm wa-khašab fagal min dhâlika). This >arîð Mûsâ, as described in the available sources, was a kind of trellis, in fact, a sukkâh, covered with palm branches but without ceiling; as to the ðcovering of Mosesñ, the h³ adith says that «when [Moses] stood up his head touched the ceiling». Cf. also G. R. HAWTING, Origins of the Muslim Sanctuary at Mecca // Studies on the First Centuries of Islamic Society / Ed. G. H. A. JUYNBOLL (South Illinois UP, 1982). 122 Kilarš was considered by many authors as «royal canopy». 124 As to an etymology of talwâr, I see the problem in the first element tl-. The second element is clear, it is a vrddhi grade from the Iranian var-, «to cover», as in the word vara, «covering, shelter» (noted already in BENVENISTE, Mots d’emprunt iraniens en arménien... 69; cf. ANDRONIKASHVILI, Studies in Iranian-Georgian Linguistic Contacts… 273, who derived the word in question, tentatively, from Ossetic talm, «Ulmus»; on this word cf. ÀÁÀÅÂ, Ñêèôî-ñàðìàòñêèå íàðå÷èÿ
225–226); however, it hardly can be sustained; Benveniste speculated also on a probable link with Sanskrit tâla-, «palmier, arbre»). As to tl-, the Parthian L is very rare, being mostly from *R, but in some cases from (Parnian?) Š, so in the first part of the word in question one can see an irregular, East-Iranian, rendering of *tâš-, «to build, to plane, to cut stones or wood». Cf. Parthian >zwg< l, izgâl — from *uz-gauš, A. GHILAIN, Essai sur la langue parthe, son système verbal d’après les textes manichéens du Turkestan Oriental (Louvain, 1939) (Bibliothèque du Muséon 8) 66; Â. Ñ. ÐÀÑÒÎÐÃÓÅÂÀ, Å. Ê. ÌÎË×ÀÍÎÂÀ, Ïàðôÿíñêèé ÿçûê // Îñíîâû èðàíñêîãî ÿçûêîçíàíèÿ. Ñðåäíåèðàíñêèå ÿçûêè (Ìîñêâà, 1981) 147–232, p. 180; N. SIMS-WILLIAMS, Eastern Middle Iranian // Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum / Hrsg. R. SCHMIDT (Wiesbaden, 1989) 165–172, p. 167, commented on this shift: «non-Sogdian forms (in New Persian loan words from East Iranian Languages), however, include ... ispagol «seed of the fleawort», literally «horse-ear» with ... L < *š ...»; ibid., p. 171: «L < *Š, < zgwl- «to hear», with L < * as in Sanglièi and Sariqoli ... Such forms as these have been plausibly attributed to the otherwise unknown language of the Parnians, a tribe of the «Scythian» Dahae...», quoting W. B. HENNING, Mitteliranisch, Iranistik, Handbuch der Orientalistik. Erste Abteilung, vierster Band (Leiden—Köln, 1958) 92–94. Thus, one would derive tl- from *taš, affirming this etymology by a semantic comparison to Aramaic mat³lâlâ, «shelter, hut, booth», used as Aramaic for Hebrew sukkâh (cf. M. JASTROW, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (New York, 1950) 768a), from t³allçl, «to cover» [a sukkâh, i.a.]. It seems
D. D. Y. Shapira
303
Thus, the Parthian talwâr was used, on semantic and etymological grounds, as an Iranian125 equivalent of Aramaic *mašk# nâ / mat³lâlâ. It is not impossithat this Aramaic verb was used also for «to cover with wood», «to screen» (compare the Targum to 1Kings 6.9, wyspn < t hbyt, cf. Jastrow, p. 537b) [Hebrew t³all"th, «tallith, talles, praying shawl», «*a covering», is from the same root, with additional contamination of the roots for «to hang», tâlâh and t³lal; as to t³allçl, the Hebrew word used in Nehemia 3.15 is an Aramaeism]. As an alternative etymology of talwâr, a comparison to the second element of the Manichaean Middle Persian b< rg tš, «a strong wall» (cf. W. B. HENNING, A List of Middle Persian and Parthian Words // BSOS 9/1 (1937) 79–92, p. 88), may have been suggested. Here the order of the two elements is inverted; however, the derivation of b< rg from Avestan vara- is questionable, cf. I. M. ORANSKIJ, Notes Irano-Slaves. Vieil Iranien VAR- / Russe Dialectal VAR // Acta Iranica 5 (Monumentum H. S. Nyberg) (1975) 139–143, p. 10. On the other hand, tala might be an old Iranian word: Finnish tala, Livonian talz#D, «šalaš, labaz», «Laube», were seen as an Indo-Iranian loan word (A. J. JOKI, Uralier und Indogermanen. Die ältesten Berührungen zwischen den uralischen und ingermanischen Sprachen (Helsinki, 1973) (Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia 151) 324), but Gamkrelidze & Ivanov (Ò. Â. ÃÀÌÊÐÅËÈÄÇÅ, Â. Â. ÈÂÀÍÎÂ, Èíäîåâðîïåéñêèé ÿçûê è èíäîåâðîïåéöû, ðåêîíñòðóêöèÿ è èñòîðèêî-òèïîëîãè÷åñêèé àíàëèç ïðàÿçûêà è ïðàêóëüòóðû. Ò. III (Òáèëèñè, 1984) 933, n. 2) saw here a Baltic loan word (Prussian talus, «ground»). Professor W. Sundermann informed me that while the second element of talwâr might be -var-, «cover», the first element perhaps is the Semitic all, thus accepting my comparision to the Aramaic mat³l°lâ[< ]; however, such hybrid SemitoIranian word looks to me unlikely. Prof. Sh. Shaked, by an oral communication, proposed to reconstruct talawara as *tarna-vara-, «a moisten / freshy covering». I think this is a convincing etymology, keeping in mind what talwâr was; as to semantics, compare Song of Songs 1.16, ars´çnu råanânâh, «our trellis is fresh», which comes immediately before qôrôth bâttçnû <arâzîm, r#hît³ çnû b#rôthîm, «the beams of our house[s] are cedar, and our rafters of fir». «Freshy shelter» seems to fit in a proper way the nature of the modern Georgian talvari as known. On Song of Songs function in Early Christian exegesis, cf. M. W. ELLIOT, The Song of Songs and Christology in the Early Church (Tübingen, 2000) (Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentums). 125 In passing, I would like to draw attention to a Persian phrase put in the mouth of the Georgian king and found in the St. Nino’s Vita. The phrase reads: hei hei raitmeboy xoZat stabanub rasul psarzad hey hey raytmeboy xoat stabanub rasul psarzad, rightly glossed «O, rightly You say, [O] blessed queen, messenger of the Son of God», reconstructed as *hey hey râ(s)t mç b/gôw" xuja(s)ta šâh bânûg rasûl (i) pusar (i) "zad, where one has to compare the graphic forms: raytmeboy / *ra[s]t me boi and stabanub / *Sah banug. The phrase is in post-Islamic [and dialectal?] New Persian, as it contains the Arabic rasûl; the shift b/g (mç b/gôw") is known from several Iranian dialects; the shift st> t (râ[s]t) is less known; on the contrary, there exists the shift st>s, cf. Sh. SHAKED, Items of Dress and Other Objects in Common Use: Iranian Loanwords in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic // Irano-Judaica III / Ed. Sh. SHAKED, A. NETZER (Jerusalem, 1994) 106–117 (pp. 112–114). The form *banug is actually Middle Iranian (bânûg) rather than New Persian (bânû).
304
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
ble that the Parthian Manichaean fragments where the word is used are reworking of an Aramaic original of the Book of Adam and Eve. Thus, St. Nino’s booth was indeed a substitute for the paradisical Temple (like that seen by St. Gregory in his vision), an idea going back to Jewish sects of the Second Commonwealth Period, who opposed the establishment of the Jerusalem Temple, with this sectarian notion becoming so central in Christianity.
IV Vine, Love, Flowers... Now, let us turn to the third motif, the place «prepared with love», or, «prepared for flowers», siquarulad / saquauiled šemzadebuli, where the Lower Church was built after king Mirian’s conversion (in KC 94.1, where the setting was slightly reworked, it became «the place of a small bush under pine trees, planted for the Lord» [saup>lo šezavebuli]126 ). In my opinion, this is a reference to a locus in the Biblical Song of Songs, 3.10, râs³ûph
D. D. Y. Shapira
305
But if one turns to two other translations based on later Jewish exegesis and closer in time to St. Nino’s period, then, exactly as expected, one finds that the Aramaic Targum renders râs³ûph ilawçh [yath pârûkhtâ<], «covered (as a shadow) from above [by curtain]»,127 and the Vulgate, which reflects Jewish understanding, reads caritate constravit, which is especially close to the Georgian reading. It is to be observed that the verb used in the Targum is t³l"l (from the same root as ma l°lâ, etc.), thus bearing specific connotations in the whole complex of perceptions about tabernacle. In other words, in this MK passage we have a reference to a Georgian translation of Song of Songs older than the extant one; this translation reflects Jewish exegesis, paralleled in the Targum and in the Vulgate. As to the reference to «flowers» in the Georgian variant reading, it is a later one, caused by phonic and graphic similarity (siquarulad / saquauiled),128 albeit we should recall again the flower imagination of the St. Nino Cycle. To sum up: the three episodes dealt with here treat the perception of the tabernacle / booth; there are traces of Judaizing (or Jewish?) traditions in the Old Georgian Vita of St. Nino; in several cases, translations of the Biblical verses presented in this work are different from those known to us from any other Old Georgian translation, with the impact of Jewish exegesis manifest in other cases. And most important, all these features are younger than those found in the relevant account of Rufinus and Agathangelos. It seems to me plausible to suggest that these traditions, reworking the Agathangelos Cycle, while adding new elements unattested there, being, at the same time, a result of a delicate contamination with Rufinus’ account on the nameless captiva, testify to the emergence of an anti-Armenian, ethno-oriented, tendency in the Georgian Church. And, as in so many other cases, Judaizing (or, pseudoJudaizing) overtones served to the end of consolidating of a national church.
127
The Jewish Aramaic translation of ahabhâh by pârûkhtâ[< ], «curtain» (of the Temple) may be not only exegetical, but may reflect a genuine linguistic tradition. It was noted by earlier scholars that in this context the Hebrew word does not mean «love», but designates rather some sort of ornated skin, cf. Atabic < ihâb, «skin», < ahhaba, «to prepare, to equip». 128 However, it was perhapse also influenced by Song of Songs 5.13 and 6.2. The Georgian Biblical texts are based on multiple sources and have undergone constant revision and retranslation for textual and doctrinal reasons; among the oldest sources were Syriac, Armenian, then Greek; it was suggested that some of the Biblical books were translated from the Massoretic Hebrew text, especially Ezekiel, cf. RAYFIELD, The Literature of Georgia… 7.
306
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
–≈«fiÃ≈ ƒ‡Ì ÿ‡Ôˇ »Á‡Ëθ
´— »Õ»fl ¬ ¬»ÕŒ√–¿ƒÕ» ≈ª: Õ≈ Œ“Œ–¤≈ (»”ƒ≈…— Œ√Œ œ–Œ»—’Œ∆ƒ≈Õ»fl?) Œ—Œ¡≈ÕÕŒ—“» ¬ ƒ–≈¬Õ≈√–”«»Õ— ŒÃ ∆»“»» —¬fl“Œ… Õ»Õ¤ Àâòîð ðàññìàòðèâàåò òðè ýïèçîäà èç Æèòèÿ ñâ. Íèíû (ñîõðàíèâøåãîñÿ â ñîñòàâå Îáðàùåíèÿ Ãðóçèè), ñâÿçàííûõ ñ âîñïðèÿòèåì «õèæèíû / êóùè / ñêèíèè».  íåêîòîðûõ ñëó÷àÿõ â òðàêòîâêå ýòèõ ýïèçîäîâ îáíàðóæèâàþòñÿ îò÷åòëèâîå âëèÿíèå èóäåéñêîé è ðàííåé èóäåî-õðèñòèàíñêîé ýêçåãåçû, ïðè÷åì, èíîãäà ýòî âëèÿíèå ïðîÿâëÿåòñÿ â îñîáîé ðåäàêöèè áèáëåéñêèõ öèòàò, áîëåå íå èçâåñòíîé èç äðåâíåãðóçèíñêèõ ïåðåâîäîâ Áèáëèè. Ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ âàæíûì îòìåòèòü, ÷òî ýòè ýëåìåíòû ãðóçèíñêîãî Æèòèÿ ñâ. Íèíû áîëåå ïîçäíèå, ÷åì ïàðàëëåëüíûå èì òðàäèöèè, ïðåäñòàâëåííûå ó Ðóôèíà è Àãàòàíãåëîñà. Ïî ìíåíèþ àâòîðà, íàèáîëåå âåðîÿòíîå îáúÿñíåíèå ôàêòà èñïîëüçîâàíèÿ ýòèõ èóäåéñêèõ (èëè ìíèìî-èóäåéñêèõ) òðàäèöèé â ãðóçèíñêîé ïåðåðàáîòêå àãèîãðàôè÷åñêèõ òðàäèöèé öèêëà Àãàòàíãåëîñà è ñîõðàíåííîãî Ðóôèíîì ïðåäàíèÿ î áåçûìÿííîé «ïëåííèöå» çàêëþ÷àåòñÿ â æåëàíèè óêðåïèòü òåíäåíöèþ Ãðóçèíñêîé öåðêâè ê ñàìîñòîÿòåëüíîñòè è íåçàâèñèìîñòè îò öåðêâè Àðìåíèè.
Stephen J. Shoemaker University of Oregon
THE GEORGIAN LIFE OF THE VIRGIN ATTRIBUTED TO MAXIMUS THE CONFESSOR: ITS AUTHENTICITY (?) AND IMPORTANCE In 1986, Michel van Esbroeck published a new Life of the Virgin Mary that is not only among the most profound and eloquent Mariological writings of early Byzantium but is also of the utmost significance for understanding the historical development of Marian traditions in the early middle ages. This invaluable text survives only in the Georgian language, where it is attested by eleven different manuscripts, although only three of these preserve the complete text.1 Perhaps the most remarkable feature of this Life is its attribution to Maximus the Confessor in the manuscript tradition, which, if accurate, makes the text even more valuable as an historical source. If Maximus is determined to be the author, not only would we be able to identify a relatively precise historical context for the composition of this Life of the Virgin, but our knowledge of Maximus’ life and thought would be considerably enriched by the addition of this new text to his corpus. In the introduction to his translation of the Life, van Esbroeck presents a convincing set of arguments in support of Maximus’ authorship. Nevertheless, it is still somewhat difficult to be entirely certain of the attribution. While van Esbroeck makes an excellent case for the Life of the Virgin’s authenticity, and several features of the text strongly favor this view, it is unfortunately difficult to exclude other possibilities completely. But in the end, regardless of whether Maximus authored this Life or not, it is a thoughtful and often moving meditation on the life of Mary, which almost certainly represents the earliest extant narrative of her complete life. For these reasons alone, this Life of the Virgin deserves to be more widely read and studied than it has been so far.2 The reaction of scholarship to this remarkable new text has been rather peculiar to say the least. After seventeen years, almost no one has engaged van Esbroeck on the question of authorship, and no clear consensus on the 1 The various manuscripts are discussed in M. VAN ESBROECK, Maxime le Confesseur: Vie de la Vierge. 2 vols. (Lovanii, 1986) (CSCO 478–479; Scriptores Iberici, 21–22) Vol. 1. V–XVII. Two are complete (although one lacks a single folio), and a third «complete» manuscript is obtained by combining two separate manuscripts that compliment one another. 2 See also my forthcoming article on this text: S. J. SHOEMAKER, A Marian Gospel: Mary in the Ministry of Jesus and the Early Church according to the Earliest Life of the Virgin // Harvard Theological Review 98/4 (2005): forthcoming.
308
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
issue has emerged. Most troubling, however, is the surprising number of subsequent works on Maximus that have simply ignored this text and the important issues that it raises. Major recent publications on Maximus by Andrew Louth, for instance, completely disregard this new text, including both his volume Maximus the Confessor in Routledge’s «Early Church Fathers» series and a review article entitled «Recent Research on St Maximus the Confessor: A Survey».3 The fact that neither work so much as mentions this newly published Life of the Virgin even in a footnote is surprising, particularly inasmuch as the review article begins with a survey of new textual discoveries and editions. The same is true of the second edition of Lars Thunberg’s Microcosm and Mediator. Although the new edition of this groundbreaking study is mostly a reprint, Thunberg explains that instead of rewriting the entire work, he has expanded the survey to include major new studies and textual editions that have appeared since the first printing (1965): yet the Life of the Virgin is nowhere to be found.4 One suspects that a sort of «argument from silence» is being made by these authors, who have chosen to ignore a work that they consider inauthentic and, consequently, unworthy of notice. Nevertheless, this silence should in no way be taken as representing a consensus either among scholars of Maximus or within the field of Patristics. For instance, a «Maximologist» of no less stature than Hans Urs von Balthasar enthusiastically and unequivocally vouched for the authenticity of the Life’s attribution to Maximus. In a private correspondence with Michel van Esbroeck, written the year before his death and now published by van Esbroeck, von Balthasar writes: What an extraordinary surprise and what a marvelous gift! I thank you with all my heart. I put away everything else and rushed to read the introductions and then the text. It clearly gives us a Maximus who is entirely new but recognizable, as you have demonstrated, and who is involved in a great tradition — known and unknown — and is much more accessible than in most of his theological works.5 3
A. LOUTH, Maximus the Confessor (London, 1996) (Early Church Fathers); A. LOUTH, Recent Research on St Maximus the Confessor: A Survey // St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 42 (1998) 67–84. 4 L. THUNBERG, Microcosm and Mediator: The Theological Anthropology of Maximus the Confessor (Chicago, 19952); see esp. xix–xx. 5 The original text of the letter has been published in Michel VAN ESBROECK, Some Earlier Features in the Life of the Virgin // Marianum 63 (2001) 297–308, 297–298, n. 2: «Basel den 30.1.87. Mon Révérend Père, Quelle extraordinaire surprise et quel merveilleux cadeau! Je vous remercie de tout cœur. J’ai tout abandonné et me suis lancé dans la lecture des introductions, puis du texte. C’est évidemment un Maxime tout nouveau, mais reconnaissable comme vous le prouvez, enchevêtré dans une grande tradition — connue et inconnue — et plus abordable que dans la plupart de ses œuvres théologiques».
S. J. Shoemaker
309
Other scholars have likewise accepted the authenticity of the document, albeit with somewhat less verve. Aidan Nichols, for example, in his survey of modern Continental scholarship on Maximus, accepts the Life of the Virgin as an authentic work of Maximus. In fact, he uses it as the primary source for a chapter on «Maximus’ Mariology»,6 unfortunately without engaging the complicated issues surrounding the attribution to Maximus. Jean-Claude Larchet also treats the Life of the Virgin as a part of Maximus’ corpus in his comprehensive study of Maximus’ theology of Deification, although in his introduction he remarks that the authenticity of this work is «still poorly established».7 Despite this word of caution, however, Larchet begins his study with a quotation from «what is perhaps one of the very first works of Maximus, the Life of the Virgin», which he cites as evidence that Deification was a key concept of in Maximus’ thought from its beginning.8 The Life of the Virgin admittedly does not figure as prominently in Larchet’s study as do Maximus’ other works, no doubt out of concern for its authenticity, but at several points in his investigations Larchet profitably integrates the Life of the Virgin with Maximus’ other writings.9 Larchet’s work is a testimony to how well the Life of the Virgin comports with certain important aspects of Maximus’ theology, and one wishes that he might have pursued such connections further, particularly in his discussion of Christology, where Larchet does not cite the Life of the Virgin at all, even though there appear to be significant points of contact on this topic. The recent supplement to the Clavis Patrum Graecorum adds a rather authoritative endorsement of Maximus’ authorship, by listing the Life of the Virgin among the genuine works of Maximus.10 Nevertheless, the Clavis also indicates an article by Ermanno Toniolo that disputes the attribution to Maximus.11 To my knowledge, this article is so far the only published challenge to Maxi6 A. NICHOLS, Byzantine Gospel: Maximus the Confessor in Modern Scholarship (Edinburgh, 1993) 111–119. Nichols’ remark that van Esbroeck regards the Life of the Virgin as «a direct response to the charge of disprezzo towards the Virgin Mary brought against Maximus by his captors» is incorrect. Van Esbroeck argues that the Life of the Virgin was written early in Maximus’ life, before 626: VAN ESBROECK, Maxime le Confesseur: Vie de la Vierge… Vol. 2. XXX–XXXI. 7 J.-C. LARCHET, La divinisation de l’homme selon saint Maxime le Confesseur (Paris, 1996) (Cogitatio fidei 194) 13; similar hesitancy is expressed in J.-C. LARCHET, Maxime le Confesseur, médiateur entre l’Orient et l’Occident (Paris, 1998) (Cogitatio fidei 208) 81, n. 19. 8 LARCHET, La divinisation de l’homme… 83. 9 Ibid. 264, 355; LARCHET, Maxime le Confesseur… 81. 10 CPG 440, # 7712. 11 E. M. TONIOLO, L’Akathistos nella Vita di Maria di Massimo il Confessore // Virgo Liber Dei: Miscellanea di studi in onore di P. Giuseppe M. Besutti, O.S.M. / Ed. I. M. Calabuig (Roma, 1991) 209–228.
310
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
mus’ authorship of this work,12 but Toniolo’s arguments, which will be examined momentarily, are not especially convincing, as no doubt is reflected in the decision by the Clavis’ editors to identify the Life as an authentic work of Maximus despite this article. Likewise, Simon Mimouni accepts the Life’s attribution to Maximus, in an article that presents the most comprehensive study of the early Byzantine Lives of Mary to date. Although Mimouni’s article raises a few issues regarding some of van Esbroeck’s arguments (not all of which are especially significant), in the end Mimouni concludes that «only with difficulty can one refute, and consequently refuse, the propositions of M. van Esbroeck» in regard to the authenticity of the Life’s attribution to Maximus.13 From these rather positive testimonies, one could perhaps get the impression that Maximus’ authorship of the Life is largely a foregone conclusion, widely acknowledged by scholars of Patristics.14 But as already noted, the culture of silence surrounding this document in certain major recent works on Maximus suggests otherwise. Moreover, before van Esbroeck’s edition and translation, the attribution to Maximus was generally regarded as spurious by those few scholars who had actually considered the text. Consequently, it seems necessary to revisit the issue of the Life’s authorship in hopes of better ascertaining the likelihood of its authenticity. The prolific Georgian scholar Korneli Kekelidze first announced the existence of a Life of the Virgin attributed to Maximus during the final years of the Russian Empire, in an article published by the Kiev Theological Academy in 1912.15 Not long thereafter, Robert Blake identified copies of this same Life in his catalogue of the Georgian manuscripts of the Greek Ortho12
G. GHARIB, Testi mariani del primo Millennio. 4 vols. (Rome, 1988–1991) Vol. 2. 183 takes a position of agnosticism, arguing that at present it is not possible to know whether the attribution is genuine or not. Gharib calls for further critical study, particularly of the Life of the Virgin’s sources and its relation to the Lives of the Virgin by John the Geometrician and Symeon the Metaphrast, questions which are the focus of the present study. 13 S. C. MIMOUNI, Les Vies de la Vierge: État de la question // Apocrypha 5 (1994) 211–248, esp. 216–220. As will be seen below, some of Mimouni’s doubts concerning the relationship between the Georgian Life and the Lives by John the Geometrician and Symeon the Metaphrast are addressed below, and others were already raised and addressed by van Esbroeck in his edition. Also, Mimouni’s attempt to question the Life’s authenticity based on the history of the development of Marian doctrine is not persuasive: see S. J. SHOEMAKER, Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition and Assumption (Oxford, 2002) (Oxford Early Christian Studies) esp. ch. 3. 14 M. O’CARROLL, The Life of Mary // The Irish Theological Quarterly 53 (1987) 234–236 also accepts the authenticity of the Life of the Virgin, on the basis of van Esbroeck’s arguments. 15 Ê. ÊÅÊÅËÈÄÇÅ, Ñâåäåíèÿ ãðóçèíñêèõ èñòî÷íèêîâ î Ìàêñèìå Èñïîâåäíèêå [K. KEKELIZE, Information from Georgian Sources Concerning Maximus the Confessor] // äòèóãäáè ûåäêè õàðçóêè êèòäðàòóðèñ èñòíðèèãàì (Etiudebi zveli
S. J. Shoemaker
311
dox Patriarchate of Jerusalem.16 From the beginning, however, Kekelidze in particular expressed strong doubts concerning the authenticity of the Life’s attribution to Maximus, and perhaps his skepticism played a role in delaying the document’s publication for so long. Kekelidze most clearly challenges the attribution in his monumental history of Old Georgian literature, first published in 1923.17 There he rather confidently rejects the attribution to Maximus as spurious and suggests that this Life of the Virgin was probably attributed to Maximus sometime after his death in an effort to rehabilitate him against charges brought forth by soldiers at his trial that he had somehow slandered the Virgin Mary.18 The incident in question is described by a source written very close to the events of Maximus’ trial, which reports that «one of the soldiers … told the entire army, “The monk who blasphemes against the Theotokos [i. e., Maximus] is on his way here”».19 Shortly thereafter, Maximus is asked why he refuses to call Mary «Theotokos», which was apparently the alleged blask’art’uli literaturis istoriidan [Studies in the History of Old Georgian Literature]) Vol. 7 (Tbilisi, 1967) 14–54, 35–36, where Kekelidze appears to identify the work as authentic. This article was originally published as Ê. ÊÅÊÅËÈÄÇÅ, Ñâåäåíèÿ ãðóçèíñêèõ èñòî÷íèêîâ î ïðåïîäîáíîì Ìàêñèìå Èñïîâåäíèêå [K. Kekelize, Information from Georgian Sources Concerning the Venerable Maximus the Confessor] // Òðóäû Êèåâñêîé äóõîâíîé àêàäåìèè [Trudy Kievskoj dukhovnoj akademaii] (1912, ñåíòÿáðüíîÿáðü) 1–77, 451– 486. I have not seen this original publication of the article but have consulted the reprint. It should be noted that various references to this article give different page numbers; I have followed the citation in M. VAN ESBROECK, Euthyme l’Hagiorite: le traducteur et ses traductions // Revue des études géorgiennes et caucasiennes 4 (1988) 73–107, 106. 16 R. P. BLAKE, Catalogue des manuscrits géorgiens de la bibliothèque patriarcale grecque à Jérusalem // ROC 23–25 (1923–1925) Vol. 23: 345–413; vol. 24: 190–210 & 387–429; vol 25: 132–155; MSS described at vol. 24, p. 423 and vol. 25, p. 146. 17 K. KEKELIZE, ûåäêè õàðçóêè êèòäðàòóðèñ èñòíðèà (Zveli k’art’uli literaturis istoria [History of Old Georgian Literature]) (Tbilisi, 1923) Vol. 1. 192– 194. (This reference is from VAN ESBROECK, Euthyme l’Hagiorite… 103; I have not seen this first edition.) 18 In the most recent edition: K. KEKELIZE, ûåäêè õàðçóêè êèòäðàòóðèñ èñòíðèà (Zveli k’art’uli literaturis istoria [History of Old Georgian Literature]) (Tbilisi, 19805) Vol. 1. 197, n. 1. M. TARCHNIŠVILI, Geschichte der kirchlichen georgischen Literatur, auf Grund des ersten Bandes der georgischen Literaturgeschichte von K. Kekelidze (Città del Vaticano, 1955) (ST 185), which is based on the 2nd ed. of Kekelize’s history, does not reproduce this theory. 19 Dispute at Bizya 14 (Scripta saeculi VII Vitam Maximi Confessoris illustrantia / Ed. P. ALLEN, B. NEIL (Turnhout, 1999) (CChr, Series Graeca 39) 143–145; see also Maximus the Confessor and his Companions: Documents from Exile / Ed. P. ALLEN, B. NEIL (Oxford, 2002) (Oxford Early Christian Texts) 114–117; translation slightly modified). On the composition of this text shortly after the events described, in 656 or 657, see Maximus the Confessor and his Companions... 36.
312
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
phemy. Maximus is given an opportunity to respond to the charges, and he does so by publicly and unambiguously identifying Mary as Theotokos and condemning all those who do not. In the account of these events, Maximus’ statement seems to resolve the issue to everyone’s satisfaction, in light of which there hardly seems to be any need for someone to falsely ascribe a life of Mary to him several centuries later in order to clear his name: Maximus appears to have done this himself, quickly and clearly. Thus, while it is not at all inconceivable that this episode from the end of Maximus’ life inspired a false ascription in his name, the need for such rehabilitation was perhaps not quite as acute as Kekelidze’s remarks might suggest. Nothing whatsoever indicates that such a forgery has occurred, but one must nevertheless admit that it is a possibility. Barring some remarkable discovery, we will probably never know with total certainty whether or not this has happened, and consequently we should not allow the mere possibility to prevent us from pursuing the question of Maximus’ authorship any further. Kekelidze additionally had concerns regarding the reliability of the Life’s Georgian translator, which also led him to discount the value of the text. The earliest manuscript of the Life identifies Euthymius the Hagiorite as the individual who translated the text from Greek into Georgian.20 Euthymius was a prolific and well known translator who was active on Mt. Athos around the turn of the eleventh century, and sometime between 980 and 990, he translated the works of Maximus from Greek into Georgian, including this Life of the Virgin.21 Yet according to a scholar from the same monastery who lived several generations later, Euthymius «had by the grace of the Holy Spirit the ability to shorten or lengthen» the works that he translated. This remark convinced Kekelidze that Euthymius was a somewhat careless translator, a characteristic that he believed could be confirmed by comparison of Euthymius’ Georgian translations with their Greek «originals».22 20 21
VAN ESBROECK, Maxime le Confesseur: Vie de la Vierge… 176 (Geor) & 121 (Fr).
The considerable output of Euthymius is catalogued in TARCHNIŠVILI, Geschichte der kirchlichen georgischen Literatur… 126–154. The Life of the Virgin is discussed on pp. 133–134, where it is classified as an «apocryphon» (!), rather than among the other hagiographical texts translated by Euthymius. Euthymius’ translation of other works of Maximus into Georgian, as well as the Life of Maximus, is discussed at pp. 139–140, 142, 148. Unfortunately, the Life of the Virgin is not transmitted with any of Maximus’ works. In those MSS where the life is complete, it is transmitted with George of Nicomedia, Discourse on the Crucifixion (Tbilisi A-40); various hymns for Marian feasts (Jeru. 108); John Chrysostom, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Tbilisi A-36). See also KEKELIZE, ûåäêè õàðçóêè êèòäðàòóðèñ èñòíðèà (1980)… Vol. 1. 442, which was the basis of Tarchnišvili’s work; here Kekelize also catalogues this Life of the Virgin an apocryphon. 22 TARCHNIŠVILI, Geschichte der kirchlichen georgischen Literatur… 130; KEKELIZE, ûåäêè õàðçóêè êèòäðàòóðèñ èñòíðèà (1980)… Vol. 1. 184–195. See
S. J. Shoemaker
313
Nevertheless, in a recent article, Michel van Esbroeck successfully rehabilitates Euthymius’ reputation as a translator, using refined comparisons between the various Greek and Georgian texts and offering a more nuanced understanding of his remarkable «ability to shorten or lengthen».23 Van Esbroeck unearths the process by which Kekelidze in numerous articles over the course of nearly fifty years manufactured a myth of Euthymius as a poor translator who frequently interpolated and revised the texts he translated. Responding in turn to each of Kekelidze’s studies, van Esbroeck convincingly demonstrates that while «Euthymius did not translate absolutely literally, … he did not take the liberty of adding or removing whole paragraphs or works taken from other sources [as Kekelidze claims], but only words».24 Moreover, van Esbroeck argues that the Greek originals translated by Euthymius are not always identical with the «received» versions of these texts, and that the perceived discrepancies in Euthymius’ translations very likely reflect the fact that he was working from different originals. Van Esbroeck explains that such variations are to be expected given the highly unstable transmission of hagiographical texts in general, not to mention the particular literary milieu in which Euthymius was working: this was the age of metaphrase, a time of intensive revision of earlier Greek texts. Most importantly, however, van Esbroeck identifies several recently discovered Greek models that correspond very closely with Euthymius’ Georgian translations and thus restore credibility to his work as a translator. With respect to the Life of the Virgin in particular, van Esbroeck argues that the accuracy with which the Georgian Life reproduces its quotations from the Protevangelium of James validates the fidelity of Euthymius’ translation.25 In addition, the close literary relations between the Maximus Life of the Virgin and certain other Greek texts confirm, as we are about to see, the translation’s reliability. But what about the possibility that Euthymius himself authored this Life in the tenth century, perhaps by compiling other earlier Marian biographies? Simon Mimouni, who otherwise affirms van Esbroeck’s arguments for Maximus’ authorship, suggests in his article on the Byzantine Lives of Mary that this point merits further consideration.26 Nevertheless, this proposal is entirely unlikely, given the intimate literary relations between the Life of the Virgin attributed to Maximus and a Greek Life of the Virgin written in the late tenth century by John the Geometrician: John’s tenth-century narrative also VAN ESBROECK, Euthyme l’Hagiorite… 74–76, where van Esbroeck surveys the development of this opinion about Euthymius across decades of Kekelidze’s work. 23 VAN ESBROECK , Euthyme l’Hagiorite… esp. 76–102; VAN ESBROECK , Maxime le Confesseur: Vie de la Vierge… Vol. 2. VI–VII. 24 VAN ESBROECK , Euthyme l’Hagiorite… 104. 25 Ibid. 103–104. 26 MIMOUNI, Les Vies de la Vierge… 218, 220–221, n. 36.
314
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
is essentially a reworking of the Life ascribed to Maximus. Mimouni suggests that we consider the possibility of influence in the other direction, that is, Euthymius’ use of John’s Life to compose the Georgian Life that passes under Maximus’ name, but this is extremely improbable for several reasons. Most importantly, the final section of John the Geometrician’s Life seems to allude to contemporary political events that would place its composition between 976 and 989, and a possible allusion to the revolt of Bardas Phocas would indicate a date after 987.27 This leaves precious little time for Euthymius to have adapted John’s text for a translation made between 980 and 990. It is much more likely that John depends on the Life attributed to Maximus.28 Careful comparison of the two texts shows that the Life ascribed to Maximus is in fact prior to John the Geometrician’s biography. Unfortunately, John’s Life still has yet to be published in its entirety, and only the final section, from Mary’s Dormition to the end, has so far appeared and may be found in Antoine Wenger’s collection of texts and studies on the Dormition in early Byzantium.29 An edition of the entire text has long been anticipated; Martin Jugie initially proposed an edition, but this was never realized.30 After roughly fifty years of waiting, Michel van Esbroeck produced a complete edition and translation of John’s Life, which was to appear in the Sources chrétiennes series, but whose future now is highly uncertain. For the moment, we still must limit our comparisons to the final portions of these two Lives, their narratives of Mary’s Dormition and concluding theological reflections, which both account for approximately one-third of each text. In comparing these sections, three points in particular indicate the priority of the Life attributed to Maximus. The most obvious of these are the repeated references to the Chalcedonian definition in the Maximus Life. This Life of the Virgin interrupts its narrative of the Dormition at several points to emphasize the complete integrity of Christ’s human nature and in particular Mary’s importance as the source and guarantor of that nature.31 These pro-Chalcedonian remarks A. WENGER, L’Assomption de la T.S. Vierge dans la tradition byzantine du VIe au X siècle; études et documents (Paris, 1955) (Archives de l’Orient chrétien 5) 193. 28 John the Geometrician’s debt to the Life ascribed to Maximus is acknowledged even by Toniolo, who disputes Maximus’ authorship: TONIOLO, L’Akathistos nella Vita di Maria… 226. 29 WENGER, L’Assomption… 364–415. 30 Ibid. 189. See also the disussion in M. JUGIE, La mort et l’assomption de la Sainte Vierge, étude historico-doctrinale (Vatican City, 1944) (ST 114) 316–320. 31 See, e. g., Maximus the Confessor, Life of the Virgin 108 & 127 (VAN ESBROECK, Maxime le Confesseur: Vie de la Vierge… 138–140, 167 (Geor) & 94, 114 (Fr)). ProChalcedonian rhetoric intrudes even more clearly in other parts of the narrative, for which the corresponding passages of John’s Life are not yet published: see, e. g., Maximus the Confessor, Life of the Virgin 20–22 (VAN ESBROECK, Maxime le Confesseur: 27 e
S. J. Shoemaker
315
are absent from John the Geometrician’s Life, and in fact, the matter of Christ’s natures is not addressed at all in the published sections of John’s biography of Mary. It is much easier to understand the omission of these statements in the tenth century by John, when the issues of Chalcedon were not as pressing as they had once been, than it is to explain their addition by Euthymius, or anyone else who might be writing a life of Mary based on John’s. Comparison of the scene in which the Jew Jephonias attacks the Virgin’s inanimate body during her funeral procession also indicates the priority of the Life attributed to Maximus. Although both Lives record traditions that ultimately derive from the early Dormition apocrypha, the narration of this event in the Life ascribed to Maximus is more detailed than in John’s Life.32 It is easier to explain the omission of these details by John in an effort to shorten the narrative than it is to imagine Euthymius or some one else going back to the ancient apocrypha in the tenth century in order to insert additional details. Likewise, the presentation of various traditions concerning the discovery of Mary’s robe suggests John’s dependence on the Life of the Virgin attributed to Maximus.33 The Maximus Life very distinctly relates three separate traditions concerning the invention of this Marian relic, reporting each in much more detail than is found in John’s Life. Firstly, the Life ascribed to Maximus relates the tradition of the robe’s discovery consequent to the late arrival of an anonymous apostle; then its author alludes to different accounts using the same device where the late apostle is specifically identified as Thomas. Finally, this Life turns very self-consciously to relate a third tradition, the tale of Galbios and Candidos’ pious larceny. No attempt is made to harmonize the three traditions, despite the fact that the first two stories, which are themselves easily reconciled, contradict the third, which identifies a completely different origin for the Virgin’s robe. By way of contrast, John’s Life greatly condenses all three traditions and reconciles their accounts by identifying the late apostle with Thomas and all but eliminating the Galbios and Candidos legend, which is reduced to a mere notice of the story’s existence. In addition to shortening this section of the narrative, these changes eliminate the contradictions between the late apostle traditions and the legend of Galbios and Candidos that are so jarring in the Life ascribed to Maximus. These Vie de la Vierge… 21–25, (Geor) and 14–17 (Fr)), 23 (ibid., 26 (Geor) and 18 (Fr)), 60 (ibid., 75–76 (Geor) and 50–51 (Fr)), 63 (ibid., 79 (Geor) and 53 (Fr)), and 66 (ibid., 83–84 (Geor) and 56 (Fr)). 32 Maximus the Confessor, Life of the Virgin 112–114 (VAN ESBROECK, Maxime le Confesseur: Vie de la Vierge… 144–147 (Geor) & 98–100 (Fr)); John the Geometrician, Life of the Virgin 33–36 (WENGER, L’Assomption… 386–391.) 33 Maximus the Confessor, Life of the Virgin 117–124 (VAN ESBROECK, Maxime le Confesseur: Vie de la Vierge… 149–161 (Geor) & 101–109 (Fr)); John the Geometrician, Life of the Virgin 41–45 (WENGER, L’Assomption… 392–397).
316
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
differences are most easily explained by John’s use of the Maximus Life; otherwise, one must again assume that the latter’s author has gone back to earlier Marian traditions and added in material that creates considerable dissonance at the end of his narrative. The dependency of John the Geometrician’s Life of the Virgin on the Life attributed to Maximus is conceded by Ermanno Toniolo, who nevertheless disputes Maximus’ authorship on entirely different grounds. All of Toniolo’s objections to the Life’s authenticity center on the final section of the Life, an encomiastic and at times poetic meditation on Mary’s role in the divine economy. His main argument addresses a Marian hymn from this section, which he shows to be a reworking of various ÷áñåôéóìïß from the famous Akathist hymn. In itself, this means very little, since the Akathist hymn is a work of the fifth century, and its appearance here in revised form seems quite appropriate. But Toniolo maintains that certain aspects of the Life’s redaction of the Akathist hymn make its attribution to Maximus improbable. Toniolo first identifies two places where the Life’s hymn omits significant material from the Akathist hymn, and in both cases he interprets the omissions as incompatible with the possibility of Maximus’ authorship. Toniolo argues that «if this final part of the “Life” were really by Maximus the Confessor, it would be unthinkable that at the time of a raging anti-Nestorian controversy, he would have omitted such a typical expression of condemnation of the Nestorians, which one finds with implicit allusion in stanza XV of the [Akathist] hymn: “Hail, sound of doubt for the unfaithful”, a phrase that precedes the verse quoted by him: “Hail, boast without doubt of the faithful”».34 In other words, since the Life’s hymn leaves out a verse that Toniolo views as specifically anti-Nestorian, it is «unthinkable» that it could have been composed amidst the «raging anti-Nestorian controversy» of Maximus’ day. This hardly seems to be definitive proof against Maximus’ authorship, and I am not sure why Toniolo characterizes the later sixth and early seventh centuries as an age of intensive anti-Nestorian controversy, since at this time the issues surrounding the council of Chalcedon seem to have been considerably more to the forefront of theological debate.35 If authentic, the Life was 34
«Se quest’ultima parte della “Vita” fosse davvero di Massimo il Confessore, sarebbe impensable che in un momento di accesa controversia antinestoriana egli avesse omesso proprio quell’espresione di condanna dei nestoriani, che si legge con implicita allusione nella stanza XV dell’Inno: “×ásñå, ô§í Pðßóôùí Pìößâïëïí Têïõóìá”, frase che precede lo stico da lui riportato: “×ásñå, ô§í ðéóô§í Píáìößâïëïí êáý÷çìá”». TONIOLO, L’Akathistos nella Vita di Maria… 226–227. Translations of the Akathist and other texts are my own, unless otherwise indicated. I have used the Greek text of the Akathist provided in Toniolo’s article as the basis for translations of this hymn. 35 J. F. HALDON, Byzantium in the Seventh Century: The Transformation of a Culture (Cambridge, 1997, rev. ed.) 24, 31–32, 286–289, 305–306, 321, 328–329, 339, 364, 440.
S. J. Shoemaker
317
almost certainly produced early in Maximus’ career, at a time when Monothelitism, which Maximus did interpret as a form of Nestorianism, had not yet become an issue.36 In the same vein, Toniolo argues that it is difficult to explain how Maximus could have left out lines from stanza 17 of the Akathist, which directly concern mystagogy and spiritual knowledge: «Hail, you who draws out from the depths of ignorance; Hail, you who enlightens many with knowledge».37 While it is perhaps peculiar that Maximus would have overlooked these and other similar lines if he were the Life’s author, it is hardly unthinkable and does not proscribe his authorship. In addition, Toniolo adduces certain alterations of the Akathist’s text by the Life’s hymn as proof of its composition after Maximus’ lifetime. Such is his interpretation, for instance, of the Life’s minor revision of a verse from the Akathist’s penultimate stanza, in which «Hail, impregnable wall of the kingdom» is rewritten as, «She is the impregnable wall of the city of believers».38 Toniolo maintains that at a time when the emperors, especially Heraclius, were trying to reconquer territory lost to the Arabs and to reestablish the political unity of the empire, it would be incomprehensible for Maximus to substitute the word «city» for «kingdom» or «empire». This argument is flawed in several respects, however. In the first place, Toniolo here again appears to overlook the fact van Esbroeck (as well as Larchet) locates the composition of this Life of the Virgin in the first half of Maximus’ life, that is, before 626 at the latest, and if the attribution is in fact genuine, this would seem to be the most likely time for its production.39 Consequently, if the Life of the Virgin is an authentic work of Maximus, it was almost certainly composed before Heraclius’ reconquests had begun, in an age of instability and usurpation, when the Byzantine Empire was rapidly crumbling before the Persian armies, and the Slavs and Avars threatened from the North.40 Moreover, the Virgin Mary’s special relationship with the city of Constantinople was already well established by the later sixth century, culminating in the events of the Avar siege of 626, when it was believed that the Virgin had personally delivered the city.41 During this period, texts connected 36
J. MEYENDORFF, Christ in Eastern Christian Thought (Crestwood, NY, 1975) 146–148. 37 TONIOLO, L’Akathistos nella Vita di Maria… 227. 38 Ibid. Maximus the Confessor, Life of the Virgin 125 (VAN ESBROECK, Maxime le Confesseur: Vie de la Vierge... 165 (Geor) & 112 (Fr)). 39 VAN ESBROECK, Maxime le Confesseur: Vie de la Vierge… Vol. 2. XXVII–XXXI; see also LARCHET, La divinisation de l’homme… 83. 40 See, e. g., M. WHITTOW, The Making of Orthodox Byzantium, 600–1025 (London, 1996) (New Studies in Medieval History) 69–78; and HALDON, Byzantium in the Seventh Century… 31–45. 41 See, e. g., A. CAMERON, The Theotokos in Sixth-Century Constantinople // JTS N.S. 29 (1978) 79–108; A. CAMERON, The Virgin’s Robe: An Episode in the History
318
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
with the imperial capital often emphasize Mary’s unique connection with the city, and if the Life of the Virgin was written by Maximus at the time proposed by van Esbroeck, it would have been composed either in or near Constantinople, where Maximus was living prior to 626.42 The intimate association of Mary with the imperial capital is elsewhere a prominent theme of this Life, particularly in its description of the Virgin’s robe and its discovery, and by itself this feature indicates that, whoever its author may have been, the Life was almost certainly was composed in or around Constantinople.43 In any case, evidence of stress on the linkage between the Virgin Mary and the imperial capital in the Life’s redaction of the Akathist in no way excludes Maximus as a potential author. Toniolo likewise argues that alterations to a verse from stanza 5 of the Akathist signal the influence of a ninth-century liturgical canon by Joseph the Hymnographer. The original verse from the Akathist reads, «Hail, field that brings forth an abundance of mercies», but in the Life of the Virgin one finds instead, «She is the furrow that makes to flourish the autumn wheat that strengthens hearts». Here Toniolo insists that the Life of the Virgin reflects the influence of Joseph the Hymnographer, who in one of his hymns revises the original phrasing of the Akathist according to a Eucharistic perspective to read: «O animate table, who provides the bread of life, hail».44 This line from Joseph’s hymn, he maintains, explains the changes in the Life of the Virgin and excludes the possibility of Maximus’ authorship. I do not find this at all persuasive, and quite frankly the logic completely eludes me. The changes to this verse in the Life of the Virgin seem entirely unrelated to Joseph the Hymnographer’s revision. The same argument is brought to bear on a verse from stanza 11 of the Akathist, «Hail, food which succeeds the manna», which the Life of the Virgin renders, «She is the jar bearing manna that came from heaven». Toniolo maintains that here as well the Life of the Virgin depends on Joseph the Hymnographer, whose revision of this verse from the Akathist reads, «Hail, lamp
of Early Seventh-Century Constantinople // Byz 49 (1979) 42–56; A. CAMERON, Images of Authority: Elites and Icons in Late Sixth-Century Byzantium // Past and Present 84 (1979) 3–35; N. H. BAYNES, The Supernatural Defenders of Constantinople // AB 67 (1949) 165–177; N. H. BAYNES, The Finding of the Virgin’s Robe // Annuaire de l’institut de philologie et d’histoire orientales et slaves 9 (1949) 87–95. 42 See the summary of Maximus’ biography in LOUTH, Maximus the Confessor… 4–5. 43 Maximus the Confessor, Life of the Virgin 123–124 (VAN ESBROECK, Maxime le Confesseur: Vie de la Vierge… 157–160 (Geor.) & 107–109 (Fr.)). 44 TONIOLO, L’Akathistos nella Vita di Maria… 216, 227; Maximus the Confessor, Life of the Virgin 125 (VAN ESBROECK, Maxime le Confesseur: Vie de la Vierge… 162 (Geor) & 110 (Fr)).
S. J. Shoemaker
319
stand and jar bearing manna, which sweetens the spiritual senses of the pious». The similarities between John’s hymn and the Life are admittedly somewhat clearer in this case than in the previous example, but as Toniolo himself concedes, the jar of manna has commonly been interpreted as a figure of the Virgin since at least the end of the fifth century.45 In light of this, it is entirely possible that both authors introduced the type independently of each other, and even if there were some sort of connection between the two hymns, the possibility of the Life’s influence on John’s hymn would be difficult to exclude. This unremarkable similarity in no way demonstrates the Life’s dependence on John the Hymnographer or excludes Maximus’ authorship. Toniolo assures us that there many other instances where the relation between the Life of the Virgin and the Akathist impugns Maximus’ authorship, but assuming that he has given the best examples in this article, they are unlikely to be either especially significant or persuasive. Finally, Toniolo contends that certain additional sources of the Life, some of which the Life identifies and others of which it does not, contradict the attribution to Maximus. The Life’s author reveals at the outset that he has made use of numerous Patristic writings in compiling Mary’s biography, including works by Gregory the Thaumaturge, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, Dionysius the Areopagite, and «others of similar worthiness», as well as drawing «some things from apocryphal writings, namely, that which is true and without error and which has been accepted and confirmed by the abovementioned holy fathers».46 According to Toniolo, the Marian homilies attributed to Gregory the Thaumaturge and Athanasius are difficult to date before the seventh century, making it impossible for Maximus to have used them as sources.47 This assessment, however, is not altogether accurate: as Roberto Caro has demonstrated in his massive study of Greek Marian homilies from late antiquity, six Marian homilies attributed to Athanasius and four attributed to Gregory the Thaumaturge were in circulation before the seventh century, any of which could have been available to Maximus.48 Equally unconvincing is Toniolo’s allegation that the final section of this Life of the Virgin depends significantly on the homilies for the Dormition written by Andrew of Crete, John of Damascus, and especially Germanus of Constantinople, a claim 45 TONIOLO, L’Akathistos nella Vita di Maria… 228; Maximus the Confessor, Life of the Virgin 125 (VAN ESBROECK, Maxime le Confesseur: Vie de la Vierge… 163 (Geor) & 111 (Fr)). 46 Maximus the Confessor, Life of the Virgin 2 (VAN ESBROECK, Maxime le Confesseur: Vie de la Vierge… 4 (Geor) & 3 (Fr)). 47 TONIOLO, L’Akathistos nella Vita di Maria… 225. 48 R. CARO, La Homiletica Mariana Griega en el Siglo V. 3 vols. (Dayton, OH, 1971–1973) (Marian Library Studies, New Series, 3–5) Vol. 2, 353–359, 380–388, 452–467, 481–522, 533–567, 604–610.
320
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
for which he fails to present any evidence whatsoever.49 While such connections may eventually be uncovered, they are not yet apparent to me. While the possibility of such borrowings certainly warrants further investigation, at the moment, this has not been demonstrated.50 In contrast to the picture painted by Toniolo, the sources used by this Life of the Virgin if anything support its attribution Maximus, at least insofar as they suggest the Life’s composition during the early seventh century. This is particularly indicated by comparing the Life’s account of the end of Mary’s life with the early traditions of her Dormition and Assumption. The Life’s list of sources discloses its dependence on «apocryphal writings» for some of its information, and the use of apocrypha is particularly evident in its account of Mary’s departure from this life. In what is one of the most remarkable Dormition narratives from antiquity, this Life of the Virgin weaves together various features from the rather diverse early Dormition traditions into a seamless whole. Not only does the Life effectively integrate material from both the Palm and Bethlehem traditions, but it also incorporates the late apostle traditions, including both traditions where the apostle is anonymous and those that identify this figure as Thomas. There was no model for the author to use in achieving this task: no prior narrative exists that combines the divergent traditions of the end of Mary’s life so thoroughly, and thus we can be sure that the author, as he says, had to work from the various Dormition apocrypha in order to accomplish this. The Life of the Virgin’s Dormition narrative reflects a time when there was still a wide variety of Dormition traditions in circulation, before the late apostle traditions had come to focus squarely on Thomas and before the ascen49
Nevertheless, one interesting parallel is that in both the Maximus Life and Germanus’ second homily, Peter and Paul are careful not to touch the Virgin’s body as they place it in the tomb, touching only her shroud. But this tradition is utilized to very different ends by the two texts. In the Maximus Life, this detail seems to emphasize the burial shroud itself, which shortly thereafter becomes the focus of an extensive discourse. Moreover, the apostles avoid touching Mary’s body because «they saw the light that was covering her and the grace of God that was upon her»: Maximus the Confessor, Life of the Virgin 115 (VAN ESBROECK, Maxime le Confesseur: Vie de la Vierge… 148 (Geor) and 100–101 (Fr)). In Germanus’ homily, however, the apostles fear touching the body after seeing what happened to Jephonias, and neither the relic of Mary’s robe nor the traditions of its discovery feature in Germanus’ homilies: PG 98, 369. It is possible that both somehow draw on a common tradition here or that the Maximus Life has somehow influenced Germanus. 50 As a test, I compared these homilies with the Life in places where the same Scriptural passages are cited, using the helpful index of Scriptural references in B. E. DALEY, On the Dormition of Mary: Early Patristic Homilies (Crestwood, NY, 1998) 265– 269, and in these instances there is no evidence of any literary relations. Obviously, a more thorough analysis would be useful.
S. J. Shoemaker
321
dancy of the Dormition narratives of Ps.-John the Theologian and John of Thessalonica, which quickly became the canonical versions of the Bethlehem and Palm traditions respectively in the Byzantine church.51 For instance, the Maximus Life of the Virgin makes clear use of the ancient Six Books narrative, which, although originally written in Greek, survives only in various Semitic languages, having been displaced rather quickly in the Greek churches by Ps.-John’s Transitus.52 Perhaps even more significant is the fact that the Life relies directly on the ancient Dormition apocrypha for knowledge of the Palm traditions, instead of using John of Thessalonica’s rather popular homily, written at the beginning of the seventh century53 (assuming, of course, that the author has not for some reason deliberately disguised his use of this source). In fact, the Life’s recourse to apocryphal sources for knowledge of the end of Mary’s life is rather reminiscent of the situation that John of Thessalonica himself faced when composing his homily on the Dormition. As John begins his homily, he must first apologize for the lengthy silence of the church fathers concerning the Dormition, thereby justifying his use of apocryphal sources.54 It would appear that both he and the Life of the Virgin’s author were driven by the lack of «more reputable» sources to make independent use of the same apocryphal traditions when compiling their narratives of the Virgin’s Dormition. The shared need to utilize apocryphal sources suggests that the Life of the Virgin may very well have been written at the same stage in the history of the Dormition traditions as John’s homily, the early seventh century, when the 51
This is demonstrated on the one hand by their usage as sources by the early Byzantine homilies on the Dormition and the Life by Epiphanius and their liturgical usage, as well as by the enormous number of manuscripts transmitting these texts in comparison with other Dormition narratives: see S. C. MIMOUNI, Dormition et Assomption de Marie: Histoire des traditions anciennes (Paris, 1995) (Théologie Historique 98) 118–119, 136–137. Likewise, these two texts are overwhelmingly the predominant accounts of the Virgin’s Dormition preserved in Church Slavonic: see Aurelio DE SANTOS OTERO, Die handshriftliche Überlieferung der altslavischen Apokryphen. 2 vols. (Berlin, 1981) (PTS 22–23) Vol. 2. 161–195, esp. 162. 52 See, e. g., the discussion of the Bethlehem traditions in SHOEMAKER, Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition… 46–57. The use of the Six Books is particularly clear from the Life’s inclusion of its account of the Jewish attempt to burn down the Virgin’s house, which backfires (rather literally): see Maximus the Confessor, Life of the Virgin 100 (VAN ESBROECK, Maxime le Confesseur: Vie de la Vierge… 130–131 (Geor) and 87–88 (Fr)); and W. WRIGHT, The Departure of My Lady Mary from This World // The Journal of Sacred Literature and Biblical Record 6–7 (1865) 417–448 and 108–160, L`–¯` (Syr) and 143 (Eng); A. SMITH LEWIS, Apocrypha Syriaca (London, 1902) (Studia Sinaitica, 11) ¯ o–Ho (Syr) and 38 (Eng). 53 Regarding the date, see JUGIE, Homélies mariales… Vol. 2. 344–349. 54 John of Thessalonica, Homily on the Dormition A 1 (Ibid. 376–377).
322
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
only information on this topic was to be found in «apocryphal» traditions. Such a date is further indicated by comparison of both John’s homily and the Life of the Virgin with subsequent Byzantine literature on the Dormition and the life of Mary. After John of Thessalonica’s homily and (presumably) the Life of the Virgin attributed to Maximus, expositions of Mary’s Dormition no longer make use of the apocryphal traditions directly: they either ignore them or receive them indirectly through John of Thessalonica’s homily and, in one instance, the Transitus of Ps.-John the Theologian. For instance, the homilies of Andrew of Crete and the homily falsely ascribed to Modestus, both from the later seventh or early eighth century, completely ignore the traditions of the Dormition apocrypha, even to the point of omitting the Jephonias scene, which in some fashion appears in every other early Dormition narrative. As a result, these texts are in many ways not really Dormition narratives at all but instead theological meditations on the significance of the Dormition itself: they exhibit almost no concern for the actual events of Mary’s departure from this world.55 By way of contrast, both Germanus of Constantinople and John of Damascus describe the events of Mary’s death and burial in their early eighthcentury homilies on the Dormition; nevertheless, they radically condense the narratives of the ancient Dormition apocrypha, which they know not from the apocrypha themselves but through the mediation of John of Thessalonica’s homily.56 Cosmas Vestitor’s four homilies on the Dormition, written in the later eighth century, also depend on the John of Thessalonica’s homily, as well as the homilies of Germanus, rather than the ancient apocrypha.57 Simi55
DALEY, On the Dormition of Mary… 14–18. Ibid. 18–23. See also K. WARE, «The Earthly Heaven»: St John of Damascus on the Assumption of the Theotokos // Mary for Earth and Heaven: Essays on Mary and Ecumenism / Ed. W. McLoughlin, J. Pinnock (Leominster, UK, 2002) 355–368, 362, who reaches the same judgment in regard to John’s homilies. 57 See esp. WENGER, L’Assomption… 155–172. Wenger maintains that Cosmas also used a copy of the earliest Greek Dormition narrative, which John of Thessalonica has revised in his homily, but this is not necessarily the case. Only one element of Cosmas’ homilies appears to derive from this earliest Greek narrative, namely the existence of a book of mysteries that is given to Mary together with the palm from the Tree of Life. This is in fact a very early element of the Palm traditions not preserved in John of Thessalonica’s homily as we have it today. But certain individual manuscripts of John’s homily preserve very early elements from the Palm traditions that ultimately were eliminated from the larger manuscript tradition: see e. g., SHOEMAKER, Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition… 291, n. 6. It is quite possible that Cosmas somehow utilized a version of John’s homily that had preserved the tradition of a book of mysteries together with the palm. Otherwise, if we suppose that Cosmas actually used a version of the earliest Greek narrative in addition to John’s revision of it, it is then difficult to explain why the earliest Greek narrative has influenced Cosmas on 56
S. J. Shoemaker
323
lar sources were used by Epiphanius the Monk in his late eighth-century Life of the Virgin, which prior to the discovery of this new Life was thought to be the earliest complete biography of the Virgin Mary. Like the author of the Georgian Life, Epiphanius identifies the sources used in compiling his narrative, revealing that his knowledge of the Dormition depends on the «highly celebrated discourse» of John of Thessalonica, another discourse by John the Theologian (i. e., Ps.-John’s Transitus), and the homilies of Andrew of Crete.58 The pattern evidenced by these writings is clear: beginning in the later seventh century, the ancient Dormition apocrypha were either ignored completely or known only through considerably revised presentations of them in more recent texts. Those writings that bother to describe the details of Mary’s Dormition depend almost entirely on John of Thessalonica’s homily for this information. Even Epiphanius’ Life of the Virgin, which identifies Ps.-John’s Transitus as an additional source, disregards this account almost completely and relies principally on John of Thessalonica’s homily for its description of the Dormition; for some reason Epiphanius does not add any of peculiar narrative features from the Bethlehem traditions that he would have encountered in Ps.-John’s Transitus.59 By way of contrast, the Life ascribed to Maximus
only this one point and no where else. Wenger perhaps did not consider this alternate possibility because he was concerned to demonstrate the antiquity of this early Greek narrative, which is now rather obvious in light of more recent discoveries. 58 Epiphanius the Monk, Life of the Virgin // PG 20, 188. 59 Actual influence of Ps.-John’s Transitus on Epiphanius’ Life is not clear at all: while Andrew’s homilies are cited explicitly and John of Thessalonica’s homily is clearly Epiphanius’ primary source for the end of Mary’s life, one does not find any of the characteristic features of the Bethlehem traditions in Epiphanius’ narration of the Dormition. The only place where the Ps.-John Transitus may have made any impact is in respect to the ultimate fate of Mary’s body, which is not resurrected but simply disappears. In contrast to the Palm traditions and the earliest versions of the Bethlehem traditions, the Six Books, which (for the most part) vividly describe Mary’s bodily resurrection and Assumption, Ps.-John’s reworking of the Six Books concludes merely with the disappearance of Mary’s body, without any indication of her resurrection or Assumption. See SHOEMAKER, Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition… Esp. 179–203. It is possible that Epiphanius utilized Ps.-John’s Transitus primarily because he wanted to exclude the traditions of Mary’s resurrection and Assumption, but it also may have been out of a desire for complete representation of the different Dormition traditions then current. But John of Thessalonica’s homily circulated with at least eleven different endings, and so it is also possible that this may have been how Epiphanius’ version of John’s homily ended. The Life attributed to Maximus also describes the disappearance of Mary’s body, without resurrection or Assumption; this is perhaps a result of the author’s combination of the late apostle traditions with a non-Assumptionist version of the Bethlehem traditions.
324
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
neither mentions nor uses any of these more recent texts and instead derives its account of the Dormition directly from the ancient apocrypha themselves. Consequently, it seems rather likely that the Maximus Life of the Virgin was composed before these sources were available and at a time when its author, like John of Thessalonica, had to turn to turn to the Dormition apocrypha for information concerning the end of Mary’s life. Only Epiphanius’ use of Ps.-John’s Transitus, an «apocryphon» that was probably composed in the sixth century,60 presents a potential complication for this conclusion. On the surface, this relatively late use of an early apocryphon could seem to belie the observation that from the late seventh century onward, the early Dormition apocrypha were no longer used directly as sources for knowledge of the end of Mary’s life. Furthermore, Epiphanius’ Life might seem to present evidence for the kind of mining of ancient apocrypha evident in the Life attributed to Maximus as late as the end of the eighth century. Neither of these potential objections holds any merit, however, and a more nuanced comparison of the sources used by the two Lives indicates that the sources of the Maximus Life reflect a relatively early stage in the history of the Dormition traditions, while Epiphanius’ sources are throughly compatible with the pattern evidenced elsewhere in eighth-century Marian literature. Like Germanus, John of Damascus, and Cosmas, Epiphanius depends almost entirely on John of Thessalonica’s homily for his knowledge of the end of Mary’s life, adding to this base only limited citations from Andrew of Crete’s Dormition homilies. For some reason, however, these early Byzantine homilists completely ignore the Bethlehem traditions of Mary’s Dormition. Epiphanius parts company with these writers in identifying one of the Bethlehem narratives, the Transtitus of Ps.-John, among his sources, yet, as already noted, this text somewhat surprisingly makes no clear impact on his account of the Dormition. Ps.-John’s Transitus is a highly redacted and condensed version of the ancient Six Books apocrypha, which it adapts for use in a liturgical setting.61 In fact, Mimouni argues that Ps.-John’s Transitus should not even be classified as an apocryphon at all but instead as a liturgical reading, since it was both designed and widely used for this purpose.62 During the early middle ages, Ps.-John’s Transitus came to supplant the earlier Six Books apocrypha in the Byzantine churches, with the result that the Six Books nar-
60
SHOEMAKER, Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition… 51. See Michel VAN ESBROECK, Les textes littéraires sur l’assomption avant le Xe siècle // Les actes apocryphes des apôtres / Ed. F. Bovon (Geneva, 1981) 265–285, 269, 274–275. 62 S. C. MIMOUNI, La lecture liturgique et les apocryphes du Nouveau Testament: Le cas de la Dormitio grecque du Pseudo-Jean // OCP 59 (1993) 403–425. 61
S. J. Shoemaker
325
ratives are now known only in Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic translations.63 By Epiphanius’ lifetime, Ps.-John’s Transitus had become the standard account of the Bethlehem traditions, replacing the earlier and much longer Six Books narratives that were less suited for liturgical usage.64 For this reason it seems rather likely that in the late eighth century only Ps.-John’s «canonical» version of the Bethlehem traditions would have been widely available. Consequently, Epiphanius’ use of this «apocryphon» neither contradicts the pattern of using both later and relatively limited sources evidenced by the early Byzantine homilies, nor is it at all comparable to the much earlier sources that form the basis of the Maximus Life. On the contrary, the use of this «canonical» version is to be expected in a late eighth-century composition. The Maximus Life then is distinguished not merely by its direct use of Dormition apocrypha, but more specifically by its dependence on very early apocrypha, which presumably reflects a stage before the ascendancy of John of Thessalonica’s homily and Ps.-John’s Transitus. The fact that the Life attributed to Maximus relies directly on the Six Books traditions for knowledge of the Bethlehem traditions, rather than the Transitus of Ps-John, is a fair indication that it was composed before Ps.-John’s account had come to prevail, and likewise at a time when the Six Books apocrypha were still circulating in Greek, both of which suggest a seventh-century date. Therefore, in comparison with related Marian literature from the seventh and eighth centuries, the sources utilized by this Life of the Virgin for its account of Mary’s Dormition indicate its composition at a relatively earlier stage in the development of the Dormition traditions than is reflected in these more recent texts. In particular, this Life does not exhibit the use of John of Thessalonica’s homily, which characterizes the Greek Dormition narratives from the eighth century onward (excepting of course the accounts in the Lives of the Virgin by John the Geometrician and Symeon the Metaphrast, which depend on the Maximus Life). In addition, there is a marked tendency in the Dormition traditions of the later seventh and eighth centuries to drastically condense or even eliminate the rather detailed descriptions of Mary’s death from the ancient apocrypha (as mediated by John of Thessalonica’s rather extensive account), shifting the focus instead to extended theological reflections on the rather hastily narrated events.65 While the Maximus Life is replete with theological reflection, it 63 The evidence from early Greek and Armenian homiliaries presented by Mimouni demonstrates this: ibid. One should add to this the evidence of the earliest Georgian homiliaries, which confirms Mimouni’s observations: see M. VAN ESBROECK, Les plus anciens homéliaires géorgiens: Étude descriptive et historique (Louvain-la-Neuve, 1975) (Publications de l’Institut orientaliste de Louvain 10) 344–345. 64 Ps.-John’s Transitus is approximately one-tenth of the length of the ancient Six Books narratives: VAN ESBROECK, Les textes littéraires… 275. 65 This is noted also by DALEY, On the Dormition of Mary… 29–32.
326
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
does not sacrifice narrative detail toward this end, and its comprehensive account of the Dormition is far more similar to John of Thessalonica’s homily than to the Marian literature of later seventh and eighth-century Byzantium. Assuming that the Georgian Life does not deliberately misrepresent its sources, and nothing suggests that it has, its account of the Dormition fits very well into the context of the seventh century, and more precisely, the first half seventh century, which corresponds roughly with the floruit of Maximus. One final piece of this puzzle is the story of Galbios and Candidos, which appears at the end of the Georgian Life’s narrative. Although van Esbroeck argues that this tradition holds the key to establishing the date of the Life solidly within the lifetime of Maximus, the evidence that it presents is somewhat complicated and inconclusive. As van Esbroeck observes, the account of the Galbios and Candidos legend in the Maximus Life represents a version of this story identified by Antoine Wenger as «type B». This version, which was previously known from Theodore Synkellos’ early seventh-century oration on the Virgin’s robe and the late tenth-century Life of the Virgin by Symeon the Metaphrast, represents a secondary stage of the legend that developed from the «type A» traditions written in the late fifth century.66 The three «type B» texts are rather close to one another in their narration of events, and particularly so in the example given by van Esbroeck. Van Esbroeck presents a synopsis of all three texts, at the conclusion of Symeon’s narrative and just before the Georgian Life and Theodore diverge in considerable and rather different epilogues on Mary and her robe. On the basis of this comparison, van Esbroeck argues that the literary relations among the three texts can only be explained if the Life ascribed to Maximus was used as a source by the other two accounts.67 It seems quite clear that the Georgian Life was a source for Symeon, and indeed, this new text may ultimately clarify the complicated literary relations between the Lives of the Virgin by Symeon and John the Geometrician,68 but the dependence of Theodore Synkellos’ oration on the Life attributed to Maximus is much less certain. It is equally conceivable that both Theodore and the Georgian Life depend on a common literary source. This seems particularly likely in light of the fact that both texts append rather distinctive epilogues to the story of Galbios and Candidus: Theodore ponders at some length the role of the Virgin and her robe in protecting the city during Avar raids 66
The versions are discussed in WENGER, L’Assomption… 113–136. The same version is also found in the Imperial Menologian, as Wenger notes. 67 VAN ESBROECK, Maxime le Confesseur: Vie de la Vierge… Vol. 2. XXVII–XXVIII. 68 These two texts are very clearly related, and while Jugie believed that Symeon depended on John, Wenger was able to argue influence in the opposite direction. See the discussions in WENGER, L’Assomption… 193–195; MIMOUNI, Les Vies de la Vierge… 237–238.
S. J. Shoemaker
327
of 619, while the Life attributed to Maximus continues with the meditation on Mary’s Dormition and the Divine Maternity discussed already above in regards to Toniolo’s article. These rather different endings are perhaps most easily explained if both texts depend on a third source that related only the story of Galbios and Candidos, to which each author has added his own conclusion.69 Unfortunately, this possibility leaves Maximus’ authorship of the Life far more uncertain than in van Esbroeck’s original discussion of the text, but nevertheless, it is entirely compatible with the attribution to Maximus found in the manuscripts. In conclusion then, nothing has yet been discovered that precludes Maximus’ authorship of this Life of the Virgin, but on the other hand, nothing has unmistakably authenticated the attribution either. The fact that very little is known about the first forty-five years of Maximus’ life, as evidenced by the glaring discrepancies of the tenth-century Greek Life of Maximus and the seventh-century Life of Maximus preserved in Syriac, further complicates the situation, and this alone should caution against any hasty dismissal of the Life of the Virgin’s authenticity.70 Nevertheless, this Life of the Virgin is almost certainly prior to Epiphanius the Monk’s eighth-century biography of Mary, and by consequence, it is the earliest extant life of the Virgin, as is widely agreed. Furthermore, the state of the Dormition traditions as they are evident in this Life strongly suggests a seventh-century date, probably sometime before 650. When examined on its own, this text appears to have been written most likely during Maximus’ lifespan, and nothing contradicts his authorship: if it is in fact a forgery, it is a rather good one. In particular, the forger would have had remarkable access to a variety of ancient Dormition apocrypha and also known just how to combine them to reflect the development of these traditions in the early seventh century. While it is certainly possible that someone else composed this Life in the seventh century, and it was incorrectly ascribed to Maximus only later on, the prospect of the Life’s authenticity needs to be taken quite seriously and cannot simply be overlooked. While Maximus is not known otherwise to have authored hagiographical texts, it certainly is not at all uncommon to find a great theologian also involved in writing the lives of saints: one need only consider Athanasius for instance. Moreover, Maximus’ intimate companion Sophronius of Jerusalem likewise wrote a Life St. 69 I am presently completing a study of the relations between the early Marian relic traditions of Constantinople and this earliest Life of the Virgin. 70 See the brief discussion in LOUTH, Maximus the Confessor… 4–7, where Louth ultimately concludes, «we have very little firm evidence for Maximus’ life before his stay in North Africa in the 630s». The Syriac Life has been published in S. P. BROCK, An Early Syriac Life of Maximus the Confessor // AB 91 (1973) 299–346. The Greek Life, known in three recensions, is discussed in R. DEVREESSE, La Vie de S. Maxime le Confesseur et ses recensions // AB 46 (1928) 5–49.
328
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
John the Almsgiver (which survives only in a fragment) and the Miracles of Sts. Cyrus and John,71 as well as perhaps the Life of Mary of Egypt. The relations between these hagiographical works and Sophronius’ theological writings may provide a useful point of reference for evaluating the Life of the Virgin attributed to Maximus Most helpful at this point will be for experts on Maximus to examine this new text in relation to his writings and thought. Larchet has made a good start in this direction, but the value of his studies for this purpose is somewhat limited, since he treats the Life of the Virgin very much like the stepchild of Maximus’ literary corpus, making limited references to it at only a few points. This undoubtedly reflects a prudent concern for the Life of the Virgin’s authenticity, and one certainly would not want to fault Larchet for being somewhat cautious here, particularly since he takes the possibility of text’s authenticity more seriously than have many of his peers. More focused studies will be necessary to ascertain the relationship between this new text and the other works attributed to Maximus. The Life of the Virgin needs to be carefully examined for connections with the major themes of Maximus’ theology, bearing in mind that this would probably be his earliest work, and given the Life of the Virgin’s strong emphasis on the Incarnation and Christology, these present themselves excellent areas for potential comparison.
SUMMARY In 1986 hat Michel van Esbroeck ein georgisches Leben der Jungfrau herausgegeben, das Maximus dem Bekenner zugeschrieben wird. Van Esbroeck behauptet, dass es ein authentisches Werk des Maximus sei. Leider haben viele Fachleute dieses wichtige Werk, das das früheste bestehende Leben der Jungfrau ist, ignoriert, und folglich bleibt die Frage seiner Echtheit unentscheiden. Bis heute bleibt die einzige Arbeit, welche die Urheberschaft des Maximus in Frage stellt, ein Aufsatz von E. Toniolo, dessen Argumente nicht überzeugend sind. Dieser Artikel hingegen untersucht das Leben im Verhältnis zur marianischen Literatur der frühbyzantinischen Zeit und folgert daraus, dass dieses Leben der Jungfrau höchstwahrscheinlich ein Werk des siebten Jahrhunderts sei. Deswegen muss die Möglichkeit, Maximus habe diesen Text verfasst, ernst genommen werden.
71 H. DELEHAYE, Une Vie inédite de Saint Jean l’Aumônier // AB 45 (1927) 5– 74; Los Thaumata de Sofronio: contribución al estudio de la incubatio cristiana / Ed. N. F. MARCOS (Madrid, 1975) (Manuales y anejos de Emérita 31).
Notices et recensions
Vladimir A. Baranov Novosibirsk
THE VITA TARASII AS A SOURCE FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF THE ICONOCLASTIC THEOLOGY This article is an attempt to analyze several passages in the context of the polemics for and against images during the epoch of Byzantine Iconoclasm, from the «Life of Tarasius», which was written by Ignatius the Deacon about the Iconodulic champion Patriarch Tarasius. It does not pretend to give a comprehensive analysis of Ignatius’ theological viewpoint but rather shows how the Vitae, previously studied from a literary point of view with emphasis on style, originality and the use of the topoi, or from a historical point of view with an attempt to distinguish between the Vita’s legendary and the historical strata, can be used as an additional source for reconstructing theological doctrine when the doctrinal sources per se are as scarce as is the case with Byzantine Iconoclasm. The Vita Tarasii represents an especially valuable source for our query since we know that its author was Ignatius (born. ca. 770–780, died soon after 845) the deacon and skevophylax of the Great Church of Constantinople, former Iconoclast and Metropolitan of Nicaea, later the repented hagiographer of the Iconodulic champions and Patriarchs of Constantinople Tarasius (784–806) and Nicephorus I (806–815).1 His sentiments become clear from his letters,2 as well as from his liturgical3 and hagiographical writ1 For materials on Ignatius life, see G. FATOUROS, Ignatios von Nicäa // Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon 16 (1999) 773–774; T. PRATSCH, Ignatios the Deacon — Churchman, Scholar and Teacher: A Life Reconsidered // Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 24 (2000) 82–101; W. WOLSKA-CONNUS, De quibusdam Ignatius // TM 4 (1970) 329–360; for literary activity of Ignatius see P. BROWNING, Ignace le Diacre et la tragédie classique à Byzance // RÉG 81 (1968) 401–410. 2 See the preface to ed. C. MANGO, Correspondence of Ignatios the Deacon (Washington, D.C., 1997) (Dumbarton Oaks Texts 11) 5–6. On the correspondence of Ignatius, see C. MANGO, Observations on the Correspondence of Ignatius, Mitropolitan of Nicaea // Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen / Ed. F. PASCHKE (Berlin, 1981) (TU 125) 403–410; repr. in IDEM, Byzantium and Its Image (London, 1984) ¹ 12; A. KAZHDAN, Letters of Ignatios the Deacon Once More. Some Doubts about Authorship // JÖB 44 (1994) 233–244. 3 The Canon of Forty Two Amorian martyrs (martyred in 845), attributed to our Ignatius, opens with a similar «autobiographical» lament: «O Christ, lead me, who hath fallen into the depth of errors and fled to the sea of Thy compassion, to the heaven
332
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
ings:4 in the Vita Tarasii, Ignatius puts the following speech, which probably was the expression of his own attitude, in the mouth of the aged Patriarch Paul (780–784) who had formerly complied with the Iconoclasts, and then had to resign and retire to a monastery after Irene took power and was planning to install Tarasius as new Patriarch. In the Vita Patriarch Paul thus explains the reason for his resignation: …it is both the illness and the unexpected imminence of death that forced me to do this but well before that it was the indecent situation of the Church, suffering from heresy and so pained by a long-lasting evil doctrine that she has acquired an incurable wound, that led me to this measure, and third, my assent to heresy, written with my own hands and in ink. For, it was not possible for me to escape the nets of evil doctrine, but I happened to be cheated by means of tongue and hand, a fact that causes me terrible distress and eats at the spiritual senses of my soul5
With all this we may likely assume that as already an Iconodule regretting his lapsus and trying to restore his reputation, the hagiographer might argue especially strongly against those points, which he had confessed while being an Iconoclast. If we single out such passages, we may perhaps find in them the indications of the Iconoclastic doctrines complimentary to Iconoclastic dogmatic writings. In the present study we will discuss two of such passages from the Vita Tarasii, one of which will give indications of Iconoclastic Christology, and another of Iconoclastic doctrine on the state of the resurrected body of Christ. The first text which draws our attention seems to refute a certain Iconoclastic charge. Speaking about the Christ’s depiction on the Crucifix, Igna-
of Salvation through the intercession of the bearers of the Prize [i. e. the Martyrs]». Similar feelings are expressed in the eighth and ninth ode of the Canon (I. EVÈENKO, Hagiography of the Iconoclast Period // Iconoclasm. Papers given at the Ninth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, University of Birmingham, March 1975, eds. A. Bryer, J. Herrin (Birmingham, 1977) 113–131, p. 122 with more references). 4 The Suda Lexicon attributes Ignatius the Lives of Tarasius and Nicephorus; I. evèenko convincingly attributes him also the Life of George of Amastris; its composition he puts into Ignatius’ «Iconoclastic» period (EVÈENKO, Hagiography... 121– 125). See also G. MAKRIS, Ignatios Diakonos und die Vita des hl. Gregorios Dekapolites (Stuttgart, 1997). 5 The Life of the Patriarch Tarasios by Ignatios the Deacon / Ed. S. EFTHYMIADIS (Aldershot, 1998) (Birmingham Byzantine and Ottoman Monographs 4) (thereforth Vita Tarasii) 174–175; 79–81 for the Greek text. In the epilogue to the Life of Nicephorus, Ignatius admits that he had been defiled by the communion with the Iconoclasts, wants to be cleansed by tears of repentance, and claims to reject his former views (Nicephori Archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani Opuscula Historica / Ed. C. DE BOOR (Leipzig 1880, repr. New York 1975) (= PG 100, 156Bf) 215, 13217, 26).
V. A. Baranov
333
tius adds the following «theological» argument, which, strictly speaking, was not required by the narration: By the word of truth penned in ink He is proclaimed [God], by the ministers of the Word (cf. Luke 1: 2), insofar as possible, but by works [of art] through colors He is both circumscribed and depicted by them and their attendants; they do not mingle what is simple and formless in essence with coarse matter — nor is He cut off or is subject to any passion — but they most excellently handed down to circumscribe and to depict that which is visible and tangible by nature (lo/gw| me\ n al) hqei/aj u (po\ tw=n tou= lo/gou u (phretw=n me/lani crwsqe/nti, w j( e )nh=n, katagge/lletai e rgw| )/ de\ dia\ crwma/twn u (p’ au t) w=n te kai\ tw=n o)padw=n perigra/fetai/ te kai\ gra/fetai, ou ) th=| pacei/a| sugkatamignu/ntwn u(/lh| to\ kat ou)si/an a (plou=n kai\ a n) ei/deon ou)de\ ga\r perite/mnetai kai\ pa/qoj u f( i/statai, — to\ de\ pefuko\ j o (ra=sqai kai\ yhlafa=sqai (cf. 1 John 1:1), gra/fein kai\ perigra/fein parado/ntwn w(j a)/rista)6
The Iconodules, says Ignatius, do not mingle the simple and formless essence of the divinity with «coarse» matter in the icons, or cut the divinity off the humanity, as if refuting certain unnamed adversaries, who could only be the Iconoclasts. Let us reverse the order: the Iconoclasts, including Ignatius earlier, believed that the Iconodules erred in this respect. Indeed, this position is totally consonant with the Iconoclasts’ famous Christological dilemma: depictions of Christ on icons introduce either a mixture of the natures of Christ (a Monophysite error co-circumscribing Christ’s divinity by the circumscription of his depicted flesh) or their division (a Nestorian error in depicting the sole flesh of Christ on the icon).7 The dilemma, being a core Christological argument against icons in the time of the Iconoclastic Council of Hereia (754) receives the explicit form in the Iconoclastic Council of St. Sophia (815), an event which happened during the prime of Ignatius’ life: 6
Vita Tarasii, 142, 10–17. According to the Horos of Hiereia, the Iconodules «associate themselves with Nestorius having divided one Son and Word of God who became man for our sake into two sons… But also Arius, and Dioscorus, and Eutyches, and Severus, who have taught the confusion and mixture of the natures of the one Christ (Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio / Ed. J. D. MANSI (Florence—Venice, 1759–1798) Vol. 13 (thereforth — MANSI 13) 241E; 244D = T. KRANNICH, Ch. SCHUBERT, C. SADE, Die ikonoklastische Synode von Hiereia 754 (Tübingen, 2002) (Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 15) (thereforth — Synode) 39); «Such person created the icon and named it ‘Christ.’ But the name of ‘Christ’ means God and Man, so that the icon is also that of God and Man. Then he either circumscribed the incircumscribable divinity by the circumscription of created flesh according to his vain opinion, or confused that unconfused union falling in the iniquity of confusion. From that he made two blasphemies against God: through the circumscription and through confusion» (MANSI 13, 252A = Synode, 41). 7
334
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
But those who had given veneration to the soulless images, made these heresies the support of their previous absurd doctrine, either circumscribing, together with the image, the incircumscribable, or cutting the flesh from the divinity, thus correcting evil with evil, escaping nonsense, they fall into nonsense ( A) lla\ tau/taj pa/lin ta\ j ai (re/seij oi ( tai=j a)yu/coij ei )ko/sin th\n prosku/nhsin dw/santej, a f) ormh\ n th=j pri\n au )tw=n at) opi/aj e )cari/santo, h)\ sumperigra/fontej th=| ei )ko/ni to\n a p) eri/grafon h)\ th\ n sa/rka e )k th=j qeo/thtoj katate/mnontej, kakw=| to\ kako\n diorqou/menoi: at) o/phma ga\r perifeu/gontej, at) oph/mati peripi/ptousin)8
The above passage from the Vita Tarasii fits well into what we already know from the Iconoclastic «dogmatic» writings such as the Definitions of the Councils of Hiereia and St. Sophia providing perhaps a wider context for the expression of the theological ideas in other literary genres. The next instance is more interesting because it helps to clarify the Iconoclastic position only implicitly present in the Definition of Hiereia, which concerns the state of Christ’s resurrected body. In the description of Patriarch Tarasius’ parents Ignatius includes a story which illustrates the just character of Tarasius’ father, the judge. The story tells that certain poor women were falsely accused of murdering their newborn babies, being transformed by means of magic into spirits and penetrating into the room where the babies were kept; and Tarasius’ father as a just judge, released them from such accusations. Certainly, Ignatius could have chosen any other story from the legal practice of his time with just the same effect, why such a bizarre one? Precisely because Ignatius can use the story on ghosts9 to argue against the Iconoclastic doctrine on the subtle body of Christ, the belief which Ignatius had also shared! Having described the story and justice of Tarasius’ father, Ignatius proceeds to his main point: What insensibility, what blindness of the eyes of the heart, have those who believe that a body compact in length, depth and width can be dissolved and contained in a spirit and permitted to do all this! When Christ said that «true spirit has no flesh and bones», (cf. Luke 24: 39) was He regarded as a ghost by those who could certify this? But also Christ himself, who assumed true flesh 8 Ed. J. M. FEATHERSTONE, Nicephori Patriarchae Constantinoploitani Refutatio et eversio definitionis synodalis anni 815 (Turnhout—Leuven, 1997) (CChr, Series Graeca 33) 37, 2–9, p. 81. 9 In fact, this story, as a popular superstition of the time, must have had some foundations: it is also recorded in a short treatise On the Dragons and Ghosts transmitted under the name of John of Damascus (CPG 8087, 1–2). Cf. «Some of the most ignorant say that there exist women-ghosts which are also called geludas. They say that at nights they appear in the air and, if they visit the house, it is impossible to hinder them neither with doors nor with locks, but they come through doors, locked with all care, and strangle the babies» (PG 96, 1604A).
V. A. Baranov
335
and verily confirmed to his disciples that the spirit has no flesh and bones, in no way can be described as a phantom with no substance ( )\W th=j an) alghsi/aj, w)\ th=j tw=n kardiakw=n o)mma/twn phrw/sewj, ei) tw=| mh/kei kai\ ba/qei kai\ pla/tei sw=ma pepilhme/non, dialuqe\ n ei )j pneu=ma, cwrei= kai\ sugcwrei=tai tau=ta poiei=n! Ara )= Cristo\j ei)pw=n «h ( al) h/qeia pneu=ma, sa/rka kai\ o)ste/a ou)k e)/cei», fa/ntasma toi=j tau=ta bebaioume/noij lelo/gistai; Alla\ ) mh\n kai\ Cristo\j a l) hqh= sa/rka labw\ n kai\ pneu=ma sa/rka kai\ o)ste/a mh\ e cein )/ toi=j maqhtai=j ay ) eudw=j pistwsa/menoj ou d) emi/a| fantasi/aj a)nuparxi/a| perigrafh/setai).10
We should remember that the key citation from Luke was concerned with the appearance of Christ to his disciples after the Resurrection, and his testimony on the tangibility of his Resurrected body. Those who believed in the «dissolution» of Christ’s body must have been Ignatius’ contemporary Iconoclasts. Apparently the Scriptural citation was a standard weapon from the armory of the Iconodules aimed at proving Christ’s circumscribability, and, consequently, visibility and depictability after the Resurrection: with the help of the same Scriptural passage, Theodore the Studite in his Parva Catechesis insists that Christ preserved his bodily qualities, writing against the Iconoclasts who taught the opposite doctrine: …after the Resurrection he touched meat [though] indeed his holy flesh had not any need. But in the same way, in order to assure His Resurrection, He ate and drank and [allowed] His side to be touched. And He said this to those who taught that He was a spirit: «Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: touch me and see that a spirit has no flesh and bones as you see me have». What would you say to this, oh the enemy of Christ? If He has flesh and bones, why can He not be depicted? (…meta\ th\ n a n) a/stasin brw/sewj h(/yato, kai/toi mh\ deome/nhj th=j a(gi/aj sarko\j au)tou=: a)ll’ o(/mwj i(/na th\ n an) a/stasin pistw/shtai, kai\ e)/fage kai\ e pie /) kai\ e )yhlafh/qh th\n pleura\ n, kai\ toi=j nomi/sasin au)to\n pneu=ma ei)=nai ta/de fhsi/n: « )/Idete ta\ j cei=ra/j mou kai\ tou\j po/daj mou, o(/ti au)to\j e )gw/ ei )mi: yhlafh/sate/ me kai\ id)/ ete o t)/ i pneu=ma sa/rka kai\ o)ste/a ou)k e)/cei, kaqw\ j e )me\ qewrei=te e conta». )/ Ti/ fh=|j pro\j tau=ta, w)= cristoma/ce; Ei ) sa/rka kai\ o )ste/a e cei, )/ ou k) e cei /) kai\ to\ e )xeikoni/zesqai;)11
Now what is precisely this «opposite doctrine» or what exactly was the teaching of Iconoclasts on the qualities of the Resurrected body of Christ? We should review the Iconoclastic doctrinal sources to see if this position reveals itself in the Synodical definitions of Iconoclastic theology. The doctrine that Christ after the resurrection abolished his earthly existence accord10
Vita Tarasii, 73, 17–74, 24; trans. from p. 172, slightly modified. Theodore the Studite, Parva Catechesis, 6, 36–43 (Ed. E. AUVRAY, Theodori Studitis Praepositi Parva Catechesis (Paris, 1891) 20–21). 11
336
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
ing to the flesh is reflected in the Scriptural florilegium of Hiereia,12 where two Scriptural verses pertain to the Iconoclastic understanding of the dichotomy between Christ’s state after the Resurrection and ours still expecting it. The Iconoclasts do not provide their explanation of how they understand the verses, but we can deduce it from the polemics of their contemporary Iconodules. The Iconoclastic florilegium as a part of the Definition of Hiereia was refuted piecemeal at Nicaea II. The Iconodules certainly could not «refute» the Scriptural verses themselves but instead could give their own «correct» understanding, thus hinting at what the «incorrect» interpretation was. According to the Iconodulic refutation of the Iconoclastic interpretation, the Iconoclasts interpreted the Scriptural verse: «If we knew Christ according to flesh, now by no means we know Him (as such)» (2 Cor. 5:16) in a radically different manner from that of two passages from St. John Chrysostom and St. Cyril13 which the Iconodules cite as expression of their own interpretation of the passage: Christ’s existence «not according to flesh» means the sameness of his body with the only difference that it obtained after the Resurrection the freedom from any passion and suffering associated with the natural state of fallen human nature, such as hunger or thirst.14 The Iconoclasts however must have taught the opposite — a radical change of qualities of Christ’s resurrected body. Another polemical text of Theodore the Studite confirms our hypothesis. In the three Antirrhetici Theodore uses the genre of dialogue between the Iconodule (himself) and the Iconoclast, apparently putting into the mouth of his adversary the most typical or most dangerous arguments from his viewpoint. In the pertinent passage the Iconoclast uses the lines from 2 Cor. 5:16 for supporting his thesis of the incircumscribability of Christ after the Resurrection, making explicit what the «wrong» interpretation of the verse for the Fathers of Nicaea II was. Concerning Theodore the Studite’s argument (closely following that of Nicaea II) that Christ maintained the same properties of his human nature before the Passion and after the Resurrection, the Iconoclast
12
MANSI 13, 285BC = Synode, 50–51. For Cyril of Alexandria, see P. VAN DEN VEN, La patristique et hagiographie du Concile de Nicée de 787 // Byz 25–27 (1955–1957) ¹ 26. 350 (MANSI 13, 320E–324B, esp. 321E; from Cyril of Alexandria’s Sermon against the Synousiasts). For John Chrysostom, see ibid. ¹ 41. 352 (MANSI 13, 288D, from John Chrysostom’s Eleventh Homily on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians), and ¹ 42. 353 (MANSI 13, 289E, from John Chrysostom’s Tenth Homily on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians). 14 Or, in theological terms, after the Resurrection, Christ puts away the «natural» of «blameless» passions (a )dia/ blhta pa/ qh). Cf. John of Damascus, Expositio fidei III, 20 (Ed. B. KOTTER, Expositio fidei // Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos. Vol 2 (Berlin—New York, 1973) 162, 9–10) (PTS 12); and ibid. IV, 27 (p. 237, 92ff, and esp. p. 238, 104–105). 13
V. A. Baranov
337
replies that the visibility of Christ’s body to the Apostles after the Resurrection can be explained not by the tangibility of Christ’s resurrected body but rather by a miracle. Christ’s appearance to the Apostles is explained as God’s condescension to human weakness which needs to see God in corporeal form, in a way, as a miracle against the nature of Christ’s resurrected state similar to the Prophets’ visions of the divinity in corporeal form in the Old Testament, and these visions do not possess dogmatic foundations for the justification of images:15 Using the means of condescension, the Lord showed himself to the Apostles after his Resurrection having the properties of his body, but neither in coarseness nor in circumscription: thus he was seen in the midst of them while the doors were closed, and again he became invisible for them (Sugkataba/sewj me/troij crw/menoj o ( Ku/rioj de/deicen e (auto\ n meta\ th\ n a)na/stasin toi=j ap) osto/loij e)/cwn ta\ me\n i )diw/mata tou= sw/matoj, a )ll’ ou )k e )n pacu/ thti ou )de\ e )n perigrafh=:| kata\ tou=to ga\ r kekleisme/nwn tw=n qurw=n ei )j to\ me/son au )tw=n w)/fqh: kai\ pa/ lin a)/fantoj e )ge/neto a)p’ au )tw=n)16
To the objection of the Orthodox that what is visible is necessarily circumscribable, the Iconoclast replies: «the Apostles saw the Lord with purified eyes, with our eyes it is not accessible to look [at him] ( )/Ommasi kekaqarme/noij teqe/antai oi ( apo/ ) stoloi to\ n Ku/rion, oij(= h m ( a=j prosble/pein ou k) e )fikto/n)».17 St. Theodore the Studite’s Iconoclast was not alone in stating that a certain change happened with Christ’s material body after the Resurrection. The same argument is presented in a fragment from the Peuseis of Constantine V, which alludes to the same scriptural passage from John 20:19–23: You depict Christ before Christ’s Passions and Resurrection. But what [can] you say about that which is after the Resurrection? Then the reality is not in those things: the body of Christ was assigned with incorruptibility and immortality. How then for you those things will give way to depiction and how will be depicted that which entered without any hindrance to the disciples while the doors were closed (Pro\ me\ n tou = pa/ qouj Cristou= kai\ th=j a)nasta/ sewj, Cristo\n perigra/ feij: ti/ d’ a)\n ei)/poij meta\ th\ n a)na/stasin;
15 Cf. Theodore Studite’s heretic, according to whom vision does not have a dogmatic weight (Antirrheticus II, 18, PG 99, 365A). 16 PG 99, 384D. 17 PG 99, 384D. This doctrine is also tacitly present in the eighth anathema of the Council of Hiereia: «If anyone practices to perceive the divine character of the Word of God according to his incarnation through the material colours and not venerate from the whole heart by the eyes of intellect him who sits in the highest on the throne of glory above the brightness of the sun, let him be anathema!» (MANSI 13, 336E = Synode, 62).
338
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
E) peidh\ ou )k e )n toi=j au )toi=j ta\ pra/ gmata: a)/fqarton ga\ r loipo\ n to\ sw=ma Cristou=, kai\ th\n a)qanasi/an klhrwsa/menon: pou= oun= ) soi ta\ th=j perigrafh=j cwrh/seie; kai\ pw=j perigrafh/setai to\ kekleisme/nwn tw=n qurw=n pro\j tou=j maqhta\ j ei )sio\ n, kai\ mhdeni\ kwlu/mati perieirgo/menon;)18
In order to better understand what change happens with Christ’s resurrected body, it is important to see what qualities the Iconoclasts assign to it before the Resurrection. The Christological formula from the Definition of Hiereia says: «While the divinity of the Son has assumed in his own hypostasis the nature of the flesh, the soul mediated between the divinity and the coarseness of the flesh (proslabou/shj ga\ r th=j tou= uiou= ( qeo/thtoj e )n th|= i)di/a| u (posta/sei th\n th=j sarko\j fu/sin, h ( yuch\ e )mesi/teuse qeo/thti kai\ sarko\ j pacu/thti)».19 So before the Resurrection the body of Christ is «coarse», material and mortal, but after the Resurrection it obtains «incorruptibility and immortality». Moreover, this body possesses new qualities — it is «subtle» and immaterial. We read the following concerning the resurrected body of Christ in an anathema of the Iconoclastic Council of Hiereia: If anyone does not confess our Lord Jesus Christ with the assumption of his flesh animated by reasonable and intellectual soul, to sit together with God and Father, and to come again to judge the living and the dead with his paternal glory, though neither flesh, nor without body, of the God-like body by the reasons which he knows himself, so that he may be seen by those who stabbed him remaining God out of coarseness, anathema! (ei )/ tij ou )c o (mologei= to\n ku/rion h (mw=n )Ihsou n= Cristo\ n meta\ tou = proslh/mmatoj, h)/toi th=j e )yucwme/nhj yuch=| logikh=| te kai\ noera=| sarko\j au )tou= sunedreu/ein tw=| Qew=| kai\ patri/, ou(/tw te pa/lin h(/xein meta\ th=j patrikh=j au)tou= do/xhj kri=nai zw=ntaj kai\ nekrou/j, ou )ke/ti me\n sa/rka, ou )k a)sw/maton de/, oij(= au )to\ j oide )= lo/goij qeoeideste/rou sw/matoj, i(n/ a kai\ o )fqh=| u (po\ tw=n e )kkenthsa/ntwn, kai\ mei/nh| Qeo\j e x)/ w pacu/thtoj, a)na/qema)20
The importance of this anathema lies in the fact, that it uses for the description of Christ’s body the same term «pacu/j» (thick, coarse, material) as in the Iconoclastic Christological formula of the Council of Hiereia cited above (as well as in the «Christological allusion» of Ignatius from the Vita Tarasii). According to the text of the anathema, first, Resurrected Christ has a body, but this body is «not flesh» (ou k) e/ti me\ n sa/rka), it is «God-like» 18
PG 100, 437B. MANSI 13, 257AB = Synode, 42. 20 MANSI 13, 336D = Synode, 60–62. Here the Iconoclasts use another quotation from Gregory Nazianzen (Oratio 40, PG 36, 424; Stephen GERO, Byzantine Iconoclasm during the Reign of Constantine V with Particular Attention to the Oriental Sources (Louvain, 1977) (CSCO, sub. 52) n. 126, p. 89). 19
V. A. Baranov
339
(qeoeideste/ ron), and «out of coarseness» (e) / xw pacu/ thtoj), though the Christological formula of the same Definition clearly speaks about Christ’s soul as a mediator between the divinity and «the coarseness of flesh» (sarko\ j pacu/ thti). The reason for such seeming discrepancy between the two descriptions of Christ’s body is that the Iconoclasts must have meant the body of different states: the coarse one before the Resurrection (in the Christological formula), and the light, «God-like» body — after the Resurrection (in the anathema). Thus our approach proves to bring forth some important results — on the level of Ignatius’ text, it helps to appreciate what kind of theological ideas circulated among the literary intellectuals in the immediate aftermath of the Iconoclastic Controversy, and how the theological positions we know about from the doctrinal documents were perceived in Byzantine society. However, the results of our investigation are not limited only to the realm of popular mentality — the key passage from the Vita Tarasii indicates and makes explicit a crucial Iconoclastic doctrine only tacitly present in the extant theological writings — the teaching on the change of qualities of Christ’s body, when Christ’s material incarnated body becomes subtle and immaterial after the Resurrection, which entails its utter incircumscribability and indepictability. This was contrary to the Iconodules’ affirmation that Christ according to his human nature maintained essentially the same properties both before the Passion and after the Resurrection and is therefore depictable in all times.
ƒÂÌËÒ ¬. ‡¯Ú‡ÌÓ‚ ÃÓÒÍ‚‡
MARGINALIA BYZANTINOROSSICA. Œ ¬»«¿Õ“»…— Œ-–”—— »’ —¬fl«fl’ ¬ “–¿ “Œ¬ ≈ Ã. ¬. ¡»¡» Œ¬¿1
Åñòü âàðâàðû ïîõëåùå íàñ, à ïèøóò ïðèìåðíî ýòî. ×åì ìû õóæå èõ?  êîíöå êîíöîâ, áûâàþò æå ó íàñ çàáðåäøèå èç Ñèðèè ñîôèñòû, è ðèôìîïëåòû, è äðóãàÿ ðâàíü. Ìû, ñòàëî áûòü, íå ÷óæäû ýëëèíèçìà. Êîíñòàíòèí Êàâàôèñ. Ãðåêîôèë (Ïåðåâîä Ã. Øìàêîâà).2
 îêòÿáðå 2004 ã. â ïðîäàæó ïîñòóïèëà êíèãà Ì. Â. Áèáèêîâà «Byzantinorossica. Ñâîä âèçàíòèéñêèõ ñâèäåòåëüñòâ î Ðóñè» (Ì., 2004). Ýòîò îáúåìíûé, â 700 ñ ëèøíèì ñòðàíèö òîì è ñâîèì íàçâàíèåì, è èçÿùíûì îôîðìëåíèåì, è âíóøèòåëüíûì ñïèñêîì íàó÷íûõ ðåãàëèé àâòîðà, ïîìåùåííûì íà çàäíåé ñòîðîíå ïåðåïëåòà, è, íàêîíåö, òåì, ÷òî îí âûøåë â àâòîðèòåòíîì íàó÷íîì èçäàòåëüñòâå «ßçûêè ñëàâÿíñêîé êóëüòóðû» ïðè ïîääåðæêå ÐÃÍÔ âñåì äîëæåí âûçûâàòü ó ïîòåíöèàëüíîãî ÷èòàòåëÿ îùóùåíèå äîâåðèÿ ê åãî ñîäåðæèìîìó. Òåì äîñàäíåå îêàçàëîñü ÷óâñòâî óäèâëåíèÿ, êîòîðîå âîçíèêëî ñ ïåðâûõ ìèíóò çíàêîìñòâà ñ êíèãîé è ñìåíèëîñü çàòåì ãëóáîêèì ðàçî÷àðîâàíèåì.3 Íî îáî âñåì ïî ïîðÿäêó.  «Ïðåäèñëîâèè» Ì. Â. Áèáèêîâ õàðàêòåðèçóåò ïðåäëàãàåìóþ ðàáîòó êàê «àíàëèç è ïóáëèêàöèþ êîðïóñà ñâèäåòåëüñòâ âèçàíòèéñêèõ èñòî÷íèêîâ IXXV ââ. ïî äðåâíåðóññêîìó ïåðèîäó îòå÷åñòâåííîé èñòîðèè, èñòîðèè ìåæäóíàðîäíûõ ñâÿçåé (çäåñü è äàëåå êóðñèâ àâòîðà ñòàòüè. Ä. Ê.) ñðåäíåâåêîâîé Âîñòî÷íîé Åâðîïû». Àâòîð îòìå÷àåò òàêæå, ÷òî «â êíèãå ïðåäñòàâëåíà èñòî÷íèêîâåä÷åñêàÿ áàçà äëÿ èññëåäîâàíèÿ èñ-
Àâòîð áûë áû áëàãîäàðåí çà îòêëèêè ïî âîïðîñàì, çàòðàãèâàåìûì â ñòàòüå. E-mail: [email protected]. 2 Ðóññêàÿ Êàâàôèàíà.  òðåõ ÷àñòÿõ (Ì., 2000) 265. 3 Âïðî÷åì, îíî íå áûëî íåîæèäàííûì â ñâåòå îòðèöàòåëüíîãî îòêëèêà À. Êàðïîçèëîñà íà îäíó èç ïðåäûäóùèõ êíèã Ì. Â. Áèáèêîâà: M. V. Bibikov, Istoriceskaja Literatura Vizantii
Bespr. von A. KARPOZILOS // BZ 94.1 (2001) 288–289. 1
Д. В. Каштанов
!"
òîðèè ðóññêî-âèçàíòèéñêèõ ñâÿçåé ãîñóäàðñòâåííûõ, öåðêîâíûõ, ýêîíîìè÷åñêèõ, êóëüòóðíûõ è äð». Îñîáóþ öåííîñòü äàííîìó òðóäó, ïî ìíåíèþ åãî àâòîðà, ïðåäñòàâëÿåò òî, ÷òî îí «âïåðâûå íà ñîâðåìåííîì óðîâíå îáîáùàåò âñå ñâèäåòåëüñòâà âèçàíòèéñêèõ èñòî÷íèêîâ, ââîäèò â íàó÷íûé îáîðîò íåîïóáëèêîâàííûå ìàòåðèàëû âèçàíòèéñêèõ ðóêîïèñåé, àêòîâ, ýïèãðàôè÷åñêèõ ïàìÿòíèêîâ» (ñ. 9). Êíèãà ñîñòîèò èç òðåõ íåðàâíîöåííûõ è ïî îáúåìó, è ïî ñîäåðæàíèþ ðàçäåëîâ. Ïåðâàÿ ÷àñòü, çàíèìàþùàÿ îêîëî îäíîé ñåäüìîé ðàáîòû «Âèçàíòèéñêèå èñòî÷íèêè î ñëàâÿíàõ è Äðåâíåé Ðóñè», îõàðàêòåðèçîâàíà â àííîòàöèè ê êíèãå êàê «èñòîðèêî-àíàëèòè÷åñêàÿ». Âòîðàÿ ÷àñòü «Ñâîä âèçàíòèéñêèõ èñòî÷íèêîâ» ÿâëÿåòñÿ îñíîâíîé, çàíèìàÿ áóëüøóþ ÷àñòü òîìà. Åå çàäà÷è îõàðàêòåðèçîâàíû ñëåäóþùèì îáðàçîì: «Èñòî÷íèêîâåä÷åñêèé ðàçäåë (÷àñòü 2) ïðåäñòàâëÿåò êðàòêóþ õàðàêòåðèñòèêó âñåõ èñïîëüçóåìûõ èñòî÷íèêîâ, îáîñíîâàíèå äàòèðîâîê è àòðèáóöèé, óêàçàíèå íà îáúåì è ñîäåðæàíèå èõ ñâèäåòåëüñòâ î Ðóñè» (ñ. 10). Íàêîíåö, òðåòüÿ ÷àñòü, îçàãëàâëåííàÿ «Îíîìàñòèêîí. Ñâîä âèçàíòèéñêèõ ñâèäåòåëüñòâ î Ðóñè», íåñìîòðÿ íà òî, ÷òî ïî êîëè÷åñòâó ñòðàíèö çíà÷èòåëüíî óñòóïàåò âòîðîé (÷óòü áîëåå äâóõñîò), çà ñ÷åò ñëîâàðíîé îðãàíèçàöèè ìàòåðèàëà è èñïîëüçîâàíèÿ øðèôòà áîëåå ìåëêîãî êåãëÿ åäâà ëè íå äîñòèãàåò åå îáúåìà. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, êàê ñëåäóåò èç óòâåðæäåíèé Ì. Â. Áèáèêîâà, ïðåäëàãàåìûé ÷èòàòåëþ òðóä äîëæåí îáëàäàòü ñëåäóþùèìè ñâîéñòâàìè: âñåîáúåìëþùàÿ ãëóáèíà îõâàòà ìàòåðèàëà; ââåäåíèå â íàó÷íûé îáîðîò íîâûõ äàííûõ; ñîâðåìåííûé óðîâåíü êðèòèêè èñòî÷íèêîâ; øèðîêèé ýòíîïîëèòè÷åñêèé è êóëüòóðíûé ôîí ïðèâîäèìûõ äàííûõ ñ àêöåíòîì íà âûÿâëåíèè êîíêðåòíîé èíôîðìàöèè ïî çàÿâëåííîé òåìàòèêå. Îáðàòèìñÿ òåïåðü ê ñîäåðæàíèþ êàæäîãî ðàçäåëà è ïîñìîòðèì, íàñêîëüêî îíî ñîîòâåòñòâóåò ýòèì òðåáîâàíèÿì. Ïåðâàÿ æå ÷àñòü êíèãè âûçûâàåò íåäîóìåíèå. Äåëî â òîì, ÷òî îíà ïðåäñòàâëÿåò ñîáîé äîñëîâíîå âîñïðîèçâåäåíèå ðàçäåëà, íàïèñàííîãî Ì. Â. Áèáèêîâûì äëÿ êîëëåêòèâíîãî òðóäà «Äðåâíÿÿ Ðóñü â ñâåòå çàðóáåæíûõ èñòî÷íèêîâ» (1-å èçä.: Ì., 1999). Ýòà êíèãà, âûøåäøàÿ â ïåðèîä 19992003 ãã. íåñêîëüêèìè èçäàíèÿìè îáùèì òèðàæîì îêîëî 10 òûñ. ýêçåìïëÿðîâ (áîëåå òî÷íóþ èíôîðìàöèþ â èçäàòåëüñòâå «Ëîãîñ» ìíå ïðåäîñòàâèòü íå ñìîãëè), íåñëà íà ñåáå ãðèô «ó÷åáíîå ïîñîáèå äëÿ ñòóäåíòîâ âóçîâ».  äàííîì ôàêòå ñàìîì ïî ñåáå íåò íè÷åãî çàâåäîìî íåïðàâèëüíîãî, âåäü óðîâåíü íàó÷íûõ ðàáîò, íàïèñàííûõ äëÿ ñòóäåí÷åñêîé àóäèòîðèè, íå äîëæåí áûòü íèæå ïðî÷èõ. Âîïðîñû âûçûâàåò íåîáõîäèìîñòü ïîâòîðíîé ïóáëèêàöèè äàííîãî ðàçäåëà óæå â íîâîé êíèãå Ì. Â. Áèáèêîâà, êîòîðàÿ âûøëà òèðàæîì 800 ýêçåìïëÿðîâ è, òàêèì îáðàçîì, íå ìîæåò ñðàâíÿòüñÿ ñ äåñÿòüþ òûñÿ÷àìè ïîòåíöèàëüíûõ ÷èòàòåëåé êîëëåêòèâíîé ìîíîãðàôèè. Íåóæåëè Ì. Â. Áèáèêîâ ïîëó÷àë ãðàíòû ÐÃÍÔ íà ïîäãîòîâêó è èçäàíèå «Ñâîäà» (¹¹ 00-01-00413à; 03-01-00293ä;
!"
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
04-01-00261à)4 çàòåì, ÷òîáû â èòîãå çíà÷èòåëüíóþ ÷àñòü êíèãè îòäàòü ïîä ïåðåèçäàíèå óæå îïóáëèêîâàííîé ðàáîòû? Îäíàêî âñå ýòî íå ñàìûå íåïðèÿòíûå âîïðîñû, êîòîðûå âîçíèêàþò ïðè èçó÷åíèè ïåðâîé ÷àñòè êíèãè. Äëÿ ïðèìåðà îáðàòèìñÿ ê ãëàâå 5 «Öåðêîâíûå ñâÿçè Ðóñè è Âèçàíòèè», çíà÷èòåëüíàÿ ÷àñòü êîòîðîé ïîñâÿùåíà îáñóæäåíèþ äàííûõ ñâÿçåé â ñåðåäèíå XII â. Î òîì, êòî áûë äÿäåé Ôåîäîðà Ïðîäðîìà, ðå÷ü ïîéäåò íèæå, ñåé÷àñ íàñ áóäåò èíòåðåñîâàòü òî, êàê Ì. Â. Áèáèêîâ èçëàãàåò ìàòåðèàë î «ïàòðèàðøèõ ïîñëàíèÿõ èç Êîíñòàíòèíîïîëÿ íà Ðóñü», êîòîðûå ñîõðàíèëèñü â äðåâíåðóññêèõ ïåðåâîäàõ. Îòìåòèì, ÷òî, óïîìèíàÿ ïîñëàíèå ïàòðèàðõà Íèêîëàÿ IV Ìóçàëîíà íîâãîðîäñêîìó åïèñêîïó Íèôîíòó, íå ëèøíèì áûëî áû óêàçàòü íà ñòàòüþ, ïîñâÿùåííóþ ïðîáëåìå àóòåíòè÷íîñòè äàííîãî òåêñòà.5 Îäíàêî îñíîâíîå âíèìàíèå àâòîðà ïîñâÿùåíî ïîñëàíèþ Ëóêè Õðèñîâåðãà Àíäðåþ Áîãîëþáñêîìó. Ñêàæåì ñðàçó, ÷òî è òóò Ì. Â. Áèáèêîâ ïðîïóñòèë âåñüìà âàæíóþ ðàáîòó Â. Ë. ßíèíà, ïîñâÿùåííóþ îáñóæäåíèþ âîïðîñà õðîíîëîãèè ñîáûòèé, ñâÿçàííûõ ñ ïîÿâëåíèåì äàííîãî òåêñòà.6 Ì. Â. Áèáèêîâ ïûòàåòñÿ íàéòè ñëåäû ãðå÷åñêîãî îðèãèíàëà â äðåâíåðóññêîì ïåðåâîäå. Òàê, îí ññûëàåòñÿ íà òî, ÷òî íåñîãëàñîâàííîñòü â ðîäå âî ôðàçå «ãðàä Âîëîäèìåð,
â íåé æå» îòðàæàåò æåíñêèé ðîä ãðå÷åñêîãî ðüëéò; ÷òî áåç ïåðåâîäà îñòàâëåí «òåðìèí òîðîêè è òîðîöè îò ãðå÷. è§ñáî áðîíÿ, îïëîò; íàêîíåö, ÷òî â ïîñëàíèè èñïîëüçîâàíû ñëîâà «ïÿíòèêîñòèÿ è ïðåñâèòåð, âìåñòî ñîîòâåòñòâóþùèõ èì ñëîâ ïÿòèäåñÿòíèöà è ñòàðåö» (ñ. 111). Ïðè òîì, ÷òî ó íàñ íåò íèêàêèõ ñîìíåíèé â ñóùåñòâîâàíèè ãðå÷åñêîãî îðèãèíàëà, ìû âûíóæäåíû îòìåòèòü, ÷òî âñå àðãóìåíòû Ì. Â. Áèáèêîâà íå èìåþò íè÷åãî îáùåãî ñ äåéñòâèòåëüíûì ïîëîæåíèåì âåùåé. Ïîñëåäíèé äîâîä âîîáùå íå ìîæåò ñëóæèòü îñíîâàíèåì äëÿ ïðåäïîëîæåíèÿ î ïåðåâîäíîì õàðàêòåðå òåêñòà, ïîñêîëüêó ñëîâà «ïÿíòèêîñòèÿ» è «ïðåñâèòåð» ê XII â. ïðî÷íî âîøëè â öåðêîâíîñëàâÿíñêóþ ëåêñèêó è óïîòðåáëÿëèñü â îðèãèíàëüíûõ ïðîèçâåäåíèÿõ.7 ×òî êàñàåòñÿ ñëîâà «òîÄàííûå âçÿòû ñ ñàéòà ÐÃÍÔ (http://www.rfh.ru): Ïðîäîëæàþùèåñÿ íàó÷íîèññëåäîâàòåëüñêèå ïðîåêòû 20002001 ãã. (http://www.rfh.ru/p2-18-02-2002.asp); Íàó÷íûå ïðîåêòû, çàâåðøåííûå â 2002 ã. (http://www.rfh.ru/p1-19-02-2003.asp); Ïðîåêòû ïî èçäàíèþ íàó÷íûõ òðóäîâ 2003 ã. (http://www.rfh.ru/p4-19-02-2003.asp); Íàó÷íî-èññëåäîâàòåëüñêèå ïðîåêòû 2004 ã. (http://www.rfh.ru/p3-19-02-2004.asp). 5 F. POLJAKOV, Zur Authentizität des Briefes vom Patriarchen Nikolaos IV. Muzalon an den Novgoroden Erzbischof Nifont // Die Welt der Slaven 33 (1988) 283–302. 6 Â. Ë. ßÍÈÍ , Ìîëèâäîâóë ðîñòîâñêîãî àðõèåïèñêîïà Ëåîíòèÿ // Âñïîìîãàòåëüíûå èñòîðè÷åñêèå äèñöèïëèíû 25 (1994) 5–18. 7 Ñì.: È. È. ÑÐÅÇÍÅÂÑÊÈÉ, Ìåòàðèàëû äëÿ ñëîâàðÿ äðåâíåðóññêîãî ÿçûêà ïî ïèñüìåííûì ïàìÿòíèêàì (ÑÏá., 1902) Ò. 2. ËÏ. Ñòá. 1376, 15251526 (ïðåçâèòåðú, ïðîçâèòåðú: ïðèìåðû èç «Ïîâåñòè âðåìåííûõ ëåò», «Ñêàçàíèÿ î Áîðèñå è Ãëåáå» è «Æèòèÿ Ôåîäîñèÿ Ïå÷åðñêîãî»); Ñòá. 1793 (ïÿíòèêîñòüíûè: ïðè4
Д. В. Каштанов
!"!
ðîêè/òîðîöè» (íàïîìíèì êîíòåêñò: ïî ñëîâàì Õðèñîâåðãà, äåâñòâî «èìàò æå è òîðîêè, èæå àããåëè èìåþò, æèòèå áî áåçæåííîå, ÷èñòîå, ñî àããåëû ðàâíî åñòü, òîðîöè æå ïîêîèùå ñâÿòîãî Äóõà åñòü»8 ), òî è îíî íå èìååò îòíîøåíèÿ ê ãðå÷åñêîìó ÿçûêó. Ïðîöèòèðóåì «Öåðêîâíîñëàâÿíñêèé ñëîâàðü» Ã. Äüÿ÷åíêî: «Òîðîöè ýòî ñëîâî îäíîãî êîðíÿ ñ ãëàãîëîì îòîðî÷èòü, è âûðàæàåò îñîáîå âíèìàíèå àíãåëîâ ê âåùàíèÿì Áîæèèì; îòñþäà òîðîöè íàçûâàþòñÿ òàêæå ñëóõàìè.  èêîíîãðàôèè îíè ïðîèçîøëè îò íåÿñíîãî ïîíèìàíèÿ èçîáðàæåíèé. Ó àíãåëîâ è ó âñåõ íåáåñíûõ ÷èíîâ âîëîñû ïðèäåðæèâàþòñÿ ïîâÿçêîþ, êîòîðîé êîíöû ðàçâåâàþòñÿ ñ îáåèõ ñòîðîí ãîëîâû âîçëå óøåé. Ýòè êîíöû ïîâÿçêè áûëè ïðèíÿòû çà îñîáûå ëåíòû, áóäòî áû âûõîäÿùèå èç óøåé, è áûëè èñòîëêîâàíû òîðîöàìè èëè ñëóõàìè».9 ×òî æå êàñàåòñÿ ôðàçû «ãðàä Âîëîäèìåð,
â íåé æå», òî ìåñòîèìåíèÿ «íåé» â ïóáëèêàöèÿõ òåêñòà íàì íàéòè íå óäàëîñü;10 â òåêñòå, êàê è ïîëîæåíî, ñòîèò ñëîâî «íåì» í¸ì (öèòèðóåì ïî «êðàòêîé» ðåäàêöèè): «Ñêàçûâàåò æå íàì ïèñàíèå òâîå, èæå ãðàä Âîëîäèìåðü èç îñíîâàíèÿ âîçäâèãë åñè âåëèê ñî ìíîãîì ÷åëîâåê, â íåì æå è öåðêâè ìíîãè ñîçäàë åñè»;11 àíàëîãè÷íî è â ðåäàêöèè Íèêîíîâñêîé ëåòîïèñè12 ÷òî è ïîíÿòíî, ïîñêîëüêó ÷åëîâåê, ïåðåâåäøèé âàæíîå ïèñüìî ïàòðèàðõà, âðÿä ëè ìîã äîïóñòèòü ñòîëü ýëåìåíòàðíóþ è î÷åâèäíóþ îøèáêó â ñîãëàñîâàíèè ðîäà ñóùåñòâèòåëüíîãî è ìåñòîèìåíèÿ. Êàê âèäèì, äîâîäû Ì. Â. Áèáèêîâà îêàçàëèñü íåñîñòîÿòåëüíûìè. Åùå áîëåå «çàõâàòûâàþùèì» îêàçûâàåòñÿ ïîñëåäóþùåå èçëîæåíèå, öåëüþ êîòîðîãî ÿâëÿåòñÿ îáîñíîâàòü çíà÷èòåëüíóþ àêòèâèçàöèþ ðóññêî-âèçàíòèéñêèõ îòíîøåíèé â öåðêîâíîé îáëàñòè â ñåðåäèíå XII â. íà îñíîâàíèè äàííûõ âûïóñêà Les Regestes des actes du Patriarchat de Constantinople ìåðû èç Èïàòüåâñêîé è Íîâãîðîäñêîé I ëåòîïèñåé); Ñëîâàðü äðåâíåðóññêîãî ÿçûêà XI–XIV ââ. (Ì., 2000) Ò. 6 (îâàäú ïîêëàñòè). 363364 (ïåíäèêîñòèè: ïðèìåðû èç «Ïîñëàíèÿ ê áðàòó ñòîëïíèêó» ìèòðîïîëèòà Èëàðèîíà). 8 ÏÑÐË. Ò. 9. Ëåòîïèñíûé ñáîðíèê, èìåíóåìûé Ïàòðèàðøåé èëè Íèêîíîâñêîé ëåòîïèñüþ (Ì., 2000) 226. 9 Ïîëíûé öåðêîâíî-ñëàâÿíñêèé ñëîâàðü (ñ âíåñåíèåì â íåãî âàæíåéøèõ äðåâíå-ðóññêèõ ñëîâ è âûðàæåíèé)
/ Ñîñò. ñâÿùåííèê ìàãèñòð ÃÐÈÃÎÐÈÉ ÄÜß×ÅÍÊÎ (Ì., 1993) 727. 10 ÏÑÐË. Ò. 9. Ëåòîïèñíûé ñáîðíèê
223224; ÌÀÊÀÐÈÉ (ÁÓËÃÀÊÎÂ), ìèòð. Ìîñêîâñêèé è Êîëîìåíñêèé, Èñòîðèÿ ðóññêîé öåðêâè (Ì., 1995) Êí. 2. Èñòîðèÿ ðóññêîé öåðêâè â ïåðèîä ñîâåðøåííîé çàâèñèìîñòè åå îò Êîíñòàíòèíîïîëüñêîãî ïàòðèàðõà (9881240) 581582. 11 ÌÀÊÀÐÈÉ (ÁÓËÃÀÊÎÂ), Èñòîðèÿ ðóññêîé öåðêâè
581. Î òîì, ÷òî ðå÷ü èäåò èìåííî îá ýòîé ôðàçå, ñì.: Ïèñüìåííûå ïàìÿòíèêè èñòîðèè Äðåâíåé Ðóñè. Ëåòîïèñè. Ïîâåñòè. Õîæäåíèÿ. Ïîó÷åíèÿ. Æèòèÿ. Ïîñëàíèÿ. Àííîòèðîâàííûé êàòàëîãñïðàâî÷íèê / Ïîä ðåä. ß. Í. ÙÀÏÎÂÀ (ÑÏá., 2003) 254 (î «âêëàäå» Ì. Â. Áèáèêîâà â ýòî èçäàíèå òàêæå ñì. íèæå). 12 ÏÑÐË. Ò. 9. Ëåòîïèñíûé ñáîðíèê
223.
!""
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
ïîä ðåäàêöèåé Â. Ãðþìåëÿ (V. Grumel). Ì. Â. Áèáèêîâ óïîìèíàåò 8 ïàòðèàðøèõ àêòîâ, ñîäåðæàíèå êîòîðûõ áûëî ðåêîíñòðóèðîâàíî Â. Ãðþìåëåì (¹¹ 10461047, 10501051, 10531054, 1056, 1084). Èç íèõ òîëüêî îäèí «ïàòðèàðøåå ïîñîëüñòâî ê êíÿçþ Ðîñòèñëàâó» (çà ¹ 1056) íàõîäèò ïîäòâåðæäåíèå â àóòåíòè÷íîì èñòî÷íèêå (Èïàòüåâñêîé ëåòîïèñè13 ). Îñòàëüíûå «àêòû» áûëè «ñêîíñòðóèðîâàíû» ëèáî íà ìàòåðèàëàõ Íèêîíîâñêîé ëåòîïèñè,14 ëèáî âîîáùå íà îñíîâàíèè «Äåÿíèÿ íà ìíèõà Ìàðòèíà», àíòèðàñêîëüíè÷åé ïîääåëêè íà÷àëà XVIII (!) âåêà, êîòîðàÿ íåçàìåäëèòåëüíî áûëà ðàçîáëà÷åíà ñòàðîîáðÿäöàìè â «Ïîìîðñêèõ îòâåòàõ». Ïîíÿòíî, ÷òî Â. Ãðþìåëü ìîã íå îðèåíòèðîâàòüñÿ â èñòî÷íèêîâåä÷åñêèõ ïðîáëåìàõ (ïñåâäî)äðåâíåðóññêèõ òåêñòîâ. Îäíàêî ìû çàòðóäíÿåìñÿ îáúÿñíèòü ïîäîáíóþ íåîñâåäîìëåííîñòü îòå÷åñòâåííîãî èññëåäîâàòåëÿ, çàíèìàþùåãîñÿ òåìîé «Byzantinorossica» íà ïðîòÿæåíèè ìíîãèõ ëåò. Ïðèõîäèòñÿ êîíñòàòèðîâàòü, ÷òî íåïðîâåðåííûìè äàííûìè ñïðàâî÷íèêà Â. Ãðþìåëÿ ñîñòàâèòåëü «Ñâîäà» îïåðèðóåò â òå÷åíèå íåñêîëüêèõ äåñÿòèëåòèé: îíè ôèãóðèðóþò â ìîíîãðàôèè, âûøåäøåé â 1981 ã.15 è îñíîâàííîé íà êàíäèäàòñêîé äèññåðòàöèè 1976 ã.16 Ìåæäó òåì, ÷òîáû îçíàêîìèòüñÿ ñ îáîèìè äîêóìåíòàìè («Äåÿíèåì» è «Ïîìîðñêèìè îòâåòàìè»), ñåé÷àñ íå îáÿçàòåëüíî äàæå èäòè â áèáëèîòåêó: îíè åñòü è â ñåòè Èíòåðíåò.17 Âïðî÷åì, ó Ì. Â. Áèáèêîâà çà ïî÷òè òðèäöàòü ëåò íå íàøëîñü âðåìåíè çàãëÿíóòü íå òîëüêî â ñïåöèàëüíóþ ëèòåðàòóðó,18 íî è â îáîáùàþùèå ðàáîòû19 ïî èñòî÷íèêîâåäåíèþ Äðåâíåé Ðóñè. ÏÑÐË. Ò. 2. Èïàòüåâñêàÿ ëåòîïèñü (Ì., 1998) Ñòá. 522. Èõ àíàëèç ñì.: ßÍÈÍ, Ìîëèâäîâóë ðîñòîâñêîãî àðõèåïèñêîïà Ëåîíòèÿ... 15 Ì. Â. ÁÈÁÈÊÎÂ, Âèçàíòèéñêèå èñòî÷íèêè ïî èñòîðèè Ðóñè, íàðîäîâ Ñåâåðíîãî Ïðè÷åðíîìîðüÿ è Ñåâåðíîãî Êàâêàçà (XIIXIII ââ.) // Äðåâíåéøèå ãîñóäàðñòâà íà òåððèòîðèè ÑÑÑÐ. Ìàòåðèàëû è èññëåäîâàíèÿ. 1980 (Ì., 1981) 75. 16 Ì. Â. ÁÈÁÈÊÎÂ, Âèçàíòèéñêèå èñòî÷íèêè XII ïåðâîé ïîëîâèíû XIII â. ïî èñòîðèè Ðóñè, íàðîäîâ Ñåâåðíîãî Ïðè÷åðíîìîðüÿ è Ñåâåðíîãî Êàâêàçà. Àâòîðåô. äèññ. êàíä. èñò. íàóê (Ì., 1976). 17 «Äåÿíèÿ íà ìíèõà Ìàðòèíà» íà ñàéòå Òðîèöå-Ñåðãèåâîé ëàâðû (http:// www.stsl.ru/manuscripts/medium.php?col=2&manuscript=020.1&pagefile=020.10004 http://www.stsl.ru/manuscripts/medium.php?col=2&manuscript=020.1& pagefile=020.1-0034); «Ïîìîðñêèå îòâåòû» íà ñàéòå «Ñòàðîâåðèå â äîêóìåíòàõ» (â àðõèâå http://starover.boom.ru/po01.zip http://starover.boom.ru/po10.zip, ôàéëû ñ èíòåðåñóþùåé íàñ ÷àñòüþ «Ïîìîðñêèõ îòâåòîâ»: 35.tif47.tif). 18 Â. Ã. ÄÐÓÆÈÍÈÍ, Ïîäëèííàÿ ðóêîïèñü Ïîìîðñêèõ îòâåòîâ è åå èçäàíèÿ // Èçâåñòèÿ Îòäåëåíèÿ ðóññêîãî ÿçûêà è ñëîâåñíîñòè Èìï. Àêàäåìèè íàóê. Ò. 17. Êí. 1 (1912); ÎÍ ÆÅ, Ïîìîðñêèå ïàëåîãðàôû íà÷àëà XVIII ñòîëåòèÿ // Ëåòîïèñü çàíÿòèé Àðõåîãðàôè÷åñêîé êîìèññèè. Âûï. 31 (Ïåòðîãðàä, 1923); ÎÍ ÆÅ, Äîïîëíåíèå ê èññëåäîâàíèþ î ïîìîðñêèõ ïàëåîãðàôàõ íà÷àëà XVIII âåêà // Ëåòîïèñü çàíÿòèé Àðõåîãðàôè÷åñêîé êîìèññèè. Âûï. 33 (Ëåíèíãðàä, 1926). 19 Ä. Ñ. ËÈÕÀ×ÅÂ, Òåêñòîëîãèÿ (ÑÏá., 2001) 338. Ïðèì. 1; Ã. ÏÎÄÑÊÀËÜÑÊÈÉ, Õðèñòèàíñòâî è áîãîñëîâñêàÿ ëèòåðàòóðà â Êèåâñêîé Ðóñè (9881237 ãã.) / Ïåð. 13 14
Д. В. Каштанов
!"#
Âûõîäèò, ÷òî «Ñâîä» ïî ñâîèì íàó÷íûì «äîñòîèíñòâàì» êîå â ÷åì íå ñîîòâåòñòâóåò óðîâíþ äàæå XVIII âåêà (âïðî÷åì, îòìåòèì, ÷òî àâòîðû «Ïîìîðñêèõ îòâåòîâ» áûëè ÿâíî âûøå ýòîãî óðîâíÿ: ïðè ðàçîáëà÷åíèè «Äåÿíèÿ» èìè áûë èñïîëüçîâàí òîò æå ñàìûé ìåòîä àíàëèçà ðàçíî÷òåíèé ðóêîïèñè è ïå÷àòíîãî èçäàíèÿ, êîòîðûé óæå â íàøè äíè ïðèâåë È. Øåâ÷åíêî ê ïðåäïîëîæåíèþ î ïîäëîæíîñòè «Çàïèñêè ãîòñêîãî òîïàðõà»). Ýòî íå ïîìåøàëî, îäíàêî, âñåì ýòèì íå ñîîòâåòñòâóþùèì äåéñòâèòåëüíîñòè ñâåäåíèÿì è âûâîäàì ïåðåêî÷åâàòü â äðóãîé ñïðàâî÷íèê, êîòîðûé òàêæå ïðåòåíäóåò íà àâòîðèòåò, íî óæå â ñôåðå ïàëåîðóñèñòèêè.20 Èç ñòàòüè, ïîñâÿùåííîé ïîñëàíèþ Ëóêè Õðèñîâåðãà Àíäðåþ Áîãîëþáñêîìó, àâòîðîì êîòîðîé òàêæå ÿâëÿåòñÿ Ì. Â. Áèáèêîâ, ìîæíî ñäåëàòü âûâîä, ÷òî ïîñëåäíèé ýòîãî ïîñëàíèÿ íå ÷èòàë åñëè íå âîîáùå, òî â ñðàâíèòåëüíî íåäàâíåì ïðîøëîì. Òàê, àâòîð ñ÷èòàåò âàðèàíò ïîñëàíèÿ, ñîõðàíèâøèéñÿ â Íèêîíîâñêîé ëåòîïèñè, «ïðîñòðàííîé ðåäàêöèåé», «ðàñøèðåííîé äîïîëíèòåëüíûìè ñâåäåíèÿìè è ïîíîâëåííîé â ÿçûêå».21 Äåéñòâèòåëüíî, ìåæäó äâóìÿ âàðèàíòàìè ýòîãî äîêóìåíòà ñóùåñòâóþò ðàñõîæäåíèÿ (ëåòîïèñíûé èçâîä ìîæíî íàçâàòü «ðàñïðîñòðàíåííûì» â ÷àñòè òèòóëîâ, ðèòîðèêè è ò. ï., à òàêæå äîáàâëåíèÿ èìåíè ðîñòîâñêîãî åïèñêîïà Íåñòîðà, î ÷åì ñì. ñòàòüþ Â. Ë. ßíèíà). Îäíàêî ñëè÷åíèå ïàðàëëåëüíûõ òåêñòîâ äâóõ «ðåäàêöèé», «êðàòêîé», äîøåäøåé â îòäåëüíîì ñïèñêå, è «ïðîñòðàííîé», ïîêàçûâàþò, ÷òî îíè íå èìåþò ñîäåðæàòåëüíûõ ðàçëè÷èé. Òî, ÷òî ïðèíÿòî Ì. Â. Áèáèêîâûì çà ðåäàêöèîííûå ðàñõîæäåíèÿ, ÿâëÿåòñÿ íà ñàìîì äåëå äåôåêòîì ðóêîïèñè, ñîõðàíèâøåé «êðàòêóþ» ðåäàêöèþ: òåêñò ïèñüìà â íåé îáðûâàåòñÿ íà ïîëóñëîâå. Ìîæíî ñ ïîëíûì îñíîâàíèåì ïðåäïîëàãàòü, ÷òî è íåñîõðàíèâøàÿñÿ ÷àñòü «êðàòêîé» ðåäàêöèè äàííîãî èñòî÷íèêà ìàëî ÷åì îòëè÷àëàñü îò ñîîòâåòñòâóþùåé ÷àñòè ðåäàêöèè «ïðîñòðàííîé», è òåì ñàìûì ðàçâåÿòü ñîìíåíèÿ â àóòåíòè÷íîñòè ñâåäåíèé ïîñëåäíåé. Íåìíîãî ðàíåå â òîì æå èçäàíèè Ì. Â. Áèáèêîâ ñîîáùàåò: «Ê êîíöó 50-õ ãã. îòíîñèòñÿ è âûäâèæåíèå Àíäðååì Áîãîëþáñêèì íà âëàäèìèðñêóþ êàôåäðó ìèðÿíèíà Ôåîäîðà ñåñòðè÷è÷à, ïî ñëîâàì ðàññìàòðèâàåìîãî äîêóìåíòà, ò. å. ïëåìÿííèêà, ñûíà ñåñòðû, áëèçêîãî ê Þðèþ Äîëãîðóêîìó è ñàìîìó Àíäðåþ áîÿðèíà Ïåòðà Áîðèñëàâè÷à
; ñâåäåíèå (òàê! Ê. Ä.) âåðñèè Íèêîíîâñêîé ëåòîïèñè (ÏÑÐË, ò. IX, 225), ÷òî Ôåîäîð áûë ðîäñòâåííèêîì ñìîëåíñêîãî åïèñêîïà, ãðåêà Ìàíóèëà, ñ÷èòàåòñÿ íåäîñòîâåðíûì».22 Ïî ïðî÷òåíèè ýòîãî ïàññàæà ÷óâñòâî íåäîóìåíèÿ îò äðóãèõ «îòêðûòèé» Ì. Â. Áèáèêîâà íåñêîëüêî ìåðêíåò: äåëî À. Â. Íàçàðåíêî, ïîä ðåä. Ê. Ê. Àêåíòüåâà (ÑÏá., 19962) (Subsidia Byzantinorossica 1) 7677. 20 Ïèñüìåííûå ïàìÿòíèêè èñòîðèè Äðåâíåé Ðóñè
252256. 21 Òàì æå. 255. 22 Òàì æå.
!"$
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
â òîì, ÷òî èìåííî ïîñëàíèå Ëóêè Õðèñîâåðãà â òîì âèäå, â êîòîðîì îíî âîøëî â Íèêîíîâñêóþ ëåòîïèñü, íàçûâàåò «Ôåîäîðà, ñåñòðè÷è÷ÿ åïèñêîïëÿ Ìàíóèëåâà»,23 â òî âðåìÿ êàê â ïëåìÿííèêà Ïåòðà Áîðèñëàâè÷à Ôåîäîð ïðåâðàòèëñÿ ïîä ïåðîì ðåäàêòîðà ëåòîïèñè!24 Âïðî÷åì, åùå áîëüøå ïðèäåòñÿ óäèâèòüñÿ ÷èòàòåëÿì «Ñâîäà», êîãäà âìåñòî Ôåîäîðà (âñå-òàêè ðåàëüíîãî ïåðñîíàæà!) Â. Ì. Áèáèêîâ ïðåäúÿâèò ÷èòàòåëÿì íèêîãäà íå ñóùåñòâîâàâøåãî «ìèòðîïîëèòà ãîðîäà Âëàäèìèðà ìîíàõà Ìîèñåÿ». Íàì î÷åíü íå õîòåëîñü áû óâèäåòü, êàê àâòîðû ñòàíóò ññûëàòüñÿ íà ïîäîáíûå «èçûñêàíèÿ» è «ñâåäåíèÿ» êàê íà ðåàëüíûå ôàêòû. Ìåæäó òåì åñòü ðåàëüíàÿ îïàñíîñòü òîãî, ÷òî «âèçàíòèíîðîññèêà» ñåðåäèíû XII âåêà, ïðèîáðåòøàÿ ñòàðàíèÿìè Ì. Â. Áèáèêîâà èçðÿäíûå ÷åðòû «ôàíòàçèéíîñòè», ìîæåò íàâñåãäà óòðàòèòü ñâÿçü ñ ðåàëüíîñòüþ. Ïåðâàÿ ÷àñòü «Ñâîäà» ñîäåðæèò è äðóãèå íåïðîâåðåííûå äàííûå: îòòóäà ìû ìîæåì óçíàòü, ÷òî «î ãðå÷åñêîì ïðîðèöàòåëå Âàñèëèè ïðè âåëèêîì êíÿçå Äàíèèëå ñîîáùàåòñÿ ïîä 1206 ã.
 1213 ã. ãðåê Ìåôîäèé îñíîâàë Ïî÷àåâñêèé ìîíàñòûðü» (ñ. 124). Ãäå ñîîáùàåòñÿ íåèçâåñòíî. Î íåäîñòàòêàõ â áèáëèîãðàôèè ðå÷ü áóäåò áîëåå ïîäðîáíî èäòè íèæå; îäíàêî, îöåíèâàÿ ñïèñîê ëèòåðàòóðû â êîíöå ïåðâîãî ðàçäåëà, íåëüçÿ íå îòìåòèòü, ÷òî ïîñëåäíèé íà ñåãîäíÿ òîì ñåðèè «Archives de lAthos» âûøåë íå â 1994 ã., à â 2001 ã., à ñïðàâî÷íèê Ô. Äýëüãåðà «Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des oströmischen Reiches», âî-ïåðâûõ, íàñ÷èòûâàåò óæå íå 4 òîìà, à âñå 5 (ïîñëåäíèé âûøåë â 1965 ã.), à âî-âòîðûõ, â íàñòîÿùåå âðåìÿ âûõîäèò åãî ïåðåðàáîòàííîå èçäàíèå (÷àñòè, îõâàòûâàþùèå çà 8671282 ãã. âûøëè â 1977, 1995 è 2003 ãã.; ãîòîâèòñÿ òîì çà ïåðèîä 565867 ãã.). Âòîðàÿ ÷àñòü, «Ñâîä âèçàíòèéñêèõ èñòî÷íèêîâ», ïðåäñòàâëÿåò ñîáîé, ïî ñëîâàì àííîòàöèè, «êðàòêóþ õàðàêòåðèñòèêó âñåõ èññëåäóåìûõ èñòî÷íèêîâ ñ îáîñíîâàíèåì èõ äàòèðîâîê, àòðèáóöèé, èçëîæåíèåì îñíîâíûõ íàïðàâëåíèé ïîëåìèêè â ñïîðíûõ ñëó÷àÿõ èõ èäåíòèôèêàöèè» (ñ. 4), à òàêæå «óêàçàíèå íà îáúåì è ñîäåðæàíèå èõ ñâèäåòåëüñòâ î Ðóñè» (ñ. 10). Íå çàáóäåì òàêæå: àâòîð çàÿâèë, ÷òî åãî çàäà÷à îõâàòèòü âñå èçâåñòíûå èñòî÷íèêè ïî òåìå. Ëåììû ñëåäóþò â àëôàâèòíîì ïîðÿäêå. Òî÷íåå, â àëôàâèòíîì ïîðÿäêå ëàòèíñêîãî ñîêðàùåíèÿ íàçâàíèÿ èñòî÷íèêà èëè èìåíè åãî àâòîðà. Ýòî îäíî èç ãëàâíûõ ïðåïÿòñòâèé äëÿ áûñòðîãî è ýôôåêòèâíîãî ïîëüçîâàíèÿ ñâîäîì, ïîòîìó ÷òî ëîãèêà àâòîðà ïðè ïðèñâîåíèè ëàòèíñêèõ ñîêðàùåíèé îñòàëàñü äëÿ íàñ çàãàäêîé. Íàëèöî íåóâàæåíèå ñîñòàâèòåëÿ «Ñâîäà» ê ÷èòàòåëÿì, êîòîðûå ëèøåíû âîçìîæíîñòè áûñòðî è òî÷íî îðèåíòèðîâàòüñÿ â ñâåäåíèÿõ, ñîäåðæàùèõñÿ â êíèãå. Ê ïðèìåðó, 23 24
ÏÑÐË. Ò. 9. Ëåòîïèñíûé ñáîðíèê
225. Òàì æå. 239.
Д. В. Каштанов
!"%
Ìèõàèëà Àòòàëèàòà è Ìèõàèëà Ãëèêó ìîæíî íàéòè íà áóêâó «M» â ñîîòâåòñòâèè ñ èõ èìåíåì, òîãäà êàê Ìèõàèë Ïñåëë îêàçàëñÿ ïîìåùåí íà áóêâó «P» (Psell). Òî æå ñàìîå ïðîèçîøëî è ñ Èîàííàìè: Êàìèíèàò è Êàíòàêóçèí ñòîÿò íà «I», à Ñêèëèöà íà «S». «Nic.» ñëóæèò îáîçíà÷åíèåì è äëÿ Íèêèòû, è äëÿ Íèêîëàÿ, ðàâíî êàê «N.» îáîçíà÷àåò Íèêèôîðà è Íèêèòó. Íî Íèêîëàé Ãðàììàòèê (Nic. Gramm., ñ. 381) ïîìåùåí ðàíåå Íèëà Äîêñàïàòðà (Neil. Dox., ñ. 384), çà êîòîðûì ñëåäóþò Íèêèòà Äàâèä Ïàôëàãîí (Nic. Dav., ñ. 386) è Íèêîëàé Ìåñàðèò (Nic. Mesar., ñ. 390). Ïðèìåðû ìîæíî ïðîäîëæèòü, è òî, êóäà Ì. Â. Áèáèêîâ ðåøèë îïðåäåëèòü òîò èëè èíîé èñòî÷íèê èëè àâòîðà, ðåøèòåëüíî íåâîçìîæíî íè ïðåäóãàäàòü, íè çàïîìíèòü. Âñå ýòî ïðè îòñóòñòâèè óêàçàòåëåé äåëàåò ðàáîòó ñî âòîðûì ðàçäåëîì «Ñâîäà» êðàéíå íåýôôåêòèâíîé. Çà÷àñòóþ íåîïðàâäàííûì âûãëÿäèò ðàçäåëåíèå èñòî÷íèêîâ íà ãðóïïû äëÿ õàðàêòåðèñòèêè â îòäåëüíûõ ëåììàõ. Ñîâåðøåííî íåïîíÿòíî, ê ïðèìåðó, êàêîå çíà÷åíèå äëÿ èçó÷åíèÿ òåìû «Âèçàíòèíîðîññèêà» äàåò òîò ôàêò, ÷òî íåêîòîðûå äîêóìåíòû õðàíÿòñÿ â ìîíàñòûðå Âàòîïåä, à äðóãèå â îáèòåëè Çîãðàô. Ïî íàøåìó ìíåíèþ, ñëåäóþùèé ñïîñîá ñòðóêòóðèðîâàíèÿ èñòî÷íèêîâ èç àðõèâîâ àôîíñêèõ ìîíàñòûðåé áîëåå îòâå÷àë áû çàÿâëåííîé òåìå: 1) Èñòî÷íèêè, êàñàþùèåñÿ æèçíè è óñòðîéñòâà Ðóññêîãî ìîíàñòûðÿ (ýòîò ðàçäåë ïðàêòè÷åñêè áû ñîâïàë ñ ëåììîé «Àêòû Ðóññêîãî ìîíàñòûðÿ ñâ. Ïàíòåëåéìîíà íà Àôîíå», ñ. 176 180); 2) Àêòû, óïîìèíàþùèå ïðåäñòàâèòåëåé Ðóññêîãî ìîíàñòûðÿ; 3) Èìïåðàòîðñêèå õðèñîâóëû èç Ëàâðû è Âàòîïåäñêîãî ìîíàñòûðÿ, ñîäåðæàùèå ïîëîæåíèå î ìèòàòå (ñ. 169, 183); ñþäà íóæíî áûëî áû äîáàâèòü è äîêóìåíòû èç íåàôîíñêèõ ìîíàñòûðåé (ñ. 165, 337); 4) Ïðî÷èå óïîìèíàíèÿ. Ïðèõîäèòñÿ ñ ñîæàëåíèåì êîíñòàòèðîâàòü, ÷òî Ì. Â. Áèáèêîâ ðåøèë îãðàíè÷èòüñÿ ñûðûì ìàòåðèàëîì, êîòîðûé ìîã áû îòâå÷àòü çàäà÷àì «Ñâîäà» ëèøü ïîñëå ñîîòâåòñòâóþùåé êëàññèôèêàöèè. Íåñòðóêòóðèðîâàííîñòü è äèñêðåòíîñòü ïðîÿâëÿåòñÿ è ïðè îáðàùåíèè Ì. Â. Áèáèêîâà ê äðóãèì ãðóïïàì èñòî÷íèêîâ. Òàê, î Notitia episcopatuum ãîâîðèòñÿ â 4 ëåììàõ (ñ. 249, 250, 403405, 451), îá àêòàõ Êîíñòàíòèíîïîëüñêîãî ïàòðèàðõàòà â 6-òè (ñ. 172173, 174, 181182, 190, 362, 382), î õðîíèêå Ñèìåîíà Ëîãîôåòà â 5 (ñ. 279280, 326, 420421, 448450, 459). Âñå ýòî íå ñîçäàåò âïå÷àòëåíèÿ äîëæíîé ïðîðàáîòêè èñòî÷íèêîâ è ëèøíèé ðàç çàòðóäíÿåò ðàáîòó ÷èòàòåëÿ, à èíîãäà è ââîäèò åãî â çàáëóæäåíèå. Çà÷àñòóþ Ì. Â. Áèáèêîâ ñìåøèâàåò êàòåãîðèþ «èñòî÷íèê» ñ äðóãèìè ïîíÿòèÿìè, «ïóáëèêàöèÿ» è «èññëåäîâàíèå», ìåæäó òåì êàê ðàçíèöó ìåæäó íèìè ìîæåò îáúÿñíèòü ëþáîé ñòóäåíò èñòîðè÷åñêîãî ôàêóëüòåòà.  ðåçóëüòàòå íåêîòîðûå ëåììû îêàçûâàþòñÿ ïîñâÿùåííûìè õàðàêòåðèñòèêå èçäàíèé (ñ. 172173, 174, 213), ñïðàâî÷íèêà (ñ. 181182) è äàæå ñòàòüè (ñ. 363). Ñòîèò ëè ëèøíèé ðàç ñáèâàòü ñ òîëêó òåõ, êòî áóäåò ïîëüçîâàòüñÿ «Ñâîäîì»?
!"&
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
Íå èìåþùèì íè÷åãî îáùåãî ñ äåéñòâèòåëüíîñòüþ îêàçûâàåòñÿ è óòâåðæäåíèå Ì. Â. Áèáèêîâà î òîì, ÷òî «Ñâîä» «îáîáùàåò âñå ñâèäåòåëüñòâà âèçàíòèéñêèõ èñòî÷íèêîâ». Ïðèâåäåì ëèøü íåñêîëüêî ïðèìåðîâ õîðîøî èçâåñòíûõ è îïóáëèêîâàííûõ èñòî÷íèêîâ, òåì íå ìåíåå îòñóòñòâóþùèõ â «Ñâîäå». 1. Àêò ñîáîðà îò äåêàáðÿ 1071 ã. ïî âîïðîñó î õàðèñòèêàðèè ðàçäà÷å öåðêîâíûõ èìóùåñòâ íà êîòîðîì ïðèñóòñòâîâàë ðóññêèé ìèòðîïîëèò.25 2. Àêò ñîáîðà, ïðèíÿâøåãî ðåøåíèå îá îøèáî÷íîñòè èñêëþ÷åíèÿ èìåíè ïàïû Ðèìñêîãî èç äèïòèõîâ, íà êîòîðîì òàêæå îòìå÷åíî ïðèñóòñòâèå ìèòðîïîëèòà Ðóñè (ñåíòÿáðü 1089 ã.).26 3. «Æèòèå Ëåîíòèÿ, ïàòðèàðõà Èåðóñàëèìñêîãî», êîòîðûé îòêàçàëñÿ îò ïðåäëîæåíèÿ Ìàíóèëà Êîìíèíà çàíÿòü ìèòðîïîëè÷üþ êàôåäðó íà Ðóñè.27 4. Îòâåòû Êîíñòàíòèíîïîëüñêîãî ñîáîðà íà âîïðîñû ñàðàéñêîãî åïèñêîïà Ôåîãíîñòà (12 àâãóñòà 1276 ã.), ñîõðàíèâøèåñÿ ïî-ãðå÷åñêè è ïî-äðåâíåðóññêè.28 5. Âûïîëíåííûå ïî-ãðå÷åñêè ïîäïèñè ðóññêèõ ìèòðîïîëèòîâ: Ôåîãíîñòà (â «ôàêñèìèëüíîé» êîïèè XVII â.)29 è Ôîòèÿ (÷åòûðå ïîäïèñè íà ïîäëèííèêàõ ãðàìîò).30 25 Ô. È. ÓÑÏÅÍÑÊÈÉ , Ìíåíèÿ è ïîñòàíîâëåíèÿ êîíñòàíòèíîïîëüñêèõ ïîìåñòíûõ ñîáîðîâ XI è XII ââ. î ðàçäà÷å öåðêîâíûõ èìóùåñòâî (õàðèñòèêàðèè) // Èçâåñòèÿ Ðóññêîãî àðõåîëîãè÷åñêîãî èíñòèòóòà â Êîíñòàíòèíîïîëå 5 (1900) 15. 26 W. HOLTZMANN, Die Unionverhandlungen zwischen Kaiser Alexios I und Papst Urban II im Jahre 1089 // BZ 28 (1928) 61. 27 The Life of Leontios Patriarch of Jerusalem / Text, Translation, Commentary by D. TSOUGARAKIS // The Medieval Mediterranean Peoples, Economies and Cultures 400–1453. Vol. 2 (Leiden—New York—Köln, 1993) 106. § 64. Ñì. òàêæå: À. ÏÎÏÏÝ, Ëåîíòèé, èãóìåí Ïàòìîññêèé, êàíäèäàò â ìèòðîïîëèòû Ðóñè // Palaeoslavica 10/2 (2002) 81–90. 28 Ïàìÿòíèêè äðåâíå-ðóññêîãî êàíîíè÷åñêîãî ïðàâà (ïàìÿòíèêè XIXV â.) // Ðóññêàÿ èñòîðè÷åñêàÿ áèáëèîòåêà, èçäàâàåìàÿ Èìï. Àðõåîãðàôè÷åñêîé êîìèññèåé. Ò. 6. ×. 1 (ÑÏá., 1908) Ñòá. 129138; Ïðèëîæåíèÿ. Ñòá. 510. 29 Ñì.: Î. Á. ÑÒÐÀÕÎÂÀ, Î ãðå÷åñêîé ïîäïèñè ñâ. Àëåêñèÿ, ìèòðîïîëèòà Êèåâà è âñåÿ Ðóñè, ìîñêîâñêîãî ÷óäîòâîðöà // MOCXOBIA. Ïðîáëåìû âèçàíòèéñêîé è íîâîãðå÷åñêîé ôèëîëîãèè. Ò. 1. Ê 60-ëåòèþ Á. Ë. Ôîíêè÷à (Ì., 2002) 425; 428, ðèñ. 3. 30 Ãîñóäàðñòâåííîå äðåâëåõðàíèëèùå õàðòèé è ðóêîïèñåé. Îïèñü äîêóìåíòàëüíûõ ìàòåðèàëîâ ôîíäà ¹ 135 / [Ñîñò. Â. Í. ØÓÌÈËÎÂ]. Ïîä ðåä. ä. è. í., ïðîô. Ë. Â. ×ÅÐÅÏÍÈÍÀ (Ì., 1971) 3335. ¹¹ 43, 46, 48; Äóõîâíûå è äîãîâîðíûå ãðàìîòû âåëèêèõ è óäåëüíûõ êíÿçåé XIVXVI ââ. / Ðåä. Ñ. Â. ÁÀÕÐÓØÈÍ. Ïîäã. ê ïå÷àòè Ë. Â. ×ÅÐÅÏÍÈÍ (Ì.Ëåíèíãðàä, 1950); Àêòû ñîöèàëüíî-ýêîíîìè÷åñêîé èñòîðèè Ñåâåðî-Âîñòî÷íîé Ðóñè êîíöà XIV íà÷àëà XV â. Ò. 3 / Òîì ñîñò. È. À. ÃÎËÓÁÖÎÂÛÌ. Îòâ. ðåä. Ë. Â. ×ÅÐÅÏÍÈÍ (Ì., 1964) 56.
Д. В. Каштанов
!"'
6. «Îòðûâêè Â. Í. Áåíåøåâè÷à», âêëþ÷àþùèå â ñåáÿ ðàçëè÷íûå ìàòåðèàëû ïî èñòîðèè ðóññêîé öåðêâè âðåìåíè ìèòðîïîëèòà Ôåîãíîñòà.31 7. Çàïèñü íà ìàíóñêðèïòå Èåðóñàëèìñêîãî óñòàâà, íàïèñàííîì â 1316 1317 ã. èåðîìîíàõîì Íèëîì «ïî ïîðó÷åíèþ è çàáîòàìè Ôîìû Ñèðèéöà â ïðåäåëàõ Ðîñèè â ãîðîäå, íàçûâàåìîì Òâåðü, â ìîíàñòûðå ñâÿòûõ âåëèêîìó÷åíèêîâ Ôåîäîðà Òèðîíà è Ôåîäîðà Ñòðàòèëàòà».32 8. Çàïèñü ñ óïîìèíàíèåì Ìàëàõèè «Ôèëîñîôà» íà ãðå÷åñêîé ïåðãàìåííîé Ïñàëòûðè, â êîòîðîé îí íàçâàí «èåðîìîíàõîì è íàìåñòíèêîì Âëàäèìèðà â âåðõíåé Ìîñêîâñêîé Ðóñè».33 9. Ïîõâàëüíîå ñëîâî Ìèõàèëà Âàëüñàìîíà â ÷åñòü ëèòîâñêèõ ìó÷åíèêîâ.34 10. Ïèñüìî Èîñèôà Âðèåííèÿ ìèòðîïîëèòó Ôîòèþ.35 11. Çàìåòêà î ñåìüå êíÿçåé ×àðòîðûéñêèõ.36 Äàííûé ñïèñîê, áåçóñëîâíî, ìîæåò áûòü ïðîäîëæåí.37 Åãî öåëü ñîñòîèò íå â òîì, ÷òîáû âûÿâèòü âñå ïðîáåëû «Ñâîäà», à ÷òîáû ïðîäåìîíÌ. Ä. ÏÐÈÑÅËÊÎÂ, Ì. Ð. ÔÀÑÌÅÐ, Îòðûâêè Â. Í. Áåíåøåâè÷à ïî èñòîðèè Ðóññêîé Öåðêâè ÕIV â. // Èçâåñòèÿ Îòäåëåíèÿ ðóññêîãî ÿçûêà è ñëîâåñíîñòè Èìï. Àêàäåìèè íàóê. Ò. 21. Êí. 1 (1916) 4870. Èç íèõ â êíèãå â êà÷åñòâå «ìàëîé õðîíèêè» ôèãóðèðóåò òîëüêî «ñâèäåòåëüñòâî î êðåùåíèè Âëàäèìèðà è âñåé Ðîññèè ïðè íåì îñåíüþ 989 ã.» (ñ. 209: Chron. Min.).  «Îíîìàñòèêîíå» åñòü öèòàòû èç ýòîãî èñòî÷íèêà (ñ. 695: «Ñóðîæàíèí Ãåîðãèé» è «Ñóðîæàíèí Ïîðíèê»), êîòîðûå îòñûëàþò ê íå ñóùåñòâóþùåé âî âòîðîé ÷àñòè ëåììå Not. Ms. 32 Í. ÊÐÀÑÍÎÑÅËÜÖÅÂ, Ñâåäåíèÿ î íåêîòîðûõ ëèòóðãè÷åñêèõ ðóêîïèñÿõ Âàòèêàíñêîé áèáëèîòåêè (Êàçàíü, 1885) 1823. 33 Å. Ý. ÃÐÀÍÑÒÐÅÌ, ×åðíåö Ìàëàõèÿ Ôèëîñîô // Àðõåîãðàôè÷åñêèé åæåãîäíèê çà 1962 ã. (Ì., 1963) 6970; ÎÍÀ ÆÅ, Êàòàëîã ãðå÷åñêèõ ðóêîïèñåé ëåíèíãðàäñêèõ õðàíèëèù. ×. 8 //  28 (53) (1968) 250. 34 Michaelis Balsamonis Encomium. Ôï ¼Þôïñïò ôyò QãéùôÜôçò ôï Èåï ìåãÜëçò dêêëçóßáò Ìé÷áxë ôï Âáëóáì§íïò åkò ôïò Qãßïõò êár díäüîïõò íåïöáíåsò ìÜñôõñáò EÁíôþíéïí, EÉïÜííçí êár EÅõóôÜèéïí ôïò ¼þóóïõò // D. BARONAS, Trys Vilniaus kankiniai: gyvenimas ir istorija (Istorinë studija ir šaltiniai) = Tres martyres Vilnenses: vita et historia (Studium historicum et editio fontium) (Vilnius, 2000) 200–243. 35 Í. Â. ÔÙÌÁÄÁÊÇÓ, EÅê ôyò Âõæáíôéíyò dðéóôïëïãñáößáò. EÉùóxö ìïíá÷ï ôï Âñõåííßïõ EÅðéóôïëár Ë êár áj ðñò áôí à // EÅðåôçñrò FÅôáéñåßáò Âõæáíôéí§í Óðïõä§í 46 (19831986) 331. 36 W. IWAÑCZAK, S. J. VOICU, G. ZIFFER, Une notice sur la famille Czartoryski dans le Vat gr. 2630 // Byz 58 (1988) 78–96. 37  êà÷åñòâå èíòåðåñíîãî èñòî÷íèêà, âûõîäÿùåãî çà ðàìêè âèçàíòèéñêîãî ïåðèîäà (ïîäîáíûå ïðèìåðû âîëüíîãî îáðàùåíèÿ ñ õðîíîëîãèåé â êíèãå åñòü: Ñ. 248. Ecth. Chr.), áûëî áû óìåñòíî èñïîëüçîâàòü ãðå÷åñêèé êîëîôîí äðåâíåðóññêîé Áóñëàåâñêîé Ïñàëòûðè, èñïîëíåííûé îäíèì èç åå ïèñöîâ Èãíàòèåì: Ä. À. ÌÎÐÎÇÎÂ, «Êàëëèãðàôè÷åñêèå çàãàäêè» Áóñëàåâñêîé Ïñàëòûðè: âçãëÿä ñ Âîñòîêà // Ðîññèÿ è õðèñòèàíñêèé Âîñòîê. Âûï. 2–3 (Ì., 2004) 88, 95–96; 90, ðèñ. 3. 31
!#
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
ñòðèðîâàòü íåîáîñíîâàííîñòü çàÿâëåíèé àâòîðà î òîì, ÷òî âèçàíòèéñêèå èñòî÷íèêè èñïîëüçîâàíû èì ñ èñ÷åðïûâàþùåé ïîëíîòîé. Êðîìå òîãî, Ì. Â. Áèáèêîâ íèãäå ïðÿìî íå ãîâîðèò î òîì, êàêèå èñòî÷íèêè îòíîñÿòñÿ èì ê êðóãó «âèçàíòèéñêèõ». Ìåæäó òåì ìàòåðèàë êíèãè ñâèäåòåëüñòâóåò ñàì çà ñåáÿ: åå àâòîð ñòàâèò çíàê ðàâåíñòâà ìåæäó âèçàíòèéñêèì òåêñòîì è òåêñòîì, äîøåäøèì äî íàñ íà ãðå÷åñêîì ÿçûêå, ïîäìåíÿÿ òåì ñàìûì èñòîðè÷åñêóþ îöåíêó èñòî÷íèêà ôèëîëîãè÷åñêîé. Òàê, ó íàñ åñòü áîëüøèå ñîìíåíèÿ íàñ÷åò òîãî, ìîæíî ëè ïå÷àòè ðóññêèõ êíÿçåé, íåñóùèå ãðå÷åñêèå íàäïèñè, îòíåñòè ê ãðóïïå «âèçàíòèéñêèõ» èñòî÷íèêîâ. Íî è ýòî äàæå íå ñòîëü ñóùåñòâåííî; ãîðàçäî âàæíåå òî, ÷òî îðèåíòàöèÿ àâòîðà íà ÿçûê äîøåäøåãî äî íàñ òåêñòà çàâåäîìî èñêëþ÷àåò ñàìó âîçìîæíîñòü ïðåäñòàâëåíèÿ âñåõ âèçàíòèéñêèõ èñòî÷íèêîâ, îñâåùàþùèõ ðóññêî-âèçàíòèéñêèå ñâÿçè, ïîñêîëüêó ìíîãèå âèçàíòèéñêèå òåêñòû äîøëè äî íàñ òîëüêî â èíîÿçû÷íûõ ïåðåâîäàõ, âêëþ÷àÿ ñëàâÿíñêèå (è î íèõ øëà ðå÷ü âûøå ýòî, â ÷àñòíîñòè, óæå îáñóæäàâøååñÿ ïîñëàíèå Ëóêè Õðèñîâåðãà Àíäðåþ Áîãîëþáñêîìó, à òàêæå çíà÷èòåëüíîå ÷èñëî äðóãèõ ïàòðèàðøèõ ïîñëàíèé íà Ðóñü). Êðîìå íåïîëíîãî îõâàòà èñòî÷íèêîâ, çíà÷èòåëüíî ñíèæàþò íàó÷íóþ öåííîñòü «Ñâîäà» ñóùåñòâåííûå ïðîáåëû â áèáëèîãðàôèè. Ìîæíî ñìåëî óòâåðæäàòü, ÷òî â êíèãå ïðîñëåæèâàåòñÿ îòñóòñòâèå ñèñòåìàòè÷åñêîé áèáëèîãðàôèè ðàáîò ïî òîìó èëè èíîìó âîïðîñó, ïîÿâèâøèõñÿ ïîçäíåå íà÷àëà 80-õ ãîäîâ ïðîøëîãî âåêà. Ýòî, ðàçóìååòñÿ, íå èñêëþ÷àåò ïîÿâëåíèÿ â áèáëèîãðàôè÷åñêèõ ñïèñêàõ îòäåëüíûõ êíèã, âûøåäøèõ ïîçæå, îäíàêî íåçíàíèå Ì. Â. Áèáèêîâûì íîâåéøåé íàó÷íîé ëèòåðàòóðû ïðèâîäèò ê òîìó, ÷òî äàííûå «Ñâîäà» âî ìíîãîì óñòàðåëè è íå ìîãóò áûòü ïðèíÿòû âî âíèìàíèå. Òàêîå íåçíàíèå òåì áîëåå óäèâèòåëüíî, ÷òî àâòîð ðàáîòàë îòíþäü íå â çàõîëóñòüå: ê åãî óñëóãàì áûëè ñòîëè÷íûå è çàðóáåæíûå áèáëèîòåêè, à òàêæå Èíòåðíåò è ïðî÷èå èíôîðìàöèîííûå ïðîäóêòû, âûïîëíåííûå ñ èñïîëüçîâàíèåì íîâåéøèõ òåõíîëîãèé (ê ïðèìåðó, Thesaurus Linguae Graecae è ò. ï.). Îäíàêî Ì. Â. Áèáèêîâó íåèçâåñòíû äàæå (ðàç îí íà íèõ íå ññûëàåòñÿ) ìàòåðèàëû â åæåãîäíèêàõ «Äðåâíåéøèå ãîñóäàðñòâà Âîñòî÷íîé Åâðîïû» è «Âèçàíòèéñêèé âðåìåííèê», êîòîðûå âûõîäÿò ïîä ãðèôîì òîãî èíñòèòóòà, ãäå îí ðàáîòàåò çàìåñòèòåëåì äèðåêòîðà (ïîäðîáíåå ñì. äàëåå). Î íàèáîëåå «çèÿþùèõ» ïðîáåëàõ â áèáëèîãðàôèè òîãî èëè èíîãî èñòî÷íèêà ðå÷ü ïîéäåò íèæå. Íå âñå â ïîðÿäêå ó àâòîðà «Ñâîäà» è ñ ðóññêèì ÿçûêîì. Âñëåäñòâèå ýòîãî Ãåîðãèé Àêðîïîëèò (ñ. 262264) îêàçûâàåòñÿ âûõîäöåì èç «ñîñòîÿòåëüíîé êîíñòàíòèíîïîëüñêîé ñðåäû», à Èñèäîð Êèåâñêèé (ñ. 312 316) «ëàòèíñêèì ïàòðèàðõîì Êîíñòàíòèíîïîëÿ, íàõîäÿùèìñÿ ïîä îñìàíñêîé âëàñòüþ». Ìîæåò áûòü, ïîä âëàñòüþ òóðîê íàõîäèëñÿ âñåòàêè Êîíñòàíòèíîïîëü, à íå Èñèäîð? Âñïîìèíàåòñÿ ïðîôåññîð Ïðåîáðàæåíñêèé: «Ïðîñòèòå, êòî íà êîì ñòîÿë?»  äðóãîé ñòàòüå (Íàäïèñè ìèòðîïîëèòà Ôîòèÿ, ñ. 292293) óäèâëÿþò íàïèñàíèÿ «Öàìâëàê» è «Âè-
Д. В. Каштанов
!#
òîëüä» âìåñòî ïðèâû÷íûõ «Öàìáëàê» è «Âèòîâò».  ëåììå «Ëàîíèê Õàëêîêàíäèë» (ñ. 319321) ÷èòàòåëþ ìíîãîçíà÷èòåëüíî ñîîáùàåòñÿ, ÷òî «èìåííî òàê òåïåðü ïèøåòñÿ ýòî èìÿ», òî åñòü «Õàëêîêáíäèë», à íå «Õàëêîêóíäèë».  êà÷åñòâå ðàçâëå÷åíèÿ ñîâåòóåì ÷èòàòåëÿì çàãëÿíóòü íà ñ. 267 è óçíàòü, ÷òî àâòîð «Ñâîäà» íå ñ÷èòàåò íóæíûì ñëåäîâàòü äàæå ñîáñòâåííûì ðåêîìåíäàöèÿì.  íåêîòîðûõ ñòàòüÿõ (íàïðèìåð, «Ðóêîïèñíûå ïîìåòû êîäåêñîâ Ìîñêîâñêîãî Ñèíîäàëüíîãî ñîáðàíèÿ», ñ. 213; «Èîàíí Ìàâðîïîä. Ðå÷è», ñ. 306; «Äóêà», ñ. 245247; «Ïàòðèà», ñ. 409) Ì. Â. Áèáèêîâ îñâîáîäèë ñåáÿ îò íåîáõîäèìîñòü ðàñêðûâàòü «îáúåì è ñîäåðæàíèå èõ ñâèäåòåëüñòâ î Ðóñè». Âïðî÷åì, âñå ýòè ìåëêèå çàìå÷àíèÿ ìîãóò êîìó-òî ïîêàçàòüñÿ íåñóùåñòâåííûìè ïðèäèðêàìè, ïîýòîìó ïåðåéäåì ê ðàçáîðó îòäåëüíûõ ëåìì âòîðîé ÷àñòè «Ñâîäà». Äåÿíèÿ àïîñòîëà Àíäðåÿ (ñ. 145). Âêëþ÷åíèå ýòîãî èñòî÷íèêà â «Ñâîä» íåîïðàâäàíî, ïîñêîëüêó â íåì íå ñîäåðæèòñÿ ñâåäåíèé î Ðóñè. Àêòû Õèëàíäàðñêîãî ìîíàñòûðÿ íà Àôîíå (ñ. 150). Íå ó÷òåíî íîâåéøåå èçäàíèå: Archives de l’Athos. T. 20. Actes de Chilandar / Edition diplomatique par M. ZIVOJINOVIC, V. KRAVARI, CHR. GIROS (Paris, 1998) T. 1. Dès origines à 1319. Àêòû î ïîñòàâëåíèè åïèñêîïîâ íà Ðóñè (ñ. 158159). Ñòðàííîé êàæåòñÿ ôðàçà îá èçáðàíèè åïèñêîïà «Ñàðàÿ (Çàðàéñêà?)». Èíòåðåñíî, â êàêîì èñòî÷íèêå èëè ñïðàâî÷íèêå àâòîð íàøåë Çàðàéñêóþ åïèñêîïèþ?  áèáëèîãðàôèè îòñóòñòâóþò ñòàòüè Ì. Ä. Ïðèñåëêîâà è Ì. Ð. Ôàñìåðà (ñì. âûøå), à òàêæå Á. Ë. Ôîíêè÷à. 38 Àêòû ìîíàñòûðÿ ñâ. Ìàðèè â Ìåññèíå (ñ. 170). Êàæåòñÿ êðàéíå ïðîáëåìàòè÷íûì ñ÷èòàòü ñâèäåòåëÿ IÁôæïò FÑïýóéïò â àêòå îò 1135 ã. ðóññêèì: âåñüìà âåðîÿòíî, ÷òî ïðîçâèùå îçíà÷àåò ïðîñòî «Ðûæèé». Àíàëîãè÷íàÿ ñèòóàöèÿ è ñ óïîìèíàíèåì íà ïå÷àòè íåêîåãî FÑïõóüðïõëïí (ñ. 443): ôîðìàíò -ðïõë- ñëóæèë äëÿ îáðàçîâàíèÿ ôàìèëèé, îáðàçîâàííûõ êàê îò ýòíîíèìîâ (Ôðàíãîïóë, Ñèðîïóë, Àðìåíîïóë è äð.), òàê è îò îáîçíà÷åíèé öâåòà (Êñàíôîïóë), è ïðåäïî÷åñòü îäèí âàðèàíò äðóãîìó ó íàñ íåò îñíîâàíèé. Ê ñîæàëåíèþ, â «Ñâîäå» ýòî íå îòìå÷àåòñÿ. Àêòû Êîíñòàíòèíîïîëüñêîãî ïàòðèàðõàòà (ñ. 172173) è Ðåãèñòð àêòîâ Êîíñòàíòèíîïîëüñêîãî ïàòðèàðõàòà (ñ. 174).  îáåèõ ñòàòüÿõ èäåò ðå÷ü î ðàçíûõ èçäàíèÿõ îäíîãî è òîãî æå ñîáðàíèÿ âèçàíòèéñêèõ äîêóìåíòîâ. Ìû íàéäåì çäåñü íå ñèñòåìàòè÷åñêóþ èíôîðìàöèþ î òîì, ÷òî äàþò ýòè âàæíåéøèå èñòî÷íèêè äëÿ èçó÷åíèÿ âèçàíòèéñêî-ðóññêèõ ñâÿçåé, à ëèøü îäíè ñëó÷àéíûå óïîìèíàíèÿ íåêîòîðûõ àêòîâ. Áîëåå òîãî, îêàçûâàåòñÿ, ÷òî èç «îêîëî 700 ïóáëèêóåìûõ àêòîâ» ëèøü «íåñêîëüêî ïîñòàíîâëåíèé» èìåþò «âàæíîå çíà÷åíèå äëÿ ðóññêîé èñòîðèè» (ñ. 172). Á. Ë. ÔÎÍÊÈ×, Ãðå÷åñêèå ðóêîïèñè è äîêóìåíòû â Ðîññèè â XIV íà÷àëå XVIII â. (Ì., 2003) 2127. 38
!#
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
Êàêîé èññëåäîâàòåëü ïîñëå òàêîé õàðàêòåðèñòèêè çàõî÷åò îáðàòèòüñÿ ê ýòîé êîëëåêöèè äîêóìåíòîâ? Áèáëèîãðàôè÷åñêèå ïðîáåëû êðàéíå çíà÷èòåëüíû. Àâòîðó íåèçâåñòåí èíäåêñ ê ïåðâûì äâóì ÷àñòÿì íîâîãî âåíñêîãî èçäàíèÿ: Das Register des Patriarchats von Konstantinopel. Indices. Teil 1 und 2. Indices zu den Urkunden aus den Jahren 1315–1350 / Erstellt von C. CUPANE und E. SCHIFFER (Wien, 1995) (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae. Series Vindobonensis, 19/2). Êðîìå òîãî, Ì. Â. Áèáèêîâ ïðåáûâàåò â óâåðåííîñòè è ïûòàåòñÿ óáåäèòü â ýòîì ñâîèõ ÷èòàòåëåé ÷òî âûøëè âñåãî äâà òîìà íîâîãî èçäàíèÿ, òîãäà êàê èõ óæå òðè: Das Register des Patriarchats von Konstantinopel. 3. Teil: Edition und Übersetzung der Urkunden aus den Jahren 1350– 1363 / Hrsg. von J. KODER, M. HINTERBERGER, O. KRESTEN (Wien, 2001) (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae. Series Vindobonensis, 19/3). Êðîìå òîãî, â 1997 ã. âûøåë 2-é òîì «Studien zum Patriarchatsregister von Konstantinopel». Àêòû Ðóññêîãî ìîíàñòûðÿ ñâ. Ïàíòåëåéìîíà íà Àôîíå (ñ. 176 180). Ïîëàãàåì, ïðåæäå ÷åì îáðàùàòüñÿ ê èçó÷åíèþ êîëëåêöèè àêòîâ Ðóññèêà, ïîëåçíî ïðî÷åñòü ñòàòüþ Ô.-Äæ. Òîìñîíà (êîòîðàÿ îñòàëàñü Ì. Â. Áèáèêîâó íåèçâåñòíîé), ïîñâÿùåííóþ èññëåäîâàíèþ âîïðîñà ïîÿâëåíèÿ ñëàâÿíñêèõ ìîíàñòûðåé íà Àôîíå.39  íåé îòâåðãàåòñÿ èñòîðè÷åñêàÿ ñâÿçü ìåæäó óïîìèíàíèÿìè Ãåðàñèìà, èãóìåíà «ìîíàñòûðÿ Ðóññêîãî», à òàêæå Êèðèàêà Ðóññêîãî ñ ïîçäíåéøåé èñòîðèåé ðóññêîãî ìîíàøåñòâà íà Àôîíå. Èç ñòàòüè Ô.-Äæ. Òîìñîíà ñëåäóåò òàêæå, ÷òî ó íàñ íåò îñíîâàíèé îòíîñèòü ãðå÷åñêèå àêòû Ðóññèêà ¹¹ 16 (1030 1070 ãã.) ê èñòîðèè ïðåáûâàíèÿ ðóññêèõ ìîíàõîâ íà Àôîíå, ïîñêîëüêó ìîíàñòûðü «Äðåâîäåëà» ñòàë «Ðóññêèì» îòíþäü íå ñðàçó: òàêîå ïîëîæåíèå, ñëîæèâøååñÿ â XII â., çàôèêñèðîâàíî âïåðâûå â îïèñè ìîíàñòûðñêîãî èìóùåñòâà 1142 ã.  1169 ã. ðóññêèì ìîíàõàì «Äðåâîäåëà» áûë ïåðåäàí ìîíàñòûðü «Ñîëóíöà», êîòîðûé äî ýòîãî âðåìåíè òàêæå íå èìåë íèêàêîãî îòíîøåíèÿ ê Ðóñè, è ïîýòîìó óïîìèíàíèÿ åãî èãóìåíîâ äî 1169 ã., óêàçàííûå Ì. Â. Áèáèêîâûì (ñ. 147, 155, 163, 175), ðàâíî êàê è ñîîòâåòñòâóþùèå ëåììû, åñëè â íèõ íå ñîäåðæèòñÿ äðóãèõ äàííûõ, äîëæíû áûòü èñêëþ÷åíû èç ðàññìîòðåíèÿ èñòîðèè âèçàíòèéñêî-ðóññêèõ ñâÿçåé. Ñîáîðíûå àêòû Êîíñòàíòèíîïîëüñêîãî ïàòðèàðõàòà (ñ. 181). Î ïñåâäî-äîêóìåíòàõ ñåðåäèíû XII â. ñì. âûøå.  îñòàëüíîì õàðàêòåðèñòèêà ýòîãî ñïðàâî÷íîãî èçäàíèÿ íå ñîäåðæèò íè÷åãî ñóùåñòâåííîãî è îïÿòü ñòðàäàåò ïðîáåëàìè â áèáëèîãðàôèè, êîòîðàÿ íå ó÷èòûâàåò ïåðå39 F. J. THOMSON, The Origin of the Principal Slavic Monasteries on Athos: Zographou, Panteleemonos and Chelandariou. Together with some Comments on the Alleged Appearance of Hesychast Practice on Athos in the Late Twelfth Century and on Early Serbian Monasticism // Byzantinoslavica 57.2 (1996) 310–350.
Д. В. Каштанов
!#!
èçäàíèå 13 âûïóñêîâ,40 à òàêæå ïîÿâëåíèå 6-ãî âûïóñêà ðåãåñò,41 êîòîðûå ñî ñêîðûì, õî÷åòñÿ íàäåÿòüñÿ, âûõîäîì ïîñëåäíåãî, 7-ãî òîìà42 îõâàòÿò âåñü âèçàíòèéñêèé ïåðèîä èñòîðèè Êîíñòàíòèíîïîëüñêîãî ïàòðèàðõàòà. Àêòû Âàòîïåäñêîãî ìîíàñòûðÿ íà Àôîíå (ñ. 183184). Íå ó÷òåíî èçäàíèå: Archives de l’Athos. T. 21. Actes de Vatopedi / Edition diplomatique par J. BOMPAIRE, J. LEFORT, V. KRAVARI, CHR. GIROS (Paris, 2001) T. 1. Dès origines à 1329. Ñòèõè èç cod. Marc. gr. 524 (ñ. 212). Ì. Â. Áèáèêîâ íå óêàçûâàåò íå òîëüêî íàèáîëåå äîñòóïíîå äëÿ ðîññèéñêîãî èññëåäîâàòåëÿ (ðàçóìååòñÿ, êðîìå «Îíîìàñòèêîíà») èçäàíèå è ðóññêèé ïåðåâîä ñòèõîòâîðåíèÿ ñ óïîìèíàíèåì «Ôåîäîðà ðîñà èç èìïåðàòîðñêîãî ðîäà»,43 íî è ñòàòüþ Èåðîíèìà Ãðàëè, êîòîðûé âûñêàçàë ïðåäïîëîæåíèå î òîì, ÷òî Ôåîäîð ýòî êíÿçü Ìñòèñëàâ Þðüåâè÷ (õðèñòèàíñêîå èìÿ Ôåîäîð),44 îòïðàâèâøèéñÿ ñ ìàòåðüþ è áðàòüÿìè Âàñèëüêîì è Âñåâîëîäîì â Âèçàíòèþ è ïîëó÷èâøèé îò èìïåðàòîðà Ìàíóèëà «âîëîñòü ^ñêàëàíà» â Ïàëåñòèíå45 . Êîíñòàíòèí Áàãðÿíîðîäíûé. «Î öåðåìîíèÿõ âèçàíòèéñêîãî äâîðà» (ñ. 225227). Ïðî÷èòàâ çàÿâëåíèå î òîì, ÷òî ýòî «ïðîèçâåäåíèå Êîíñòàíòèíà Áàãðÿíîðîäíîãî
ñîõðàíèëîñü â åäèíñòâåííîì ñïèñêå», íè÷åãî íå îñòàåòñÿ, êàê â î÷åðåäíîé ðàç óäèâèòüñÿ: íåâåðîÿòíûì îáðàçîì Ì. Â. Áèáèêîâó äî ñèõ ïîð îñòàâàëîñü íåèçâåñòíûì ñóùåñòâîâàíèå äðóãîé ðóêîïèñè, ñîäåðæàùåé ôðàãìåíòû «De cerimoniis» â êà÷åñòâå ñìûòîãî òåêñòà íà ïàëèìïñåñòå.46  áèáëèîãðàôèè ïðîïóùåíà äàæå êíèãà 40
Les Regestes de 381 à 715 (Paris, 1972); Les Regestes de 715 à 1206 (Paris, 1989). 41 Les Regestes de 1377 à 1410 (Paris, 1979). 42 Les Regestes de 1410 à 1453; ñì. áèáëèîãðàôèþ èçäàíèé Institut Français d’Études Byzantines ïî ñîñòîÿíèþ íà íîÿáðü 2003 ã.: http://www.icp.fr/icp/pdf/ ifeb_publications.pdf. 43 Ðåëèêâèè â âèçàíòèéñêîé ýïèãðàììå / Ïðåäèñë., ïåð. è êîìì. À. Þ. ÍÈÊÈÔÎÐÎÂÎÉ // Ðåëèêâèè â èñêóññòâå è êóëüòóðå âîñòî÷íîõðèñòèàíñêîãî ìèðà. Òåçèñû äîêëàäîâ è ìàòåðèàëû ìåæäóíàðîäíîãî ñèìïîçèóìà (Ì., 2000) 141. 44 È. à ÐÀËß, Ôåäîð Ðîñ âèçàíòèéñêîé ðóêîïèñè ñåðåäèíû XIII â. // Ñïîðíûå âîïðîñû îòå÷åñòâåííîé èñòîðèè X–XVIII ââ. Òåçèñû äîêëàäîâ è ñîîáùåíèé ïåðâûõ ÷òåíèÿ ïàìÿòè À. À. Çèìèíà. Ìîñêâà, 1318 ìàÿ 1990 ã. (Ì., 1990) Ò. 1. 45 ÏÑÐË. Ò. 2. Èïàòüåâñêàÿ ëåòîïèñü
Ñòá. 520521. Ñì. òàêæå: Ì. Â. ÁÈÁÈÊÎÂ, Âèçàíòèéñêèé èñòîðèê Èîàíí Êèííàì î Ðóñè è íàðîäàõ Âîñòî÷íîé Åâðîïû. Òåêñòû, ïåðåâîä, êîììåíòàðèé (Ì., 1997) (Äðåâíåéøèå èñòî÷íèêè ïî èñòîðèè íàðîäîâ Âîñòî÷íîé Åâðîïû) 56 (òåêñò), 67 (ïåðåâîä). 46 C. MANGO, I. EVÈENKO, A New Manuscript of the De ceremoniis // DOP 14 (1960) 247–249; O. KRESTEN, «Staatsempfänge» im Kaiserpalast von Konstantinopel um die Mitte des 10. Jahrhunderts. Beobachtungen zu Kapitel II 15 des sogenannten «Zeremonienbuches» // Sitzungsberichte der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, philosophisch-historische Klasse 670 (2000) 44–46.
!#"
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
À. Â. Íàçàðåíêî, îäèí èç îáøèðíûõ ðàçäåëîâ êîòîðîé ïîñâÿùåí àíàëèçó ñâåäåíèé ðàññêàçà î ïðèåìå êíÿãèíè Îëüãè.47 «Îá óïðàâëåíèè èìïåðèåé». Äàëüíåéøèé àíàëèç ñâåäåíèé, ñîäåðæàùèõñÿ â ýòîì òðàêòàòå, íåâîçìîæåí áåç ó÷åòà ìíåíèÿ Äæ. ÕîâàðäÄæîíñòîíà, êîòîðûé âûñêàçàë ïðåäïîëîæåíèå î òîì, ÷òî ïåðâîíà÷àëüíûé âàðèàíò ñî÷èíåíèÿ ïîÿâèëñÿ îêîëî 900 ã. ïðè èìïåðàòîðå Ëüâå VI è çàòåì áûë ïåðåðàáîòàí åãî ñûíîì Êîíñòàíòèíîì Áàãðÿíîðîäíûì.48 Ñâîä âèçàíòèéñêèõ ïå÷àòåé (ñ. 237); Ðóññêèå ïå÷àòè (ñ. 445).  äàííûõ ðàçäåëàõ Ì. Â. Áèáèêîâ âåäåò ðå÷ü íå îá èñòî÷íèêàõ, à î ñîäåðæàíèè äâóõ êàòàëîãîâ ïå÷àòåé, «âèçàíòèíîðóññêèé» ìàòåðèàë êîòîðûõ â çíà÷èòåëüíîé ñòåïåíè äóáëèðóåòñÿ. Ñîîòâåòñòâåííî, ïîÿâëåíèå äâóõ ýòèõ ñòàòåé ñîâåðøåííî íåîïðàâäàííî è ñëóæèò òîëüêî òîìó, ÷òîáû ââåñòè íåèñêóøåííîãî ÷èòàòåëÿ â çàáëóæäåíèå, õîòÿ â êîíöå ïåðâîé ñòàòüè ìû ñîâåðøåííî íåîæèäàííî óçíàåì, ÷òî «áîëüøèíñòâî ïå÷àòåé èç ñâîäà Â. Ëîðàíà âîñïðîèçâåäåíû è ïðîàíàëèçèðîâàíû Â. Ë. ßíèíûì â äâóõòîìíîì (sic! Ê. Ä.) èçäàíèè Àêòîâûõ ïå÷àòåé Äðåâíåé Ðóñè» (ñ. 240).  ïåðâîé ëåììå ïå÷àòè èåðàðõîâ ðóññêîé öåðêâè îòíîñÿòñÿ ê âèçàíòèéñêèì, âî âòîðîé óæå, ïîëó÷àåòñÿ, ê ðóññêèì
Ñ ñîæàëåíèåì ïðèõîäèòñÿ îïÿòü óêàçûâàòü íà ïðîáåëû â áèáëèîãðàôèè. Ïðåæäå âñåãî, ïóáëèêàöèÿ ïå÷àòåé, î êîòîðûõ èäåò ðå÷ü âî âòîðîé ëåììå, ñîäåðæèòñÿ òîëüêî â 1 è 3 òîìàõ ñâîäà Â. Ë. ßíèíà; îòñóòñòâóåò óêàçàíèå ñîàâòîðà 3 òîìà Ï. Ã. Ãàéäóêîâà. Êðîìå òîãî, â âûïóñêàõ åæåãîäíèêà «Íîâãîðîä è Íîâãîðîäñêàÿ çåìëÿ» âûõîäÿò äîïîëíåíèÿ ê ñâîäó ïå÷àòåé, è ýòî òàêæå áûëî áû íåëèøíèì óêàçàòü, òåì áîëåå ÷òî â íèõ ïóáëèêóþòñÿ è ïå÷àòè ñ ãðå÷åñêèìè íàäïèñÿìè (âûï. 12, 1418). Áëàãîäàðÿ èì íàì èçâåñòíî, ê ïðèìåðó, îá óâåëè÷åíèè ÷èñëà ïå÷àòåé Ìèõàèëà, «àðõîíòà Ìàòðàõè, Çèõèè è âñåé Õàçàðèè»,49 îòîæäåñòâëÿåìîãî ñ êíÿçåì Îëåãîì Ñâÿòîñëàâè÷åì. Âûçûâàåò ñîæàëåíèå, ÷òî àâòîðó íåèçâåñòíà íîâåéøàÿ êíèãà Â. È. Áóëãàêîâîé, ïîñâÿùåííàÿ âèçàíòèéñêèì ïå÷àòÿì, ïðîèñõîäÿùèì ñ òåððèÀ. Â. Í ÀÇÀÐÅÍÊÎ, Äðåâíÿÿ Ðóñü íà ìåæäóíàðîäíûõ ïóòÿõ. Ìåæäèñöèïëèíàðíûå î÷åðêè êóëüòóðíûõ, òîðãîâûõ, ïîëèòè÷åñêèõ ñâÿçåé IX–XII âåêîâ (Ì., 2001) 219–310. 48 J. HOWARD-JOHNSTON, The De Administrando Imperio: A Re-Examination of the Text and a Re-Evaluation of Its Evidence about the Rus // Les centres proto-urbains russes entre Scandinavie, Byzance et Orient. Actes du Colloque International tenu au Collège de France en octobre 1997 / Ed. M. Kazanski, A. Nercessian, C. Zuckerman (Paris, 2000) (Réalités Byzantines 7) 301–336. 49 Äâà íîâûõ ýêçåìïëÿðà èç îêðåñòíîñòåé Êåð÷è; î òðåòüåì, èç Ñóãäåè, ñì.: Å. Â. Ñ ÒÅÏÀÍÎÂÀ, Íîâûå íàõîäêè èç ñóäàêñêîãî àðõèâà ïå÷àòåé // Ñóãäåÿ, Ñóðîæ, Ñîëäàéÿ â èñòîðèè è êóëüòóðå Ðóñè-Óêðàèíû. Ìàòåðèàëû íàó÷íîé êîíôåðåíöèè (ÊèåâÑóäàê, 2002) 231233. 47
Д. В. Каштанов
!##
òîðèè Ðóñè,50 êîòîðûå è ðàíåå èñïîëüçîâàëèñü â êà÷åñòâå èíòåðåñíîãî èñòî÷íèêà äëÿ èçó÷åíèÿ âèçàíòèéñêî-ðóññêèõ ñâÿçåé.51 Ýòî ëèøíèé ðàç ïîäòâåðæäàåò íàø òåçèñ î òîì, ÷òî «Ñâîä» äàëåê îò èñ÷åðïûâàþùåé ïîëíîòû îõâàòà ìàòåðèàëà. Åùå îäèí òîìó ïðèìåð îòñóòñòâèå â ðàçäåëå «Îíîìàñòèêîí» òåêñòà ïå÷àòè Ëåîíòèÿ, àðõèåïèñêîïà Ðîñòîâà52 (ñì. ñ. 593, ãäå ïåðå÷èñëåíû íîñèòåëè èìåíè «Ëåîíòèé», è ñ. 633 è 673, ãäå ðå÷ü èäåò î Ðîñòîâå). Îòñóòñòâóåò è òåêñò ïå÷àòè Äàìèàíà, âîçìîæíî, Þðüåâñêîãî åïèñêîïà (ñì. ñ. 552, ãäå îæèäàëîñü áû ýòî èìÿ), è äðóãèõ ïå÷àòåé, âïåðâûå ïîÿâèâøèõñÿ â 3 òîìå. Âñ¸ ýòî ïîçâîëÿåò óòâåðæäàòü, ÷òî äàííûé òîì «Àêòîâûõ ïå÷àòåé» ïðè ñîñòàâëåíèè «Ñâîäà» èñïîëüçîâàí íå áûë. Íå îáîøëîñü â äàííûõ ëåììàõ è áåç îøèáêè. Ì. Â. Áèáèêîâ ñîîáùàåò ÷èòàòåëþ, ÷òî â ñâîäå Â. Ëîðàíà îïóáëèêîâàíà «ìèòðîïîëè÷üÿ ïå÷àòü ãîðîäà Âëàäèìèðà», ïðèíàäëåæàâøàÿ âî âòîðîé ïîëîâèíå XII â. «ìîíàõó Ìîèñåþ» (ñ. 239). Àâòîð íå ìîæåò íå çíàòü, ÷òî âî Âëàäèìèðå â äðåâíåðóññêèé ïåðèîä íèêîãäà íå ñóùåñòâîâàëî ìèòðîïîëèè, äà è åïèñêîïèÿ ïîÿâèëàñü äîâîëüíî ïîçäíî, íî, òåì íå ìåíåå, äâàæäû ïîìåùàåò òåêñò íàäïèñè ýòîé ïå÷àòè â «Îíîìàñòèêîí» (ñ. 538, 607), ñîïðîâîäèâ åå çíàêîì âîïðîñà è çàãàäî÷íîé ôðàçîé «Äåçàòðèáóöèÿ îòíåñåíèÿ ïå÷àòè ê Ðóñè: Sig. Russ. I. 59». Òóò ÷èòàòåëþ âïîðó îêîí÷àòåëüíî ðàñòåðÿòüñÿ è âîïðîñèòü, ÷òî âñåìè ýòèìè âçàèìîèñêëþ÷àþùèìè óòâåðæäåíèÿìè õîòåë ñêàçàòü Ì. Â. Áèáèêîâ? Ïðèíàäëåæèò ïå÷àòü «ìèòðîïîëèòó Âëàäèìèðà Ìîèñåþ» èëè íåò? È åñëè íåò, çà÷åì î íåé ãîâîðèòñÿ â êíèãå? Ïîëàãàåì, ó àâòîðà íå áûëî íèêàêîé ïîçèöèè ïî äàííîìó âîïðîñó, ïðè÷èíîé ÷åãî ñíîâà ñòàëà áèáëèîãðàôè÷åñêàÿ íåîñâåäîìëåííîñòü. Äîñòàòî÷íî áûëî îáðàòèòü âíèìàíèå íà ñòàòüþ È. Øåâ÷åíêî, êîòîðûé ïðåäïîëîæèë, ÷òî ïå÷àòü ïðîèñõîäèò ñ Ñèöèëèè, ÷òîáû óâåðåííî ñêàçàòü: ýòîò èñòî÷íèê íå èìååò ê «âèçàíòèíîðîññèêå» íèêàêîãî 50 V. BULGAKOVA, Byzantinische Bleisiegel in Osteuropa. Die Funde auf dem Territorium Altrußlands // Mainzer Veröffentlichungen zur Byzantinistik 6 (2004). 51 Ñì., ê ïðèìåðó: Ì. Ê. ÊÀÐÃÅÐ, Ê èñòîðèè âèçàíòèéñêîé ñôðàãèñòèêè // Âèçàíòèéñêèé ñáîðíèê / Ïîä ðåä. Ì. Â. Ëåâ÷åíêî (Ì.Ëåíèíãðàä, 1945) 260264; Í. Í. ÊÀÇÀÍÑÊÈÉ , À. Í. ÊÈÐÏÈ×ÍÈÊÎÂ, Âèçàíòèéñêàÿ ìèòðîïîëè÷üÿ ïå÷àòü, íàéäåííàÿ â Ñòàðîé Ëàäîãå // Ëàäîãà è ýïîõà âèêèíãîâ. ×åòâåðòûå ÷òåíèÿ ïàìÿòè Àííû Ìà÷èíñêîé. Ñòàðàÿ Ëàäîãà, 2123 äåêàáðÿ 1998 ã. Ìàòåðèàëû ê ÷òåíèÿì (ÑÏá., 1998) 7885; Â. È. ÁÓËÃÀÊÎÂÀ, Ñîôèéñêèé êîðïóñ ïå÷àòåé: äðåâíåðóññêèå è âèçàíòèéñêèå íàõîäêè íà òåððèòîðèè Ñîôèéñêîãî ñîáîðà â Êèåâå //  62 (87) (2003) 59–74; Â. Ë. ßÍÈÍ, Ï. Ã. ÃÀÉÄÓÊÎÂ, Íîâàÿ ïå÷àòü êîíñòàíòèíîïîëüñêîãî ïàòðèàðõà Ìàòôåÿ I // Scripta Gregoriana. Ñáîðíèê â ÷åñòü 70-ëåòèÿ àêàäåìèêà Ã. Ì. Áîíãàðä-Ëåâèíà (Ì., 2003) 416418. 52 Ñì.: ßÍÈÍ, Ìîëèâäîâóë ðîñòîâñêîãî àðõèåïèñêîïà Ëåîíòèÿ
; Â. Ë. ßÍÈÍ, Ï. Ã. ÃÀÉÄÓÊÎÂ, Àêòîâûå ïå÷àòè Äðåâíåé Ðóñè X–XV ââ. Ò. 3. Ïå÷àòè, çàðåãèñòðèðîâàííûå â 1970–1996 ãã. (Ì., 1998) 2936, 120, 262, 316. ¹ 62à.
!#$
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
îòíîøåíèÿ.53 Ñòàòüè È. Øåâ÷åíêî, âûøåäøåé âïåðâûå â 1967 ã., íå ìîã çíàòü Â. Ëîðàí, îïóáëèêîâàâøèé ïå÷àòü â 1963 ã.; íåîñâåäîìëåííîñòü â äàííîì âîïðîñå ïðîñòèòåëüíà è Â. Ë. ßíèíó. Îäíàêî äëÿ èññëåäîâàòåëÿ, êîòîðûé áåðåòñÿ çà îáîáùåíèå ìàòåðèàëà ïî òåìå «Âèçàíòèíîðîññèêà», òàêîâîå íåçíàíèå íåïðîñòèòåëüíî. Êîñüìà Èåðóñàëèìñêèé (Ïñ.) (ñ. 241).  êîììåíòàðèè è ñïèñêå ëèòåðàòóðû îòñóòñòâóþò ðàáîòû, â êîòîðûõ óïîìèíàíèå ãîòîâ è ôðàêèéöåâ îáúÿñíÿåòñÿ âíå ñâÿçè ñ Ðóñüþ: C. ZUCKERMAN, A Gothia in the Hellespont in the Early Eighth Century // Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 19 (1995) 234241; J. HALDON, Kosmas of Jerusalem and the Gotthograikoi // Byzantine Studies 56/1 (1995) 4554. Èçëîæåíèå ñïèñêà åïèñêîïèé (ñ. 249) è Íîâîå èçëîæåíèå «Ñïèñêà åïèñêîïèé» (ñ. 250) äîëæíû áûòü îõàðàêòåðèçîâàíû â ëåììå «Ñïèñîê åïèñêîïèé» (ñ. 403405). Ïðîäîëæàòåëü Ãåîðãèÿ Ìîíàõà (ñ. 279); Õðîíèêà Ãåîðãèÿ Ìîíàõà ïî Cod. Vat. Gr. 153 (ñ. 286); Ëåâ Ãðàììàòèê (ñ. 326; îòñûëî÷íàÿ ñòàòüÿ); Õðîíèêà Ïñåâäî-Ñèìåîíà (ñ. 420421); Ñèìåîí Ëîãîôåò (ñ. 448450); «Ôåîäîñèé Ìåëèòèíñêèé» (ñ. 459). Âî âñåõ ýòèõ ñòàòüÿõ ðå÷ü èäåò îá îäíîì èñòî÷íèêå, à èìåííî, Õðîíèêå Ñèìåîíà Ëîãîôåòà.  èçëîæåíèè Ì. Â. Áèáèêîâà íè êîëè÷åñòâî ðåäàêöèé ýòîãî ñî÷èíåíèÿ, íè èõ ñîîòíîøåíèå, íè äðóãèå âàæíûå âîïðîñû èñòîðèè òåêñòà íå ïîëó÷èëè ñêîëüêî-íèáóäü âíÿòíîãî îñâåùåíèÿ. Åìó îñòàëàñü íåèçâåñòíîé âàæíàÿ ìîíîãðàôèÿ, ïîñâÿùåííàÿ òåêñòîëîãèè õðîíèêè;54 óìåñòíî áûëî áû ñîîáùèòü è î òîì, ÷òî åå êðèòè÷åñêîå èçäàíèå â íàñòîÿùåå âðåìÿ ãîòîâèòñÿ Ñò. Âàëüãðåíîì â ðàìêàõ «Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae Series Berolinensis»; òàì æå ïëàíèðóåòñÿ îñóùåñòâèòü íîâîå èçäàíèå Õðîíèêè Ïñåâäî-Ñèìåîíà.55 Åñëè ãîâîðèòü î «âèçàíòèíîðóññêèõ» ñþæåòàõ äàííîãî èñòî÷íèêà, òî èç ïîëÿ çðåíèÿ àâòîðà «Ñâîäà» âûïàëà íå òîëüêî ñòàòüÿ Äæ. Õîâàðä-Äæîíñòîíà,56 íî äàæå ïóáëèêàöèÿ òåêñòà è ïåðåâîäà ñîîáùåíèé î ïîõîäå Ðóñè íà Êîíñòàíòèíîïîëü â 860 ã. â ñáîðI. EVÈENKO, Russo-Byzantine Relations after the Eleventh Century // IDEM, Byzantium and the Slavs in Letters and Culture (Renovatio. Vol. 1) (Cambridge, Mass.—Napoli, 1991) 272, note 10; 284, fig. 1. 54 A. SOTIROUDIS, Die handschriftliche Überlieferung des «Georgius Continuatus» (Redaktion A) (Thessalonike, 1989). 55 Arbeitsgemeinschaft deutscher Byzantinisten Publikationsliste 2001. S. 3 (http:// www.byzantinistik.de/_pub/Publ02.pdf) // Ñàéò «Deutsche Arbeitsgemeinschaft zur Förderung byzantinischer Studien» (http://www.byzantinistik.de, äàòà äîñòóïà — 10.01.2005 ã.). 56 J. HOWARD-JOHNSTON, Byzantium, Bulgaria and the Peoples of Ukraine in the 890s // Ìàòåðèàëû ïî àðõåîëîãèè, èñòîðèè è ýòíîãðàôèè Òàâðèè. Ò. 7 (Ñèìôåðîïîëü, 2000) 342–356. 53
Д. В. Каштанов
!#%
íèêå, êîòîðûé èçäàåò Èíñòèòóò âñåîáùåé èñòîðèè ÐÀÍ 57 (íàïîìíèì åùå ðàç: Ì. Â. Áèáèêîâ çàìåñòèòåëü äèðåêòîðà ýòîãî ó÷ðåæäåíèÿ)
Ãåîðãèé Àìàðòîë (ñ. 282).  ýòîì èñòî÷íèêå, êîòîðûé çàâåðøàåòñÿ 842 ãîäîì, î Ðóñè ïî ïîíÿòíûì ïðè÷èíàì íå ãîâîðèòñÿ íè ñëîâà, ïîýòîìó åãî èñïîëüçîâàíèå â «Ñâîäå» íåóìåñòíî. Åñëè áû Ì. Â. Áèáèêîâ èñêëþ÷èë ýòó ëåììó èç êíèãè, åìó áû óäàëîñü ñäåëàòü îäíîé îøèáêîé ìåíüøå. Óòâåðæäàÿ, ÷òî «õðîíèêà áûëà çàâåðøåíà îêîëî 866/867 ã. èëè, ïî äðóãèì îöåíêàì, ïîñëå 871 ã.», àâòîð íèãäå íå óòî÷íÿåò, ÷òî òàêàÿ äàòèðîâêà ìîæåò áûòü âåðíîé äëÿ ïîçäíåé ðåäàêöèè ñî÷èíåíèÿ, òîãäà êàê åå ïåðâîíà÷àëüíûé âàðèàíò áûë çàâåðøåí îêîëî 845847 ãã. Îá ýòîì ãîâîðèòñÿ â ñòàòüÿõ Ä. Å. Àôèíîãåíîâà, êîòîðûå, ðàçóìååòñÿ, îòñóòñòâóþò â áèáëèîãðàôè÷åñêîì ðàçäåëå.58 Ãåîðãèé Òîðíèê ìèòðîïîëèò (ñ. 284). Àâòîðó îñòàëàñü íåèçâåñòíîé ñòàòüÿ Ñ. Ôðàíêëèíà, îäíèì èç ñþæåòîâ êîòîðîé ñòàëî âûÿñíåíèå âîïðîñà î òîì, êòî æå áûë òåì ìèòðîïîëèòîì Ðîññèè, êîòîðîãî óïîìÿíóë Ãåîðãèé Òîðíèê: S. FRANKLIN, Annotationes Byzantino-Russicae // ÃÅÍÍÁÄÉÏÓ. Ê 70-ëåòèþ àêàäåìèêà Ã. Ã. Ëèòàâðèíà (Ì., 1999) 223226. Íàäïèñè ìèòðîïîëèòà Ôîòèÿ (ñ. 292293). Èçäàíèå, ïðèâåäåííîå ïîñëå çàãîëîâêà, ñóùåñòâóåò è íà ðóññêîì ÿçûêå: Ñðåäíåâåêîâîå ëèöåâîå øèòüå. Âèçàíòèÿ. Áàëêàíû. Ðóñü. Êàòàëîã âûñòàâêè (Ì., 1991). Áîëåå ïîëíûå è ïîäðîáíûå ñâåäåíèÿ î ïðåäìåòàõ ñ ìîíîãðàììàìè Ôîòèÿ (êîòîðûõ ñîõðàíèëîñü íå äâå, êàê ñ÷èòàåò Ì. Â. Áèáèêîâ, à ÷åòûðå) ìîæíî ïî÷åðïíóòü â ñòàòüå: [Í. À. ÊÎÁßÊ] Ïàëåîãðàôè÷åñêîå îïèñàíèå ðóêîïèñè ÁÀÍ, Òåê. ïîñò. 1106 // ÔÎÒÈÉ , ìèòðîïîëèò Êèåâñêèé è âñåÿ Ðóñè, Ñî÷èíåíèÿ. Êíèãà ãëàãîëåìàÿ Ôîòèîñ (Ì., 2005) 1415. Èîàíí Êàìèíèàò (ñ. 294). Ì. Â. Áèáèêîâ îòìå÷àåò, ÷òî äàííûé àâòîð, «îïèñûâàÿ Ñîëóíü,
óïîìèíàåò è ñëàâÿíñêèå ïëåìåíà äðóãóâèòîâ, ò. å. äðåãîâè÷åé ðóññêèõ ëåòîïèñåé, è ñàãóäàòîâ». Ñëåäóåò ëè ïîíèìàòü ýòó ôðàçó òàê, êàê íàïèñàíî, èëè âñå-òàêè Ì. Â. Áèáèêîâ èìåë â âèäó òîæäåñòâî íàçâàíèé äâóõ ïëåìåí, íà Áàëêàíàõ è â Âîñòî÷íîé Åâðîïå, êîòîðîå ñâèäåòåëüñòâóåò îá èõ åäèíîì ïðîèñõîæäåíèè?  ëþáîì ñëó÷àå, ýòîò èñòî÷íèê íå èìååò îòíîøåíèÿ ê Ðóñè. Èîàíí Ðóññêèé (ñ. 307).  äàííîé ëåììå ãîâîðèòñÿ î ìèòðîïîëèòå Ðóñè Èîàííå II, àâòîðå àíòèëàòèíñêîãî òðàêòàòà. Ì. Â. Áèáèêîâ íå 57 Ï. Â. ÊÓÇÅÍÊÎÂ, Ïîõîä 860 ã. íà Êîíñòàíòèíîïîëü è ïåðâîå êðåùåíèå Ðóñè â ñðåäíåâåêîâûõ ïèñüìåííûõ èñòî÷íèêàõ // Äðåâíåéøèå ãîñóäàðñòâà Âîñòî÷íîé Åâðîïû (Äðåâíåéøèå ãîñóäàðñòâà íà òåððèòîðèè ÑÑÑÐ). 2000 ã. (Ì., 2003) 107–122. 58 D. AFINOGENOV, The Date of Georgius Monachus Reconsidered // BZ 92 (1999) 437–447; Ä. Å. ÀÔÈÍÎÃÅÍÎÂ, Ðóêîïèñü Coislianus 305: ïåðâîíà÷àëüíàÿ âåðñèÿ õðîíèêè Ãåîðãèÿ Ìîíàõà // Ñëàâÿíñêèé ìèð ìåæäó Ðèìîì è Êîíñòàíòèíîïîëåì (Ì., 2004) (Ñëàâÿíå è èõ ñîñåäè 11) 19–29.
!#&
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
óïóñòèë ñëó÷àÿ ïîêàçàòü çíàêîìñòâî ñ ïðåäìåòîì: âñïîìíèâ ãèïîòåçó Ñ. Ä. Ïàïàäèìèòðèó î òîæäåñòâå Èîàííà ñ äÿäåé ïîýòà Ôåîäîðà Ïðîäðîìà, àâòîð îòìåòèë, ÷òî «ýòà èäåíòèôèêàöèÿ áûëà ïîäâåðãíóòà êðèòèêå À. Ï. Êàæäàíîì è Ñ. Ôðàíêëèíîì». Íèæå (ñ. 463) ýòó ôîðìóëèðîâêó, èç êîòîðîé íåÿñíî îòíîøåíèå ñàìîãî àâòîðà «Ñâîäà» ê ïðîáëåìå, ñìåíèëà áîëåå îïðåäåëåííàÿ: «Â íàó÷íîé ëèòåðàòóðå
äîêàçàíà íåîïðàâäàííîñòü èäåíòèôèêàöèé Ïàïàäèìèòðèó: äåä (ñîâåðøåííî î÷åâèäíî, äÿäÿ. Ä. Ê.) Ïðîäðîìà äîëæåí áûë íîñèòü èìÿ Ìàíóèë; íåèçâåñòíî, çâàëè ëè åãî Ïðîäðîì; â òåêñòå óêàçûâàåòñÿ òîëüêî, ÷òî äåä ïðîçûâàëñÿ èìåíåì Ïðåäòå÷è, à ýòî, êñòàòè, ìîãëî îçíà÷àòü Èîàíí». Òàêèì îáðàçîì, Ì. Â. Áèáèêîâ ñîëèäàðèçîâàëñÿ ñ ìíåíèåì, ñîãëàñíî êîòîðîìó ìèòðîïîëèò Èîàíí íå ìîã áûòü äÿäåé Ôåîäîðà Ïðîäðîìà. Âñïîìíèì, ÷òî ýòà èäåíòèôèêàöèÿ îñíîâûâàëàñü íà ñîâïàäåíèè èìåíè «Õðèñòîñ» â ÿìáàõ Ïðîäðîìà (èåsåí hó÷ïí ×ñéóôí ¨íïìáóìÝíïí) è â çàãîëîâêå «Êàíîíè÷åñêèõ îòâåòîâ» («Èîàííà, ìèòðîïîëèòà ðóññêîãî, íàðå÷åííîãî ïðîðîêîì Õðèñòà, íàïèñàâøåãî ïðàâèëî öåðêîâíîå îò ñâÿòûõ êíèã âêðàòöå Èàêîâó ×åðíîðèçöó»).59 À. Ï. Êàæäàí ïîïûòàëñÿ ïîêàçàòü, ÷òî «íàçûâàâøèéñÿ Õðèñòîì» îçíà÷àåò «Ìàíóèë», îäíàêî ïðèâåäåííûå èì ïðèìåðû, íàèáîëåå áëèçêèå äàííîìó ñëó÷àþ, êàæóòñÿ íå îòíîñÿùèìèñÿ ê äåëó: èìÿ «Ìàíóèë» â íèõ «çàøèôðîâûâàåòñÿ» â îäíî ñëîâî êàê ×ñéóô(ïêëçô)þíõìïò «Õðèñòîèìåíèòûé», òîãäà êàê Ïðîäðîì ïèñàë î ÷åëîâåêå, «íàçûâàâøåìñÿ Õðèñòîì», èñïîëüçîâàâ äâà ñëîâà. Çäåñü, îäíàêî, íàäî ïîä÷åðêíóòü, ÷òî «Ñâîä» äàåò íàì ïðåêðàñíóþ âîçìîæíîñòü ðàçðåøèòü äàííóþ äèëåììó. Äåëî â òîì, ÷òî Ì. Â. Áèáèêîâ ñîîáùàåò (ñ. 271), ÷òî Ãåííàäèé Ñõîëàðèé â äâóõ ñâîèõ ñî÷èíåíèÿõ óïîìèíàåò «ìíîãèõ àâòîðîâ àíòèëàòèíñêèõ ñî÷èíåíèé, â ÷èñëå êîòîðûõ íàçâàí Èîàíí Ðóññêèé, «íîñÿùèé èìÿ Õðèñòà» (òåêñò ñì. íà ñ. 730: öåñùíýìùò ×ñçóôüí). Ïîëàãàåì, ÷òî ýòî ñâèäåòåëüñòâî è åñòü íåäîñòàþùåå çâåíî â öåïî÷êå: äÿäÿ Ôåîäîðà Ïðîäðîìà, ×ñéóôò ¨íïìáóìÝíïò çàãîëîâîê Èîàíí, ìèòðîïîëèò ðóññêèé, íàðå÷åííûé ïðîðîêîì Õðèñòà óïîìèíàíèå Ãåííàäèåì Ñõîëàðèåì FÑùóßáò EÉùÜííçí ôí öåñùíýìùò ×ñçóôüí. Áîëåå òîãî, åñëè Ñõîëàðèé çíàë ïîëåìè÷åñêèé òðàêòàò Èîàííà, ïîäïèñàííûé òàêæå è äðóãèì èìåíåì (ïðîçâèùåì?) «Õðèñòîñ», ñàì ýòîò ôàêò ñíèìàåò äâà äðóãèõ âîçðàæåíèÿ À. Ï. Êàæäàíà: î ìàëîé âåðîÿòíîñòè òîãî, ÷òî Èîàíí ñòàë áû ïîäïèñûâàòü ãðå÷åñêèé îðèãèíàë «Êàíîíè÷åñêèõ îòâåòîâ» ìèðñêèì èìåíåì, è î òîì, ÷òî êðåùàëüíîãî èìåíè Õðèñòîñ íå ñóùåñòâîâàëî. Ê ñëîâó, íåêèé «×ñyóôïò EÁèáíáóßïõ», æèâøèé â 15 âåêå èëè ïîçäíåå, çàôèêñèðîâàí â Prosopographisches Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit (¹ 30994). Ñ ó÷åòîì òîãî, ÷òî ýòî èìÿ èñïîëüçîâàëîñü òàêæå â ïîçäíåé àíòè÷íîñòè (àâòîð VI â. Èîàíí Ëèä óïîìèíàåò Í. Ê. ÍÈÊÎËÜÑÊÈÉ, Ìàòåðèàëû äëÿ ïîâðåìåííîãî ñïèñêà ðóññêèõ ïèñàòåëåé è èõ ñî÷èíåíèé (X–XI ââ.) (ÑÏá., 1906) 216. 59
Д. В. Каштанов
!#'
íåêîåãî ×ñyóôïò ¿ FÑùìásïò: De mensibus, IV, 107; íîñèòåëÿ ýòîãî èìåíè íàçûâàþò Ñîçîìåí è Ôåîäîðèò Êèððñêèé),60 íåò íè÷åãî óäèâèòåëüíîãî â òîì, ÷òî òàê ìîãëè çâàòü ÷åëîâåêà, æèâøåãî â ïåðèîä ìåæäó ïîçäíåé àíòè÷íîñòüþ è XV â. Îòìåòèì, ÷òî âñå æå îñòàåòñÿ íåÿñíûì, ó÷èòûâàÿ ýôôåêò èòàöèçìà, çâàëè ëè Èîàííà ×ñyóôïò61 èëè ×ñéóôüò, õîòÿ ïåðâûé âàðèàíò êàæåòñÿ áîëåå âåðîÿòíûì. Òåì íå ìåíåå, ñêàçàííîãî, êàê êàæåòñÿ, âïîëíå äîñòàòî÷íî äëÿ òîãî, ÷òîáû âåðíóòüñÿ ê ãèïîòåçå Ñ. Ä. Ïàïàäèìèòðèó, à òàêæå êîíñòàòèðîâàòü, ÷òî Ì. Â. Áèáèêîâ íå îáðàòèë âíèìàíèÿ íà âàæíîñòü ñâèäåòåëüñòâà Ãåííàäèÿ Ñõîëàðèÿ, ïðåäïî÷òÿ îãðàíè÷èòüñÿ ïåðåñêàçîì ÷óæèõ ðàáîò. Èîàíí Êñèôèëèí (ñòàðøèé) (ñ. 310311).  äàííîé ëåììå ñîäåðæèòñÿ ãðóáåéøàÿ îøèáêà. Ðå÷ü îá îäíîì ñþæåòå èç «Ïîâåñòâîâàíèÿ î ÷óäåñàõ ñâÿòîãî âåëèêîìó÷åíèêà Åâãåíèÿ Òðàïåçóíäñêîãî», ïðèíàäëåæàùåãî ïåðó äàííîãî àâòîðà. Íå ìîæåì óäåðæàòüñÿ îò òîãî, ÷òîáû ïðèâåñòè îáøèðíóþ öèòàòó ïî÷òè ïîëíîñòüþ: «Îäíà èç ãëàâ Ïîâåñòâîâàíèÿ îçàãëàâëåíà Î Ðîñå.  íåé îïèñàíû ñîáûòèÿ îñàäû Òðàïåçóíäà àðìèåé ñêèôîâ âî ãëàâå ñ íåêèì Ðîñîì. Ýïèçîä äàòèðóåòñÿ âðåìåíåì ïðàâëåíèÿ Êîíñòàíòèíà VII Áàãðÿíîðîäíîãî
 ýòîì ñëó÷àå ó Èîàííà Êñèôèëèíà ìîãëî ïîëó÷èòü îòðàæåíèå ýõî ïîõîäîâ ðóññêèõ êíÿçåé íà Âèçàíòèþ â ïåðâîé ïîëîâèíå X â. Ñêèôû åùå íåîäíîêðàòíî óïîìÿíóòû è äàëåå â ñî÷èíåíèè ïàòðèàðõà». Ìîæíî áûëî áû äàæå íå çàìåòèòü òîãî, ÷òî àâòîðó â î÷åðåäíîé ðàç íåèçâåñòíî íîâåéøåå èçäàíèå èñòî÷íèêà:62 äåëî â òîì, ÷òî âñÿ öèòàòà íå èìååò íè÷åãî îáùåãî ñ äåéñòâèòåëüíîñòüþ.  ýòîì ëåãêî óáåäèòüñÿ, îòûñêàâ öèòàòó èç ñî÷èíåíèÿ Êñèôèëèíà â «Îíîìàñòèêîíå» íà ñ. 652. Èç íåå ñëåäóåò, ÷òî â «Ïîâåñòâîâàíèè» èäåò ðå÷ü î íåêîåì îõâà÷åííîì äüÿâîëîì «ðîñå», íàõîäèâøåìñÿ â «ñêèôñêîì» îòðÿäå íà ñëóæáå ó èìïåðàòîðà Êîíñòàíòèíà Íîâîãî, êîòîðûé îòïðàâèë ýòî ïîäðàçäåëåíèå â Òðàïåçóíä. Äàëåå Êñèôèëèí ðàññêàçûâàåò íàì î ÷óäåñíîì èñöåëåíèè áîëüíîãî, è âñëåä çà ýòèì ïîÑì. òàêæå: W. PAPE, Wörterbuch der griechischen Eigennamen / 3. Auflage, neu bearbeitet von G. E. Benseler (Braunschweig, 1911) 1690; à òàêæå ñëîâíèêè íà ñàéòå ïðîåêòà «Lexicon of Greek Personal Names» (http://www.lgpn.ox.ac.uk), îõâàòûâàþùèå ãðå÷åñêèå èìåíà äî VI â. í. ý.: http://www.lgpn.ox.ac.uk/publications/vol1/vol1_names/v1mc_u.html; http://www.lgpn.ox.ac.uk/publications/vol2/vol2_names/v2mc_u.html; http://www.lgpn.ox.ac.uk/publications/vol3a/vol3a_names/v3amc_u.html; http://www.lgpn.ox.ac.uk/publications/vol3b/vol3b_names/v3bmc_u.html. 61 Âèçàíòèéñêèå ñëîâàðè (â ÷àñòíîñòè, Ïñåâäî-Çîíàðà) îáúÿñíÿþò ýòî èìÿ êàê «ô êýñéïí». 62 The Hagiographic Dossier of St. Eugenios of Trebizond in Codex Athos Dionysiou 154 / A Critical Edition with Introd., Transl., Comm. and Indexes by J. O. ROSENQVIST (Uppsala, 1996) (Studia Byzantiba Upsaliensia 5). Èíòåðåñóþùèé íàñ ñþæåò íàõîäèòñÿ íà ñ. 182–184. 60
!$
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
ìåùàåò åùå äâå èñòîðèè îá èçëå÷åíèè åãî ñîñëóæèâöåâ îò ãëóõîòû è îò îäåðæèìîñòè (ýòî èìåííî òî, î ÷åì â «Ñâîäå» ñêàçàíî: «Ñêèôû åùå íåîäíîêðàòíî óïîìÿíóòû è äàëåå â ñî÷èíåíèè ïàòðèàðõà»). ×èòàòåëÿì ñóäèòü, íàñêîëüêî òåêñò èñòî÷íèêà ñîîòâåòñòâóåò åãî èçëîæåíèþ Ì. Â. Áèáèêîâûì. Íà èõ óñìîòðåíèå ìû òàêæå îñòàâëÿåì è ðåøåíèå âîïðîñà î òîì, ìîã ëè îäèí è òîò æå ÷åëîâåê íàïèñàòü ïîäîáíóþ àííîòàöèþ äëÿ îäíîãî ðàçäåëà ñâîåé êíèãè è ïîìåñòèòü â äðóãîé ðàçäåë îòðûâîê èç ñî÷èíåíèÿ, â êîòîðîì ãîâîðèòñÿ íå÷òî ñîâåðøåííî èíîå. Èîñèô Ïåñíîïèñåö (ñ. 317). Îòñóòñòâóåò óêàçàíèå íà ïóáëèêàöèþ òåêñòà è ðóññêîãî ïåðåâîäà ñî÷èíåíèé: ÊÓÇÅÍÊÎÂ, Ïîõîä 860 ã. íà Êîíñòàíòèíîïîëü
9095. Ìàòôåé Ýôåññêèé (ñ. 355). Íè ñëîâà íå ñêàçàíî î òîì, ÷òî îí íàõîäèëñÿ íà Ðóñè â 13311332 ãã., à åãî ïèñüìî óïîìèíàåò íå ïðîñòî «àðõîíòà Ðîñ», à ãîâîðèò î âîéíå ìîñêîâñêîãî êíÿçÿ Èâàíà Äàíèëîâè÷à è òâåðñêîãî Àëåêñàíäðà Ìèõàéëîâè÷à. Íèêèòà Õîíèàò. Èñòîðè÷åñêîå ïîâåñòâîâàíèå (ñ. 370372). Ñîâåðøåííî íàïðàñíî Ì. Â. Áèáèêîâ ðåøèë íå óêàçûâàòü íåäàâíî ïåðåèçäàííûé ñòàðûé ðóññêèé ïåðåâîä âñåãî ñî÷èíåíèÿ. Òî æå ñàìîå ìîæíî ñêàçàòü è â îòíîøåíèè ñòàòüè «Íèêèôîð Ãðèãîðà. Ðîìåéñêàÿ èñòîðèÿ» (ñ. 378379), è â îòíîøåíèè ìíîãèõ äðóãèõ. Âîîáùå, ñ óêàçàíèåì ïåðåâîäîâ â «Ñâîäå» äåëî îáñòîèò êðàéíå ïëîõî âèäèìî, â ðàñ÷åòå íà 2-é òîì, êîòîðûé, ñîãëàñíî àíãëèéñêîé àííîòàöèè (ñ. 734), áóäåò âêëþ÷àòü «Russian translation of the Greek texts, commentary, additional material and index». Íèêîëàé III Ãðàììàòèê. Ñîáîðíîå îïðåäåëåíèå (ñ. 382). Ïîçèöèÿ àâòîðà â îòíîøåíèè äàòèðîâêè òåêñòà 1101 èëè 1086 ã. ñîâåðøåííî íå îïðåäåëåíà. Ìåæäó òåì ýòî âåñüìà âàæíûé ìîìåíò, ó÷èòûâàÿ ðåäêîñòü â ãðå÷åñêèõ àêòàõ óïîìèíàíèé î ïðåáûâàíèè ðóññêèõ ìèòðîïîëèòîâ â Êîíñòàíòèíîïîëå äî íà÷àëà XIII â. (òàêèõ ñâèäåòåëüñòâ íàì èçâåñòíî âñåãî 7, è 2 èç íèõ, êàê óêàçàíî âûøå, â «Ñâîäå» îêàçàëèñü ïðîïóùåíû). Íèêèòà Äàâèä Ïàôëàãîí. Æèòèå Èãíàòèÿ (ñ. 387). Òåêñò, ïåðåâîä è êîììåíòàðèé îòðûâêîâ, ïîâåñòâóþùèõ î íàïàäåíèè Ðóñè, ñì.: ÊÓÇÅÍÊΠ, Ïîõîä 860 ã. íà Êîíñòàíòèíîïîëü
102107. Ôîòèé. Ïèñüìà; Ãîìèëèè (ñ. 413417). Îïÿòü îòñóòñòâóåò óêàçàíèå íà ðàáîòó, ïðèâåäåííóþ â ïðåäûäóùåì àáçàöå. Ìèõàèë Ïñåëë. Ïîñëàíèå èìïåðàòîðà Ìèõàèëà VII Äóêè êíÿçþ Âñåâîëîäó ßðîñëàâè÷ó (ñ. 428429). Ïîðàæàåò ñóðîâàÿ ëàêîíè÷íîñòü àâòîðà, êîòîðûé íå íàøåë âîçìîæíîñòü óäåëèòü íè ñòðî÷êè äèñêóññèîííîìó âîïðîñó îá àäðåñàòå äâóõ ïèñåì, íàïèñàííûõ îò èìåíè Ìèõàèëà Äóêè. Ì. Â. Áèáèêîâ ðåøèë îãðàíè÷èòüñÿ îáøèðíîé áèáëèîãðàôèåé, äëÿ êîòîðîé, â äóõå «Ñâîäà», õàðàêòåðíà ïîëíàÿ áåññèñòåìíîñòü. Ïòîõî-Ïðîäðîì (ñ. 430). Íåñìîòðÿ íà ôèëîëîãè÷åñêèé èíòåðåñ, êîòîðûé ïðåäñòàâëÿþò îòðàæåííûå â åãî ñòèõîòâîðåíèè ñëàâÿíñêèå çàèì-
Д. В. Каштанов
!$
ñòâîâàíèÿ, íå ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ âîçìîæíûì óñòàíîâèòü èõ ïðÿìóþ ñâÿçü ñ Ðóñüþ. Èîàíí Ñêèëèöà (ñ. 434436). Ñîâåðøåííî íàïðàñíî Ì. Â. Áèáèêîâ íàçûâàåò óïîìÿíóòîãî â ñî÷èíåíèè ýòîãî èñòîðèêà ðóññêîãî êíÿçÿ «Íåñèñëàâà» «íå ïîääàþùèìñÿ î÷åâèäíîìó îòîæäåñòâëåíèþ». Êàê ðàññêàçûâàåò Ñêèëèöà, «â ëåòî 6544, 4 èíäèêòà
ñêîí÷àëèñü êíÿçüÿ Ðóñè, Íåñèñëàâ è Èåðîñëàâ, è áûë âûáðàí óïðàâëÿòü Ðóñüþ ðîäñòâåííèê ñêîí÷àâøèõñÿ Çèíèñëàâ». Äëÿ «î÷åâèäíîãî îòîæäåñòâëåíèÿ» íàäî áûëî ïðîñòî çàãëÿíóòü â «Ïîâåñòü âðåìåííûõ ëåò» è ïîä òåì æå ãîäîì (â âàðèàíòå Ëàâðåíòüåâñêîé ëåòîïèñè) ïðî÷èòàòü î ñìåðòè áðàòà ßðîñëàâà Ìóäðîãî Ìñòèñëàâà,63 êîòîðûé è åñòü «Íåñèñëàâ» Ñêèëèöû. Äëÿ ñðàâíåíèÿ ìîæíî ïðèâåñòè âàðèàíò èìåíè «Ìñòèñëàâ» ñ ãðåêîÿçû÷íîé êíÿæåñêîé ïå÷àòè: «Ìåóé(ó)èëÜâïò» (ñ. 597), ÷òîáû êîíñòàòèðîâàòü, ÷òî ïåðåäà÷à ýòîãî ñëàâÿíñêîãî èìåíè ó Ñêèëèöû áëèçêà ê åãî ñòàíäàðòíîé ãðå÷åñêîé àäàïòàöèè. Äðóãîå äåëî, ÷òî âèçàíòèéñêèé àâòîð ñîîáùèë î ñìåðòè îáîèõ êíÿçåé è Ìñòèñëàâà, è ßðîñëàâà, òîãäà êàê â äåéñòâèòåëüíîñòè ßðîñëàâ æèë åùå äîëãèå ãîäû, ïîýòîìó ïîïûòêè îòîæäåñòâëåíèÿ Çèíèñëàâà è íàì ïðåäñòàâëÿþòñÿ áåñïîëåçíûìè. Êîíñòàíòèíîïîëüñêèé Ñèíàêñàðèé (ñ. 452).  óïîðíî èãíîðèðóåìîé Ì. Â. Áèáèêîâûì ìîíîãðàôèè, ïîñâÿùåííîé èñòî÷íèêàì î íàïàäåíèè Ðóñè íà Êîíñòàíòèíîïîëü â 860 ã., îòìå÷àåòñÿ, ÷òî ïàìÿòü «íàøåñòâèÿ ñàðàöèíîâ è ðóí» ïîä 25 èþíÿ «â áîëüøèíñòâå ñèíàêñàðåé
ñîîòíåñåíà ñ àðàáñêîé îñàäîé Êîíñòàíòèíîïîëÿ». Ï. Â. Êóçåíêîâ ïðèçíàë òàêæå, ÷òî «çàòðóäíèòåëüíî äàòü êàêîå-ëèáî óáåäèòåëüíîå òîëêîâàíèå» ñëîâà «ðóí» «â âèäó åãî óíèêàëüíîñòè».64 «Òèìàðèîí» (ñ. 481).  ñîîáùåíèè î òîì, ÷òî «ãîðîäà Ýâêñèíñêîãî Ïîíòà ñíà÷àëà ïîñûëàþò ñâîè òîâàðû â Âèçàíòèé» è íà ÿðìàðêó â Ôåññàëîíèêå, íèêàê íåëüçÿ óñìîòðåòü «ñâèäåòåëüñòâî î òîðãîâëå â Âèçàíòèè þæíî-ðóññêèõ êóïöîâ». Ñòðîãî ãîâîðÿ, â ýòîé ðèòîðè÷åñêîé ôðàçå íå óòî÷íÿåòñÿ äàæå, î êàêîì áåðåãå, þæíîì, ñåâåðíîì èëè çàïàäíîì, èäåò ðå÷ü; âî âñÿêîì ñëó÷àå, è ñîáñòâåííî âèçàíòèéñêèõ ãîðîäîâ áûëî äîñòàòî÷íî, ÷òîáû «ïîäðàçóìåâàòü» åùå è ðóññêèå êîòîðûõ, êñòàòè, íà ïîáåðåæüå Ïîíòà ê ñåðåäèíå XII â. óæå íå áûëî. Òèïèêîí ìîíàñòûðÿ Ïàíòîêðàòîðà (ñ. 482). Îòîæäåñòâëåíèå óïîìÿíóòîé â ýòîì äîêóìåíòå æåíû Àëåêñåÿ Êîìíèíà, ñòàðøåãî ñûíà èìïåðàòîðà Èîàííà, ñ äî÷åðüþ Ìñòèñëàâà Âëàäèìèðîâè÷à, êîòîðàÿ, ñîãëàñíî Èïàòüåâñêîé ëåòîïèñè, áûëà â 1122 ã. «âåäåíà âú ãðhêû çà 63 The Povìst vremennykh lìt. An Interlinear Collation and Paradosis / Complied and Edited by D. OSTROWSKI, Associate Editor D. J. BIRNBAUM, Senior Consultant H. G. LUNT (Cambridge, Mass., 2003) (Harvard Library of Early Ukrainian Literature 10/1–3) 1191–1192. 64 ÊÓÇÅÍÊÎÂ, Ïîõîä 860 ã. íà Êîíñòàíòèíîïîëü
101, ïðèì. 4.
!$
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
öð ¯ü»,65 áûëî îòâåðãíóòî êàê íåîáîñíîâàííîå À. Ï. Êàæäàíîì.66 Íå íàéäÿ Ìñòèñëàâíå ìåñòà ñðåäè æåí Àëåêñåÿ, À. Ï. Êàæäàí ðåçîííî îòìå÷àë, ÷òî ðóññêàÿ êíÿæíà ìîãëà áûòü âûäàíà çàìóæ çà ëþáîãî èç ïðåäñòàâèòåëåé ñåìüè Êîìíèíîâ, à íå òîëüêî çà íàñëåäíèêà ïðåñòîëà. «Æèòèå Àíòîíèÿ» (Ïå÷åðñêîãî) (ñ. 492493). Ì. Â. Áèáèêîâ ñíîâà äîïóñêàåò ãðóáóþ îøèáêó, çàÿâëÿÿ, ÷òî «ñîõðàíèâøèéñÿ ëèøü â ïîçäíèõ ñèíàêñàðíûõ ñáîðíèêàõ òåêñò ò. í. «Æèòèÿ Àíòîíèÿ» ïðåäñòàâëÿåò ñîáîé, ïî-âèäèìîìó, ãðå÷åñêóþ ïåðåðàáîòêó íå ñîõðàíèâøåãîñÿ äðåâíåðóññêîãî æèòèÿ Àíòîíèÿ Ïå÷åðñêîãî». Ñóäÿ ïî êðàòêîìó èçëîæåíèþ ñîäåðæàíèÿ ãðå÷åñêîãî òåêñòà, îí âîñõîäèò ê îäíîé èç ïîçäíåéøèõ ïåðåðàáîòîê Êèåâî-Ïå÷åðñêîãî ïàòåðèêà. Ôîðìà «Ðîññèÿ» ñ äâóìÿ «ñ», íå õàðàêòåðíàÿ äëÿ ðàííèõ ãðå÷åñêèõ èçâåñòèé î Ðóñè, è òðàíñëèòåðàöèÿ ñëîâà «êíÿçü» âìåñòî ïðèâû÷íîãî «àðõîíò» (ñ. 672) òàêæå íå ñâèäåòåëüñòâóåò â ïîëüçó ðàííåãî ïðîèñõîæäåíèÿ òåêñòà. Êðîìå òîãî, Ô.-Äæ. Òîìñîí âûäâèíóë ãèïîòåçó î òîì, ÷òî «ñâÿòàÿ Ãîðà», ãäå ïîáûâàë Àíòîíèé, òîëüêî âïîñëåäñòâèè áûëà îòîæäåñòâëåíà ñ Àôîíîì.67 Áèáëèîãðàôèÿ â ëåììå âðÿä ëè èìååò îòíîøåíèå ê ãðå÷åñêîìó òåêñòó: âî âñÿêîì ñëó÷àå, ñòàòüè À. À. Øàõìàòîâà, Ô.-Äæ. Òîìñîíà è Þ. À. Àðòàìîíîâà íèêàê åãî íå êàñàþòñÿ. Çàòî, êàê êàæåòñÿ, ïðÿìîå îòíîøåíèå ê íåìó èìååò ñëåäóþùåå çàìå÷àíèå Å. Å. Ãîëóáèíñêîãî: «Ñ ñîðîêîâûõ ãîäîâ ïðîøëîãî ñòîëåòèÿ ñòàëî ó íàñ èçâåñòíûì âîâñå íåèçâåñòíîå äîòîëå ïðåäàíèå Àôîíñêîãî ìîíàñòûðÿ Ýñôèãìåíà, ÷òî Àíòîíèé áûë ïîñòðèæåí â ìîíàõè èìåííî â íåì è ïîäâèçàëñÿ íåêîòîðîå âðåìÿ áëèç íåãî, â ïåùåðå, íàõîäÿùåéñÿ íà âûñîêîì ìîðñêîì áåðåãó (íà âûñîêîé ãîðå íàä ìîðåì). Ïðåäàíèå ýòî, íå óïîìèíàåìîå îáñòîÿòåëüíåéøèì Áàðñêèì, ñëåäîâàòåëüíî â åãî âðåìÿ íå ñóùåñòâîâàâøåå, íå íàøëî ó íàñ âåðû ìåæäó ó÷åíûìè ëþäüìè, çà èñêëþ÷åíèåì ëåãêîâåðíîãî À. Í. Ìóðàâüåâà, íî ëþäüìè íå îñîáåííî ó÷åíûìè îíî áûëî ïðèíÿòî
Ïðåäàíèå ýòî ïðîñòî-íàïðîñòî âûäóìàíî ýñôèãìåíöàìè äëÿ òîé öåëè, ÷òîáû ïîñòàâèòü ñâîé ìîíàñòûðü ïîä ïàòðîíàò Ðîññèè, ÷òîáû ïðèâëå÷ü â íåãî íàøó èçâåñòíóþ ùåäðîäàòåëüíîñòü, à âî âñÿêîì ñëó÷àå, ÷òîáû èñïðîñèòü ïðàâî ïðîèçâîäèòü â Ðîññèè ñáîðû
Ñî÷èíèâ ïðåäàíèå, ýñôèãìåíöû íàïèñàëè æèòèå Àíòîíèÿ ñ èçëîæåíèåì äîêàçàòåëüñòâ, ÷òî îí ïîñòðèæåí ó íèõ; íî ñ æèòèåì ñëó÷èëàñü òà áåäà, ÷òî îíî ïðèâîÏÑÐË. Ò. 2… Ñòá. 286. A. KAZHDAN, Rus’-Byzantine Princely Marriages in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries // Harvard Ukranian Studies 12–13 [1988–1989] Proceedings of the International Congress Commemorating the Millenium of Christianity in Rus’-Ukraine / Ed. O. Pritsak and I. evèenko with the assistance of M. Labunka (1990) 423. 67 F. J. THOMSON, Saint Anthony of Kiev — the Facts and the Fiction. The Legend of the Blessing of Athos upon Early Russian Monasticism // Byzantinoslavica (1995) Fasc. 3. 637–668. 65 66
Д. В. Каштанов
!$!
äèëî Àíòîíèÿ íà Àôîí â 973 ã., ò. å. åùå äî êðåùåíèÿ Ðîññèè. Êîãäà óêàçàíà áûëà òâîðöàì åãî ïîäîáíàÿ íåëåïîñòü, îíè íàïèñàëè âòîðóþ åãî ðåäàêöèþ, ïîòîì òðåòüþ. Òðåòüÿ ðåäàêöèÿ, ñóùåñòâîâàâøàÿ óæå â 1863 ã., âñå åùå ïðèâîäèò Àíòîíèÿ íà Àôîí â 10121013 ãã. (ñîãëàñíî ñ ïå÷àòíûì Ïàòåðèêîì), à ïîýòîìó âåñüìà âîçìîæíî, ÷òî â íàñòîÿùåå âðåìÿ (óçíàâ ïðî íåñîñòîÿòåëüíîñòü è ïå÷àòíîãî Ïàòåðèêà) ïðèáàâèëè èõ åùå äâå-òðè (êîãäà ìû áûëè íà Àôîíå â 1873 ã., ñîáñòâåííûé àâòîð æèòèÿ â ïåðâîé è ïîñëåäóþùèõ ðåäàêöèÿõ áûë åùå æèâ».68 Ýòîé öèòàòîé èç òðóäà Å. Å. Ãîëóáèíñêîãî, â êîòîðîé ÿñíî ñêàçàíî, ê êàêîìó êðóãó ëèòåðàòóðû ñëåäóåò îòíîñèòü òàêæå è «Ñâîä», ìû è çàêîí÷èì ðàçáîð âòîðîé ÷àñòè êíèãè. Ïåðåéäåì ê òðåòüåé ÷àñòè, «Îíîìàñòèêîíó». Êàê çàÿâëÿåò àâòîð, äàííûé ðàçäåë «ñîäåðæèò âñå âûÿâëåííûå â ïèñüìåííûõ ïàìÿòíèêàõ ýòíè÷åñêèå, ëè÷íûå, ãåîãðàôè÷åñêèå èìåíà è íàçâàíèÿ, ñîöèàëüíî-ïîëèòè÷åñêèå òåðìèíû, õîçÿéñòâåííî-ýêîíîìè÷åñêèå è ïðàâîâûå ðåàëèè, èìåþùèå îòíîøåíèå ê Ðóñè» (ñ. 10). Íàçâàíèå ýòîé ÷àñòè íåñêîëüêî íåïîíÿòíî: âåäü àâòîð ñîáðàë â íåì íå òîëüêî èìåíà ñîáñòâåííûå, íî è òåðìèíû, îáîçíà÷åíèÿ ðåàëèé è ò. ï., ïðåäñòàâëåííûå èìåíàìè íàðèöàòåëüíûìè, à òàêæå äðóãèìè ÷àñòÿìè ðå÷è. Ïîñêîëüêó ñàì ýòîò ðàçäåë íå ïðåäíàçíà÷åí äëÿ ñèñòåìàòè÷åñêîãî ÷òåíèÿ, îãðàíè÷èìñÿ êðàòêèìè çàìå÷àíèÿìè. Âî-ïåðâûõ, ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ íåâåðíûì ðàáñêîå ñëåäîâàíèå çà ñðåäíåãðå÷åñêîé îðôîãðàôèåé, â ðåçóëüòàòå ÷åãî îäíîìó è òîìó æå íàçâàíèþ ñîîòâåòñòâóþò íåñêîëüêî ñëîâàðíûõ ñòàòåé, ðàçäåëåííûõ çà÷àñòóþ äåñÿòêàìè ñòðàíèö. Òàê, íàïðèìåð, ñëó÷èëîñü ñ Ðîñòîâîì, êîòîðûé ìîæíî íàéòè íà ñ. 633 è íà ñ. 673 (è òàì è òàì â íåñêîëüêèõ âèäàõ). Òàê ëè ïðèíöèïèàëüíî, ÷òî â ïåðâîì ñëó÷àå ýòî íàçâàíèå íàïèñàíî ñ «îìèêðîíîì», à âî âòîðîì ñ «îìåãîé», è ïî÷åìó ýòè âàðèàíòû íåëüçÿ áûëî äàòü â ðàìêàõ îäíîé ðóáðèêè? Âî-âòîðûõ, ñîâåðøåííî íåäîïóñòèìûì áûëî ïîìåùåíèå â «Îíîìàñòèêîí» êîíúåêòóð ê èñòî÷íèêàì. Òàê, íà ñ. 732 âñòðå÷àåì íå îòîæäåñòâëåííûé ðóññêèé ãîðîä «×ïñüâéïí», à íà ñ. 673, 728 è 733 êîíúåêòóðû, êîòîðûå ôèãóðèðóþò, òåì íå ìåíåå, êàê ïîëíîïðàâíûå íàçâàíèÿ. Â-òðåòüèõ (è ýòî ãëàâíîå), «âñå âûÿâëåííûå â ïèñüìåííûõ ïàìÿòíèêàõ» èìåíà è ðåàëèè òàê æå, êàê è âî âòîðîé ÷àñòè, íå ïðåäñòàâëÿþò ñîáîé èñ÷åðïûâàþùåãî ñïèñêà îíûõ èìåí è ðåàëèé. Î ÷åì ìîæíî ãîâîðèòü, åñëè òàì îòñóòñòâóåò äàæå ñòàòüÿ «ÂÜñáããïé». Íåò, ê ïðèìåðó, ñòàòüè «Èåùäïñßôçò» (óïîìÿíóò â ãðàìîòå ïàòðèàðõà Ôèëîôåÿ íîâãîðîäñêîìó àðõèåïèñêîïó Ìîèñåþ êàê íåçàêîííî ïîñòàâëåííûé â Òûðíîâå ðóññêèé ìèòðîïîëèò). Íå ôèãóðèðóåò â «Îíîìàñòèêîíå» è òàêîé çíà÷è68 Å. Å. ÃÎËÓÁÈÍÑÊÈÉ , Èñòîðèÿ ðóññêîé öåðêâè. Ò. 1. Ïåðèîä ïåðâûé, êèåâñêèé èëè äîìîíãîëüñêèé. Âòîðàÿ ïîëîâèíà òîìà (Ì., 1997) 570–571, ïðèì. 4.
!$"
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
ìûé ïåðñîíàæ êàê ëèòîâñêèé êíÿçü Îëüãåðä (Ï¡ñãåëäïò). Ïî÷åìó-òî îêàçàëàñü ïðîïóùåííîé «EÁëáíßá», íåñìîòðÿ íà òî, ÷òî â XIIIXIV ââ. ìåæäó Àëàíñêîé ìèòðîïîëèåé è Ñàðàéñêîé åïèñêîïèåé ñóùåñòâîâàëè òðåíèÿ, âûëèâøèåñÿ â èòîãå â îòêðûòûé êîíôëèêò. Çàòî íå èíà÷å êàê àëëþçèåé íà «Õàçàðñêèé ñëîâàðü» ÿâëÿåòñÿ óïîìÿíóòûé «îñòðîâ Àòåõ» (ñ. 526), íå èìåþùèé ê Ðóñè íè ìàëåéøåãî îòíîøåíèÿ: òîãäà ïî÷åìó áû íå óêàçàòü è íà äðóãîé îñòðîâ, òàêæå íå ñâÿçàííûé ñ Ðóñüþ (íè÷åãî, ÷òî ýòî íå âõîäèò â çàäà÷è «Ñâîäà»), «Öàðáàãàíèí», ÷òîáû ÷èòàòåëè âñïîìíèëè î ãîðîäå Çóðáàãàí Àëåêñàíäðà Ãðèíà
Ïîäâîäÿ èòîãè âñåìó íàïèñàííîìó âûøå, ÷èòàòåëü âïðàâå çàäàòü âîïðîñ: âîçìîæíî ëè èñïîëüçîâàíèå «Ñâîäà» â íàó÷íîé ðàáîòå? Äà, âîçìîæíî, ïðè óñëîâèè, ÷òî ñâåäåíèÿ, ïðèâîäèìûå Ì. Â. Áèáèêîâûì, áóäóò ïðîâåðåíû è ïåðåïðîâåðåíû ïî çàñëóæèâàþùèì äîâåðèÿ èñòî÷íèêàì.  ñëó÷àå æå òèðàæèðîâàíèÿ íåâåðíûõ óòâåðæäåíèé ñîñòàâèòåëÿ «Ñâîäà», îñîáåííî ðóñèñòàìè, íå çíàêîìûìè ñ ãðå÷åñêèì ÿçûêîì, èññëåäîâàíèþ âèçàíòèéñêî-ðóññêèõ îòíîøåíèé áóäåò íàíåñåí ñåðüåçíûé óðîí, â òîì ñëó÷àå, åñëè íåïðàâèëüíàÿ òî÷êà çðåíèÿ â ñèëó èñòîðèîãðàôè÷åñêîé èíåðöèè ñòàíåò îáùåïðèíÿòîé (âïðî÷åì, êàê íè ïàðàäîêñàëüíî, ýòîìó ìîæåò ïðåïÿòñòâîâàòü íåëîãè÷íàÿ îðãàíèçàöèÿ ìàòåðèàëà «Ñâîäà», îñîáåííî âòîðîé åãî ÷àñòè). Ìû èñêðåííå íàäååìñÿ òàêæå, ÷òî Ì. Â. Áèáèêîâ ñî÷òåò âîçìîæíûì ïðèñëóøàòüñÿ ê íàøèì çàìå÷àíèÿì ïðè ñîñòàâëåíèè âòîðîãî òîìà «Ñâîäà», êîòîðûé, õî÷åòñÿ âåðèòü, â îòëè÷èå îò ïåðâîãî áóäåò âûïîëíåí íà âûñîêîì íàó÷íîì óðîâíå è ñòàíåò íàñòîÿùèì äîñòèæåíèåì îòå÷åñòâåííîé âèçàíòèíèñòèêè.
¬. ¿. ÀË‚¯Ëˆ
—Œ√ƒ»…÷¤ ƒ¿–fl“ ’”à Õ≈—“Œ–»¿Õ— ŒÃ” ”◊»“≈Àfi …¿–” “≈√»Õ” Ìàõìóä Êàøãàðñêèé, ñîáèðàâøèé â Ñåìèðå÷üå â 60-õ ãîäàõ XI â. ìàòåðèàëû äëÿ ñðàâíèòåëüíîãî ñëîâàðÿ äðåâíåòþðêñêèõ ÿçûêîâ (Äûââí ëó㺠âò àò-òóðê), áûë ñâèäåòåëåì îäíîãî èç âàæíåéøèõ èçìåíåíèé ýòíè÷åñêîé è ÿçûêîâîé êàðòû ýòîé îáëàñòè çàâåðøåíèÿ ïðîöåññà àññèìèëÿöèè ñîãäèéöåâ òþðêàìè (ïî ñëîâàì Â. Â. Áàðòîëüäà, «ïîñëåäíÿÿ ñòàäèÿ äåíàöèîíàëèçàöèè» ñîãäèéöåâ Ñåìèðå÷üÿ1 ).  ñëîâàðå Ìàõìóäà Êàøãàðñêîãî ñîäåðæàòñÿ äàííûå, ïîçâîëÿþùèå ñîñòàâèòü ÷åòêîå ïðåäñòàâëåíèå îá îñíîâíûõ ïðèçíàêàõ ýòîãî ïðîöåññà: ñîãäèéñêî-òþðêñêîå äâóÿçû÷èå â íåêîòîðûõ ðàéîíàõ Ñåìèðå÷üÿ (â òîì ÷èñëå â ãîðîäàõ Áàëàñàãóí, Òàðàç, Èñôèäæàá);2 ïîëíàÿ óòðàòà ñîãäèéöàìè ñâîåãî ÿçûêà â äðóãèõ ðàéîíàõ; ïðåîáðàçîâàíèå ôîíåòè÷åñêîé ñèñòåìû íåêîòîðûõ òþðêñêèõ äèàëåêòîâ Ñåìèðå÷üÿ ïîä âîçäåéñòâèåì ñîãäèéñêîé ôîíåòèêè («ìÿãêîñòü» â äèàëåêòàõ ñóãäàê, êåäæàê è àðãó;3 èçìåíåíèÿ â ôîíåòèêå òþðêñêèõ äèàëåêòîâ âñåé îáëàñòè Àðãó, îò Èñôèäæàáà4 äî Áàëàñàãóíà). Óòðàòà ðÿäà õàðàêòåðíûõ ýòíîêóëüòóðíûõ ïðèçíàêîâ, ïðèñóùèõ ñîãäèéöàì, ïðåäøåñòâîâàëà, âåðîÿòíî, èõ ïîëíîé ÿçûêîâîé àññìèëÿöèè (òàê, ñîãäèéöû Áàëàñàãóíà «ïðèíÿëè îäåæäó è íðàâû òþðîê»).5 Ñâåäåíèÿ ïèñüìåííûõ èñòî÷íèêîâ (â ÷àñòíîñòè, ïðèâîäèìûå â íèõ äàííûå ðàííåñðåäíåâåêîâîé òîïîíèìèè) óêàçûâàþò íà ñóùåñòâîâàíèå â Ñåìèðå÷üå ìíîãî÷èñëåííûõ ãîðîäñêèõ ïîñåëåíèé, îñíîâàííûõ ñîãäèéöàìè â VIX ââ. Ýòè ñâåäåíèÿ íûíå ñóùåñòâåííî äîïîëíÿþòñÿ àðõåîëîãè÷åñêèìè ìàòåðèàëàìè, õàðàêòåðèçóþùèìè ìàñøòàáû è ýòàïû ñîãäèéñêîé êîëîíèçàöèè Ñåìèðå÷üÿ, ðîëü ñîãäèéöåâ â ãîðîäñêîé æèçíè îáëàñòè, ðåìåñëåííîì ïðîèçâîäñòâå, òîðãîâëå è êóëüòóðå.6 Â. Â. ÁÀÐÒÎËÜÄ, Ê âîïðîñó î ÿçûêàõ ñîãäèéñêîì è òîõàðñêîì // Ñî÷èíåíèÿ. Ò. II. ×. 2 (Ì., 1964) 468. 2 Ìàõìóä Êàøãàðñêèé, Êèòâá äè\ââí ëó㺠âò àò-òóðê / Èçä. ÌÎÀËËÅÌ ÐÝÔÀÒ. Äæèëä IIII (Èñòàíáóë, 13331335 õ. (19151917)) (äàëåå Äè\ââí) I. 30. 3 Äè\ââí. I. 29. 4 Ñîãä. *Spçtèâp Áåëàÿ ðåêà, ñð. àðàáñêîå íàçâàíèå Èñôèäæàáà Ìàäè\íàò àë-áàéäº à Áåëûé ãîðîä. 5 Äè\ââí. I. 39 ñë. 6 Ñì.: À. Í. ÁÅÐÍØÀÒÀÌ, Ñîãäèéñêàÿ êîëîíèçàöèÿ Ñåìèðå÷üÿ // Êðàòêèå ñîîáùåíèÿ Èíñòèòóòà èñòîðèè ìàòåðèàëüíîé êóëüòóðû ÀÍ ÑÑÑÐ. Âûï. VI (Ì., 1940) 3443; À. Í. ÁÅÐÍØÀÒÀÌ, ×óéñêàÿ äîëèíà. Òðóäû Ñåìèðå÷åíñêîé àðõåîëîãè÷å1
366
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
Ñîãäèéñêî-òþðêñêèé êóëüòóðíûé ñèìáèîç, ÿðêî ïðîÿâèâøèéñÿ â âåëèêîé öåíòðàëüíîàçèàòñêîé ýñòàôåòå ñîãäèéñêîé ïèñüìåííîñòè (ñîãäèéñêîå ïèñüìî àðàìåéñêîãî ïðîèñõîæäåíèÿ ëåãëî â îñíîâó óéãóðñêîé è äðåâíåòþðêñêîé ðóíè÷åñêîé ïèñüìåííîñòåé, óéãóðñêîå ïèñüìî áûëî çàèìñòâîâàíî ìîíãîëàìè, à îò íèõ ìàí÷æóðàìè), íàëîæèë îòïå÷àòîê íà ëåêñèêó êàê äðåâíåòþðêñêèõ, òàê è ñîãäèéñêîãî ÿçûêà. Ñð., íàïðèìåð, ïîìèìî îòìå÷åííûõ â «Äðåâíåòþðêñêîì ñëîâàðå»: äð.-òþðê. (ïî Ìàõìóäó Êàøãàðñêîìó â äèàëåêòàõ àðãó è ÿãìà) maraz ïîäåíùèê, áàòðàê èç ñîãä. marâz; äð.-òþðê. (îãóçñêîå, ïî Ìàõìóäó Êàøãàðñêîìó) èat êîëîäåö èç ñîãä. èât; äð.-òþðê. borè äîëã, ñîãä. purè; äð.-òþðê. suS dïè çèìíèå ïèðóøêè, êîòîðûå óñòðàèâàëèñü â ïîðÿäêå î÷åðåäíîñòè èç ñîãä. *suS diè, îò suS d-, suS du- î÷èùåííûé îãíåì > ðèòóàëüíî ÷èñòûé > ñâÿòîé (ñð. äëÿ ñåìàíòèêè òàäæ. alouxona, áóêâ. äîì îãíÿ íàçâàíèå ìóæñêèõ îáùèííûõ äîìîâ); äð.-òþðê. amanè çíàòíûé, óâàæàåìûé, áëàãîðîäíûé èç ñîãä. *amânè ìîùü, ñèëà; àâòîðèòåò; äð.-òþðê. qatïr ìóë èç ñîãä. xartar; äð.-òþðê. mikiè äèêèé êîò, ñîãä. mukiè; qumlaq ýôåäðà, õâîéíèê (íàçâàíèå ðàñòåíèÿ) ïðîèçâîäíîå îò ñîãä. xôm õàîìà; baqïr (ìåðà âåñà) èç ñîãä. panxIr è ìíîãèå äðóãèå çàèìñòâîâàíèÿ â äðåâíåòþðêñêèå ÿçûêè èç ñîãäèéñêîãî. Ìîæíî îòìåòèòü òàêæå íåñêîëüêî çàèìñòâîâàíèé èç äðåâíåòþðêñêèõ â ñîãäèéñêèé, íàïðèìåð, ñîãä. viäiz ðåçüáà, îðíàìåíò èç äð.-òþðê. bediz; ñîãä. kap ôîðìà, øàáëîí èç äð.òþðê. kep; ñîãä. arav ïëàìÿ èç äð.-òþðê. alov ïëàìÿ, îãîíü. Çàèìñòâîâàíèÿ èç ñîãäèéñêîãî â äðåâíåòþðêñêîé êóëüòîâîé ëåêñèêå, ñâÿçàííîé ñ òðåìÿ óñâîåííûìè ÷åðåç ñîãäèéñêîå ïîñðåäñòâî ðåëèãèÿìè áóääèçìîì, ìàíèõåéñòâîì è íåñòîðèàíñêèì õðèñòèàíñòâîì, âåñüìà òî÷íî ñâèäåòåëüñòâóþò î âðåìåíè è ïóòÿõ ðàñïðîñòðàíåíèÿ ýòèõ ðåëèãèé â òþðêñêîé ñðåäå. Äëÿ Ñåìèðå÷üÿ î íàëè÷èè ñîãäèéöåâ-áóääèñòîâ ìîæíî ñóäèòü, â ÷àñòíîñòè, ïî íàõîäêå íà òåððèòîðèè áóääèéñêîãî õðàìà â Àê-Áåøèìå áóëë ñ ñîãäèéñêîé íàäïèñüþ farn áëàãîäàòü, ñ÷àñòüå. Ðîëü ñîãäèéöåâ â ðàñïðîñòðàíåíèè õðèñòèàíñòâà ñðåäè òþðîê Ñåìèðå÷üÿ îòðàçèëàñü â ïðèìåíåíèè ñîãäèéñêîãî âàðèàíòà ñèðèéñêî-íåñòîðèàíñêîãî àëôàâèòà (ýñòðàíãåëî) äëÿ ôèêñàöèè äðåâíåòþðêñêèõ õðèñòèàíñêèõ òåêñòîâ. Ýòîò âàðèàíò ïèñüìà ïðåäñòàâëåí òàêæå â áîëüøîé, óéãóðñêîé ïî ÿçûêó, íàäïèñè íà çîëîòîé ïå÷àòè çíàìåíèòîãî íåñòîðèàíñêîãî ïàòðèàðõà òþðêà Ìàð ßõáàëëàõà III (ïå÷àòü áûëà åìó ïîæàëîâàíà â 1281 ã. èëüõàíîì Àáàêà-õàíîì) è, ÷òî îñîáåííî âàæíî, â òþðêñêèõ íåñòîðèàíñêèõ («ñèðî-òþðêñêèõ») ýïèòàôèÿõ èç Ñåìèðå÷üÿ XIIIXIV ââ. Âî ìíîãèõ òåêñòàõ ýòèõ ýïèòàôèé ìîæíî îáíàðóæèòü íåðàñïîçíàííûé äî ñèõ ïîð ñîãäèéñêèé òåðìèí: qwštý nsº. Ýòî ñëîâî ñëåäóåò ïîñëå æåíñêîé ýêñïåäèöèè (Ì.Ë., 1950) (Ìàòåðèàëû è èñëåäîâàíèÿ ïî àðõåîëîãèè ÑÑÑÐ 14); Ê. Ì. ÁÀÉÏÀÊÎÂ, Â. Ä. ÃÎÐß×ÅÂÀ, Ñåìèðå÷üå // Ñðåäíÿÿ Àçèÿ â ðàííåì ñðåäíåâåêîâüå (Ì., 1999) 151162.
Íàäïèñü íà âåí÷èêå õóìà, íàéäåííîãî â 1941 ã. íà ãîðîäèùå Êðàñíàÿ Ðå÷êà (×óéñêàÿ äîëèíà). Õðàíèòñÿ â Èñòîðè÷åñêîì ìóçåå, ã. Áèøêåê
В. А. Лившиц
369
ñêèõ èìåí ñîáñòâåííûõ, îíî ñîîòâåòñòâóåò òþðêñêîé ôîðìå qotanè èç ñîãä. *xuðtânè ñòàðøàÿ; ðóêîâîäèòåëüíèöà, íàñòîÿòåëüíèöà, æåí. ðîä îò xušt, xuðtç ñòàðøèé; ãëàâà, ìàñòåð (âàðèàíò xuštar îòðàæåí â äð.òþðê. qoštr). Ýòè òåðìèíû áûëè çàèìñòâîâàíû, ïî-âèäèìîìó, åùå äî XI â. è ñîõðàíÿëèñü â òå÷åíèå íåñêîëüêèõ ñòîëåòèé ó òþðêîâ-íåñòîðèàí Ñåìèðå÷üÿ. Ñîãäèéñêèé ïèñüìåííûé ÿçûê íå ñäàë ñâîèõ ïîçèöèé â Ñåìèðå÷üå è â IXX ââ., êîãäà â ýòîé îáëàñòè ñòàëà ðàñïðîñòðàíÿòüñÿ àðàáñêàÿ ïèñüìåííîñòü. Íàèáîëåå ïîçäíèå èç èâçåñòíûõ â íàñòîÿùåå âðåìÿ äàòèðîâàííûõ ñîãäèéñêèõ íàäïèñåé â Ñåìèðå÷üå îòíîñÿòñÿ ê ïåðâîé ïîëîâèíå XI â.; ýòè íàäïèñè ñàìûå ïîçäíèå èç îáíàðóæåííûõ äî ñèõ ïîð äàòèðîâàííûõ ñîãäèéñêèõ ïàìÿòíèêîâ. Åùå ñðàâíèòåëüíî íåäàâíî ñ÷èòàëîñü, ÷òî â Ñåìèðå÷üå èçâåñòåí ëèøü îäèí ôðàãìåíò ñîãäèéñêîé íàäïèñè íà êåðàìèêå íàäïèñü íà ðó÷êå ãëèíÿíîãî ñîñóäà, íàéäåííîãî íà ãîðîäèùå Êðàñíàÿ Ðå÷êà.  íàñòîÿùåå âðåìÿ â íàøåì ðàñïîðÿæåíèè èìååòñÿ äâå ãðóïïû íàäïèñåé: íà ñêàëàõ â óùåëüÿõ Òåðåê-ñàé è Êóëàí-ñàé íà þæíîì ñêëîíå õðåáòà Êûðãûçñêèé Àëàòîî (ê ñåâåðó îò ñîâðåìåííîãî ã. Òàëàñ) è íà ãëèíÿíûõ ñîñóäàõ, íàéäåííûõ ïðè ðàñêîïêàõ àðõåîëîãè÷åñêèõ ïàìÿòíèêîâ ×óéñêîé äîëèíû.7 Ïóáëèêóåìàÿ â äàííîé çàìåòêå ñîãäèéñêàÿ íàäïèñü âûðåçàíà íà âåí÷èêå õóìà (áîëüøîãî ãëèíÿíîãî ñîñóäà äëÿ õðàíåíèÿ çåðíà, âèíà è äðóãèõ ïðîäóêòîâ), íàéäåííîãî â 1941 ã. íà ãîðîäèùå Êðàñíàÿ Ðå÷êà.8 Íàäïèñü, çàíèìàþùàÿ âñþ ïëîùàäü âåí÷èêà, ñîäåðæèò îäíó ñòðîêó. Ïî ïàëåîãðàôèè è íàëè÷èþ áóêâû 9 åå ìîæíî îòíåñòè êî âòîðîé ïîëîâèíå VIII-ãî íà÷àëó X â. Ñì.: Â. À. ËÈÂØÈÖ, Ñîãäèéöû â Ñåìèðå÷üå: ëèíãâèñòè÷åñêèå è ýïèãðàôè÷åñêèå ñâèäåòåëüñòâà // Êðàñíàÿ Ðå÷êà è Áóðàíà. Ìàòåðèàëû è èññëåäîâàíèÿ Êèðãèçñêîé àðõåîëîãè÷åñêîé ýêñïåäèöèè (Ôðóíçå, 1989) 7885; Â. À. ËÈÂØÈÖ, ñîãäèéñêàÿ íàäïèñü íà âåí÷èêå õóìà èç Àê-Áåøèìà // Ñóÿá Àê-Áåøèì (ÑÏá., 2002) 128133; Â. À. ËÈÂØÈÖ, Ñîãäèéñêèå òåêñòû, äîêóìåíòû è ýïèãðàôèêà // Èñòî÷íèêîâåäåíèå Êûðãûçñòàíà (ñ äðåâíîñòè äî êîíöà XIX â.) (Áèøêåê, 2004) 117148; Â. À. ËÈÂØÈÖ, 160 ñ÷àñòëèâûõ ëåò æåëàþò ñîãäèéöû Àëè\ìõâíó Àááàñó // Transoxiana. Àêàäåìèêó Ýäâàðäó Ðòâåëàäçå â ÷åñòü 60-ëåòèÿ êîëëåãè è ó÷åíèêè (Òàøêåíò, 2004) 208212, 423; Â. À. ËÈÂØÈÖ, Ïðåäøåñòâåííèêè Õàéÿìà â Ñåìèðå÷üå â VIIIIX ââ. // Äèàëîã öèâèëèçàöèé. Âçàèìîäåéñòâèå êóëüòóð, íàðîäîâ è ãîñóäàðñòâ â çîíå Âåëèêîãî Øåëêîâîãî ïóòè. ¹ 1 (4) (Áèøêåê, 2004) 55–56. 8 Õóì õðàíèòñÿ â Èñòîðè÷åñêîì ìóçåå ã. Áèøêåêà. Î íàõîäêå íàäïèñè óïîìèíàë À. Í. ÁÅÐÍØÒÀÌ (Óéãóðñêàÿ ýïèãðàôèêà Ñåìèðå÷üÿ // Ýïèãðàôèêà Âîñòîêà. Ò. I (Ì.Ë., 1947) 34), îí ñ÷èòàë íàäïèñü óéãóðñêîé è äàòèðîâàë åå ïî àðõåîëîãè÷åñêèì äàííûì IXXI ââ. Ôîòîãðàôèÿ íàäïèñè îïóáëèêîâàíà â àëüáîìå: ×. ÄÆÓÌÀÃÓËÎÂ, Ýïèãðàôèêà Êèðãèçèè. Âûï. I (Ôðóíçå, 1963) 40. 9 Áóêâà áûëà ñîçäàíà â óéãóðñêîì àëôàâèòå, â ïîçäíèõ ñîãäèéñêèõ òåêñòàõ îíà óïîòðåáëÿåòñÿ ïðè ïåðåäà÷å èíîÿçû÷íîé ëåêñèêè (â äèàëåêòå ñîãäèéñêîãî ÿçûêà, çàñâèäåòåëüñòâîâàííîì â ïèñüìåííîñòè, ôîíåìû |l| íå áûëî). 7
370
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
Òåêñò: ý yny xwycý k yrwS tkyn mlpý ny pyäý r xw xwštý ry pštwn xw ârS wncy yý t ý myn ý myn «Ýòîò ñîñóä (ñäåëàí) äëÿ ó÷èòåëÿ Éàðóêº -òåãèíà. Ìàñòåð Ïàøòâàí. Ïóñòü áóäåò (õóì) íàïîëíåííûì (?). Àìèíü, àìèíü». Èìÿ Éàðóêº -òåãèí èçâåñòíî â äðåâíåòþðêñêîé îíîìàñòèêå.10  íàäïèñè îíî ñîïðîâîæäàåòñÿ ñèðèéñêèì òèòóëîì malp hânâ ó÷èòåëü, íàñòàâíèê (mlpý ny ñîãä. ôîðìà êîñâåííîãî ïàäåæà), âïåðâûå, íàñêîëüêî ÿ ìîãó ñóäèòü, çàñâèäåòåëüñòâîâàííûì â ñîãäèéñêîì, íî ìíîãîêðàòíî ïðåäñòàâëåííûì â «ñèðî-òþðêñêèõ» ýïèòàôèÿõ èç Ñåìèðå÷üÿ. Ýòîò òèòóë, à òàêæå çàêëþ÷èòåëüíîå «àìèíü, àìèíü» íå îñòàâëÿþò ñîìíåíèé â òîì, ÷òî ó÷èòåëü Éàðóêº -òåãèí áûë îäíèì èç ðóêîâîäèòåëåé õðèñòèàíñêîé îáùèíû ãîðîäà Ñàðûãà (ñîãëàñíî À. Í. Áåðøòàìó, Ñàðûã ñîîòâåòñòâóåò ãîðîäèùó Êðàñíàÿ Ðå÷êà). Ñóäÿ ïî êîíòåêñòó, ârS wncy èìååò çíà÷åíèå ïîëíûé, íàïîëíåííûé.  îïóáëèêîâàííûõ äî ñèõ ïîð ñîãäèéñêèõ òåêñòàõ ýòî ñëîâî, íàñêîëüêî ÿ ìîãó ñóäèòü, íå çàñâèäåòåëüñòâîâàíî.  ñîãäèéñêî-áóääèéñêèõ òåêñòàõ prS wncyk|parS unèîk èëè parõunèîk? / èìååò çíà÷åíèå ñëàáûé, ðàññëàáëåííûé è, î÷åâèäíî, ýòèìîëîãè÷åñêè íå ñâÿçàíî ñ ârS wncy íàäïèñè. Èìÿ ìàñòåðà, èçãîòîâèâøåãî ñîñóä, pštwn (ìåíåå âåðîÿòíî pstwn) ïî-âèäèìîìó, ñîãäèéñêîå, íî ïðîýòèìîëîãèçèðîâàòü åãî ìíå íå óäàëîñü.  ñîãäèéñêîé àíòðîïîíèìèè îíî íå âñòðå÷àëîñü; ÿ íå íàøåë ðîäñòâåííûõ èìåí è â äðåâíåèðàíñêèõ ÿçûêàõ.
10 Äðåâíåòþðêñêèé ñëîâàðü / Ïîä ðåä. Â. Ì. ÍÀÄÅËßÅÂÀ, Ä. Ì. ÍÀÑÈËÎÂÀ, Ý. Ð. ÒÅÍÈØÅÂÀ, À. Ì. ÙÅÐÁÀÊÀ (Ë., 1969) 244.
¬‡‰ËÏ Ã. À۸ —‡ÌÍÚ-œÂÚ·ۄ
Ã≈“¿“–ŒÕ » œ–ŒÃ≈“¿fl: ¬“Œ–¿fl Õ»√¿ ≈ÕŒ’¿ Õ¿ œ≈–≈ –≈—“ ≈ œ–Œ¡À≈à –‡ÁÏ˚¯ÎÂÌˡ ÔÓ ÔÓ‚Ó‰Û ÍÌË„Ë: ANDREI A. ORLOV, The Enoch-Metatron Tradition (Tuâ bingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005) (Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism, 107) xii, 383 p. ISBN 3-16-148544-0 «For the brave who are prepared to work in ancient Slavic dialects, this little-studied work holds considerable promise», òàê çàêîí÷èë ïîñâÿùåííûé 2 Åíîõó ðàçäåë ïåðâîãî èçäàíèÿ ñâîåé êíèãè Äæ. Íèêåëüñáóðã.1  òîëüêî ÷òî âûøåäøåì âòîðîì èçäàíèè ýòîé êíèãè òàêàÿ ôðàçà íå ïîíàäîáèëàñü: íà åå ìåñòå óñïåëà îêàçàòüñÿ ññûëêà íà ìîíîãðàôèþ Àíäðåÿ Îðëîâà.2 «Promise» è íà ñàìîì äåëå îêàçàëñÿ íàñòîëüêî «considerable», ÷òî â íàçâàíèè ìîíîãðàôèè Îðëîâà äàæå âîâñå çàñëîíèë ñëàâÿíñêóþ Êíèãó Åíîõà (2 Åíîõà), íà êîòîðîé ñôîêóñèðîâàíî èññëåäîâàíèå. Îðëîâ íàïèñàë íå ñòîëüêî êíèãó î ñëàâÿíñêîì Åíîõå, ñêîëüêî êíèãó î Åíîõå ñàìîì, Åíîõå òîãî ïåðèîäà åãî æèçíè â òðàäèöèè, èëè, òî÷íåå, æèçíè ñàìîé òðàäèöèè, êîòîðûé çàôèêñèðîâàí â ñëàâÿíñêîì ïñåâäîýïèãðàôå. Îêàçàëîñü, ÷òî Åíîõ 2 Åíîõà íàõîäèëñÿ êàê ðàç ãäå-òî ïîñåðåäèíå ìåæäó Åíîõîì ðàííèõ ïðåäàíèé Ìàêêàâåéñêîé ýïîõè (çàôèêñèðîâàííûõ â ýôèîïñêîé 1 Åíîõà) è ïîçäíèõ èóäåéñêèõ ïðåäàíèé, çàôèêñèðîâàííûõ â ëèòåðàòóðå «(íåáåñíûõ) äâîðöîâ», èëè hekhalot (â Sefer Hekhalot, èíà÷å íàçûâàåìîé, ñ ëåãêîé ðóêè ïåðâîãî èçäàòåëÿ Ä. Îäåáåðãà, 3 Åíîõà, à òàêæå â äðóãèõ ïðîèçâåäåíèÿõ òîé æå òðàäèöèè, âõîäÿùèõ â Synopsis, èçäàííûé Ï. Øåôåðîì). Ïëàí êíèãè âûñòðîåí ïî ñîâåðøåííî îò÷åòëèâîé ëîãèêå, íî ýòà ëîãèêà íåîáû÷íà íå òîëüêî äëÿ èññëåäîâàíèé î 2 Åíîõà, íî, ïîæàëóé, â áîëüøîé ñòåïåíè âñå åùå íåîáû÷íà äëÿ ðàáîò ïî ïñåâäîýïèãðàôè÷åñêîé ëèòåðàòóðå âîîáùå. Ïîýòîìó ìû íà÷íåì ñ òîãî, ÷òî îñòàíîâèìñÿ íà ìåòîäîëîãè÷åñêèõ ïðîáëåìàõ. 1
G. W. E. NICKELSBURG, Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah. A Historical and Literary Introduction (Philadelphia, 1981) 185188, îñîá. 188. 2 G. W. E. NICKELSBURG, Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah. A Historical and Literary Introduction. Second edition (Minneapolis, 2005) 220–225, 228–229, îñîá. 229.
372
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
1. œÓ·ÎÂχ ÏÂÚÓ‰‡: Le saint patriarche comme symbole Âñÿ êíèãà äåëèòñÿ íà äâå ÷àñòè. Ïåðâàÿ ÷àñòü èìååò ââîäíûé õàðàêòåð, ïðåäëàãàÿ äîâîëüíî äåòàëüíûé îáçîð âñåõ ïðåäàíèé î Åíîõå (ñ. 21 228). Ïîñëå äâóõ èçâåñòíûõ ìîíîãðàôèé Äæ. ÂàíäåðÊàìà3 îñîáûõ îòêðûòèé íà ýòîì ýòàïå èññëåäîâàíèÿ íå îæèäàëîñü: äëÿ õîäà èññëåäîâàíèÿ ýòî áûëà, ñêîðåå, íå «ñêàçêà», à «ïðèñêàçêà». Íî, ïîìèìî òåõíè÷åñêîé íåîáõîäèìîñòè îïèñàòü ìàòåðèàë, êîòîðûé áóäåò ïîäëåæàòü èçó÷åíèþ âî âòîðîé ÷àñòè, ïåðâàÿ ÷àñòü êíèãè èìååò åùå îäíó âàæíóþ ôóíêöèþ: ïîäãîòîâèòü ÷èòàòåëÿ ê ïîñëåäóþùåìó îáîñíîâàíèþ âûâîäîâ àâòîðà îòíîñèòåëüíî ìåñòà 2 Åíîõà â ðàçâèòèè ñîîòâåòñòâóþùèõ òðàäèöèé. À ýòî óæå òà îáëàñòü, êîòîðóþ ÂàíäåðÊàì ñêîëüêî-íèáóäü ïîäðîáíî íå èññëåäîâàë. Èòàê, ïåðâàÿ ÷àñòü ðàáîòû âêëþ÷àåò ãëàâû î ïðîòîòèïå Åíîõà øóìåðñêîì öàðå Ýíìåäóðàíêè (ñ. 2439), î Åíîõå èç ýôèîïñêîé Êíèãè Åíîõà (ñ. 4085), à çàòåì ñðàçó î Åíîõå èç Sefer Hekhalot (ñ. 86147), ÷òîáû òîëüêî ïîñëå ýòîãî îáðàòèòüñÿ ê Åíîõó èç ñëàâÿíñêîãî ïñåâäîýïèãðàôà (ñ. 148208).  äàííîì ñëó÷àå àâòîð íå âïîëíå ÷åòêî ýêñïëèöèðóåò ñâîé ìåòîä, õîòÿ èíòóèòèâíî îí çäåñü äîâîëüíî ÿñåí. Ìû âñ¸ æå ñî÷ëè áû áîëåå ïðàâèëüíûì åãî ýêñïëèöèðîâàòü, òåì áîëåå, ÷òî òàêîé ìåòîä èìååò çíà÷åíèå äëÿ ðàáîòû ñî âñåìè òðàäèöèÿìè âîîáùå, à íå òîëüêî ñ òðàäèöèÿìè î Åíîõå. Ôàêòè÷åñêè àâòîð çàíèìàåòñÿ ïîñòðîåíèåì ðàáî÷åé ãèïîòåçû (äëÿ ðàáîòû ñ íåé âî âòîðîé ÷àñòè êíèãè) ìåòîäîì èíòåðïîëÿöèè. Îí ðåêîíñòðóèðóåò òåîðåòè÷åñêèé îáðàç Åíîõà êàê ïðîìåæóòî÷íîãî çâåíà ìåæäó çàâåäîìî ðîäñòâåííûìè ãåíåòè÷åñêè îáðàçàìè èç 1 Åíîõà è 3 Åíîõà, à ïîòîì ñðàâíèâàåò åãî ñ ðåàëüíî ñóùåñòâóþùèì îáðàçîì èç 2 Åíîõà. Ïîñëå òîãî, êàê â ðåçóëüòàòå òàêîãî ñðàâíåíèÿ ìåæäó èíòåðïîëèðîâàííûì îáðàçîì «*2 Åíîõà» è îáðàçîì Åíîõà èç ðåàëüíîãî ñëàâÿíñêîãî ïñåâäîýïèãðàôà îáíàðóæèâàåòñÿ íåìàëî ñõîäñòâà, àâòîð ìîæåò âïîëíå îáîñíîâàííî çàÿâèòü, ÷òî íàèáîëåå ïðàâäîïîäîáíîé äîëæíà ñ÷èòàòüñÿ òàêàÿ ãèïîòåçà îòíîñèòåëüíî ïðîèñõîæäåíèÿ 2 Åíîõà, ñîãëàñíî êîòîðîé ýòîò òåêñò íóæíî ñ÷èòàòü ðàííèì (ïðèáëèçèòåëüíî, I âåê ïî Ð. Õ.4 ) è ïðèíöèïèàëü3 J. VANDERKAM, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition (Washington, 1984) (The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series, 16); IDEM, Enoch: A Man for All Generations (Columbia, 1995). 4 Âîçâðàùàÿñü ê âîïðîñó î äàòèðîâêå 2 Åíîõà (ñ. 330333), Îðëîâ ñëåäóåò âñå åùå îáùåïðèíÿòîìó â ïîäîáíûõ èññëåäîâàíèÿõ ïðàâèëó: íàëè÷èå ñâÿùåííè÷åñêîé è õðàìîâîé òåìàòèêè èíòåðïðåòèðóåòñÿ êàê îñíîâàíèå äëÿ ïðèíÿòèÿ 70 ã. ïî Ð. Õ. (äàòû ðàçðóøåíèÿ Õðàìà) êàê terminus ante quem. Ìíå óæå ïðèõîäèëîñü óïîìèíàòü, ÷òî ýòîò ïðèåì íåëüçÿ íàçâàòü êîððåêòíûì (ñì.: B. LOURIÉ, review of A. KULIK, Retroversing Slavonic Pseudepigrapha. Toward the Original of the Apocalypse of Abraham (Atlanta, GA, 2004) // Journal for the Study of the
В. М. Лурье
373
íî öåëîñòíûì, à íå èíòåðïîëèðîâàííûì. Âïðî÷åì, âñå ýòè âûâîäû äîëæíû áóäóò ñóùåñòâåííî óòî÷íÿòüñÿ âî âòîðîé ÷àñòè, êîòîðàÿ òîëüêî è áóäåò ïîñâÿùåíà àíàëèçó ñâîåîáðàçíûõ ÷åðò «ñëàâÿíñêîãî» Åíîõà.  íàçâàíèè âòîðîé ÷àñòè èññëåäîâàíèÿ (Polemical Developments and Their Role in the Evolution of Enochs Roles and Titles in the Slavonic Apocalypse, ñ. 209333) êëþ÷åâûå ñëîâà «polemical developments». Îíà íà÷èíàåòñÿ ex abrupto, áåç âñÿêîãî ìåòîäîëîãè÷åñêîãî ââåäåíèÿ è òàêîé ïîäõîä ìîæíî ïîíÿòü, íî î íåì íåëüçÿ íå ñîæàëåòü. Áûëî áû íåïëîõî îáúÿñíèòü íå òîëüêî íà ïðèìåðàõ, êàê ýòî è äåëàåò àâòîð, íî è òåîðåòè÷åñêè, î êàêîãî ðîäà ïîëåìèêå çäåñü ðå÷ü, è ïî÷åìó îíà òàê âàæíà. Î íåîáõîäèìîñòè ðàññìàòðèâàòü âñþ ïîçäíåèóäåéñêóþ ëèòåðàòóðó, âêëþ÷àÿ ïñåâäîýïèãðàôû è Íîâûé Çàâåò, êàê ëèòåðàòóðó ïîëåìè÷åñêóþ âðåìÿ îò âðåìåíè ãîâîðèëè è ðàíüøå, íî îáùèì ìåñòîì ýòî ñòàëî, ïîæàëóé, ïîñëå Êóìðàíà. Ïîñëå êóìðàíñêèõ îòêðûòèé íåëüçÿ áûëî íå çàìåòèòü ïîëåìè÷åñêîé öåëè ñîçäàíèÿ 1 Åíîõà èëè Êíèãè Þáèëååâ, íî íàèáîëåå î÷åâèäíûå àñïåêòû ïîëåìèêè, ïåðâûìè áðîñèâøèåñÿ â ãëàçà, êàñàëèñü, ãëàâíûì îáðàçîì, «âîéíû êàëåíäàðåé» è ãàëàõè÷åñêèõ ïîñòàíîâëåíèé. Íî ïîñòåïåííî ñòàëè ïðèâûêàòü ñìîòðåòü ãëóáæå è îáðàùàòü Pseudepigrapha (2006) (â ïå÷àòè).  èóäåéñêîì ìèðå îáðàçîâàëîñü íåìàëî òå÷åíèé, åùå â ýïîõó Âòîðîãî Õðàìà ñîçäàâøèõ ó ñåáÿ íåçàâèñèìûé õðàìîâûé êóëüò ñî ñâîèì ñâÿùåíñòâîì (êàê, íàïðèìåð, Êóìðàíñêàÿ îáùèíà), èíîãäà ïðîäîëæàâøèå ñâîå ñóùåñòâîâàíèå ãîðàçäî ïîçäíåå 70 ã. ïî Ð. Õ. (êàê, íàïðèìåð, ñàìàðèòÿíå) è, ïîä÷àñ, ñîçäàâàâøèå äàæå â âåñüìà ïîçäíèå ýïîõè ëèòåðàòóðíûå è ëèòóðãè÷åñêèå ïðîèçâåäåíèÿ, ñâÿçàííûå ñ ïðîäîëæàâøåéñÿ â èõ ñðåäå êóëüòîâîé òðàäèöèåé õðàìîâîãî, à íå ñèíàãîãàëüíîãî òèïà (êàê, íàïðèìåð, Áåòà Èñðàåëü, òî åñòü ýôèîïñêèå ôàëàøà). Òàê êàê â áîëüøèíñòâå ñëó÷àåâ (íå èñêëþ÷àÿ è íàøåãî ñëó÷àÿ 2 Åíîõà) ìû íè÷åãî òî÷íî íå çíàåì îòíîñèòåëüíî ñâÿçè ìåæäó Sitz im Leben äàííîãî ïñåâäîýïèãðàôà è Âòîðûì Õðàìîì, òî íåò îñíîâàíèé è äëÿ ïðèâëå÷åíèÿ äàòû ðàçðóøåíèÿ ýòîãî õðàìà äëÿ äàòèðîâêè. Äîïîëíèòåëüíûì àðãóìåíòîì ïðîòèâ òîãî, ÷òî âî 2 Åíîõå ìîãëè èìåòüñÿ â âèäó àêòóàëüíûå áîãîñëóæåáíûå òðàäèöèè Âòîðîãî Õðàìà, ÿâëÿåòñÿ íàëè÷èå âî 2 Åíîõå êàëåíäàðÿ ñ ãîäîì èç 364 äíåé â î÷åíü ñâîåîáðàçíîé ìîäèôèêàöèè, íå èçâåñòíîé áîëåå íè èç êàêîãî ïàìÿòíèêà (ìû îñòàíîâèìñÿ íà ýòîì ÷óòü íèæå). Âåñüìà ìàëîâåðîÿòíî, ÷òîáû òàêîãî æå èëè õîòÿ áû àíàëîãè÷íîãî (ñ ãîäîì èç 364 äíåé) êàëåíäàðÿ ïðèäåðæèâàëèñü áû â Õðàìå ïðè îôèöèàëüíûõ áîãîñëóæåíèÿõ. Îòíîñèòåëüíî terminus post quem äëÿ äàòèðîâêè 2 Åíîõà Îðëîâ íèêàê ñïåöèàëüíî íå âûñêàçûâàåòñÿ, íî, â îáùåì, èç åãî êíèãè ïîíÿòíî, ÷òî íèêàêîé òî÷íîé äàòû ñåãîäíÿ ïðåäëîæèòü íåëüçÿ. Ïîëó÷àåòñÿ, ÷òî, íåñìîòðÿ íà âñþ ñâîþ íåîïðåäåëåííîñòü â ýòîì âîïðîñå, ìîíîãðàôèÿ Îðëîâà äàåò íà ñåãîäíÿ ìàêñèìóì èç âîçìîæíîãî ïî óòî÷íåíèþ äàòû 2 Åíîõà. Ìîæíî òîëüêî ñêàçàòü, ÷òî òåêñò íàïèñàí íå ðàíåå 1 Åíîõà (ðàçíûå ÷àñòè êîòîðîãî äàòèðóþòñÿ ïåðèîäîì ñ III ïî II âåêà äî Ð. Õ.) è ðàíåå Sefer Hekhalot è òîìó ïîäîáíîé ëèòåðàòóðû. Ìû ïðåäëîæèì ñâîþ ñîáñòâåííóþ äàòèðîâêó ïàìÿòíèêà íèæå, â ðàçäåëå 4.
374
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
âíèìàíèå íà äðóãîå íà êîíêóðåíöèþ ñèìâîëè÷åñêèõ ôèãóð. Íàèáîëåå î÷åâèäíûì áûë êàê ðàç ñëó÷àé Åíîõà åãî «Ïÿòèêíèæèÿ» (1 Åíîõà) êàê àëüòåðíàòèâû (â òîì èëè èíîì ñìûñëå; òóò íå îáÿçàòåëüíî ãîâîðèòü î ñìûñëå âçàèìîèñêëþ÷àþùåì) Ïÿòèêíèæèþ Ìîèñåÿ. Êëàññè÷åñêèå èññëåäîâàíèÿ ïîëåìèêè ìåæäó òðàäèöèÿìè, îïåðèðîâàâøèìè îáðàçàìè, ñîîòâåòñòâåííî, Ìîèñåÿ è Åíîõà êàê ðàç è áûëè ïðåäñòàâëåíû ðàáîòàìè ÂàíäåðÊàìà. Âïîëíå ñïðàâåäëèâî, ÷òî è âî âòîðîé ÷àñòè êíèãè Îðëîâà èìåííî ãëàâà î «Mosaic Polemics» îêàçûâàåòñÿ ñàìîé äëèííîé (ñ. 244303; îñòàëüíûå ãëàâû ïîñâÿùåíû «Adamic Polemics», ñ. 211253, è «Noahic Polemics», ñ. 304333). Ýòî îïðàâäàíî è ñàìîé «àëüòåðíàòèâíîñòüþ» Åíîõà, äîïîòîïíîãî çàêîíîäàòåëÿ, ïî îòíîøåíèþ ê Ìîèñåþ, è ÷èñòî òåõíè÷åñêè òåì, ÷òî ìåòîäèêà ñðàâíèòåëüíûõ èññëåäîâàíèé òðàäèöèé äëÿ äàííîãî ñëó÷àÿ õîðîøî îòðàáîòàíà íà èíûõ, íåæåëè 2 Åíîõà, ïðîèçâåäåíèÿõ î Åíîõå. Íî, äàëåêî íå áóäó÷è ïèîíåðîì â èññëåäîâàíèè èóäåéñêèõ òðàäèöèé ÷åðåç îòñëåæèâàíèå êîíêóðèðóþùèõ îáðàçîâ ñèìâîëè÷åñêèõ ôèãóð, Îðëîâ îêàçûâàåòñÿ, ïîæàëóé, ïåðâûì, êòî ïîñòàâèë ýòî äåëî «íà ïîòîê».  åãî èññëåäîâàíèè ýòà ìåòîäîëîãèÿ ïðèîáðåòàåò òàêóþ «êðèòè÷åñêóþ ìàññó», ñ êîòîðîé óæå ìîæíî áåç ñîìíåíèÿ óòâåðæäàòü, ÷òî çäåñü èìååò ìåñòî èìåííî îñîáàÿ ìåòîäîëîãèÿ. Îäíàêî ìåòîäîëîãèÿ êàê òàêîâàÿ íå îïèñûâàåòñÿ äàæå è â ìîíîãðàôèè Îðëîâà. Ïîýòîìó ìû ïîçâîëèì ñåáå ñêàçàòü î íåé íåñêîëüêî ñëîâ. Ìû çäåñü ñòàëêèâàåìñÿ ñ ÿâëåíèåì, êîòîðîå òåîðåòè÷åñêè åùå íå îïèñàíî äëÿ ïîçäíåé èóäåéñêîé ëèòåðàòóðû, íî óæå îïèñàíî äëÿ õðèñòèàíñêîé àãèîãðàôèè äëÿ òîé åå ÷àñòè, êîòîðóþ Èïïîëèò Äåëåý íàçâàë «ýïè÷åñêîé». Òåîðåòè÷åñêîå îïèñàíèå ýòîãî ÿâëåíèÿ ïðèíàäëåæèò Ì. âàí Ýñáðóêó è ÿâëÿåòñÿ åãî âàæíåéøèì âêëàäîì â êðèòè÷åñêóþ àãèîãðàôèþ êàê íàóêó, îáëàäàþùóþ ñâîåé ñîáñòâåííîé òåîðèåé. Îí æå ìíîãîêðàòíî ïðèìåíÿë âûÿâëåííóþ èì çàêîíîìåðíîñòü äëÿ èññëåäîâàíèé öåðêîâíîé èñòîðèè IVVI âåêîâ. Åãî òåîðåòè÷åñêàÿ ñòàòüÿ íàçûâàëàñü õàðàêòåðíî: «Le saint comme symbole».5 Ðå÷ü èäåò î òîì, ÷òî äëÿ âñÿêîé ðåëèãèîçíîé èëè ðåëèãèîçíî-ïîëèòè÷åñêîé èäåè, ïðåòåíäóþùåé íà ñîöèàëüíóþ çíà÷èìîñòü, áûë íåîáõîäèì ñâîé ñîáñòâåííûé êóëüò, êîòîðûé ôîðìèðîâàëñÿ âîêðóã îäíîé èëè íåñêîëüêèõ ñèìâîëè÷åñêèõ êëþ÷åâûõ ôèãóð. Ïðèìåðû ðåëèãèîçíûõ äâèæåíèé (èç ÷èñëà ðàññìîòðåííûõ â ðàáîòàõ âàí Ýñáðóêà): àðèàíñòâî, íèêåéñêîå ïðàâîñëàâèå, íåñòîðèàíñòâî, ìîíîôèçèòñòâî, äèîôèçèòñòâî ñòîðîííèêîâ Õàëêèäîíñêîãî ñîáîðà; ïðèìåðû ðåëèãèîçíî-ïîëèòè÷åñêèõ èäåé: Pax Romana, àâòîêåôàëüíîñòü ðàçëè÷íûõ öåðêâåé (îáû÷íî îáî5 M. VAN ESBROECK, Le saint comme symbole // The Byzantine Saint. University of Birmingham XIV Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies / Ed. by S. HACKEL (London, 1981) (Studies Supplementary to Sobornost, 5) 128–140.
В. М. Лурье
375
ñíîâûâàëàñü â ñâÿçè ñ îïðåäåëåííîé ôîðìîé êóëüòà êàêîãî-ëèáî àïîñòîëà èëè ñâÿòîãî, ïðèðàâíåííîãî ïî çíà÷åíèþ ê àïîñòîëó, «ðàâíîàïîñòîëüíîãî»). Ýòî ìîãëè áûòü ÷àñòíûå ëèöà, âçÿòûå â êà÷åñòâå îëèöåòâîðåíèÿ èäåè (íàïðèìåð, ìó÷åíèöû Èðèíà, Âàðâàðà
), èäåè êàê òàêîâûå (Ñîôèÿ, Èðèíà, êîòîðûì áûëè ïîñâÿùåíû èìïåðàòîðîì Êîíñòàíòîì äâà ãëàâíûõ õðàìà Êîíñòàíòèíîïîëÿ), ÷àñòíûå ëèöà, î÷åíü ïðîçðà÷íî îëèöåòâîðÿþùèå èäåè (Âåðà, Íàäåæäà, Ëþáîâü è ìàòü èõ Ñîôèÿ, à òàêæå è óïîìÿíóòàÿ ìó÷åíèöà Èðèíà), íàêîíåö, êàêèå-òî èñòîðè÷åñêèå ôèãóðû, ïðèîáðåòàâøèå ñèìâîëè÷åñêîå çíà÷åíèå íåçàâèñèìî îò èñòîðè÷åñêèõ ôàêòîâ èõ áèîãðàôèé (îáû÷íîå ÿâëåíèå äëÿ êóëüòîâ àïîñòîëîâ). Èñòîðè÷åñêèé ïðîòîòèï ñèìâîëè÷åñêîé ôèãóðû, åñëè îí ñóùåñòâîâàë âîîáùå, ðàçóìååòñÿ, åäâà ëè ìîã íåñòè ïîëíîòó îòâåòñòâåííîñòè çà ñîäåðæàíèå òîé èäåè, â êà÷åñòâå íîñèòåëÿ êîòîðîé ïîëó÷àë ðàçâèòèå åãî êóëüò. Êðîìå òîãî, î÷åíü âî ìíîãèõ ñëó÷àÿõ îäíè è òå æå êóëüòû ïîëó÷àëè íîâóþ æèçíü ïîñëå ïåðåðåäàêòèðîâàíèÿ â äóõå äðóãèõ èäåé, è ýòî ñëó÷àëîñü íå ïî îäíîìó ðàçó.6 Ñîîòíåñåííîñòü èäåé ñ îïðåäåëåííûìè êóëüòàìè áûëà íóæíà äëÿ òîãî, ÷òîáû â áîðüáå ìåæäó ñòîðîííèêàìè ðàçíûõ èäåé, îäèíàêîâî íåïîíÿòíûõ ïðîñòîìó íàðîäó, ìîãëè áû ïðèíÿòü ó÷àñòèå (èëè, åñëè óãîäíî, «áûòü âòÿíóòûìè») ïðîñòûå âåðóþùèå. Êóëüò â äàííîì ñëó÷àå âûñòóïàë ôîðìîé îðãàíèçàöèè ìàññîâîãî äâèæåíèÿ, à ñîçäàâàâøèåñÿ â ðàìêàõ ýòîãî êóëüòà àãèîãðàôè÷åñêèå ïðîèçâåäåíèÿ âûïîëíÿëè ôóíêöèþ îñíîâíîãî âèäà öåðêîâíûõ ÑÌÈ.  àãèîãðàôè÷åñêîé ëèòåðàòóðå êîíêóðåíöèÿ ðàçíûõ êîìïëåêñîâ ðåëèãèîçíûõ èëè ðåëèãèîçíî-ïîëèòè÷åñêèõ èäåé ïðîÿâëÿëàñü â êà÷åñòâå «ïîëåìèêè» ìåæäó ðàçíûìè êóëüòàìè ñâÿòûõ «ïîëåìèêè» èìåííî òàêîé, êàêóþ îïèñûâàåò Îðëîâ íà ìàòåðèàëå 2 Åíîõà ïðèìåíèòåëüíî ê êóëüòàì Åíîõà è Ìîèñåÿ, Åíîõà è Àäàìà, Åíîõà è Íîÿ, Ìåëõèñåäåêà è Íîÿ. Ýòà ïîëåìèêà ðåäêî áûâàåò ýêñïëèöèòíîé (êîãäà ÷üè-ëèáî çàñëóãè èëè ÷üå-ëèáî âûäàþùååñÿ ìåñòî íàïðÿìóþ îòðèöàþòñÿ), à îáû÷íî ïðîèñõîäèò â ôîðìå çàìåùåíèÿ îäíîé ôèãóðîé òîãî ìåñòà, íî êîòîðîì, ñîãëàñíî êîíêóðèðóþùåé òðàäèöèè, äîëæíà áûëà áûòü äðóãàÿ ôèãóðà.  ðàáîòàõ Ì. âàí Ýñáðóêà ýòî îñîáåííî ÿñíî äåìîíñòðèðîâàëîñü íà ïðèìåðàõ êóëüòîâ àïîñòîëîâ: òàê, äëÿ ìîíîôèçèòñêîãî ïðîñâåùåíèÿ Àáõàçèè àïîñòîëüñêîé ôèãóðîé ñòàë ñîòíèê Ëîíãèí, à äëÿ ïðèøåäøèõ íà ñìåíó ìîíîôèçèòàì õàëêèäîíèòîâ ýòîò êóëüò ñòàë âûòåñíÿòüñÿ êóëüòîì àïîñòîëà Ñèìîíà Êàíàíèòà (è ýòî ïðè òîì, ÷òî îáå ôèãóðû ïðèíàäëåæàëè ê ÷èñëó ñâÿòûõ, ïðèçíàâàåìûõ òîãäà îáîèìè ñîîáùåñòâàìè). Ïîäîáíîãî ðîäà «polemical developments» ÿâëÿþòñÿ ÷àñòíûì ñëó÷àåì òåõ îñîáåííîñòåé ïîçäíåé èóäåéñêîé ëèòåðàòóðû, êîòîðûå áûëè îò 6 Ïîäðîáíîå ðàññìîòðåíèå òàêèõ ñëó÷àåâ ñì. â: Â. Ì. ËÓÐÜÅ, Êðèòè÷åñêàÿ àãèîãðàôèÿ (â ïå÷àòè).
376
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
íåå âîñïðèíÿòû õðèñòèàíñêîé àãèîãðàôèåé è èìåííî íà ìàòåðèàëå ïîñëåäíåé îêàçàëèñü ëó÷øå èçó÷åíû.7 Òåïåðü ìû ïåðåõîäèì ê òîìó, ÷òîáû íà÷àòü óæå ñèñòåìàòè÷åñêè, à íå îò ñëó÷àÿ ê ñëó÷àþ èçó÷àòü ýòó ïîëåìèêó, âåäøóþñÿ ïîñðåäñòâîì ñèìâîëè÷åñêèõ ôèãóð, íà ìàòåðèàëå òåêñòîâ äîõðèñòèàíñêèõ è ñàìûõ ðàííèõ õðèñòèàíñêèõ. Åñëè áû î. Ìèõàèë âàí Ýñáðóê äîæèë áû äî ýòîãî, òî, ìîæíî íå ñîìíåâàòüñÿ, îí áûë áû ýòîìó ÷ðåçâû÷àéíî ðàä. Ýïîõà ïðîèñõîæäåíèÿ õðèñòèàíñòâà, êàê ÿ ìîãó çàñâèäåòåëüñòâîâàòü èç ëè÷íîãî ñ íèì îáùåíèÿ, íèêîãäà íå îòïóñêàëà îò ñåáÿ åãî âíèìàíèÿ, õîòÿ â ïå÷àòíûõ ðàáîòàõ îí èìåë âîçìîæíîñòü åå êàñàòüñÿ òîëüêî èçðåäêà. Íåïîñðåäñòâåííûì ðåçóëüòàòîì ïðî÷òåíèÿ ñèìâîëè÷åñêîé ïîëåìèêè, ïîäîáíîå ïðîäåëàííîìó â ìîíîãðàôèè À. Îðëîâà, åùå íå ìîæåò ñòàòü èñòîðè÷åñêàÿ èíòåðïðåòàöèÿ, òî åñòü ïðèâÿçêà ê êîíêðåòíûì èñòîðè÷åñêèì ëèöàì è ñîáûòèÿì. Ïðèìåíèòåëüíî ê 2 Åíîõà, äà è êî ìíîãèì èëè ïî÷òè âñåì ïðîèçâåäåíèÿì ïñåâäýïèãðàôè÷åñêîé ëèòåðàòóðû ìû åå òàê è íå èìååì. Íî òåïåðü ìû, ïî êðàéíåé ìåðå, ïðî÷èòàëè òå «ñëîâà», êîòîðûìè ýòà ïîëåìèêà ôîðìóëèðîâàëàñü. Íå äîñòàòî÷íîå, íî íåîáõîäèìîå óñëîâèå äëÿ åå ïîíèìàíèÿ âûïîëíåíî.
2. ‡ÎẨ‡Ì˚ ‰‡ÌÌ˚ Êàëåíäàðíûå äàííûå èìåþò íå ìåíüøåå çíà÷åíèÿ äëÿ àíàëèçà ñèìâîëè÷åñêîé ïîëåìèêè, ÷åì è åå, íà ïåðâûé âçãëÿä, áîëåå ñîäåðæàòåëüíûå àñïåêòû, êîòîðûå àíàëèçèðóþòñÿ â ìîíîãðàôèè À. Îðëîâà. Íå áóäåì, ê òîìó æå, çàáûâàòü, ÷òî â èóäåéñêîì ìèðå ýïîõè Âòîðîãî Õðàìà êàëåíäàðè ïðåâðàùàëèñü â ãëàâíûå ôîðìóëû ïðîòèâîñòîÿíèé ìåæäó êîíêóðèðóþùèìè ðåëèãèîçíûìè äâèæåíèÿìè, òàê ÷òî ñòîÿòü â ñòîðîíå îò ïðî÷èõ àñïåêòîâ ïîëåìèêè îíè ïðîñòî íèêàê íå ìîãëè. Ïîýòîìó ìû ïîñòàðàåìñÿ ñëåãêà äîïîëíèòü ìîíîãðàôèþ À. Îðëîâà õîòÿ áû ÷àñòè÷íûì îáçîðîì êàëåíäàðíûõ ñâåäåíèé ñëàâÿíñêîãî òåêñòà.  ïîñòêóìðàíñêóþ ýïîõó íåëüçÿ áûëî íå çàìåòèòü, ÷òî êàëåíäàðü 2 Åíîõà îòíîñèòñÿ ê òîìó òèïó, êîòîðûé ìû ïðåäëîæèëè íàçûâàòü Ê364, òî åñòü ñ êîëè÷åñòâîì äíåé â îáû÷íîì ãîäó (íå ñîäåðæàùåì èíòåðêàëÿöèé), ðàâíîì 364. Òîãäà æå îáðàòèëè âíèìàíèå õîòÿ, ïîæàëóé, è äî ñèõ ïîð íå äîñòàòî÷íîå âíèìàíèå, íà òî, ÷òî òà ìîäèôèêàöèÿ Ê364, êîòîðàÿ ñîäåðæèòñÿ âî 2 Åíîõà, íå èçâåñòíà áîëåå íè èç îíîãî èñòî÷íèêà.8 Ïîäðîáíî ñì.: ËÓÐÜÅ, Êðèòè÷åñêàÿ àãèîãðàôèÿ... A. JAUBERT, La date de la Cène. Calendrier biblique et liturgie chrétienne (Paris, 1957) (Études bibliques); J. VAN GOUDOEVER, Fêtes et calendriers bibliques / Troisième édition revue et augmentée. Traduit de l’anglais par M.-L. Kerremans (Paris, 1967) (Théologie historique 7) 163–167. 7 8
В. М. Лурье
377
2.1. ƒ‡Ú‡ œˇÚˉÂÒˇÚÌˈ˚ Ë ÔÓ·ÎÂÏ˚ ıÓÌÓÎÓ„ËË ÔÓ‚ÂÒÚ‚Ó‚‡Ìˡ 364 äíÿ ìîæíî ïî-ðàçíîìó ðàñïðåäåëÿòü ïî ìåñÿöàì ãîäà, è â 2 Åíîõà ýòà ñõåìà ñîâåðøåííî îñîáåííàÿ (2 Åí. 16:2).9  ÷àñòíîñòè, îñîáî èíòåðåñíûå äëÿ íàñ ìåñÿöû ñ ïåðâîãî ïî ÷åòâåðòûé èìåþò ïðîäîëæèòåëüíîñòü, ñîîòâåòñòâåííî, â 30/31, 35, 30/31 è 30 äíåé (÷åðåç êîñóþ ÷åðòó óêàçàíû ðàçíî÷òåíèÿ ðóêîïèñåé, êîãäà îíè åñòü). Íà ýòîì ôîíå òî åñòü çíàÿ î ïðîäîëæèòåëüíîñòè ìåñÿöåâ èìåííî ñîãëàñíî íàøåìó ïàìÿòíèêó, íóæíî ðàññìàòðèâàòü õðîíîëîãè÷åñêîêàëåíäàðíûå äàííûå, îòíîñÿùèåñÿ ëè÷íî ê Åíîõó. Êàê íè ñòðàííî, âñå èññëåäîâàòåëè êàê-òî óïóñòèëè èç âèäó, ÷òî 2 Åíîõà ñâîåîáðàçíî îïðåäåëÿåò ïðîäîëæèòåëüíîñòü ìåñÿöåâ, è ïîýòîìó ïûòàëèñü èíòåðïðåòèðîâàòü êàëåíäàðíûå äàííûå î íåáåñíûõ ïóòåøåñòâèÿõ Åíîõà â ñîîòâåòñòâèè ëèáî ñ êàëåíäàðåì òàëìóäè÷åñêîãî èóäàèçìà (ëóííûì), ëèáî êàëåíäàðåì Ê364 íàèáîëåå àðõàè÷íûõ ìîäèôèêàöèé (êàê, íàïðèìåð, â Êíèãå Þáèëååâ è 1 Åíîõà), ãäå âñå ïîñëåäíèå ìåñÿöû êâàðòàëà èìåþò 31 äåíü, à îñòàëüíûå ìåñÿöû ïî 30. Ýòà ìåòîäîëîãè÷åñêàÿ îøèáêà íå òîëüêî ïîìåøàëà èññëåäîâàòåëÿì, íî â ÷åì-òî è ïîìîãëà. Äàòà 6.III, èìåþùàÿ áîëüøîå çíà÷åíèå â ñòðóêòóðå ïîâåñòâîâàíèÿ, îêàçàëàñü ñîïîñòàâëåííîé ñ Ïÿòèäåñÿòíèöåé (â åâðåéñêîì òàëìóäè÷åñêîì êàëåíäàðå îíà áû òî÷íî åé ñîîòâåòñòâîâàëà, õîòÿ â êàëåíäàðÿõ Þáèëååâ è 1 Åíîõà Ïÿòèäåñÿòíèöà 15.III).10 Íî ïîïðîáóåì âûïîëíèòü ïðîñòîå äåéñòâèå, êîòîðîãî ðàíüøå íå ïðåäïðèíèìàëè, ïðîâåðèì äàòó 6.III íà «ïðè÷àñòíîñòü ê Ïÿòèäåñÿòíèöå» èìåííî â ðàìêàõ òîãî êîíêðåòíîãî êàëåíäàðÿ, êîòîðûé îïèñûâàåòñÿ âî 2 Åíîõà. Ïîêà íåò êðèòè÷åñêîãî èçäàíèÿ 2 Åíîõà, ìû áóäåì, êàê è À. Îðëîâ, îðèåíòèðîâàòüñÿ íà âûïîëíåííûé Ô. Àíäåðñåíîì àíãëèéñêèé ïåðåâîä ïðîñòðàííîé è êðàòêîé ðåäàêöèé òåêñòà, ó÷èòûâàþùèé âñå ðàçíî÷òåíèÿ ðóêîïèñåé è ñîäåðæàùèé çíà÷èòåëüíîå êîëè÷åñòâî íàáëþäåíèé èç îáëàñòè êðèòèêè òåêñòà; ñì.: F. ANDERSEN, 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch // The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha / Ed. J. H. CHARLESWORTHS. Vol. 1 (New York, 1983) 91221 (äàëåå ANDERSEN). Îòíîñèòåëüíî òåêñòà 2 Åí. 16:2 ñì. ANDERSEN, 128129, ñïåöèàëüíî î ðàçíî÷òåíèÿõ â ÷èñëàõ äíåé ìåñÿöåâ ñì. òàì æå note d. Íåò íè îäíîé ðóêîïèñè, êîòîðàÿ áû ñîõðàíèëà âñå ýòè ÷èñëà áåç óòðàò è/èëè èñêàæåíèé, ïîýòîìó íåîáõîäèìî ó÷èòûâàòü ñðàçó âñå âàðèàíòû. 10 Ñì., íàïð.: VAN GOUDOEVER, Fêtes et calendriers bibliques… 166–167, êîòîðûé îáðàùàåò âíèìàíèå íà ñîâïàäåíèå äàòû 6.III ñ äàòîé Ïÿòèäåñÿòíèöû â òàëìóäè÷åñêîì èóäàèçìå, íî äåëàåò îòñþäà ñëèøêîì íàòÿíóòûé âûâîä î òîì, ÷òî îíà ïîÿâëÿåòñÿ òîëüêî â ðåçóëüòàòå æåëàíèÿ ïîçäíåãî ðåäàêòîðà ïåðåêðîèòü êàëåíäàðü 2 Åíîõà íà òàëìóäè÷åñêèé. Ñð. òàêæå áîëåå îñòîðîæíîå çàìå÷àíèå Àíäåðñåíà, êîòîðûé îãðàíè÷èâàåòñÿ òåì, ÷òî ëèøü äîïóñêàåò, âñëåä çà Ìîðãåíøòåðíîì, ÷òî äàòà 6.III «was the potentous date of the Festival of Firstfuits» (ANDERSEN, 196, note c to ch. 68). 9
378
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
 èçâåñòíûõ íàì êàëåíäàðÿõ òèïà Ê364 Ïÿòèäåñÿòíèöà îòñ÷èòûâàåòñÿ íå îò äíÿ Ïàñõè (êîòîðàÿ âñåãäà 14.I, ñîãëàñíî Ëåâ. 23:5), à îò äíÿ îêîí÷àíèÿ ñåìèäíåâíîãî ïðàçäíèêà Îïðåñíîêîâ (1521.I; Ëåâ. 23:6), òî åñòü íå ïî ôîðìóëå p + 50 (ãäå p äàòà Ïàñõè), à ïî ôîðìóëå p + 7 + 50 = p + 57.11 Ýòà ôîðìóëà äàåò íàì äëÿ äàòû Ïÿòèäåñÿòíèöû ëèáî 5.III (åñëè äëÿ ïðîäîëæèòåëüíîñòè ïåðâîãî ìåñÿöà ìû âûáèðàåì ðàçíî÷òåíèå «31»), ëèáî 6.III (åñëè âûáèðàåì ðàçíî÷òåíèå «30»). Òåïåðü áóäåò ðàçóìíî ñäåëàòü ñðàçó äâà âûâîäà: 6.III ýòî èìåííî äåíü Ïÿòèäåñÿòíèöû, à ïðàâèëüíîå ÷èñëî äíåé ïåðâîãî ìåñÿöà 30, à íå 31. Òåïåðü ðàññìîòðèì õðîíîëîãèþ ñîáûòèé, ñâÿçàííûõ ñ âîçíåñåíèåì Åíîõà. Ñðàçó ñêàæåì, ÷òî îòìå÷àâøååñÿ âñåìè èññëåäîâàòåëÿìè çàêëþ÷åííîå â íåé ïðîòèâîðå÷èå ìû òîæå íå ñìîæåì îáúÿñíèòü èíà÷å, ÷åì êàêîé-òî ïîð÷åé òåêñòà â àðõåòèïå, åùå ïðåæäå ðàçäåëåíèÿ åãî íà äâå ðåäàêöèè. Ïåðâîå âîçíåñåíèå Åíîõà ïðîèñõîäèò â òî÷íî íå óêàçàííûé íåêèé «íàðî÷èòûé» äåíü ïåðâîãî ìåñÿöà.12 Çàòåì îí ïðîâîäèò íà íåáåñàõ äâà ïåðèîäà ïî 30 äíåé, òî åñòü âñåãî 60 äíåé (â òå÷åíèå ïåðâûõ 30 äíåé îí ñàì ïîëó÷àåò íàñòàâëåíèÿ, à â òå÷åíèå âòîðîãî ïåðèîäà ïèøåò ñâîè êíèãè äëÿ ëþäåé13 ). Çàòåì îí âîçâðàùàåòñÿ íà çåìëþ, ãäå ïðîâîäèò åùå 30 äíåé, ïîñëå ÷åãî âîçíîñèòñÿ âòîðîé ðàç îêîí÷àòåëüíî. Ïîñëåäíÿÿ äàòà óêàçûâàåòñÿ êàê 6.III, è îíà æå ÿâëÿåòñÿ äíåì ïëîòñêîãî ðîæäåíèÿ Åíîõà. «Íà òðåòèé äåíü» ïîñëå îêîí÷àòåëüíîãî âîçíåñåíèÿ Åíîõà ïðîèñõîäèò ïðàçäíèê ïîñòàâëåíèÿ íà ñâÿùåíñòâî Ìàôóñàèëà.
11 Î çíà÷åíèè ýòîãî ñïîñîáà ñ÷åòà äíåé Ïÿòèäåñÿòíèöû ñì. òàêæå: J.-P. AUDET, Jésus et le «Calendrier sacerdotal ancien». Autour d’une variante de Luc 6, 1 // Sciences ecclésiastiques 10 (1958) 363–383. 12  íåêîòîðûõ ðóêîïèñÿõ èìååòñÿ òî÷íàÿ äàòà: 1.I. Î åå íåàóòåíòè÷íîñòè ñì. ANDERSEN, 105, note d to ch. 1. À. Âàéÿí [A. VAILLANT, Le Livre des secrets d’Hénoch. Texte slave et traduction française (Paris, 1952; ðåïð. 1976) (Textes publiés par l’Institut d’Études slaves, 4) 3, note] ïðåäïîëàãàåò, ïðèâîäÿ ïàðàëëåëè èç Ëåâ. 23:7 è ×èñë. 28:18, ÷òî èñêîííûì ÷òåíèåì ìîãëî áûòü «â äåíü ïåðâûé íàðî÷èòûé (dðßêëçôïò)», îçíà÷àþùèé íà÷àëî ïðàçäíèêà Ïàñõè. Ñëîâî «íàðî÷èòûé» â ýîðòîëîãèè ìîæåò îòíîñèòüñÿ ê ðàçíûì äíÿì, íî, âî âñÿêîì ñëó÷àå, äíÿì îñîáåííûì è ïðàçäíè÷íûì. 13 Ïîýòîìó ñòðàííîé (íå ãîâîðÿ î òîì, ÷òî è òåêñòîëîãè÷åñêè íåîáîñíîâàííîé) âûãëÿäèò ïîïûòêà Âàéÿíà óñìàòðèâàòü â 2 Åí. 23:6 óêàçàíèå íå íà ïîâòîðåíèå ïåðèîäà 30 äíåé, à íà ïðèáàâëåíèå åùå äâóõ ïåðèîäîâ ïî 30 äíåé, ÷òî äîâîäèëî áû âðåìÿ ïðåáûâàíèÿ Åíîõà íà íåáå äî 90 äíåé (VAILLANT, Le Livre des secrets d’Hénoch… 36–37). ANDERSEN, 140141 íå ïðèíèìàåò òàêîãî òîëêîâàíèÿ.
В. М. Лурье
379
Ïðîòèâîðå÷èå òóò çàêëþ÷àåòñÿ â òîì, ÷òî, íåçàâèñèìî îò òî÷íîé äàòû ïåðâîãî âîçíåñåíèÿ Åíîõà â ïåðâîì ìåñÿöå, âåñü ýòîò 90-äíåâíûé ïåðèîä äîëæåí çàêàí÷èâàòüñÿ â ÷åòâåðòîì ìåñÿöå, à íå â òðåòüåì. Íàèáîëåå åñòåñòâåííîå ïðåäïîëîæåíèå îòíîñèòåëüíî ýòîé òðóäíîñòè òåêñòà, ê êîòîðîìó ñêëîíÿëèñü åäâà ëè íå âñå èññëåäîâàòåëè, çàêëþ÷àåòñÿ â òîì, ÷òî äàòà 6.III èñêîííî îòíîñèëàñü íå ê îêîí÷àòåëüíîìó âîçíåñåíèþ Åíîõà, à ê åãî âîçâðàùåíèþ ïîñëå ïåðâîãî âîçíåñåíèÿ. ß òîæå ðàçäåëÿþ òàêîé ïîäõîä è ìîãó äîïîëíèòåëüíî åãî óñèëèòü òåì ñîîáðàæåíèåì, ÷òî äàòà âîçâðàùåíèÿ Åíîõà ñ íåáåñ ÿâëÿåòñÿ, ïî ñâîåìó ñìûñëó, äàòîé äàðîâàíèÿ äîïîòîïíîãî Çàêîíà (òóò ñëåäóåò âñïîìíèòü âñ¸, ÷òî ãîâîðèëîñü î íàëè÷èè âî 2 Åíîõà Mosaic polemics). Òàêèì îáðàçîì, ñîäåðæàòåëüíî äåíü âîçâðàùåíèÿ Åíîõà ñîîòâåòñòâóåò äíþ âîñõîæäåíèÿ Ìîèñåÿ íà Ñèíàé, òî åñòü êàê ðàç Ïÿòèäåñÿòíèöå. Ñîäåðæàíèå ýòèõ ñîáûòèé ïîäîáíî äðóã äðóãó: íà çåìëþ ñõîäèò áîæåñòâåííûé çàêîí, è â îáîèõ ñëó÷àÿõ äëÿ åãî ïîëó÷åíèÿ çàêîíîäàòåëþ-÷åëîâåêó ïðèøëîñü âçîéòè èìåííî íà íåáî, êàê èíòåðïðåòèðóþò âîñõîæäåíèå Ìîèñåÿ íà Ñèíàé åäâà ëè íå âñå äðåâíèå èñòî÷íèêè (âåäü Ìîèñåþ áûëè ïîêàçàíû íåáåñíûå îáðàçöû áóäóùåé çåìíîé Ñêèíèè: Èñõ. 25:9). Íî ìû òîëüêî ÷òî âûÿñíèëè, ÷òî â êàëåíäàðå 2 Åíîõà ýòî è åñòü äåíü Ïÿòèäåñÿòíèöû. Ïîýòîìó â âûáîðå äàòû 6.III ìû äîëæíû âèäåòü åùå îäíî ïðîÿâëåíèå ïîëåìèêè ñ òðàäèöèÿìè, â êîòîðûõ êëþ÷åâîé ñèìâîëè÷åñêîé ôèãóðîé îêàçûâàëñÿ Ìîèñåé, à ñàìó ýòó äàòó ñ÷èòàòü äíåì Ïÿòèäåñÿòíèöû è äíåì âîçâðàùåíèÿ Åíîõà ñ íåáåñ.
2.2. ƒ‡Ú‡ ÔÂ‚Ó„Ó ‚ÓÁÌÂÒÂÌˡ ≈ÌÓı‡ Î÷åâèäíî, ÷òî äåíü ïåðâîãî âîçíåñåíèÿ Åíîõà íàõîäèòñÿ èç óðàâíåíèÿ: x + 60 = 6.III, îòêóäà âèäíî, ÷òî õ = 11.I (òåïåðü ìû óâåðåíû íå òîëüêî â ïðîäîëæèòåëüíîñòè âòîðîãî ìåñÿöà â 35 äíåé, íî è â ïðîäîëæèòåëüíîñòè ïåðâîãî ìåñÿöà â 30 äíåé, à íå â 31). Ìîæåò ëè äàòà 11.I ñ÷èòàòüñÿ «íàðî÷èòûì» äíåì? Ìîæåò, íî òîëüêî â íåêîòîðûõ, à íå âî âñåõ ìîäèôèêàöèÿõ Ê364. À èìåííî, â òàêèõ ìîäèôèêàöèÿõ, ãäå Ïàñõå ïðåäøåñòâóåò ñòðîãèé ïîñò ïðîäîëæèòåëüíîñòüþ 3,5 äíÿ, êîòîðûé çàêàí÷èâàåòñÿ â íî÷ü, íàñòóïàþùóþ ïîñëå çàêëàíèÿ ïàñõàëüíîãî àãíöà «â ñóìåðêè», òî åñòü âå÷åðîì 14.I (Ëåâ. 23:5).14 Ïðè îáû÷íîì äëÿ Ê364 ñ÷åòå ñóòîê ñ óòðà, òàê ÷òî íî÷ü ñ÷èòàåòñÿ ïðèíàäëåæàùåé ïðåäøåñòâîâàâøåìó äíþ, ïîëó÷àåòñÿ, ÷òî íà äåíü 14.I ïðèõî14 Ïîäðîáíî îá ýòîé ïðîáëåìàòèêå: B. LOURIÉ, Les quatre jours «de l’intervalle»: une modification néotestamentaire et chrétienne du calendrier de 364 jours // Õ 4 (2002) [èçä. 2006] 470–497.
380
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
äèòñÿ òîëüêî ïîëîâèíà ñóòîê ïîñòà, à òðîå ïîëíûõ ñóòîê ïîñòà ýòî 11, 12 è 13 ÷èñëà ïåðâîãî ìåñÿöà. Òîãäà äåíü 11.I ñòàíîâèòñÿ ïåðâûìè ñóòêàìè ïîñòà òîãî ñàìîãî ïîñòà, êîòîðûé â Åâàíãåëèè ñâÿçûâàåòñÿ ñ äíåì «âçÿòèÿ æåíèõà», à â ñëàâÿíñêîì ïñåâäîýïèãðàôå îêàçûâàåòñÿ äíåì «âçÿòèÿ» íà íåáî Åíîõà. Ýòî âïîëíå ïîäõîäÿùåå ðåøåíèå äëÿ âûáîðà äíÿ èñ÷åçíîâåíèÿ èç ñðåäû ëþäñêîé ìåññèàíñêîé ôèãóðû.
2.3. œÓ˜ÂÏÛ 30 + 30, ‡ Ì 60? Îñîáûé èíòåðåñ ïðåäñòàâëÿåò òàêæå ðàçáèåíèå 60-äíåâíîãî ïåðèîäà ïðåáûâàíèÿ Åíîõà íà íåáå íà äâå ðàâíûå ÷àñòè. Î÷åâèäíî, ÷òî ýòî êàêòî ñâÿçàíî ñ ïðàçäíèêîì Ïðåïîëîâåíèÿ Ïÿòèäåñÿòíèöû. Êîãäà-òî âàí Ãàóäóâåð âûñêàçàë ãèïîòåçó, êîòîðóþ ìíå äî íåêîòîðîé ñòåïåíè óäàëîñü ïîäòâåðäèòü íà ìàòåðèàëå äðåâíåãî àëåêñàíäðèéñêîãî èóäåéñêîãî êàëåíäàðÿ, îñòàòêè êîòîðîãî ñîõðàíÿþòñÿ â ñèñòåìå ýôèîïñêèõ ïàñõàëüíûõ ðàñ÷åòîâ.15 Îíà ñîñòîèò â òîì, ÷òî â íåêîòîðûõ îáëàñòÿõ èóäåéñêîãî ìèðà (à ÿ äîáàâëþ, ÷òî, ïî êðàéíåé ìåðå, â êàêèõ-òî ðàçíîâèäíîñòÿõ åãèïåòñêîãî16 èóäàèçìà ýëëèíèñòè÷åñêîé ýïîõè) â ïðàçäíèê ïðåïîëîâåíèÿ Ïÿòèäåñÿòíèöû ñîâåðøàëîñü âîñïîìèíàíèå âñåìèðíîãî ïîòîïà è ïàìÿòü Íîÿ. Äàòà ñîîòâåòñòâóþùåãî èóäåéñêîãî ïðàçäíèêà ðàññ÷èòûâàëàñü ïî ôîðìóëå p + 23 èëè p + 24 (îòëè÷èå èç-çà ðàçíî÷òåíèé â ðóêîïèñÿõ). Äàòà Ïÿòèäåñÿòíèöû â ýòîì æå êàëåíäàðå (î êîòîðîì ìû íå ìîæåì ñêàçàòü, ïðèíàäëåæàë ëè îí èëè íåò ê òèïó Ê364) ðàññ÷èòûâàëàñü ïî ôîðìóëå p + 50, òî åñòü, â îòëè÷èå îò âñåõ èëè áîëüøèíñòâà êàëåíäàðåé òèïà Ê364, ïðÿìî îò ïðàçäíèêà Ïàñõè è áåç «îòñòóïêè» íà ñåìü äíåé ïðàçäíèêà Îïðåñíîêîâ. Ïîýòîìó âûçûâàåò óäèâëåíèå, ïî÷åìó äàííûé ïðàçäíèê íå ïîïàäàåò òî÷íî íà äåíü ïðåïîëîâåíèÿ Ïÿòèäåñÿòíèöû, òî åñòü íà äàòó, êîòîðàÿ ðàññ÷èòûâàåòñÿ ïî ôîðìóëå p + 25. Êàæåòñÿ, 2 Åíîõ ìîæåò íàñ ïðèáëèçèòü ê ðàçðåøåíèþ ýòîé çàãàäêè.  ãèïîòåòè÷åñêîì êàëåíäàðå, ãäå äåéñòâîâàëî áû ïðàâèëî îòñ÷èòûâàòü ïåðèîä Ïÿòèäåñÿòíèöû ïîñëå ïðàçäíèêà Îïðåñíîêîâ, ôîðìóëà äëÿ ðàñ÷åòà óïîìÿíóòîãî åãèïåòñêîãî ïðàçäíèêà ïðèîáðåëà áû âèä p + 7 + 23/24 = p + 30/31. Ôîðìóëà õ + 30 ýòî òî÷íàÿ ôîðìóëà äëÿ ðàñ÷åòà ñåðåäèíû èíòåðâàëà ìåæäó äàòàìè õ è õ + 60, òî åñòü, íàïðèìåð, ìåæäó «íàðî÷èòûì äíåì» íà÷àëà ïðåäïàñõàëüíîãî ñòðîãîãî ïîñòà â 3,5 äíÿ è ïðàçäíèêîì Ïÿòèäåñÿòíèöû. Ñì.: VAN GOUDOEVER, Fêtes et calendriers bibliques… 193–194; B. LOURIÉ, Computus // Encyclopaedia Aethiopica / Ed. S. UHLIG. Vol. I: A–C (Wiesbaden, 2003) 784–787, îñîá. 786787. 16 Òàêàÿ ëîêàëèçàöèÿ âàæíà, òàê êàê ñóùåñòâóåò åäâà ëè íå íàó÷íûé êîíñåíñóñ, ñîãëàñíî êîòîðîìó 2 Åíîõà èìååò åãèïåòñêîå ïðîèñõîæäåíèå. 15
В. М. Лурье
381
Ïîñêîëüêó îáà íàøèõ êàëåíäàðÿ, è ðåêîíñòðóèðóåìûé èç ýôèîïñêèõ èñòî÷íèêîâ, è ñîäåðæàùèéñÿ âî 2 Åíîõà, âîñõîäÿò ê áëèçêîé, à òî è òîæäåñòâåííîé ñðåäå êàêîìó-òî èç íàïðàâëåíèé åãèïåòñêîãî èóäàèçìà ýëëèíèñòè÷åñêîé ýïîõè, òî äëÿ áóäóùèõ èññëåäîâàíèé áûëî áû ïîëåçíî ñôîðìóëèðîâàòü ãèïîòåçó î òîì, ÷òî ñîõðàíèâøàÿñÿ â ýôèîïñêèõ êàëåíäàðíûõ ðàñ÷åòàõ äàòà p + 23/24 ÿâëÿåòñÿ èñêàæåíèåì áîëåå äðåâíåé äàòû (p – 3) + 7 + 23 = p + 27, ñîõðàíèâøåéñÿ â îïèñàíèè íåáåñíîãî ïóòåøåñòâèÿ Åíîõà ñîãëàñíî ñëàâÿíñêîìó ïñåâäîýïèãðàôó. Êàê áû íè îáñòîÿëî äåëî ñ òî÷íûìè äàòàìè, íî è áåç òî÷íûõ ðàñ÷åòîâ ìîæíî ñêàçàòü, ÷òî ðàçäåëåíèå ïåðèîäà ïåðâîãî ïðåáûâàíèÿ Åíîõà íà íåáå íà äâå ðàâíûå ÷àñòè èìååò ýîðòîëîãè÷åñêèé ñìûñë ïðåïîëîâåíèÿ Ïÿòèäåñÿòíèöû. Èñõîäÿ èç òîãî, ÷òî íàì èçâåñòíî î ñâÿçè ýòîãî ïðàçäíèêà ñ ñèìâîëè÷åñêîé ôèãóðîé Íîÿ â äðóãèõ èóäåéñêèõ òðàäèöèÿõ, ìû äîëæíû çàêëþ÷èòü, ÷òî ïåðåä íàìè åùå îäèí ìîìåíò «Noahic polemics», íî ñôîðìóëèðîâàííîé íà ýîðòîëîãè÷åñêîì ÿçûêå.
vс (а) = öáìåí§è = ÐÇxnÍÐ =/ Ú‡ÏÏÛÁ 2.4. Памово Памовоv Âòîðîå âîçíåñåíèå Åíîõà è âîçâåäåíèå â ñâÿùåííèêè Ìàôóñàèëà äîëæíî áûëî ïðîèçîéòè â ÷åòâåðòîì ìåñÿöå, õîòÿ âñå ðóêîïèñè óïîðíî äàòèðóþò åãî òðåòüèì. Ó èññëåäîâàòåëåé ýòî ïðîòèâîðå÷èå âûçûâàåò åñòåñòâåííîå æåëàíèå âñå-òàêè íàéòè ãäå-íèáóäü â òåêñòå óïîìèíàíèå òàììóçà. Âàéÿí ïðåäëîæèë ñàìîå ëåãêîå ðåøåíèå, êîòîðîìó ïîâåðèë Ãàóäóâåð è óæå â íàøå âðåìÿ Á¸òòðèõ: ñ÷èòàòü ðàçíî÷òåíèå îäíîé èç ðóêîïèñåé памовоvс(а), ñòîÿùåå íà òîì ìåñòå, ãäå â äðóãèõ ðóêîïèñÿõ циванъ,17 èñêîííûì è, ãëàâíîå, ïðåäñòàâëÿþùèì ñîáîé èñêàæåííîå íàïèñàíèå íàçâàíèÿ ìåñÿöà «òàììóç».18 Íèêàêîãî ëèíãâèñòè÷åñêîãî îáîñíîâàíèÿ 17 2 Åí. 48:2 (÷èñòî êàëåíäàðíàÿ èíôîðìàöèÿ, íå ñâÿçàííàÿ ñ Åíîõîì: äåíü 17 ñèâàíà/ïàìîâóñà îïðåäåëÿåòñÿ êàê äåíü ëåòíåãî ñîëíöåñòîÿíèÿ), 68:1, 3 (6 ñèâàíà/ïàìîâóñà êàê äåíü ðîæäåíèÿ è äåíü âòîðîãî âîçíåñåíèÿ Åíîõà). Ñð. îáñóæäåíèå ðàçíî÷òåíèé ðóêîïèñåé â: ANDERSEN, 196 b to ch. 68. Êàëåíäàðíûå äàííûå 2 Åí. 73 (òîëüêî ïðîñòðàííîé ðåä.), îòíîñÿùèåñÿ ê õðîíîëîãèè ïîòîïà, ìû çäåñü íå ðàññìàðèâàåì, ñ÷èòàÿ, âñëåä çà Âàéÿíîì è Àíäåðñåíîì, ÷òî îíè ïðåäñòàâëÿþò ñîáîé ïîçäíþþ èíòåðïîëÿöèþ èç âèçàíòèéñêîãî èñòî÷íèêà (ANDERSEN , 212). 18 VAILLANT, Le Livre des secrets d’Hénoch… 109, 112–113; VAN GOUDOEVER, Fêtes et calendriers bibliques… 166–167; Ch. BÖTTRICH, Das slavische Henochbuch (Gütersloh, 1995) (Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit. Bd. 5, Lief. 7) 813. Âàéÿí è çà íèì âàí Ãàóäóâåð ñîîòíîñÿò âòîðîå âîçíåñåíèå Åíîõà ñ ïðàçäíèêîì 17 òàììóçà, à Á¸òòðèõ ñîîòíîñèò ñ òåì æå ïðàçäíèêîì ïîñâÿùåíèå Ìàôóñàèëà, ïðè÷åì, èñïûòûâàåò ñ ýòèì íåìàëûå òðóäíîñòè, òàê êàê äàòà 17 òàììóçà èçâåñòíà åìó òîëüêî èç êàëåíäàðÿ òàëìóäè÷åñêîãî èóäàèçìà, ãäå ýòî òðàóðíûé äåíü, êîãäà âîñïîìèíàåòñÿ ðàçðóøåíèå ñòåí Èåðóñàëèìà Òèòîì â 70 ã. ïî Ð. Õ.
382
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
(åñëè íå ñ÷èòàòü òàêîâûì îòäàëåííîå ñõîäñòâî çâó÷àíèÿ) ïðè ýòîì íå ïðåäëàãàëîñü. Âîïðåêè òàêîé òî÷êå çðåíèÿ, Àíäåðñåí ñîâåðøåííî, íà íàø âçãëÿä, ñïðàâåäëèâî ðàçúÿñíèë, ÷òî памовоvс(а) ýòî åãèïåòñêîå íàçâàíèå òîãî ìåñÿöà, êîòîðûé ñîîòâåòñòâóåò ñèâàíó.19 Îäíàêî, Àíäåðñåí òàêæå íå ïðèâåë íèêàêîãî ëèíãâèñòè÷åñêîãî îáîñíîâàíèÿ ñâîåé òî÷êè çðåíèÿ. Ñðàçó îãîâîðèìñÿ, îïÿòü âñëåä çà Àíäåðñåíîì, ÷òî íàçâàíèÿ åâðåéñêèõ ìåñÿöåâ âî 2 Åíîõå ïðåäñòàâëÿþò ñîáîé äî ñèõ ïîð íå ðåøåííóþ ëèíãâèñòè÷åñêóþ ïðîáëåìó. Ôîðìû циванъ (ñèâàí) è ницанъ (íèñàí) íåâîçìîæíî îáúÿñíèòü êàê ïðîøåäøèå ÷åðåç ïîñðåäñòâî ãðå÷åñêîãî ÿçûêà. Íîðìàòèâíîå äëÿ öåðêîâíî-ñëàâÿíñêîãî ÿçûêà íàïèñàíèå ýòèõ ñëîâ сиванъ, сиvанъ è нисанъ, íî îíî íå âñòðå÷àåòñÿ íè â îäíîé ðóêîïèñè 2 Åíîõà. Ýòè åâðåéñêèå ñëîâà âîøëè â ñëàâÿíñêèé ÿçûê ÷åðåç ãðå÷åñêèé, ãäå îíè ïèñàëèñü ÷åðåç «ñèãìó», à ïîòîìó è â ñëàâÿíñêèõ òðàíñëèòåðàöèÿõ ïîëó÷àëè «ñëîâî», à íå «öû».20 Ðåãóëÿðíîå íàïèñàíèå ýòèõ íàçâàíèé ÷åðåç «öû», à íå ÷åðåç «ñëîâî», âñòðå÷àåòñÿ òîëüêî âî 2 Åíîõà.  ñðåäíåâåêîâîì ãðå÷åñêîì íå ñóùåñòâîâàëî ñðåäñòâ àäåêâàòíîé ïåðåäà÷è íà ïèñüìå àôôðèêàòû ts. Äàæå åñëè íå âîçâðàùàòüñÿ ê ñïðàâåäëèâî îòâåðãíóòîé ãèïîòåçå Í. À. Ìåùåðñêîãî î åâðåéñêîì îðèãèíàëå ñëàâÿíñêîãî ïåðåâîäà, íóæíî ïðèçíàòü îäíî èç äâóõ: ëèáî ïåðåâîä äåëàëñÿ Ðàäîñòíûé õàðàêòåð ýòîãî (êàê åìó êàæåòñÿ) ïðàçäíèêà âî 2 Åíîõà ñòàíîâèòñÿ ó íåãî äîâîäîì â ïîëüçó äàòèðîâêè ýòîé êíèãè âðåìåíåì äî 70 ãîäà, êîãäà ñòåíû Èåðóñàëèìà åùå ñòîÿëè, è ìîæíî áûëî èõ íå îïëàêèâàòü. Á¸òòðèõ èíòåðïðåòèðóåò ýòîò ïðàçäíèê êàê ñîëÿðíûé â äåíü ëåòíåãî ñîëíöåñòîÿíèÿ (äëÿ ÷åãî ïðèõîäèòñÿ èäòè íà åùå îäíî íàñèëèå íàä òåêñòîì: â 2 Åí. 48:2 ïðîñòðàííîé ðåäàêöèè ÿñíî ñêàçàíî, ÷òî äåíü ëåòíåãî ñîëíöåñòîÿíèÿ 17 ÷èñëî ñèâàíà, à íå òàììóçà). Ñîäåðæàòåëüíàÿ êðèòèêà àíàëèçà Á¸òòðèõà äàåòñÿ Îðëîâûì (ñ. 328330), êîòîðûé ïîêàçûâàåò íåîáîñíîâàííîñòü ïîïûòêè Á¸òòðèõà ñâÿçàòü ìîòèâ ñèÿíèÿ ëèöà Ìàôóñàèëà ñ ñîëÿðíûì êóëüòîì (ðàçóìååòñÿ, çäåñü ñîâñåì äðóãàÿ, ìèñòè÷åñêàÿ, òðàäèöèÿ; Îðëîâ èíòåðïðåòèðóåò åå â êîíòåêñòå Noahic polemics, ÷òî, ìîæåò áûòü, ñëèøêîì óçêî, òàê êàê ìû ñåé÷àñ ýòî ïîêàæåì, Mosaic polemics çäåñü íå ìåíåå àêòóàëüíà, à, ñëåäîâàòåëüíî, ïðèõîäèòñÿ âñïîìíèòü è î ñèÿíèè ëèöà Ìîèñåÿ ïîñëå ñõîæäåíèÿ ñ ãîðû Ñèíàé). Ñ òî÷êè çðåíèÿ èñòîðèêî-êàëåíäàðíîé, ïîçèöèÿ Á¸òòðèõà ïðåäñòàâëÿåò ñîáîé øàã íàçàä ïî îòíîøåíèþ ê âàí Ãàóäóâåðó, êîòîðûé ïîêàçàë ñâÿçü äàòû 17 òàììóçà ñ äíåì ñìåðòè Ìîèñåÿ, êîòîðàÿ òîæå, ñîãëàñíî ìíîãèì ïðîèçâåäåíèÿì ýëëèíèñòè÷åñêîé ýïîõè, ñîâåðøèëàñü ÷óäåñíûì îáðàçîì êàê âîçíåñåíèå íà íåáî. Ýòà èíòóèöèÿ âàí Ãàóäóâåðà ìíå ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ âåðíîé, õîòÿ îí íå ñìîã ïðèâåñòè íèêàêîãî ðàñ÷åòà â îáîñíîâàíèå äàòû 17 òàììóçà äëÿ ñîáûòèé 2 Åíîõà. Êîëü ñêîðî äàòà 17 òàììóçà íà ñåãîäíÿøíèé äåíü íå ïîäòâåðæäàåòñÿ íèêàêèìè êàëåíäàðíûìè ðàñ÷åòàìè, òî ÿ äóìàþ, ÷òî îáñóæäàòü åå êàê âîçìîæíûé äåíü âòîðîãî âîçíåñåíèÿ Åíîõà èëè ïîñâÿùåíèÿ Ìàôóñàèëà áîëüøå íå èìååò ñìûñëà. 19 ANDERSEN, 175, note e to ch. 48. 20 Ibid.
В. М. Лурье
383
âñå-òàêè ñ êàêîãî-òî ñåìèòñêîãî ÿçûêà, ëèáî ñ ãðå÷åñêîãî, íî â òàêîé ñëàâÿíñêîé ñðåäå, ãäå çàèìñòâîâàíèå åâðåéñêèõ ñëîâ ïðîèñõîäèëî íå ÷åðåç ãðå÷åñêèé ÿçûê, à ÷åðåç êàêîé-òî äðóãîé, â êîòîðîì íà ïèñüìå ìîæíî áûëî ïåðåäàâàòü àôôðèêàòó ts.21 Íî àôôðèêàòû â íàçâàíèÿõ ìåñÿöåâ îêàçûâàþòñÿ âåñüìà ïðîáëåìíûìè äàæå è íà ñåìèòñêîé ïî÷âå, î ÷åì, ïî-ìîåìó, äî ñèõ ïîð íå óïîìèíàëîñü. Ýòè ñëîâà â êëàññè÷åñêîì åâðåéñêîì ÿçûêå ïèñàëèñü òîëüêî ÷åðåç «ñàìåõ» (ïðîñòîå s) è íèêîãäà ÷åðåç «öàäå» (ýìôàòè÷åñêîå ê èëè, â áîëåå ïîçäíåì ïðîèçíîøåíèè, àôôðèêàòà ts). Ñðåäè âñåõ ñëîâ, íàïèñàííûõ åâðåéñêèìè áóêâàìè äî XI âåêà âêëþ÷èòåëüíî è äîøåäøèõ äî íàøåãî âðåìåíè (òàêîâ ñîñòàâ áàçû äàííûõ The Academy of the Hebrew Language22 ), òàêèõ ñëó÷àåâ íåò. Ïî âñåé âèäèìîñòè, óæå ñåìèòñêèå ïðîòîòèïû íàçâàíèé ìåñÿöåâ циванъ è ницанъ, çàâåäîìî íàìíîãî ñòàðøå XI âåêà, îòðàçèëè êàêèå-òî íåèçâåñòíûå â íàñòîÿùåå âðåìÿ ïðîöåññû ðàçâèòèÿ åâðåéñêîãî èëè àðàìåéñêîãî ÿçûêà. Óïîìÿíóòûå ëèíãâèñòè÷åñêèå òðóäíîñòè ñ íàçâàíèÿìè íèñàíà è ñèâàíà íåîáõîäèìî ó÷èòûâàòü è ïðè èíòåðïðåòàöèè ôîðìû памовоvс(а), êîòîðàÿ òàêæå íå âñòðå÷àåòñÿ çà ïðåäåëàìè 2 Åíîõà. Íàì ïðèäåòñÿ ó÷èòûâàòü îäíîâðåìåííî îáå âîçìîæíîñòè äëÿ îðèãèíàëà ñëàâÿíñêîé ôîðìû: îí ìîæåò áûòü êàê ãðå÷åñêèì, òàê è ñåìèòñêèì. Èç ëèíãâèñòè÷åñêèõ ñîîáðàæåíèé (êîòîðûå, ñêîðåå âñåãî, èìåë â âèäó Àíäåðñåí) ôîðìó ëåã÷å âñåãî ñîîòíåñòè ñ ãðå÷åñêèì íàçâàíèåì åãèïåòñêîãî ìåñÿöà öáìåí§è èëè êîïòñêèì íàçâàíèåì òîãî æå ìåñÿöà o`pk{nro, ÷òî ñîîòâåòñòâóåò äðåâíååãèïåòñêîìó íàçâàíèþ p-n-jmnh³tp («the one of Amenh³otep», «(ìåñÿö) Àìåíõîòåïà»).  ïîëüçó òàêîãî îòîæäåñòâëåíèÿ ìîæíî ñîñëàòüñÿ åùå è íà íàïèñàííûå íà èìïåðñêîì àðàìåéñêîì åãèïåòñêèå ïàïèðóñû èç Ýëåôàíòèíû V âåêà äî Ð. Õ., ãäå äàòû ïðèâîäÿòñÿ ïàðàëëåëüíî ïî íåòî÷íîìó âàðèàíòó âàâèëîíñêîãî (à íå èóäåéñêîãî!) êàëåíäàðÿ, êîòîðûì ïîëüçîâàëàñü èóäåéñêàÿ êîëîíèÿ â Ýëåôàíòèíå,23 è ïî ãðàæäàíñêîìó îôèöèàëüíîìó êàëåíäàðþ Åãèïòà. Òàì (è òîëüêî òàì) âñòðå÷àåòñÿ, ïðè÷åì, öåëûõ ïÿòü ðàç, àðàìåéñêàÿ ôîðìà Òàêèì ÿçûêîì ìîã áûòü ñèðèéñêèé, ò. ê. ñ ýòîãî ÿçûêà ïðÿìî íà ñëàâÿíñêèé äåëàëèñü êàêèå-òî ïåðåâîäû: â ÷àñòíîñòè, Ñîëóíñêàÿ ëåãåíäà è, âåðîÿòíî, Ñêàçàíèå î 12 ñíàõ Øàõàèøè. Ñì.: Â. Ì. ËÓÐÜÅ, Îêîëî Ñîëóíñêîé ëåãåíäû. Èç èñòîðèè ìèññèîíåðñòâà â ïåðèîä ìîíîôåëèòñêîé óíèè // Ñëàâÿíå è èõ ñîñåäè. Âûï. 6 (1996) 23–52; D. SHAPIRA, Irano-Slavono-Tibetica: Some Notes on Šaxaiša, Mithra, Lord Gshen-rab, Bon, and a Modern Myth // Õ 3 (IX) (2001) 308–317. 22 http://hebrew-treasures.huji.ac.il/ Âûðàæàþ ñâîþ ãëóáîêóþ ïðèçíàòåëüíîñòü Àðüå Îëüìåðó, êîòîðûé ëþáåçíî âûïîëíèë äëÿ ìåíÿ ïîèñê ïî ýòîé íåäîñòóïíîé ìíå áàçå äàííûõ. 23 Î êîòîðîì ñì.: S. STERN, The Babylonian Calendar at Elephantine // Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 130 (2000) 159–171. 21
384
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
íàïèñàíèÿ24 åãèïåòñêîãî ìåñÿöà ÐÇxnÍÐ (pmnh³tp),25 ãäå ýòîìó ìåñÿöó âñåãäà ñîîòâåòñòâóåò ñèâàí («ñèâàí» âàâèëîíñêîå íàçâàíèå òðåòüåãî ìåñÿöà, çàèìñòâîâàííîå â åâðåéñêîì ÿçûêå Áèáëèè è â àðàìåéñêîì).  ïåðåâîäå íà þëèàíñêèé êàëåíäàðü îáà ìåñÿöà â ýëåôàíòèíñêèõ ïàïèðóñàõ ãðóáî ñîîòâåòñòâóþò èþíþ (èëè õîòÿ áû ïåðåñåêàþòñÿ ñ èþíåì), òî åñòü òåì ìåñÿöåì, êîãäà îáû÷íî áûâàåò ëåòíåå ñîëíöåñòîÿíèå (ôèêñèðîâàííîå, ñîãëàñíî 2 Åí. 48:2, êàê 17 ñèâàíà).26 Ðàçóìååòñÿ, íåò è ðå÷è î òîì, ÷òîáû ìåæäó âàâèëîíñêèì êàëåíäàðåì èóäåéñêîé îáùèíû â Ýëåôàíòèíå V âåêà äî Ð. Õ. è êàëåíäàðåì äðóãîé èóäåéñêîé îáùèíû â Åãèïòå, îòâåòñòâåííîé çà ïîÿâëåíèå 2 Åíîõà, óñòàíàâëèâàòü ñõîäñòâî èëè îñîáåííî áëèçêîå ðîäñòâî, íî òàêæå íå ñòîèò è ïðåíåáðåãàòü èõ ðîäñòâîì, êîòîðîå, ïóñòü è â íåáîëüøîé ñòåïåíè, íî âñå æå èìååò ìåñòî â äåéñòâèòåëüíîñòè, êîëü ñêîðî ó íèõ îáùàÿ ðîäèíà. Âåäü, êàê ïîêàçàë â ñâîåé ìîíîãðàôèè 1994 ãîäà Ìàòòèàñ Àëáàíè, ñàì êàëåíäàðü Ê364, àäàïòèðîâàííûé â àñòðîíîìè÷åñêèõ ãëàâàõ 1 Åíîõà, èìååò âàâèëîíñêîå ïðîèñõîæäåíèå. Îí ïîÿâëÿåòñÿ â âàâèëîíñêîì àñòðîíîìè÷åñêîì òðàêòàòå VII âåêà äî Ð. Õ. MUL.APIN («Ïîëÿðíàÿ çâåçäà»), âïåðâûå îïóáëèêîâàííîì òîëüêî â 1989 ãîäó.27 Êîìïüþòåðíûé øðèôò, âîñïðîèçâîäÿùèé ãðàôèêó ýëåôàíòèíñêèõ ïàïèðóñîâ, ñîçäàí Äæåêîì Êèëìîíîì (Jack Kilmon) è äîñòóïåí íà åãî ñàéòå Scriptorium: http://www.historian.net/. Ïîëüçóÿñü ñëó÷àåì, õîòåëîñü áû âûðàçèòü Äæåêó Êèëìîíó îñîáóþ áëàãîäàðíîñòü çà åãî íåïðåêðàùàþùèåñÿ òðóäû â îáëàñòè ñîçäàíèÿ íîâûõ øðèôòîâ äëÿ äðåâíèõ ïèñüìåííîñòåé, ðåçóëüòàòàìè êîòîðûõ îí âñåãäà ãîòîâ òàê ùåäðî äåëèòüñÿ. 25 Ñì. áàçó äàííûõ òåêñòîâ íà àðàìåéñêîì ÿçûêå Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon (CAL): http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/.  ñëîâàðÿõ áèáëåéñêîãî àðàìåéñêîãî è àðàìåéñêîãî ÿçûêà òàðãóìîâ è äðóãèõ òåêñòîâ ðàââèíèñòè÷åñêîãî èóäàèçìà ýòîãî ñëîâà íåò. 26 Òåì ñàìûì, âîçìîæíî, ñíèìàåòñÿ êàëåíäàðíàÿ òðóäíîñòü, îòìå÷åííàÿ Àíäåðñåíîì, êîòîðûé, èñõîäÿ èç êàëåíäàðÿ ðàââèíèñòè÷åñêîãî èóäàèçìà, çàìåòèë, ÷òî ìåñÿöåì ëåòíåãî ñîëíöåñòîÿíèÿ áûâàåò íå ñèâàí, à òàììóç (ANDERSEN, 175, note e to ch. 48). Î÷åâèäíî, ýòî æå çàòðóäíåíèå ñëóæèëî äîïîëíèòåëüíûì ñòèìóëîì äëÿ èñòîëêîâàíèÿ íàçâàíèÿ «ïàìîâóñ(à)» êàê «òàììóç». Êàê âèäèì, â êàëåíäàðå 2 Åíîõà 17 ñèâàíà ëåãêî ìîæåò ïðèõîäèòüñÿ íà âòîðóþ ïîëîâèíó èþíÿ ïî þëèàíñêîìó êàëåíäàðþ. Âïðî÷åì, òàêîå ðàçðåøåíèå îäíîãî çàòðóäíåíèÿ ñðàçó æå ñîçäàåò äðóãîå: äàòîé çèìíåãî ñîëíöåñòîÿíèÿ òîò æå ñòèõ 2 Åí. 48:2 íàçûâàåò 17 òåáåòà, òî åñòü 17.Õ. Ýòî ïðîáëåìàòè÷íî ïîòîìó, ÷òî ìåæäó äàòàìè ñîëíöåñòîÿíèé îêàçûâàåòñÿ 7 ìåñÿöåâ, à íå 6. Âåðîÿòíî, ê ýòîìó âîïðîñó íóæíî áóäåò âåðíóòüñÿ â ðàìêàõ èññëåäîâàíèÿ ñîäåðæàùèõñÿ âî 2 Åíîõà êàëåíäàðíîàñòðîíîìè÷åñêèõ ñâåäåíèÿõ î äâèæåíèè ñîëíöà. Ìû ïîçâîëèì ñåáå èõ íå ðàññìàòðèâàòü, ïîñêîëüêó íàì íå óäàëîñü çàìåòèòü èõ ñâÿçè ñ ëèòóðãè÷åñêèì ñîäåðæàíèåì êàëåíäàðÿ. 27 M. ALBANI, Astronomie und Schöpfungsglaube. Untersuchungen zum Astronomischen Henochbuch (Neukirchen—Vluyn, 1994) (Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 68). 24
В. М. Лурье
385
Ïðåäïîëîæåíèå î òîì, ÷òî ñëàâÿíñêèé òåðìèí âîñõîäèò ëèáî ê ãðå÷åñêîé ôîðìå öáìåí§è, ëèáî ê åå àðàìåéñêîìó ýêâèâàëåíòó, âûãëÿäèò âïîëíå îáîñíîâàííî. Òî÷íàÿ ôîðìà àðàìåéñêîãî ýêâèâàëåíòà íàì íåèçâåñòíà, ïîñêîëüêó èçâåñòíàÿ ôîðìà pmnh³tp ñëèøêîì äðåâíÿÿ, V âåê äî Ð. Õ., òî åñòü íà 400 èëè 500 ëåò äðåâíåå ïðåäïîëàãàåìîé äàòû îðèãèíàëà 2 Åíîõà. Òåîðåòè÷åñêè ìû ìîæåì ïðåäïîëàãàòü è â àðàìåéñêîì òî÷íîå ñîîòâåòñòâèå ãðå÷åñêîé ôîðìå, òî åñòü *pmnt èëè *pmnh³t, ãäå h³ ìîãëî âûïîëíÿòü ôóíêöèþ mater lectionis, òî åñòü âîñïðèíèìàòüñÿ êàê îáîçíà÷åíèå äîëãîãî ãëàñíîãî (ïî êðàéíåé ìåðå, â ãðå÷åñêèõ òðàíñëèòåðàöèÿõ ñåìèòñêèå ñëîãè ñ íà÷àëüíûì h³ î÷åíü ÷àñòî ïåðåäàâàëèñü òîëüêî ãëàñíûì çâóêîì). Ïðèáëèæåííûé ê ãðå÷åñêîìó íàçâàíèþ öáìåí§è ðåêîíñòðóèðîâàííûé àðàìåéñêèé îðèãèíàë ïîäâîäèò íàñ âïëîòíóþ ê ñëàâÿíñêîìó памовоvс(а). Òðàíñëèòåðàöèÿ êîíå÷íîãî t ÷åðåç ñëàâÿíñêîå «ñëîâî» îñòàíåòñÿ íåðåøåííîé ïðîáëåìîé,28 íî ïåðåäà÷à n ÷åðåç «âåäè» îñîáîé ïðîáëåìû íå ñîñòàâëÿåò.  åâðåéñêèõ è àðàìåéñêèõ ñèñòåìàõ ïèñüìà áóêâû «íóí» è «âàâ» ïóòàþòñÿ î÷åíü ÷àñòî.  åãèïåòñêèõ ïàïèðóñàõ ïåðèîäà Âòîðîãî Õðàìà ýòè áóêâû, ïðåäñòàâëåííûå ïî÷òè ïðÿìûìè âåðòèêàëüíûìè ëèíèÿìè, åùå áîëåå ñõîæè ìåæäó ñîáîé, íåæåëè â ïèñüìå ýëåôàíòèíñêèõ ïàïèðóñîâ (ñîîòâåòñòâåííî, n è w), â êîòîðîì îíè, â ñâîþ î÷åðåäü, áîëåå ñõîæè, íåæåëè â åâðåéñêîì êâàäðàòíîì (ð è å).29 ×òî êàñàåòñÿ âîçìîæíîñòè óâèäåòü â ñëàâÿíñêîì памовоvс(а) òðàíñëèòåðàöèþ ãðå÷åñêîãî öáìåí§è, òî çäåñü, ïîìèìî âñå òîé æå ïðîáëåìû ñ êîíå÷íîé áóêâîé «ñëîâî», íàñ âñòðå÷àåò åùå ðÿä ïðîáëåì. Âî-ïåðâûõ, ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ ñòðàííîé ïåðåäà÷à ö ÷åðåç «ïîêîé», à íå «ôåðò». Íà ñëàâÿíñêîé ïî÷âå ýòî, ïî âñåé âèäèìîñòè, íå ìîæåò áûòü îáúÿñíåíî íèêàê, òàê ÷òî îáúÿñíåíèå ïðèõîäèòñÿ èñêàòü íà ïî÷âå ãðå÷åñêîé è åãèïåòñêîé.  ãðå÷åñêîì ÿçûêå Åãèïòà ôîíîëîãè÷åñêèå, à âñëåä çà íèìè è îðôîãðàôè÷åñêèå ðàçëè÷èÿ äëÿ àñïèðèðîâàííûõ è íåàñïèðèðîâàííûõ ñîãëàñíûõ óòðàòèëèñü, ÷òî ïðèâåëî ê íåîãðàíè÷åííîìó ñìåøåíèþ ìåæäó ö è ð30 (ïîä âëèÿíèåì ôîíîëîãè÷åñêîé ñèñòåìû åãèïåòÄàæå åñëè èñõîäèòü (÷òî è íàèáîëåå âåðîÿòíî) èç ùåëåâîãî ïðîèçíîøåíèÿ àðàìåéñêîãî t â ïîñòâîêàëüíîé ïîçèöèè, â ñëàâÿíñêîì âñå-òàêè ñëåäîâàëî áû îæèäàòü ëèáî «òâåðäî», ëèáî «ôèòû». Ãðå÷åñêàÿ è îáû÷íî ïåðåäàåòñÿ ÷åðåç «òâåðäî» â ñòàðøèõ ïàìÿòíèêàõ ãëàãîëèöû (â äðåâíåéøèõ ôîðìàõ ãëàãîëè÷åñêîãî àëôàâèòà äëÿ ýòîé ãðå÷åñêîé áóêâû âîîáùå íå áûëî ýêâèâàëåíòà) è ÷åðåç «ôèòó» âî âñåõ îñòàëüíûõ ïàìÿòíèêàõ ñëàâÿíñêîãî ïèñüìà. 29 Ñì., íàïð., ñðàâíèòåëüíûå òàáëèöû â: Th. NÖLDEKE, Kurzgefasste Syrische Grammatik. Zweite verbesserte AuflagPe (Leipzig, 1898) (Schrifttafel von J. EUTING); S. SEGERT, Altaramäische Grammatik mit Bibliographie, Chrestomathie und Glossar (Leipzig, 1975) 60–61. 30 F. Th. GIGNAC, A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Roman and Byzantine Periods. Vol. I. Phonology (Milano, 1976) (Testi e documenti par lo studio dell’Antichità LV [1]) 90–95. 28
386
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
ñêîãî ÿçûêà). Òàê ÷òî ôîðìà *ðáìåí§è äëÿ ãðå÷åñêîãî îðèãèíàëà 2 Åíîõà äîëæíà ñ÷èòàòüñÿ äîïóñòèìîé. Âî-âòîðûõ, ïóòàíèöó ìåæäó н è в òðóäíî äîïóñòèòü äëÿ ñëàâÿíñêîãî òåêñòà, ðàâíî êàê è ïóòàíèöó ìåæäó í è â äëÿ òåêñòà ãðå÷åñêîãî. Íî îñòàåòñÿ åùå âîçìîæíîñòü ïðåäïîëîæèòü äëÿ ñëàâÿíñêîãî äðóãóþ îðôîãðàôèþ *памоvóс(а), à íå памовоvс(а). Òîãäà â ãðå÷åñêîì ïðîòîòèïå íóæíî ïðåäïîëàãàòü ñìåøåíèå í è õ, ìàëîâåðîÿòíîå â óíöèàëå (Í è Õ), íî çàòî âïîëíå âåðîÿòíîå â ìèíóñêóëå. Îäíàêî ìèíóñêóë øèðîêî ðàñïðîñòðàíÿåòñÿ òîëüêî â Õ âåêå (ïåðâàÿ äàòèðîâàííàÿ ðóêîïèñü 835 ã., îòêóäà îáû÷íî äåëàåòñÿ âûâîä îá èçîáðåòåíèè ìèíóñêóëà â VIII âåêå). Èòàê, âîçâåäåíèå ñëàâÿíñêîãî òåðìèíà памовоvс(а) ê ãðå÷åñêîìó, à íå àðàìåéñêîìó ïðîòîòèïó òðåáóåò, êàê áóäòî, áîëüøåãî ÷èñëà äîïóùåíèé, íî, êàê áû òî íè áûëî, íè îäíà èç èìåþùèõñÿ ãèïîòåç íå äàåò ÿñíîé ýòèìîëîãèè ýòîãî òåðìèíà. Ñî ñòîðîíû êàëåíäàðíîé òîò æå òåðìèí îêàçûâàåòñÿ åùå áîëåå ïðîáëåìàòè÷åí
èëè, ïîæàëóé, èíòåðåñåí â çàâèñèìîñòè îò òî÷êè çðåíèÿ. Çäåñü òàèòñÿ åùå îäíà ïðîáëåìà, íà êîòîðóþ íå îáðàòèëè âíèìàíèÿ èññëåäîâàòåëè 2 Åíîõà. Ýëåôàíòèíñêèå ñîîòâåòñòâèÿ ìåæäó ñèâàíîì âàâèëîíñêîãî êàëåíäàðÿ è ôàìåíîôîì åãèïåòñêîãî ãðàæäàíñêîãî ñ åãî «áëóæäàþùèì ãîäîì» áûëè àñòðîíîìè÷åñêè õîðîøè äëÿ V âåêà äî Ð. Õ., íî ÷åðåç íåñêîëüêî ñòîëåòèé îíè óæå ñòàëè ñîâñåì íåõîðîøè. Ñîëíå÷íûé ãîä åãèïåòñêîãî êàëåíäàðÿ îêàçàëñÿ «áëóæäàþùèì», òàê êàê åãî íà÷àëî çàäàâàëîñü ïî âðåìåíè âîñõîäà Ñèðèóñà. «Ôàìåíîô» I âåêà äî Ð. Õ. è I âåêà ïî Ð. Õ. ïðèõîäèëñÿ óæå íà ìàðò, òàê ÷òî ñîîòâåòñòâîâàë áû óæå íå ñèâàíó, à àäàðó èëè íèñàíó. Èìåííî òàêîâî ïîëîæåíèå òîãî ìåñÿöà, êîòîðîìó áûëî ïðèñâîåíî íàçâàíèå öáìåí§è / o`pk{nro â àëåêñàíäðèéñêîì êàëåíäàðå ðèìñêîé ýïîõè (â ðåçóëüòàòå ðåôîðìû åãèïåòñêîãî êàëåíäàðÿ îê. 30 ã. äî Ð. Õ.), êîãäà «áëóæäàþùèé» ãîä îòâÿçàëè îò Ñèðèóñà è «îñòàíîâèëè». Åñëè êàëåíäàðü 2 Åíîõà ïðîäîëæàåò íàñòàèâàòü íà ñîîòâåòñòâèè ìåæäó «ôàìåíîôîì» è ñèâàíîì, òî ýòî îçíà÷àåò îäíî èç äâóõ. Ëèáî â èóäåéñêîé ñðåäå Åãèïòà ñëîæèëàñü óñòîé÷èâàÿ òðàäèöèÿ â îòîæäåñòâëåíèè èìåííî ýòèõ ìåñÿöåâ, è ýòîé òðàäèöèè íå áûëî äåëà äî ïîëîæåíèÿ «ôàìåíîôà» â ðåàëüíî ñóùåñòâîâàâøåì åãèïåòñêîì ãðàæäàíñêîì êàëåíäàðå, ëèáî ñàìè êàëåíäàðíûå òðàäèöèè 2 Åíîõà íàñòîëüêî äðåâíèå, ÷òî ñîîòâåòñòâóþò òîìó ïåðèîäó âðåìåíè, êîãäà ñîîòâåòñòâèå ìåæäó ñèâàíîì è «ìåñÿöåì Àìåíõîòåïà» åùå èìåëî ðåàëüíûé ñìûñë, òî åñòü íå ïîçäíåå IV âåêà äî Ð. Õ. Ïîñëåäíåå, â ñâîþ î÷åðåäü, îçíà÷àëî áû, ÷òî êàëåíäàðíûå òðàäèöèè 2 Åíîõà è 1 Åíîõà îêàçûâàþòñÿ ñîâðåìåííûìè äðóã äðóãó. Ôîðìàëüíî ìû íå ìîæåì èñêëþ÷èòü äàæå ýòîãî, ïîñêîëüêó íàøè ïðåäñòàâëåíèÿ îá óïîòðåáëåíèè âàâèëîíñêîé àñòðîíîìèè â èóäåéñêèõ îáùèíàõ Åãèïòà åäâà ëèøü íà÷èíàþò ôîðìèðîâàòüñÿ, è èìåþùèé-
В. М. Лурье
387
ñÿ â íàøåì ðàñïîðÿæåíèè çàïàñ çíàíèé âåñüìà äàëåê îò ðåïðåçåíòàòèâíîñòè.31 Ïîýòîìó, îñòàâëÿÿ â ñòîðîíå âñå óïîìÿíóòûå âûøå íåðåøåííûå âîïðîñû, ìû ëèøü îòìåòèì, ÷òî èäåíòèôèêàöèÿ памовоvс(а) è ñèâàíà èìååò ïîä ñîáîé äîñòàòî÷íî íàäåæíóþ ïî÷âó, òîãäà êàê ïîïûòêè èäåíòèôèöèðîâàòü òîò æå ìåñÿö êàê òàììóç ÿâëÿþòñÿ ñîâåðøåííî íåîáîñíîâàííûìè.
2.5. ¬ÓÁÌÂÒÂÌË ≈ÌÓı‡ Ë ‚ÓÁÌÂÒÂÌË ÃÓËÒ¡ Íåâîçìîæíîñòü ñâÿçàòü äàòó âòîðîãî âîçíåñåíèÿ Åíîõà èëè ïîñâÿùåíèÿ Ìàôóñàèëà ñ ïðàçäíèêîì 17 òàììóçà íèêàê íå îòìåíÿåò íàáëþäåíèé âàí Ãàóäóâåðà îá îòíîøåíèè ýòîé äàòû ê Ìîèñåþ. À ýòî îòíîøåíèå äâîÿêîå: îíî ñâÿçàíî êàê ñ äíåì, êîãäà Ìîèñåé ñîøåë ñ Ñèíàéñêîé ãîðû ê íàðîäó, êîãäà ëèöî åãî ñèÿëî åäâà ëè íå òàê, êàê â 2 Åíîõà îïèñûâàåòñÿ ëèöî Ìàôóñàèëà (Èñõ. 34:29), òàê è ñ äíåì ïðåñòàâëåíèÿ Ìîèñåÿ, êîòîðîå òîæå âî ìíîãèõ èñòî÷íèêàõ âûãëÿäèò êàê âîçíåñåíèå32 è, âîçìîæíî (ýòà ãèïîòåçà âàí Ãàóäóâåðà è ñåãîäíÿ äîëæíà âîñïðèíèìàòüñÿ òîëüêî êàê ãèïîòåçà) ïðèõîäèòñÿ íà ãîäîâùèíó äíÿ ñõîæäåíèÿ Ìîèñåÿ ñ ãîðû Ñèíàé, òî åñòü íà 40-é äåíü ïîñëå âîñõîæäåíèÿ (Èñõ. 34:28).33 Âàí Ãàóäóâåð ìîæåò áûòü ïðàâ, ÷òî â êàêèõ-òî òðàäèöèÿõ äàòîé ñìåðòè Ìîèñåÿ ìîãëî ñòàòü 17 òàììóçà, íî, ïîâòîðèì, ýòè òðàäèöèè íèêàê íå ïðîñìàòðèâàþòñÿ âî 2 Åíîõà. Àíäåðñåí â ñâîå âðåìÿ ïðîíèöàòåëüíî çàìåòèë, ÷òî îðèãèíàëû ñëàâÿíñêîé è ýôèîïñêîé êíèã Åíîõà ìîãóò áûòü «even of comparable antiquity» (ANDERSEN, 94). Ñð. âûøå, ïðèì. 4, î òîì, ÷òî óáåäèòåëüíîãî terminus post quem äëÿ 2 Åíîõà ñåãîäíÿ íå ñóùåñòâóåò. Ïîä÷åðêíåì, îäíàêî, ÷òî äàòèðîâêó êàëåíäàðíûõ òðàäèöèé íåëüçÿ ïóòàòü ñ äàòèðîâêîé êíèã (íàøó äàòèðîâêó 2 Åíîõà ñì. íèæå, ðàçäåë 4). Êàëåíäàðíûå òðàäèöèè 1 Åíîõà äîëæíû äàòèðîâàòüñÿ ïåðñèäñêèì ïåðèîäîì è ìîãóò áûòü çàìåòíî áîëåå äðåâíèìè, ÷åì àñòðîíîìè÷åñêèå ãëàâû 1 Åí. (III â. äî Ð. Õ.). 32 Îðëîâ (ñ. 274275) ñàì óêàçûâàåò íà ïàðàëëåëü ìåæäó îêîí÷àòåëüíûì âîçíåñåíèåì Åíîõà â 2 Åí. 67 è ñìåðòüþ Ìîèñåÿ â îïèñàíèÿõ ó Ôèëîíà è Èîñèôà Ôëàâèÿ, à ñðåäè ïðèìåðîâ âàí Ãàóäóâåðà Liber Antiquitatis biblicarum ïñåâäîÔèëîíà è ñàìàðèòÿíñêàÿ Liber Josuae, à òàêæå óïîìèíàåòñÿ ýôèîïñêàÿ Ñìåðòü Ìîèñåÿ (èçâåñòíàÿ âàí Ãàóäóâåðó òîëüêî â ðåäàêöèè ôàëàøà, íî ñóùåñòâóþùàÿ è â ïèñüìåííîñòè ýôèîïîâ-õðèñòèàí). ×èñëî ïðèìåðîâ, ðàçóìååòñÿ, ìîæíî óìíîæèòü. Âîò èíòåðåñíîå äîïîëíåíèå: M. STONE, Three Armenian Accounts of the Death of Moses // Studies on the Testament of Moses / Ed. G. H. E. NICKELSBURG (Cambridge, MA, 1974) (SBL. Septuagint and Cognate Studies 4) [repr. in: M. E. STONE, Selected Studies in Pseudepigrapha and Apocrypha, with Special Reference to the Armenian Tradition (Leiden, 1991) (Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha 9) 54–57, îñîá. 56)]. 33 VAN GOUDOEVER, Fêtes et calendriers bibliques… 173–175. 31
388
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
Íåèçâåñòíà òàêæå è íèêàêàÿ îñîáåííàÿ òðàäèöèÿ ïðàçäíîâàíèé èìåííî íà 40-é äåíü îò Ïÿòèäåñÿòíèöû. Çàòî íà 50-é äåíü îò Ïÿòèäåñÿòíèöû èçâåñòíà î÷åíü õîðîøî. Ýòî òèïè÷íàÿ, õîòÿ è íå îáÿçàòåëüíàÿ äëÿ êàëåíäàðÿ òèïà Ê364 ñõåìà èç ñåìè «ïÿòèäåñÿòíèö» (ïåðèîäîâ â 50 äíåé êàæäûé; ðåàëüíî ïî 49 äíåé = 7 íåäåëü, òàê êàê êîíå÷íûé äåíü ïðåäûäóùåãî ïåðèîäà ñîâïàäàåò ñ ïåðâûì äíåì ñëåäóþùåãî), â êîòîðîé îò äíÿ ïðàçäíèêà Ïÿòèäåñÿòíèöû îòñ÷èòûâàåòñÿ 49 äíåé äî ñëåäóþùåãî ïðàçäíèêà (äàòà ïîñëåäíåãî îïðåäåëÿåòñÿ, òàêèì îáðàçîì, ïî ôîðìóëå p + 7 + 49 + 49 = p + 105). Íå âñå äîêóìåíòû, òàê èëè èíà÷å ïîäðàçóìåâàþùèå Ê364, îïèñûâàþò ýòó ñõåìó, íî â íåêîòîðûõ îíà îïèñàíà î÷åíü äåòàëüíî. Èç äðåâíèõ ïðèìåðîâ ìîæíî íàçâàòü êóìðàíñêèé Õðàìîâûé ñâèòîê, à èç õðèñòèàíñêèõ äåéñòâóþùèé ïîíûíå ëèòóðãè÷åñêèé êàëåíäàðü íåñòîðèàí (â ýòîì êàëåíäàðå áàçîâàÿ ñõåìà Ê364 îñòàëàñü íåïðèêîñíîâåííîé, íî ñòðóêòóðà íåêîòîðûõ èç 50-äíåâíûõ ïåðèîäîâ ñ ïðîøåñòâèåì âåêîâ äåôîðìèðîâàëàñü). Òåïåðü ðàññìîòðèì áîëåå äåòàëüíî ñ ó÷åòîì âûâîäîâ, ñäåëàííûõ âûøå, â ðàçäåëàõ 2.1 è 2.2, êàëåíäàðíóþ èíôîðìàöèþ èç 2 Åíîõà. Äàòîé âòîðîãî âîçíåñåíèÿ Åíîõà îêàçûâàåòñÿ 6.III + 30 = 5/6.IV (êîëåáàíèÿ äàòû çàâèñÿò îò ðàçíî÷òåíèé ðóêîïèñåé îòíîñèòåëüíî êîëè÷åñòâà äíåé â òðåòüåì ìåñÿöå). Ñàì äåíü ïðèáûòèÿ Åíîõà ïîñëå ïåðâîãî âîçíåñåíèÿ, 6.III, ìû íå âêëþ÷àåì â ÷èñëî 30 äíåé, ïðîâåäåííûõ èì íà çåìëå, àíàëîãè÷íî òîìó, êàê íå ñëåäîâàëî âêëþ÷àòü äåíü åãî ïåðâîãî âîçíåñåíèÿ â ÷èñëî äíåé, ïðîâåäåííûõ íà íåáå. Äàòîé âòîðîãî âîçíåñåíèÿ Åíîõà îòêðûâàåòñÿ âñåíàðîäíûé ïðàçäíèê (2 Åí. 68:57), íà èñõîäå êîòîðîãî â ïîñëåäíèå åãî ñóòêè êàê ðàç è ïðîèñõîäèò ïîñâÿùåíèå Ìàôóñàèëà. Ïðèìå÷àòåëüíàÿ êàëåíäàðíàÿ èíôîðìàöèÿ: òåêñò ñïåöèàëüíî îãîâàðèâàåò, ÷òî ïî îêîí÷àíèè ýòîãî ïîñëåäíåãî ïðàçäíè÷íîãî äíÿ ëþäè ðàçîøëèñü ïî äîìàì (2 Åí. 69:19). Ïîñâÿùåíèå Ìàôóñàèëà íà÷èíàåòñÿ «íà òðåòèé äåíü» è «âå÷åðîì» ïîñëå âîçíåñåíèÿ Åíîõà (2 Åí. 69:1) è âêëþ÷àåò æåðòâîïðèíîøåíèÿ íà ñëåäóþùåå çàòåì óòðî (2 Åí. 69). Äëÿ âå÷åðà òðåòüåãî äíÿ îò âîçíåñåíèÿ Åíîõà ïîëó÷àåì äàòó 7/8.IV. Îïÿòü ïîä÷åðêèâàåì, ÷òî âå÷åð ïî ïðèíÿòîìó âî 2 Åíîõà ñ÷åòó ñóòîê îòíîñèòñÿ ê ïðåäûäóùåìó äíþ, à íå íà÷èíàåò ñîáîé íîâûå ñóòêè: â äàííîì ñëó÷àå âèäíî, ÷òî ðå÷ü èäåò î âå÷åðå òåõ æå ñàìûõ ñóòîê, êîòîðûå áûëè ñ óòðà. Òîãäà äëÿ äàòû ïîñâÿùåíèÿ Ìàôóñàèëà ïîëó÷àåì ñëåäóþùèé äåíü, òî åñòü 8/9.IV.34 Ìíå íå êàæåòñÿ îïðàâäàííûì ïðîâîäèòü çäåñü äàëåêî èäóùèå ïàðàëëåëè ñ îòìå÷åííîé ó âàí Ãàóäóâåðà (VAN GOUDOEVER, Fêtes et calendriers bibliques
175) êàðàèìñêîé òðàäèöèåé, â êîòîðîé ïàìÿòü ïàäåíèÿ ñòåí Èåðóñàëèìà ñîâåðøàåòñÿ íå 17 òàììóçà, à 9 òàììóçà, à â ñëåäóþùóþ çà ýòèì äíåì ñóááîòó ïîëî34
В. М. Лурье
389
Äàòó ýòîãî ïðàçäíèêà ìû ñìîæåì îêîí÷àòåëüíî óòî÷íèòü â ïðîöåññå ðåêîíñòðóêöèè îáùåé ñòðóêòóðû ãîäè÷íîãî öèêëà êàëåíäàðÿ 2 Åíîõà. Íî, ñêàæåì çàðàíåå, ýòî íå ïîìîæåò íàì êàê-ëèáî óòî÷íèòü ñìûñë ýòîãî ïðàçäíèêà, òî åñòü îí ïî-ïðåæíåìó îñòàíåòñÿ äëÿ íàñ íå èìåþùèì ïàðàëëåëåé â èçâåñòíûõ ëèòóðãè÷åñêèõ òðàäèöèÿõ. Âåñü ïðàçäíèê çàíèìàåò ðîâíî 3,5 äíÿ íè áîëüøå, íè ìåíüøå, òî åñòü íå òîëüêî íå ñåìü äíåé, íî äàæå è íå ÷åòûðå. Âå÷åðîì ÷åòâåðòîãî äíÿ, êàê ñïåöèàëüíî ïîä÷åðêèâàåòñÿ â 2 Åí. 69:19, âñ¸ çàêàí÷èâàåòñÿ òî åñòü ðîâíî íà ñåðåäèíå ñóòîê, íà÷èíàþùèõñÿ ñ óòðà. Òàêàÿ ñòðóêòóðà ïðàçäíèêà, íàñêîëüêî ìíå èçâåñòíî, íèêàêèõ ïàðàëëåëåé íå èìååò. Îíà èìååò ïàðàëëåëè òîëüêî â âèäå ñòðóêòóðû ïîñòà ïðîäîëæèòåëüíîñòüþ 3,5 äíÿ âåñüìà ðàñïðîñòðàíåííîé â ðàçíûõ òðàäèöèÿõ è, êàê ìû ïîñòàðàëèñü ïîêàçàòü, ïðèñóòñòâóþùåé è âî 2 Åíîõà. Ïîëó÷àåòñÿ, ÷òî âåñü öèêë âîçíåñåíèÿ, âîçâðàùåíèÿ è ïîâòîðíîãî âîçíåñåíèÿ Åíîõà îòêðûâàåòñÿ ïîñòîì â 3,5 äíÿ, à çàâåðøàåòñÿ ïðàçäíèêîì òî÷íî òàêîé æå ïðîäîëæèòåëüíîñòè. Ïðåæäå ÷åì äåëàòü âûâîäû îòíîñèòåëüíî îáùåé ñòðóêòóðû êàëåíäàðÿ 2 Åíîõà, îòìåòèì, ÷òî îíà åñëè è äîïóñêàåò òåîðåòè÷åñêè îñîáûé ïðàçäíèê â ÷åñòü Ìîèñåÿ íà 40-é èëè 50-é äåíü ïîñëå Ïÿòèäåñÿòíèöû, òî, âî âñÿêîì ñëó÷àå, ðåçêî çàÿâëÿåò î ïðèîðèòåòíîì (à òî è èñêëþ÷èòåëüíîì) ïðàâå èìåííî Åíîõà, à íå Ìîèñåÿ íà òî, ÷òîáû åãî ïàìÿòü àññîöèèðîâàëàñü ñ Ïÿòèäåñÿòíèöåé è äàðîâàíèåì áîæåñòâåííîãî çàêîíà. Ýòî ëè íå Mosaic polemics?
2.6. ÃÂÚÓ‰Ë͇ ÂÍÓÌÒÚÛ͈ËË Ó·˘ÂÈ ÒÚÛÍÚÛ˚ 12-ÏÂÒˇ˜ÌÓ„Ó ˆËÍ· Êîëè÷åñòâî äíåé (ñóòîê), çàäåéñòâîâàííûõ â ïîâåñòâîâàíèè î Åíîõå, îêàçûâàåòñÿ ðàâíûì 94 (äåíü ïåðâîãî âîçíåñåíèÿ + 60 äíåé íà íåáå + 30 íà çåìëå, èç êîòîðûõ ïîñëåäíèé äåíü áûë ïåðâûì äíåì ïðàçäíèêà + åùå 2,5 äíÿ ïðîäîëæåíèÿ ïðàçäíèêà).  ðàìêàõ Ê364 òàêîå ÷èñëî ñëó÷àéíûì áûòü íå ìîæåò. Êàëåíäàðíûé ãîä èç 364 äíåé ìîæíî ñèììåòðè÷íî ðàçäåëèòü íà ÷åòûðå ïåðèîäà ïî 90 äíåé êàæäûé, ïðèáàâèâ ê îäíîìó èç ýòèõ ïåðèîäîâ 4 äîïîëíèòåëüíûõ äíÿ. Èòàê, ìû âèäèì âî 2 Åíîõà òàêóþ ìîäèôèêàöèþ Ê364, â êîòîðîé 50-äíåâíûå ïåðèîäû íå èãðàþò îñîáîé ðîëè; âïðî÷åì, îíè íå èãðàëè åå è â êàëåíäàðå 1 Åíîõà. Âìåñòî ýòîãî ãëàâíûé ïåðèîä ãîäà îêàçûâàåòñÿ èç 94 äíåé, ñèììåòðè÷íî ðàçáèòûõ íà ïåðèîäû 30 + 30 + 30 ñ äîáàâëåíèåì ÷åòûðåõ ïðàçäíè÷íûõ äíåé â êîíöå. æåíî ÷èòàòü èç Âòîðîçàêîíèÿ î ñìåðòè Ìîèñåÿ. Âîñïîìèíàíèå ñìåðòè Ìîèñåÿ òóò, ðàçóìååòñÿ, ñîõðàíèëîñü îò äðåâíåéøåé òðàäèöèè, íî äàòà 9 òàììóçà âïîëíå ìîãëà ïîÿâèòüñÿ â ðåçóëüòàòå êàêèõ-òî ýâîëþöèé íåòàëìóäè÷åñêèõ èóäåéñêèõ êàëåíäàðåé óæå ïîñëå ýïîõè Âòîðîãî Õðàìà.
390
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
Ñëåäóåò ïðåäïîëîæèòü, ÷òî îñòàëüíûå ãëàâíûå ïåðèîäû ãîäà ýòî òðè ïåðèîäà ïî 90 äíåé, êîòîðûå, âîçìîæíî, è ñàìè äåëÿòñÿ âíóòðè ñåáÿ íà òðè ïåðèîäà ïî 30 äíåé êàæäûé. Òàêîå ïðåäïîëîæåíèå íåìåäëåííî íåìåäëåííî óñèëèâàåòñÿ òåì, ÷òî èìåííî îíî äàåò îáúÿñíåíèå ñòðàííîìó, íà ïåðâûé âçãëÿä, ôàêòó: ïðîäîëæèòåëüíîñòè ïîñëåäíåãî XII ìåñÿöà ãîäà â 22 äíÿ. Âåäü ýòîò ìåñÿö âõîäèò â îäèí 90-äíåâíûé ïåðèîä ñ ïåðâûìè äåñÿòüþ äíÿìè ïåðâîãî ìåñÿöà, êîòîðûå äîïîëíÿþò 22 äíÿ äî 32 äíåé, ÷òî áëèçêî ê ïðîäîëæèòåëüíîñòè âñåõ îñòàëüíûõ ìåñÿöåâ ãîäà. Èç ýòèõ æå ñîîáðàæåíèé ñëåäóåò ñ÷èòàòü ìàëîâåðîÿòíûì ÷òåíèå îäíîé èç ðóêîïèñåé, â êîòîðîé XII ìåñÿö èìååò ïðîäîëæèòåëüíîñòü 28 äíåé, à íå 22; ïðîòèâ ýòîãî ÷òåíèÿ ñâèäåòåëüñòâóåò òàêæå íåïîìåðíî áîëüøàÿ ñóììà äíåé äâåíàäöàòè ìåñÿöåâ ïî ýòîé ðóêîïèñè (373 âìåñòî íåîáõîäèìûõ 364). Èòàê, ó íàñ ïîêà òîëüêî äëÿ äâóõ ìåñÿöåâ ïîÿâèëèñü ñîîáðàæåíèÿ îòíîñèòåëüíî èñêîííîãî äëÿ íèõ ÷èñëà äíåé: äëÿ I (30 äíåé) è XII (22 äíÿ); ìû òàêæå ïðåäïîëàãàëè àóòåíòè÷íûì îáùåå ÷òåíèå âñåõ ðóêîïèñåé «35» äëÿ ÷èñëà äíåé âî II ìåñÿöå. Âñå îñòàëüíîå íóæíî áóäåò ðåêîíñòðóèðîâàòü ñîãëàñíî ñëåäóþùèì ïðèíöèïàì: 1.  ñòðóêòóðå ãîäà èç 364 äíåé äîëæíî áûòü, ïîìèìî ïåðèîäà 94 äíåé, åùå òðè ïåðèîäà ïî 90 äíåé êàæäûé. 2. Êàæäûé èç ýòèõ ïåðèîäîâ äîëæåí íà÷èíàòüñÿ è/èëè çàêàí÷èâàòüñÿ êàêèì-òî îñîáûì ïðàçäíèêîì. 3. Èç ýòèõ ïðàçäíèêîâ íàì ìîãóò áûòü çàâåäîìî èçâåñòíû òîëüêî ñàìûå äðåâíèå è ñàìûå ãëàâíûå, óðîâíÿ Ïàñõè è Ïÿòèäåñÿòíèöû. 4. Òàêèìè ïðàçäíèêàìè ìîãóò ñ÷èòàòüñÿ òîëüêî Äåíü Î÷èùåíèÿ (10.VII) è ïðàçäíèê Êóùåé (15.VII), à îñòàëüíûå ïðàçäíèêè ìîãóò áûòü ñòîëü æå äëÿ íàñ íîâûìè, êàê óæå ðåêîíñòðóèðîâàííûé ïðàçäíèê 58/69.IV. 5. Âíóòðè êàæäîãî èç 90-äíåâíûõ öèêëîâ ìîæíî ïðåäïîëîæèòü åùå ïî äâà çíà÷èòåëüíûõ ïðàçäíèêà íà ãðàíèöàõ 30-äíåâíûõ ïåðèîäîâ, íî îá èõ äàòàõ è ñîäåðæàíèè âîîáùå íè÷åãî íåëüçÿ ñêàçàòü a priori. Åñëè ìû íàéäåì ñèñòåìó, óäîâëåòâîðÿþùóþ ýòèì ïðèíöèïàì âêóïå ñ óæå ïðåäëîæåííîé ðåêîíñòðóêöèåé 94-äíåâíîãî ïåðèîäà è ïðè ýòîì íå äîïóñêàþùóþ ïî âîçìîæíîñòè íèêàêîãî íàñèëèÿ íàä ÷òåíèÿìè, ñîõðàíåííûìè â ðóêîïèñÿõ, òî ìîæíî íàäåÿòüñÿ, ÷òî ìû ïîëó÷èì õîòÿ è íå âïîëíå òî÷íóþ, íî âåñüìà è âåñüìà ïðàâäîïîäîáíóþ ðåêîíñòðóêöèþ 12-ìåñÿ÷íîãî öèêëà. Êîðîòêî ãîâîðÿ, ìû ïîñòàðàåìñÿ èñïîëüçîâàòü âñå ïåðå÷èñëåííûå ïðèíöèïû êàê êðèòåðèé äëÿ ïðåäïî÷òåíèÿ îäíèõ ðóêîïèñíûõ ÷òåíèé äðóãèì, èçáåãàÿ ïðè ýòîì ïðåäïîëàãàòü òàêèå ÷òåíèÿ, êîòîðûå íè â îäíîé ðóêîïèñè íå çàñâèäåòåëüñòâîâàíû.
391
В. М. Лурье
2.7. ‡ÎẨ‡¸ 2 ≈Ì. 16:2: Ó·ÁÓ ‡ÁÌÓ˜ÚÂÌËÈ Ë Ô‰‚‡ËÚÂθ̇ˇ ÂÍÓÌÒÚÛÍˆËˇ Ïðåäëàãàåìàÿ íèæå òàáëèöà àäàïòèðîâàíà èç ANDERSEN, 128–129, note d to ch. 16. Ñèãëû ðóêîïèñåé ñîâïàäàþò ñ òåìè, êîòîðûå èñïîëüçîâàë Îðëîâ. Îáîçíà÷åíèÿ [)1], [)2] è )îòíîñÿòñÿ ê ðàçíûì ýòàïàì ðåêîíñòðóêöèè êàëåíäàðÿ, î êîòîðûõ ðå÷ü ïîéäåò íèæå. Ïðåäâàðèòåëüíàÿ ðåêîíñòðóêöèÿ àðõåòèïà [)1] ïðåäïîëàãàåò âíåñåíèå òîëüêî äâóõ îáîñíîâàííûõ âûøå èñïðàâëåíèé: âûáîðà 30 äíåé äëÿ ïðîäîëæèòåëüíîñòè ïåðâîãî ìåñÿöà è 22 äíåé äëÿ ïðîäîëæèòåëüíîñòè ïîñëåäíåãî. P
J
R
A
U
B
[A1]
[A2]
A
I
(3)135
31
31
31
31
30
30
30
30
II
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
III
30
30
30
31
31
30
30/31
30
30
IV
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
V
31
31
31
31
31
30
30/31
30
30
VI
31
—
31
31
31
31
31
*30/31
*30
VII
3
—
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
VIII 31
31
31
31
31
31
31
*30/31
31
IX
35
31
31
31
31
31
31/35
35
35
X
30
30
30
30
30
—
30
30
30
XI
31
31
31
31
31
—
31
*30/31
31
XII
28
22
22
*22
*22
—
22
22
22
Ó
373
363
*364
*364
364
364
364
 ðóêîïèñè ìåõàíè÷åñêîå ïîâðåæäåíèå îäíîãî çíàêà, íî âñå èçäàòåëè âîññòàíàâëèâàþò óòðàòó ïî ñìûñëó, êîòîðûé çäåñü î÷åâèäåí. 35
392
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
Àñòåðèñêè ïðè ÷òåíèÿõ äëÿ A è U îáîçíà÷àþò ðåêîíñòðóêöèè, ïðåäëîæåííûå Àíäåðñåíîì äëÿ óòðà÷åííîãî òåêñòà. Ñóììàðíîå ÷èñëî äíåé ãîäà äëÿ [)] íå ÿâëÿåòñÿ, ðàçóìååòñÿ, ñóììîé ÷èñåë â ñîîòâåòñòâóþùåì ñòîëáöå òàáëèöû, à îíî ïðîñòî áåðåòñÿ èçâåñòíûì èç òåêñòà 2 Åíîõà çà ïðåäåëàìè 2 Åí. 16:2. Èñõîäÿ èç ýòèõ æå ñîîáðàæåíèé, Àíäåðñåí îòâåðãàåò ïðåäëîæåííóþ Âàéÿíîì ïîäãîíêó ÷èñëîâûõ çíà÷åíèé äî ñóììàðíîãî ÷èñëà 365 äíåé â ãîäó è ñïðàâåäëèâî íàñòàèâàåò íà ñóììå, ðàâíîé 364 (äëÿ Âàéÿíà, èçäàâøåãî ñâîé òðóä â 1950 ãîäó, òî åñòü, ïî ñóòè, â äîêóìðàíñêóþ ýïîõó, ÷èñëî 364 äëÿ êîëè÷åñòâà äíåé â ãîäó âûãëÿäåëî ÷åðåñ÷óð ýêçîòè÷íî). Òàê êàê ïðåäëîæåííàÿ Àíäåðñåíîì äëÿ ÀU ðåêîíñòðóêöèÿ êîëè÷åñòâà äíåé â XII ìåñÿöå âûãëÿäèò î÷åíü ïðàâäîïîäîáíî è òåêñòîëîãè÷åñêè, è èñõîäÿ èç ïðåäëîæåííûõ íàìè êàëåíäàðíûõ ðàñ÷åòîâ, òî è ìû áóäåì ïðîäîëæàòü åå äåðæàòüñÿ. Âïîëíå âåðîÿòíî, ÷òî îíà ñîîòâåòñòâîâàëà êàêîé-òî èç ðåàëüíî ñóùåñòâîâàâøèõ ðåäàêöèé 2 Åíîõà. Îäíàêî ìû íå ìîæåì îòîæäåñòâèòü ÷òåíèÿ AU ñ àðõåòèïîì ïî òîé ïðè÷èíå, ÷òî íå ìîæåì ñ÷èòàòü èõ àóòåíòè÷íûìè, êàê ìèíèìóì, äëÿ ïåðâîãî ìåñÿöà, à èç ýòîãî àâòîìàòè÷åñêè ñëåäóåò îøèáî÷íîå ÷òåíèå â AU, êàê ìèíèìóì, äëÿ åùå îäíîãî ìåñÿöà. Åñëè íå ïðèáåãàòü ê ðåêîíñòðóêöèÿì, òî, êàê çàìåòèë Àíäåðñåí, íàèáîëåå ïðàâäîïîäîáíóþ êàðòèíó äàåò ðóêîïèñü R, õîòÿ è îíà çàâåäîìî íå áåçîøèáî÷íà, òàê êàê â íåé ñóììà ÷èñëà äíåé 12 ìåñÿöåâ íà îäèí äåíü ìåíüøå, ÷åì äîëæíî áûòü. Åñëè ó÷åñòü íàøó ïîïðàâêó äëÿ ïðîäîëæèòåëüíîñòè ïåðâîãî ìåñÿöà, òî â R ïðèäåòñÿ ñ÷èòàòü «ïîòåðÿâøèìèñÿ» óæå öåëûõ äâà äíÿ. Ãäå èõ âçÿòü? Òåïåðü îòìåòèì îñîáîå ÷òåíèå P äëÿ IX ìåñÿöà: 35 äíåé, à íå 31, êàê âî âñåõ äðóãèõ ðóêîïèñÿõ. Èìååò ëè îíî øàíñû áûòü àóòåíòè÷íûì? Äà, è î÷åíü áîëüøèå. 35-äíåâíûé IX ìåñÿö îêàçûâàåòñÿ ñèììåòðè÷íûì îòäåëåííîìó îò íåãî 7-ìåñÿ÷íûì èíòåðâàëîì II ìåñÿöó. Åñëè æå ïðèíÿòü äëÿ ïðîäîëæèòåëüíîñòè IX ìåñÿöà ÷òåíèå áîëüøèíñòâà ðóêîïèñåé (31 äåíü), òî 35-äíåâíûé II ìåñÿö áóäåò ðåçêî âûáèâàòüñÿ èç äîñòàòî÷íî ïëàâíîãî ÷åðåäîâàíèÿ ìåñÿöåâ ñ ïðîäîëæèòåëüíîñòüþ 30 èëè 31 äåíü. Çíà÷åíèå ýòîé ïëàâíîñòè íåëüçÿ ïðåóìåíüøàòü, òàê êàê äàæå îñîáàÿ êðàòêîñòü XII ìåñÿöà îêàçàëàñü íóæíà òîëüêî äëÿ òîãî, ÷òîáû îí ìîã îáðàçîâàòü îáùèé ïåðèîä áëèçêîé ïðîäîëæèòåëüíîñòè ñ íà÷àëüíûìè äíÿìè I ìåñÿöà. Ïîýòîìó âåðîÿòíîñòü íàëè÷èÿ â ñòðóêòóðå ãîäà äâóõ 35-äíåâíûõ ìåñÿöåâ äîëæíà ñ÷èòàòüñÿ ñóùåñòâåííî áîëåå âûñîêîé, ÷åì îäíîãî. Íàêîíåö, åùå îäèí íåìàëîâàæíûé äîâîä â ïîëüçó àóòåíòè÷íîñòè ÷òåíèÿ «35» äëÿ IX ìåñÿöà ýòî òîò ôàêò, ÷òî îíî ÿâëÿåòñÿ lectio difficilior.36 Äëÿ ïîâûøåíèÿ íàäåæíîñòè íàøåé ðåêîíñòðóêöèè ìû íèæå âåðíåìñÿ ê íàøåìó ïðåäïîëîæåíèþ î 35 äíÿõ â IX ìåñÿöå è ïðîâåðèì åãî äîïîëíèòåëüíî. 36
В. М. Лурье
393
×òåíèå «35» äîïîëíèòåëüíî ïîäòâåðæäàåòñÿ òåì, ÷òî ñàìàÿ ëó÷øàÿ ðóêîïèñü R «îáÿçûâàåò» íàñ ãäå-òî èçûñêàòü åùå äâà äîïîëíèòåëüíûõ äíÿ. Ïðàâäà, ïðèíèìàÿ òàêîå ÷òåíèå äëÿ ïðîäîëæèòåëüíîñòè IX ìåñÿöà, ìû «èçûñêèâàåì» ñðàçó íå 2 äíÿ, à 4. Ýòî îçíà÷àåò, ÷òî åùå äëÿ äâóõ ìåñÿöåâ ìû äîëæíû ïðèíÿòü ÷òåíèÿ «30» äíåé òàì, ãäå R äàåò «31», à òàêæå îñòàíîâèòüñÿ íà ÷òåíèè «30» (êîòîðîå äàåò, â ÷àñòíîñòè, R) äëÿ ïðîäîëæèòåëüíîñòè III ìåñÿöà. ×òåíèå «30» ïðîòèâ ÷òåíèÿ «31» ïî R íàì äàåò òîëüêî ðóêîïèñü B äëÿ V ìåñÿöà. Ïðèíÿâ ýòî ÷òåíèå, ìû èñ÷åðïàëè âîçìîæíîñòè ïðèäåðæèâàòüñÿ òîëüêî òåõ ÷òåíèé, êîòîðûå çàôèêñèðîâàíû õîòÿ áû â êàêèõ-òî ðóêîïèñÿõ, íî íàì îñòàëîñü «ñáðîñèòü» òîëüêî îäèí äåíü. Ýòî îçíà÷àåò, ÷òî ìû äîëæíû ïðåäïîëîæèòü â îäíîì èç ìåñÿöåâ, ïðîäîëæèòåëüíîñòü êîòîðîãî äî ñèõ ïîð â íàøåé ðåêîíñòðóêöèè ñïåöèàëüíî íå îáñóæäàëàñü, è êîòîðûé èìååò âî âñåõ ðóêîïèñÿõ 31 äåíü, àóòåíòè÷íóþ ïðîäîëæèòåëüíîñòü â 30 äíåé. Òàêèõ ìåñÿöåâ ó íàñ îñòàëîñü âñåãî òðè: VI, VIII è XI. Èòàê, ìû ïîäõîäèì ê ñëåäóþùåìó ýòàïó íàøåé ðåêîíñòðóêöèè, íî òàêæå ïðåäâàðèòåëüíîìó. Ñîîòâåòñòâóþùåå ýòîìó ýòàïó ïðèáëèæåíèå ê àðõåòèïó êàëåíäàðÿ [)2] (ñì. òàáëèöó âûøå) ïîëó÷åíî íà îñíîâå [)1] ïîñðåäñòâîì âíåñåíèÿ ñëåäóþùèõ èçìåíåíèé: 1. â IX ìåñÿöå ïðèíèìàåòñÿ ÷òåíèå «35», 2. âî âñåõ îñòàëüíûõ ìåñÿöàõ, ãäå â [)1] åùå ñîõðàíÿëèñü ðàçíî÷òåíèÿ (à èìåííî, â III è V), ïðåäïî÷òåíèå îòäàåòñÿ ÷òåíèþ «30» ïåðåä ÷òåíèåì «31», 3. ââîäèòñÿ êîíúåêòóðíîå ÷òåíèå «30» (âìåñòî ÷òåíèÿ «31» âî âñåõ ðóêîïèñÿõ) ëèáî äëÿ VI, ëèáî äëÿ VIII, ëèáî äëÿ XI ìåñÿöà. Åäèíñòâåííàÿ êîíúåêòóðà â ïðåäëàãàåìîé ðåêîíñòðóêöèè ýòî åùå íå òàêàÿ áîëüøàÿ öåíà. Îíà äîëæíà áóäåò îêóïèòüñÿ â òîì ñëó÷àå, åñëè â ñòðóêòóðó [)2] õîðîøî âïèøóòñÿ ïðàçäíèêè ìåñÿöà òèøðè (VII ìåñÿöà), î êîòîðûõ íè÷åãî íå óïîìèíàåòñÿ âî 2 Åíîõà, íî êîòîðûå äîëæíû ïðèñóòñòâîâàòü â ëþáîé ñõåìå èóäåéñêîãî êàëåíäàðÿ. Åñëè âî 2 Åíîõà îïèñûâàåòñÿ ðåàëüíûé êàëåíäàðü (à åäâà ëè ó êîãî-òî ìîãóò áûòü â ýòîì ñîìíåíèÿ), òî è îí íå ìîã îáõîäèòüñÿ áåç ïðàçäíèêîâ â òèøðè. Ñëåäîâàòåëüíî, ýòè ïðàçäíèêè äîëæíû áûëè áûòü âïèñàíû â ôóíäàìåíòàëüíóþ äëÿ 2 Åíîõà ñòðóêòóðó 90-äíåâíûõ öèêëîâ. Ýòî íàì è ïðåäñòîèò ïðîâåðèòü â ñëåäóþùåì ðàçäåëå.
2.8. ‡ÎẨ‡¸ 2 ≈Ì. 16:2: ÂÍÓÌÒÚÛÍˆËˇ 12-ÏÂÒˇ˜ÌÓ„Ó ˆËÍ· Èòàê, ïîêà ÷òî íàøåé ðàáî÷åé ãèïîòåçîé áóäåò [)2]. Îíà ïîäðàçóìåâàåò, ÷òî îáñóæäàâøèåñÿ â ðàçäåëå 2.5 äàòû âòîðîãî âîçíåñåíèÿ Åíîõà è ïîñâÿùåíèÿ Ìàôóñàèëà äîëæíû ðåêîíñòðóèðîâàòüñÿ, ñîîòâåòñòâåííî, êàê 6.IV è 9.IV.
394
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
Òåïåðü íàì íóæíî áóäåò îáñóäèòü ñîîòâåòñòâóþùóþ [)2] ñòðóêòóðó ïåðèîäà ñ 10.IV ïî 10.I, òî åñòü âñåãî òîãî âðåìåíè, êîòîðîå îñòàåòñÿ çà ïðåäåëàìè òåõ 94 äíåé, â êîòîðûå ðàçâîðà÷èâàåòñÿ ãëàâíàÿ ÷àñòü äåéñòâèÿ âî 2 Åíîõà. Ýòîò èíòåðâàë ñîäåðæèò 270 = 90 × 3 äíåé. Ñòðóêòóðà [)2] ïðåäëàãàåò òðè âàðèàíòà âíåñåíèÿ êîíúåêòóðû, êîòîðûå ìû äîëæíû ñ÷èòàòü a priori ðàâíîâåðîÿòíûìè äàæå íåñìîòðÿ íà òî, ÷òî âíåñåíèå êîíúåêòóðû â VI ìåñÿö ðàçðóøàåò ñèììåòðèþ ïîëóãîäèé (182 + 182 äíÿ, ñîñòàâëÿþùèå 6 + 6 ìåñÿöåâ), êîòîðàÿ òàêæå âàæíà â ñòðóêòóðå êàëåíäàðÿ 2 Åíîõà. Íî â òîì ìåñòå, ãäå âî 2 Åíîõà ãîâîðèòñÿ î ñèììåòðèè ïîëóãîäèé, ýòà ñèììåòðèÿ ñâÿçûâàåòñÿ ñ 17 ñèâàíà è 17 òåáåòà êàê äíÿìè ëåòíåãî è çèìíåãî ñîëíöåñòîÿíèé (2 Åí. 48:12). Ïîýòîìó â äàííîì ñëó÷àå, ãîâîðÿ î ñòðóêòóðå 12 ìåñÿöåâ, ìû íå äîëæíû ïðèíèìàòü âî âíèìàíèå òðåáîâàíèå ñèììåòðèè ïîëóãîäèé. Ñõåìà [)2] ïðåäñòàâëÿåò ñîáîé òðè âçàèìîèñêëþ÷àþùèõ âàðèàíòà êàëåíäàðíîé ñõåìû â çàâèñèìîñòè îò ìåñòà âíåñåíèÿ êîíúåêòóðû. Âûáîð ìåæäó íèìè íóæíî áóäåò ñäåëàòü â çàâèñèìîñòè îò òîãî, êàê â òîò èëè èíîé âàðèàíò áóäóò âïèñûâàòüñÿ ïðàçäíèêè â ìåñÿöå òèøðè (VII). Ýòî îçíà÷àåò, ÷òî ôàêòè÷åñêè ìû áóäåì èìåòü äåëî íå òðåìÿ âàðèàíòàìè ñõåìû [)2], à òîëüêî äâóìÿ, ïîñêîëüêó âíåñåíèå êîíúåêòóðû â VIII è XI ìåñÿöû áóäåò èìåòü äëÿ ñîîòíîøåíèÿ ïðàçäíè÷íûõ äàò VII ìåñÿöà ñî ñòðóêòóðîé 90-äíåâíûõ öèêëîâ ïîñëåäñòâèÿ îäèíàêîâûå. Ïîýòîìó íàì íàäëåæèò, ïðåæäå âñåãî, ñîïîñòàâèòü äâà âàðèàíòà êàëåíäàðíîé ñõåìû [)2]: [1)2], ãäå êîíúåêòóðà âíîñèòñÿ èëè â VIII, èëè â XI ìåñÿö, è [2)2], ãäå îíà âíîñèòñÿ â VI ìåñÿö. Âî âñåõ ñëó÷àÿõ êîíúåêòóðà îäèíàêîâàÿ: çàìåíà ÷èñëà «31», ïðåäñòàâëåííîãî â ðóêîïèñÿõ, íà «30». Îáëàñòü ñðàâíåíèÿ ñõåì [1)2] è [2)2] ãðàíèöà ìåæäó âòîðûì è òðåòüèì 90-äíåâíûìè öèêëàìè. Ñ÷åò ýòèõ öèêëîâ ìû âåäåì îò Ïàñõè, òî åñòü íà÷èíàÿ îò 94-äíåâíîãî öèêëà è äàëåå â ïîðÿäêå âîçðàñòàíèÿ íîìåðîâ ìåñÿöåâ. Ñõåìà [1)2] ïðèâîäèò íàñ ê íà÷àëó òðåòüåãî 90-äíåâíîãî öèêëà 9.VII, à ñõåìà [2)2] ê íà÷àëó òîãî æå öèêëà 10.VII, òî åñòü ïðÿìî â Äåíü Î÷èùåíèÿ. Åäâà ëè ìîãóò áûòü ñîìíåíèÿ, êîòîðóþ èç äâóõ ñõåì ñëåäóåò ïðåäïî÷åñòü. Ñõåìà [2)2] äàëà ñèììåòðèþ ìåæäó ïåðâûì è òðåòüèì öèêëàìè, â íà÷àëå êîòîðûõ íàõîäÿòñÿ ñàìûå ãëàâíûå ïðàçäíèêè. Òàêîãî ðîäà ñèììåòðèÿ ìåæäó ïðàçäíèêàìè íèñàíà è ïðàçäíèêàìè òèøðè ôóíäàìåíòàëüíàÿ è íàèáîëåå îáùàÿ òåíäåíöèÿ ðàçâèòèÿ åäâà ëè íå âñåõ èóäåéñêèõ êàëåíäàðåé â ýëëèíèñòè÷åñêóþ ýïîõó.37  ñõåìå [2)2] ýòà ñèììåò37 J. B. SEGAL, The Hebrew Passover from the Earliest Times to A. D. 70 (London— New York—Toronto, 1963) (London Oriental Series 12) 117–127.
В. М. Лурье
395
ðèÿ îñîáåííî ñóùåñòâåííà ïîòîìó, ÷òî â îáîèõ ñëó÷àÿõ î÷åðåäíîé ïåðèîä ãîäà íà÷èíàåòñÿ íå ïðîñòî ïðàçäíèêîì, à äíåì ñòðîãîãî ïîñòà. Ïîä÷åðêíåì, ÷òî ñõåìà [2)2] òîëüêî îäèí ðàç èñïîëüçóåò ÷òåíèå, íå çàñâèäåòåëüñòâîâàííîå â ðóêîïèñÿõ. Èòàê, òåïåðü ïîðà ñäåëàòü ãëàâíûé âûâîä: [2)2] = ), 2 òî åñòü ñõåìà [ )2] ýòî è åñòü èçíà÷àëüíàÿ ñõåìà ðàñïðåäåëåíèÿ äíåé ïî 12 ìåñÿöàì, êîòîðàÿ ïîäâåðãëàñü âî âñåõ äîøåäøèõ ðåäàêöèÿõ 2 Åíîõà êàêèì-òî èñêàæåíèÿì ñî ñòîðîíû ðåäàêòîðîâ, íå ïîíèìàâøèì âàæíåéøèé ïðèíöèï óñòðîéñòâà òîé ìîäèôèêàöèè Ê364, êîòîðàÿ èìåëàñü â âèäó âî 2 Åíîõà, à èìåííî, íàëè÷èÿ ÷åòûðåõ öèêëîâ 94 + 90 + 90 + 90 äíåé. Íà êàêîì-òî ýòàïå ýòèõ èñêàæåíèé èìåëà ìåñòî ñîçíàòåëüíàÿ ðåäàêöèîííàÿ ïðàâêà, çàìåíèâøàÿ íåïîíÿòíûé ïðàçäíèê ñ 6 ïî 9.IV íà ïîíÿòíûé (èëè, ïî êðàéíåé ìåðå, áîëåå ïîíÿòíûé) ïðàçäíèê 6.III (Ïÿòèäåñÿòíèöó), êîòîðûé è áåç òîãî èãðàë íåìàëóþ ðîëü â ñþæåòå 2 Åíîõà. Íà êàêîì-òî áîëåå ïîçäíåì ýòàïå ñîçíàòåëüíîé ðåâèçèè áûëî ïîäâåðãíóòî è êîëè÷åñòâî äíåé â êàæäîì ìåñÿöå. Ïðè ýòîì ïîïûòàëèñü èñêëþ÷èòü ñëèøêîì óæ ñòðàííî ñìîòðåâøååñÿ ÷èñëî «35».38 Ñòàâèëàñü ëè ïðè ýòîì öåëü ñîõðàíèòü îáùåå ÷èñëî äíåé ãîäà ðàâíûì 364 íåèçâåñòíî. Ýòà áîëåå ïîçäíÿÿ ðåâèçèÿ ìîãëà áûòü îñóùåñòâëåíà êàê íà ñëàâÿíñêîé ïî÷âå, òàê è åùå íà ïî÷âå (ãðå÷åñêîãî?) îðèãèíàëà ñëàâÿíñêîãî ïåðåâîäà.
2.9. ƒÓÔÓÎÌËÚÂθÌ˚ ‚˚‚Ó‰˚ ÔÓ Í‡ÎẨ‡˛ A Âûøå ìû ñîñðåäîòî÷èëèñü íà ðåêîíñòðóèðîâàíèè îñíîâíîé ëèòóðãè÷åñêîé ñòðóêòóðû êàëåíäàðÿ 2 Åíîõà. Êàëåíäàðíûå äàííûå ýòîé êíèãè èìè äàëåêî íå èñ÷åðïûâàþòñÿ, òàê êàê çà ïðåäåëàìè íàøåãî ðàññìîòðåíèÿ îñòàëîñü ìíîæåñòâî âàæíûõ àñòðîíîìè÷åñêèõ ïîäðîáíîñòåé, êîòîðûå, îäíàêî, ïî âñåé âèäèìîñòè, ëèòóðãè÷åñêîãî çíà÷åíèÿ â äàííîì êàëåíäàðå íå èìåëè. Ýòî îñîáåííî îòíîñèòñÿ ê 10 âðàòàì ñîëíöà è äðóÒåïåðü ìû âûïîëíèì îáåùàíèå, äàííîå âûøå (ïðèì. 36), è ðàññìîòðèì àëüòåðíàòèâíîå ïðåäïîëîæåíèå îòíîñèòåëüíî ÷èñëà äíåé â IX ìåñÿöå: ïóñòü èõ áóäåò íå 35, à 31. Ýòî äàñò «ëèøíèõ» 4 äíÿ, êîòîðûå äîëæíû áûòü ðàñïðåäåëåíû ìåæäó äðóãèìè ìåñÿöàìè ãîäà. Î÷åâèäíî, îíè ìîãóò áûòü ïðèïèñàíû òîëüêî ê òåì ìåñÿöàì, ãäå ýòî íå ïðèâåäåò ê ïðåâûøåíèþ ïðîäîëæèòåëüíîñòè, ðàâíîé 31 äíþ. Íî íè ê îäíîìó èç ïåðâûõ øåñòè ìåñÿöåâ ãîäà íåëüçÿ ïðèïèñàòü íè îäíîãî äíÿ, òàê êàê èíà÷å ýòî ñáèëî áû äàòû êàëåíäàðíûõ ðàñ÷åòîâ âíóòðè 2 Åíîõà è/èëè ïðàçäíèêà Äíÿ Î÷èùåíèÿ. Íî â îñòàëüíîé ÷àñòè ãîäà îñòàþòñÿ òîëüêî äâà ìåñÿöà (VII è X), ê êîòîðûì åùå ìîæíî áûëî áû ïðèáàâèòü ïî îäíîìó äíþ, ÷åãî äëÿ ðàñïðåäåëåíèÿ ÷åòûðåõ äíåé íåäîñòàòî÷íî. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, íàøà ïðîâåðêà ïîäòâåðæäàåò ïåðâîíà÷àëüíîå ïðåäïîëîæåíèå î òîì, ÷òî èìåííî ÷òåíèå «35» äëÿ IX ìåñÿöà ÿâëÿåòñÿ àóòåíòè÷íûì. 38
396
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
ãèì óïîìèíàåìûì â êíèãå îñîáåííîñòÿì ñîëíå÷íîãî äâèæåíèÿ. Âñ¸ ýòî íåîáõîäèìî èçó÷àòü çàíîâî, íà ñîâðåìåííîì óðîâíå çíàíèé êàê âàâèëîíñêîé àñòðîíîìèè, òàê è àñòðîíîìè÷åñêèõ ñâåäåíèé â ïñåâäîýïèãðàôè÷åñêîé ëèòåðàòóðå è ïðåæäå âñåãî, ðàçóìååòñÿ, â 1 Åíîõà. Ëèòóðãè÷åñêàÿ ñòðóêòóðà êàëåíäàðÿ 2 Åíîõà ñîäåðæèò óíàñëåäîâàííóþ èç Ïÿòèêíèæèÿ ñòðóêòóðó 12 ìåñÿöåâ ñ ïðàçäíèêàìè, ïðèóðî÷åííûìè ê ÷èñëàì ýòèõ ìåñÿöåâ, îäíàêî, ýòà ñòðóêòóðà, ñîõðàíÿþùàÿñÿ êàê ñóáñòðàò ëèòóðãè÷åñêîãî êàëåíäàðÿ, ïåðåñòàåò â íåì èãðàòü îïðåäåëÿþùóþ ðîëü. Îïðåäåëÿþùóþ ðîëü â ýòîì êàëåíäàðå èãðàåò ðàçäåëåíèå ãîäà íà ÷åòûðå ïåðèîäà ïðîäîëæèòåëüíîñòüþ îêîëî 90 äíåé, â êîòîðûõ «äîïîëíèòåëüíûå» 4 äíÿ ãîäà (äîïîëíÿþùèå ñóììó äíåé ÷åòûðåõ 90-äíåâíûõ ïåðèîäîâ äî 364) íå ðàñïðåäåëÿþòñÿ ïîêâàðòàëüíî (êàê ýòî áûëî, íàïðèìåð, â êàëåíäàðÿõ 1 Åíîõà, Êíèãè Þáèëååâ, Õðàìîâîãî ñâèòêà), à âõîäÿò â ñîñòàâ îäíîãî èç êâàðòàëüíûõ ïåðèîäîâ (êàê ýòî ïðîèñõîäèò, íàïðèìåð, â êàëåíäàðå Åâàíãåëèé è Êíèãè Òîâèò39 ). Ïî âñåé âèäèìîñòè, â êà÷åñòâå äîïîëíèòåëüíûõ 4 äíåé ïåðâîãî êâàðòàëà ðàññìàòðèâàëèñü ïåðâûå ÷åòûðå äíÿ ýòîãî ïåðèîäà, ñ 11.I ïî 14.I âêëþ÷èòåëüíî, òàê êàê äëÿ íèõ ìîæíî áûëî ïðåäïîëîæèòü ïîñò ïðîäîëæèòåëüíîñòüþ 3,5 äíÿ, êîòîðûé ðåêîíñòðóèðóåòñÿ òàêæå è äëÿ åâàíãåëüñêîé õðîíîëîãèè (ñì. âûøå, ðàçäåë 2.2). Î êàêîé-òî ñïåöèôè÷åñêîé ñâÿçè êâàðòàëüíûõ ïåðèîäîâ ñ ÷åòûðüìÿ âðåìåíàìè ãîäà ãîâîðèòü íåò îñíîâàíèé.  òåêñòå 2 Åíîõà çàôèêñèðîâàíû ëèøü äàòû ñîëíöåñòîÿíèé, êîòîðûå ëèòóðãè÷åñêè íèêàê íå îôîðìëåíû.40 Ãðàíèöû ÷åòûðåõ êâàðòàëîâ íå ñîâïàäàþò ñ ãðàíèöàìè ìåñÿöåâ. Ïðîäîëæèòåëüíîñòü ìåñÿöåâ ïîäîáðàíà òàêèì îáðàçîì, ÷òîáû ãëàâíûå áèáëåéñêèå ïðàçäíèêè îêàçàëèñü íà÷àëüíûìè ïåðèîäàìè ïåðâîãî è òðåòüåãî êâàðòàëîâ. .Ïåðâûé êâàðòàë .Âòîðîé êâàðòàë .Òðåòèé êâàðòàë .×åòâåðòûé êâàðòàë
ñ 11.I c 10.IV c 10.VII c 4.X
ïî 9.IV... ïî 9.VII ïî 3.X.... ïî 10.I
Âûäåëåííûå â ýòîé òàáëèöå ïåðâûé è òðåòèé êâàðòàëû ÿâëÿþòñÿ ïðàçäíè÷íûìè, òàê êàê íàèáîëåå âàæíûå ïðàçäíèêè âêëþ÷àþò â ñåáÿ èìåííî îíè. Äëÿ ïåðâîãî êâàðòàëà ìû ýòî çíàåì, áëàãîäàðÿ 2 Åíîõà, ïîäðîáíî: êâàðòàë íà÷èíàåòñÿ â ïàñõàëüíûå äíè è çàâåðøàåòñÿ íåêèì îñîáûì ïðàçäíè39 40
Ñì. ðåêîíñòðóêöèþ êàëåíäàðåé â: LOURIÉ, Les quatre jours «de l’intervalle»… Ñì. âûøå, ïðèì. 26.
В. М. Лурье
397
êîì, íå èìåþùèõ íè áèáëåéñêèõ, íè êàêèõ-ëèáî äðóãèõ ïàðàëëåëåé (ïðè íûíåøíåì ñîñòîÿíèè íàøèõ çíàíèé). Ïîñëåäíåå è íå óäèâèòåëüíî, òàê êàê ïîäîáíûé ïðàçäíèê ìîã ïîíàäîáèòüñÿ òîëüêî â êàëåíäàðå 2 Åíîõà. Îáðàòèì âíèìàíèå, ÷òî çàêëþ÷èòåëüíûé ïðàçäíèê ïåðâîãî êâàðòàëà öåëèêîì âïèñàí âíóòðü ýòîãî êâàðòàëà, íà ÷åì òåêñò 2 Åí. 69:19 îñîáî íàñòàèâàåò. Ýòî çíà÷èò, ÷òî, ïî âñåé âèäèìîñòè, è â êîíöå òðåòüåãî êâàðòàëà ñóùåñòâîâàë ñèììåòðè÷íûé ïðàçäíèê, ïîñëåäíèì äíåì êîòîðîãî áûëî 3.X. Ïîäîáíî òîìó, êàê ïðàçäíèê ñ 6 ïî 9.IV íå óäàëîñü «ïðèâÿçàòü» íè ê îäíîìó èç èçâåñòíûõ ïðàçäíèêîâ (â ÷àñòíîñòè, ê 17 òàììóçà), ãèïîòåòè÷åñêèé ïðàçäíèê, çàâåðøàâøèéñÿ 3.Õ, òàêæå íåëüçÿ ñâÿçàòü íè ñ êàêèì èç èçâåñòíûõ ïðàçäíèêîâ.  ÷àñòíîñòè, íåëüçÿ åãî ñâÿçàòü ñ Õàíóêêîé (Îáíîâëåíèåì Âòîðîãî Õðàìà ïîñëå 164 ã. ïî Ð. Õ.: 1 Ìàê. 4:59), ïðàçäíîâàâøåéñÿ â òå÷åíèå âîñüìè äíåé, íà÷èíàÿ îò 25.IX. Íàø ãèïîòåòè÷åñêèé ïðàçäíèê äîëæåí áûë áû íà÷èíàòüñÿ, ïðèìåðíî, òîãäà, êîãäà Õàíóêêà çàêàí÷èâàëàñü. Ñêîðåå âñåãî, èç ýòîãî ìîæíî ñäåëàòü âûâîä, ÷òî êàëåíäàðü 2 Åíîõà íå çíàåò Õàíóêêè è íå ñâÿçàí ñ õàñìîíåéñêîé òðàäèöèåé. Ïåðâûé êâàðòàë, ñîãëàñíî 2 Åíîõó, ðàçäåëÿåòñÿ íà òðè ïåðèîäà, òàêæå ðàçäåëåííûõ ïðàçäíè÷íûìè äàòàìè. Âîçìîæíî, àíàëîãè÷íóþ ñòðóêòóðó íóæíî ïðåäïîëîæèòü è äëÿ òðåòüåãî êâàðòàëà. Òîãäà â ÷èñëî ïðàçäíè÷íûõ äàò ó íàñ äîáàâÿòñÿ 10.VIII è 9.IX.  íàñòîÿùèé ìîìåíò ÿ íå çíàþ äëÿ ýòèõ äàò íèêàêèõ ëèòóðãè÷åñêèõ ñâèäåòåëüñòâ èëè ïàðàëëåëåé.
2.10. –ÓʉÂÒÚ‚Ó ≈ÌÓıÓ‚Ó Ë –ÓʉÂÒÚ‚Ó ’ËÒÚÓ‚Ó Îäíàêî ñàìà èñòîðèÿ Åíîõà ïî 2 Åíîõà èìååò ïàðàëëåëü â îäíîì èç ïðåäàíèé î áèîãðàôèè Õðèñòà. Ýòî ïðåäàíèå èçëàãàåòñÿ òîëüêî â îäíîì èñòî÷íèêå êîíöà IV âåêà ó ñâ. Åïèôàíèÿ Êèïðñêîãî, Ïàíàðèîí, LI, 16.41 41 Epiphanius, Panarion. Haer. 34–64. Hrsg. von K. HOLL. 2. bearb. Aufl. von J. DUMMER (Berlin, 1980) (GCS [31]) 270272. Ó èññëåäîâàòåëåé ýòîò ïàññàæ íå âûçûâàë íè÷åãî, êðîìå íåäîóìåíèÿ. Ñì.: ibid. 270 (Anm. von K. Holl); W. HARTKE, Über Jahrespunkte und Feste insbesondere das Weihnachtfest (Berlin, 1956) (Deutsche Akademie der Wisseschaften zu Berlin. Schriften der Sektion für Altertumswissenschaft 16) 24–25, 96–98; A. STROBEL, Urschprung und Geschichte des frühchristlichen Österkalenders (Berlin, 1977) (TU 121) 99, Anm. 1, 150; A. DE HALLEUX, La Nativité et l’Épiphanie dans le dialogue unioniste du VIIe au XIVe siècle // Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 68 (1992) 5–37, îñîá. 13, n. 40. Ðåêîíñòðóêöèÿ êàëåíäàðíîãî ñìûñëà ñîîáùåíèÿ ñâ. Åïèôàíèÿ áûëà ïðåäïðèíÿòà ìíîþ ðàíåå: Â. Ì. ËÓÐÜÅ, Òðè òèïà ðàííåõðèñòèàíñêîãî êàëåíäàðÿ è îäíî ðàçíî÷òåíèå â òåêñòå Epistula Apostolorum // Òðàäèöèè è íàñëåäèå Õðèñòèàíñêîãî Âîñòîêà. Ìàòåðèàëû ìåæäóíàðîäíîé êîíôåðåíöèè / Ïîä ðåä. Ä. Å. ÀÔÈÍÎÃÅÍÎÂÀ è À. Â. ÌÓÐÀÂÜÅÂÀ (Ì., 1996) 256–320, îñîá. 304, ïðèì. 88. Ñîäåðæàùóþñÿ çäåñü ïîïûòêó âïèñàòü ñâåäåíèÿ Åïèôàíèÿ â 50-äíåâíûå êàëåíäàðíûå öèêëû ÿ íå ìîãó ïðèçíàòü óäà÷íîé, õîòÿ ñàìó òàêóþ âîçìîæíîñòü íå èñêëþ÷àþ.
398
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
Ñîãëàñíî Åïèôàíèþ, Ðîæäåñòâî Õðèñòîâî ïðîèçîøëî 6 ÿíâàðÿ (òàêîâî áûëî ïî÷òè âñåîáùåå ìíåíèå â åãî ýïîõó), è â ýòîò æå äåíü, íî ÷åðåç ìíîãî ëåò ïðîèçîøëî ÷óäî â Êàíå Ãàëèëåéñêîé, òî åñòü ïåðâîå ÷óäî Õðèñòà è íà÷àëî Åãî ïðîïîâåäè äëÿ íàðîäà. Êðåùåíèå æå Ãîñïîäíå ñîñòîÿëîñü íà 60 äíåé ðàíüøå ÷óäà â Êàíå, òî åñòü â 6 äåíü îò íîÿáðüñêèõ èä (8 íîÿáðÿ).  ïðîìåæóòêå ìåæäó Êðåùåíèåì è ÷óäîì Õðèñòîñ ïî÷òè íå ïîêàçûâàëñÿ íàðîäó. Äàëåå Åïèôàíèé ïóñêàåòñÿ â ðàññóæäåíèÿ î òîì, ÷åì èìåííî áûëè çàïîëíåíû 60 äíåé. Çäåñü îí ÿâíî ñòàðàåòñÿ ðàññóæäàòü ñàì,42 ÷òî ìîæíî îáúÿñíèòü òîëüêî íåèìåíèåì ãîòîâîãî ïðåäàíèÿ íà ýòîò ñ÷åò.  äàííîì ñëó÷àå ýòè ðàññóæäåíèÿ íå ïðåäñòàâëÿþò äëÿ íàñ èíòåðåñà.  òåêñòå 2 Åíîõà äàòà 6 ÷èñëà îäíîãî è òîãî æå ìåñÿöà (ñèâàíà) îáúåäèíèëà â ñåáå èçëèøíå ìíîãî: âîçâðàùåíèå Åíîõà íà çåìëþ, åãî æå âòîðîå âîçíåñåíèå è ðîæäåíèå Åíîõà. Åñëè äàòó âòîðîãî âîçíåñåíèÿ Åíîõà ìû ìîæåì óâåðåííî ïåðåíåñòè íà ìåñÿö ïîçäíåå, òî îòíîñèòåëüíî äàòû ðîæäåñòâà Åíîõà ìû òàêèõ îñíîâàíèé íå èìååì â ïðåäåëàõ òåêñòà 2 Åíîõà. Òåîðåòè÷åñêè íåëüçÿ èñêëþ÷èòü íè òîãî, ÷òî ãîäîâùèíà ðîæäåñòâà Åíîõà ïðèøëàñü íà äåíü åãî âîçâðàùåíèÿ, íè òîãî, ÷òî îíà ïðèøëàñü íà äåíü îêîí÷àòåëüíîãî âîçíåñåíèÿ. Ïàðàëëåëü ñ èçëîæåííûì ó Åïèôàíèÿ ïðåäàíèåì î Ðîæäåñòâå Õðèñòîâîì äàåò íàì íåêîòîðûé êëþ÷. Õðèñòîñ, ñîãëàñíî ýòîìó ïðåäàíèþ, ðîäèëñÿ â òîò äåíü, â ãîäîâùèíó êîòîðîãî Îí âûéäåò íà ïðîïîâåäü. Ïðåæäå ýòîãî ñîáûòèÿ îí, ïîäîáíî Åíîõó, ñêðûâàëñÿ â íåäîñòóïíûõ ëþäÿì ìåñòàõ â ïóñòûíå, ãäå Îí áûë â îäèíî÷åñòâå, èëè â äðóãèõ ìåñòàõ, ãäå Åãî îêðóæàëè òîëüêî áëèçêèå. À ïåðåä óõîäîì â ïóñòûíþ ñîâåðøèëîñü Êðåùåíèå Ãîñïîäíå, êîòîðîå, êàê èçâåñòíî, îïèñûâàåòñÿ åâàíãåëèñòàìè êàê Åïèôàíèÿ è äàæå èìåííî ñ íàçâàíèåì «Åïèôàíèÿ» âîøëî â ãðå÷åñêóþ ýîðòîëîãèþ. Åïèôàíèÿ ïðè Êðåùåíèè Ãîñïîäíåì, îïÿòü-òàêè, ñîñòàâëÿåò î÷åâèäíóþ ïàðàëëåëü ïåðâîìó âîçíåñåíèþ Åíîõà. Ïðåäàíèå î Õðèñòå ñîõðàíÿåò ÷èñëîâîé êîä 6 ÷èñëî, õîòÿ è äðóãîãî ìåñÿöà (ÿíâàðÿ) è ïî-äðóãîìó íàçâàííîå (Åïèôàíèé äåðæèòñÿ ðèìñêèõ íàçâàíèé, ïîýòîìó òóò äëÿ íåãî 8 äåíü äî ÿíâàðñêèõ èä), à òàêæå 42 À èìåííî, îí ãîâîðèò ñëåäóþùåå. Õðèñòîñ ïðîâåë â ïóñòûíå 40 äíåé, çàòåì «ïðèìåðíî» (ìéêñ² ðëÝïí) 2 íåäåëè (14 äíåé) â Íàçàðåòå, åùå 2 äíÿ ïðîâåë ñ Èîàííîì Êðåñòèòåëåì, åùå 2 äíÿ ñ Àíäðååì, Ñèìîíîì è äðóãèìè ó÷åíèêàìè, åùå 1 äåíü òîò, â êîòîðûé ïðèçâàë Ôèëèïïà è Íàôàíàèëà, è çàòåì ñàì äåíü Êàííû 60-é. Îñîáåííî ýòî «ïðèìåðíî» ïðè ðàñ÷åòå òî÷íîé äàòû ñîáûòèÿ âûäàåò â ýòîì ðàñ÷åòå îáûêíîâåííóþ ïîäãîíêó ïîä ðåçóëüòàò. Âèäíî, ÷òî Åïèôàíèé âêëþ÷àåò â ÷èñëî 60 äíåé è äåíü ñàìîãî ÷óäà â Êàíå, è äåíü Êðåùåíèÿ, à äëÿ äåêàáðÿ ïðèíèìàåò ïðîäîëæèòåëüíîñòü â 31 äåíü, êàê ýòî äîëæíî áûòü â þëèàíñêîì êàëåíäàðå.
В. М. Лурье
399
÷èñëî 60 ñðîê óåäèíåíèÿ ïîñëå åïèôàíèè ïåðåä íà÷àëîì ó÷åíèÿ íàðîäîâ. Òàêîå ñõîäñòâî ñëó÷àéíûì áûòü íå ìîæåò. Ïàðàëëåëü ñ ðàññêàçîì Åïèôàíèÿ íàì èíòåðåñíà â äâóõ îòíîøåíèÿõ. Âî-ïåðâûõ, îíà äîêàçûâàåò, ÷òî âåñüìà ñïåöèôè÷åñêàÿ êàëåíäàðíàÿ ñõåìà êàëåíäàðÿ 2 Åíîõà õîòÿ áû ôðàãìåíòàðíî ñîõðàíÿëàñü â òå÷åíèå äîëãîãî âðåìåíè, õîòÿ ìû è íå çíàåì, â êàêîì èìåííî êàëåíäàðíî-ëèòóðãè÷åñêîì êîíòåêñòå. Âî-âòîðûõ, îíà äàåò íàì àðãóìåíò, ÷òîáû ïðåäïîëîæèòü èñêîííîé äàòîé ðîæäåíèÿ Åíîõà (ñîãëàñíî 2 Åíîõà) 6.III, à íå 6.IV. Ñìûñë ýòîé ðåêîíñòðóèðóåìîé òðàäèöèè ñëåäóåò ïîíèìàòü â òîì, ÷òî äåíü ðîæäåíèÿ â ìèð ìåññèàíñêîé ôèãóðû ñîâïàäàåò ñ äíåì âûõîäà åå íà ïóáëè÷íóþ ïðîïîâåäü.
3. ÃÂÚ‡ÚÓÌ in statu nascendi: ïðîìåòà# < éèåîøô < ðñïôïìÞ Îñíîâíîé ïàôîñ ìîíîãðàôèè Îðëîâà âîçìîæíîñòü ïðîñëåäèòü â òåêñòå 2 Åíîõà ðàííèå ôîðìû òåõ òðàäèöèé, êîòîðûå âïîñëåäñòâèè ñòàíóò íàì èçâåñòíû â ãîðàçäî áîëåå ðàçâèòûõ, íî óæå ñóùåñòâåííî äðóãèõ ôîðìàõ â ëèòåðàòóðå òàê íàçûâàåìûõ (íåáåñíûõ) äâîðöîâ (hekhalot). Çàîäíî Îðëîâ êàñàåòñÿ è ìíîãèõ äðóãèõ òðàäèöèé, ñâÿçàííûõ ñ òðàäèöèÿìè 2 Åíîõà îòíîøåíèÿìè ïîëåìè÷åñêèìè. Ïîýòîìó åãî êíèãà ìîæåò ñëóæèòü ââåäåíèåì â âåñü ýòîò ñëîæíûé êîìïëåêñ òðàäèöèé, íî ââåäåíèåì, íàïèñàííûì ñ îäíîé òî÷êè çðåíèÿ îòíîñèòåëüíî òðàäèöèé î Åíîõå. Òðàäèöèè ýòè âàæíû êàê äëÿ ïîíèìàíèÿ èóäåéñêèõ ðåëèãèîçíûõ äâèæåíèé ïåðèîäà Âòîðîãî Õðàìà, òàê è äëÿ áîëåå ïîçäíèõ èóäàèçìà (î ÷åì â êíèãå Îðëîâà ãîâîðèòñÿ áîëüøå) è õðèñòèàíñòâà (îá ýòîì ãîâîðèòñÿ ìåíüøå è ó Îðëîâà, è âîîáùå â ñîâðåìåííîé ëèòåðàòóðå ïî ïñåâäîýïèãðàôàì). Íèæå ìû ïðèâåäåì íåñêîëüêî ÷àñòíûõ íàáëþäåíèé ïî çàòðîíóòûì Îðëîâûì òåìàì. Îäíî èç ñàìûõ âàæíûõ íàáëþäåíèé Îðëîâà â îáëàñòè èñòîðèè òðàäèöèé è ýòî âèäíî óæå èç ñàìîãî íàçâàíèÿ åãî êíèãè îòíîñèòñÿ ê ïðîèñõîæäåíèþ áîëåå ïîçäíèõ èóäåéñêèõ òðàäèöèé îòíîñèòåëüíî Åíîõà-Ìåòàòðîíà (â 3 Åíîõà è äðóãîé ëèòåðàòóðå hekhalot) ñ îáðàçîì Åíîõà èç 2 Åíîõà. Îñíîâíàÿ ÷àñòü ýòèõ íàáëþäåíèé îòíîñèòñÿ, ðàçóìååòñÿ, ê ñîäåðæàòåëüíîìó àíàëèçó ôóíêöèé Ìåòàòðîíà è Åíîõà â ñîîòâåòñòâóþùèõ òðàäèöèÿõ (â îáîèõ ñëó÷àÿõ àíãåëîïîäîáíîå ñóùåñòâî ñ ìåññèàíñêèìè è èíûìè ñîïðÿæåííûìè ñ ýòèì ôóíêöèÿìè). Ýòà ÷àñòü àíàëèçà ìíå êàæåòñÿ âåñüìà óáåäèòåëüíîé, è ÿ çäåñü íå áóäó åå êàñàòüñÿ. Ðàññìàòðèâàÿ ýòó ïðîáëåìó, Îðëîâ íå ìîã íå çàòðîíóòü ýòèìîëîãèè ñàìîãî òåðìèíà «ìåòàòðîí» (îí ñóùåñòâóåò â äâóõ îðôîãðàôè÷åñêèõ
400
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
âàðèàíòàõ: ïåøèèéî è ïåøèèî). Ïîñëå ðàçáîðà âñåõ èìåþùèõñÿ ãèïîòåç (ñ. 9296), îí ïðåäëîæèë ñâîþ ñîáñòâåííóþ, îñíîâàííóþ íà ìàòåðèàëå 2 Åíîõà (ñ. 176180, íî ñì. òàêæå ñ. 159161, 217218), à èìåííî, íà ñòðàííîì òèòóëå Åíîõà â 2 Åí. 43:1 (êðàòêîé ðåäàêöèè è âî ôðàãìåíòå â Ìåðèëå ïðàâåäíîì), ãäå, âñëåä çà àòðèáóöèåé Åíîõó «óïðàâëåíèÿ íà çåìëå», îí íàçâàí ïðîìåòà#.43  öåðêîâíî-ñëàâÿíñêîì ÿçûêå ýòî hapax legomenon. Ñóòü ãèïîòåçû Îðëîâà ñîñòîèò â ñëåäóþùåì (ïîçâîëþ ñåáå èçëîæèòü îñíîâíîå, îïóñêàÿ ðÿä ïîäðîáíîñòåé). Îðëîâ âñïîìèíàåò òå ãèïîòåòè÷åñêèå ýòèìîëîãèè òåðìèíà «ìåòàòðîí», ãäå îí âîçâîäèëñÿ ê îäíîìó èç ëàòèíñêèõ èëè ãðå÷åñêèõ òåðìèíîâ, áûâøèõ â õîäó â Ðèìñêîé èìïåðèè è ñâÿçàííûõ ñ ãðå÷åñêèì êîðíåì, îçíà÷àþùèì «èçìåðåíèå» (ìÝôñïí). Òåîðåòè÷åñêè ýòî âûãëÿäèò ïðàâäîïîäîáíî, òàê êàê òåìà èçìåðåíèÿ î÷åíü àêòóàëüíà è äëÿ Ìåòàòðîíà, è äëÿ Åíîõà èç 2 Åíîõà. Îòíîñèòåëüíî ìåõàíèçìà ïîÿâëåíèÿ â åâðåéñêîì òåðìèíå äâîéíîãî èè Îðëîâ âñïîìèíàåò íàáëþäåíèå Øîëåìà î òîì, ÷òî ïîäîáíàÿ ðåäóïëèêàöèÿ äîñòàòî÷íî õàðàêòåðíà äëÿ ëèòåðàòóðû Hekhalot. Òîãäà ïîëó÷àåòñÿ, ÷òî òåðìèí ïðîìåòà#, à òî÷íåå, åãî ãðå÷åñêèé Vorlage, «
may represent a very early, rudimentary form of the title that was later transformed into the designation Metatron» (ñ. 180). Îðëîâ óñèëèâàåò ñâîþ ãèïîòåçó àëüòåðíàòèâíîé ãèïîòåçîé ýòèìîëîãèè èñõîäíîãî òåðìèíà, ïðåäïîëàãàÿ òàêæå âîçìîæíîñòü ïðîèñõîæäåíèÿ ïðîìåæóòî÷íîé ôîðìû, îòðàæåííîé â ñëàâÿíñêîì, îò ãðå÷åñêîãî ðñïìÞèåéá â çíà÷åíèè çàùèòû èëè ïðîìûñëà (òàì æå, ïðèì. 127).  ãèïîòåçå Îðëîâà íåîáõîäèìî ðàçëè÷èòü äâà ñëîÿ. Òðàêòîâêà òåðìèíà ïðîìåòà# êàê îòðàæàþùåãî âîçìîæíóþ ïåðåõîäíóþ ôîðìó ê áóäóùåìó òåðìèíó «ìåòàòðîí» ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ èäååé î÷åíü ïðèâëåêàòåëüíîé. Ôîðìàëüíî îíà íå çàâèñèò îò äàëüíåéøåé ýòèìîëîãèè ñëàâÿíñêîãî òåðìèíà, êîòîðàÿ ìîæåò áûòü äîâîëüíî ðàçíîîáðàçíîé (è Îðëîâ ïîíèìàåò ýòî, êîëü ñêîðî ïðåäëàãàåò äâå âçàèìîèñêëþ÷àþùèõ ýòèìîëîãèè), íî, ðàçóìååòñÿ, ïîêà òàêàÿ ýòèìîëîãèÿ íå ïðåäëîæåíà âîîáùå, óáåäèòåëüíîñòü âñåé ðåêîíñòðóêöèè èñòîðèè òåðìèíà «ìåòàòðîí» îñòàåòñÿ íåâåëèêîé.
43 Ðóêîïèñè ïåðåäàþò ýòî ñëîâî ñ âàðèàíòàìè (ïðîìýòàåìàà, ïîìåòà#, ïðîìåòàìà#, ïðîìèòà#, ïàìýòà#; â ïîñëåäíåì ñëó÷àå î÷åâèäíà ãèïåðêîððåêöèÿ). Âàéÿí îñòàíîâèëñÿ íà ÷òåíèè ï(ð)îìåòà# (VAILLANT, Le Livre des secrets d’Hénoch… 44–45), ñ÷èòàÿ åãî óíèêàëüíîé ãëàãîëüíîé ôîðìîé, ïåðåäàþùåé ïðè÷àñòèå îò ýêâèâàëåíòà ãëàãîëà âáóáíßæù. Àíäåðñåí (ANDERSEN, 217) ñîãëàøàåòñÿ ñ òåì, ÷òî ýòî ãëàãîëüíàÿ ôîðìà, íî êðèòèêóåò ïðåäëîæåííóþ Âàéÿíîì ðåòðîâåðñèþ, à ñàì ïðèáåãàåò ê ïàðàôðàçó, èñõîäÿ èç îáùåãî ñìûñëà îòðûâêà è ñîçíàòåëüíî, îãîâàðèâàÿ ýòî, èãíîðèðóåò ñèíòàêñèñ (ïîðÿäîê ñëîâ).
В. М. Лурье
401
Íî îáå ãðå÷åñêèå ýòèìîëîãèè, ïðåäëîæåííûå äëÿ ñëàâÿíñêîãî òåðìèíà, ìíå êàæóòñÿ íåóáåäèòåëüíûìè. Âòîðàÿ èç íèõ êàæåòñÿ ïîäõîäÿùåé ïî çâó÷àíèþ (òåì áîëåå, ÷òî äëÿ ïðîìåòà# ðóêîïèñè äîïóñêàþò íàïèñàíèå ñ и âî âòîðîì ñëîãå), íî ñëîâî ðñïìÞèåéá, áóäó÷è îáûêíîâåííûì ñëîâîì ãðå÷åñêîãî ÿçûêà, íå ìîãëî áû îñòàòüñÿ ñîâñåì áåç âñÿêîãî ïåðåâîäà: òóò áûë áû âîçìîæåí íåïðàâèëüíûé ïåðåâîä, íî íå òðàíñëèòåðàöèÿ. ×òî êàñàåòñÿ òåðìèíà ñ îáëàñòüþ çíà÷åíèé, îòíîñÿùåéñÿ ê èçìåðåíèþ, òî òóò, êàê ñî âñÿêèì òåðìèíîì, øàíñû íà òðàíñëèòåðèðîâàíèå âìåñòî ïåðåâîäà ïîâûøàþòñÿ, íî òóò îñòàåòñÿ íåÿñíûì, î êàêîì èìåííî ñëîâå ðå÷ü. Îðëîâ ññûëàåòñÿ íà íåñêîëüêî ïðåäïîëîæåíèé ñâîèõ ïðåäøåñòâåííèêîâ, êîòîðûå âñå âåñüìà è âåñüìà ãàäàòåëüíûå. Íî íåîáõîäèìîñòè ðàçáèðàòüñÿ â ýòèõ äîãàäêàõ ïîäðîáíî íåò, òàê êàê ïðîìåòà# îêàçûâàåòñÿ àðàìåéñêèì òåðìèíîì ãðå÷åñêîãî ïðîèñõîæäåíèÿ, ñîõðàíèâøèìñÿ, ïðàêòè÷åñêè, â ïåðâîçäàííîì âèäå. Íà àðàìåéñêîé ïî÷âå òåðìèí çàðåãèñòðèðîâàí â íåñêîëüêèõ îðôîãðàôè÷åñêèõ âàðèàíòàõ, èç êîòîðûõ âàðèàíò, òî÷íî ñîîòâåòñòâóþùèé òîé ôîðìå, êîòîðàÿ îòðàçèëàñü â ñëàâÿíñêîì, çàðåãèñòðèðîâàí òîëüêî äëÿ ìíîæåñòâåííîãî ÷èñëà: ïéèåîøô.44 Îò ýòîé ôîðìû ìíîæåñòâåííîãî ÷èñëà åäèíñòâåííîå ÷èñëî èçíà÷àëüíî áûëî áû éèåîøô*, íî âîçìîæíî äàæå è àéèåîøô*. Ôîðìà åäèíñòâåííîãî ÷èñëà (ïðè ëþáîì íàïèñàíèè) ñîâïàäàåò ñ íàøåé ñëàâÿíñêîé ôîðìîé ñ òî÷íîñòüþ äî îäíîé ãëàñíîé (â àðàìåéñêîì u/o, ãäå â ñëàâÿíñêîì o/e), íî äàæå ýòî ðàçëè÷èå ñïèñûâàåòñÿ íà äîñòàòî÷íî îáûêíîâåííîå ñìåøåíèå «âàâ» è «éîä». Áîëåå êîððåêòíûé âàðèàíò íàïèñàíèÿ ýòîãî çàèìñòâîâàííîãî ãðå÷åñêîãî ñëîâà éîåèåøô.45 Ýòî òðàíñëèòåðàöèÿ ãðå÷åñêîãî ðñïôïìÞ, âçÿòîãî â ñïåöèàëüíîì çíà÷åíèè èìïåðàòîðñêîãî áþñòà, ââåäåííîãî â ðèìñêîé àðìèè òîãäà, êîãäà â íåé áûë ââåäåí êóëüò èìïåðàòîðà (òî åñòü ïðè Àâãóñòå). Ñëîâî èçíà÷àëüíî çíà÷èëî îòðóáëåííóþ ãîëîâó æèâîòíîãî (îñîáåííî â êà÷åñòâå îõîòíè÷üåãî òðîôåÿ), ïîòîì è ÷åëîâåêà, à ïîòîì è ñêóëüïòóðíîå èçîáðàæåíèå áþñò. Íà ýòîì ýòàïå ñåìàíòè÷åñêîãî ðàçâèòèÿ ãðå÷. ðñïôïìáß ñòàëî ýêâèâàëåíòîì ëàò. imagines ââåäåííûõ â àðìèè ñêóëüïòóðíûõ ïîðòðåòîâ-áþñòîâ èìïåðàòîðîâ, ïåðåä êîòîðûìè ñëåäîâàëî âîçäàâàòü èìïåðàòîðàì áîæåñòâåííûå ïî÷åñòè.46  òàêîì çíà÷åíèè ãðå÷åñêîå ñëîâî ïåðåøëî â ðàââèíèñòè÷åñêóþ ëèòåðàòóðó, ãäå åãî çíà÷åíèå ðàñøèðèëîñü íàñòîëüêî, ÷òî åãî ñòàëî âîçìîæíî îòíîñèòü ê «áþñòàì», òî åñòü ïðîñòî èäîëàì, êàêèõ óãîäíî ÿçû÷åñêèõ áîãîâ. 44
M. JASTROW, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (New York, 1903) 1230a [äàëåå JASTROW]. 45 JASTROW, 1219b. 46 Ñð.: LSJ, s. v. (ýëåêòðîííàÿ âåðñèÿ íà ñàéòå The Perseus Digital Library: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/).
402
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
Íà ãðå÷åñêîì ÿçûêå ðñïôïìáß (â çíà÷åíèè êóëüòîâûõ áþñòîâ èìïåðàòîðîâ â ðèìñêîé àðìèè) âïåðâûå óïîìèíàþòñÿ ó Èîñèôà Ôëàâèÿ (Èóäåéñêàÿ âîéíà, 18:1,55), êîòîðûé ðàññêàçûâàåò èñòîðèþ î âíåñåíèè ýòèõ áþñòîâ â Èåðóñàëèì ïðîêóðàòîðîì Èóäåè Ïîíòèåì Ïèëàòîì è ïîñëåäóþùèõ óñèëèÿõ èóäååâ (óñïåøíûõ, íî òÿæåëûõ, ñ îïàñíîñòüþ äëÿ æèçíè) óïðîñèòü åãî èõ óáðàòü. Èòàê, ïðåäëàãàåìîå íàìè ðåøåíèå âîçâîäèòü промета# äàæå íå ñòîëüêî ê ãðå÷åñêîìó ðñïôïìÞ, ñêîëüêî ê ïîëó÷èâøåìóñÿ èç íåãî àðàìåéñêîìó éîåèåøô, íå òîëüêî ðåøàåò âñå ëèíãâèñòè÷åñêèå ïðîáëåìû (â ÷àñòíîñòè, ýòî òàêîé òåðìèí, ÷òî ïîíÿòíî, ïî÷åìó åãî íå ñòàëè ïåðåâîäèòü, äëÿ íàñ íåâàæíî, ñîçíàòåëüíî ëè èëè ïðîñòî ïî íåçíàíèþ), íî è îñîáåííî õîðîøî îáúÿñíÿåò äàëüíåéøóþ ýâîëþöèþ òåðìèíà. Îðëîâ ïîäðîáíî îñòàíàâëèâàåòñÿ (ñ. 227229) íà òðàíñôîðìàöèÿõ ëèöà Åíîõà ñîãëàñíî 2 Åíîõà, êîòîðîå ïðèîáðåòàåò áîæåñòâåííûå ñâîéñòâà è ñòàíîâèòñÿ îáúåêòîì ïîêëîíåíèÿ. Ýòî òî÷íîå ñîîòâåòñòâèå ëîæíûì (ñ èóäåéñêîé òî÷êè çðåíèÿ) ñâîéñòâàì è ôóíêöèÿì áþñòîâ îáîæåñòâëåííûõ èìïåðàòîðîâ â ðèìñêîé àðìèè. ×òî êàñàåòñÿ âîïðîñà î ÿçûêå îðèãèíàëà 2 Åíîõà, òî íèêàêàÿ ýòèìîëîãèÿ îòäåëüíîãî òåðìèíà íå ìîæåò ïîâëèÿòü íà åãî ðåøåíèå. Òåðìèíû íà ãðå÷åñêîì ëåãêî ìîãëè ïîÿâèòüñÿ âíóòðè òåêñòà íà àðàìåéñêîì èëè åâðåéñêîì, ðàâíî êàê è íàîáîðîò.  äàííîì ñëó÷àå ìû âèäèì, ÷òî ñëàâÿíñêèé òåðìèí âîñõîäèò ê àðàìåéñêîìó, à íå ãðå÷åñêîìó (íà ãðå÷åñêîé ïî÷âå áûëà áû íåâîçìîæíà ìåòàòåçà ñîãëàñíûõ, à íà àðàìåéñêîé îíà çàñâèäåòåëüñòâîâàíà). Íî è òîëüêî. Íèêòî íå ìîæåò èñêëþ÷èòü, ÷òî óæå àðàìåéñêèé òåðìèí íå âåðíóëñÿ îáðàòíî â ãðå÷åñêèé, îïÿòü ïîñðåäñòâîì òðàíñëèòåðàöèè, â ÿçûêå êàêèõ-íèáóäü ãðåêîÿçû÷íûõ èóäååâ Åãèïòà.
4. Terminus post quem ‰Îˇ 2 ≈ÌÓı‡ Ìû óæå óïîìèíàëè âûøå,47 ÷òî â íàñòîÿùåå âðåìÿ íå ñóùåñòâóåò îñíîâàíèÿ äëÿ îïðåäåëåíèÿ terminus post quem äëÿ äàòèðîâêè 2 Åíîõà. Òåïåðü, áëàãîäàðÿ промета#, ìû òàêîå îñíîâàíèå ïîëó÷èëè. Ñàì ïî ñåáå ïðåäìåò, êîòîðûé èìåëñÿ â âèäó ïðè âîçíèêíîâåíèè òåðìèíà éîåèåøô, èìïåðàòîðñêèé áþñò êàê ïðåäìåò êóëüòà ïîÿâëÿåòñÿ ãäå-òî îêîëî 27 ãîäà äî Ð. Õ., êîãäà, ïîñëå óñòàíîâëåíèÿ Îêòàâèàíîì åäèíîëè÷íîé âëàñòè, ðèìñêèé ñåíàò ïðèñâàèâàåò åìó òèòóë Àâãóñòà è òåì ñàìûì îòêðûâàåò òðàäèöèþ îáîæåñòâëåíèÿ èìïåðàòîðîâ. Íî â àðàìåîÿçû÷íîé ñðåäå áþñòû èìïåðàòîðîâ ïðåâðàùàþòñÿ âî ÷òî-òî çíà÷èìîå íå ðàíåå, ÷åì êîãäà ïðîèçîøëè òå ñîáûòèÿ, êîòîðûå îïèñûâàåò Èîñèô Ôëàâèé. Òàê êàê îíè ïðèóðî÷åíû ê ïðîêóðàòîðñòâó Ïîíòèÿ Ïèëàòà, òî èõ íóæíî äàòèðîâàòü èíòåðâàëîì ñ 26 ïî 36 ãã. ïî Ð. Õ. 47
Ñì. ïðèì. 4.
В. М. Лурье
403
Õðîíîëîãèÿ Èîñèôà Ôëàâèÿ åùå áîëåå òî÷íàÿ: îí ñòàâèò ýòè ñîáûòèÿ íåçàäîëãî äî ðàñïÿòèÿ Õðèñòà. Íî äëÿ íàøèõ öåëåé òàêàÿ òî÷íîñòü èçáûòî÷íà, íå ãîâîðÿ î òîì, ÷òî îíà è ñîìíèòåëüíà. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, äëÿ äàòèðîâêè 2 Åíîõà ìû ïîëó÷àåì äàòû ìàêñèìàëüíî ïîçäíèå èç âîçìîæíûõ. Íàïîìíþ, ÷òî ÿ íå ñ÷èòàþ âîçìîæíûì ðàññìàòðèâàòü 70 ã. ïî Ð. Õ. (ðàçðóøåíèå Õðàìà) êàê terminus ante quem. Ïîêà ÷òî ìû èìååì ëèøü òàêîé íåîïðåäåëåííûé terminus ante quem, êàê äàòà Sefer Hekhalot, êîòîðàÿ è ñàìà íå î÷åíü-òî íàì èçâåñòíà. Íàïîìíþ òàêæå, ÷òî íåîáõîäèìî ðàçëè÷àòü äàòèðîâêè 2 Åíîõà (êíèãè) è òîãî êàëåíäàðÿ, êîòîðûé òàì îïèñûâàåòñÿ, è âîêðóã êîòîðîãî òàì ïîñòðîåíî äåéñòâèå. Êíèãà çàâåäîìî áîëåå ïîçäíÿÿ. Ýòî âèäíî, ïðåæäå âñåãî, ïî òîìó, ÷òî çíà÷èòåëüíàÿ ÷àñòü ëèòóðãè÷åñêîãî êàëåíäàðÿ, âêëþ÷àÿ äàæå åãî îäíó èç äâóõ (íàðÿäó ñ Ïàñõîé) áàçîâûõ äàò, Äåíü Î÷èùåíèÿ, âî 2 Åíîõà íå îïèñûâàåòñÿ.
5. fiÌÓ¯‡-≈ÌÓı Ë Ú‡‰ËˆËˇ »ËÒÛÒ‡ Õ‡‚Ë̇ Îäíèì èç öåííûõ òàêæå è â òåêñòîëîãè÷åñêîì ïëàíå íàáëþäåíèé Îðëîâà ÿâëÿåòñÿ èñòîðèÿ òèòóëà «þíîøà» ïðèìåíèòåëüíî ê Åíîõó (ñ. 158159, ñð. ñ. 133136). Ýòîò òåðìèí äî ñèõ ïîð íå íàõîäèë àäåêâàòíîãî îáúÿñíåíèÿ, à Âàéÿí äàæå ïûòàëñÿ îòêàçàòüñÿ îò ÷òåíèÿ юноше (çâàòåëüíûé ïàäåæ) â ïîëüçó ÷òåíèÿ íåêîòîðûõ ðóêîïèñåé Еноше (òîæå çâàòåëüíûé ïàäåæ), õîòÿ åãî ïîäõîä è êðèòèêîâàëñÿ Àíäåðñåíîì. Îðëîâ ñíèìàåò îòíîñèòåëüíî àóòåíòè÷íîñòè ýòîãî òèòóëà âñå îñòàòêè ñîìíåíèé, òàê êàê ïîêàçûâàåò åãî çíà÷åíèå â ïîñëåäóþùåé òðàäèöèè 3 Åíîõà. Òðàäèöèÿ þíîãî ïðîðîêà èìååò î÷åíü øèðîêîå ðàñïðîñòðàíåíèå è, âîçìîæíî, äëÿ èóäåî-õðèñòèàíñêèõ òðàäèöèé, èðàíñêèå êîðíè.48 Íèæå ìû îòìåòèì òîëüêî íåñêîëüêî ïðîÿâëåíèé ýòîé òðàäèöèè, êîòîðûå ìîæíî îòíåñòè ê áëèçêîðîäñòâåííûì ïî îòíîøåíèþ êî 2 Åíîõà, íî íå óïîìÿíóòûõ â ìîíîãðàôèè Îðëîâà. Ðàññìàòðèâàÿ òåêñòû, â êîòîðûõ ãîâîðèòñÿ î Åíîõå-Ìåòàòðîíå, ïåðâîñÿùåííèêå íåáåñíîãî Õðàìà, Îðëîâ öèòèðóåò, â ÷àñòíîñòè, ìèäðàø Numeri Rabbah 12:12, ãäå ð. Ñèìîí ñîîáùàåò, ÷òî îäíîâðåìåííî ñ ñîçäàíèåì Ñêèíèè Ñâèäåíèÿ íà çåìëå, áûëà ñîçäàíà è íåáåñíàÿ Ñêèíèÿ, íàçûâàåìàÿ «Ñêèíèåé þíîøè (øòðä ïëùî), ÷üå èìÿ Ìåòàòðîí
» (ñ. 114115). «Ñêèíèÿ þíîøè» íàïîìèíàåò î äðóãîì çàãàäî÷íîì ñòèõå Ïÿòèêíèæèÿ, Èñõ. 33:11 (Ñëóãà æå Èèñóñ ñûí Íàâèí þíîøà49 íå èñõîæäàøå èç ñêèíèè). Åñëè ó÷åñòü, ÷òî êðîìå Ìîèñåÿ è Ààðîíà, âõîäèòü â Ñêèíèþ Äàíèèë, Âàðóõ (â Ïàðàëèïîìåíà Èåðåìèè), ñ äðóãîé ñòîðîíû, îòîæäåñòâëÿåìûé èíîãäà ñ Çàðàòóñòðîé
49 Ïî íåïîíÿòíîé äëÿ ìåíÿ ïðè÷èíå ýòî ñëîâî ïðîïóùåíî â Åëèçàâåòèíñêîé ðåäàêöèè ñëàâÿíñêîé Áèáëèè. ß âîñïîëíèë åãî ïî LXX. 48
404
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
íèêòî íå èìåë ïðàâà, òî áóêâàëüíûé ñìûñë ýòîãî ñòèõà âîîáùå ìàëîïîíÿòåí. Íî íàñ áóäåò èíòåðåñîâàòü òîëüêî âîñïðèÿòèå åãî â ïîçäíåéøèõ òðàäèöèÿõ.  ïîçäíåéøèõ òðàäèöèÿõ äëÿ êëþ÷åâûõ òåðìèíîâ ýòîãî ñòèõà «ñëóãà (ñëóæèòåëü) (åãî)» è «þíîøà» ìû èìååì50 : MT
åúøùî
øòð
LXX
èåñÜðùí
íÝïò
Tg Onqelos
äéðùîåùî
àîéìåò
Tg Ps.-Jonathan
äéðùîåùî
éìè
Tg Neophiti
äéùîù
éìè
2 ôðàãìåíòàðíûõ Tg Ex
—
øéòæ éìè
Ïåøèòòà
Ml
h
g
¡\dW
Vulgata
minister eius
puer
«Þíîøà Èèñóñ ñûí Íàâèí» â ÌÒ è âî âñåõ âåðñèÿõ, êðîìå ãðå÷åñêîé, íàçâàí «ñëóãîé / ñëóæèòåëåì åãî», òî åñòü Ìîèñåÿ. Îäíàêî, â òåõ æå âåðñèÿõ ýòî ïîíÿòèå, «ñëóæèòåëü», âûðàæåíî ñëîâîì, êîòîðîå ïðèíÿòî îòíîñèòü ê «ñëóæåíèþ àëòàðþ» (ñèðèéñêèé òåðìèí è âîâñå ìîæåò îçíà÷àòü äèàêîíà). «Þíîøà» â åâðåéñêîì ýòî òî æå ñàìîå ñëîâî, êîòîðîå ïîñòîÿííî îòíîñèòñÿ ê Åíîõó â ëèòåðàòóðå hekhalot (è îíî æå â òåðìèíå «Ñêèíèÿ þíîøè»), à âî âñåõ ïåðåâîäàõ óïîòðåáëåíû ñèíîíèìû ñ àíàëîãè÷íûì ñïåêòðîì çíà÷åíèé, äëÿ êîòîðûõ ñîîòâåòñòâèå ýòîìó åâðåéñêîìó ñëîâó ÿâëÿåòñÿ ñòàíäàðòíûì. Èèñóñ Íàâèí, «þíîøà», îêàçûâàåòñÿ êàêèì-òî ñëóæèòåëåì íå òîëüêî è íå ñòîëüêî Ìîèñåÿ, ñêîëüêî èìåííî Ñêèíèè. Î òîì, ÷òî íå òîëüêî ó ñàìàðèòÿí, íî è ñîáñòâåííî ó èóäååâ ñóùåñòâîâàëè òðàäèöèè, ãäå Èèñóñ Íàâèí âûñòóïàë êàê ñèìâîëè÷åñêàÿ ìåññèàíñêàÿ ôèãóðà, ìû òåïåðü çíàåì äîïîäëèííî ïîñëå îòêðûòèÿ ôðàãìåíòàðíîãî òàðãóìà íà Èñ. Íàâ.,51 à íåäàâíî óáåäèëèñü è â òîì, ÷òî ýòà òðàäèöèÿ áûëà àêòóàëüíàÿ è äëÿ õðèñòèàíñòâà (ïî êðàéíåé ìåðå, îíà çàÿâèëà î ñåáå â Ïîñëàíèè ê Åâðåÿì).52 50 Ïàðàëëåëüíûé òåêñò òàðãóìîâ ïî ýëåêòðîííîé áàçå äàííûõ CAL (ñì. âûøå, ïðèì. 25). 51 H. FAHR, U. GLESSMER, Jordandurchzug und Beschneidung als Zurechtweisung in einem Targum zu Josua 5 (Edition des MS T.-S. B 13, 12) (Gluckstadt, 1991) (Orientalia Biblica und Christiana 3). 52 R. MURRAY, «Circumcision of Heart» and the Origins of the Qyâmê // After Bardaisan. Studies on Continuity and Change in Syriac Christianity in Honour of Professor Han J. W. Drijvers / Ed. G. J. Reinink and A. C. Klugkist (Leuven, 1999) (OLA 89) 201–211.
В. М. Лурье
405
Íî ñòèõ Èñõ. 33:11 íàìåêàåò, êàê áóäòî áû, è íà òî, ÷òî Èèñóñ Íàâèí, «þíîøà», êàê ìåññèàíñêàÿ ôèãóðà èìååò îòíîøåíèå è ê ñëóæåíèþ àëòàðþ, òî åñòü ñâÿùåíñòâó. Î÷åâèäíî, ÷òî çäåñü êàêàÿ-òî çíà÷èòåëüíàÿ è ïî îáúåìó, è ïî âàæíîñòè òðàäèöèÿ, èññëåäîâàíèå êîòîðîé áóäåò íåîáõîäèìî â äàëüíåéøåì. Ïîêà ÷òî ìû îãðàíè÷èìñÿ óïîìèíàíèåì äâóõ õðèñòèàíñêèõ ïàðàëëåëåé. Ýòî, âî-ïåðâûõ, èñòîðèÿ 12-ëåòíåãî îòðîêà Èèñóñà, çàäåðæàâøåãîñÿ â Õðàìå è îáúÿñíèâøåãî ýòî òåì, ÷òî Åìó èìåííî òàì è ïîäîáàåò íàõîäèòüñÿ (Ëê. 3:4250). Âî-âòîðûõ, ýòî Ðîæäåñòâî Ìàðèèíî («Ïðîòîåâàíãåëèå Èàêîâà», òåêñò íå ïîçäíåå III âåêà, îñíîâàííûé íà ïèñüìåííûõ äîêóìåíòàõ íå ïîçäíåå II âåêà), ñîãëàñíî êîòîðîìó Äåâà Ìàðèÿ íàõîäèëàñü â Õðàìå è äàæå èìåííî â Ñâÿòàÿ Ñâÿòûõ äî âîçðàñòà 12 ëåò. Î÷åâèäíî, ÷òî âîçðàñò 12 ëåò ñàì ïî ñåáå èìååò âî âñåõ ýòèõ òðàäèöèÿõ ñèìâîëè÷åñêîå çíà÷åíèå, êîòîðîå íåëüçÿ ñ÷èòàòü âïîëíå ÿñíûì. Çàîäíî íåîáõîäèìî õîòÿ áû çàôèêñèðîâàòü òóò íàëè÷èå è åùå îäíîé çàãàäêè. Îðëîâ îáðàùàåò âíèìàíèå íà òîëêîâàíèå â 3 Åíîõà ñòèõà Ïðèò÷. 22:6 ÌÒ («Íàñòàâè þíîãî (øòðì êðç) íà ïóòü åãî
»): «Åíîõ áûë ïðåòâîðåí â øòð, òî åñòü â Ìåòàòðîíà» (ñ. 157). Çäåñü ïîâåëèòåëüíîå íàêëîíåíèå ãëàãîëà (êðç) ïðî÷èòûâàåòñÿ êàê íåïîëíîãëàñíîå íàïèñàíèå èìåíè «Åíîõ» (îáû÷íî îíî ïèøåòñÿ ñ mater lectionis: êåðç). Âåðñèè ýòîãî ñòèõà â àðàìåéñêèõ òàðãóìàõ, Ïåøèòòå è Âóëüãàòå ñëåäóþò áóêâàëüíîìó ïîíèìàíèþ ñòèõà, òî åñòü áåç Åíîõà. À âîò â Ñåïòóàãèíòå (è ïîýòîìó â ñëàâÿíñêîé Áèáëèè) ýòîò ñòèõ ïðîñòî-íàïðîñòî âûïóùåí, õîòÿ â ñîñåäíèõ ñòèõàõ òàì òåêñò ñîîòâåòñòâóåò ìàñîðåòñêîìó. Äîïóñòèìî ïðåäïîëîæèòü, ÷òî ïðîïóñê ñòèõà Ïðèò÷. 22:6 â Ñåïòóàãèíòå, êîòîðûé åäâà ëè ìîã áûòü ñëó÷àéíûì, ñòàë êàêîé-òî ðåàêöèåé íà ðàñïðîñòðàíåíèå «íåîðòîäîêñàëüíûõ» òîëêîâàíèé ýòîãî ñòèõà.
6. ≈˘Â ÌÂÏÌÓ„Ó ÔÓ ÃÓËÒ¡ Àíàëèçèðóÿ òåìó «íåáåñíûõ äâîéíèêîâ», â «òåëàõ» êîòîðûõ âèäÿò ñâîè àïîêàëèïòè÷åñêèå âèäåíèÿ ìíîãèå èç ãåðîåâ ïñåâäîýïèãðàôè÷åñêîé ëèòåðàòóðû, Îðëîâ êàñàåòñÿ è Ìîèñåÿ, íî â êà÷åñòâå ïðèìåðà îñòàíàâëèâàåòñÿ ëèøü íà Ýêñàãîãå ïîýòà Èåçåêèèëÿ (ñ. 170).  äåéñòâèòåëüíîñòè êðóã èñòî÷íèêîâ øèðå. Ðàññêàçûâàÿ î ñìåðòè Ìîèñåÿ, Îðèãåí ññûëàåòñÿ â ýòîé ñâÿçè íà êàêóþ-òî íåèçâåñòíóþ íàì êíèãó: «Denique et in libello quodam, in quo, licet in canone non habeatur, mysterii tamen huius figura describitur, refertur quia duo Moyses videbantur: unus in spiritu et alius mortuus in corpore». [«Òàê è â êíèãå íåêîåé, â êîòîðîé õîòÿ îíà è íå îáðåòàåòñÿ â êàíîíå, îäíàêî îïèñûâàåòñÿ îáðàç ñåãî òàèíñòâà, ñî-
406
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
îáùàåòñÿ, ÷òî äâà Ìîèñåÿ áûëè çðèìû: îäèí â äóõå, à äðóãîé óìåðøèé â òåëå».53 Óïîìÿíóòàÿ êíèãà, ïî âñåé âèäèìîñòè, êîíöåíòðèðîâàëà â ñåáå òó òðàäèöèþ, ñ êîòîðîé ïîëåìèçèðîâàëà 2 Åíîõà, è, âïîëíå âîçìîæíî, ìîãëà áûòü äàæå è íåïîñðåäñòâåííûì îáúåêòîì ïîëåìèêè. Åùå îäíà òðàäèöèîííàÿ òåìà ïîëåìèêè ÌîèñåéÅíîõ ýòî âòîðîå ïðèøåñòâèå. Ïî÷åìó-òî â êà÷åñòâå ìåññèàíñêèõ ôèãóð, êîòîðûì íàçíà÷åíî âòîðîå ïðèøåñòâèå, Åíîõ è Ìîèñåé âñåãäà àëüòåðíàòèâíû äðóã äðóãó, íî ëåãêî ñîâìåùàþòñÿ ñ Èëèåé. Òåìà âòîðîãî ïðèøåñòâèÿ Åíîõà íàëè÷åñòâóåò è âî 2 Åíîõà, õîòÿ òàì îíî ïðåäñòàâëåíî êàê óæå ñîñòîÿâøååñÿ. Îáùèé îáçîð òðàäèöèé ýëëèíèñòè÷åñêîé ýïîõè ïðåäñòàâëåí â ðàáîòå Ê. Õààêêåðà è Ï. Øåôåðà.54 Î ñòåïåíè àêòóàëüíîñòè äëÿ ïîçäíåéøåãî õðèñòèàíñòâà îáåèõ òðàäèöèé ìîæíî ñóäèòü ïî ìîë÷àíèþ Àïîêàëèïñèñà Èîàííà îòíîñèòåëüíî èìåí ñîáñòâåííûõ óïîìèíàåìûõ òàì «äâóõ ñâèäåòåëåé»55 è ýòî íà ôîíå òîëêîâàíèé, â êîòîðûõ èìÿ îäíîãî èç íèõ íèêîãäà íå âûçûâàåò ðàçíîãëàñèé (Èëèÿ), à âòîðîãî ïîñòîÿííî êîëåáëåòñÿ: îäíè òîëêîâàòåëè íàçûâàþò Ìîèñåÿ, à äðóãèå Åíîõà.
7. ÕÂÍÓÚÓ˚ ÔÂÒÔÂÍÚË‚˚ Äàëåêî íå ïåðâîå äåñÿòèëåòèå íà ïîâåñòêå äíÿ ñòîèò êðèòè÷åñêîå èçäàíèå 2 Åíîõà, ïàðàëëåëüíî îáåèõ ðåäàêöèé. Ñåé÷àñ ñîçäàåòñÿ âïå÷àòëåíèå, ÷òî ãëàâíîå ïðåïÿòñòâèå íà ïóòè ê òàêîìó èçäàíèþ ýòî óæå íå òåêñòîëîãè÷åñêèå ïðîáëåìû â íàèáîëåå óçêîì è òåõíè÷åñêîì çíà÷åíèè ýòîãî ñëîâà, à ïðîáëåìû ïîíèìàíèÿ ñîäåðæàíèÿ òåêñòà. Ñëèøêîì ÷àñòî äëÿ 2 Åíîõà âîçíèêàþò ñèòóàöèè, êîãäà âûáîð ìåæäó âàðèàíòàìè ðóêîïèñåé ìîæåò áûòü îñóùåñòâëåí òîëüêî íà îñíîâå ïîíèìàíèÿ òîãî, ÷òî â äàííîì ìåñòå õîòåë ñêàçàòü àâòîð, òàê êàê òåîðåòè÷åñêè, ñ òî÷êè çðåíèÿ «ãîëîé» òåêñòîëîãèè, íåñêîëüêî ðàçíûõ âàðèàíòîâ îêàçûâàþòñÿ ðàâíîâåðîÿòíûìè. Îðèãåí, Áåñåäû íà Èèñóñà Íàâèíà, II, 1: Origène, Homélies sur Josué / Éd., tr. par A. JAUBERT (Paris, 1963) (SC 71) 118. Æîáåð (Ibid. 118–119, n. 2) ïðèâîäèò ïàðàëëåëü èç Ñòðîìàòîâ Êëèìåíòà Àëåêñàíäðèéñêîãî, òîæå î ñìåðòè Ìîèñåÿ (Èèñóñ Íàâèí âèäåë Ìîèñåÿ äâîÿêî: îäíîãî Ìîèñåÿ ñ àíãåëàìè, à äðóãîãî íà ãîðå, ïðèãîòîâëåííîãî ê ïîãðåáåíèþ), íî ñîîáùàåò, ÷òî èñòî÷íèê, óêàçûâàåìûé Îðèãåíîì, åé íåèçâåñòåí. 54 K. HAACKER, P. SCHÄFER, Nachbiblische Traditionen vom Tod des Mose // Josephus-Studien. Untersuchungen zu Josephus, dem antiken Judentum und dem Neuen Testament. Otto Michel zum 70. Geburtstag gewidmet / Hrsg. von O. Betz, M. Hengel, K. Haacker (Göttingen, 1974) 147–174, îñîá. 173–174. 55 M. BLACK, The «Two Witnesses» of Rev. 11, 3f. in Jewish and Christian Apocalyptic Tradition // Donum Gentilicium. New Testament Studies in Honor of D. Daube / Ed. E. Bammel, C. K. Barrett, W. D. Davies (Oxford, 1978) 227–237. 53
В. М. Лурье
407
Èññëåäîâàíèå Îðëîâà íàâåëî íåêîòîðûé ïîðÿäîê â òîì õàîñå, êîòîðûì ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ äëÿ ïîñòîðîííåãî âçãëÿäà íàãðîìîæäåíèå ðàçíîîáðàçíûõ ïðåäàíèé âî 2 Åíîõà. Ðàáîòà Îðëîâà äàæå è â ñâîåé îáëàñòè íå ìîæåò áûòü èñ÷åðïûâàþùåé (è, â ÷àñòíîñòè, îíà ñîâñåì èãíîðèðóåò âàæíóþ òðàäèöèþ, ñâÿçàííóþ ñ ñèìâîëè÷åñêîé ôèãóðîé Èèñóñà Íàâèíà), íî îíà ñîäåðæèò òàêóþ «êðèòè÷åñêóþ ìàññó» ñèñòåìàòèçàöèè, ïðè íàëè÷èè êîòîðîé äàëüíåéøèå èññëåäîâàíèÿ 2 Åíîõà äîëæíû âûéòè íà ñëåäóþùèé óðîâåíü.  ÷àñòíîñòè, òåïåðü îòêðûâàåòñÿ âîçìîæíîñòü èçó÷åíèÿ ñèìâîëè÷åñêèõ («àãèîãðàôè÷åñêèõ») òðàäèöèé, êîòîðûìè çàíèìàåòñÿ Îðëîâ, â òîì åäèíñòâå ñ òðàäèöèÿìè ëèòóðãè÷åñêèìè è, â ïåðâóþ î÷åðåäü, êàëåíäàðíûìè, â êîòîðîì îíè è ñóùåñòâóþò â ðåàëüíîñòè. Îòäåëåíèå àãèîãðàôèè îò ëèòóðãèêè ýòî âûíóæäåííàÿ ìåðà, íà êîòîðóþ ìû áûâàåì ïðèíóæäåíû èäòè îò áåññèëèÿ. Íî âñå ðàâíî íåëüçÿ çàáûâàòü, ÷òî âñå íàøè òåêñòû ïîðîæäàþòñÿ êóëüòîâîé ïðàêòèêîé îïðåäåëåííûõ îáùèí è ñàìè ñîñòàâëÿþòñÿ â öåëÿõ òîé æå ñàìîé êóëüòîâîé ïðàêòèêè. Äëÿ áîëüøèíñòâà èç íèõ ýëåìåíòû îïèñàíèÿ êóëüòîâîé ïðàêòèêè êàê òàêîâîé ñòàíîâÿòñÿ ÷àñòüþ èõ ñîäåðæàíèÿ, è 2 Åíîõà â ýòîì îòíîøåíèè ÷ðåçâû÷àéíî õàðàêòåðíûé ïðèìåð. Âîéíà àãèîãðàôè÷åñêèõ òðàäèöèé è ñòîëü õàðàêòåðíàÿ äëÿ ýëëèíèñòè÷åñêîãî èóäàèçìà «âîéíà êàëåíäàðåé» ýòî íå äâå ðàçíûõ âîéíû, à äâå ñòîðîíû îäíîé è òîé æå âîéíû ìåæäó êîíêóðèðóþùèìè ðåëèãèîçíûìè äâèæåíèÿìè.  ýëëèíèñòè÷åñêîì èóäàèçìå òðóäíî íàéòè òåêñò, êîòîðûé áûë áû ñîâñåì ëèøåí ëèòóðãè÷åñêîãî ñîäåðæàíèÿ, à óæ àïîêàëèïòèêà ëèòóðãè÷íà âñåãäà, è òóò èñêëþ÷åíèÿ íåëüçÿ äîïóñòèòü äàæå òåîðåòè÷åñêè: âåäü ëþáîé àïîêàëèïñèñ ïðåäïîëàãàåò âèäåíèå íåáåñíîãî Õðàìà è, òàêèì îáðàçîì, íå ìîæåò èçáåãíóòü òîãî, ÷òîáû íå îïèñàòü õîòü êàê-òî åãî ëèòóðãè÷åñêîå óñòðîéñòâî. Èòàê, äëÿ 2 Åíîõà îòêðûëàñü ïåðñïåêòèâà èçó÷åíèÿ «àãèîãðàôè÷åñêèõ» è ëèòóðãè÷åñêèõ òðàäèöèé â èõ âçàèìíîé ñâÿçè. Íà ýòîì ôîíå ñòàíîâèòñÿ åùå çàìåòíåé î÷åðåäíîå desideratum èññëåäîâàíèé 2 Åíîõà íåèçó÷åííîñòü ñîáñòâåííî àñòðîíîìè÷åñêîãî ñîäåðæàíèÿ ïðîèçâåäåíèÿ. Íî ýòî âñ¸ ïåðñïåêòèâû äëÿ áóäóùèõ èññëåäîâàíèé. À â íàñòîÿùåì ìû äîëæíû ïîáëàãîäàðèòü Àíäðåÿ Îðëîâà çà ïðåêðàñíûé èòîã åãî ìíîãîëåòíåãî òðóäà.
“‡Ú¸ˇÌ‡ ¿. —ÂÌË̇ (ÏÓ̇ıËÌˇ ‡ÒÒˡ) —‡ÌÍÚ-œÂÚ·ۄ
Õ≈— ŒÀ‹ Œ «¿Ã≈◊¿Õ»… œŒ œŒ¬Œƒ” ∆»“»fl —¬. ≈¬‘»Ã»fl —¿–ƒ— Œ√Œ 1. ÀÓ„ÓÙÂÚ ‰Óχ, ·Ë˜Â‚‡‚¯ËÈ Ò‚. ≈‚ÙËÏˡ Áîëåå ñîðîêà ëåò íàçàä Æ. Ãóéàð â ñâîåé ñòàòüå, ïîñâÿùåííîé Æèòèþ ñâÿùåííîìó÷åíèêà Åâôèìèÿ Ñàðäñêîãî, íàïèñàííîìó ñâ. ïàòðèàðõîì Ìåôîäèåì, âûðàçèë íàäåæäó, ÷òî ïðèäåò âðåìÿ, êîãäà íàóêà âûÿñíèò, êòî æå áûë òîò ëîãîôåò äðîìà, êîòîðûé ìåñòå ñ äâóìÿ äðóãèìè èìïåðàòîðñêèìè ÷èíîâíèêàìè áè÷åâàë ñâ. Åâôèìèÿ.1 Îäíàêî äî ñèõ ïîð ïîïûòêà òî÷íåå óñòàíîâèòü ëè÷íîñòü ýòîãî ëîãîôåòà íå áûëà ïðåäïðèíÿòà, è îí íå âîøåë, äàæå àíîíèìíî, â ýëåêòðîííûé ïðîñîïîãðàôè÷åñêèé ñïðàâî÷íèê Äæ. Ìàðòèíäåéëà.2 Ñîñòàâèòåëè ñïðàâî÷íèêà Prosopographie der Mittelbyzantinischen Zeit óòâåðæäàþò,3 ÷òî íåâîçìîæíî òî÷íî ðåøèòü, áûë ëè ýòèì ëîãîôåòîì ïàòðèêèé Êîñüìà, óïîìèíàåìûé â Æèòèè ñââ. Äàâèäà, Ñèìåîíà è Ãåîðãèÿ 22.4 Ñîãëàñíî Æèòèþ ñâ. Åâôèìèÿ, ýòîò ëîãîôåò èìåë îäíó ðîäñòâåííèöó ïî áðàêó ñ èìïåðàòîðîì Ôåîôèëîì. Æ. Ãóéàð ïðåäïîëàãàåò, ÷òî ýòî áûëà òåùà èìïåðàòîðà è, òàêèì îáðàçîì, ëîãîôåò ìîã áûòü ìóæåì îäíîé èç ñåñòåð èìïåðàòðèöû Ôåîäîðû, ò. å. ýòî áûë èëè Àðñàâèð, ìóæ Êàëîìàðèè, èëè Ñåðãèé, ðîäñòâåííèê Ôîòèÿ, ìóæ Èðèíû, èëè Êîíñòàíòèí Âàâóöèê, ìóæ Ñîôèè.5 Êîñüìîé æå, ñîãëàñíî Ãóéàðó, ìîãëè çâàòü îäíîãî èç äâóõ ñïóòíèêîâ ëîãîôåòà èëè ïðåïîçèòà êàíèêëèÿ, èëè ìàíãëàâèòà.6 1 J. GOUILLARD, Une œuvre inédite du patriarche Méthode: la Vie d’Euthyme de Sardes // BZ 53.1 (1960) 36–46, ñì. 43. 2 Prosopography of the Byzantine Empire I (641–867) / Ed. J. R. MARTINDALE (äàëåå — PBE). Òóäà âêëþ÷åíû íåñêîëüêî àíîíèìíûõ ëîãîôåòîâ, â ò. ÷. ëîãîôåòîâ äðîìà (Anonymus 27, 460, 520, 526, 761, 771), íî ëîãîôåò, óïîìèíàþùèéñÿ â Æèòèè Åâôèìèÿ Ñàðäñêîãî, îòñóòñòâóåò, õîòÿ è óïîìÿíóò â ñïðàâêå î ñàìîì ñâ. Åâôèìèè (Euthymios 1). 3 Prosopographie der Mittelbyzantinischen Zeit. Erste Abteilung (641–867) / Ed. R.-J. LILIE, C. LUDWIG, TH. PRATSCH, I. ROCHOW (Berlin, 1998) (äàëåå PmbZ) ¹ 4128. 4 Acta Davidis, Symeonis et Georgii (BHG 494) / Åd. J VAN DEN GHEYN // AB 18 (1899) 211–259, ñì. 238, 8–12. 5 J. GOUILLARD, La Vie d’Euthyme de Sardes († 831), une œuvre du patriarche Méthode // TM 10 (1987) 1–101; ñì. 10, n. 52. 6 Ibid. 10.
T. A. Сенина
409
Ä. Àôèíîãåíîâ, âñëåä çà Ãóéàðîì, ñ÷èòàåò, ÷òî óïîìÿíóòîé ðîäñòâåííèöåé ïî áðàêó áûëà òåùà èìïåðàòîðà è ëîãîôåòà, ò. å. ìàòü èìïåðàòðèöû Ôåîäîðû Ôëîðèíà-Ôåîêòèñòà, çàìå÷àÿ, ÷òî ñâ. Åâôèìèé íàçâàë åå îäíó, î÷åâèäíî, «íå îïàñàÿñü, ÷òî òà ìîæåò ïîäâåðãíóòüñÿ íàêàçàíèþ».7 Ýòî íàáëþäåíèå ñïðàâåäëèâî, è ïîýòîìó äàæå åñëè ïðåäïîëîæèòü,8 ÷òî ñëîâîì êçäåóôñßá ìîãëà îáîçíà÷àòüñÿ íå îáÿçàòåëüíî òåùà, íî è äðóãàÿ ðîäñòâåííèöà ïî áðàêó, òî âñå ðàâíî, ïî-âèäèìîìó, ýòî áûëà ðîäñòâåííèöà áëèçêàÿ ò. å. ëèáî ìàòü, ëèáî îäíà èç ñåñòåð Ôåîäîðû.9 Òàêèì îáðàçîì, â ëþáîì ñëó÷àå ëîãîôåò äðîìà, áè÷åâàâøèé ñâ. Åâôèìèÿ äîëæåí áûë áûòü ìóæåì îäíîé èç ñåñòåð èìïåðàòðèöû. Êòî ýòî ìîã áûòü? Âðÿä ëè ýòî áûë ìóæ Ñîôèè Êîíñòàíòèí Âàâóöèê, ïîñêîëüêó îí áûë äðóíãàðèåì, â áóäóùåì îäíèì èç Àìîðåéñêèõ ìó÷åíèêîâ;10 ïðî òî, ÷òî îí ìîã áûòü ëîãîôåòîì äðîìà, íè÷åãî íåèçâåñòíî. Çà êåì áûëà çàìóæåì Èðèíà, íåÿñíî. Ïî îäíîé ðåêîíñòðóêöèè, íåèçâåñòíî, çà êåì;11 ïî äðóãîé çà íåêèì Ñåðãèåì, âîçìîæíî, Ñåðãèåì Íèêåòèàòîì.12 Ëîãîôåò äðîìà ïðè Ìèõàèëå III, íî íå ïðè Ôåîôèëå, îí áû ê òîìó æå îäíèì èç ãëàâíûõ ëèö ïðè âîññòàíîâëåíèè èêîíîïî÷èòàíèÿ â 843 ã.,13 à ïîòîìó äîâîëüíî ñîìíèòåëüíî, ÷òîáû ðàíåå îí áûë ðüÿíûì èêîíîáîðöåì è áè÷åâàë èêîíîïî÷èòàòåëåé. Èññëåäîâàíèå À. Ãðåãóàðà ïîêàçûâàåò, ÷òî Ñåðãèé Íèêåòèàò áûë î÷åíü âëèÿòåëüíûì ãîñóäàðñòâåííûì äåÿòåëåì, íàðÿäó ñ áðàòüÿìè èìïåðàòðèöû Ôåîäîðû Âàðäîé è Ïåòðîíîé è ëîãîôåòîì Ôåîêòèñòîì, ïîýòîìó, êàê ìíå êàæåòñÿ, âåëèêà âåðîÿòíîñòü, ÷òî îí äåéñòâèòåëüíî áûë ìóæåì ñåñòðû èìïåðàòðèöû. Ñóùåñòâóåò ïðåäïîëîæåíèå, ÷òî îí áûë äÿäåé Ôåîäîðû,14 íî ýòî ìåíåå âåðîÿòíî, ïîñêîëüêó â 853 ã., êîãäà ðîäèòåëè Ôåîäîðû è åå äÿäÿ Ìàíóèë Ä. Å. ÀÔÈÍÎÃÅÍÎÂ, «Ïîâåñòü î ïðîùåíèè èìïåðàòîðà Ôåîôèëà» è Òîðæåñòâî Ïðàâîñëàâèÿ (Ì., 2004) (Scrinium Philocalicum IV) 56. 8 Êàê ýòî äåëàåò Ê. Ìýíãî: Ñ. MANGO, The Liquidation of Iconoclasm and the Patriarch Photios // Iconoclasm. Papers given at the Ninth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies. University of Birmingham. March 1975 / Ed. A. Bryer, J. Herrin (Birmingham, 1977) 133140, ñì. 139. 9 Ìýíãî (Ibid.) ïðåäïîëàãàåò, ÷òî ýòîé ðîäñòâåííèöåé ìîãëà áûòü äàæå Èðèíà, ìàòü ñâ. ïàòðèàðõà Ôîòèÿ; íî ìíå ýòî ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ ìàëîâåðîÿòíûì, âåäü ñâ. Åâôèìèé äåéñòâèòåëüíî äîëæåí áûë íàçâàòü ëèøü òó, î êîòîðîé îí òî÷íî ìîã çíàòü, ÷òî èìïåðàòîð íè÷åãî íå ñäåëàåò åé; ó÷àñòü æå ðîäèòåëåé Ôîòèÿ ïîêàçûâàåò, ÷òî áîëåå äàëüíèå ðîäñòâåííèêè âïîëíå ìîãëè âïàñòü â íåìèëîñòü ïî ðåëèãèîçíî-ïîëèòè÷åñêèì ìîòèâàì. 10 PmbZ, ¹ 3932. 11 Ñì.: MANGO, The Liquidation of Iconoclasm… 138. 12 Ibid. 13 Î íåì ñì.: H. GRÉGOIRE, Études sur le neuvième siècle // Byz 8 (1933) 515– 550, ñì. 515–538. 14 PmbZ, ¹ 6664. 7
410
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
óæå äàâíî óìåðëè, Íèêåòèàò âîâñþ êîìàíäîâàë âîéñêàìè è óìåð â 866 ã., ò. å. íåçàäîëãî äî ñàìîé Ôåîäîðû; áîëåå âåðîÿòíî, ÷òî îí áûë èç îäíîãî ïîêîëåíèÿ ñ íåþ è åå ñåñòðàìè. Åñëè îí äåéñòâèòåëüíî áûë ìóæåì Èðèíû, òî ìîë÷àíèå îá ýòîì Ïðîäîëæàòåëÿ Ôåîôàíà,15 íà ïåðâûé âçãëÿä ñòðàííîå, íà ñàìîì äåëå îáúÿñíèìî: ñîãëàñíî ðåêîíñòðóêöèè Ãðåãóàðà, Ñåðãèé Íèêåòèàò, «ãëàâíûé àâòîð òîðæåñòâà ñâÿòûõ èêîí», áûë çàáûò èñòîðèêàìè Õ âåêà ïîòîìó, ÷òî îíè èìåëè «ñâîèõ ãåðîåâ» ñîãëàñíî Ñèìåîíó Ëîãîôåòó, ãëàâíûì â äåëå âîññòàíîâëåíèÿ ïðàâîñëàâèÿ áûë Ôåîêòèñò, à ñîãëàñíî Ãåíåñèþ è Ïðîäîëæàòåëþ Ôåîôàíà, ýòî áûë ìàãèñòð Ìàíóèë, äÿäÿ Ôåîäîðû;16 ïîýòîìó óïîìÿíóòûå õðîíèñòû ïðåäïî÷ëè î Íèêåòèàòå âîâñå íå óïîìèíàòü. Òðåòüÿ ñåñòðà Ôåîäîðû, Êàëîìàðèÿ, áûëà çàìóæåì çà ïàòðèêèåì Àðñàâèðîì; ïîõîæå, èìåííî îí è ìîã áûòü òåì ëîãîôåòîì äðîìà, êîòîðûé áè÷åâàë ñâ. Åâôèìèÿ. Ýòîò Àðñàâèð óìåð íå òî åùå â öàðñòâîâàíèå Ôåîôèëà, íå òî óæå â öàðñòâîâàíèå Ìèõàèëà III, íî ïðè ðåãåíòñòâå Ôåîäîðû, òàê êàê ïîñëå åãî ñìåðòè Êàëîìàðèÿ, êàê ñêàçàíî ó Ïðîäîëæàòåëÿ Ôåîôàíà «ïðåäïî÷ëà íå óâèäåòü íàïðàñíîé ñìåðòè âòîðîãî17 è îñòàëàñü æèòü âî äâîðöå âäîâîé âìåñòå ñ ñåñòðîé; îäåòàÿ â ñêðîìíîå, áåäíîå, ÷åðíîãî öâåòà ïëàòüå, îíà â íà÷àëå êàæäîãî ìåñÿöà ... øëà ïåøêîì ÷åðåç ñõîëû ê òåì, êòî ñîäåðæàëñÿ â òþðüìàõ ... è êàæäîãî óçíèêà îäàðèâàëà áëàãîñëîâåíèåì è æàëîñòüþ».18 Îòñþäà ñëåäóåò, ÷òî åå ìóæ óìåð, âèäèìî, êîãäà îíà áûëà åùå íå ñòàðîé, ðàç îíà åùå ìîãëà äóìàòü î âòîðè÷íîì çàìóæåñòâå; à åå ïîâåäåíèå ïîñëå åãî ñìåðòè (îñîáåííî çàáîòà îá óçíèêàõ) íàâîäèò íà ìûñëü, ÷òî îíà, âîçìîæíî, õîòåëà èñêóïèòü ïðîøëûå äåÿíèÿ ìóæà âåðîÿòíî, èìåííî åãî ó÷àñòèå â ïðåñëåäîâàíèè ïðàâîñëàâíûõ â öàðñòâîâàíèå Ôåîôèëà. Áûë ëè ýòîò Àðñàâèð áðàòîì Èîàííà Ãðàììàòèêà èëè íåò?19 Ïî-âèäèìîìó, íåò. Ó Ïðîäîëæàòåëÿ Ôåîôàíà ñêàçàíî, ÷òî ñâîå èìåíèå, â êîòî15 Ìíå ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ, ÷òî âñòàâêà èçäàòåëÿ ½ äc ÅkñÞíç â òåêñò Ïðîäîëæàòåëÿ (Theophanes Continuatus // Theophanes Continuatus, Ioannes Cameniata, Symeon Magister, Georgius Monachus / Åd. I. BEKKER (Bonnae, 1838) (Corpus scriptorum historiae Byzantinae) 1–481 [äàëåå — ThCont]; ñì. 175:4) íå íóæíà, è áðàòîì Èðèíû, ìàòåðè ïàòðèàðõà Ôîòèÿ, íà ñàìîì äåëå áûë Àðñàâèð, ìóæ Êàëîìàðèè, à ïðî ìóæà Èðèíû, ñåñòðû Ôåîäîðû, Ïðîäîëæàòåëü íå óïîìèíàåò (ñì.: MANGO, The Liquidation of Iconoclasm… 137–138). 16 GRÉGOIRE, Études sur le neuvième siècle… 520. 17 Áóêâàëüíî — «âòîðîãî íàïðàñíî (èëè «áåçóìíî») óìåðøèì»: êár äåýôåñïí käåsí ìÜôçí Pðïâéïíôá (ThCont 175:14). 18 ThCont 175:1324. Ïåðåâîä öèòèðóþ ïî èçäàíèþ: Ïðîäîëæàòåëü Ôåîôàíà, Æèçíåîïèñàíèÿ âèçàíòèéñêèõ öàðåé / Ïåð., ñòàòüè, êîìì. ß. Í. ËÞÁÀÐÑÊÎÃÎ (Ì., 1993) (Ëèòåðàòóðíûå ïàìÿòíèêè) VI:22 (ñ. 77). 19 Òàêèì âîïðîñîì çàäàåòñÿ Ý. Àðâåéëåð: H. AHRWEILER, Sur la carrière de Photius avant son patriarcat // BZ 58 (1965) 348363, ñì. 354355, íå îòâå÷àÿ, îäíàêî, íà íåãî íè óòâåðäèòåëüíî, íè îòðèöàòåëüíî.
T. A. Сенина
411
ðîì Èîàíí, óæå áóäó÷è ïàòðèàðõîì, ëþáèë îòäûõàòü, Àðñàâèð ïîòîì ïðîäàë ïàðàêèìîìåíó Âàñèëèþ (ò. å. áóäóùåìó èìïåðàòîðó Âàñèëèþ I), è òàì áûë óñòðîåí ìîíàñòûðü. Åñëè òàê, òî ýòî ìîãëî ïðîèçîéòè òîëüêî óæå âî âðåìÿ åäèíîëè÷íîãî öàðñòâîâàíèÿ Ìèõàèëà ÉÉÉ, à çíà÷èò, áðàò Ãðàììàòèêà æèë äîâîëüíî äîëãî è íå ìîæåò áûòü èäåíòèôèöèðîâàí ñ ìóæåì Êàëîìàðèè. Èäåíòè÷åí ëè ëîãîôåò äðîìà Àðñàâèð òîìó ëîãîôåòó, êîòîðûé óïîìÿíóò â ïèñüìå ñâ. Ôåîäîðà Íà÷åðòàííîãî?20 Âåðîÿòíîñòü ýòîãî íå èñêëþ÷åíà, ïîñêîëüêó ìåæäó ìó÷åíè÷åñòâîì ñâ. Åâôèìèÿ è ìó÷åíè÷åñòâîì áðàòüåâ Íà÷åðòàííûõ ïðîøëî òîëüêî ïÿòü ñ ïîëîâèíîé ëåò, è ëîãîôåòîì äðîìà ìîã îñòàâàòüñÿ òîò æå ÷åëîâåê; êðîìå òîãî, ëîãîôåò, âîïðîøàâøèé Íà÷åðòàííûõ, ïî÷åìó îíè «ðàäîâàëèñü ñìåðòè èìïåðàòîðà Ëüâà», áûë, ïîõîæå, óáåæäåííûì èêîíîáîðöåì, êàê è òîò, ÷òî áè÷åâàë ñâ. Åâôèìèÿ.21 2. ‡ÌÓÌ Ò‚. ≈‚ÙËÏ˲, ̇ÔËÒ‡ÌÌ˚È Ò‚. ‘ÂÓÙ‡ÌÓÏ Õ‡˜ÂÚ‡ÌÌ˚Ï Ðàññìàòðèâàÿ èñòî÷íèêè ñâåäåíèé î æèçíè ñâ. Åâôèìèÿ, Æ. Ãóéàð óïîìèíàåò ñëóæáó èñïîâåäíèêó, íåñêîëüêî ðàç èçäàâàâøóþñÿ îòäåëüíîé áðîøþðîé.22 Åùå ðàíüøå ýòà ñëóæáà ïðèâëåêëà âíèìàíèå Æ. Ïàðãóàðà.23 Îáà àâòîðà, îäíàêî, îáðàòèëè âíèìàíèå òîëüêî íà æèòèå ñâ. Åâôèìèÿ, ïðèëîæåííîå ê ýòîé ñëóæáå,24 ïðè÷åì Ãóéàð îòìåòèë, ÷òî èç ýòîãî æèòèÿ «ìàëî ÷òî ìîæíî ïî÷åðïíóòü», èáî îíî îñíîâàíî íà æèòèè, ñîñòàâëåííîì ñâ. Ìåôîäèåì, è äîïîëíåíî íåêîòîðûìè âûäóìàííûìè ïîäðîáíîñòÿìè;25 ñàì æå òåêñò ñëóæáû íèêòî íå èññëåäîâàë. 20 Theodori Grapti Vita et conversatio // PG 116. Col. 676BC; ñð. Vita Michaelis Syncelli (BHG 1296) 21 — The Life of Michael the Synkellos / Text, transl. and comm. by M. B. CUNNINGHAM (Belfast, 1991) (Belfast Byzantine Texts and Translations 1) 90–93 (ðóñ. ïåð.: Æèçíü, äåÿíèÿ è ïîäâèãè ñâÿòîãî îòöà íàøåãî è èñïîâåäíèêà Ìèõàèëà, ïðåñâèòåðà è ñèíêåëëà ãðàäà Èåðóñàëèìà // Âèçàíòèéñêèå ëåãåíäû / Èçä. ïîäã. Ñ. Â. ÏÎËßÊÎÂÀ (ÑÏá., 1972, ðåïð. 2004) (Ëèòåðàòóðíûå ïàìÿòíèêè) 114139, ñì. 128). Ýòîò ëîãîôåò äàí â PBE êàê Anonymus 771. 21 Ì. Êàííèíãàì ïðåäïîëàãàåò, îäíàêî, ÷òî óïîìÿíóòûé â ïèñüìå ñâ. Ôåîäîðà ëîãîôåò ìîã áûòü Ôåîêòèñòîì, áóäóùèì ó÷àñòíèêîì âîññòàíîâëåíèÿ èêîíîïî÷èòàíèÿ: The Life of Michael Synkellos… 158, n. 153. 22 ß èñïîëüçîâàëà 2-å èçäàíèå: EÁêïëïõèßá ôï dí Qãßïéò ðáôñò ½ì§í Åèõìßïõ dðéóêüðïõ ÓáñäÝùí ôï ¿ìïëïãÞôïõ. Èåùñçèåsóá dðéäéïñèùèåsóÜ ôå êár dðéìåë§ò dðåîåñãáóèåsóá ð EÉáêþâïõ jåñïäéáêüíïõ ôï dê Ìçèýíçò (EÅí EÁèÞíáéò, 1852), äàëåå EÁêïëïõèßá. 23 J. PARGOIRE, Saint Euthyme et Jean de Sardes // Echos d’Orient 5 (19011902) 157161, ñì. 157. 24 EÁêïëïõèßá. 19–35. 25 GOUILLARD, La Vie d’Euthyme de Sardes… 3.
412
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
Ìåæäó òåì, õîòÿ ïîñëåäîâàíèå, ñîñòàâëåííîå èåðîäèàêîíîì Èàêîâîì, äåéñòâèòåëüíî ïîçäíåå, âêëþ÷åííûå â íåãî êàíîí è òðè ñòèõèðû ñâ. Åâôèìèþ èìåþò ãîðàçäî áîëåå ðàííåå ïðîèñõîæäåíèå: îíè âõîäÿò â ñîñòàâ ãðå÷åñêîé Ìèíåè,26 è àâòîðñòâî êàíîíà ïðèïèñûâàåòñÿ ñâ. Ôåîôàíó Íà÷åðòàííîìó27 ñîâðåìåííèêó ñâ. Åâôèìèÿ. Èåðîäèàêîí Èàêîâ äîïîëíèë ñëóæáó ñâÿùåííîìó÷åíèêó äî ïîëèåëåéíîãî ïîñëåäîâàíèÿ, ñîåäèíèâ åå ñ ïðàçäíîâàíèåì â òîò æå äåíü Ñîáîðà Ïðåñâÿòîé Áîãîðîäèöû; íî, îñòàâèâ àêðîñòèõîâàííûé êàíîí, ñîñòàâëåííûé ñâ. Ôåîôàíîì, îïóñòèë èìÿ àâòîðà28 âåðîÿòíî, èìåííî ïîýòîìó ïîçäíåéøèå èññëåäîâàòåëè, èñïîëüçîâàâøèå ðàñøèðåííîå èçäàíèå ñëóæáû, íå îáðàùàëè âíèìàíèå íà òî, ÷òî ñâ. Åâôèìèé áûë ïðîñëàâëåí ñîâðåìåííûì åìó âèçàíòèéñêèì ãèìíîãðàôîì, à ïîòîìó êàíîí ìîæåò èìåòü öåííîñòü êàê èñòîðè÷åñêèé èñòî÷íèê.29 Íåèçâåñòíî, áûë ëè ñâ. Ôåîôàí çíàêîì ñ Æèòèåì ñâ. Åâôèìèÿ, âûøåäøèì èç-ïîä ïåðà ñâ. Ìåôîäèÿ, íî èç òåêñòà êàíîíà âèäíî, ÷òî ãèìíîãðàô áûë çíàêîì ñ ïîäðîáíîñòÿìè ìó÷åíè÷åñêîãî ïîäâèãà ñâîåãî ãåðîÿ;30 Ïîä 26 äåêàáðÿ, íà ïîâå÷åðèè. Òî æå ñàìîå â ñëàâÿíñêîé Ìèíåå.  Ìèíåå êàíîí èìååò íàäïèñàíèå: FÏ êáí¦í, ï£ ½ Pêñïóôé÷ßò: Ôå÷èårò óc ×ñéóôò óðáñãÜíïéò óôÝöåé, ðÜôåñ. ÈåïöÜíïõò. — КанHнъ … є3гHже краегранeсіе: Рождeнный тS Хrт0съ пеленaми вэнчaетъ, џ§е. Fеофaново. Àêðîñòèõ ïðèâÿçûâàåò êàíîí ê ïðàçäíóåìîìó íàêàíóíå Ðîæäåñòâó Õðèñòîâó. 28 Èåðîäèàêîí Èàêîâ òàêæå â íåêîòîðûõ ìåñòàõ èçìåíèë òåêñò êàíîíà; âåðîÿòíî, ýòè èçìåíåíèÿ ñëåäóåò ñ÷èòàòü òåìè «èñïðàâëåíèÿìè», î êîòîðûõ ñîîáùàåòñÿ â çàãëàâèè èçäàíèÿ (ñì. ïðèì. 21); ê ñîæàëåíèþ, íèêàêîãî ïîÿñíÿþùåãî ïðåäèñëîâèå èçäàíèå ñëóæáû íå ñîäåðæèò. 29 Ñëóæáà, èçäàííàÿ èåðîäèàêîíîì Èàêîâîì, óïîìèíàåòñÿ êàê åäèíñòâåííàÿ ñëóæáà ñâ. Åâôèìèþ è ó L. PETIT, Bibliographie des acoluthies grecques (Bruxelles, 1926) (Subsidia Hagiographica 16) 82–83. Ìèíåéíàÿ ñëóæáà ñâ. Åâôèìèþ è àâòîðñòâî ñâ. Ôåîôàíà Íà÷åðòàííîãî óïîìÿíóòû â èçäàíèè: H. FOLLIERI, Initia hymnorum ecclesiae graecae. Vol. 1–5 (Vatican, 1960) Vol. V.1. 269–270; Vol. V.2. 99. 30  êàíîíå óïîìèíàåòñÿ äàæå òàêàÿ ñðàâíèòåëüíî ìåëêàÿ ïîäðîáíîñòü, êàê ïîùå÷èíû, êîòîðûå ïðèíÿë ñâ. Åâôèìèé âî âðåìÿ äîïðîñà èìïåðàòîðîì Ôåîôèëîì, õîòÿ ñàì èìïåðàòîð è íå íàçûâàåòñÿ. Çäåñü è äàëåå ãðå÷åñêèé è ñëàâÿíñêèé òåêñòû ñëóæáû öèòèðóþ, ñîîòâåòñòâåííî, ïî èçäàíèÿì: Ìçíásïí ôï äåêåìâñßïõ. ÐåñéÝ÷ïí Rðáóáí ôxí PíÞêïõóáí áô² EÁêïëïõèßáí. Äéïñèùècí ô ðñrí ð Âáñèïëïìáßïõ ÊïõôëïõìïõóéÜíïõ ôï EÉìâñßïõ. Êár ðáñE áôï áîçècí ô ôï Ôõðéêï ðñïóèÞêw êáôN ôxí äéÜôáîéí ôyò FÁãßáò ôï ×ñéóôï ìåãÜëçò dêêëçóßáò, |ò ô dããñÜöv Päåßu. EÁíáèåùñçècí êár Pêñéâ§ò dðéäéïñèùèÝí (Âåíåôßá, 18905) 208210 (äàëåå Ìçíásïí) è Минjа. Мёсzцъ декeмврій (Кjевъ, ¤аt§г (ðåïð.: Ì., 1997)) 523528 (äàëåå Минjа). Ïåñíü 4-ÿ, 1-é òðîïàðü (óåë. 208; ñ. 524): FÑáðéæüìåíïò ô ðñüóùðïí ô ô èåßu, ÷áñéôùècí ëáìðñüôçôé, ôyò Tíù óïößáò, ãÝãïíáò óõììÝôï÷ïò, ×ñéóôï ðáììáêÜñéóôå, ôï ðcñ ½ì§í ¼áðéóèÝíôïò óáñêß. + Заушaемь по лицY, t бжcтвенныz благодaти просвэти1сz, и3 словeсъ мyдростію, бhлъ є3си2 сопричaстникъ хrтY, всеблажeнне, нaсъ рaди заушeнному пл0тію. 26 27
T. A. Сенина
413
î÷åíü âîçìîæíî, ÷òî îí âäîõíîâëÿëñÿ ïðè íàïèñàíèè êàíîíà èìåííî óïîìÿíóòûì Æèòèåì. Îäíàêî ñâ. Ôåîôàí ðàññìàòðèâàåò èñïîâåäíè÷åñòâî ñâ. Åâôèìèÿ ïîä èíûì óãëîì çðåíèÿ, íåæåëè ñâ. Ìåôîäèé. Âî-ïåðâûõ, îáðàùàåò íà ñåáÿ âíèìàíèå òî, ÷òî ñâ. Ôåîôàí íåîäíîêðàòíî ïðîâîäèò ïàðàëëåëè ìåæäó ñâ. Åâôèìèåì è ñâ. ïåðâîìó÷åíèêîì Ñòåôàíîì, — ýòî, íåñîìíåííî, ñâÿçàíî ñ òåì, ÷òî ïàìÿòü ïåðâîìó÷åíèêà ñîâåðøàåòñÿ íà ñëåäóþùèé äåíü 27 äåêàáðÿ ïî öåðêîâíîìó êàëåíäàðþ: â êàíîíå èñïîâåäíèê íåñêîëüêî ðàç ïðÿìî èëè êîñâåííî ñðàâíèâàåòñÿ ñî ñâ. Ñòåôàíîì, ìîëèâøèìèñÿ çà âðàãîâ è óáèéö ñâîèõ.31 Ìåæäó òåì, ñâ. Ìåôîäèé â Æèòèè ñðàâíåíèÿ ñ ïåðâîìó÷åíèêîì íå ïðîâîäèò è âîîáùå íè ñëîâà íå ãîâîðèò î òîì, ÷òî ñâ. Åâôèìèé ìîëèëñÿ çà ñâîèõ ìó÷èòåëåé.  Æèòèè èñïîâåäíèê ëèøü èðîíèçèðóåò íàä ñâîèìè ãîíèòåëÿìè è íàä ñàìèì èìïåðàòîðîì,32 è íàä ÷èíîâíèêàìè áè÷åâàâøèìè åãî.33  êàíîíå ñîäåðæèòñÿ ÿâíîå óêàçàíèå íà ïðèáëèçèòåëüíîå âðåìÿ åãî ñîñòàâëåíèÿ â 4-ì òðîïàðå 9-é ïåñíè ãîâîðèòñÿ:34 IÅ÷ùí ðñò Èåí ðỼçóßáí, ©ò FÉåñÜñ÷çò ôå êár ÌÜñôõò, ôï íí díåóô§íïò ÷åéì§íïò, ôyò EÅêêëçóßáò ãáëÞíçí ánôçóáé, êár ô§í ðôáéóìÜôùí Töåóéí, ôïsò óc ìíïóé ÐáììáêÜñéóôå.35 31 Ïåñíü 1-ÿ, 4-é òðîïàðü (Ìçíásïí. 208; Минjа. 523): ÈáíÜôv ôí ôï Äåóðüôïõ èÜíáôïí, dêìéìçóÜìåíïò, äåóðïôéêNò dâüçóáò öùíÜò, ðcñ ô§í Píáéñïýíôùí óå åkëéêñéí§ò å÷üìåíïò, FÉåñïöÜíôá ðáíóåâÜóìéå. + Смeртію смeрти вLчнэй под0бzсz, вLчни возгласи1лъ є3си2 глaсы, њ ўбивaющихъ тS свётлw молsсz, свzщенноzвлeнне всечeстне. Ïåñíü 3-ÿ, 3-é òðîïàðü (â ñëàâÿíñêîé ìèíåå 2-é) (óåë. 208; ñ. 524): ÓôåöÜíïõ dêìéìçôxò, ôï ðñùôïìÜñôõñïò ×ñéóôï ãÝãïíáò, ô§í öïíåõô§í Åèýìéå, ðcñ óùôçñßáò å÷üìåíïò (â èçäàíèè èåðîäèàê. Èàêîâà dêìéìçôxò çàìåíåíî íà ó ìéìçôxò — EÁêïëïõèßá. 12). + Стефaна под0бникъ первомyченика хrт0ва бhлъ є3си2, њ спасeніи ўбивaющихъ тS молsсz, є3vfЂміе. Ïåñíü 7-ÿ, 2-é òðîïàðü (â ñëàâÿíñêîé ìèíåå 3-é) (óåë. 209; ñ. 526): Ó döåéëêýóù, ÷Üñéí ôï èåßïõ ÐñùôïìÜñôõñïò, ï£ðåñ Píåäåß÷èçò Tñéóôïò ìéìçôxò, åëïãßáò Pìåéâüìåíïò, ôïò PíáñïíôÜò óå, Píçëå§ò ðáììÜêáñ Åèýìéå (â èçäàíèè èåðîäèàê. Èàêîâà åëïãßáò çàìåíåíî íà åëïãåßáéò — EÁêïëïõèßá. 33). + Спривлeклъ є3си2 благодaть бжcтвеннагw первомyченика, є3гHже показaлсz є3си2 и3зрsднэйшій подражaтель, благословeньми возмє1здіz даS ўбивaющымъ тS неми1лостивнw, всеблажeнне є3vfЂміе.  3-é è 7-é ïåñíÿõ â ñëàâÿíñêîé ìèíåå 2-é è 3-é òðîïàðè ïåðåñòàâëåíû ìåñòàìè. Ìîæåò áûòü, òàê áûëî è â òîé ðóêîïèñè, ñ êîòîðîé äåëàëñÿ ïåðåâîä, ïîñêîëüêó è â òîé, è â äðóãîé ïåñíè îáà òðîïàðÿ íà÷èíàþòñÿ íà Ó, è àêðîñòèõ êàíîíà îò èõ ïåðåñòàíîâêè íå íàðóøàåòñÿ. 32 § 14:280–291 (GOUILLARD, La Vie d’Euthyme de Sardes… 41, 43). 33 § 19:360–361, 375–377 (Ibid. 47, 49). 34 Òðîïàðü ñòîèò ïåðåä «Áîãîðîäè÷íûì» è çàâåðøàåò êàíîí. 35 Ìçíásïí. 209.
414
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
И#мёz къ бGу дерзновeніе, ћкw с™и1тель же и3 мyченикъ, нhнэ t настоsщіz зимы2, цRкви тишинY и3спроси2, и3 согрэшeній њставлeніе, тS пою1щымъ, всебlжeнне.36 Ýòîò òðîïàðü ïîêàçûâàåò, ÷òî ñâ. Ôåîôàí Íà÷åðòàííûé íàïèñàë êàíîí åùå äî Òîðæåñòâà Ïðàâîñëàâèÿ, ïðè æèçíè èìïåðàòîðà Ôåîôèëà. Âûðàæåíèå «çèìà» â îòíîøåíèè ê ãîñïîäñòâó èêîíîáîð÷åñêîé åðåñè ÷àñòî âñòðå÷àåòñÿ â èñòî÷íèêàõ IX âåêà, â òîì ÷èñëå â ïèñüìàõ ñâ. Ôåîäîðà Ñòóäèòà.37 Ìåæäó ïðî÷èì, õîòÿ ñâ. Åâôèìèé ïðèíÿë ìó÷åíè÷åñêóþ ñìåðòü â öàðñòâîâàíèå Ôåîôèëà, ïîñëåäíèé â ñëóæáå íå óïîìèíàåòñÿ, â îòëè÷èå îò Æèòèÿ. Èç èêîíîáîðöåâ ïî èìåíè â êàíîíå óïîìÿíóò óæå ê òîìó âðåìåíè ïîêîéíûé èìïåðàòîð Ëåâ Àðìÿíèí (ïåñíü 3-ÿ, 2-é òðîïàðü38 ): Óô廼üôçôé ëïãéóìï, êár ãåííáéüôçôé øõ÷yò }ëåãîáò, ôí äõóóåây ËÝïíôá, êáôN ôï Óùôyñïò ëõôôÞóáíôá.39 Твeрдостію ўмA и3 д0блестію души2 њбличи1лъ є3си2 ѕлочести1ваго лeонта, на сп7са шатaющагосz.40 Íåïîñðåäñòâåííûå ìó÷èòåëè èñïîâåäíèêà îïèñàíû áåç óïîìèíàíèÿ èìåí: FÉåñùóýíçò ô óÝâáò ïê ákäåóèÝíôåò, ïj Póåâåsò êár ðñüìá÷ïé, êáêßáò dñãÜôáé, ãyñáò ï ôéìÞóáíôåò, ô óí ïj ðáñÜíïìïé, Píåëåçìüíùò dìÜóôéæïí.41 Свzщeнства чeсти не постыдёвшесz, и3 сэди1нъ честнhхъ не ўсрaмльшесz, и3 стaрости твоеS не почествовaвше безyмніи, неми1лостивнw тS ўранsху.42
Минjа. 527. Íàïð.: Theodori Studitae Epistulae / Ed. G. FATOUROS Vol. 1–2 (Berlin—New York, 1992) (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae, Series Berolinensis 31) Ep. 419, Stephano asecretes, 20; ep. 423, Nicephoro sanctissimo patriachae, 28; ep. 469, Thomae patriarchae Hierosolymitano, 35. 38  ñëàâÿíñêîé ìèíåå 3-é. 39 Ìçíásïí. 208. 40 Минjа. 524. 41 Ïåñíü 4-ÿ, 2-é òðîïàðü. Ìçíásïí. 208. 42 Минjа. 524. Íàëèöî ðàñõîæäåíèå ñëàâÿíñêîãî è ãðå÷åñêîãî òåêñòîâ. Ïåðåâîä ñ ãðå÷åñêîãî äîëæåí çâó÷àòü òàê: Свzщeнства с™hни не постыдёвшесz, нечести1віи бори1теліе, престyпныхъ дёлателіе, стaрости не почествовaвше твоеS беззак0нніи, неми1лостивнw ўранsху. Âèäèìî, öåðêîâíîñëàâÿíñêèé ïåðåâîä áûë îñóùåñòâëåí ïî èíîìó ñïèñêó, íåæåëè èñïîëüçîâàííûé ñîñòàâèòåëÿìè ãðå÷åñêèõ Ìèíåé. Âñòàåò âîïðîñ, êàêîé èç âàðèàíòîâ äàåò àóòåíòè÷íîå ÷òåíèå. 36 37
T. A. Сенина
415
Ðñ hóâåóáò èõìï, ô§í Píüìùí Åèýìéå, ôïsò ÷åýìáóé ô§í Päßêùò, ÷õèÝíôùí óå43 ájìÜôùí, ÐáììÜêáñ jåñþôáôå. 44 Џгнь погаси1лъ є3си2 ћрости беззак0нныхъ, є3vfЂміе, и3зліsніемъ непрaведнw проліsнныхъ твои1хъ кровeй, свzщeннэйшій преблажeнне.45 Öáéäñò êár ôí ëüãïí êár ôí íïí, öáéäñNí dêÝêôçóï,46 øõ÷xí êár 47 ðñüóùðïí· íí äc öáéäñüôåñïò ãÝãïíáò, ìÝ÷ñéò álìáôïò Åèýìéå, ðñò Âáóéëåsò èåïóôõãåsò PíôéôáîÜìåíïò, êár êñáõãÜæùí· ÐÜíôá ôN hñãá, ìíåsôå ôí Êýñéïí.48 Свётелъ и3 сл0вомъ и3 ўм0мъ, свётлу стzжaлъ є3си2 дyшу, свётло лицE, нhнэ же свэтлёе бhлъ є3си2 дaже до кр0ве, є3vfЂміе царє1мъ бGоненави6стнымъ проти1вльсz, и3 вопіS: благослови1те, вс дэлA гDнz, гDа.49 EÅðÝèåíôï ÌÜêáñ dðr óc, ïj dðr ãyò êñáôáéïr ôï èáíáô§óáß óå, ðáñáíïìþôáôá ðñÜôôïíôåò· PëëE áôò Píáôåéíüìåíïò, ðñò ôí ôå÷èÝíôá Ëõôñùôxí, dî PðåéñÜíäñïõ Ìçôñò, Píåâüáò· ÐÜíôá ôN hñãá, ìíåsôå ôí Êýñéïí.50 Напад0ша, блажeнне, на тS крёпцыи земли2, ўмертви1ти тS беззакHннэйшаz дёлающіи: но ты2, простирazсz къ р0ждшемусz и3збaвителю t дв7ы чcтыz, взывaлъ є3си2: благослови1те, вс дэлA гDнz, гDа.51 Èíòåðåñíî, ÷òî ñâ. Åâôèìèé â äâóõ òðîïàðÿõ êàíîíà âîñõâàëÿåòñÿ êàê «ïîëîæèâøèé äóøó çà äðóçåé ñâîèõ»:52 EÅôÞñçóáò dììåë§ò, ôxí ôï Óùôyñïò díôïëxí GÏóéå, êár ôxí øõ÷xí ôÝèåéêáò, ðcñ ô§í ó§í ößëùí Ðáôxñ ½ì§í.53 Соблю1лъ є3си2 прилёжнw сп7сову зaповэдь, прпdбне, и3 дyшу положи1лъ є3си2 по твои1хъ друзёхъ, є3vfЂміе. 54 43  èçäàíèè èåðîäèàê. Èàêîâà ÷õèÝíôùí óå çàìåíåíî íà dê÷õèÝíôùí (EÁêïëïõèßá. 16). 44 Ïåñíü 5-ÿ, 3-é òðîïàðü. Ìçíásïí. 208. 45 Минjа. 525. 46  èçäàíèè èåðîäèàê. Èàêîâà dêÝêôçóï çàìåíåíî íà dêôóù (EÁêïëïõèßá. 34). 47  èçäàíèè èåðîäèàê. Èàêîâà êár çàìåíåíî íà öáéäñí ô (Ibid.). 48 Ïåñíü 8-ÿ, 2-é òðîïàðü. Ìçíáßïí. 209. 49 Минjа. 526. 50 Ïåñíü 8-ÿ, 3-é òðîïàðü. Ìçíásïí. 209. 51 Минjа. 526–527. 52 Ñð.: Èí. 15:13; I Èí. 4:17. 53 Ïåñíü 3-ÿ, 4-é òðîïàðü. Ìçíásïí. 208.  èçäàíèè èåðîäèàê. Èàêîâà ô§í ó§í ößëùí Ðáôxñ ½ì§í çàìåíåíî íà ôï ðïéìíßïõ Åèýìéå (EÁêïëïõèßá. 13). 54 Минjа. 524. Ðàñõîæäåíèå ñ ãðå÷åñêèì: є3vfЂміе âìåñòî Ðáôxñ ½ì§í — џ§е нaшъ.
416
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
IÅóôçò dðr âÞìáôïò óô廼§ò, Pãùíéæüìåíïò, ÐÜôåñ Åèýìéå, ôí ôåëåéüôáôïí ñïí ãNñ, ôyò PãÜðçò55 dìåëÝôçóáò èåüëçðôå, ªóðåñ eëüìåíïò èáíåsí, ðcñ ô§í ößëùí óïõ, ô§í âïþíôùí· ÐÜíôá ôN hñãá, ìíåsôå ôí Êýñéïí. 56 Стaлъ є3си2 на суди1щи, крёпкw подвизazсz, џ§е є3vfЂміе: совершeннэйшему бо предёлу любвE поучи1лсz є3си2,57 ћкw и3зв0лилъ є3си2 ўмрeти за дрyги тво‰, вопію1щыz: благослови1те, вс‰ дэлA гDнz, гDа.58 Î÷åâèäíî, çäåñü èìååòñÿ â âèäó óïîìÿíóòûé â Æèòèè îòêàç ñâ. Åâôèìèÿ íàçâàòü «ñîîáùíèêîâ» òåõ, êòî ïðèõîäèë ê íåìó, ïîêà îí æèë â Êîíñòàíòèíîïîëå ïðè èìïåðàòîðå Ìèõàèëå II; èìåííî èç-çà ýòîãî, ñîáñòâåííî, ñâÿòîé è áûë çàñå÷åí áè÷àìè: èìïåðàòîðñêèå ÷èíîâíèêè áèëè åãî â îæèäàíèè, ÷òî îí íå âûíåñåò ìó÷åíèé è íàçîâåò õîòÿ áû êîãî-òî åùå, êðîìå ðîäñòâåííèöû èìïåðàòîðà.59 Ìîòèâ ïîëàãàíèÿ äóøè ñâîåé çà äðóçåé ñâîèõ òàêæå ñîâåðøåííî îòñóòñòâóåò â Æèòèè, âûøåäøåì èç-ïîä ïåðà ñâ. Ìåôîäèÿ. Àâòîð Æèòèÿ äåëàåò óïîð íà äðóãîå íà òî, ÷òî ñâ. Åâôèìèé ïîñòðàäàë çà èêîíîïî÷èòàíèå, à òðåáîâàíèå íàçâàòü òåõ, êòî ïðèõîäèë ê íåìó, áûëî ëèøü íàäóìàííûì ïðåäëîãîì, ïîòîìó ÷òî èêîíîáîðöû, ïî ìíåíèþ ñâ. Ìåôîäèÿ, ïðîñòî íå îñìåëèâàëèñü âñòóïàòü ñ ïðàâîñëàâíûìè â îòêðûòûé äèñïóò î âåðå. Îáîñíîâàíèþ ýòîãî óòâåðæäåíèÿ àâòîð Æèòèÿ ïîñâÿùàåò öåëûõ äâà ïàðàãðàôà;60 îäíàêî íà ñàìîì äåëå èìïåðàòîðà Ôåîôèëà, âèäèìî, äåéñòâèòåëüíî â äàííîì ñëó÷àå èíòåðåñîâàë âîïðîñ íå îá èêîíîïî÷èòàíèè â äîïðîñàõ, êîòîðûì ïîäâåðãàë Åâôèìèÿ è îí ñàì, è åãî ïîñëàíöû, îá èêîíàõ íå áûëî ñêàçàíî íè ñëîâà, à î ïîëèòè÷åñêîì çàãîâîðå: ñâ. Åâôèìèé áûë àðåñòîâàí ïî äåëó î ðàñïðîñòðàíåíèè íåêîåãî ïàñêâèëÿ ñ ïðîðî÷åñòâîì î ñêîðîé ñìåðòè èìïåðàòîðà; åñòåñòâåííî, Ôåîôèë æåëàë óçíàòü, êòî èìåííî ïðè÷àñòåí ê ýòîìó äåëó.61 Ãóéàð ñ÷èòàåò ïî-âèäèìîìó, ñïðàâåäëèâî, ÷òî â ýòîì è çàêëþ÷àëàñü åäèíñòâåííàÿ ïðè÷èíà ãîíåíèÿ íà ñâ. Åâôèìèÿ ïðè Ôåîôèëå.62 Êîíå÷íî, î÷åíü âåðîÿòíî, ÷òî ïàìôëåò ñîäåðæàë êàêèå-òî îáëè÷åíèÿ â åðåñè, íî èìåííî ïîëèòè÷åñêàÿ ñòîðîíà ïðåäñêàçàíèå î ñêîðîé ñìåðòè èìïåðàòîðà âûçâàëà ãíåâ Ôåîôèëà, âåäü ïîõîæèå ïðîðî÷åñòâà ðàñïðîñòðàíÿëèñü è ðàíüøå, â òîì ÷èñëå íåçàäîëãî äî óáèéñòâà Ëüâà V Àðìÿíèíà.63 Ïîýòî èçäàíèè èåðîäèàê. Èàêîâà ôyò PãÜðçò îïóùåíî (EÁêïëïõèßá. 34). Ïåñíü 8-ÿ, 1-é òðîïàðü. Ìçíásïí. 209. 57 Ïðîïóùåíî ãðå÷åñêîå èåüëçðôå — бGопріsтне. 58 Минjа. 526. 59 Ñì. § 19:358–367 (GOUILLARD, La Vie d’Euthyme de Sardes… 47). 60 § 39–40 (Ibid. 77, 79). 61 § 13–14 (Ibid. 39, 41, 43). 62 Ñì.: GOUILLARD, La Vie d’Euthyme de Sardes… 8. 63 Îá ýòîì ðàññêàçûâàåòñÿ â Æèòèè ñâ. Åâôèìèÿ, § 13. 55 56
T. A. Сенина
417
ìó ìîæíî ñêàçàòü, ÷òî âçãëÿä ñâ. Ôåîôàíà íà ìó÷åíè÷åñòâî ñâ. Åâôèìèÿ êàê íà ñìåðòü «çà äðóçåé ñâîèõ», à íå èñêëþ÷èòåëüíî çà èêîíîïî÷èòàíèå, áîëåå ñîîòâåòñòâóåò äåéñòâèòåëüíîñòè. Èêîíîïî÷èòàíèå óïîìÿíóòî â êàíîíå ñâ. Åâôèìèþ, íî â äîñòàòî÷íî îáùèõ ñëîâàõ: Óïr hìøè÷ïò åkê¦í, ô² Óùôyñé ðñïóÜãåôáé, ôéìÞóáóá ôxí åkêüíá, ôyò P÷ñÜíôïõ óáñêüò óïõ, êár ôýðïí ôí ôï óþìáôïò.64 ТебЁ њдушевлeнъ џбразъ, сп7се, прин0ситсz, почeтшій џбразъ честнaгw тёла твоегw2, и3 воoбражeніе тэлeсное.65 Òàêèì îáðàçîì, äàííûå, ïî÷åðïíóòûå èç êàíîíà, ñîñòàâëåííîãî ñâ. Ôåîôàíîì, ïîäòâåðæäàþò ñâåäåíèÿ, ñîäåðæàùèåñÿ â Æèòèè ñâ. Åâôèìèÿ Ñàðäñêîãî, íàïèñàííîì ñâ. Ìåôîäèåì, íî â òî æå âðåìÿ îòðàæàþò ïîäâèã èñïîâåäíèêà ïîä íåñêîëüêî èíûì óãëîì çðåíèÿ.
Ïåñíü 5-ÿ, 1-é òðîïàðü. Ìçíásïí. 208. Ýòîò òðîïàðü ïî÷åìó-òî îñîáåííî ïîñòðàäàë îò ïðàâêè èåðîäèàê. Èàêîâà: â åãî èçäàíèè âìåñòî ôéìÞóáóá ôxí åkêüíá, ôyò P÷ñÜíôïõ óáñêüò óïõ, êár ôýðïí ôí ôï óþìáôïò ñòîèò: ôéìÞóáò óïõ ôxí åkêüíá, ¿ óïöò FÉåñÜñ÷çò, Åèýìéïò ¿ híäïîïò (EÁêïëïõèßá. 16). 65 Минjа. 524–525. 64
Dan D. Y. Shapira Open University of Israel, Raíanannah
HA³ RU³ T WA-MA³ RU³ T, AGAIN The purpose of this paper is to elucidate some aspects concerning the migration of literary, exegetical and mythological motifs in Sasanian Mesopotamia and the neighboring regions, and I will consider here the possible Zoroastrian-Manichaean and Manichaean-Qur
The Dçnkard (Acta Fidei) is an immense collection of traditional Zoroastrian lore written in Middle Persian, or Pahlavi. This work was composed in the last Sasanian century (the 7th century), although the extant redaction was completed later, under the last Omayyads and the first Abbasids. The first two of the original nine books of the Dçnkard have not survived; Book IX of the Dçnkard (Dk 9) is a summary of the three different methods, or veins, of commentaries (Nasks), now lost, on the sacred Avestan texts. Chapter 32 of Book IX of the Dçnkard (Dk 9.32)1 is considered to be a commentary on the Xvadamçd (Xvaçtumaitî Hâitî) section (fragard) of the Warðtmânsar Nask. This fragard is a commentary on Avestan Yasna (henceforth: Y) 32; the versions of the summarized commentaries of the S[t]ûdgar and Bag Nasks on the same Yasna are given in Dk 9.9 and Dk 9.54, respectively. In other words, the same text was analyzed in three different modes, or from three different aproaches. The beginning of this commentary in the version of the Warðtmânsar Nask, being a very free paraphrase of the Pahlavi Yasna (this is, the Pahlavi rendering of the Avestan Yasna; henceforth: PY) 32, indicates that the Zandists fiercely defended the idea that the forces of evil which punish the transgressors are not the agents of the Zoroastrian Supreme Being, Ôhrmazd. Dk 9.32.1–3 is as follows: 1. nohom fragard Xvadamçd abar madan î 3 dçw [î] frçftag ud lâbak-kârîh î Ôhrmazd ku pad hân lâbag awçðân menâd ud mizdçnâd ud ô zôr îðân pad murnjçnîdan î dâmân rasâd. 2. awçðân dçwân az zufrây ô burz lâbag çwâzîhâ axvârd xayûg, *çwag ku xvçðîh î adrôziðn, ud çwag-iz ku wâlanîh î adrôziðn, çwag kû çrmânîh î adrôziðn hâd im guft pad çn ku: «hân mçnôg hçm, ka xvçð çrmân ud wâlan çwag abâg did mihr nç drôzçnd, amâh nç çn-iz ku nç abzâr î tô hçmâ u-mân 1
D. M. MADAN, The Complete Text of the Pahlavi Denkard / Published by «The Society for the Promotion of Researches into the Zoroastrian Religion» under the supervision of D. M. Madan. I–II (Bombay, 1911) [henceforth: DkM] 835ff.; translation: E. W. WEST, Contents of the Nasks // Pahlavi Texts. Part IV: Sacred Books of the East / Ed. F. M. Müller. XXXVII (Oxford, 1892) 252ff.
D. D. Y. Shapira
" '
dçn ud dâd hân [î] tô ud kâmag î tô kunçm, ud kç tô dôst ayâr, ud kç tô duðman wizand-dâr bawçm, [ud] kç tô xvâhçm gâh î andar hân î pahlom axvân, mizd î mizd-arzânîgân». 3. pasaxv î Ôhrmazd ô awçðân ku: «bç duðaxvâg dwârçd ô bun î hân *argandtum2 çdôn ðmâh harwisp az dçw hçd u-tân az Akôman-iz [hast] tôhmag ku-tân tôhmag az ânôh ku Akôman ud Waran-iz î abesîhînîdâr ud Âz-iz î hu-ôbâr3 ud Indr-iz î kûðîdâr dçn-mçnôg î ahlamogîh ud frâz frçbçd mardom [î] gçtîg pad huzîwçniðn ud a-marg-rawiðnîh ud meniðn awçðân fradom bç bandçd».
1. The ninth fragard, Xvadamçd (*Xvaçtumaitî), is about the coming of three deceitful demons, and their lamenting to Ôhrmazd that He,4 through this lament, should consider and reward them and join (Himself) to their power to destroy the creatures. 2. These demons disgorged *saliva by clamorous supplication (= spoke) from the abyss upwards, one: that he is the family that is undeceitful; another one: that he is the community that is undeceitful; and of the third one: that he is the clan that is undeceitful, saying that, namely: «We are that spirit when the members of a family, a community, a clan do not break promises one with the other; are we not really Thy tools? Our religion and law are Thine, and we do Thy will; we assist those who are Thy friends, and we injure those who are Thy enemies; we are those who ask Thee of a place in the best existence, the reward that is a reward of the worthy». 3. The reply of Ôhrmazd to them was thus: «You rush out to Hell, to this most horrible source, as you are all from demon(s) and your seed is really from Akôman (Evil Thought), i. e., your seed is from there, where Akôman (Evil Thought) and Waran (Lust) the destroyer and also Âz (Greed) the Swallower, and Indr the Slayer, too, (are), the spirit(s) of the religion of heresy. You deceive the worldly people5 as to good life and propagation of immortality and you first bind their minds».
Spelled Aklwnd; Aklyy, aãrç, stands for Avestan aãriia-; Middle and New Persian argand. It seems, however, that the passage is derived from Pahlavi Vendidad 19.47, where one finds ô bun î axvân î tom kç çrang Duðaxv, with çrang standing for Avestan #r#gatô. On this basis, it would be proper to emend our Denkard passage and to translate it: «to Hell... to the source of the wicked [of] darkness (*çrang *î *tom)». 3 R. C. ZAEHNER, Zurvan. A Zoroastrian Dilemma (Oxford, 1955) 171: âz-iz î anhanbâr, «insatiate». 4 The aim of this capitalizing is to make clear, where Ôhrmazd is meant in the consequence. 5 This expression — mardom î gçtîg — may have two opposite senses: 1., «the ordinary people»; 2., «the people knowing the profound secrets of the Gâèâs». 2
"
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
The unnamed demons (apparently, three of them)6 complain that, although they carry out Ôhrmazds work and will, and are his tools (abzâr), they do not, nevertheless, receive their proper reward from Him. They complain further that Ôhrmazd does not add to their power to destroy (His, presumably, wicked) creatures, who later implicitly are called Ôhrmazds enemies; they also tell that they are of Ôhrmazds religion and law. «No», answers Ôhrmazd: «you do it on your own, it is your evil nature that pushes you to the destruction of your own Evil Realm». The demons’ sin is described as leading astray as to «good life» and «immortality» (huzîwçniðn ud a-margrawiðnîh). We shall return to these terms later. The Dk account is supposed to be a commentary to Y 32.1, which reads: Axþiiâcâ xvaçtuð yâsat ahiiâ v#r#z#n#m mat ariiamnâ ahiiâ daçuuâ mahmî manôi ahurahiiâ uruuâz#mâ mazdå èâôi dûtå½hô å½hâmâ t#ng dâraiiô yôi vå daibið#ntî. This Avestan passage was differently translated: «And (for bliss) from him shall the nobility beg; from him the community with (its) sodality; from him, (even) the daçva-adherents (daçuuâ) — on my terms (mahmî manôi), for bliss (uruuâz#mâ) from Ahura the wise. (People:) Let us be messengers (dûtå½hô) for (your) strengthening; for restraining those who are-hostile-to you»;7 «(to the gods). At my insistence (mahmî manôi), ye gods, the family, the community together with the clan, entreated for the grace of Him (uruuâz#mâ), the Wise Lord, (saying:) “Let us be Thy messengers, in order to hold back those who are inimical to you”»;8 «The family entreats, the community along with the tribe (do so) in my recital (mahmî manôi9 ), O you Daçvas, (entreating) for His, the Wise Ahura’s favour: “Let us be Thy households (èâôi dûtå½hô10 å½hâmâ). Thou breakest up (the groupings of) those who hate You”»;11 From Ôhrmazds answer it is clear that the three unnamed demons have some specific links with Waran, Âz, Indr, who are also mentioned in the S[t]ûdgar commentary of Y 32, namely Dk 9.9.1, see below; they could even be identical with these. 7 M. WILKINS SMITH, Studies in the Syntax of the Gathas of Zarathushtra Together with the Text, Translations, and Notes. Language Dissertations Published by the Linguistic Society of America (Philadelphia, 1929). 8 S. INSLER, The Gâèâs of Zarathustra (Téhéran—Liège, 1975) (Acta Iranica 8. Série 3. Textes et mémoires, sous le Haut Patronage de SM. I. le Shahinshah Aryemehr). 9 Mana being a technical term, cf. H. HUMBACH, in collaboration with J. ELFENBEIN and P. O. SKJÆRVØ, The Gâèâs of Zarathustra and Other Old Avestan Texts. Vol. I II (Heidelberg, 1991) (Indogermanische Bibliothek, Reihe 1) Vol. II. 77. 10 Dûtå½hô is generally connected with Vedic dûtá-, «messenger», but must be equated with dûd, dûdag, «smoke»; «hearth, family» (Ibid). 11 HUMBACH, ELFENBEIN, SKJÆRVØ, The Gâèâs of Zarathustra
6
D. D. Y. Shapira
"
«In my recital, O Daçvas, the family and the community along with the tribe ask for His, Mazdâ Ahuras, favor (by praying): Let us be your people. You scatter those who are hostile to you”»;12 «Of Him have they sought — family, community together with the clan, Of Him, o false gods, at my inspiration (mahmî manôi); His, the Wise Lord’s blessing: “May we be Your messengers, to hold back those that hate You!”».13 Its Pahlavi version (PY 32.1) is as follows: hân [gyan] î awç pad xvçðîh xvâst hân î awç wâlanîh14 abâg çrmânîh [hân mizd î Ôhrmazd xvçð dçwân pad çn ku wâlan ud çrmân î tô hçm #-ðân ôh xvâst] hân î awç dçwân pad man meniðnîh [ku-mân meniðn çdôn frârôn ciyôn Zardu[x]ðt] hân î Ôhrmazd urwâhmîh [#-ðân ôh xvâst] tâ gâwâg 15 bawçm [ku râyçnâdâr â tâ bawçm] awçðân dârçm kç ðmâh bçðçnçnd [ku-ðân az ðmâh abâz dârçm]. 12 H. HUMBACH, P. ICHAPORIA, The Heritage of Zarathustra. A New translation of his Gâèâs (Heidelberg, 1994). 13 M. SCHWARTZ, Coded Sound Patterns, Acrostics, and Anagrams in Zoroaster’s Oral Poetry // Studia Grammatica Iranica. Festschrift für Helmut Humbach / Ed. R. SCHMITT, P. O. SKJÆRVØ (München, 1986) 327–392, see 339. 14 This word (translated in WEST, Contents of the Nasks... 252, as «serf, serfdom») means «community etc.»; it translates (cf. E. B. N. DHABHAR, Pahlavi Yasna and Visperad (Bombay, 1949) Glossary. 168) v# r# z# na- (which was rendered differently by Pahlavi translators: warzišn, wâlanîh, cf. Chr. BARTHOLOMAE, Altiranisches Wörterbuch (Strassburg, 1904) 1425; New Persian has barzan); it was frequently confused (cf. also DHABHAR, Pahlavi Yasna and Visperad… Glossary. 168) with gâl, gâlân, which, according to H. S. NYBERG, A Manual of Pahlavi II, Glossary (Wiesbaden, 1974) 80, means «the gang, the villains labouring on the estates of the king», Old Persian gardâ, «servant, worker» (Elamite kur-taš, Aramaic grd[<], Babylonian Lugardu), Old Indic grhal- «servant», Khotanese ggalû «family», > Pahlavi gâl (only Plural), «attendants, followers, household». Cf. Kârnâmag î Ardaðîr î Pâbagân 10.8: gâlân î Kirm hâmôyçn xçr ud xvâstag ud bunag ô drubuðtîh î diz î *Gulârân nihâd, «the attendants of the Dragon deposited all their property, wealth and baggage in the citadel of the fortress Gulârân» (A. TAFAZZOLI, Pahlavica III // Acta Orientalia 51 (1990) 47–60, s. 51–52); gâl2 (NYBERG, A Manual of Pahlavi II… 80) in Ayâdgâr î Zarçrân 25, should be read dâr «blade» (see TAFAZZOLI, Pahlavica III… 51). 15 This translation preserves the traditional understanding of the Avestan dûtå½ho as «messenger», cf. note 10 above. Otherwise, it could be an early emendation of the original *dûdag, «household». The reading is problematic: DHABHAR, Pahlavi Yasna and Visperad… Glossary. 154, 197: *dôwâg, «messenger, etc.»; dôwâg, in PY 32.13, translates mânèrânô dûtîm; BARTHOLOMAE, Altiranisches Wörterbuch… 749, supposed *gôwâg; the gloss râyçnîdâr supports a meaning similar to that suggested by Bartholomae and Dhabhar, rather than the original *dûdag, «household». It is not impossible that lâbag in Dk 9.32.1 is a corruption of the same word here.
"
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
That [the life] asked (to be) His own, that of the community (together) with that of the clan [this reward of Ôhrmazd Himself, the dçws, in these (words): «we are Thy community/adherent(s) and clan/friend(s)»; so they asked] his demons in my thought [i. e., our thinking is as righteous as that (of) Zoroaster] this joy of Ôhrmazd [so they asked] We are thy speakers [i. e., we are Thy arrangers], we hold (back)16 those who hurt Thee [i. e., we hold them back of Thee]. Although heavily glossed, the Avestan text of Y 32.1 was translated in the PY 32.1 mostly etymologically, or «formally», word for word. It seems, nevertheless, that the text remained obscure, perhaps, intentionally. In Y 32.1a, axþiiâcâ was analyzed by the glossator differently from ahiiâ, for reasons more graphical than textual (xþ looks very much as xv, so the glossator of [gyân, «life»17 ] confused it with axv); the grammatical cases of xvaçtuð... v#r#z#n#m mat ariiamnâ were misunderstood (hân î awç pad xvçðîh... hân î awç wâlanîh abâg çrmânîh), but the general sense of 32.1a and 32.1c was grasped; the problem is, however, with Y 32.1b. One point of importance is that ahiiâ daçuuâ mahmî manôi18 was rendered as hân î awç dçwân pad man meniðnîh, «his demons by my thought», which seems to be a rather faithful translation, by the Zandists’ standards (dçws meaning in the Gâèic passage, perhaps, as in Old Indo-Iranian, «gods», not «demons»19 — is clearly Vocative, but was understood as if Nominative). It is not impossible that hân mçnôg hçm in 9.32.2 is an echo of this Zand;20 one should also note that otherwise, the Avestan mahmî manôi was left not rendered in the Dk version.21 The Zandist’s understading of the passage could be paraphrased as follows: the dçws of the community and of the clan, believing to be Ôhrmazds agents and avengers, and pretending that their minds are as righteous as that of Zoroaster, asked Ôhrmazd to be His own and to be worthy of that boon / The infinitive dâraiiô, «to push back, zurückhalten», rendered well by sense, especially in the gloss, is, however, grammatically wrong. 17 An interesting gloss, no doubt, of some age; there are more examples for rendering ax´iiâcâ by gyân, cf. DHABHAR, Pahlavi Yasna and Visperad… Glossary. 140. Cf. also Dk 9.32.3: frâz frçbçd mardom [î] gçtîg pad huzîwaniðn ud a-marg-rawiðnîh, «You deceive the worldly people as to good life and propagation of immortality». 18 «The daçva-adherents — on my terms»; «at my insistence, ye gods»; «in my recital, O you Daçvas» «O false gods, at my inspiration», cf. above. 19 Compare the translations by Insler and Schwartz. 20 Compare Dk 9.32.2: awçðân dçwân az zufrây ô burz lâbag çwâzîhâ axvârd xayûg *çwag ku xvçðîh î adrôziðn ud çwag-iz ku wâlanîh î adrôziðn çwag kû çrmânîh î adrôziðn hâd-im guft pad çn ku: «hân mçnôg hçm ka xçð çrmân ud wâlan çwag abâg did mihr nç drôzçnd..., etc. 21 Cf. D. SHAPIRA, «Ariš and Mahmî» (forthcoming). 16
D. D. Y. Shapira
" !
joy / reward, which is life, i. e., the immortality. This version should be compared with that of the S[t]ûdgar Nask (Dk 9.9.1):22 haštom fragard Xvadamçd abar pahrçz î az çziðn î Gannâg Mçnôg rây anastôwân î Dçn ud hân î az çziðn î Indr ud ô Sâwar rây an-çbyânghân-dâd ud hân î az çziðn î Tawriè ud Zairiè rây çw-môg-dwâriðn, ud hân az çziðn î Akatað rây duð-nigerâygar, ud hân az çziðn î hamâg dçwân rây a-mâr-gandâd mardom [...], The eighth fragard, Xvadamçd (*Xvaçtumaiti), is about avoidance of people of being involved in the worship of the Foul Spirit, of non-reliance on the Avesta, the worship of Indr, and of Sâwar (namely), practicing being ungirdled with the sacred kûstîg-girdle, of the worship of Tawriè and Zairiè23 (namely),walking (daevically) around with one shoe, and because of the worship of Akataš, who (the demon Akataš) is the producer of bad observance, and of the worship of all the demons (namely), practicing being without the serpents-killing-mace... As in other cases,24 it is the Warðtmânsar version (Dk 9.32) rather than that of the (just quoted) S[t]ûdgar Nask (Dk 9.9) that preserves the older material, while that of the S[t]ûdgar Nask underwent serious censorship; the reason for this censorship was that being originally of mythological character, the S[t]ûdgar Nask was entitled to be more popular, thus opening the way to introducing newer and not unfrequently heterodoxal material. To turn to our Warðtmânsar version as summarized in Dk 9.32, which is a very free paraphrase of PY 32, the point of the beginning of this commentary (Dk 9.32.1–3) is polemical — the Evil Powers punish those who deserve to be punished, but doing so, they, nevertheless, do not do Gods job, and their power to punish is not from Ôhrmazd and we are thus entitled to suppose that these polemics were aimed against some controversial teach22 Dk 9.9: DkM 792.17–794.4; DkS (P. B. SANJANA, D. P. SANJANA, The Dinkard / The Original Pahlavi Text; the same transliterated in Zend Characters; Translations of the Text in the Gujarati and English Languages; a Commentary and a glossary of Select Terms. Vol. 1–19 (Bombay, 1874–1928) Vol. 17. 13–16; Dk MS B (M. J. DRESDEN, Dênkard, A Pahlavi Text. Fascimile Edition of the Manuscript B of the K. R. Cama Oriental Institute Bombay (Wiesbaden, 1966), missing folios 147.7–150.1); WEST, Contents of the Nasks... 181–185. 23 On the names of a pair of Iranian demons (Tariè and Zariè) which became the names of two wicked characters in the Scroll of Esther, Tereš and Zereš, see Sh. SHAKED, Bagdâna, King of Demons, and Other Iranian Terms in Babylonian Aramaic Magic // Acta Iranica 24 (Dèxième série. Hommages et Opera Minora X. Papers in Honour of Professor Mary Boyce) (Leiden, 1985) 511–542, s. 518; cf. also J. DUCHESNE-G UILLEMIN, Les noms des eunuques d’Assuérus // Mus 116 (1953) 105–108. See also note 49 below. 24 E. g., Dk 9.6 as compared to Dk 9.29.
" "
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
ings that the Zandists had in mind, while producing a commentary which strays far from the text which it was supposed to clarify. I think we cannot understand the fervor of Dk 9.32.1–3 unless we assume that what we find here is a result of the interaction between the traditional Zoroastrian exegesis and some «Western» (Judeo-Christian? Manichaean?) traditions known to the Zandists, who, not rejecting Monotheism outright, nevertheless fiercely defended the idea that the forces of evil which punish the transgressors are not Ôhrmazds agents. In my opinion, the Dk text calls one to ponder whether the heretical or openly anti-Zoroastrian teachings against which this Pahlavi midrash was composed to repudiate were not texts close — or belonging — to the type of literature which went back to the Jewish Books of Giants in their different versions.25 As is known, some of Mani’s compositions ultimately derived from these Books of Giants,26 as well as from genuine non-«orthodox» Zoroastrian Zands or popular lore. In his Middle Iranian work, Ðâbuhragân, Mani wrote:27 ] pd dyw(<)n <wd [... ]bw[ ] ](c)[ ](p)tg (kw)[ ](.d) yn pnd >yg <mh [] mrdwmAzâ<çl represent a retroversion of fragments of Manichaean compositions, but cf. J. C. GREENFIELD, M. E. STONE, The Books of Enoch and the Traditions of Enoch // Numen 26 (1979) 89–103, s. 102. Compare also G. A. G. STROUMSA, Another Seed: Studies in Gnostic Mythology (Leiden, 1984) 167, and now J. C. REEVES, Jewish Lore in Manichaean Cosmogony: Studies in the Book of Giants Traditions (West Orange, 1992) 88. 26 The history of the Giants’ literature in Semitic languages and its translations into the tongues of Manichaean and Christian traditions as a whole cannot, of course, be dealt with here. For the previous literature, see REEVES, Jewish Lore in Manichaean Cosmogony... 27 D. N. MACKENZIE, Mani’s Ðâbuhragân-I // Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 42 (1979) 500–534, s. 504–505, A 1–9. 28 See also ibid. 522 n. 5.
D. D. Y. Shapira
" #
This might be a reference to the deceitful Fallen Angels of the Enochic tradition of the Books of Giants, but, against the background of the Pahlavi passages quoted above, one may probably bring to mind some problematic Zoroastrian Zands as well. This latter point cannot be proven at present; however, it was presumably the Manichaean29 version of the legend about the Fallen Angels, influenced by Iranian motifs, that one finds in the Qur<ân. According to the Qur<ânic tradition (s. 2.102/96), the devils revealed sorcery in Babylon to two angels, Hârût wa-Mârût. It was in Babylon, too, that Hârût wa-Mârût were later suspended by their heels, as a punishment for their disobedience. According to another Islamic (but still, Iranian) tradition, the couple was imprisoned and chained in a well on Mt. Dumbâwand, having been thus cast in the role of a double Aþi Dahâka.30 The Qur<ânic text says: And they [the Children of Israel] followed what the Satans recited / called for over the Kingdom of Salomon; though Salomon [himself] disbelieved not, but the Satans disbelieved, teaching the people magic and that which was revealed to the Angels (dual) in Babylon [those whose names are] Hârût and Mârût, and they [dual] taught not any man, without they said [dual]: «Behold, we are but a seduction / temptation; do not disbelieve!»; and they [men] learned from them [dual] that what divides between man and his neighbor, and they did not harm anybody but by God’s permission, and they learned [from them] what does harm and does not benefit; and indeed they knew that this one who bought it, has no part in the future life; and if they only knew how much bad is that that they sold their souls for.31 The perspective of the Qur<ânic version here is problematic: on the one hand, this version conforms to the strictly Monotheistic view, in the vein of the first two chapters of Job (Hârût wa-Mârût did not harm anybody except by God’s permission); on the other, the task of Hârût wa-Mârût is to be the seducers of Allah (fitna), tempting weak souls and urging them to turn to their own free choice: «we are but a seduction and do not disbelieve!»32 In 29
For a new evaluation of possible Manichaean influences on Muúammad, see now R. SIMON, Mânî and Muúammad // Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 21 (1997) 118–141. But cf. F. DE BLOIS, The «Sabians» (êâbi<ûn) in Pre-Islamic Arabia // Acta Orientalia 56 (1995) 39–61. 30 Cf. J. R. RUSSELL, Zoroastrianism in Armenia (Cambridge, 1987) (Harvard Iranian Series 5) 381. The stories about Aþi-Dahâka-, the Zoroastrian arch-demon chaind in Mt. Dumbâwand in Northern Iran, belong to the most popular stock of legends in Iranian traditions. 31 The translation adopted, with slight alterations, is that given in A. J. ARBERRY, The Koran Interpreted (New York, 1955) 40–41. 32 It is very interesting that the Qur<ânic story about the seducers Hârût wa-Mârût appears in the context of the «Satanic Verses» (s. 2.100).
" $
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
the Zoroastrian version of Dk 9.32, which lies, as a whole, within Zoroastrian lore, one has to discriminate between the functions of seduction and punishment. Within the complicated dualistic Zoroastrian Weltanschauung, with its clearly monotheistic overtones, this sounds well, but in the strictly Monotheistic version of Qur<ân one hears dissonant voices: in Muúammad’s Monotheistic view here, Šayn is, indeed, an agent of Allah. One should note that Muúammad spoke of two angels, while the number of the demons in Mani’s fragments remains unspecified so far, and Dk 9.32 mentions three demons. This difference of numbers is easily explained, if we assume that the texts under consideration are related: the three demons of Dk 9.32 correspond to the Scriptural «family, community, clan» (Pahlavi xvçðîh, wâlanîh, çrmânîh; Avestan xvaçtuð, v#r#z#n#m, ariiamna-), while Muúammad (or, his source) reduced their number by one for the simple reason that these Fallen Angels are called by the Iranian names which are those of a pair.33 The names of the Qur<ânic Hârût wa-Mârût were identified long ago as originating in those of a pair of the Zoroastrian «archangels» (Immortal Bountiful Ones), or Am#ša Sp#ntas, whose Avestan names are Haurvatât and Am#r#tât,34 / Middle Persian hrwd
Note, that PY 32 also speaks about two demons, or about two groups of them (wâlanîh, çrmânîh), taking xvaçtuð yâsat as pad xvçðîh xvâst. 34 See P. DE LAGARDE, Gesammelte Abhandlungen (Leipzig, 1866) 14ff.; cf. E. LITTMANN, Hârût und Mârût // Festschrift F. G. Andreas (Leipzig, 1916) 7087. This etymology was rejected in A. J. WENSINCK, Hârût wa-Mârût // The Encyclopaedia of Islam. Vol. II (LeidenLondon, 19271) 272–273; G. DUMÉZIL, Naissance d’Archanges (Paris, 1945) 158–170, reaffirmed the old view of de Lagarde about the Iranian origin of Hârût wa-Mârût, cf. also DE MENASCE, Une légende indo-iranienne dans l’angélologie judéo-musulmane…, and A. BAUSANI, La Persia religiosa, da Zarathustra a Bahâ
D. D. Y. Shapira
" %
ciation of flowers with plants and water, the domain of these Yazatas.37 In Sasanian Mesopotamia these beings were known to non-Zoroastrians as Artat Amurtat, with the more Iranian-looking form of their names found now in an Aramaic magic text.38 This pair of Zoroastrian Yazatas caught the popular imagination within the sphere of Semito-Iranian cultural and linguistic contact during the Late Sasanian period and found its way to the Arabs. I suggest that there is a possibility to explain the slight difference between the Arabic and the Middle Persian names not only as a result of a mistaken vocalization which supposingly occurred in Arabic, but also as a result of the earlier Aramaic-Iranian semantic interaction. I thereupon suggest that the Iranian names were interpreted in Aramaic as *Hârûtâ, «evil thinking» (from HRR/HRHR),39 and *Mârûtâ, «[evil] power».40 In Avestan, the names Haurvatât and AmIrItât are feminine, but there is no grammatical gender in Western Middle Iranian; as to Aramaic, in this language such abstract nouns ending in -ût[â] are feminine, but when borrowed by Arabic, they become masculine, normally falling within an Arabic pattern for loan words from Syriac feminine nouns Hordâd, ud cambag Amurdâd [xvçð], «He also says that every Amahraspand has its own flower.... Hordâd has lily, and Amurdâd has èamba as her own»; B. T. ANKLESARIA, Zand-Âkâsîh, Iranian or Greater Bundahiðn. Transliteration and Translation in English (Bombay, 1956) 152, left èamba untranslated; in New Persian èampâ means «a kind of rice grown in Gilan». This is not impossible, for Amurdâd cares for food (cmp. Hordâd who cares for waters with its lily; note also that Hordâd corresponds to the spring month of Nisan, while Amurdâd to that of the early summer month of Siwan). See now D. SHAPIRA, Pahlavi Flowers // D. N. MacKenzie Memorial Volume / Ed. D. Weber (in press). 37 These functions were inseparable from the essence of these yazatas to such an extent that they were even preserved by the author of the Jewish 2 Enoch (cf. further) — plants are established on Earth, temporal affairs implies protection from the waters of the flood; cf. note 48 below. 38 See Sh. SHAKED, Popular Religion in Sasanian Babylonia // Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 21 (1997) 103–118, s. 113. 39 As to the meaning of the name, compare the name of a Zoroastrian demon Akoman, «Evil Mind», found in the texts under consideration (Y 32.3, Dk 9.32.3). An Aramaic dialect of the type of Mandaic may have been an intermediary as well. In Mandaic (E. S. DROWER, R. MACUCH, The Mandaic Dictionary (Oxford, 1963) 127a), haruta, though from Semitic îRR and unconnected to the original *HRR, means *«freedom» > «licence, prostitution». 40 As to the meaning of the name, compare the name of another Zoroastrian Yazata, Ðâhrçwar, «Desirabale Power». As an etymology, Aramaic mârûtâ was noted already in WENSINCK, Hârût wa-Mârût... 272273. One probably should not exclude a possible contamination with Aramaic mârûdâ / mârôdâ, «rebelous, repugnant», *mârûdtâ, «rebellion, punishment». Syriac transcription reflected in Arabic was suggested in G. WIDENGREN, Muhammad, the Apostle of God, and his Ascension, Univ. Arsskr. 1955:1, King and Savior IV (Uppsala—Leipzig, 1955) 196.
" &
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
(like mlkwt<, lhwt< > mlkwt, l
Cf. note 17 above. The synonymical akâ mana?hâ and akasca mainiiuš were translated by the same word, Akoman, see Dk 9.32.3. 43 The names of the pair Am#r#tât and Huruuatât were frequently rendered as amarg-rawiðnîh and hamâg-rawiðnîh, cf. WEST, Contents of the Nasks... 338 n. 1. 44 The edition used was A. VAILLANT, Le Livre des Secrets d’Henoch / Texte slave et traduction française (Paris, 1952). Cf. also W. R. MORFILL, The Book of Secrets of Enoch / Transl. from the Slavonic by W. R. Morfill; ed. with introd., notes and indices by R. H. Charles (Oxford, 1896); N. SCHMIDT, The Two Recensions of Slavonic Enoch // Journal of the American Oriental Society 41.1 (1921) 307–312; A. RUBINSTEIN, Observations on the Slavonic Book of Enoch // Journal of Jewish Studies 13 (1962) 1–21; F. I. ANDERSEN, 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse) of Enoch (Late First Century A.D.) // The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Vol. I. Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments / Ed. J. H. Charlesworth (New York, 1983) 91–220. 45 See, for example, S. PINES, Eschatology and the Concept of Time in the Slavonic Book of Enoch // Types of Redemption / ed. Z. Werblowsky, J. Bleeker (Leiden, 1974) (Suppl. to Numen 18) 72–87, esp. n. 14; M. BOYCE, F. GRENET, The History of Zoroastrianism III (Leiden, 1991) (Handbuch der Orientalistik 1. Abteilung 8. Band 1. Abschnittlieferung, 2. Heft) 427–432; compare D. WINSTON, The Iranian Component in the Bible, Apocrypha, and Qumran: A Review of the Evidence // Journal of the History of Religions 52 (1966) 183–216. As Rudolf Otto (cited in PINES, Eschatology and the Concept... 76) noted, an indisputable indication of Zoroastrian influence on 2 Enoch is to be found in a passage in which Enoch speaks of the Animal Soul accusing Man (see VAILLANT, Le Livre des Secrets d’Henoch... 56). This idea should be 42
D. D. Y. Shapira
" '
only in two Slavonic [Macedonian or Panonian] recensions. Recently, Dr. Eugenia Smagina of Moscow identified numerous quotations from the Enoch Apocalypse found in the Cologne Mani Codex as taken from the first chapters of 2 Enoch.46 These identifications imply that at least some parts of 2 Enoch were current in Mesopotamia between the third and the fifth centuries CE (i. e., between the period of Mani’s life and the date of the extant copy of the Cologne Mani Codex) and that 2 Enoch was (at least partly) extant in Aramaic, as the Vorlage of the Cologne Mani Codex was originally written in this language. In addition, the Mesopotamian attestation of this composition easily explains the numerous Iranian elements which are characteristic of this Jewish work, with which Mani was apparently familiar. In this composition we encounter two trustworthy Watchers (egregori), Aðèùxú and Maðèùxú, whom God established on Earth in order to keep watch over it and to control temporal affairs, and as guarantees that the cheirographia of Adam and Seth would not perish in the imminent Flood and Conflagration: çàíå ðÓêîïèñàíèå òâîå è ðÓêîïèñàíèå Ìòåöü òâîèõ è Àäàìà è ñèôà íå ïîòðåáÿò ñÿ äî âýêà ïîñëåäíÿãî ßêî àçú çàïîâýäàõ àíãåëîìú àðÈÌõÓ è ìàðÈÌõÓ ßæå ïîñòàâèõ íà çåìëè õðàíèòè þ È ïîâåëåâàòè âðåìåííûì äà ñí(à)áäÿò ðÓêîïèñàíèå Ìòåöü òâîèõ ä à í å ï î ã û á í å ò â á Ó ä Ó ù È ï î ò î ï ú È æ å à ç ú ñ î ò â î ð þ â ð î ä ú ò â î å ì ú [...], «parce que l’écrit de ta main et l’écrit de la main de tes pères, Adam et Seth, ne seront pas détruits jusqu’au siècle dernier, car moi j’ai ordonné à mes anges Arioch et Marioch, que j’ai établis sur la terre pour la garder et commander aux choses temporelles, de préserver l’écrit de la main de tes pères, pour qu’il ne périsse pas dans le prochain déluge que je ferai dans ta race [...]».47 compared with Y 29, Dk 9.29. As to the concept of Time in 2 Enoch, which was at the focus of the above-mentioned article by Pines (with a reference to the famous «there will be no Time anymore» of Dostoyevsky in «The Karamazov Brothers», taken from a non-perfect version of 2 Enoch), note, in passing, the following pertinent remark by Zaehner: «Ali Mirdrakvandi wrote in his Irradiant: In the world on which I have created one does not eat or drink neither work, nor is there any season for us, like day, night, spring, summer nor any other season», see R. C. ZAEHNER, Zoroastrian Survivals in Iranian Folklore II // Iran. Journal of the British Institute of Persian Studies 30 (1993) 65–76, s. 73. Ali Mirdrakvandi, an Iranian tribesman of heterodox background, composed several texts in English that were seen by the great British Iranist as reflecting Iranian religious notions of high antiquity. These modern English texts were studied by Zaehner in the context of his researches into the Ancient Iranian religion. 46 Only one quotation from 2 Enoch has been identified so far in J. C. REEVES, Heralds of that Good Realm. Syro-Mesopotamian Gnosis and Jewish Traditions (Leiden—New York—Köln, 1996) (Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies XLIm Brill) 196. 47 See VAILLANT, Le Livre des Secrets d’Henoch... 34–35. Cf. the English translation of the shorter [A] and the longer [J] recensions in ANDERSEN, 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse) of Enoch... 156–157, ch. 33.12: «...on account of your handwriting and the
"!
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
The names of these Earth-keeping and aion-ruling non-Biblical angels introduced into the antedeluvian Sacred History have long since been identified as connected with those of the Avestan Haurvatât and AmIrItât. Not only the names, but also the functions — the care of water and plants — were preserved.48 We might suggest that Mani, who knew 2 Enoch in which a positive function is ascribed to Hordâd and Amurdâd, made here one of his characteristic twists and cast the couple into the role of the Fallen Angels.49 The use of the names of the earth-protecting Immortal Bountiful Ones may reflect the Manichaean (theoretical) rejection of agriculture and serious limitations on permissible foods, with a special stress on some vegetables. Hundreds of years after Muúammad, Fallen Angels still cotinued to draw the attention of foreign observers of Islam. In the later Islamic tradition, according to the 14th century anti-Muslim treatise by the Emperor John VI Kantakouzenos (al. monk Joasaph), the angels EÁñþô êár Ìáñþô were sent by God «to rule well and judge justly».50 Alongside the forms EÁñþô êár Ìáñþô given by Kantakouzenos, another Byzantine Greek form is attested as well, namely EÁñ¦è êár Ìáñ¦è, with è (which cannot go back to the Arabic forms with t). In the Byzantine Abjuration formula we read: «I anathemize the angels called by Muúammad (ÌùÜìåä) Áñ¦è and Ìáñ¦è».51 It is clear that the pair was seen by Christians as if perceived by Muhammedans as angels (as their Zoroastrian namesakes in fact are), rather than as demons (who they are in the Qur<ân). The names EÁñþô êár Ìáñþô / EÁñ¦è êár Ìáñ¦è, with þô / ¦è for ût, correspond to the Arabic names Hârût and Mârût. This phonetic variant, handwriting of your fathers — Adam and Seth. They will not be destroyed until the final age. For I have commanded my angels, Ariokh and Mariokh, whom I have appointed on the earth to guard them and to command the things of time to preserve the handwritings of your fathers so that they might not perish in the impending flood which I shall create in your generation /...and the handwriting of your fathers — Adam and Sith and Enos and Kainan and Maleleil and Ared your father. And they will not be destroyed until the final age. So I commanded my angels, Ariukh and Pariukh, whom I have appointed on the earth as their guardians, and I have commanded the seasons, so that they might preserve them so that they might not perish in the future flood which I shall create in your generation...». 48 Cf. note 37. 49 There is also a possibility that Hordâd and Amurdâd were substituted for the names of another couple, that of the demons Tariè and Zairiè found in the corresponding Dk 9.9.1; cf. note 23 above. Note also that the Arabic word *fitna, «seduction», used in the Qur<ânic version has, in the Manichaean setting, mostly encratic (anti-) sexual connotations, and is associated mostly with the female seduction of males. 50 MILIK, The Book of Enoch... 110. 51 See E. MONTET, Un rituel d’abjuration des musulmans dans l’église grecque // Revue de l’Histoire des Religions 53 (1906) 145–163, s. 150.
D. D. Y. Shapira
"!
together with the notion of the angelic nature of the pair, suggests the existence of an independent Byzantine tradition different from the Qur<ânic one quoted. I suggest that the names familiar to Byzantines from their own tradition (e. g., from the lost Greek version of 2 Enoch) were substituted for those of their Qur<ânic counterparts, whose history was different. In other words, the Qur<ânic Hârût and Mârût and the Byzantine EÁñþô êár Ìáñþô / Áñ¦è êár Ìáñ¦è go back to different recensions of the same story, and it was not from the Muslims that the Byzantines heard of it first. Having clarified some points relating to the history of the Arabic and Greek forms of the names of the Zoroastrian Yazatas, we shall now return to the Slavonic forms. Trying to explain the problematic -ch (-x) of the Slavonic forms, Milik52 supposed that the Greek original of 2 Enoch had *EÁñ¦è êár Ìáñ¦è for àðèÌõú and ìàðèÌõú, which invariably represent the same «Hârût and Mârût» tradition: «the oscillation of f < th (e. g. Sif, Seth...) and of ch (here Arof > Aroch > Arioch) is peculiar to the phonetics of Greek borrowings into the eastern Slavonic languages (e. g. Fiodor and Chodor coming from Theodôros)». This explanation is indeed shrewd and sophisticated.53 The problem, however, is that the shift in question is the mark of much later vulgar dialects and was rarely attested in writing. Until the spelling reform after the Russian Revolutions of 1917, è was sustained in borrowings from Greek; the Slavonic and Russian Bibles have, e. g., Cèdú or Cèèú for Seth, or Pouèú for Ruth [pronounce Sif and Ruf’].54 Milik’s suggestion could probably explain -ch (-x) for -è, but it ignores two other difficulties: (1), -i (-è) of Aðèùxú and Maðèùxú, which has no parallel in the existing Arabic, Greek, Iranian forms, and (2), why the attested Byzantine Greek forms, which supposedly should transcribe the Arabic form with -u- (Hârût / Mârût), have nevertheless the forms with -ô- (EÁñþô êár Ìáñþô / Áñ¦è êár Ìáñ¦è; the same -ô- occurs also in the Slavonic forms Aðèùxú / Maðèùxú)? In light of the Byzantine attestation of EÁñþô / Ìáñþô in addition to Áñ¦è / Ìáñ¦è, it is possible that Aðèùxú and Maðèùxú stem from a Greek original that had another, third, form, namely * Áñéù÷ / Ìáñéù÷, which was faithfully reproduced by the Slavonic translation. These unattested forms could be explained as a misreading of the original Semitic (in Hebrew square characters]. The waw and yodh were frequently confused throughout all the periods of writing in Hebrew square characters [but not in Paleo-Hebrew], and 52
MILIK, The Book of Enoch... 110. For criticism, see ANDERSEN, 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse) of Enoch... 157, n. l. 54 Although this unusual and vulgar spelling of Seth does appear in the passage of 2 Enoch quoted above from the edition of Vaillant. Cf. nevertheless the variant readings there, among which Sit appears. However, one may ask why Seth was spelled as Sif, whereas *Arioth and *Marioth as Arioch and Marioch in the same verse. 53
"!
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
the letters thaw and h³ et are extremely similar. The Jewish forms thus reconstructed are actually identical to the Avestan ones, even more than the Arabic ones which are derived from Aramaic, as they explain the problematic -i- of Aðèùxú / Maðèùxú.55 As for the Qur<ânic passage in question, we should assume that there was a Mesopotamian Aramaic (Late Manichaean, rather than Jewish or Christian) version of the Enochic motif which «semitized» Iranian lore in an anti-Zoroastrian vein. The Mesopotamian setting and the Iranian names of the Evil Angels, Hârût wa-Mârût, are among the most interesting features of the Qur<ânic account: in this supposedly Semitic version, the Evil Angels keep their Iranian names [which are not the names used in the Zoroastrian version], as a part of the demonization of the borrowed Zoroastrian angelogy. In 2 Enoch the two angels are two trustworthy Watchers whom God established on Earth in order to keep watch over it and to control temporal affairs, and to preserve the writing of the hand [of Seth] so that it may not perish in the imminent flood. Note that the two Yazatas are in charge of plants (established on Earth) and water (protection from flood). It was the truly angelic nature of this pair that inspired the Byzantine texts referred above to identify the Qur<ânic demons with the more familiar angels of their Iranian and Armenian neighbors. This combination of non-Zoroastrian evidence is sufficient, I believe, to enable one to suppose that a story similar to the contents of Dk 9.32.1–2 was told in Iran, with *Hordâd and Murdâd as the names of the demons / rebelling angels. This version, whether Manichaean, «popular», or «heretical», provoked a response by the Zandists who incorporated a re-working of their own into the Warðtmânsar Nask.
55
As to the forms Artat Amurtat cited in SHAKED, Popular Religion in Sasanian Babylonia... 113, compare: çåéøî çåéøà úøåîà úúøà.
Dan D. Y. Shapira Open University of Israel, Raíanannah
STRAY NOTES ON AKSUM AND HIMYAR Aharon-Shemuel Rokhlin in memoriam
I The Ethiopian civilization is a part of the Mediterranean one, and as such, it absorbed the basic Mediterranean-Biblical racial myth of color. However, the Mediterranization of Ethiopia happened only after their conversion to Christianity. The Ethiopians regard themselves as Israel thrice: as physical descendents of Menelik’s Levites and Israelites, according to the Kebra Nagast; as Israel in spirito, Christians, who inherited the place of the carnal Israel; and, after Chalcedon, as the only true Christian church. A more ancient, non-Mediterranean, component of Ethiopian civilization goes back to their Sabean, South-Arabian heritage. It was from Yemen that the Ethiopians got their language, their script and their historical tradition. This duality — and secondary nature — of the Ethiopian self-view prompted the inhabitants of this African land to stress, over centuries, that they, and they only, are the legitimate heirs of the source-cultures of their unique civilization. It is why Ethiopia, since the Aksumite times, claimed the legacy of both Saba and Israel. The (forged) Ethiopian legacy of the Queen of Sheba was the entrance ticket of these Semitized Chamites into the Judeo-Christian world, and the additional stress of their Israelite origins evidently raised their status in Christendom. The basics of both claims are set in the Ethiopian book of uncertain date, The Glory of the Kings (Kebra Nagast).1 This composition was usually said to contain two «cycles» of traditions, that of the Queen of Sheba (ch. 21b, 22a–28, 29b–34a, 35–43, 54a–63, 84a–93, 94; this «cycle» is supposedly free of any Christian connection) and that of Caleb, the legendary 6th century king of Ethiopia (*Aksum), whom the scholars identified with Ella Asbaha (ch. 1a–21, 63b–83, 93b, 95a–117, 117b and the colophon, with passages inserted in ch. 30, 33, 52, 44, 59; it was said that the staff of the alleged
1
For the text and the German translation, see C. BEZOLD, Kebra Nagast: Die Herrlichkeit der Könige (Munich, 1905); cf. Th. NÖLDEKE, A review of Bezold’s Kebra Nagast // Vienna Oriental Journal XIX (1905); for an English translation, see Sir E. A. WALLIS BUDGE, The Queen of Sheba and her only son Menyelek I (Oxford, 1932). For the meaning of the name, compare now M. KROPP, Zur Deutung des Titels «Kebra Nagast» // OC 80 (1996) 108–115.
"!"
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
translator from Arabic, Isaac the Priest, was responsible for historical inaccuracies in ch. 113–116). Some scholars, and especially the Palestinian-American student of Nagran and pre-Islamic Arabian Christianity, Irfan Shahid, looked for reflections of historical data, namely the Aksumite-Himyarite hostilities in the first quarter of the 6th century, in the «Caleb cycle», and especially, in ch. 113– 117.2 The following is the English translation of the chs. 113–117, adopted, with minor changes, from Budge.3 Ch. 113, end: «Now this hath God showed me [to St. Gregory; DSh] in the pit. And as concerning the King of ETHIOPIA, and ZION, the Bride of heaven, and her chariot whereby they move, I will declare unto you that which my God hath revealed unto me and hath made me to understand. [ETHIOPIA] shall continue in the orthodox faith until the coming of our Lord, and she shall in no way turn aside from the word of the Apostles, and it shall be so even as we have ordered until the end of the world». And one answered and said unto the Worker of Wonders (i. e., GREGORY), «Now when SAMÂLYÂL cometh, who is the False Christ, will the faith of the people of ETHIOPIA be destroyed by his attack?» And GREGORY answered and said, «Assuredly not. Hath not DAVID prophesied saying, “ETHIOPIA shall make her hands come to God?” [Psalm lxviii. 31] And this that he saith meaneth that the ETHIOPIANS will neither pervert nor change this our faith and what we have ordered, and the faith of those who were before us, the teachers of the Law of the Apostles». Ch. 114: And the Tabernacle of the Law of God, the Holy ZION, shall remain here until that day when our Lord shall dwell on Mount ZION; and ZION shall come and shall appear unto all prepared, with three seals — even as MOSES gave her — as it saith in the Old Law and in the New, «At the testimony of two or three [witnesses] everything shall stand». And then, saith ISAIAH the Prophet, «The dead shall be raised up, and those who are in the graves shall live, for the dew which [cometh] from Thee is their life». And when the dead are raised up, His mercy whereby He watereth the earth shall cease; they shall stand up before Him with the works which they have done. And ENOCH and ELIAS shall come, being alive, so that they may testify, and MOSES and AARON from the dead shall live with everyone. And they shall open the things that fetter her (i. e., ZION), and they shall make to be seen the JEWS, the crucifiers, and they shall punish them and chide them because of all that they have done in perverting the Word of God. And the JEWS shall see what He wrote for them with His hand — the Words of His Commandment, and the manna wherewith He 2
Cf. I. SHAHID, The Kebra Nagast in the Light of Recent Research // Mus 89 (1976) 133–178. 3 WALLIS BUDGE, The Queen of Sheba... 221–227.
D. D. Y. Shapira
"!#
fed them without toil [on their part], and the measure thereof; the GÔMÔR, and the spiritual ZION, which came down for their salvation, and the rod of AARON, which blossomed after the manner of MARY. Ch. 115: And He shall answer and say unto them, «Why did ye deny Me, and entreat Me evilly and crucify Me, [seeing that] I did all this for you, and that by My coming down [from heaven] I delivered you from SATAN and from the slavery of SATAN, and that I came for your sakes? Look ye and see how ye pierced Me with nails and thrust the spear through Me». And the Twelve Apostles shall be raised up, and they shall pass judgement upon them, and shall say unto them, «We would have made you hear, but ye would not hear the prophecy of the Prophets and the preaching of us the Apostles». And the JEWS shall weep and repent when it shall be useless to do so, and they shall pass into everlasting punishment; and with the Devil, their father who had directed them, and his demons who had led them astray, and with the wicked they shall be shut in. And those who have believed and who have been baptized in the Holy Trinity, and have received His Body and His Blood, shall become His servants with their whole heart, for «there is no one who can hate His Body altogether». The Body of CHRIST crieth out in our Body, and He hath compassion because of His Body and Blood, for they have become His sons and His brethren. And if there be some who have sinned they shall be judged in the fire according to the quantity of their sins; he whose burden of sin is light his punishment shall be light, and he whose burden of sin is heavy, exceedingly great shall his punishment be. One day with God is as a period of ten thousand years; some there shall be who shall be punished for a day; and some for half a day, and some for three hours of a day, and some for one hour of a day; and some there shall be who shall be tested and who shall be absolved from their transgressions. Ch. 116: And the Archbishops answered and said unto GREGORY, the Worker of Wonders, «Behold now, thou hast told us concerning the vanquisher of the enemy of RÔMÊ, and now [tell us] of the chariot of ETHIOPIA and whether it shall remain henceforward, to the Coming of CHRIST, as thou hast told us concerning ZION, and concerning the faith of the people of ETHIOPIA, and likewise if their chariot shall remain». And GREGORY said unto them, «It shall assuredly not disappear. And again, hearken ye unto me and I will declare this unto you: A few JEWS shall lift up their heads against our faith in NÂGRÂN and in ARMENIA in the days after this, and this God will do by His Will so that He may destroy them, for ARMENIA is a territory of RÔMÊ and NÂGRÂN is a territory of ETHIOPIA». Ch. 117: And the King of RÔMÊ, and the King of ETHIOPIA, and the Archbishop of ALEXANDRIA — now the men of RÔMÊ were orthodox — were informed that they were to destroy them. And they were to rise up to
"!$
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
fight, to make war upon the enemies of God, the JEWS, and to destroy them, the King of RÔMÊ will destroy ‘ÊNYÂ [*Armenia?], and the King of ETHIOPIA will destroy PINHAS (PHINEHAS);4 and they were to lay waste their [Jewish] lands, and to build churches [«houses of Christianity] there, and they were to cut to pieces the kings of the JEWS at the end of this Cycle in twelve cycles of the moon. Then the kingdom of the JEWS shall be made an end of and the Kingdom of CHRIST shall be constituted until the advent of the False Messiah. And those two kings, JUSTINUS5 the King of RÔMÊ and KÂLÊB the King of ETHIOPIA, met together in JERUSALEM. And their Archbishop was to make ready offerings and they were to make offerings, and they were to establish the Faith in love, and they were to give each other gifts and the salutation of peace, and they were to divide between them the earth from the half of JERUSALEM, even as we have already said at the beginning of this book. And for love’s sake they were to have jointly the royal title [of King of ETHIOPIA]. They were to be mingled with DAVID and SOLOMON their fathers. The one whom in faith they chose by lot to be named from the Kings of RÔMÊ was to be called «King of ETHIOPIA», and the King of RÔMÊ likewise was to bear the name of «King of ETHIOPIA», and he was to have part in the lot whereby he should be named with DAVID and SOLOMON their fathers, after the manner of the Four Evangelists. And the fourth the one whom they were to choose each in his own country… And thus after they had become united in a common bond, and had established the right faith they were to determine that the JEWS were no longer to live, and each of them was to leave his son there; and the King of ETHIOPIA was to leave there his firstborn son whose name was ISRAEL, and was to return to his own country in joy. And when he came to his royal house, he was to give abundant thanks unto God, and to offer up his body as an offering of praise to his God. And God shall accept him gladly, for he shall not defile his body after he hath returned, but he shall go into a monastery in purity of heart. And he shall make king his youngest son, whose name is GABRA MASQAL, and he himself shall shut himself up [in a monastery]. And when one hath told this to the King of NÂGRÂN, the son of KÂLÊB, he shall come in order to reign over ZION, and GABRA MASQAL shall make his armies to rise up, and he shall journey in a chariot, and they shall meet together at the narrow end of the Sea of LÎBÂ, and shall fight together. And on the same night the two of them shall pray from sunset until the dawn, when the fight waxeth strong upon them. And when they have cried out to Him with tears God will look upon the prayer of both of them, and the penitent prayer of their father, and will say, «This 4
Compare F. M. ESTEVES PEREIRA, S.S.G.L., Historia dos Martyres de Nagran, vesrão ethiopica (Lisboa, 1899) xxxviii, 169, 175. 5 Justinians the Great is meant, 527–565 CE.
D. D. Y. Shapira
"!%
one is the elder and he hath stood up to perform the will of his father, and that one, the younger, hath loved his father, and hath prayed to God [for him]». And God will say to GABRA MASQAL, «Choose thou between the chariot and ZION», and He will cause him to take ZION, and he shall reign openly upon the throne of his father. And God will make ISRAEL to choose the chariot, and he shall reign secretly and he shall not be visible, and He will send him to all those who have transgressed the commandment of God. And no one shall build houses, and they shall live in tents, and none shall suffer fatigue in labouring, and none shall suffer thirst on the journey. And their days shall be double of those of [ordinary] men, and they shall use bows and arrows, and shall shoot at and pierce him that God hateth.
Only Nagrân, renowned for her martyrs, is mentioned in all the episodes of the Aksum-Himyar wars; it is tempting to connect the reference to bloody sacrifices in Jerusalem by Caleb and *Justinianus6 to Justinianus’ sacrifices while consecrating St. Sophia in 562;7 Beta Israel was known as a king of Aksum, but he was not Ella Asbaha’s son; etc. However, scholars did not paid the due attention to the fact that the frame of the Kebra Nagast (ch. 2, 95, 113–117) is cast as a series of reflections and prophecies of the Illuminator of Armenia, St. Gregory (257?–330?),8 called in the text gabra mank#r (the «Thaumaturgus»), performed by the saint while being cast into the pit by the king of Armenia for fifteen years. The author of the Kebra Nagast was well aware of the Agathangelos cycle (cf. KN, ch. 2, 113), of which Ethiopian versions exist, which tells the story of St. Gregory.9 It is in chapter 2 that the idea of the Kebra Nagast, the glory of the Solomonic kings of Ethiopia, is put into St. Gregory’s mouth:
6 way#úâr>û qw# rbâna lîqa pÿapÿpÿâsâtîhomu way# qçrr#bû wayâÆb# rû haymânôta baf#qr; Budge’s translation seems miss the point: «and their Archbishop was to make ready offerings and they were to make offerings, and they were to establish the Faith in love». 7 See Â. Ì. ËÓÐÜÅ, Èç Èåðóñàëèìà â Àêñóì ÷åðåç Õðàì Ñîëîìîíà: àðõàè÷íûå ïðåäàíèÿ î Ñèîíå è Êîâ÷åãå Çàâåòà â ñîñòàâå Êåáðà Íåãåñò è èõ òðàíñëÿöèÿ ÷åðåç Êîíñòàíòèíîïîëü // Õ 2 (VIII) (2000) 137–207, p. 156. 8 SHAHID, The Kebra Nagast in the Light of Recent Research... 136, 173–174, did not draw any conclusuions from this fact. 9 F. M. ESTEVES PEREIRA, Vida de S. Gregorio, patriarcha da Armenia. Conversão dos Armenios ao Christianismo.Versão ethiopica // Boletim da Sociedade de Geographia de Lisbão 19 (1901) 851–892 [text: special pagination, pp. 1–42], p. 9; cf. G. GARITTE, Documents pour l’étude du livre d’Agathange (Citta del Vaticano, 1946) 7. A further philological study of KN and different versions of the Agathangelos Cycle is a desideratum.
"!&
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
«When I was in the pit I pondered over this matter, and over the folly of the Kings of ARMENIA, and I said, In so far as I can conceive it, [in] what doth the greatness of kings [consist]? Is it in the multitude of soldiers, or in the splendour of worldly possessions, or in extent of rule over cities and towns? This was my thought each time of my prayer, and my thought stirred me again and again to meditate upon the greatness of kings. And now I will begin».10
Among the striking features of the parts ascribed to St. Gregory is their Jew-bashing (ch. 113–117, quoted above) and ignorance of the ancient Sabaean-Ethiopian political history (ch. 94, at the end of which manuscripts found in St. Sophia in Constantinople are quoted as an authority).11 It was in the early 12th century that the Armenian religious and cultural impact of Ethiopia was the strongest, and it was in this period that Lalibela (1172–1212) was building his new Edessa, under a clear impression of the Armenian version of the Abgar legend. Armenian saints figure in Lalibela’s Ethiopia, and an anti-Jewish composition is ascribed in Ethiopia to St. Gregory.12 So it seems that among the sources of Kebra Nagast was a composition belonging to the «Agathangelos Cycle» and there is no justification to look for any real historical information about Aksum (not mentioned in KN) and Himyar going back to the 6th century.
II We know that after the Byzantines defeated the Persians in the late twenties of the seventh century, a forced conversion of Jews to Christianity, the first known so far occurred in the Empire, which included, in these years, also much of Transcaucasia. It was claimed, on the basis of the KN ch. 117, that there were simultaneous Jewish uprisings in both Armenia and Arabia;13 of course, under the Jewish revolt in Arabia the Jewish state of Dhu Nuwâs in the twenties of the 6th century could be meant, albeit one should rather think about the dealing of Lalibela (whose Christian name was Gabra Masqal!) with the rebellious Falashas;14 what this source had in mind referring to Armenia is hard to say. One might speculate on a possible connection with the semi-legendary persecutions of Jews mentioned, apparently, in the lost be-
10
Translation by BUDGE, pp. 2–3. On the importance of this reference, compare ËÓÐÜÅ, Èç Èåðóñàëèìà â Àêñóì ÷åðåç Õðàì Ñîëîìîíà... 137–207. 12 ESTEVES PEREIRA, Vida de S. Gregorio... 13 SHAHID, The Kebra Nagast in the Light of Recent Research… 135. 14 Compare GETATCHEW HAILE, A New Look on Some Dates of Early Ethiopian History // Mus 95 (1982) 311–322. 11
D. D. Y. Shapira
"!'
ginning of the Hebrew Khazar Cambridge Document,15 which begins with the word Arminiyya and tells of the flight of Jews northwards.16 Kebra Nagast is, of course, a source well aware of the things Armenian — it is enough to recall that all the prophecies in this work are put in the mouth of no other that St. Gregory the Armenian Illuminator, but it seems that the reference to a Jewish revolt in Armenia is a literary parallel and nothing else.
III We have another non-Ethiopian source extant in Ge’ez only, which refers, not very clearly, to Aksum and Himyar. The Egyptian author, John, Bishop of Nikiu, whose chronicle has survived in an Ethiopian translation, wrote that the after the death of Constans I (350 CE) and during the rule of Honorius [395–423] the Yemenites were converted to Christianity by a virgin, captive from a convent on the borders of the Roman empire, called Theognosta; this legend about the origins of Christianity in Yemen, not attested elsewhere, has obvious parallels with Armenian accounts of Rhipsime and, especially, of St. Nino, who was called theognosté by Coptic and Byzantine writers, «she who made God known» to the Georgians.17 Apparently afterwards the Indians, i. e., Ethiopians, were Christianized by «Afrudit» (*Frumentius), who John of Nikiu calls «a man of noble birth of the country of India» and who was made their bishop by Athanasius, the patriarch of Alexandria (296–373).18 15 Lately re-edited in N. GOLB, O. PRITSAK, Khazaran Hebrew Documents of the Tenth Century (Ithaca—New York, 1982) 106ff. 16 Compare D. SHAPIRA, Armenian and Georgian Sources on the Khazars: A ReEvaluation // Proceedings of the First International Khazar Colloquium (in press). A correction must be done there. 17 Cf. M. VAN ESBROEK, Le dossier de sainte Nino et sa composante copte // Santa Nino et Georgia. Storia e spiritualitácristiana nel paese del Vello d’oro. Atti del I Convegno Internazionale di Studi Georgiani. Roma 30 gennaion 1999 / Ed. G. Shurgaia (Roma, 2000) 99–123. Compare D. D. Y. SHAPIRA, «Tabernacle of Vine»: Some (Judaizing?) Features in the Old Georgian Vita of St. Nino, in present volume, p. 272–306. 18 H. ZOTENBERG, La Chronique de Jean de Nikioû (Paris, 1883). An English Translation of his Chronicle was published by R. H. CHARLES, The chronicle of John, bishop of Nikiu translated from Zotenberg’s Ethiopic text (London, 1916) 69–70: «…the people of Yemen received the knowledge of God, and were illuminated with the light of the praise of our Lord Jesus Christ — praise be unto Him — by means of a holy woman named Theognosta Now she was a Christian virgin who had been carried off captive from a convent on the borders of the Roman empire and had been conducted to the king of Yemen and presented to him as a gift. And this Christian woman became very rich through the grace of God and wrought many healings. And she brought over the king of India to the faith, and he became a Christian through her agency as well as all the people of India. Then the king of India and his subjects requested the Godloving emperor Honorius to appoint them a bishop. And he rejoiced with great
""
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
Contradicting himself, having possibly used a different source, John of Nikiu ascribes the Aksumite-Himyarite war and the subsequent Christianization of the Aksumites to the days of Justinian the Great (527–565); the cause of the war was as follows: the Jewish king of Himyar, Damnus (*Dhû Nuwâs), hindered the Roman commerce, having used to kill the Christian merchants and to take their goods, stating that he is merely taking vengeance on the account of atrocities, performed to Jews by Romans. The king of Nubia, apparently, Aksum,19 still pagan, as it appears from John’s version, accused Damnus of harming the commerce of Nubia and of other countries, thus provoking Damnus to war. The king of Nubia made a vow that should he win he would become Christian, and so it was: he killed the Jewish king, took his kingdom, and sent a request to Justinian, asking him for a bishop for his country.20 joy because they had embraced the faith and turned to God, and he appointed them a holy bishop, named Theonius, who admonished them and instructed them and strengthened them in the faith of Christ our God till they were worthy to receive baptism which is the second birth through the prayers of the holy virgin Theognosta. Glory be unto our Lord Jesus Christ who alone worketh marvels and bestoweth goodly gifts on those who trust in Him. And so it was also in India, that is, the great India. For the men of that country had formerly received a man named Afrudit (i. e. Frumentius). He was of noble birth of the country of India and they had made him their bishop, having been instituted and ordained by Athanasius the apostolic, the patriarch of Alexandria. Now (Afrudit) had told him concerning the grace which they had received through the Holy Spirit and the manner in which they had found the salvation of their souls through the grace of holy baptism and were made worthy of this gift». 19 Here John confuses Nobatia and Ella Asbaha’s Aksum: Nobatia, south of Aswan, was converted by Egyptian Monophysites about A.D. 540–545, the kingdom of Makoria (Maqarra of the Arabic sources) by Egyptian Melkites in A.D. 569–570, and the southernmost Kushite kngdom of Alodia, bordering on Aksum whence Christianity first penetrated into it, was officially converted by Longinus, Bishop of Nobatia, in A.D. 580. 20 Charles’ translation, pp. 141–142: «And in the days of the emperor Justinian the Indians were at war with the Ethiopians. And the name of the king of the Indians was Endas. He worshipped the star called Saturn. Now the country of the Ethiopians was not far distant from Egypt: it comprised three Indian states and four Abyssinian states, and they were situated on the border of the Sea [of Salt] towards the east. Now the Christian merchants who travelled through the country of the star-worshippers and through the Homeritae, whom we have mentioned and previously described, had to submit to seven trials. Damnus, the king of the Homeritae, used to slay the Christian merchants who came to him, and to take their goods, saying: “The Romans used to oppress and slay the Jews, and on this account I also will slay all the Christians I find”. And for this reason commerce ceased and came to an end in the interior of India. And when the king of Nubia heard these tidings, he sent to the king of the Homeritae the following message: “Thou hast done an evil deed in that thou hast slain Christian merchants and inflicted injuries on my kingdom and on the kingdoms of other (kings) who live near at hand and far off from me”. And when (Damnus)
D. D. Y. Shapira
""
IV Josef Ath’ar Dhû-Nuwâs, Masrûq of the Syriac tradition, was the last Jewish king of Yemen, who, in the end of the first quarter of the sixth century CE, led a jihâd against Monophysite Christianity in Arabia Felix. He lost when the Ethiopian-Aksumite troops, headed by Ariat and Abraha, landed on the Yemenite side of Bab al-Mandab. Josef was not the first Jews king of Himyar to persecute Monophysites; these persecutions had begun under his predecessor, Ma>dikarrib Ya’fur, as is evident from the letter of Jacob of Sarug to the Himyarites; the Aksumite king Ella Asbeha, as appears from Cosmas Indicopleustes, claimed rule on Yemen and protectorship of the Christians there as early as 518 CE. After having smashed his Ethiopian rival Aroy / Hÿ YWN’, «beast» in Ge’ez and in Syriac, Ella Asbeha, in the wake of the 500 years to Jesus’ death and the approaching parousia, challenged the Jewish kingdom of Himyar, stating thus the limits of his religious and geopolitical pretensions. These expansionist tendencies of Aksum apparently strengthened the Jewish element in Yemen. Yemen was known to Jews long ago, as is clear from a reference to R. Akiba’s voyage there in BeMidbar Rabba 8; the Yemenite capital Tafar is mentioned in BeReshith Rabbah 10:30; circa 200 CE Jews of Himyar were buried in Beit-She’arim in the Land of Israel in a special hall; BeReshith Rabba21 explains the word Hasarmaweth / Hadramaut, making reference to the South-Arabian custom of ritual suicide in the time of hunger, in order to save face, which is no other than the Yemenite ma’fada.22 Two fourth-century Hebrew-Sabaic inscriptions from Yemen are known so far,23 and two Heheard these words he went forth to fight. And when they encountered each other the king of Nubia opened his mouth and said: “If God give me the victory over this Jewish Damnus, I shall become a Christian”. And then he gave battle to this Jew, and conquered him and slew him, and made himself master of his kingdom and of his cities. And at that time he sent messengers to Alexandria in reference to the Jews and the pagans requesting the Roman governors to send from the empire of Rome a bishop to baptize and instruct in the holy Christian mysteries all the inhabitants of Nubia and the survivors of the Jews. And when the emperor Justinian was apprised of these facts, he gave orders that they should do for him all he requested, and should send to him some priests and a bishop from amongst the clergy of the holy patriarch John. He was a chaste and pious man. Such was the origin of the conversion of the Ethiopians in the days of the emperor Justinian». 21 Ed. M. A. MIRKIN (Tel Aviv, 1957) [Hebrew] 77. 22 Cf. R. B. SERJEANT, Famine death without loss of honour in ancient Arabia and Yemeni Arhab // BSOAS L (1987) 527–528 [reprinted in: Customary and Shari’ah Law in Arabian Society (London, 1991)]. 23 These are the well known inscription from Beit al-Ašwâl (first published in G. GARBINI, Una bilingue sabeo-ebraica de Zÿ afar // Annali dell’Istituto Orientale di
""
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
brew-Aramaic inscriptions come from the fifth century.24 As early as the mid5th century there are Jewish inscriptions in which the Lord of the Heaven, the Rahÿ man, and the jihad / holy war are glorified: mr’ smyn w’rdÿ n lwfy ‘mr’hmw, «seigneur du ciel et de la terre, pir le salut de leurs seigneurs»;25 lmr’hmw rhÿ mnn b>l smyn lhÿ mrhw w’hÿ škthw wwldhw rhÿ mnn hÿ yy hÿ yw sÿdqm wmwt mwt sÿdqm wÆmrhw rhÿ mnn wldm sÿ lhÿ m sb’m lsmrhÿ mnn, «pour leur seigneur le Miséricordiuex, seigneur de la ciel, pour que lui accorde, et à ses épouses, et à ses enfants, le Miséricordiuex, de vivre une vie de convenance, et de mourir d’une mort de convenance, et qui lui accorde le Miséricordiuex des enfants bien constitutes, combatant pour le nom du Miséricordiuex»;26 The Ryckmans inscription 508 ends with the following: «let the Lord whose are the Heaven and the earth with the King Josef against his enemies, ye the Merciful, and let your mercy be shown over the world, because you are the Merciful» (wtrhÿ m >ly kl >lm rhÿ mnn rhÿ mk mra ‘t). This inscription is clearly Jewish and not vaguely «monotheistic» one, albeit one can see its Jewish character from the general context only. We should be more open towards «monotheistic» inscriptions in which expressions like rb yhwd or ‘lhy ysr’l are not found. Goitein stressed the eagerness for jihad for which the circle of Josef was known, and translated the formula wtrhÿ m >ly kl >lm rhÿ mnn rhÿ mk mr’ ‘t as «let your rule, ye Lord, prevail over all the world, because you are the Lord».27 There can be little doubt that what we encounter here is an early attestation of the idea of the Lord’s manifestation on earth. The Jewish Rhÿ mn, «one who loves Israel» (râhÿ êm d#Yisrâ’êl, in Aramaic) will have mercy over Israel and will demonstrate again Israel’s political might. In this context, rhÿ m, «mercy», means military conquest, and the sequence of these conquests are pirsûm, parousia, «of the name of the Lord among the nations». It is obvious that this theology was a Jewish answer to the Christian challenge regarding the end of the mission of Israel after Jesus’ advent. Napoli XXX (1970) 153–165) and the newly found tomb inscription of Leah bat Yehudah, J. NAVEH, Kethoveth qever du-lešhonith miŠeva’ // Lešonenu 62:5 (2003) 117–120; 24 Beit alHÿ âdÿir and the newly found inscription from Sÿ o>ar from 470 CE, of Yosef bar ‘WFY dgz bTÿ fr mdynth b’r>hwn dHÿ myr’y wnpq l’r>h dYsr’l, J. NAVEH, Šéva> masÿevoth hÿadašoth mi Sÿ o>ar // Tarbisÿ 69 (2000) 619–635 (624–627). 25 G. RYCKMANS, Inscriptions sud-arabes, Douzième série // Mus LXVIII (1955) 297–312, p. 309 l. 2. 26 G. RYCKMANS, Inscriptions sud-arabes, Onzième série // Mus LXVII (1954) 99– 119, pp. 101–102, one inscription from 774 EH = 455–459 CE, ll. 4–8. One might guess if the similarity of the South-Arabian root SB’, «to wage war; Saba» and of Hebrew for «army», sÿ âbâ’, like in Sabaoth, was among the factors facilitating the Himyarite accepting of Judaism. 27 Sh. D. GOITEIN, Sefer haTeymanim (The Yemenites) (Jerusalem, 1983) [Hebrew] 341–343.
D. D. Y. Shapira
""!
The verbal root JHD means in Arabic «to strive, take pains»; the word jihâd is used mostly in expressions like jihâd fî sabîli-LLâhi / jihâd f î sabîli al-dîn, «the jihâd in the path [or, for the sake] of Allah / the religion»; the meaning «holy war» can but hardly be derived from the verbal root, and it seems that the meaning of «holy war» goes back to another language; so far, it is unattested in South Arabian, but in Ge’ez, however, g#hâd means «manifest, public, open, clear; the day of the revelation of Christ’s mission, the eve of the holy day during which one fasts (e. g. Christmas, Epiphany); ba-gahâd means «openly, plainly, manifestly, publicly».28 And so it seems that the original meaning of *gihâd was just «epiphany».29
28
W. LESLAU, Comparative Dictionary of Ge’ez (Wiesbaden, 1987) 185b–186a. There exists the problem of discerning the Arabic loan words of South-Arabian provenance from those Ethiopic; most probably of Ethiopic origin are burhân, ‘an evident proof’, see A. JEFFERY, The Foreign Vocabulary of the Quran (Baroda, 1938) 77–78; baghl, ‘mule’, ibid. 82; tâbût, ‘ark’, ibid. 88; djulbâb, ‘wrapper’, ibid. 102; hÿ awârîyûn, ‘disciples, apostles’, ibid. 115–116; khubz, ‘bread’, ibid. 121–122; khaima, ‘tent, pavilion’, ibid. 127; ribhÿ , profit’, ibid. 138; radjîm, ‘cursed’, ibid. 139– 140; raqq, ‘a volume, a scroll’, ibid. 143; fâtÿir, ‘creator’, ibid. 221; kibriyâ’, ‘glory’, ibid. 248; mâ’ida, ‘table’, ibid. 255–256; mursâ, ‘haven’, ibid. 261–262; miðkât, ‘a niche in the wall’, ibid. 266; munâfiqûn, ‘hypocrites’, ibid. 272–273; possibly, amr, ‘revelation’, cf. ibid. 69–70; add mihÿ râb, Ge’ez m# kw# râb. 29
"""
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
Ã. —. ¬À¿ƒ¤ÿ≈¬— ¿fl, –ÛÒÒÍËÈ ‰ÛıÓ‚Ì˚È ÒÚËı Ó ≈„ÓËË ’‡·ÓÏ Ë ·ÎËÊÌ‚ÓÒÚÓ˜Ì˚ Ò͇Á‡Ìˡ Ó Ò‚. √ÂÓ„ËË (ÒÂχÌÚË͇ ËÏÂÌË Ë Ò˛ÊÂÚ ‚ ‡„ËÓ„‡ÙËË). ƒËÒÒÂÚ‡ˆËˇ ̇ ÒÓËÒ͇ÌË ۘÂÌÓÈ ÒÚÂÔÂÌË Í‡Ì‰Ë‰‡Ú‡ ÙËÎÓÎӄ˘ÂÒÍËı ̇ÛÍ (–ÓÒÒËÈÒÍËÈ „ÓÒÛ‰‡ÒÚ‚ÂÌÌ˚È „ÛχÌËÚ‡Ì˚È ÛÌË‚ÂÒËÚÂÚ; ÃÓÒÍ‚‡, 2003). Äèññåðòàöèÿ Ì. Ñ. Âëàäûøåâñêîé «Ðóññêèé äóõîâíûé ñòèõ î Åãîðèè Õðàáðîì è áëèæíåâîñòî÷íûå ñêàçàíèÿ î ñâ. Ãåîðãèè» âîçîáíîâëÿåò íàó÷íóþ òðàäèöèþ, êîòîðàÿ áûëà îñíîâàíà èìåííî â Ðîññèè À. Í. Âåñåëîâñêèì, ïîëó÷èëà ðàçâèòèå â Áåëüãèè â òðóäàõ Áîëëàíäèñòîâ, à ê íàñòîÿùåìó âðåìåíè ïðåñåêëàñü íå òîëüêî â Ðîññèè (ãäå, ñ ó÷åòîì òÿæåëûõ èñòîðè÷åñêèõ îáñòîÿòåëüñòâ, óäèâëÿòüñÿ ýòîìó íå ïðèõîäèòñÿ), íî ïðèøëà â îùóòèìûé óïàäîê äàæå è â ñàìîì Îáùåñòâå Áîëëàíäèñòîâ. Ðå÷ü èäåò îá îáëàñòè ïåðåñå÷åíèÿ êðèòè÷åñêîé àãèîãðàôèè è ôîëüêëîðèñòèêè èçó÷åíèè æèòèé çàâåäîìî ëåãåíäàðíîãî ñîäåðæàíèÿ è òåñíî ñâÿçàííûõ ñ ôîëüêëîðíûìè ìàòåðèàëàìè. Íåîáõîäèìî ñðàçó îòìåòèòü ïåðâîå è äàëåêî íå òðèâèàëüíîå äîñòîèíñòâî ïðåäëàãàåìîé äèññåðòàöèè: ñàì ôàêò âîçîáíîâëåíèÿ ïîäîáíûõ ìåæäèñöèïëèíàðíûõ èññëåäîâàíèé â Ðîññèè. Òî, ÷òî òåìà î ñâ. Ãåîðãèè ðàçðàáàòûâàëàñü åùå íåïîñðåäñòâåííî À. Í. Âåñåëîâñêèì, âåñüìà ñèìâîëè÷íî: ïîðà, íàêîíåö, õîòÿ áû è ñî ñòîëåòíèì îïîçäàíèåì, ïðîäîëæèòü â Ðîññèè äåëî À. Í. Âåñåëîâñêîãî êàê îñíîâàòåëÿ êðèòè÷åñêîé àãèîãðàôèè avant la lettre. Òóò æå ïðèõîäèòñÿ íàçâàòü è ãëàâíûé, íà íàø âçãëÿä, íåäîñòàòîê ïðåäëàãàåìîé äèññåðòàöèè ìåòîäîëîãè÷åñêèé.  îáëàñòè ìåòîäîëîãèè àâòîð îñòàåòñÿ ïðè ðàáîòàõ À. Í. Âåñåëîâñêîãî è ñâîèõ ñîáñòâåííûõ èíòóèöèÿõ, ÷òî ìåøàåò åìó äîñòàòî÷íî àäåêâàòíî óñòàíîâèòü àãèîãðàôè÷åñêèé æàíð èçó÷àåìûõ òåêñòîâ. Ýòîò æàíð â òåðìèíîëîãèè î. Èïïîëèòà Äåëåý, Passions épiques (ïðîòèâîïîñòàâëÿåìûå Passions historiques). Àâòîðó áûëî íåîáõîäèìî èñïîëüçîâàòü ìåòîäîëîãèþ, ðàçðàáîòàííóþ î. Äåëåý (è, îñîáåííî, åãî êíèãó H. DELEHAYE, Les Passions des martyrs et les genres littéraires (Bruxelles, 1921)), êîòîðàÿ ëåæèò â îñíîâå âñåé ñîâðåìåííîé êðèòè÷åñêîé àãèîãðàôèè. Îáà âèäà Æèòèÿ ñâ. Ãåîðãèÿ, êîòîðûå àíàëèçèðóþòñÿ àâòîðîì, ïðèíàäëåæàò ê æàíðó Passions épiques, èìåþùåìó ñâîè çàêîíîìåðíîñòè. Êðîìå òîãî, îá àïîêðèôè÷åñêîì Æèòèè ñëåäóåò ñêàçàòü, ÷òî îíî ïðèíàäëåæèò ê òîé ðàçíîâèäíîñòè Passions épiques, êîòîðûå îñëîæíåíû àïîêàëèïñèñàìè.  äàííîì ñëó÷àå, ðå÷ü èäåò î äîñòàòî÷íî àðõàè÷íîì ïðîèçâåäåíèè õðèñòèàíñêîé àïîêàëèïòèêè, ÷òî äåëàåò òåì áîëåå èíòåðåñíûì è öåííûì ñîïîñòàâëåíèå åãî ñ ðàííåõðèñòèàíñêèì ìàòåðèàëîì, ïðîäåëàííîå â äèññåðòàöèè.
М. С. Владышевская
""#
Íåñìîòðÿ íà íå âïîëíå óâåðåííîå èñïîëüçîâàíèå àâòîðîì ìåòîäîëîãèè êðèòè÷åñêîé àãèîãðàôèè, îñíîâíûå ïóíêòû äëÿ àíàëèçà âçàèìîîòíîøåíèé àãèîãðàôè÷åñêèõ ëåãåíä íàéäåíû, íà íàø âçãëÿä, ñîâåðøåííî âåðíî: ýòî èìåíà ñîáñòâåííûå, êîòîðûå âñåãäà è ýòî õîðîøî ïîíèìàë åùå À. Í. Âåñåëîâñêèé áûâàþò ñèìâîëè÷åñêèìè è âåñüìà íàñûùåííûìè ñìûñëîì. Àíàëèç èìåí ñîáñòâåííûõ ýòî ãëàâíàÿ ÷àñòü äèññåðòàöèè è, íà íàø âçãëÿä, íàèáîëåå óáåäèòåëüíàÿ ÷àñòü âñåãî ïðåäïðèíÿòîãî àâòîðîì àãèîãðàôè÷åñêîãî èññëåäîâàíèÿ. Êàê âñÿêîå ìåæäèñöèïëèíàðíîå èññëåäîâàíèå ïîäîáíîãî ðîäà, äèññåðòàöèÿ âêëþ÷àåò â ñåáÿ ðÿä êàê áû ïîáî÷íûõ øòóäèé, ïîä÷àñ ïðåäñòàâëÿþùèõ íåìàëûé ñàìîñòîÿòåëüíûé èíòåðåñ.  èõ ÷èñëå îñîáî õîòåëîñü áû îòìåòèòü ââåäåíèå â íàó÷íûé îáîðîò äâóõ àðàáî-ìóñóëüìàíñêèõ ëåãåíä è îïðåäåëåíèå àðàáñêîãî îðèãèíàëà äðåâíåâåðõíåíåìåöêîãî ñòèõîòâîðåíèÿ Îòòôðèäà. Àðãóìåíòàöèÿ àâòîðà ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ â ïîñëåäíåì ñëó÷àå àáñîëþòíî óáåäèòåëüíîé. Èíîãäà ïðè ïðîâåäåíèè ïîäîáíûõ ýêñêóðñîâ â ðàçíûå ýïîõè è êóëüòóðû àâòîðó ñëó÷àåòñÿ îøèáàòüñÿ â äåòàëÿõ (íàïðèìåð, çàÿâëÿÿ, áóäòî «
àðàáñêàÿ õðèñòèàíñêàÿ ëèòåðàòóðà ïîëíîñòüþ ïåðåâåäåíà ñ êîïòñêîãî ÿçûêà», êîãäà â äåéñòâèòåëüíîñòè îíà ïåðåâîäèëàñü è ñ ñèðèéñêîãî, è ñ ãðå÷åñêîãî), íî ýòè îøèáêè íèêîãäà íå îáåñöåíèâàþò åãî ãëàâíûõ âûâîäîâ. Íå äåðçàÿ îöåíèâàòü ôîëüêëîðèñòè÷åñêóþ ñîñòàâëÿþùóþ èññëåäîâàíèÿ, ïîçâîëþ ñåáå åùå íåñêîëüêî ñëîâ î êðèòèêî-àãèîãðàôè÷åñêîé. Àâòîðó âåñüìà óäà÷íî óäàëîñü ïîêàçàòü èñïîëüçîâàíèå â êà÷åñòâå ìîäåëè äëÿ «êàíîíè÷åñêîãî» Æèòèÿ Ãåîðãèÿ êíèãè ïðîðîêà Äàíèèëà (õîòÿ èç ýòîãî íèêîèì îáðàçîì íå ñëåäóåò âûâîä àâòîðà, áóäòî ÿçûê îðèãèíàëà ýòîãî Æèòèÿ àðàìåéñêèé). Ïàðàëëåëè ìåæäó ðàçíûìè ðåäàêöèÿìè Æèòèÿ è Àïîêàëèïñèñîì Èîàííà è «Ïèñòèñ-Ñîôèÿ» òàêæå îïðàâäàíû (õîòÿ ñåãîäíÿ áûëî áû áîëåå îñìîòðèòåëüíî íå óòâåðæäàòü òàê íàñòîé÷èâî ãíîñòè÷åñêèé õàðàêòåð «Ïèñòèñ-Ñîôèÿ», êîòîðàÿ âïîëíå ìîæåò áûòü «îáûêíîâåííûì», à íå ñïåöèàëüíî ãíîñòè÷åñêèì èóäåî-õðèñòèàíñêèì ïðîèçâåäåíèåì). Íà ìîé âçãëÿä, ýòèì ñäåëàí âàæíûé ïðåäâàðèòåëüíûé øàã äëÿ îòêðûòèÿ öåëîé îáëàñòè ðàííåõðèñòèàíñêîé àïîêàëèïòèêè. Âîçìîæíî, ýòî øàã ê ïðîÿñíåíèþ îäíîé èç çàãàäîê âñåé ýòîé «èíòåðòåñòàìåíòàðíîé» ëèòåðàòóðû âûÿñíåíèå Sitz im Leben «Àïîêàëèïñèñà Ãîðãîðèÿ» (èçâåñòíîãî òîëüêî â ïåðåâîäå ñ ãðå÷åñêîãî íà ýôèîïñêèé, â ñðåäå ýôèîïñêèõ õðèñòèàí è ôàëàøà). «Ãîðãîðèé» ýòîãî àïîêàëèïñèñà ýòî âñå òîò æå Ãåîðãèé, òîëüêî ïî-ýôèîïñêè. (Çàìå÷ó ïîïóòíî, ÷òî ýòîò èñòî÷íèê áûëî áû íåïëîõî ââåñòè â ðàññìîòðåíèå óæå è â äèññåðòàöèè). Èòàê, äèññåðòàöèÿ âàæíà: è êàê øàã ê âîçîáíîâëåíèþ âàæíåéøåé äëÿ ðîññèéñêîé è ìèðîâîé íàóêè íàó÷íîé òðàäèöèè, è êàê ðûâîê â èçó-
""$
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
÷åíèå öåëîãî ïëàñòà èóäåî-õðèñòèàíñêèõ äðåâíîñòåé, è åùå â öåëîì ðÿäå íàïðàâëåíèé. Îòìå÷åííûå íåäîñòàòêè íèêîèì îáðàçîì íå ìîãóò ðàçðóøèòü ýòî âïå÷àòëåíèå. ¬. Ã. ÀÛ¸Â
—‚ˇÚ˚ ÍÌˇÁ¸ˇ-ÏÛ˜ÂÌËÍË ¡ÓËÒ Ë √η / Õ. ». ûÀfi“≈Õ Œ (—œ·., 2006) (¡Ë·ÎËÓÚÂ͇ ıËÒÚˇÌÒÍÓÈ Ï˚ÒÎË. »ÒÚÓ˜ÌËÍË; ƒÂ‚ÌÂÛÒÒÍË Ò͇Á‡Ìˡ Ó ‰ÓÒÚÓÔ‡ÏˇÚÌ˚ı β‰ˇı, ÏÂÒÚ‡ı Ë ÒÓ·˚Úˡı).1 Ðåöåíçèðóåìàÿ êíèãà ïîñâÿùåíà îäíîé èç ñàìûõ ðàçðàáîòàííûõ è â òî æå âðåìÿ ñàìûõ çàïóòàííûõ òåì äðåâíåðóññêîé èñòîðèè. Âîïðîñ âçàèìîîòíîøåíèÿ òåêñòîâ áîðèñîãëåáñêîãî öèêëà èçäàâíà ïðèâëåêàë âíèìàíèå èñòîðèêîâ è ôèëîëîãîâ, êîòîðûå ñòðîèëè âçàèìîèñêëþ÷àþùèå ãèïîòåçû íà ýòîò ñ÷åò. Íåò â èñòîðèîãðàôèè è îáùåïðèçíàííîé âåðñèè ðåêîíñòðóêöèè óñîáèöû íàñëåäíèêîâ Âîëîäèìèðà ßðîñëàâè÷à, óìåðøåãî â 1015 ãîäó, òàê êàê ñâåäåíèÿ ðóññêèõ, çàïàäíûõ è ñêàíäèíàâñêèõ èñòî÷íèêîâ î ñîáûòèÿõ, ðàçâåðíóâøèõñÿ íà Ðóñè â 10-å ãîäû XI âåêà, èìåþò çíà÷èòåëüíûå ðàñõîæäåíèÿ. Ïîäàâëÿþùåå áîëüøèíñòâî ðàáîò, ïîñâÿùåííûõ àíàëèçó èñòî÷íèêîâåä÷åñêîãî è ôàêòîëîãè÷åñêîãî àñïåêòîâ áîðèñîãëåáñêîé òåìû ýòî ñòàòüè íà êîíêðåòíûå òåìû. Ìàëî êòî èç èññëåäîâàòåëåé áåðåòñÿ ðàññìàòðèâàòü âñþ ñîâîêóïíîñòü ïðîáëåì, ñâÿçàííûõ ñ èñòîðèåé ãèáåëè Áîðèñà è Ãëåáà. Ìîíîãðàôèè íà ýòó òåìó íå âûõîäèëè óæå ïî÷òè ïîëâåêà.2 Ïðèâåäó ïîëíîñòüþ àííîòàöèþ ê ðàáîòå Í. È. Ìèëþòåíêî: 1 Òàêîå áèáëèîãðàôè÷åñêîå îïèñàíèå ðåöåíçèðóåìîé êíèãè íå ñîâñåì òî÷íî. Íà îáëîæêå êíèãè ê íàçâàíèþ «Ñâÿòûå êíÿçüÿ-ìó÷åíèêè Áîðèñ è Ãëåá» äîáàâëåí ïîäçàãîëîâîê «Èññëåäîâàíèå è òåêñòû», à íà òèòóëüíîì ëèñòå íèæå îñíîâíîãî çàãîëîâêà èìåþòñÿ íàäïèñè «Èññëåäîâàíèå è ïîäãîòîâêà òåêñòîâ Í. È. Ìèëþòåíêî»; «Îòâåòñòâåííûé ðåäàêòîð Ã. Ì. Ïðîõîðîâ» è «Íàó÷íîå èçäàíèå».  áèáëèîãðàôè÷åñêîì æå îïèñàíèè íà ñ. 4 Ã. Ì. Ïðîõîðîâ óêàçàí óæå íå êàê ðåäàêòîð êíèãè, à êàê ðåäàêòîð ñåðèè (êàêîé èç äâóõ íå ÿñíî); ïîäçàãîëîâêè «Èññëåäîâàíèå è òåêñòû» è «Íàó÷íîå èçäàíèå» îòñóòñòâóþò. 2 Íàèáîëåå ìàñøòàáíûå èññëåäîâàíèÿ: À. À. ØÀÕÌÀÒÎÂ, Ðàçûñêàíèÿ î äðåâíåéøèõ ðóññêèõ ëåòîïèñíûõ ñâîäàõ (ÑÏá., 1908) (ðàáîòà íåñêîëüêî ðàç ïåðåèçäàâàëàñü) §§ 1466 (III ãëàâà); Í. Í. ÈËÜÈÍ, Ëåòîïèñíàÿ ñòàòüÿ 6523 ãîäà è åå èñòî÷íèê (Îïûò àíàëèçà) (Ì., 1957); Ñ. À. ÁÓÃÎÑËÀÂÑÊÈÉ, Äðåâíåðóññêèå ëèòåðàòóðíûå ïðîèçâåäåíèÿ î Áîðèñå è Ãëåáå: Èñòîðèêî-ëèòåðàòóðíîå èññëåäîâàíèå (ÑÏá., â ïå÷àòè) (Subsidia Byzantinorossica 3) (äèññåðòàöèÿ Ñ. À. Áóãîñëàâñêîãî (â ïå÷àòè) áûëà çàùèùåíà â 1940 ãîäó; åå òåêñò äîñòóïåí â èíòåðíåòå ïî àäðåñó http://byzantinorossica.org.ru/ser_sbr_v3.html).
Н. И. Милютенко
""%
«Ýòà êíèãà ïîñâÿùåíà ïåðâûì ðóññêèì êàíîíèçîâàííûì ñâÿòûì Áîðèñó è Ãëåáó, ñûíîâüÿì ñâ. ðàâíîàïîñòîëüíîãî êí. Âëàäèìèðà. Êîëëèçèÿ ìåæäó çàïîâåäÿìè õðèñòèàíñòâà è ðåàëüíîñòüþ áîðüáû çà âëàñòü ñóùåñòâîâàëà èçíà÷àëüíî.  ýïîõó óïðî÷åíèÿ õðèñòèàíñêîé âåðû íà ÿçû÷åñêèõ îêðàèíàõ ãåðìàíñêîãî è ñëàâÿíñêîãî ìèðà íàñëåäñòâåííûé ãîñóäàðü, êîòîðûé ïðåäïî÷åë ñëåäîâàíèå çàïîâåäÿì Ãîñïîäíèì ñîõðàíåíèþ âëàñòè è ñïàñåíèþ æèçíè, ïî÷èòàëñÿ ñâîèìè ëþäüìè ñâÿòûì. Ôåíîìåíó åâðîïåéñêîãî ïðàâèòåëÿ-ìó÷åíèêà, êàê è ìåñòó ñââ. Áîðèñà è Ãëåáà â ýòîì êðóãó, óäåëåíî îñîáîå âíèìàíèå â ýòîé êíèãå. Âïåðâûå ïðåäïðèíÿòî êîìïëåêñíîå èññëåäîâàíèå âñåõ îáñòîÿòåëüñòâ áîðüáû çà âëàñòü ïîñëå ñìåðòè ñâ. ðàâíîàïîñòîëüíîãî êí. Âëàäèìèðà ñ ïîëíûì îõâàòîì ðóññêèõ è èíîñòðàííûõ ïèñüìåííûõ èñòî÷íèêîâ, äàííûõ ñôðàãèñòèêè, íóìèçìàòèêè è àðõåîëîãèè. Ïîäðîáíî ðàññìîòðåí âîïðîñ: êòî æå èìåííî ÿâëÿëñÿ óáèéöåé ñââ. Áîðèñà è Ãëåáà.  êíèãå äàíû îñíîâíûå òåêñòû Áîðèñî-Ãëåáñêîãî öèêëà ñ ïåðåâîäàìè. Âòîðîé ïî çíà÷åíèþ ïàìÿòíèê öèêëà, ×òåíèå Íåñòîðà,3 íå èçäàâàëîñü (sic! Ñ. Ì.) ïîëíîñòüþ ñ 1916 ã., êîììåíòàðèé è ïåðåâîä âûïîëíåíû âïåðâûå. Ïðèëàãàåìûå èëëþñòðàöèè ïîìîãóò ÷èòàòåëþ ïðåäñòàâèòü ýïîõó ñòàíîâëåíèÿ ïðàâîñëàâèÿ âî âñåé åå ïîëíîòå è ìíîãîîáðàçèè» (ñ. 4). Áóëüøóþ ÷àñòü ðåöåíçèðóåìîé êíèãè ñîñòàâëÿåò èññëåäîâàíèå Í. È. Ìèëþòåíêî. Ê ñîæàëåíèþ âî ââåäåíèè àâòîð íå îïðåäåëèëà äëÿ ñâîåé ðàáîòû íèêàêèõ öåëåé è çàäà÷. Ñóäÿ ïî âñåìó, åå öåëÿìè áûëè, âî-ïåðâûõ, îïðåäåëåíèå õàðàêòåðà êóëüòà Áîðèñà è Ãëåáà, âî-âòîðûõ, ðåêîíñòðóêöèÿ ñîáûòèé ìåæäîóñîáèöû 10151019 ãîäîâ è, â-òðåòüèõ, ïîäðîáíîå îïèñàíèå ðàçëè÷íûõ àãèîãðàôè÷åñêèõ ïàìÿòíèêîâ, âîçíèêøèõ â õîäå ñòàíîâëåíèÿ ïî÷èòàíèÿ Áîðèñà è Ãëåáà. Ïëàí ðàáîòû íåñêîëüêî íåîáû÷åí. Âî âòîðîé ãëàâå, ðàçáèðàÿ õîä ìåæäîóñîáèöû Âîëîäèìèðîâè÷åé, Í. È. Ìèëþòåíêî âûíóæäåíà ìíîãîêðàòíî ññûëàòüñÿ íà èñòî÷íèêîâåä÷åñêèå âûâîäû ïîñëåäóþùèõ ãëàâ êíèãè. Êàçàëîñü áû, ëîãè÷íåå áûëî áû ñïåðâà ðàçîáðàòü èñòî÷íèêè, à 3 «×òåíèå î æèòèè è î ïîãóáëåíèè áëàæåííóþ ñòðàñòîòåðïöþ Áîðèñà è Ãë=áà» Íåñòîðà (äàëåå ×òåí. èëè ×ò.) Ì=ñÿöà èþëÿ âú 24. ×òåíèå î æèòèè è î ïîãóáëåíèè áëàæåííóþ ñòðàñòîòåðïöà Áîðèñà è Ãë=áà // Æèòèÿ ñâÿòûõ ìó÷åíèêîâ Áîðèñà è Ãëåáà è ñëóæáû èì / Ïðèãîò. ê ïå÷àòè Ä. È. ÀÁÐÀÌÎÂÈ× (Ïåòðîãðàä, 1916) (Ïàìÿòíèêè äðåâíå-ðóññêîé ëèòåðàòóðû. Âûï. 2) 126. Äðóãèå èçäàíèÿ: Ñ. ÁÓÃÎÑËÀÂÑÜÊÈÉ, Ïàìÿòêè XIXVIII â.â. ïðî êíÿç³â Áîðèñà òà Ãëiáà (Ðîçâiäêà òà òåêñòè) (Êè¿â, 1928) (Iñòîðè÷íî-ôiëîëîãi÷íèé âiääië Âñåóêðà¿íñüêî¿ àêàäåìi¿ íàóê. Çáiðíèê ¹ 77; Êîìiñiÿ äàâíüîãî ïèñüìåíñòâà. Ïàìÿòêè ìîâè òà ïèñüìåíñòâà äàâíüî¿ Óêðà¿íè. Ò. 1) 179206; G. REVELLI, Monumenti letterari su Boris e Gleb = Ëèòåðàòóðíûå ïàìÿòíèêè î Áîðèñå è Ãëåáå (Genova, 1993) 601–703. — Ñ. Ì.
""&
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
çàòåì ïåðåéòè ê ðåêîíñòðóêöèè ñîáûòèé. Íåîáõîäèìîñòü ïðåäëîæåííîãî â êíèãå ïîðÿäêà èçëîæåíèÿ ìàòåðèàëà, âåðîÿòíî, îáóñëîâëåíà ìåòîäîëîãè÷åñêèìè óñòàíîâêàìè Í. È. Ìèëþòåíêî.4  ïåðâîé ãëàâå êíèãè («Ñâÿòûå Áîðèñ è Ãëåá è ïðàâèòåëè-ìó÷åíèêè») ðàçáèðàåòñÿ õàðàêòåð êóëüòà ñâÿòûõ áðàòüåâ. Í. È. Ìèëþòåíêî ïðèñîåäèíÿåòñÿ ê òî÷êå çðåíèÿ Í. Èíãýìà (N. W. Ingham) î òîì, ÷òî êóëüò ïîãèáøèõ (â òîì ÷èñëå îò ðóê ñâîèõ ðîäñòâåííèêîâ) ïðàâèòåëåé õàðàêòåðåí äëÿ åâðîïåéñêèõ ñòðàí ïîçäíåé õðèñòèàíèçàöèè. Âòîðàÿ ãëàâà («Èñòîðèÿ ïîäâèãà ñâÿòûõ Áîðèñà è Ãëåáà», ñ. 57133) ïîñâÿùåíà ðåêîíñòðóêöèè ñîáûòèé 10151019 ãîäîâ. Ðàññìàòðèâàÿ ïðåäûñòîðèþ óñîáèöû, Í. È. Ìèëþòåíêî äåëàåò ïðåäïîëîæåíèå, ÷òî Âîëîäèìèð â êàêîé-òî ìîìåíò çíà÷èòåëüíî óðåçàë âëàñòü ïîñàæåííîãî èì ðàíåå â Òóðîâå Ñâÿòîïîëêà, ïåðåäàâ Âëàäèìèð Âîëûíñêèé Áîðèñó, à çåìëè äðåâëÿí åãî áðàòó Ñâÿòîñëàâó (ñ. 78, 99). Èç-çà ýòîãî, ïî ìûñëè èññëåäîâàòåëüíèöû, ìåæäó Ñâÿòîïîëêîì è Áîðèñîì åùå äî ñìåðòè Âîëîäèìèðà ïðîèçîøåë êîíôëèêò. Óòâåðæäåíèå Í. È. Ìèëþòåíêî î òîì, ÷òî Âîëîäèìèð äàë Áîðèñó Âëàäèìèð Âîëûíñêèé, ñòðîèòñÿ íà èíòåðïðåòàöèè àâòîðîì ðåöåíçèðóåìîé êíèãè ñëåäóþùåé ôðàçû Íåñòîðà: «ïîñëà è [ò. å. Áîðèñà] ïîòîìú îòåöü è íà îáëàñòü Âëàäèìåðú, þæå åìó äàñòü, à ñâÿòîãî Ãë=áà ó ñåáå îñòàâè» (×òåí. ë. 94â (ñ. 6)). Ñëîâî «Âëàäèìåðú» Í. È. Ìèëþòåíêî ïîíèìàåò çäåñü êàê òîïîíèì (ñ. 78, 138). Îíà, î÷åâèäíî, íåçíàêîìà ñ îáúÿñíåíèåì ýòîãî ïàññàæà Ñ. À. Áóãîñëàâñêèì: «Íîâûì ïî ñðàâíåíèþ ñî Ñêàçàíèåì5 ÿâëÿåòñÿ â ×ò. ñîîáùåíèå: ïà÷å ïîñëà è ïîòîìü îòå÷ü è íà îáëàñòü Âëàäèìåð, èæå åìó äàñòü (181); ïî Ñê. óäåëîì Áîðèñà áûë Ðîñòîâ. Îäíàêî, ïðèíÿâ âî âíèìàíèå ïîñëåäîâàòåëüíûé ïðèåì Íåñòîðà íå íàçûâàòü ñîáñòâåííûõ èìåí, äàæå âàæíûõ äëÿ åãî ðàññêàçà, êàê Êèåâ, Âûøãîðîä, ßðîñëàâ, Ãëåáîâû óáèéöû,6 ñ äðóãîé ñòîðîíû, çíàÿ, ÷òî Íåñòîð ïîëüçóåòñÿ ôàêòè÷åñêèì ìàòåðèàëîì òîëüêî ëåòîïèñè è Ñêàçàíèÿ, ìû ïîëàãàåì, ÷òî Âëàäèìåð çäåñü ñîáñòâåííîå èìÿ êíÿçÿ (åãî Íåñòîð íå èçáåãàåò), à íå íàçâàíèå îáëàñòè; ñëîâî Âëàäèìåð òàêèì îáðàçîì ÿâëÿåòñÿ ïðèëîæåíèåì ê ñëîâó îòåöü, íî ïîñòàâëåíî ñ òî÷êè çðåíèÿ ñîÝêñïëèöèòíî îíè â ðàáîòå íå îáîçíà÷åíû. Àíîíèìíîå «Ñêàçàíèå è ñòðàñòü è ïîõâàëà ñâÿòóþ ìó÷åíèêó Áîðèñà è Ãë=áà» (äàëåå Ñêàç. èëè Ñê.). — Ñ. Ì. 6 ×òåí. îòëè÷àåòñÿ îò ëåòîïèñè òåì, ÷òî Íåñòîð çàìåíÿåò áîëüøèíñòâî êîíêðåòíûõ ñâåäåíèé ñâîåãî èñòî÷íèêà îáîáùàþùèìè ïîíÿòèÿìè (ñð. ÈËÜÈÍ, Ëåòîïèñíàÿ ñòàòüÿ 6523 ãîäà
99). Àëüòà è Ñìÿäûíü (ìåñòà óáèéñòâ Áîðèñà è Ãëåáà ñîîòâåòñòâåííî) ó Íåñòîðà íå óïîìèíàþòñÿ. Âìåñòî Íîâãîðîäà íàõîäèì «ïîëóíîùíûå ñòðàíû». Î Âûøãîðîäå (ìåñòå ïîãðåáåíèÿ ìó÷åíèêîâ) óòî÷íÿåòñÿ, ÷òî îí íàõîäèòñÿ â 15 ñòàäèÿõ îò Êèåâà, î Êèåâå òî, ÷òî îí ñòîëèöà. Ñ. Ì. 4 5
Н. И. Милютенко
""'
âðåìåííîãî ÿçûêà íå íà ìåñòå. Ñòàëî áûòü, â ×òåíèè çäåñü íåò íè÷åãî íîâîãî ïî ñðàâíåíèþ ñî Ñêàçàíèåì è ëåòîïèñüþ».7 Ýòî ïðåäïîëîæåíèå Ñ. À. Áóãîñëàâñêîãî ïîäòâåðæäàåòñÿ ïðè îáðàùåíèè ê ðóêîïèñíîé òðàäèöèè: â ðÿäå ðóêîïèñåé ñëîâà «Âëàäèìåðú þæå åìó äàñòü» îòñóòñòâóþò.8 Äàëåå Í. È. Ìèëþòåíêî ïèøåò, ÷òî Íåñòîð ÿêîáû «óòâåðæäàåò, ÷òî â ïåðèîä ýòîãî êíÿæåíèÿ (êíÿæåíèÿ Áîðèñà âî Âëàäèìèðå Âîëûíñêîì. Ñ. Ì.) ïðîèçîøëî ïåðâîå ñòîëêíîâåíèå Áîðèñà ñî Ñâÿòîïîëêîì» (ñ. 78). Òî÷íûõ ññûëîê íà èñòî÷íèê èññëåäîâàòåëüíèöà íå ïðèâîäèò. Îáðàùàÿñü ê ×òåí., ìû íàõîäèì òàì ëèøü ñëîâà î òîì, ÷òî Ñâÿòîïîëê «íà÷à ìûñëèòè íà ïðàâ=äíàãî, õîòÿøå áî îêàíüíûé âñþ ñòðàíó ïîãóáèòè è âëàä=òè åäèíú. Ò=ì æå ìûøëÿøå, õîòÿ áëàæåíàãî ïîãóáèòè, íú íå ïóñòè åìó òîãäà Áîãú, íú åãäà ñàìú âîñõîò=. Óâ=ä=âú óáî òî, áëàãîâ=ðíûé îòåöü èõú, ïîñëàâú, ïðèâåäå êú ñåáå áëàæåíàãî Áîðèñà, áëþäûé, äà í=êàêî ïðîëèåòü êðîâü ïðàâ=äíàãî. Îí æå áîëøèìè ðàçãí=âàñÿ íà áëàæåíàãî, ìíÿ îêàíüíûé, ÿêî òîé õîùåòü ïî ñìåðòè îòöà ñâîåãî ñòîëú ïðèÿòè» (×òåí. ë. 94â95à (ñ. 7)). Êàê ìîæíî çàìåòèòü, íè î êàêîì «ñòîëêíîâåíèè» çäåñü íå ãîâîðèòñÿ. Ïûòàÿñü îïðåäåëèòü âðåìÿ âòîðîãî ðàçäåëà êíÿæåíèé Âîëîäèìèðîì, Í. È. Ìèëþòåíêî âûñêàçûâàåò ìíåíèå, ÷òî òî, ÷òî Èçÿñëàâ Âîëîäèìèðîâè÷ (óìåðøèé, ñîãëàñíî ëåòîïèñè, â 1001 ãîäó) íå ïðèíèìàë ó÷àñòèÿ â ðàçäåëå êíÿæåíèé ïîñëå ñìåðòè ñâîåãî ñòàðøåãî áðàòà Âûøåñëàâà, êîñâåííî ïîäòâåðæäàåò ïðàâèëüíîñòü äàòèðîâêè Â. Í. Òàòèùåâûì ñìåðòè Âûøåñëàâà 1010 ãîäîì (ñ. 79). Òàêîå óòâåðæäåíèå ìîæíî îáúÿñíÿòü òîëüêî òåì, ÷òî Í. È. Ìèëþòåíêî íå çíàåò î òîì, ÷òî ïîñëå ñìåðòè Èçÿñëàâà â Ïîëîöêå ñòàë ïðàâèòü Áðÿ÷èñëàâ Èçÿñëàâè÷ (òàêæå íå óïîìÿíóòûé â ëåòîïèñíîé ñòàòüå î ðàñïðåäåëåíèè êíÿæåíèé). Ñëåäóþùàÿ ãèïîòåçà èññëåäîâàòåëüíèöû çàêëþ÷àåòñÿ â òîì, ÷òî ïðîòèâîñòîÿíèå ßðîñëàâà è Âîëîäèìèðà èç-çà íåóïëàòû êíÿæè÷åì íîâãîðîäñêîé äàíè òàêæå äîøëî äî ïðÿìîãî ñòîëêíîâåíèÿ. Âñëåä çà À. Ïîïïý Í. È. Ìèëþòåíêî èíòåðïðåòèðóåò ñëîâà Òèòìàðà «integritatem hereditatis suae duobus relinquens filiis» («îñòàâèâ âñå ñâîå íàñëåäñòâî äâóì ñûíîâüÿì») (VIII, 73:9 î ñìåðòè Âîëîäèìèðà) êàê «çàâåùàâ âñå ñâîå íàñëåäñòâî äâóì ñûíîâüÿì» (ñ. 82), íå ïîÿñíÿÿ ñâîþ òî÷êó çðåíèÿ è íå îòâå÷àÿ íà êðèòèêó ýòîãî ïðåäïîëîæåíèÿ À. Ïîïïý, âûñêà-
ÁÓÃÎÑËÀÂÑÊÈÉ, Äðåâíåðóññêèå ëèòåðàòóðíûå ïðîèçâåäåíèÿ î Áîðèñå è Ãëåáå
153 (ãëàâà 11). 8 ÁÓÃÎÑËÀÂÑÜÊÈÉ, Ïàìÿòêè XIXVIII â.â. ïðî êíÿç³â Áîðèñà òà Ãëiáà
185, ïðèì. 180. 9 Die Chronik des Bischofs Thietmar von Merseburg und ihre Korveier Überarbeitung / Hrsg. von R. HOLTZMANN (Berlin, 1935) (MGH. Scriptores rerum Germanicarum. Nova ser. T. IX) 488. 7
"#
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
çàííóþ À. Â. Íàçàðåíêî.10 Óïîìèíàåìûìè Òèòìàðîì «äâóìÿ ñûíîâüÿìè» À. Ïîïïý è Í. È. Ìèëþòåíêî ñ÷èòàþò Áîðèñà è Ãëåáà. Í. È. Ìèëþòåíêî òàêæå ïðåäïîëàãàåò, ÷òî Âîëîäèìèð ïåðåä ñìåðòüþ ïîìèðèëñÿ ñî Ñâÿòîïîëêîì. Äàëåå èññëåäîâàòåëüíèöà îáðàùàåòñÿ ê ñâåäåíèÿì «Èñòîðèè» ßíà Äëóãîøà, êîòîðûé ñðåäè ïðî÷åãî ñîîáùàåò î âîéíå ìåæäó ßðîñëàâîì è Âîëîäèìèðîì. Í. È. Ìèëþòåíêî ïðåäïîëàãàåò, ÷òî ïîëüñêèé èñòîðèê ïîçàèìñòâîâàë ýòè äàííûå èç êàêèõ-òî äðåâíèõ ïîëîöêèõ àíòèÿðîñëàâîâûõ ñî÷èíåíèé (ñ. 69). Ýòà ñìåëàÿ ãèïîòåçà â ðåöåíçèðóåìîé êíèãå íèêàê íå îáîñíîâàíà. Ïî ìíåíèþ Í. È. Ìèëþòåíêî, â ëåòîïèñè âîåííûå äåéñòâèÿ ßðîñëàâà ïðîòèâ îòöà çàìàë÷èâàþòñÿ (ñ. 8490).11 Àâòîð ðåöåíçèðóåìîé êíèãè ïðèäåðæèâàåòñÿ òî÷êè çðåíèÿ î òîì, ÷òî Áîðèñà óáèë Ñâÿòîïîëê, à íå ßðîñëàâ, êàê ïðåäïîëîæèë Í. Í. Èëüèí.12 Èññëåäîâàòåëüíèöà îòìå÷àåò, ÷òî «åñëè Áîðèñ íå áûë ñîþçíèêîì Ñâÿòîïîëêà, êàê ïðåäïîëîæèë À. Â. Ãîëîâêî, òî, ñëåäîâàòåëüíî, ïðåñòóïíî âîåâàë ñî ñòàðøèì áðàòîì. Ïî÷åìó ñûíîâüÿì ßðîñëàâà â 1072 ã. ïðèøëî â ãîëîâó îäíîãî èç âðàãîâ ñâîåãî îòöà ïðè÷èñëèòü ê ëèêó ñâÿòûõ, à âòîðîãî îáúÿâèòü åãî óáèéöåé, íèêòî íå îáúÿñíÿåò» (ñ. 127128). Çäåñü àâòîð ðåöåíçèðóåìîé êíèãè êàê áóäòî çàáûâàåò î òîì, ÷òî ðàíåå ïðèíÿëà âåðñèþ Ì. Õ. Àëåøêîâñêîãî, ñ÷èòàâøåãî, ÷òî êóëüò Áîðèñà è Ãëåáà ðîäèëñÿ èç èõ ìåñòíîãî ïî÷èòàíèÿ êàê öåëèòåëåé è ëèøü âïîñëåäñòâèè áûë âîñïðèíÿò ñàìèìè Ðþðèêîâè÷àìè (ñ. 4344). Í. È. Ìèëþòåíêî óòâåðæäàåò, ÷òî ßðîñëàâ «ïî÷òè ñðàçó îáâèíèë» Ñâÿòîïîëêà â óáèéñòâå Áîðèñà è Ãëåáà (ñ. 6). Ýòî çàìå÷àíèå íå íàõîäèò ïîäòâåðæäåíèÿ â èñòî÷íèêàõ. Ðàçáèðàÿ äåòàëè îïèñàíèÿ óáèéñòâà Áîðèñà, àâòîð ðåöåíçèðóåìîé êíèãè ïðåäïîëàãàåò âñëåä çà À. À. Øàõìàòîâûì, ÷òî ðàññêàç îá óáèåíèè Ãåîðãèÿ Óãðèíà, ñëóãè Áîðèñà, êîòîðîìó îòðóáèëè ãîëîâó, ÷òîáû ñíÿòü çîëîòóþ ãðèâíó, îòñóòñòâîâàë â Äðåâíåéøåì ñâîäå è áûë âñòàâëåí ðåäàêòîðîì Íà÷àëüíîãî ñâîäà (ñ. 97). Èçó÷åíèå ñêàíäèíàâñêèõ ïàðàëëåëåé òåêñòîâ áîðèñîãëåáñêîãî öèêëà îïðîâåðãàåò ýòî ìíåíèå À. Â. ÍÀÇÀÐÅÍÊÎ, Íåìåöêèå ëàòèíîÿçû÷íûå èñòî÷íèêè IXXI âåêîâ: Òåêñòû. Ïåðåâîä. Êîììåíòàðèé (Ì., 1993) 174, ïðèì. 65. 11 Ñàìà îáâèíÿÿ ëåòîïèñöà â çàìàë÷èâàíèè îòðèöàòåëüíûõ äåéñòâèé ßðîñëàâà, Í. È. Ìèëþòåíêî îòìå÷àåò, ãîâîðÿ î êîíöåïöèè Í. Í. Èëüèíà, ñ÷èòàâøåãî ßðîñëàâà âèíîâíèêîì ñìåðòè Áîðèñà: «Ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ, ÷òî â îñíîâå òàêîé òðàêòîâêè ãèáåëè Áîðèñà è Ãëåáà (sic! Ñ. Ì.) ëåæèò íå èññëåäîâàíèå èñòî÷íèêîâ, à íåæåëàíèå ïðèçíàâàòü çà ðåëèãèîçíîé æèçíüþ ñðåäíåâåêîâîé Ðóñè êàêóþ-ëèáî ñàìîöåííîñòü» (ñ. 7). 12 Îá óáèéñòâå Áîðèñà ñì. ïîäðîáíåå: Ñ. Ì. ÌÈÕÅÅÂ, Çîëîòàÿ ãðèâíà Áîðèñà è ðîäîâîå ïðîêëÿòüå Èíãëèíãîâ: Ê ïðîáëåìå âàðÿæñêèõ èñòî÷íèêîâ äðåâíåðóññêèõ òåêñòîâ // Ñëàâÿíîâåäåíèå (2005) ¹ 2. 2842. 10
Н. И. Милютенко
"#
À. À. Øàõìàòîâà: ñêàíäèíàâñêèé ìàòåðèàë ïîçâîëÿåò ñäåëàòü âûâîä, ÷òî ìîòèâ çîëîòîé ãðèâíû áûë îäíèì èç ñòåðæíåé èçíà÷àëüíîãî ïîâåñòâîâàíèÿ îá óáèéñòâå Áîðèñà.13 Äàëåå Í. È. Ìèëþòåíêî îáðàùàåòñÿ ê ðåêîíñòðóêöèè îáñòîÿòåëüñòâ ñìåðòè Ñâÿòîïîëêà. Îíà ñ÷èòàåò, ÷òî Ñâÿòîïîëê áûë óáèò âàðÿãàìè Ýéìóíäà ïî ïðèêàçó ßðîñëàâà, ÷òî îòðàçèëîñü â ðàññêàçå îá óáèéñòâå Áóðèñëàâà â «Ýéìóíäîâîé ïðÿäè» (ñ. 131, 238, 239). Ñâåäåíèÿ î âèíîâíîñòè ßðîñëàâà â óáèéñòâå Ñâÿòîïîëêà, ïî ìíåíèþ èññëåäîâàòåëüíèöû, áûëè çàðåòóøèðîâàíû â ëåòîïèñè, ïîòîìó ÷òî «ëåòîïèñåö ðåøèë, ÷òî íàìåêè íà ýòî ñîáûòèå, ïîäðàçóìåâàâøèå ó÷àñòèå â äåëå ßðîñëàâà, íåæåëàòåëüíû» (ñ. 131). Ìåæäó òåì, âíèìàòåëüíîå ðàññìîòðåíèå ýòîãî ýïèçîäà «Ýéìóíäîâîé ïðÿäè» ïîçâîëÿåò ñêàçàòü, ÷òî çäåñü ãîâîðèòñÿ îá óáèéñòâå Áîðèñà,14 à íå Ñâÿòîïîëêà. Îòìåòèì òàêæå, ÷òî, ðàçáèðàÿ ëåòîïèñíûé ðàññêàç î ñìåðòè Ñâÿòîïîëêà, Í. È. Ìèëþòåíêî ïîâòîðÿåò ñòàðîå çàáëóæäåíèå, ïåðåâîäÿ ñëîâà «ìåæè ÷àõû è ëÿõû» èç ëåòîïèñíîé ñòàòüè î ãèáåëè Ñâÿòîïîëêà êàê «÷åøñêî-ïîëüñêîå ïîãðàíè÷üå» (ñ. 130). Òî, ÷òî ýòà ïîãîâîðêà îçíà÷àåò «Áîã âåñòü ãäå è êàê» ïèñàë åùå ïåðâûé ïåðåâîä÷èê «Ýéìóíäîâîé ïðÿäè» ñ èñëàíäñêîãî íà ðóññêèé Î. È. Ñåíêîâñêèé.15 Óêàæó åùå íåñêîëüêî îøèáîê Í. È. Ìèëþòåíêî ïðè ðàçáîðå ñîáûòèéíîé êàíâû óñîáèöû Âîëîäèìèðîâè÷åé. Êðèòèêóÿ ðàáîòû ñòîðîííèêîâ ìíåíèÿ, ÷òî Áîðèñà óáèë ßðîñëàâ, à íå Ñâÿòîïîëê, Í. È. Ìèëþòåíêî ïðèïèñûâàåò èì «óòâåðæäåíèå, ÷òî âñå ïðîèçâåäåíèÿ Áîðèñî-Ãëåáñêîãî öèêëà, êàê è ëåòîïèñè, áûëè ïîääåëàíû ïî ïðèêàçó ßðîñëàâà» (ñ. 11). Òàêîå îáâèíåíèå àáñóðäíî, òàê êàê âñå äîøåäøèå äî íàñ ïðîèçâåäåíèÿ öèêëà ñîçäàíû ïîñëå ñìåðòè ßðîñëàâà. Ñîãëàñíî Í. È. Ìèëþòåíêî, «âñå èñòî÷íèêè16 óòâåðæäàþò, ÷òî Áîðèñ áåçîãîâîðî÷íî ïðèçíàë ñòàðøèíñòâî Ñâÿòîïîëêà, íî áðàò åìó íå ïîâåðèë» (ñ. 13). Ìåæäó òåì, òî, ÷òî Ñâÿòîïîëê íå ïîâåðèë Áîðèñó, íå ãîâîðèòñÿ íè â êàêèõ èñòî÷íèêàõ. Âåðîÿòíî, çàáëóæäåíèå Í. È. Ìèëþòåíêî ïðîèñõîäèò èç åå èíòåðïðåòàöèè ñëåäóþùåé ôðàçû ×òåí.: «Îêàíüíûé æå ïå÷àëîâàøåñÿ, ñëûøàâú áðàòà ãðÿäóùà ê ñåáå, è òîãî ðàäè ïîãóáèòú åãî ïîñûëàåòü» (×òåí. ë. 97â (ñ. 9)). Îäíàêî èíòåðïðåòàöèÿ îäíîé ôðàçû èç îäíîãî èñòî÷íèêà ïðåâðàùàåòñÿ íà ñòðàíèöàõ ðåöåíçèðóåìîé êíèãè â äàííûå «âñåõ èñòî÷íèêîâ». ÌÈÕÅÅÂ, Çîëîòàÿ ãðèâíà Áîðèñà
Òàì æå. 15 Î. È. ÑÅÍÊÎÂÑÊÈÉ, Ñêàíäèíàâñêèÿ ñàãè // Áèáëèîòåêà äëÿ ÷òåíèÿ: Æóðíàë ñëîâåñíîñòè, íàóê, õóäîæåñòâ, ïðîìûøëåíîñòè, íîâîñòåé è ìîä (1834) Ò. 1. Îòä. III: Íàóêè è õóäîæåñòâà. 68. 16 Âûðàæåíèå «âñå èñòî÷íèêè» ïðàêòè÷åñêè âåçäå ó Í. È. Ìèëþòåíêî îçíà÷àåò «âñå ðóññêèå èñòî÷íèêè» (ñð. ñ. 6, 13). Ñ. Ì. 13 14
"#
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
Òðåòüÿ ãëàâà ìîíîãðàôèè ïîñâÿùåíà Ñêàç. Í. È. Ìèëþòåíêî ïðèñîåäèíÿåòñÿ ê òî÷êå çðåíèÿ Ñ. À. Áóãîñëàâñêîãî è À. Ïîïïý, ñ÷èòàþùèõ Ñêàç. è «Ñêàçàíèå ÷óäåñ»17 ðàçíîâðåìåííûìè ïðîèçâåäåíèÿìè, ïîýòîìó ýòè ïàìÿòíèêè ðàññìàòðèâàþòñÿ åþ îòäåëüíî äðóã îò äðóãà. Íà÷èíàÿ ðàçáîð Ñêàç., Í. È. Ìèëþòåíêî ïèøåò, ÷òî «íèêòî èç èññëåäîâàòåëåé íå îáðàòèë âíèìàíèÿ íà çíàìåíàòåëüíûé ôàêò: â ñîõðàíèâøèéñÿ òåêñò Àíîíèìíîãî ñêàçàíèÿ ðàññêàç èç Ïîâåñòè âðåìåííûõ ëåò âíåñåí ïî÷òè ïîëíîñòüþ» (ñ. 135). Îòìåòèì âî-ïåðâûõ, ÷òî â Ñêàç. âíåñåí òåêñò íå ÏÂË, à îäíîãî èç ïðåäøåñòâîâàâøèõ åé ñâîäîâ. Âî-âòîðûõ, ñõîäñòâî òåêñòîâ ëåòîïèñè è Ñêàç. áûëî çàìå÷åíî î÷åíü äàâíî. Âîïðîñ âçàèìîîòíîøåíèÿ ýòèõ òåêñòîâ èçó÷àåòñÿ óæå áîëåå ñòà ëåò. Í. È. Ìèëþòåíêî ïåðå÷èñëÿåò ðàçëè÷íûå ôàêòè÷åñêèå ðàñõîæäåíèÿ ëåòîïèñè, Ñêàç. è ×òåí. Êðîìå ðàñõîæäåíèé, óæå óïîìèíàâøèõñÿ âûøå, èññëåäîâàòåëüíèöà îòìå÷àåò, ÷òî â ëåòîïèñè è â Ñêàç. ÿêîáû óêàçàíû ðàçíûå ìåñòà ãèáåëè Áîðèñà. Ñîãëàñíî Ñêàç., ñìåðòü ÿêîáû íàñòóïèëà íà ðåêå Àëüòå, à ïî ëåòîïèñè Áîðèñ áûë óáèò óæå ïî ïóòè ê Êèåâó (ñ. 166, 208, 230, 264). Ìåæäó òåì, âñå äðåâíåðóññêèå âåðñèè ðàññêàçà îá óáèåíèè Áîðèñà âîñõîäÿò ê âåðñèè ëåòîïèñíîé. Ïî ôàêòè÷åñêîìó ñîäåðæàíèþ Ñêàç. îòëè÷àåòñÿ îò ëåòîïèñè íåçíà÷èòåëüíî: è òàì, è òàì îêîí÷àòåëüíîå äîáèâàíèå Áîðèñà ïðîèñõîäèò íà ïóòè ñ Àëüòû è óáèéöåé íàçâàí îäèí èç ïîäîñëàííûõ Ñâÿòîïîëêîì äâóõ âàðÿãîâ.18 Äàëåå Í. È. Ìèëþòåíêî ñòðîèò ãèïîòåçó î ìíîãîñëîéíîñòè äîøåäøåãî äî íàñ òåêñòà Ñêàç. Ñîãëàñíî åå ïðåäïîëîæåíèþ, ïåðâîíà÷àëüíîå Ñêàç. áûëî îñíîâàíî íà òåêñòå Äðåâíåéøåãî ñâîäà. Ïîçäíåå îíî áûëî ïåðåðàáîòàíî è âêëþ÷èëî öèòàòû èç áîëåå ïîçäíèõ ëåòîïèñíûõ òåêñòîâ, â òîì ÷èñëå ðàññêàçû î Ãåîðãèè Óãðèíå è î ïðåäóïðåæäåíèÿõ ßðîñëàâà è Ãëåáà Ïðåäñëàâîé. Àâòîðîì ïåðâîíà÷àëüíîé ðåäàêöèè Ñêàç. Í. È. Ìèëþòåíêî íàçûâàåò Èàêîâà Ìíèõà (ñ. 172177). Íåîáõîäèìîñòü âêëþ÷åíèÿ òàêîãî ïðîìåæóòî÷íîãî çâåíà â è áåç òîãî ñëîæíóþ èñòîðèþ áîðèñîãëåáñêèõ òåêñòîâ ñîìíèòåëüíà. Åñòü â òðåòüåé ãëàâå ðàáîòû íåñêîëüêî ìåòêèõ íàáëþäåíèé ïðè ñðàâíåíèè ëåòîïèñè è Ñêàç.  øåñòîì ðàçäåëå (ñ. 160166) èññëåäîâàòåëüíèöà ðàçáèðàåò îñîáåííîñòè ñòèëÿ áîðèñîãëåáñêèõ òåêñòîâ. Í. È. Ìèëþòåíêî îòìå÷àåò, ÷òî â îòëè÷èå îò ëåòîïèñè ñ åå «ñêóïîé îáðàçíîñòüþ» â Ñêàç. ìû íàõîäèì áîëüøå îïðåäåëåíèé, ïðè÷àñòíûõ îáîðîòîâ, àíòèòåç è ïîâòîðîâ. Áóëüøóþ ðîëü â ïîâåñòâîâàíèè Ñêàç. èãðàþò öèòàòû. Ñåäüìîé ðàçäåë ãëàâû (ñ. 166170) ïîñâÿùåí óïîòðåáëåíèþ ýïèòåòîâ «ñâÿòîé» è «áëàæåííûé» ïðèìåíèòåëüíî ê Áîðèñó è Ãëåáó. Í. È. Ìèëþòåíêî ïðåäïîëàãàåò, ÷òî â ëåòîïèñè ïåðâîíà÷àëüíî ýòè ýïèòåòû îò«Сказание чюдесъ свÿтую страстотерпцю Романа и Давида». Ñì.: Ñ. Ì. ÌÈÕÅÅÂ, Ðàçäâîåíèå óáèéñòâà Áîðèñà è èñòîðèÿ áîðèñîãëåáñêîãî öèêëà // Äðåâíÿÿ Ðóñü: Âîïðîñû ìåäèåâèñòèêè (2005) ¹ 3 (21) 7475. 17 18
Н. И. Милютенко
"#!
ñóòñòâîâàëè è áûëè âñòàâëåíû â òåêñò âìåñòå ñ áîëåå ïîçäíèìè èíòåðïîëÿöèÿìè. Òàêèì îáðàçîì èññëåäîâàòåëüíèöà óáåäèòåëüíî ïîäòâåðæäàåò òî÷êó çðåíèÿ î ïåðâè÷íîñòè ëåòîïèñíîãî ðàññêàçà ïî îòíîøåíèþ ê Ñêàç. è ×òåí.  ÷åòâåðòîé ãëàâå Í. È. Ìèëþòåíêî ðàññìàòðèâàåò «Ñêàçàíèå ÷óäåñ». Èññëåäîâàòåëüíèöà èñõîäèò èç íàáëþäåíèÿ Ä. Â. Àéíàëîâà, êîòîðûé îáðàòèë âíèìàíèå íà ðàñõîæäåíèÿ ìåæäó ñîäåðæàíèåì òåêñòà è ìèíèàòþð Ñêàç. â Ñèëüâåñòðîâñêîì ñáîðíèêå XIV âåêà. Ä. Â. Àéíàëîâ ïðåäïîëîæèë, ÷òî ïðîòîãðàô ñáîðíèêà ñîäåðæàë ðàííèé âàðèàíò Ñêàç., îïèñàíèå ÷óäåñ â êîòîðîì çàêàí÷èâàëîñü 1072 ãîäîì, òàê êàê áîëåå ïîçäíèå ÷óäåñà îñòàëèñü â Ñèëüâåñòðîâñêîì ñáîðíèêå íåïðîèëëþñòðèðîâàíû. À. Ïîïïý ïîäâåðã ýòó ãèïîòåçó Ä. Â. Àéíàëîâà æåñòêîé êðèòèêå, íàñòàèâàÿ íà íåïðàâîìåðíîñòè ïðèâëå÷åíèÿ èêîíîãðàôè÷åñêèõ èñòî÷íèêîâ äëÿ ðàçðåøåíèÿ òåêñòîëîãè÷åñêèõ ïðîáëåì.19 Í. È. Ìèëþòåíêî, ïðèíÿâ ñòîðîíó Ä. Â. Àéíàëîâà, îáîøëà ìîë÷àíèåì áóëüøóþ ÷àñòü ñîîáðàæåíèé À. Ïîïïý (ñì. ñ. 190, 208). Äàëåå Í. È. Ìèëþòåíêî ïåðåñêàçûâàåò äîâîäû Ñ. À. Áóãîñëàâñêîãî, êîòîðûé âûäâèíóë ãèïîòåçó î ñóùåñòâîâàíèè ðàííåé ðåäàêöèè «Ñêàçàíèÿ ÷óäåñ», ïîâëèÿâøåé ïîçæå íà ×òåí. Íåñòîðà. Ñîâìåùàÿ ãèïîòåçû Ä. Â. Àéíàëîâà è Ñ. À. Áóãîñëàâñêîãî, àâòîð ðåöåíçèðóåìîé êíèãè äåëàåò âûâîä î òîì, ÷òî èëëþñòðèðîâàííûé ïðîòîãðàô Ñèëüâåñòðîâñêîãî ñáîðíèêà ñîäåðæàë, âî-ïåðâûõ, ïîâåñòü «Î óáèåíèè Áîðèñîâå» èç Äðåâíåéøåãî ñâîäà è, âî-âòîðûõ, ðàííåå «Ñêàçàíèå ÷óäåñ», íàïèñàííîå â 10721076 ãîäàõ.  ïÿòîé ãëàâå («Ïàðèìèéíûå ÷òåíèÿ ñâÿòûì Áîðèñó è Ãëåáó») Í. È. Ìèëþòåíêî ñòðîèò ãèïîòåçó î ñóùåñòâîâàíèè íåêîåé «Ïîâåñòè î ìåñòè ßðîñëàâà çà óáèòûõ áðàòüåâ» «ñâîåîáðàçíîé àïîëîãèè âîéíû ñî Ñâÿòîïîëêîì» (ñ. 58), ñîçäàííîé ïðè æèçíè ßðîñëàâà â 1040-å ãîäû è îñíîâàííîé íà òåêñòå Äðåâíåéøåãî ëåòîïèñíîãî ñâîäà (ñ. 238, 243). Ýòà ãèïîòåçà íå îáúÿñíÿåò íèêàêèõ ïðîòèâîðå÷èé èñòî÷íèêîâ. Çà÷åì èññëåäîâàòåëüíèöå ïîíàäîáèëîñü ýòî ñòðàííîå ïîñòðîåíèå, íå ÿñíî.20 À. Â. ÏÎÏÏÝ, Î ðîëè èêîíîãðàôè÷åñêèõ èçîáðàæåíèé â èçó÷åíèè ëèòåðàòóðíûõ ïðîèçâåäåíèé î Áîðèñå è Ãëåáå // Âçàèìîäåéñòâèå ëèòåðàòóðû è èçîáðàçèòåëüíîãî èñêóññòâà â Äðåâíåé Ðóñè (Ì.Ë., 1966) (ÒÎÄÐË XXII) 2445. 20 Íåñìîòðÿ íà øàòêîñòü äàííîãî ïîñòðîåíèÿ Í. È. Ìèëþòåíêî ïðÿìî ññûëàåòñÿ íà «Ïîâåñòü î ìåñòè»: â ýòîì ïðîèçâåäåíèè, ñîãëàñíî èññëåäîâàòåëüíèöå, èìåþòñÿ «áîëåå ÷åì ïðîçðà÷íûå íàìåêè» íà òî, ÷òî Ñâÿòîïîëêà óáèë ßðîñëàâ (ñ. 124), «â òåêñòå íåò ïîñòîÿííîãî èìåíîâàíèÿ áðàòüåâ ñâÿòûìè» (ñ. 238). Ìû íàõîäèì â êíèãå è äðóãèå ââîäèìûå áåç êàêèõ-ëèáî îãîâîðîê îòñûëêè ê ðåêîíñòðóèðóåìûì òåêñòàì. Í. È. Ìèëþòåíêî, íàïðèìåð, óòâåðæäàåò, â êàêîì êîíêðåòíî âèäå îáðàùåíèå Âîëîäèìèðà â õðèñòèàíñòâî «òåïåðü ÷èòàåòñÿ â Íà÷àëüíîì ñâîäå» (ñì. ñ. 253). 19
"#"
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
Øåñòàÿ ãëàâà ïîñâÿùåíà êðàòêîìó îïèñàíèþ ×òåí. Í. È. Ìèëþòåíêî ïðèíèìàåò ãèïîòåçó Ñ. À. Áóãîñëàâñêîãî è À. Ïîïïý î òîì, ÷òî Íåñòîð ïðè íàïèñàíèè ×òåí. îñíîâûâàëñÿ íà òåêñòàõ ëåòîïèñè è Ñêàç. Âî âòîðîé ÷àñòè êíèãè ïîìåùåíû íåñêîëüêî áîðèñîãëåáñêèõ òåêñòîâ. Ñêàç. âìåñòå ñî «Ñêàçàíèåì ÷óäåñ» îïóáëèêîâàíû ñ ïàðàëëåëüíûì ïåðåâîäîì Ë. À. Äìèòðèåâà è êðàòêèìè êîììåíòàðèÿìè Í. È. Ìèëþòåíêî; ïàðèìèéíîå ÷òåíèå è ×òåí. ñ ïåðåâîäîì è êîììåíòàðèÿìè Í. È. Ìèëþòåíêî.  ïðèëîæåíèè äàíû îäíî èç ïðîëîæíûõ áîðèñîãëåáñêèõ ÷òåíèé, âûäåðæêè èç «Èñòîðèè» ßíà Äëóãîøà (â ïåðåâîäå Í. È. Ùàâåëåâîé) è îòðûâîê èç ëåòîïèñíîé ïîâåñòè îá óáèéñòâå Áîðèñà è Ãëåáà. Èòàê, ïîñìîòðèì, íàñêîëüêî ñîäåðæàíèå ðåöåíçèðóåìîé êíèãè ñîîòâåòñòâóåò óæå ïðèâåäåííîé âûøå àííîòàöèè. Áûëî çàÿâëåíî, ÷òî â êíèãå «âïåðâûå ïðåäïðèíÿòî êîìïëåêñíîå èññëåäîâàíèå âñåõ îáñòîÿòåëüñòâ áîðüáû çà âëàñòü ïîñëå ñìåðòè ñâ. ðàâíîàïîñòîëüíîãî êí. Âëàäèìèðà ñ ïîëíûì îõâàòîì ðóññêèõ è èíîñòðàííûõ ïèñüìåííûõ èñòî÷íèêîâ, äàííûõ ñôðàãèñòèêè, íóìèçìàòèêè è àðõåîëîãèè. Ïîäðîáíî ðàññìîòðåí âîïðîñ: êòî æå èìåííî ÿâëÿëñÿ óáèéöåé ñââ. Áîðèñà è Ãëåáà». Ìåòîäû èñïîëüçîâàíèÿ èñòî÷íèêîâ àâòîðîì êíèãè áûëè ïðîäåìîíñòðèðîâàíû âûøå. Àëüòåðíàòèâû ëåòîïèñíîé âåðñèè, ñîãëàñíî êîòîðîé Áîðèñà è Ãëåáà óáèë Ñâÿòîïîëê, Í. È. Ìèëþòåíêî â êíèãå íå ðàññìàòðèâàëà (ñì. ñ. 9091). Ñîãëàñíî àííîòàöèè, «â êíèãå äàíû îñíîâíûå òåêñòû Áîðèñî-Ãëåáñêîãî öèêëà ñ ïåðåâîäàìè. Âòîðîé ïî çíà÷åíèþ ïàìÿòíèê öèêëà, ×òåíèå Íåñòîðà, íå èçäàâàëîñü ïîëíîñòüþ ñ 1916 ã., êîììåíòàðèé è ïåðåâîä âûïîëíåíû âïåðâûå». Îòìå÷ó âî-ïåðâûõ, ÷òî ×òåí. èçäàâàëîñü çà ýòî âðåìÿ ñ ðàçíî÷òåíèÿìè ïî âñåì èçâåñòíûì ñïèñêàì â êíèãàõ Ñ. À. Áóãîñëàâñêîãî è Äæ. Ðåâåëëè.21 Âî-âòîðûõ, óäèâëÿåò ïîäõîä Í. È. Ìèëþòåíêî ê ïîäáîðó «îñíîâíûõ òåêñòîâ Áîðèñî-Ãëåáñêîãî öèêëà». Äàííîå â ïðèëîæåíèè áåç ïåðåâîäà è â íåóäîáî÷èòàåìîì âèäå ëåòîïèñíîå ñêàçàíèå îá óáèåíèè Áîðèñà è Ãëåáà îíà, âåðîÿòíî, íå îòíîñèò ê îñíîâíûì òåêñòàì. Íàðàâíå ñ ëåòîïèñüþ â ïðèëîæåíèè äàþòñÿ âûäåðæêè èç âòîðè÷íîãî èñòî÷íèêà «Èñòîðèè» ßíà Äëóãîøà. Òàêîé ÷åñòè îäíàêî îêàçûâàþòñÿ ëèøåíû «Õðîíèêà» Òèòìàðà Ìåðçåáóðãñêîãî è «Ýéìóíäîâà 21 Ñì. âûøå, ïðèì. 3. Íåîáõîäèìàÿ ëþáîìó èññëåäîâàòåëþ áîðèñîãëåáñêîé ïðîáëåìàòèêè êíèãà ÁÓÃÎÑËÀÂÑÜÊÈÉ, Ïàìÿòêè XIXVIII â.â. ïðî êíÿç³â Áîðèñà òà Ãëiáà
ÿâíî îñòàëàñü íåçíàêîìà Í. È. Ìèëþòåíêî.  ñïèñêå ëèòåðàòóðû íà ñ. 415 è â ñíîñêàõ (ñì. íàïðèìåð ïðèì. 2 íà ñ. 134) ýòà êíèãà óêàçàíà ñ öåëûì ðÿäîì ðàçíîîáðàçíûõ îøèáîê.  íåêîòîðûõ ññûëêàõ (íàïðèìåð ñ. 180, ïðèì. 6) ïîä ñëîâàìè «Áóãîñëàâñêèé Ñ. À. Óêàç. ñî÷.» ïîäðàçóìåâàåòñÿ äðóãîå ñî÷èíåíèå Ñ. À. Áóãîñëàâñêîãî. Ìåæäó òåì èçäàíèå ÁÓÃÎÑËÀÂÑÜÊÈÉ, Ïàìÿòêè XIXVIII â.â. ïðî êíÿç³â Áîðèñà òà Ãëiáà
äîñòóïíî äàæå â èíòåðíåòå (http://byzantinorossica.org. ru/boris_gleb1.html).
Н. И. Милютенко
"##
ïðÿäü», ñâåäåíèÿ êîòîðûõ ïëîõî óêëàäûâàþòñÿ â ïîñòðîåíèÿ Í. È. Ìèëþòåíêî.22 Êðàéíå ñëàáóþ ñòåïåíü çíàêîìñòâà Í. È. Ìèëþòåíêî ñî ñêàíäèíàâñêèì ìàòåðèàëîì, ÷ðåçâû÷àéíî âàæíûì äëÿ èññëåäîâàòåëÿ, çàíèìàþùåãîñÿ ðåêîíñòðóêöèåé ñîáûòèé 10151019 ãîäîâ, ñëåäóåò îòìåòèòü îñîáî. Ñîãëàñíî Í. È. Ìèëþòåíêî, «êàê ñâèäåòåëüñòâóþò ñêàíäèíàâñêèå ñàãè, âàðÿãè íà ïåðâûõ ïîðàõ ñîãëàñèëèñü ñëóæèòü áåç ïëàòû» ßðîñëàâó, êîãäà ïîñòóïèëè ê íåìó íà ñëóæáó (ñ. 103110). Äàííîå óòâåðæäåíèå âûçûâàåò íåäîóìåíèå.  ãëàâå «Äîãîâîð Ýéìóíäà ñ ßðèöëåéâîì êîíóíãîì» «Ýéìóíäîâîé ïðÿäè», èç êîòîðîé Í. È. Ìèëþòåíêî ïðèâîäèò ðâàíûå öèòàòû, ðàññêàçûâàåòñÿ î òîì, êàê Ýéìóíä ïðè ïåðâîé æå âñòðå÷å äîáèëñÿ îò ßðîñëàâà âûñîêîé ïëàòû çà ñëóæáó äëÿ ñâîèõ âîèíîâ.23 Îñòàåòñÿ òîëüêî ïðåäïîëîæèòü, ÷òî Í. È. Ìèëþòåíêî èçâåñòíû êàêèåòî èíûå ñêàíäèíàâñêèå ñàãè, ðàññêàçûâàþùèå î íàéìå ßðîñëàâîì âàðÿãîâ â õîäå ìåæäîóñîáèöû 10151019 ãîäîâ. Ìåæäó òåì Í. È. Ìèëþòåíêî, î÷åâèäíî, îñòàëàñü íåçíàêîìà ñ îñíîâíûìè èññëåäîâàíèÿìè, ïîñâÿùåííûìè «Ýéìóíäîâîé ïðÿäè», — ñ ðàáîòàìè À. È. Ëÿùåíêî, Ð. Êóêà è Õåðìàííà Ïàëüññîíà ñ Ï. Ýäâàðäñîì24 (ñì. îøèáêè â ññûëêàõ â ïðèìå÷àíèè 8 íà ñ. 7 è â ñïèñêå ëèòåðàòóðû). Åñòü â ðàáîòå è îøèáêè â ïåðåäà÷å ñêàíäèíàâñêèõ èìåí ñîáñòâåííûõ: «Õðþããüÿñòþêêè» (ñ. 14) âìåñòî «Õðþããüÿðñòþêêè», «Õðèíãñîí» (ñ. 103104, 416) âìåñòî «Õðèíãññîí», «Õàðàëüäñîí» (ñ. 104) âìåñòî «Õàðàëüäññîí».  àííîòàöèè íå ñêàçàíî, êîìó àäðåñîâàëà ñâîþ êíèãó Í. È. Ìèëþòåíêî. Ñêàæó êðàòêî åùå î äâóõ ìåëêèõ íåäîñòàòêàõ ðàáîòû Í. È. Ìèëþòåíêî.  ðåöåíçèðóåìîé êíèãå íåóäîâëåòâîðèòåëüíî îôîðìëåíî ââåäåíèå ê ðàçäåëó, ãäå ïîìåùåíû èñòî÷íèêè. Ïîñëå ïðî÷òåíèÿ ýòîãî ââåäåíèÿ ÷èòàòåëþ îñòàåòñÿ òîëüêî ãàäàòü, êàê, êåì è â ñîîòâåòñòâèè ñ êàêèìè ïðèíöèïàìè ñäåëàíû äîïîëíåíèÿ è êóðñèâíûå âûäåëåíèÿ â òåêñòàõ èñòî÷íèêîâ. Îòìå÷ó òàêæå, ÷òî Í. È. Ìèëþòåíêî ïåðåäàåò òåêñò «Ñêàçàíèÿ ÷óäåñ» ïî îäíîìó ñïèñêó, â òî âðåìÿ êàê ïàðàëëåëüíûé ïåðåâîä ïàìÿòíèêà âûïîëíåí ñ äðóãîãî. 23 Flateyjarbok / [Guðbrandr Vigfusson, C. R. Unger] (Christiania, 1862) Bd. 2. 121 (kap. 98, s. 370). Ïåðåâîä ñì.: Å. À. ÐÛÄÇÅÂÑÊÀß, Äðåâíÿÿ Ðóñü è Ñêàíäèíàâèÿ â IXXIV ââ. (Ìàòåðèàëû è èññëåäîâàíèÿ) (Ì., 1978) (Äðåâíåéøèå ãîñóäàðñòâà íà òåððèòîðèè ÑÑÑÐ: Ìàòåðèàëû è èññëåäîâàíèÿ 1978 ã.) 92. 24 À. È. ËßÙÅÍÊÎ, «Eymundar Saga» è ðóññêèå ëåòîïèñè // Èçâåñòèÿ Àêàäåìèè Íàóê ÑÑÑÐ = Bulletin de lAcadémie des sciences de l’URSS. Ñåð. VI. Ò. XX. ¹ 12 (1926) 10611086; R. COOK, Russian History, Icelandic Story, and Byzantine Strategy in Eymundar þáttr Hringssonar // Viator: Medieval and Renaissance Studies 17 (1986) 65–89; Vikings in Russia: Yngvar’s Saga and Eymund’s Saga / Translated and Introduced by HERMANN PALSSON, P. EDWARDS (Edinburgh, 1989). 22
"#$
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
Äëÿ ñïåöèàëèñòîâ åå òðóä, ê ñîæàëåíèþ, ïðåäñòàâëÿåò íè÷òîæíî ìàëûé èíòåðåñ, òàê êàê àâòîðó ñâîéñòâåííû, âî-ïåðâûõ, íåêîððåêòíàÿ ðàáîòà ñ èñòî÷íèêàìè, âî-âòîðûõ, íåëîãè÷íîñòü ïîñòðîåíèé, â-òðåòüèõ, ïëîõîå çíàíèå èñòîðèîãðàôèè áîðèñîãëåáñêîé òåìû è, â-÷åòâåðòûõ, óìîë÷àíèå äàííûõ èñòî÷íèêîâ è ìíåíèé ó÷åíûõ, ïðîòèâîðå÷àùèõ åå ïîñòðîåíèÿì. Êíèãà íå äàåò âåðèôèöèðóåìûõ îòâåòîâ íè íà îäèí èç ñåðüåçíûõ âîïðîñîâ, êîòîðûå ñòîÿò ïåðåä èññëåäîâàòåëÿìè áîðèñîãëåáñêîé òåìû.25 Ïðîñòîé ÷èòàòåëü, êóïèâ ýòîò òîì, ïðèîáðåòåò ïåðåèçäàíèå íåäàâíî âûøåäøåãî ïåðåâîäà Ñêàç., à òàêæå âïåðâûå âûïîëíåííûé ïåðåâîä äâóõ ïàìÿòíèêîâ áîðèñîãëåáñêîãî öèêëà (×òåí. è ïàðèìèéíûõ ÷òåíèé), êîòîðîìó ïðåäïîñëàíî îãðîìíîå õàîòè÷íî âûñòðîåííîå íàóêîîáðàçíîå ââåäåíèå. —. Ã. ÃËı‚
À. √. ’–”ÿ Œ¬¿, –‡ÌÌÂıËÒÚˇÌÒÍËÂ Ô‡ÏˇÚÌËÍË ¬ÓÒÚÓ˜ÌÓ„Ó œË˜ÂÌÓÏÓ¸ˇ (Ã.: Õ‡Û͇, 2002) 500 Ò., LXXX “‡·Î. Äàâíåå çíàêîìñòâî ñ Ë. Ã. Õðóøêîâîé íî, ê ñîæàëåíèþ, ðåäêèå âñòðå÷è, âî âðåìÿ êîòîðûõ ðàçãîâîð çàâÿçûâàåòñÿ íå òîëüêî î íàó÷íûõ èäåÿõ, íî è î ñëîæíîñòÿõ ñîâðåìåííîé æèçíè, òðóäíîñòÿõ èçäàíèÿ îáîáùàþùèõ ïóáëèêàöèé, äîâåðèòåëüíîñòü îòíîøåíèé, êîòîðàÿ ñîïðîâîæäàåò âñå íàøè áåñåäû, íå ïîçâîëÿþò ñîçäàòü ïðîñòî ðåöåíçèþ, â êîòîðîé áû áûëè îòðàæåíû, êàê ïðèíÿòî, äîñòîèíñòâà è íåäîñòàòêè íîâîé êíèãè. Êîìó êàê íå àâòîðó, êîòîðûé ìíîãèå ãîäû æèë è ðàáîòàë â Àáõàçèè, âåëèêîëåïíî çíàåò åå ïàìÿòíèêè, íå îäíîêðàòíî âûñòóïàë è ñ äîêëàäàìè, ïîïóëÿðíûìè î÷åðêàìè, 1 ïîñâÿòèë ðÿä ìîíîãðàôè÷åñêèõ ðàáîò íåêîòîðûì âèäàì àðõåîëîãè÷åñêèõ èñòî÷íèêîâ,2 èëè æå îáîáùèë ðàñêîïêè îòäåëüíûõ,3 ÷ðåçâû÷àéíî ñëîæíûõ â èññëåäîâàíèè ïàìÿòíèêîâ, ÿñíî Ê ÷åñòè Í. È. Ìèëþòåíêî, â êíèãå ïîëíîñòüþ îòñóòñòâóþò ðàçäåëû, ãäå îíà ïîäâîäèëà áû èòîãè ñâîåé ðàáîòû. 25
1  äàííîì ñëó÷àå ìíå õîòåëîñü áû íàçâàòü òîëüêî îäíî íåáîëüøîå ïî îáúåìó ìîíîãðàôè÷åñêîå èññëåäîâàíèå, íàïèñàííîå íàñòîëüêî ëåãêèì ñòèëåì, íå ïðèíÿòûì â òå ãîäû â íàó÷íûõ èçäàíèÿõ, ÷òî åãî ìîæíî ñ÷èòàòü è íàó÷íî-ïîïóëÿðíîé ðàáîòîé: Ë. Ã. ÕÐÓØÊÎÂÀ, Öàíäðèïø: Ìàòåðèàëû ïî ðàííåõðèñòèàíñêîìó ñòðîèòåëüñòâó â Àáõàçèè (Ñóõóìè, 1985). 2 Ë. Ã. ÕÐÓØÊÎÂÀ, Ñêóëüïòóðà ðàííåñðåäíåâåêîâîé Àáõàçèè: V–X âåêà (Òáèëèñè, 1980). 3 Ë. Ã. ÕÐÓØÊÎÂÀ, Ëûõíû: Ñðåäíåâåêîâûé äâîðöîâûé êîìïëåêñ â Àáõàçèè (Ì., 1998).
Л. Г. Хрушкова
"#%
òî, ÷òî îñòàëîñü íå äî êîíöà ïðîäóìàííûì. À ñïóñòÿ ãîäû, êîòîðûå îòäåëÿþò íà÷àëî èçó÷åíèÿ òîãî èëè èíîãî ïàìÿòíèêà, óâèäåòü ïîñïåøíîñòü ðàñêîïîê, äèêòóåìóþ ÷àùå âñåãî îáúåêòèâíûìè ïðè÷èíàìè, ëîãè÷åñêóþ íåçàâåðøåííîñòü èññëåäîâàíèÿ.  äàííîì ñëó÷àå ìíå õîòåëîñü áû ëèøü ïðåäñòàâèòü ÷èòàòåëþ íîâóþ êíèãó Ë. Ã. Õðóøêîâîé. Íî íà÷íó ÿ íå ñ ìîíîãðàôèè.  ïîñëåäíèå ãîäû â íàøåé ñòðàíå, ïîñëå çíà÷èòåëüíîãî ïåðåðûâà, ïîÿâëÿåòñÿ èíòåðåñ ê õðèñòèàíñêîé àðõåîëîãèè. Îá ýòîì ñâèäåòåëüñòâóåò ñåðèÿ ñòàòåé, îïóáëèêîâàííûõ â ðàçëè÷íûõ èçäàíèÿõ, â êîòîðûõ ðàññìàòðèâàþòñÿ îáùåå è îòëè÷íîå ìåæäó âèçàíòèéñêîé è õðèñòèàíñêîé àðõåîëîãèåé è îòìå÷åíî, îáñóæäàþòñÿ âîïðîñû ãîðîäñêîé è õðèñòèàíñêîé òîïîãðàôèè. Çàêîíîìåðíî, ÷òî àâòîðîì ìíîãèõ èç íèõ ÿâëÿåòñÿ Ë. Ã. Õðóøêîâà, èçó÷èâøàÿ íå òîëüêî ïàìÿòíèêè Ãðóçèè è Àáõàçèè, íî è Êðûìà, Èòàëèè, ÷èòàâøàÿ ëåêöèè ïî âèçàíòèéñêîé àðõåîëîãèè â Ïàðèæå.4 Õðèñòèàíñêàÿ òîïîãðàôèÿ ýòî íå òîëüêî âûÿâëåíèå ìåñòà êóëüòîâûõ ñîîðóæåíèé â ñèñòåìå ãîðîäñêîé çàñòðîéêè, íî è ëèòóðãè÷åñêîå íàçíà÷åíèå ÷àñòåé õðàìà,5 ÷òî äëÿ ñâåòñêîãî ñïåöèàëèñòà ÿâëÿåòñÿ ÷ðåçÍàïðèìåð, ñì.: Ë. Ã. ÕÐÓØÊÎÂÀ, Õðèñòèàíñêàÿ àðõåîëîãèÿ â Âîñòî÷íîì Ïðè÷åðíîìîðüå // ÏÑ 32 (95) (1993); Ë. Ã. ÕÐÓØÊÎÂÀ, Õðèñòèàíñêàÿ àðõåîëîãèÿ â Çàïàäíîé Åâðîïå è ðóññêàÿ øêîëà âèçàíòèíèñòèêè // Ó÷åíûå Çàïèñêè Ðîñññèéñêîãî Ïðàâîñëàâíîãî óíèâåðñèòåòà 5 (2000); Ë. Ã. ÕÐÓØÊÎÂÀ, Î âèçàíòèéñêîé àðõåîëîãèè // Âåñòíèê ÐÃÍÔ (2001) ¹ 3; Ë. Ã. ÕÐÓØÊÎÂÀ, Àðõåîëîãèÿ õðèñòèàíñêàÿ, âèçàíòèéñêàÿ, öåðêîâíàÿ: òåðìèíû, ïðåäìåò, ñîâðåìåííîå ñîñòîÿíèå // Òî÷êè (2001) ¹ 34. 5 Ïðèìå÷àòåëüíûì ÿâëÿåòñÿ âîïðîñ, êîòîðûé ïîñòàâëåí â íàñòîÿùåé ìîíîãðàôèè «Õðèñòèàíñêàÿ èëè âèçàíòèéñêàÿ àðõåîëîãèÿ?», â ïðåàìáóëå êîòîðîãî Ë. Ã. Õðóøêîâà ñðàçó æå îïðåäåëÿåò ñâîå îòíîøåíèå: «Âîñòî÷íîå Ïðè÷åðíîìîðüå, êàê è Êðûì, ðàâíûì îáðàçîì ïðèíàäëåæàò äâóì âåòâÿì èñòîðè÷åñêîãî çíàíèÿ: õðèñòèàíñêîé àðõåîëîãèè è àðõåîëîãèè âèçàíòèéñêîé». Ãîâîðÿ î ñâÿçè ýòèõ «äâóõ âåòâåé èñòîðè÷åñêîãî çíàíèÿ», îíà îòìå÷àåò, ÷òî âèçàíòèéñêàÿ àðõåîëîãèÿ, íå áóäó÷è äîëãîå âðåìÿ ñàìîñòîÿòåëüíîé îòðàñëüþ íàóêè, «îòäåëèëàñü» îò õðèñòèàíñêîé àðõåîëîãèè (ñ. 32). Áåçóñëîâíî, êàæäûé èç íàñ èìååò ïðàâî íà ñîáñòâåííîå ìíåíèå, íî, åñëè àíàëèçèðîâàòü èñòîðèþ ðàñêîïîê ðàçëè÷íûõ öåíòðîâ, êàê Âîñòî÷íîãî Ïðè÷åðíîìîðüÿ, òàê è Òàâðèêè, òî, ïîæàëóé, áîëåå ñïðàâåäëèâûì ÿâëÿåòñÿ çàêëþ÷åíèå, ÷òî âèçàíòèéñêàÿ àðõåîëîãèÿ «íå îòäåëèëàñü», à ðàçâèâàåòñÿ íà îñíîâå òåõ äîñòèæåíèé, êîòîðûå áûëè âûðàáîòàíû íàøèìè ïðåäøåñòâåííèêàìè â îáëàñòè àíòè÷íîé àðõåîëîãèè. Âìåñòå ñ òåì àâòîð ñîâåðøåííî ïðàâà, â òîì, ÷òî «òîëüêî â ïîñëåäíèå äåñÿòèëåòèÿ îíà (âèçàíòèéñêàÿ àðõåîëîãèÿ. À. Ð.) íàøëà (èëè, ìîæåò áûòü, åùå òîëüêî íàõîäèò) ñâîé äèñöèïëèíàðíûé ñòàòóñ êàê îñîáàÿ îòðàñëü èñòîðè÷åñêîãî çíàíèÿ. Ê ìíåíèþ E. ZANINI (Introduzione all’archeologia byzantina (Roma, 1994) (Studi Superiori, n.s. 228, Archeologia) 11) ìîæíî äîáàâèòü ìíåíèÿ è äðóãèõ àâòîðîâ, êîòîðûå íåîäíîêðàòíî ïèñàëè î ïîèñêè ñòðàòåãèè è òàêòèêå âèçàíòèéñêîé àðõåîëîãèè (J. H. ROSER, 4
"#&
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
âû÷àéíî ñëîæíîé òåìîé,6 òàê êàê ýòî òðåáóåò íå òîëüêî çíàíèé îñîáåííîñòåé õðèñòèàíñêîãî ðèòóàëà, è óìåíèÿ ñîïîñòàâèòü èõ, à òàêæå ñâèäåòåëüñòâ æèòèéíîé ëèòåðàòóðû ñ îòêðûòûìè â ïðîöåññå ðàñêîïîê ïàìÿòíèêàìè. Âñå ýòè êà÷åñòâà è ïðîÿâèëèñü â íîâîé ðàáîòå, ïðåäñòàâèòü êîòîðóþ, êàê óæå áûëî ñêàçàíî, íî íå ïèñàòü î åå äîñòîèíñòâàõ è íåäîñòàòêàõ, ìíå õîòåëîñü áû â äàííîì ñëó÷àå. Èòàê, êàêèå ïðîáëåìû îáñóæäàåò Ë. Ã. Õðóøêîâà ñî ñâîèìè ÷èòàòåëÿìè, äîêàçàòåëüñòâó êàêèõ âîïðîñîâ ïîñâÿùåíà ÷ðåçâû÷àéíî ôóíäèðîâàííàÿ ìîíîãðàôèÿ. Îòâåò íà ýòè âîïðîñû ñîäåðæèòñÿ â ñàìîì ñîäåðæàíèè èññëåäîâàíèÿ, â êðàòêèõ ðåçþìå, ñîïðîâîæäàþùèõ êàæäóþ ãëàâó. Öåíòðàëüíîå ìåñòî è áîëüøóþ ÷àñòü ñòðàíèö, ÷òî ÿâëÿåòñÿ çàêîíîìåðíûì, ïîñâÿùåíî íåïîñðåäñòâåííîìó îïèñàíèþ êóëüòîâûõ ïàìÿòíèêîâ ðàññìàòðèâàåìîãî ðåãèîíà, î ìåñòîïîëîæåíèè êîòîðûõ ïîçâîëÿåò ïîëó÷èòü êàðòà (ñ. 8). Íåêîòîðûå èç íèõ äàâíî èçâåñòíû è ê íèì íåîäíîêðàòíî îáðàùàëèñü èññëåäîâàòåëè. Ýòî ïðåæäå âñåãî òðåõàïñèäíàÿ êðåñòîâèäíàÿ öåðêîâü â Ïèòèóíòå (¹ 7 ïî íóìåðàöèè Ë. Ã. Õðóøêîâîé). Ýòîò ïàìÿòíèê, èìåâøèé äîëãóþ èñòîðèþ è íåîäíîêðàòíûå ïåðåñòðîéêè, ïîæàëóé, èçâåñòåí ëþáîìó ïîñåòèòåëþ äàííîãî êóðîðòíîãî öåíòðà7 . Íî îò ãëàç ïîñåòèòåëåé, ïîä÷àñ è èññëåäîâàòåëåé ñêðûòû äðóãèå íå ìåíåå èíòåðåñíûå êîìïëåêñû, êîòîðûå ïîçâîëÿþò ðåøàòü âîïðîñû òîïîãðàôèè Ïèòèóíòà è åãî ðîëü â êóëüòóðíîé è ðåëèãèîçíîé æèçíè Âîñòî÷íîãî Ïðè÷åðíîìîðüÿ. Îáîáùàÿ ðàáîòû ñâîèõ ïðåäøåñòâåííèêîâ, àâòîð äåëàåò âûâîä î òîì, ÷òî «íåáîëüøàÿ õðèñòèàíñêàÿ îáùèíà ãîðîäà óæå â IV–V ââ. âîçâîäèò ïåðâûé õðàì. Ïîñëåäîâàòåëüíîå ñòðîèòåëüñòâî íà òîì ìåñòå, ãäå âîçíèê õðàì IV–V ââ. (ñóäÿ ïî îïèñàíèþ ñìåíÿâøèõ äðóã äðóãà ïîñòðîåê, A Reserch Strategy for Byzantine Archaeology // Byzantine Studies 6 (1979) 152166) èëè î òîì, ÷òî îíà âñå åùå íàõîäèòñÿ â ýìáðèîíàëüíîì ñîñòîÿíèè (E. KISLINGER, Notizen zur Realienkunde aus byzantinischer Sucht // Medium Aevum Quotidianum 9 (1987) 33; ñð.: E. KISLINGER, La cultura materiale di Bisanzio. Un nuovo inizio della ricerca scientifica // Schede Medievali 11 (1986) 299313). Âàæíåéøèìè ñâÿçóþùèìè àíòè÷íóþ è âèçàíòèéñêóþ àðõåîëîãèþ, íà ìîé âçãëÿä, ÿâëÿþòñÿ ïðîáëåìà êóëüòóðíîãî ñëîÿ è ìåòîäèêà ðàñêîïîê àðõèòåêòóðíûõ ïàìÿòíèêîâ, êîòîðûå èìåþò ìíîãîâåêîâóþ èñòîðèþ. 6 Ë. Ã. ÕÐÓØÊÎÂÀ, Íîâàÿ îêòîãîíàëüíàÿ öåðêîâü â Ñåâàñòîïîëèñå è åå ëèòóðãè÷åñêîå óñòðîéñòâî // Ëèòóðãèÿ, àðõèòåêòóðà è èñêóññòâî âèçàíòèéñêîãî ìèðà: Òðóäû XVIII Ìåæäóíàðîäíîãî êîíãðåññà âèçàíòèíèñòîâ (Ìîñêâà, 815 àâãóñòà 1991) è äðóãèå ìàòåðèàëû, ïîñâÿùåííûå ïàìÿòè î. Èîàííà Ìåéåíäîðôà / Ïîä ðåäàêöèåé Ê. Ê. ÀÊÅÍÒÜÅÂÀ (ÑÏá., 1995) (Âèçàíòèíîðîññèêà 1) 201235. 7 Öåðêîâü ¹ 7 äàòèðóåòñÿ âòîðîé ïîëîâèíîé VI èëè íà÷àëîì VII â. Ïî ìíåíèþ àâòîðà, ñòðîèòåëüñòâî åå ñâÿçàíî ñ âîçðîæäåíèåì Ïèòèóíòà ïîñëå ðàçðóøåíèÿ 542 ã. (ñ. 109).
Л. Г. Хрушкова
"#'
Ë. Ã. Õðóøêîâà ñêëîíÿåòñÿ ê áîëåå ðàííåé äàòå), çàâåðøàåòñÿ ñîîðóæåíèåì îäíîíåôíîé öåðêâè â íà÷àëå VI â. (õðàì ¹ 4, ñ. 91). Ñëåäóþùèé çíà÷èòåëüíûé êîìïëåêñ êóëüòîâûõ ñîîðóæåíèé Àïñèëèè ïàìÿòíèêè â ðàñïîëîæåííîì ê ñåâåðî-çàïàäó îò Ïèòèóíòà, íåïîäàëåêó îò ã. Ãàãðû, ñ. Àëàõàçäû. Ê ÷èñëó íàèáîëåå ðàííèõ îòíîñèòñÿ òðåõíåôíàÿ áàçèëèêà (¹ 1 ïî Ë. Ã. Õðóøêîâîé). Îòêðûòàÿ åùå Ï. Ñ. Óâàðîâîé (1886 ã.) îíà, â ñóùíîñòè, â òå÷åíèå ñòà ëåò (äî ðàñêîïîê 1985–1986 ã.) îñòàâàëàñü íå èññëåäîâàííîé. Ðàñêîïêè àâòîðà ìîíîãðàôèè ïîçâîëèëè âûÿâèòü ñëîæíóþ ñòðîèòåëüíóþ áèîãðàôèþ çäàíèÿ, îòêðûòü òðè ïîñëåäîâàòåëüíî âîçâîäèìûõ õðàìà, âîññòàíîâèòü ïëàí ñîîðóæåíèé, îò÷àñòè àðõèòåêòóðíîå óáðàíñòâî, íî, ê ñîæàëåíèþ, îïðåäåëèòü âðåìÿ ïåðâîé, ñàìîé ðàííåé ïîñòðîéêè, íå óäàëîñü. Íà îñíîâàíèè àíàëîãèé è èñïîëüçîâàíèÿ òåõíèêè opus mixtum8 îíà äàòèðóåòñÿ V â. (ñ. 123, 127). Âòîðàÿ áàçèëèêà âîçâîäèòñÿ â êîíöå VIII ïåðâîé ïîëîâèíå IX â., ïîçäíåå ðÿäîì ñ íåé âîçíèêàåò õðàì ¹ 3. Ðàñêîïêè ïîçâîëèëè ïðîñëåäèòü ýâîëþöèþ êóëüòîâîãî ñòðîèòåëüñòâà â îäíîì èç çíà÷èòåëüíûõ öåíòðîâ Ïèöóíäñêîãî ìûñà îò ñòðîïèëüíîé áàçèëèêè ê êóïîëüíîìó õðàìó. Èíòåðåñ ïðåäñòàâëÿåò è âûâîä î âëèÿíèè ïåðâîãî ýòàïà ñòðîèòåëüíîé äåÿòåëüíîñòè â íàñåëåííîì ïóíêòå, ñóùåñòâîâàâøåì ðàíåå íà ìåñòå ñ. Àëàõàçäû, íà äåòàëüíî èññëåäîâàííóþ Ë. Ã. Õðóøêîâîé Öàíäðèïøñêóþ áàçèëèêó (ñ. 135). È çàêîíîìåðíî, ÷òî ñëåäóþùàÿ ãëàâà ïîñâÿùåíà èìåííî åé. Èòàê, ãëàâà 3 «Öàíäðèïøñêàÿ áàçèëèêà è äðóãèå ïàìÿòíèêè Àáàçãèè» (ñ. 137194). Áåçóñëîâíî, íàèáîëüøåå âíèìàíèå óäåëåíî èìåííî áàçèëèêå, òåì äåòàëÿì, êîòîðûå áûëè îáíàðóæåíû â ïðîöåññå ðàñêîïîê àâòîðà: ïåðèîäèçàöèÿ ñòðîèòåëüñòâà, ïëàíèðîâêà è ñòðóêòóðà õðàìà (áàïòèñòåðèé, ìåìîðèàëüíàÿ êðåùàëüíÿ, ôóíêöèè òðåõàïñèäíîãî àëòàðÿ, òèïîëîãèÿ ãðîáíèö, âïèñàííûõ, êàê îòìå÷åíî, «â èíòåðüåð áàçèëèêè». Òùàòåëüíîìó àíàëèçó ïîäâåðãíóòû íåìíîãî÷èñëåííûå ñòðîèòåëüíûå ìàòåðèàëû è êîíñòðóêöèè, è ìíîãî÷èñëåííûå ìðàìîðíûå äåòàëè, ñîõðàíèâøèåñÿ íàäïèñè (ñ. 160163, 165170). Ïåðå÷èñëåííûå âûøå ñþæåòû, à òàêæå àðõåîëîãè÷åñêèå íàõîäêè9 ñêëîíÿþò Ë. Ã. Õðóøêîâó ê âûâîäó î òîì, ÷òî â Ïðàâäà, Ë. Ã. Õðóøêîâà îòìå÷àåò, ÷òî ýòî êîñâåííûé ïðèçíàê (ñ. 127). Ñðåäè àðõåîëîãè÷åñêèõ íàõîäîê (àìôîðû è ñòåêëÿííûå ñîñóäû) íà ïåðîâîì ìåñòå è áîëåå ïîäðîáíî îïèñûâàþòñÿ àìôîðû ñî ññûëêîé íà øèðîêóþ äàòèðîâêó, ïðåäëîæåííóþ À. Â. Ñàçàíîâûì (ñ. 171, ïðèì. 101).  îòíîøåíèè òàê íàç. àìôîð «ñ ïåðåõâàòîì» (âåðíåå, ñ ñóæåíèåì êîðïóñà) õîòåëîñü áû îòìåòèòü, ÷òî â Õåðñîíåñå îíè âñòðå÷àþòñÿ â õîðîøî äàòèðîâàííûõ êîìïëåêñàõ VI â. è â ñëîÿõ ðàçðóøåíèÿ, äàòèðîâàííûõ ìîíåòàìè VII â. (ñì.: À. È. ÐÎÌÀÍ×ÓÊ, À. Â. ÑÀÇÀÍÎÂ, Ë. Â. ÑÅÄÈÊÎÂÀ, Àìôîðû èç êîìïëåêñîâ âèçàíòèéñêîãî Õåðñîíà (Åêàòåðèíáóðã, 1995) 1619). Äëÿ Ë. Ã. Õðóøêîâîé åñòü è áîëåå áëèçêàÿ õðîíîëîãè÷åñêàÿ àíàëîãèÿ òàêèõ àìôîð íàõîäêè â õðàìå Äðàíäà (ñì.: Ì. Ê. ÕÎÒÅËÀØÂÈËÈ, À. Ë. ßÊÎÁÑÎÍ, Âèçaíòèéñêèé õðàì â ñ. Äðàíäà (Aáõàçèÿ) //  45 (1984) 192206), îïèñàíèå 8 9
"$
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
VI â. ñòðîèòñÿ (ñ. 151) «ïåðâàÿ öåðêîâü àáàçãîâ», ñóäÿ ïî îáíàðóæåííîé íàäïèñè, â êîòîðîé îíè íàçâàíû. Èç äðóãèõ õðàìîâ äàííîé ãëàâû îïèñàíû: îäíîíåôíàÿ öåðêîâü VI â., ðàñïîëîæåííàÿ â êðåïîñòè â óùåëüå Õàøóïñà; íå èçó÷åííàÿ äî íàñòîÿùåãî âðåìåíè «òðåõöåðêîâíàÿ áàçèëèêà» â ã. Ãàãðû (ðóáåæ VVI èëè ïåðâûå äåñÿòèëåòèÿ VI â.); õðàì VIIVIII ââ. â ìåñòå÷êå Àáà-Àíòà (îêîëî ñ. Ëûõíû); ïðèâåäåíû òàêæå ñîîáðàæåíèÿ î ñóùåñòâîâàíèè õðàìà â òàêîì âàæíåéøåì öåíòðå Àáàçãèè êàê Àíàêîïèÿ (ñ. 191194). Îñîáûé èíòåðåñ ïðåäñòàâëÿåò ðàçäåë î ïàìÿòíèêàõ ïðèìîðñêèõ öåíòðîâ (÷èòàòåëü ìîæåò âèäåòü, ÷òî ýòî ñî÷åòàíèå «îñîáûé èíòåðåñ» ñ ðàçëè÷íûìè îòòåíêàìè óæå íåîäíîêðàòíî èñïîëüçîâàí è ñâèäåòåëüñòâóåò î òîì, ÷òî êàæäàÿ èç ãëàâ, èìåþùàÿ «öåíòðàëüíîå ÿäðî», ñîîáùàþùàÿ èëè ñîâåðøåííî íîâûå äàííûå, èëè îáîáùàþùàÿ è àíàëèçèðóþùàÿ ðàíåå ïîëó÷åííûå ìàòåðèàëû, ïî ñâîåìó ïðèìå÷àòåëüíà è, êîíå÷íî, öåííà).  ãëàâå 4 òàêèì ÿäðîì ñòàë ïîäðîáíî ðàçîáðàííûé êóëüòîâûé êîìïëåêñ Ñåâàñòîïîëèñà, îäíîãî èç êðóïíåéøèõ ãîðîäîâ Êîëõèäû (ñ. 195 259). Ìíîãî÷èñëåííûå ðèñóíêè è ÷åðòåæè ñòðàòèãðàôè÷åñêèõ ðàçðåçîâ, à òàêæå íàõîäêè ïîçâîëèëè âîññòàíîâèòü ñòðîèòåëüíóþ áèîãðàôèþ ïàìÿòíèêà è îòíåñòè åãî ñòðîèòåëüñòâà êî âðåìåíè ðàíåå ñåðåäèíû VI â. (ñ. 240), âîçìîæíî, äàæå ê íà÷àëó V â. (ñ. 250). Ñëåäóþùèé õðàì â ãëàâå 4 «Ñåâàñòîïîëèñ è äðóãèå ïðèìîðñêèå öåíòðû» ýòî êóïîëüíàÿ öåðêîâü â ñ. Äðàíäà, ðàñïîëîæåííîì â 23 êì îò Ñóõóìà. Íåïðåðûâíîå ñóùåñòâîâàíèå õðàìà âïëîòü äî êîíöà XIX â., íåîäíîêðàòíûå «ïîäíîâëåíèÿ» çàòðóäíèëè åãî èçó÷åíèå è ïîðîäèëè äèñêóññèþ î òèïå çäàíèÿ è âðåìåíè ñòðîèòåëüñòâà (ñ. 265270). Îäíà èç ðàííèõ äàòèðîâîê ïðèíàäëåæèò Ã. Í. ×óáèíàøâèëè, êîòîðûé ñ÷åë âîçìîæíûì âêëþ÷èòü öåðêîâü â «ãðóïïó ïàìÿòíèêîâ òèïà Äæâàðè» (VIII â.). Äðóãèå ãðóçèíñêèå èññëåäîâàòåëè, îòìåòèâ «â ñòðîèòåëüíîé òåõíèêå âèçàíòèéñêèå ÷åðòû» äàòèðîâàëè ïîñòðîéêó â Äðàíäå ïåðåõîäíûì ïåðèîäîì VIIIIX ââ. Íå áóäó ïåðå÷èñëÿòü âñå òî÷êè çðåíèÿ, ïðèâåêîòîðîé è äèñêóññèÿ î äàòèðîâêå ñîäåðæàòñÿ â ñëåäóþùåé ãëàâå (ñ. 259273). Êðîìå òîãî, íà ðèñ. 55 (ñ. 171) èçîáðàæåíà åùå îäíà àìôîðà ñ áîðîçä÷àòûì â âåðõíåé ÷àñòè êîðïóñîì, â ñðåäíåé è íèæíåé ñ ðåäêèìè âàëèêàìè (áåçóñëîâíî, íåáîëüøîé ðàçìåð ðèñóíêà íå äàåò î íåé ïîëíîãî ïðåäñòàâëåíèÿ). Äàííûå àìôîðû èìåþò áîëåå óçêóþ äàòèðîâêó (À. È. ÐÎÌÀÍ×ÓÊ, Î÷åðêè èñòîðèè è àðõåîëîãèè âèçàíòèéñêîãî Õåðñîíà (Åêàòåðèíáóðã, 2000) 171173, ðèñ. 71). Õîòåëîñü áû îáðàòèòü âíèìàíèå íà èçîáðàæåíèå ïëèíôû (ñ. 178, ðèñ. 58), êîòîðàÿ, ñóäÿ ïî ìàòåðèàëàì è Õåðñîíåñà è ðàñêîïêàì ïàìÿòíèêîâ íà òåððèòîðèè Áîëãàðèè, óæå íå ïðîèçâîäèëàñü â VII â. (ñì.: Ñ. ÀÍÃÅËÎÂÀ, Çà ïðîèçâîäñòâî íà ñòðîèòåëíà êåðàìèêà â Ñåâåðîèçòî÷íà Áúëãàðèÿ ïðåç ðàííîòî ñðåäíîâåêîâèå // Àðõåîëîãèÿ (1971) ¹ 3. Ñ. 324), â êîòîðîé îáîáùåíû âñå âèäû íàõîäîê ñ IVVI ââ. äî Õ â. Ïëèíôà ñ õàîòè÷åñêè íàíåñåííûìè çíàêàìè â âèäå ïîëîñ, îâàëîâ, çèãçàãîîáðàçíûõ ëèíèé, êàê îòìå÷àåò èññëåäîâàòåëüíèöà, âñòðå÷àåòñÿ â ïîñòðîéêàõ âïëîòü äî VI â.)
Л. Г. Хрушкова
"$
äåííûå Ë. Ã. Õðóøêîâîé (ñ. 266268), êîòîðàÿ ñ÷èòàåò, ÷òî áîëåå áëèçêè â âûÿâëåíèè âðåìåíè âîçâåäåíèÿ õðàìà Ì. Ê. Õîòåëàøâèëè è À. Ë. ßêîáñîí (âòîðàÿ ïîëîâèíà VI â.), íî íà îñíîâàíèè íå çàìå÷åííûõ èìè äåòàëåé äåëàåò óòî÷íåíèå: «ñàìàÿ âåðîÿòíàÿ äàòà ïàìÿòíèêà VII â.» (ñ. 270). Òðåòèé èç õðàìîâ ÷åðíîìîðñêîãî ïîáåðåæüÿ ýòî îäíîíåôíàÿ êëàäáèùåíñêàÿ öåðêîâü íà ãîðîäèùå Ãèåíîñ (ñ. 273290), ïåðâûé ñòðîèòåëüíûé ïåðèîä êîòîðîé îòíîñèòñÿ êî âòîðîé ïîëîâèíå V â., à ðàçðóøåíèå åå ê VII â. (ñ. 290).  îòëè÷èå îò óïîìÿíóòûõ õðàìîâ, â òîé èëè èíîé ìåðå èçâåñòíûõ ïî ìíîãî÷èñëåííûì ïóáëèêàöèÿì (â òîì ÷èñëå è ðîññèéñêèõ íàó÷íûõ èçäàíèÿõ), ïàìÿòíèêàì íàãîðíîé Àïñèëèè (ãëàâà 5) äîëæíîãî âíèìàíèÿ íå óäåëÿëîñü, õîòÿ è îòíîñèòåëüíî Öåáåëüäèíñêîé äîëèíû, ãäå îíè ðàñïîëîæåíû, áëàãîäàðÿ ïðåæäå âñåãî ðàñêîïêàì Þ. Í. Âîðîíîâà èìååòñÿ äîñòàòî÷íî õîðîøåå ïðåäñòàâëåíèå. (Ïðàâäà, âðÿä ëè î êàêîì-ëèáî ðåãèîíå, èëè ïàìÿòíèêè ñ ïîëíûì ïðàâîì ìû ìîæåì ñêàçàòü, ÷òî ñóùåñòâóåò «äîñòàòî÷íî õîðîøåå ïðåäñòàâëåíèå».) Çíà÷åíèå äàííîé ãëàâû ñîñòîèò íå òîëüêî â òîì, ÷òî çäåñü ïðåäñòàâëåíû äàííûå ñîáñòâåííûõ ðàñêîïîê, íî è îáîáùåíû ðàçðîçíåííûå ïî ðàçëè÷íûì èçäàíèÿì ìàòåðèàëû. Ýòî ïîçâîëÿåò ïîëó÷èòü ïðåäñòàâëåíèå î êóëüòîâîé àðõèòåêòóðå ðàéîíà: êîìïëåêñ â êðåïîñòè Öèáèëà (äâå ðàííåõðèñòèàíñêèå, îäíà ïîçäíåñðåäíåâåêîâàÿ öåðêîâü XIII–XIV ââ. (ñ. 295), íî ñóùåñòâóþùàÿ âïëîòü äî íà÷àëà XVIII â. (ñ. 298). Äàëåå, â ãëàâå ïðèâåäåíû ïëàíû è êðàòêîå îïèñàíèå öåðêâè â êðåïîñòè Øàïêû (ðàñêîïêè íå çàâåðøåíû), îäíîíåôíîãî õðàìà VI â. â ñ. Ìðàìáà è ñîîáùàåòñÿ î çíà÷èòåëüíîé ñåðèè ðåëüåôíîé ñêóëüïòóðû ìåñòíûõ ìàñòåðîâ, ÷òî òðåáóåò, êàê îòìå÷àåò àâòîð, ñïåöèàëüíîãî àíàëèçà è õðîíîëîãè÷åñêè «âûõîäèò çà ïðåäåëû òåìû». Ïîñëåäíèé ðåãèîí, êîòîðîìó ïîñâÿùåíà ãëàâà 6 «Ïàìÿòíèêè Þæíîé Ëàçèêè», ÿâëÿåòñÿ îáîáùåíèåì èññëåäîâàíèé, ïðîâåäåííûõ â ðàçëè÷íûå ãîäû ãðóçèíñêèìè àðõåîëîãàìè è àðõèòåêòîðàìè. Îòñóòñòâèå ññûëîê íà ñîáñòâåííûå ðàáîòû, ÷òî, áåçóñëîâíî, íå îçíà÷àåò îòñóòñòâèÿ ñâîåãî ìíåíèÿ îòíîñèòåëüíî èíòåðïðåòàöèè è õðîíîëîãèè îòêðûòûõ çäåñü êîìïëåêñîâ, âñå æå ïîçâîëÿåò ñóäèòü î âòîðè÷íîñòè àíàëèçèðóåìîé èíôîðìàöèè, ïîýòîìó ñ÷èòàþ âîçìîæíûì îãðàíè÷èòüñÿ òîëüêî ïåðå÷èñëåíèåì íàõîäÿùèõñÿ, âåðíåå, ðàñêîïàííûõ çäåñü ïàìÿòíèêîâ. Ïåðå÷èñëþ èõ, ñîãëàñíî ñîäåðæàíèþ: Çèãàíèñ (Ãóäàâà) áàïòèñòåðèé, âîçìîæíî, V â.; Àðõåîïîëèñ (Íîêàëàêåâè) îòêðûòî íåñêîëüêî öåðêâåé çà ïðåäåëàìè ãîðîäñêîé òåððèòîðèè (âàæíåéøèì ðåçóëüòàòîì, ïî ìíåíèþ, Ë. Ã. Õðóøêîâîé, ÿâëÿåòñÿ îáíàðóæåíèå â ñòîëèöå Ëàçèêè õðàìîâ IVVI ââ.,10 ÷òî êàðäèíàëüíî ìåíÿåò ìíåíèå î ðàííåé õðèñòèà10 Î ðàííåì õðàìå, îòíåñÿ âîçâåäåíèå åãî ê IV â., ïèñàë â 1991 ã. Í. Þ. Ëîìîóðè, îòìåòèâøèé, ÷òî ïîñëå ðàçðóøåíèÿ íàä ðàçâàëèíàìè ñîîðóæàåòñÿ áîëüøàÿ
"$
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
íèçàöèè íàñåëåíèÿ (ðàíåå ýòîò ïðîöåññ îòíîñèëè ê VI â. (ñ. 334). Àâòîð ìîíîãðàôèè îòìå÷àåò, ÷òî êóëüòîâîå ñòðîèòåëüñòâî â Àðõåîïîëèñå «èìååò ìíîãî îáùåãî ñ Ïèòèóíòîì, êîòîðûé âî âòîðîé ÷åòâåðòè IV â. ÿâëÿëñÿ åäèíñòâåííûì õðèñòèàíñêèì öåíòðîì â Êîëõèäå». (Ïðàâäà, îòìå÷åíî ñóùåñòâåííîå âëèÿíèå Ïèòèóíòà). Îäíàêî â äàííîì ñëó÷àå âîçíèêàåò ó ÷èòàòåëÿ âîïðîñ: åñëè åñòü îáùèå ÷åðòû ó äâóõ öåíòðîâ è õðàìû, îòíîñÿùèåñÿ ê áëèçêîìó âðåìåíè, ïî÷åìó æå Ïèòèóíò áûë «åäèíñòâåííûì ðåëèãèîçíûì öåíòðîì». Ðàçâå íàëè÷èå êóëüòîâûõ ïîñòðîåê â Àðõåîïîëèñå íå ñâèäåòåëüñòâóåò î íàëè÷èè åùå îäíîãî ðàííåãî öåíòðà â ðåãèîíå? Ñõîäñòâî äâóõ öåíòðîâ ïðîñëåæåíî è â òîì, ÷òî êàê êðåñòîâèäíàÿ öåðêîâü â Ïèòèóíòå ïîÿâèëàñü â ðåçóëüòàòå òðàíñôîðìàöèè áîëåå ðàííèõ ïîñòðîåê, òàê è Àðõåîïîëèñå áàçèëèêà «Ñîðîêà Ìó÷åíèêîâ» ïåðåñòðîåíà â êóïîëüíûé õðàì. Äàëåå, ïåðâûå êóëüòîâûå ñîîðóæåíèÿ â îáîèõ ñëó÷àÿõ áûëè íåáîëüøèìè îäíîíåôíûìè öåðêâàìè, õàðàêòåðíûìè ÿâëÿëèñü òàêæå áàçèëèêè. Íî, ñ÷èòàòü îòëè÷èòåëüíîé (åäèíñòâåííàÿ, êîòîðàÿ îòìå÷åíà) òî, ÷òî â Àðõåîïîëèñå íå ñóùåñòâîâàëî ïî÷èòàíèå ñâÿòûõ, òàê êàê íå âûÿâëåíû õðàìû êëàäáèùåíñêèå, âðÿä ëè âîçìîæíî. «Îíè (ïîêà. À. Ð.) íå íàéäåíû», êàê ïèøåò Ë. Ã. Õðóøêîâà (ñ. 345). Íî âåäü ìîãóò áûòü è «íàéäåíû». Òå, êîìó óäàëîñü ïîñåòèòü Àðõåîïîëèñ, çíàþò î ÷ðåçâû÷àéíî ñëîæíîé ñîâðåìåííîé òîïîãðàôèè òåððèòîðèè, ãäå âåëèñü ðàñêîïêè. Çàâåðøàåò ãëàâó îïèñàíèå áàçèëèêè ó ñîâðåìåííîãî íàñåëåííîãî ïóíêòà Âàøíàðè (ñ. 345352). Çíà÷èòåëüíàÿ ÷àñòü ðàáîòû Ë. Ã. Õðóøêîâîé ïîñâÿùåíà àíàëèçó äåêîðàòèâíûõ ìðàìîðîâ (ñ. 354395). Ýòîò ðàçäåë ñîïðîâîæäàþò ìíîãî÷èñëåííûå èëëþñòðàöèè, è îí íå òðåáóåò îñâåùåíèÿ èëè àíàëèçà, ïîñêîëüêó ïðàêòè÷åñêè âñåì, êòî çàíèìàåòñÿ èñòîðèåé õðèñòèàíñòâà èëè æå êóëüòîâîé àðõèòåêòóðîé, õîðîøî çíàêîìà áîëåå ðàííÿÿ ñïåöèàëüíàÿ ðàáîòà àâòîðà î ñêóëüïòóðå ðàííåñðåäíåâåêîâîé Àáõàçèè.11 Îòëè÷èòåëüíîé ÷åðòîé, ïîêà åùå ðåäêîé äëÿ èñòîðèêî-àðõèòåêòóðíûõ øòóäèé, ÿâëÿåòñÿ îáðàùåíèå ê òàêîìó ñëîæíîìó âîïðîñó êàê «Îáðÿäû è ëèòóðãè÷åñêèå óñòðîéñòâà» (ãëàâà 8). Ýòîò ðàçäåë òðåáóåò âíèìàòåëüíîãî ÷òåíèÿ êàæäûì, êòî ïîñâÿòèë ñåáÿ èçó÷åíèþ êóëüòîâûõ ñîîðóæåíèé âíå çàâèñèìîñòè îò âðåìåíè èõ ñòðîèòåëüñòâà, è îáñóæäåíèÿ ñî ñïåöèàëèñòàìè, êòî â îòëè÷èå îò ñâåòñêèõ èñòîðèêîâ, ëó÷øå âëàäååò èíôîðìàöèåé. Áåçóñëîâíî, ìîæíî áûëî áû äîïîëíèòü ñïèñîê ëèòåðàòóðû, íî â äàííîì ñëó÷àå àâòîð ïðèâîäèò «èçáðàííóþ áèáëèîãðàôèþ», ÷òî ñíèìàåò òðåõíåôíàÿ áàçèëèêà, ñòðîèòåëüñòâî êîòîðîé äàòèðóåòñÿ âðåìåíåì íå ïîçäíåå ñåðåäèíû V â. (ñì.: Í. Þ. ËÎÌÎÓÐÈ, Îñíîâíûå ðåçóëüòàòû àðõåîëîãè÷åñêîãî èçó÷åíèÿ äðåâíåãî Àðõåîïîëèñà // Âèçàíòèíîâåä÷åñêèå ýòþäû (Òáèëèñè, 1991) 101). 11 ÕÐÓØÊÎÂÀ, Ñêóëüïòóðà ðàííåñðåäíåâåêîâîé Àáõàçèè
Новые диссертации, посвященные византийской патристике "$!
óïðåêè.12 Êðîìå òîãî, ëþáîé èç íàñ âïðàâå óïóñòèòü òó èëè èíóþ ðàáîòó, åñëè îí íå «ñîçäàåò» èñòîðèîãðàôè÷åñêîãî îáçîðà.  çàêëþ÷åíèå «íåêîòîðûõ ðàññóæäåíèé» î íîâîé ìîíîãðàôèè Ë. Ã. Õðóøêîâîé, êîòîðûå, áåçóñëîâíî, íå èñ÷åðïûâàþò âñåãî òîãî, ÷òî ðîæäàëîñü ïî ìåðå åå ïðî÷òåíèÿ, îòìå÷ó íàëè÷èå ñïåöèàëüíûõ ïðèëîæåíèé: ãëîññàðèÿ, ðåçþìå (íà àíãëèéñêîì ÿçûêå), îòðàæàþùåãî îñíîâíîå ñîäåðæàíèå êàæäîé ãëàâû, óêàçàòåëÿ èñòîðè÷åñêèõ ëèö è èìåí ñîâðåìåííûõ èññëåäîâàòåëåé ïàìÿòíèêîâ. Îáû÷íî â àííîòàöèè ëè, èëè â ðåöåíçèè, ïðèíÿòî ïèñàòü, ÷òî íîâàÿ êíèãà ÿâëÿåòñÿ
Íî ìíå õîòåëîñü áû çàâåðøèòü òî, ÷òî áûëî ñêàçàíî âûøå, ïîæåëàíèåì íîâûõ îòêðûòèé â ñîáñòâåííîì àðõèâå Ë. Ã. Õðóøêîâîé è, ñëåäîâàòåëüíî, íîâûõ èíòåðåñíûõ äëÿ ñïåöèàëèñòîâ ïóáëèêàöèé è ïîçäðàâèòü åå âûõîäîì â ñâåò íàêîïëåííîãî â òå÷åíèe äëèòåëüíîãî èçó÷åíèÿ ðåãèîíà, ñëîæíûõ àðõåîëîãè÷åñêèõ èññëåäîâàíèé. ¿. ». –Óχ̘ÛÍ
ÕŒ¬¤≈
ƒ»——≈–“¿÷»»,
œŒ—¬flŸ≈ÕÕ¤≈ ¬»«¿Õ“»…— Œ… œ¿“–»—“» ≈
1. ƒ. ». ÿ ¿–Œ¬, ´¬ËÁ‡ÌÚËÈÒÍÓ ӷ˘ÂÒÚ‚Ó Ë ˜ÂÎÓ‚ÂÍ ‚ „ÓÏËÎˡı Ò‚. √Ë„Óˡ œ‡Î‡Ï˚ª. ƒËÒÒÂÚ‡ˆËˇ ̇ ÒÓËÒ͇ÌË ÒÚÂÔÂÌË Í‡Ì‰Ë‰‡Ú‡ ËÒÚÓ˘ÂÒÍËı ̇ÛÍ (”‡Î¸ÒÍËÈ √ÓÒÛ‰‡ÒÚ‚ÂÌÌ˚È ÛÌË‚ÂÒËÚÂÚ; ≈͇ÚÂËÌ·Û„, Ë˛Ì¸ 2003 „.; ̇ۘÌ˚È ÛÍÓ‚Ó‰ËÚÂθ ó Ã. ¿. œÓΡÍÓ‚Ò͇ˇ). Äèññåðòàöèîííîå èññëåäîâàíèå ïðîäîëæàåò ðàçðàáîòêó òåìû, âàæíîñòü êîòîðîé áûëà õîðîøî îñîçíàíà óæå ê ñåðåäèíå XX âåêà, îäíàêî, â íàñòîÿùåå âðåìÿ ýòà òåìà òðåáóåò ê ñåáå íîâîãî îáðàùåíèÿ êàê âñëåäñòâèå î÷åíü ñóùåñòâåííîãî, çà ïîñëåäíèå 50 ëåò, óãëóáëåíèÿ íàøèõ çíàíèé î äåÿòåëüíîñòè è ó÷åíèè ñàìîãî ñâ. Ãðèãîðèÿ Ïàëàìû, òàê è âñëåäÂñå æå íåêîòîðûå ðàáîòû, ññûëêè íà êîòîðûå îòñóòñòâóþò, õîòåëîñü áû ïðèâåñòè: Ï. ÇÀÊÀÐÀß, Â. ËÅÊÂÈÍÀÄÇÅ, Ã. ÃÂÈÍ×ÈÄÇÅ, Îò÷åò ðàáîò Íîêàëàêåâñêîé àðõåîëîãè÷åñêîé ýêñïåäèöèè, ïðîâåäåííûõ â 19761977 ãã. // Àðõåîëîãè÷åñêèå ýêñïåäèöèè Ãîñóäàðñòâåííîãî ìóçåÿ Ãðóçèè. Âûï. 6 (1978) 8587; Ì. Ì. ÃÓÍÁÀ, Íîâûå ïàìÿòíèêè Öåáåëüäèíñêîé êóëüòóðû (Òáèëèñè, 1978); ËÎÌÎÓÐÈ, Îñíîâíûå ðåçóëüòàòû
96109 (ïðàâäà, Ë. Ã. Õðóøêîâà ïðèâîäèò ðÿä ðàáîò äàííîãî àâòîðà íà çàïàäíîåâðîïåéñêèõ ÿçûêàõ). Äëÿ ïîíèìàíèÿ èñòîðèè Ýãèññêîãî (Ëàçñêîãî) öàðñòâà èíòåðåñ ïðåäñòàâëÿåò è äðóãàÿ ðàáîòà: Í. Þ. ËÎÌÎÓÐÈ, Èñòîðèÿ Ýãðèññêîãî öàðñòâà: ñ âîçíèêíîâåíèÿ äî V â. í. ý. (Òáèëèñè, 1968) (íà ãðóç. ÿç.). 12
"$"
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
ñòâèå ïðèíöèïèàëüíî èíîãî óðîâíÿ ñîâðåìåííûõ çíàíèé î âèçàíòèéñêîé öåðêîâíîé è îáùåñòâåííîé æèçíè â XIV âåêå. Êðîìå òîãî, ïîñëåäíèå äåñÿòèëåòèÿ ïîçâîëèëè ïî-íîâîìó è áîëåå äåòàëüíî óâèäåòü èñòîðèþ âèçàíòèéñêîé ãîìèëåòèêè. Èññëåäîâàíèå, ïîäîáíîå íàñòîÿùåìó òðóäó Ä. È. Ìàêàðîâà, î÷åâèäíî, óæå íå ïåðâûé ãîä ïðåäñòàâëÿëî ñîáîé âàæíûé desideratum âèçàíòèíèñòèêè. Ìàòåðèàë ãîìèëèé Ãðèãîðèÿ Ïàëàìû ðàññìàòðèâàåòñÿ äèññåðòàíòîì ñ ó÷åòîì âñåãî äîñòóïíîãî ñîâðåìåííîé íàóêå êîíòåêñòà êàê òâîðåíèé ñàìîãî ñâ. Ãðèãîðèÿ, òàê è òðóäîâ åãî ñîâðåìåííèêîâ. Âàæíîå è ïîêà âñ¸ åùå ðåäêîå â òðóäàõ èñòîðèêîâ äîñòîèíñòâî íàñòîÿùåé ðàáîòû èíòåðïðåòàöèÿ ãîìèëåòè÷åñêîãî ìàòåðèàëà ñ ó÷åòîì ñïåöèôèêè æàíðà, òî åñòü â êîíòåêñòå ðàçâèòèÿ âèçàíòèéñêîé ãîìèëåòè÷åñêîé òðàäèöèè. Ïî ìíåíèþ àâòîðà íàñòîÿùåãî îòçûâà, âàæíåéøèì äîñòîèíñòâîì ðàáîòû ÿâëÿåòñÿ öåëîñòíîñòü ïðåäñòàâëåíèÿ â íåé ñèñòåìû âçãëÿäîâ ñâ. Ãðèãîðèÿ Ïàëàìû îò ïîëèòèêî-ñîöèàëüíûõ äî âîçâûøåííî-àñêåòè÷åñêèõ. Àâòîð ïîñòåïåííî ïîäíèìàåòñÿ îò àíàëèçà ìíåíèé ñâ. Ãðèãîðèÿ î òåêóùåé ïîëèòè÷åñêîé ñèòóàöèè ê åãî áîëåå òåîðåòè÷åñêèì ñîöèàëüíûì (âêëþ÷àÿ ýêîíîìè÷åñêèå) âîççðåíèÿì è äàëåå ê áîãîñëîâñêîé àíòðîïîëîãèè è àñêåòèêå. Òàêèì îáðàçîì àâòîðó óäàåòñÿ ïåðåäàòü òî, ÷òî òàê ÷àñòî óñêîëüçàåò êàê ïðè àíàëèçå êàêèõ-ëèáî ÷àñòíûõ âîççðåíèé ñâ. Ãðèãîðèÿ Ïàëàìû, òàê è âîîáùå ïðè àíàëèçå êàêèõ-ëèáî îòäåëüíûõ àñïåêòîâ âèçàíòèéñêîé ïàòðèñòèêè, à èìåííî, öåëîñòíûé õàðàêòåð ñâÿòîîòå÷åñêîãî ìèðîâîççðåíèÿ. Ãðóáî ãîâîðÿ, ñâÿçü ìåæäó òåì, êàê çàäåðæèâàòü äûõàíèå ïðè ìîëèòâå, è òåì, êàêèì äîëæíî áûòü äåíåæíîå îáðàùåíèå â èìïåðèè, èìååòñÿ. Ýòà ñâÿçü íå íîñèò õàðàêòåðà ïðÿìîé ëîãè÷åñêîé äåòåðìèíèðîâàííîñòè, íî ñóùåñòâóåò ïîñòîëüêó, ïîñêîëüêó ñóùåñòâóåò åäèíñòâî æèçíåííîé ïîçèöèè, ñ êîòîðîé ïðèõîäèòñÿ ðåøàòü âñå ýòè âîïðîñû. Ñîáñòâåííî ãîâîðÿ, âñåñòîðîííåå, ïî âîçìîæíîñòè, îïèñàíèå ýòîé æèçíåííîé ïîçèöèè ñâ. Ãðèãîðèÿ Ïàëàìû è ÿâëÿåòñÿ, ïî ìíåíèþ àâòîðà ýòèõ ñòðîê, ãëàâíûì èòîãîì äèññåðòàöèîííîé ðàáîòû.  ðàáîòå åñòü, êðîìå òîãî, íåêîòîðûå îñîáåííî èíòåðåñíûå ÷àñòíûå íàáëþäåíèÿ. Ê íèì ìîæíî îòíåñòè, íàïðèìåð, íàáëþäåíèÿ àâòîðà îòíîñèòåëüíî êóðáàíè (ñ. 1819 àâòîðåôåðàòà) è ïîïûòêà êëàññèôèêàöèè ñòðàñòåé, óïîìèíàåìûõ ó ñâ. Ãðèãîðèÿ Ïàëàìû (ñ. 21).  ñâÿçè ñ ïîñëåäíåé ñðàçó âñïîìèíàåòñÿ àíàëîãè÷íàÿ ïîïûòêà XII â. äëèííûé (íî âñå æå ìåíåå äëèííûé, ÷åì â äèññåðòàöèè!) ñïèñîê ñòðàñòåé ó ïðåï. Ïåòðà Äàìàñêèíà; áûëî áû ïîëåçíî ïðîâåñòè êàêîå-òî ñîïîñòàâëåíèå ýòèõ êëàññèôèêàöèé. Êàê àâòîð åäâà ëè íå âñÿêîãî áîëüøîãî òðóäà, Ä. È. Ìàêàðîâ íå îñòàëñÿ ñâîáîäåí è îò íåêîòîðûõ îøèáîê, êàñàþùèõñÿ ïðåäìåòîâ, íå íàõîäÿùèõñÿ â ôîêóñå åãî âíèìàíèÿ. ×àùå âñåãî ýòî áèáëèîãðàôè÷åñêèå íåòî÷íîñòè. Íàïðèìåð, íåâåðíî àòðèáóòèðîâàòü Æ.-Ï. Ìèíþ ïóáëèêàöèþ ïîëîâèíû êîðïóñà ãîìèëèé ñâ. Ãðèãîðèÿ (ñ. 8, îñîá. ïðèì. 20), ò. ê.
Новые диссертации, посвященные византийской патристике "$#
â çíàìåíèòîé «Ïàòðîëîãèè» äàíà ëèøü ïåðåïå÷àòêà âûøåäøåãî íåçàäîëãî ïåðåä òåì Èåðóñàëèìñêîãî èçäàíèÿ 1857 ã., êîòîðîå è ÿâëÿåòñÿ äëÿ ýòèõ òåêñòîâ editio princeps, ïðè÷åì, ïåðåïå÷àòêà íàñòîëüêî äîñëîâíàÿ, ÷òî îíà ïîâòîðÿåò äàæå îøèáêó â íàçâàíèè êíèãè (â íàçâàíèè óïîìèíàåòñÿ «41» áåñåäà, òîãäà êàê â êíèãå èõ 43). Óïîìÿíóòàÿ â ïðèì. 18 íà ñ. 6 ðàáîòà Þ. À. Êàçà÷êîâà (äàåòñÿ ññûëêà íà ðóêîïèñü) â íàñòîÿùåå âðåìÿ îïóáëèêîâàíà â æóðíàëå «Õðèñòèàíñêèé Âîñòîê» 3 (2002). Èç áîëåå ñóùåñòâåííûõ íåäî÷åòîâ ìîæíî îòìåòèòü ñëèøêîì ïðÿìîëèíåéíîå ïðåäñòàâëåíèå àâòîðà î ðàçâèòèè âèçàíòèéñêîé òåîðèè «ñèìôîíèè» öåðêîâíîé è ñâåòñêîé âëàñòåé. Åãî ññûëêà íà Åâñåâèÿ Ïàìôèëà â ÷èñëå åå îñíîâîïîëîæíèêîâ (ñ. 18) íåâåðíà: Åâñåâèé áûë îñíîâîïîëîæíèêîì ñîâåðøåííî èíîãî íàïðàâëåíèÿ öåðêîâíî-ïîëèòè÷åñêîé ìûñëè, ïîçäíåå ïîëó÷èâøåãî íàçâàíèå «öåçàðîïàïèçìà»; â åãî ìèðîâîççðåíèè ýòî âåñüìà îðãàíè÷íî ñëåäîâàëî èç àðèàíñêîãî áîãîñëîâèÿ (ñì., ãëàâíûì îáðàçîì: R. Farina, L’impero e l’imperatore cristiano in Eusebio di Cesarea, Zürich 1966). Âïðî÷åì, îøèáêà àâòîðà â äàííîì âîïðîñå òåì áîëåå èçâèíèòåëüíà, ÷òî ñîîòâåòñòâóþùèå âçãëÿäû Åâñåâèÿ ïîëó÷èëè äîñòàòî÷íî ïîäðîáíîå îñâåùåíèå íå òàê óæ äàâíî è, ïðèòîì, â ðàáîòàõ, êîòîðûå äî ñèõ ïîð íå âïîëíå ó÷èòûâàþòñÿ èñòîðèêàìè îáùåñòâåííîé æèçíè è ñîöèàëüíî-ïîëèòè÷åñêèõ òåîðèé â Âèçàíòèè ïî ïðè÷èíå âñ¸ åùå íå âïîëíå ïðåîäîëåííûõ ìåæäèñöèïëèíàðíûõ áàðüåðîâ ìåæäó èñòîðèåé îáùåñòâà è èñòîðèåé áîãîñëîâñòâîâàíèÿ. Íóæíî çàìåòèòü, ÷òî êàê ðàç ðàáîòû, ïîäîáíûå íàñòîÿùåé äèññåðòàöèè, ñîäåéñòâóþò ïðåîäîëåíèþ ýòîãî ðàçðûâà. Âñêîðå ïîñëå íàïèñàíèÿ äèññåðòàöèè Ä. À. Ìàêàðîâ îïóáëèêîâàë åå â çíà÷èòåëüíî ðàñøèðåííîì âèäå â ôîðìå ìîíîãðàôèè: Ä. È. ÌÀÊÀÐÎÂ, Àíòðîïîëîãèÿ è êîñìîëîãèÿ ñâ. Ãðèãîðèÿ Ïàëàìû (íà ïðèìåðå ãîìèëèé) (ÑÏá.: Èçäàòåëüñòâî Îëåãà Àáûøêî, 2003) (Áèáëèîòåêà õðèñòèàíñêîé ìûñëè. Èññëåäîâàíèÿ). 540 ñ. ISBN 5-7435-0229-3.
2. Vladimir BARANOV, The Theology of Byzantine Iconoclasm (726ñ843): A Study in Theological Method. Doctoral (PhD) Dissertation in Medieval Studies (Central European University, Budapest, May 2004. Supervisor: GyoÁrgy Gereby). The studies of the Byzantine iconoclasm have been intensified since 1970s, especially because of a considerable enlargement of the base of the evidences, from both Oriental (published, but previously almost unexplored by the Byzantinists) and Byzantine sources (not always even published previously). So, quite reasonably, in the 1990s the scholarly world has been shaken by various interpretations, revolutionary and more modest ones.
"$$
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
One can hope that now, in the beginning of the 21st century, the dust has settled and we can start a thorough and systematic analysis of the achievements of the late 20th century. The present work of Vladimir Baranov can be considered as one of the first steps in this direction. However, this is not the only raison d’être of his study. Vladimir Baranov pushes forward an old, but still not completely developed methodology, namely, a comparative analysis of the changes in the art technique of the epoch and the current agenda of the theological discussions. Here, beside some precise observations, Vladimir Baranov has a merit of understanding that the Church art is but a part of the liturgical life, so, its evolution is not understandable without the context of the history of liturgy. This is why we meet in his study an insistent trend to take into account the liturgy and even a comparative liturgics. Indeed, the body of Christ that can be depicted on the icon is the same body that is in the Eucharist, and so, the theories of the Eucharist and the icons, as well as the liturgy and the iconography, have to be related with each other. Such are the methodological presuppositions of Vladimir Baranov’s study. As to the study itself, it covers, despite its title, mostly the first period of the Iconoclasm (726–787). However, too much of the sources of this period (including one of the most important, the peuseis of Constantine V) are available only through the polemical literature of the second period (815–843), and this fact demands by itself, at least, a partial knowledge of the nature of these later sources. Moreover, it is the first period of the Iconoclasm that presents the most acute problem for the history of the Byzantine theology. The theological nature of the second Iconoclasm is more accessible through the available sources and has been more explored shortly before Vladimir Baranov’s study. So, the main goal of the studies in the Iconoclasm up to the beginning of the 21st century is to refill the gap between the theological traditions of the IXth and the VIIth centuries. Reasonably, this is the main goal of Vladimir Baranov’s research. (I will not discuss why Vladimir Baranov considers the Iconoclasm as a fruit of the internal development of the Byzantine thought: he explains his reasons himself, and, after all, this is the majority’s view in the today’s scholarship that I share myself.) What are the results of Vladimir Baranov’s research? That is, what new information do we receive from his dissertation? The text, of course, is reach by more or less accidental observations that are worth of attention by themselves. Such are, first of all, Vladimir Baranov’s observations concerning the content of an early Iconoclastic florilegium used by St John of Damascus in his Apologies. This is a rather major point of the work because it occupies the whole chapter 1, even if the reconstruction of the florilegium (not that of the Iconoclastic arguments per se) is not so important for the rest of the study. I would headline as well some other
Новые диссертации, посвященные византийской патристике "
%$Vladimir Baranov’s remarks, such as those on the Corpus Areopagiticum in the Iconoclastic argumentation (ch. 2) or on the Iconoclastic Church Programmes (ch. 4)… However, the main value of Vladimir Baranov’s study is not here, but in his magistral ideas. It seems, Vladimir Baranov has found a clue to the Iconoclastic theology in a specific theory of incarnation where Logos’ human soul is considered as a medium between his deity and his flesh. Although the wording of such a theory was not new (here the Iconoclasts were basically following St Gregory of Nazianze), Iconoclastic approach itself seems rather revolutionary. Iconoclasts performed the next step, after having established that the incarnation was effectuated through the medium of human soul: they stated that the human body of Logos was at first something accidental regarding to his deity, and only after the resurrection it was changed into a body not accidental but indescribable per se. Indeed, in this perspective, a picture of the «soulless» body of Christ, such as a Crucifixion, is not a picture of Logos in flesh, but simple a picture of flesh alone. This was the central point of the Iconoclastic doctrine where the Iconoclasts of the first period were agreed with those of the second. Vladimir Baranov is right in attempts to find out the roots of such a doctrine in the Christological discussions of the VIth century, especially in the views of Eutychius, twice deposed Chalcedonian patriarch of Constantinople. We know that Eutychius’ views on the resurrected body of Christ were shared by some theologians in the VIIth century, and so, there was a tradition covering the gap of time between Eutychius and the Iconoclasts. We know, moreover, that Eutychius’ views were developed in the vein of the Origenist tradition. Therefore, Vladimir Baranov confirmed George Florovsky’s hypothesis that the Byzantine Iconoclasm had been a new form of the old Origenist heresy. Of course, Vladimir Baranov’s line of argumentation contains some points that have to be discussed a bit deeper, but I consider it as a whole as convincing. Now I would like to add some remarks to several links of Baranov’s chain of demonstrations. Baranov’s interpretation of the meaning of the iconoclastic inscription on the Gates of Chalke via the conception of the «soulless» body of Christ is one of the most impressing applications of his analysis (ch. 5). In this way, Vladimir Baranov returns to the traditional date of the inscription (730s) refuting the recent (1990) attempt by Auzépy to attribute the text of the inscription to the literary activity of the second period of Iconoclasm. Very laudable are the attempts of a comparative analysis of the theological polemics and changes in the iconographic styles. Such are Vladimir Baranov’s observations on the development of the Crucifixion icons (ch. 5) and the cult of the Image of Edessa (ch. 4), both as «Iconodulic replies» to the Iconoclast doctrines (correspondingly, to that of the «soulless» body of Christ
"$&
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
and to that of the Eucharist as an «acheiropoietos icon»). On the one hand, the patrologists are more familiar with philology and history, but often suffer from lack of knowledge in the history of arts which is not, however, less important for them, especially in the case of the studies of Iconoclasm. On the other hand, the art historians are normally not trained to perform patrological researches. So, Vladimir Baranov is a rare and agreeable exclusion among both patrologists and art historians. Indeed, it goes without saying that in such a large work that the present dissertation occur some parts where author’s argumentation is weaker than elsewhere. Probably, such is his analysis of the possible Antiochean roots of the Iconoclastic doctrine of Eucharist (ch. 4). Vladimir Baranov describes here the corresponding doctrine of Theodore of Mopsuestia and other Nestorian authorities and, then, compares it directly with that of the Iconoclasts, notifying some important similarities. In result, Vladimir Baranov is hesitant when he needs to decide whether the Iconoclastic doctrine of the Eucharistic body of Christ is more «Antiochean» or «Origenist». However, Vladimir Baranov’s method of comparison is not correct here because he ignores in what extent the Antiochean liturgical theology has been adopted in Constantinople in the VIth century, and, especially, in patriarch Eutychius of Constantinople, the main authority of the «Origenist» party in the Chalcedonian camp after the Fifth Ecumenical Council (quoted in other cases by Vladimir Baranov himself). The lack of discussion of the existing fragments of Eutychius’ homily on the Easter and Eucharist is in this part of Vladimir Baranov’s work frapping. If I can share here my own impressions from the reading of these fragments, I would propose that the VIth century Chalcedonian Origenist tradition itself had already absorbed some «Antiochean» legacy, and so, Vladimir Baranov’s dilemma «Antiochean or Origenist» is rather artificial. Evidently, my partial disaccords with Vladimir Baranov are unable to change my mind as to the evaluation of his study as a first-line work in the contemporary researches of the Iconoclasm.
3. . ». ÀŒ¡Œ¬» Œ¬¿, ´œÓ·ÎÂÏ˚ ÚÛˆÍÓ„Ó Á‡‚Ó‚‡Ìˡ Ë ËÒ·χ „·Á‡ÏË √Âӄˡ “‡ÔÂÁÛ̉ÒÍÓ„Ó (XV ‚.)ª. ƒËÒÒÂÚ‡ˆËˇ ̇ ÒÓËÒ͇ÌË ۘÂÌÓÈ ÒÚÂÔÂÌË Í‡Ì‰Ë‰‡Ú‡ ËÒÚÓ˘ÂÒÍËı ̇ÛÍ (”‡Î¸ÒÍËÈ √ÓÒÛ‰‡ÒÚ‚ÂÌÌ˚È ÛÌË‚ÂÒËÚÂÚ; ≈͇ÚÂËÌ·Û„, 2005; ̇ۘÌ˚È ÛÍÓ‚Ó‰ËÚÂθ ó Ã. ¿. œÓΡÍÓ‚Ò͇ˇ) Ãåîðãèé Òðàïåçóíäñêèé ïðèíàäëåæèò ê ÷èñëó òåõ ïîçäíåâèçàíòèéñêèõ àâòîðîâ, òåêñòû êîòîðûõ äîëãîå âðåìÿ íå áûëè îïóáëèêîâàíû, õîòÿ çíà÷èòåëüíîñòü èõ âêëàäà â âèçàíòèéñêóþ è ïîñòâèçàíòèéñêóþ êóëüòó-
Апокатастасис и учение о свободе воли
"$'
ðó íèêåì íå îñïàðèâàëàñü. Ïóáëèêàöèè Ãåîðãèÿ Òðàïåçóíäñêîãî íà÷àëèñü, â îñíîâíîì, â ïîñëåâîåííîå âðåìÿ, è òîëüêî ê ñåðåäèíå 1980-õ ãîäîâ áûë èçäàí îñíîâíîé êîðïóñ åãî ñî÷èíåíèé. Íàêîíåö íàñòóïèëà ïîðà ïðî÷èòàòü òî, ÷òî èì áûëî íàïèñàíî. Îäíàêî, èçó÷åíèå Ãåîðãèÿ Òðàïåçóíäñêîãî îêàçàëîñü ñèëüíî çàòðóäíåíî èìåííî âñëåäñòâèå òîãî, ÷òî, êàê ìîãëî áû ïîêàçàòüñÿ íà ïåðâûé âçãëÿä, äîëæíî áûëî åãî îáëåã÷èòü, àæèîòàæíûì ñïðîñîì íà èñòîðè÷åñêèå èññëåäîâàíèÿ ïî èñëàìî-õðèñòèàíñêîìó äèàëîãó. Ìûñëè âèçàíòèéñêîãî àâòîðà ñåðåäèíû XV âåêà áûëè êàê-òî «ïî óìîë÷àíèþ» âïèñàíû â êîíòåêñò åñëè è íå ïðÿìî ñîâðåìåííîãî ýêóìåíèçìà, òî, ïî êðàéíåé ìåðå, áëèçêèõ ê íèì ïî âðåìåíè èäåé Íèêîëàÿ Êóçàíñêîãî î âíóòðåííåì òîæäåñòâå âñåõ ðåëèãèé. Íåîáõîäèìî áûëî îáðàòèòüñÿ ê òðàêòàòàì Ãåîðãèÿ Òðàïåçóíäñêîãî òàê, ÷òîáû ïîñìîòðåòü íà íèõ íåïðåäâçÿòî, êàê áóäòî íå ñóùåñòâîâàëî íèêàêèõ ïîïûòîê ìåæðåëèãèîçíîãî ñèíêðåòèçìà íè â äóõå ÕÕ âåêà, íè äàæå â äóõå Íèêîëàÿ Êóçàíñêîãî. Äèññåðòàíò ñïðàâåäëèâî íàçûâàåò òàêîé ïîäõîä «ñòðîãèì ñîáëþäåíèåì ïðèíöèïà èñòîðèçìà» (ñ. 23). Ïîíèìàíèå âàæíîñòè èìåííî òàêîãî ïðèíöèïà ðàáîòû ñ èñòî÷íèêîì, íåñìîòðÿ íà ñòîëü ñèëüíûå èìåííî â äàííîì ñëó÷àå ñîáëàçíû ìîäåðíèçàöèè, ïåðâîå äîñòîèíñòâî äèññåðòàöèîííîé ðàáîòû, êîòîðîå ñòàëî çàëîãîì óñïåõà ðàáîòû â ãëàâíîì â âûâîäå î òîì, ÷òî âñÿ äåÿòåëüíîñòü Ãåîðãèÿ Òðàïåçóíäñêîãî ñâîäèëàñü ê èäåå «èíêóëüòóðàöèè» èñëàìñêèõ çàâîåâàòåëåé â õðèñòèàíñêîé êóëüòóðå Âèçàíòèè.  ïëàíå ðåëèãèîçíîì ðå÷ü øëà î õðèñòèàíèçàöèè ìóñóëüìàí, õîòÿ è ñâîåîáðàçíî ïîíèìàåìîé, îäíàêî íå î ñëèÿíèè èñëàìà ñ õðèñòèàíñòâîì.  ïëàíå êóëüòóðíî-ïîëèòè÷åñêîì î ïðîäîëæåíèè Âèçàíòèéñêîé èìïåðèè òåïåðü óæå â êà÷åñòâå Îñìàíñêîé. Ýòî ãëàâíûé âûâîä äèññåðòàöèîííîé ðàáîòû, è îí íàì ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ óáåäèòåëüíûì. Îí îòêðûâàåò ïåðñïåêòèâû äàëüíåéøèõ èññëåäîâàíèé. Âåäü î÷åâèäíî, ÷òî ïîíèìàíèå õðèñòèàíñòâà ó Ãåîðãèÿ Òðàïåçóíäñêîãî íå áûëî òàêèì æå, êàê, íàïðèìåð, ó åãî ñîâðåìåííèêà Ãåííàäèÿ Ñõîëàðèÿ. Ãåîðãèé Òðàïåçóíäñêèé ïðèíàäëåæàë ê äðóãîé òðàäèöèè, ãîðàçäî áîëåå çàòðîíóòîé êàê âëèÿíèåì ïëàòîíèçìà, òàê, âîçìîæíî, è âëèÿíèåì ëàòèíñêîãî çàïàäà.  ÷àñòíîñòè, ñðàçó æå âñòàåò âîïðîñ î ñðàâíåíèè áàçîâûõ ïðåäñòàâëåíèé î õðèñòèàíñòâå ó Ãåîðãèÿ Òðàïåçóíäñêîãî è äðóãîãî âïðî÷åì, âñå åùå íå äîñòàòî÷íî èçó÷åííîãî â ýòîì àñïåêòå àâòîðà, Âèññàðèîíà Íèêåéñêîãî. Ïîíèìàíèå òðàäèöèè, íà êîòîðîé ñòîÿë è îò êîòîðîé îòòàëêèâàëñÿ Ãåîðãèé Òðàïåçóíäñêèé ýòî âàæíåéøèé âîïðîñ äëÿ ïîíèìàíèÿ ðåëèãèîçíîé æèçíè Âèçàíòèè íåñêîëüêèõ ïîñëåäíèõ ñòîëåòèé åå ñóùåñòâîâàíèÿ. Ïóáëèêàöèè íåñêîëüêèõ ïîñëåäíèõ äåñÿòèëåòèé ïîçâîëèëè íàì, ðàçâå ÷òî, ïîëíåå îñîçíàòü ñòåïåíü íàøåãî íåïîíèìàíèÿ ýòîé ñòîðîíû âèçàíòèéñêîé ðåëèãèîçíîé è èíòåëëåêòóàëüíîé æèçíè. Íî
"%
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
òåì ñ áîëüøåé óâåðåííîñòüþ ìîæíî ñêàçàòü, ÷òî íàñòîÿùàÿ äèññåðòàöèÿ øóðô, ïðîðûòûé â ïðàâèëüíîì íàïðàâëåíèè. Õîòåëîñü áû ïîæåëàòü àâòîðó äèññåðòàöèè îïóáëèêîâàòü ñâîþ ðàáîòó â âèäå êíèãè. ¬. Ã. ÀÛ¸Â
¿œŒ ¿“¿—“¿—»— » ”◊≈Õ»≈ Œ —¬Œ¡Œƒ≈ ¬ŒÀ» ÓÚÁ˚‚ ̇ ‰ËÒÒÂÚ‡ˆËÓÌÌÓ ËÒÒΉӂ‡ÌËÂ: ¿. ¿. ÀËıӉ‰ӂ, ´”˜ÂÌË √Ë„Óˡ ÕËÒÒÍÓ„Ó Ó· ‡ÔÓ͇ڇÒÚ‡ÒËÒ ‚ Ò‚ÂÚ ‡ÌÚ˘Ì˚ı ËÒÚÓ˜ÌËÍÓ‚ Â„Ó ‡ÌÚÓÔÓÎÓ„Ë˪ (͇̉ˉ‡ÚÒ͇ˇ ‰ËÒÒÂÚ‡ˆËˇ; Ã√”, ÙËÎÓÒÓÙÒÍËÈ Ù‡ÍÛθÚÂÚ, 2006) Íàâåðíîå, íóæíî áûëî áûòü î÷åíü ìîëîäûì ÷åëîâåêîì, ÷òîáû â 2006 ãîäó ñäåëàòü òåìîé ñâîåãî èññëåäîâàíèÿ ïðîáëåìó àïîêàòàñòàñèñà ó Ãðèãîðèÿ Íèññêîãî ïðîáëåìó, íàä êîòîðîé ìó÷èëèñü ïàòðîëîãè â òå÷åíèå âñåé èñòîðèè íàó÷íîé ïàòðîëîãèè, òî åñòü, íà÷èíàÿ ñ XVII âåêà. «Ïðîáëåìà» ýòîãî ó÷åíèÿ çàêëþ÷àåòñÿ â òîì, ÷òî îíî ïî-íàñòîÿùåìó îðèãèíàëüíî. Ñîâåðøåííî ÿñíî, ÷òî îíî íå ñîâïàäàåò íè ñ ïðåäñòàâëåíèÿìè Îðèãåíà (íåñìîòðÿ íà î÷åâèäíîå ðîäñòâî îáåèõ êîíöåïöèé «àïîêàòàñòàñèñà», ó Îðèãåíà è ó Ãðèãîðèÿ), íè ñ òåìè ïðåäñòàâëåíèÿìè îá àïîêàòàñòàñèñå, êîòîðûå ñóùåñòâóþò â îñòàëüíîé öåðêîâíîé òðàäèöèè, íà÷èíàÿ, ñêàæåì, ñ Èðèíåÿ Ëèîíñêîãî. Ïîýòîìó, ãîâîðÿ îá ó÷åíèè Ãðèãîðèÿ Íèññêîãî, ìû ñòàëêèâàåìñÿ, ïðåæäå âñåãî, ñ òåì, ÷òî ýòî ó÷åíèå òðóäíî ïîíÿòü. Òðóäíî ïîíÿòü, î ÷åì èìåííî ãîâîðèò ñâ. Ãðèãîðèé è ýòî óæå íå ãîâîðÿ î òîì, ÷òî òðóäíî ýòî åãî ó÷åíèå ñîïîñòàâèòü ñ äðóãèìè, àëüòåðíàòèâíûìè åìó. Ãäå íóæíî èñêàòü áëèæàéøèõ ðîäñòâåííèêîâ ó îðèãèíàëüíûõ (ïî îòíîøåíèþ ê Îðèãåíó) èäåé Ãðèãîðèÿ Íèññêîãî îá àïîêàòàñòàñèñå? Åñòü ëè îíè âîîáùå? Èíîãäà íà ïîäîáíûå âîïðîñû ïðèõîäÿò íåîæèäàííûå îòâåòû â âèäå îòêðûòèÿ êàêèõ-íèáóäü íîâûõ òåêñòîâ èëè öåëûõ ôèëîñîôñêî-áîãîñëîâñêèõ øêîë.  íîâåéøåé èñòîðèè ïàòðîëîãèè òàêèå ñëó÷àè èçâåñòíû. Íî åñëè íîâûõ èñòî÷íèêîâ íå ïîÿâëÿåòñÿ, òî ïóñêàòüñÿ íà ïîèñêè íîâûõ ðåøåíèé äëÿ íå ïðîñòî ñòàðûõ, à î÷åíü ñòàðûõ è äàæå çàñòàðåëûõ ïðîáëåì, ýòî êàê ðàç òî, íà ÷òî èññëåäîâàòåëè ðåøàþòñÿ ðåäêî è, åñëè óæ ðåøàþòñÿ, òî, ñêîðåå, â ìîëîäîñòè. Àâòîð íàñòîÿùåãî èññëåäîâàíèÿ ðåøèëñÿ èìåííî íà òàêîå: ïåðåñìîòðåòü êîíöåïöèþ àïîêàòàñòàñèñà ó Ãðèãîðèÿ Íèññêîãî â ñâåòå òàêèõ èñòî÷íèêîâ, êîòîðûå áûëè èçâåñòíû àáñîëþòíî âñåì åãî ïðåäøåñòâåííèêàì. Ïðåäïðèíèìàòü òàêèå èññëåäîâàíèÿ èìååò ñìûñë òîãäà, êîãäà ó òåáÿ
Апокатастасис и учение о свободе воли
"%
åñòü îñíîâàíèÿ äóìàòü, ÷òî òû ìîæåøü ïîñìîòðåòü íà ýòè ñòàðûå äàííûå ñ êàêîé-òî íîâîé òî÷êè. È ìíå ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ, ÷òî äèññåðòàíò òàêóþ òî÷êó íàøåë. Ýòî òàêàÿ òî÷êà, ñ êîòîðîé íà îäíîì óðîâíå ñ òâîðåíèÿìè Ãðèãîðèÿ Íèññêîãî îêàçûâàþòñÿ âèäíû «Çàêîíû» Ïëàòîíà è ðàçâèòèå ýòèõ ïëàòîíîâñêèõ èäåé ó Ïëîòèíà (Î ïðîìûñëå — Ýííåàäû III, 2, 1518). Ñåêðåòîì óñïåõà âî ìíîãîì ñòàë îòêàç îò àïðèîðíîãî «âïèñûâàíèÿ» èäåé Ãðèãîðèÿ Íèññêîãî â «ìýéíñòðèì» ñîâðåìåííîé åìó è îñîáåííî ïîñëåäóþùåé õðèñòèàíñêîé àíòðîïîëîãèè. Çàìå÷ó ñî ñâîåé ñòîðîíû, ÷òî, ïî âñåé âèäèìîñòè, èìåííî íåäîîöåíêà îòëè÷èé Ãðèãîðèÿ Íèññêîãî îò âñåõ ïðî÷èõ Îòöîâ â îáëàñòè àíòðîïîëîãèè îêàçûâàåòñÿ îäíèì èç ãëàâíûõ ïðåïÿòñòâèé äëÿ ïîíèìàíèÿ ìíîãèõ àñïåêòîâ åãî ìûñëè. Íèæå, èçëàãàÿ ñîäåðæàíèå ðàáîòû, ÿ ïîñòàðàþñü «îïòèìèçèðîâàòü» ëîãèêó àâòîðñêîãî èçëîæåíèÿ. Æåëàíèå ýòî ñäåëàòü âîçíèêëî ó ìåíÿ ïîòîìó, ÷òî ïîñëåäîâàòåëüíîñòü èçëîæåíèÿ àâòîðîì ñâîèõ èäåé ìíå íå êàæåòñÿ îñîáåííî óäà÷íîé, è äèññåðòàöèÿ, ïîæàëóé, ñëåãêà ïðîèãðûâàåò îò âûáðàííîé â íåé ïîñëåäîâàòåëüíîñòè èçëîæåíèÿ ìàòåðèàëà. Çàìå÷ó ïîïóòíî, ÷òî, íà ìîé âçãëÿä, àâòîð íàïðàñíî óäåëèë â ñâîåé äèññåðòàöèè òàê ìíîãî âíèìàíèÿ ó÷åíèÿì èóäåéñêèì, ãíîñòè÷åñêèì è ðàííåõðèñòèàíñêèì, âëèÿíèÿ êîòîðûõ íà Ãðèãîðèÿ Íèññêîãî ëèáî óñìîòðåòü íåëüçÿ, ëèáî îíî ñâîäèòñÿ ê òîìó, ÷òî è òàê âñåì äàâíî èçâåñòíî. Äèññåðòàíò «íàïàë íà ñëåä» èñêîìîãî ðåøåíèÿ ïîíèìàíèÿ àïîêàòàñòàñèñà â ñèñòåìå Ãðèãîðèÿ Íèññêîãî, ÷èòàÿ «Çàêîíû» Ïëàòîíà. Íåñìîòðÿ íà î÷åâèäíûå ðàçëè÷èÿ, îí óñìîòðåë îäíî ïðèíöèïèàëüíîå ñõîäñòâî ìåæäó ðåçóëüòàòîì àïîêàòàñòàñèñà â Öàðñòâèè Íåáåñíîì è ïëàòîíîâñêèì èäåàëüíûì ãîñóäàðñòâîì: «Ìû âèäèì, ÷òî èòîãîì ïëàòîíîâîé àíòðîïîëîãèè ñòàíîâèòñÿ òî, ÷òî, ïîëüçóÿñü òåðìèíîëîãèåé íàñòîÿùåãî èññëåäîâàíèÿ è ïðîèçâåäÿ íåêîòîðîå íàñèëèå íàä ÿçûêîì íà ïîëüçó àíàëèçó, ìû ìîæåì ñìåëî íàçâàòü ðåïðåññèâíûì ïðèæèçíåííûì àïîêàòàñòàñèñîì ÷åëîâå÷åñòâà, âîññòàíîâëåíèåì â íåïîâðåæäåííîñòè òîëüêî òîãî â ÷åëîâåêå, ÷òî åñòü äîáðîãî â íåì, òî åñòü âîññòàíîâëåíèå ñîáñòâåííî ÷åëîâå÷åñêîãî, ñàìîé «÷åëîâå÷íîñòè»; îòñå÷åíèå ëèøíåãî î÷èùàþùèì îãíåì ñóðîâûõ íàêàçàíèé è òîòàëüíîãî êîíòðîëÿ, çåìíîå áîãîóïîäîáëåíèå. Òîëüêî â ýòîì Ïëàòîí âèäåë âîçìîæíîñòü äëÿ óíè÷òîæåíèÿ çëà â ëèøåíèè åãî âîçìîæíîñòè ñóùåñòâîâàíèÿ, â âûòðàâëèâàíèè åãî ñ óðîâíÿ äóøè â åãî ñîáñòâåííûé äîì ïîëíîå è êðîìåøíîå íåáûòèå» (ñ. 41). Íî, âçÿâ ýòîò «ñëåä», äàëüøå ñëåäîâàëî «ïîéòè ïî ñëåäó», òî åñòü ïðîâåñòè ñîáñòâåííî èñòîðèêî-ôèëîñîôñêîå èññëåäîâàíèå: äàòü îòâåò íà âîïðîñ, êàêèì æå èìåííî îáðàçîì ýòîò «ðåïðåññèâíûé ïðèæèçíåííûé àïîêàòàñòàñèñ ÷åëîâå÷åñòâà» òðàíñôîðìèðîâàëñÿ â ýñõàòîëîãè÷åñêèé àïîêàòàñòàñèñ ëþäåé è àíãåëîâ, à òàêæå è íà äðóãîé âîïðîñ î òîì, â êàêîé ñòåïåíè ýòîò àïîêàòàñòàñèñ ó Ãðèãîðèÿ Íèññêîãî ñïðàâåäëèâî
"%
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
íàçûâàòü «ðåïðåññèâíûì». Äëÿ ýòîãî íóæíû áûëè ïîñðåäóþùèå çâåíüÿ, ãëàâíûì èç êîòîðûõ îêàçàëñÿ Ïëîòèí (íå áåç ïðèìåñè Àðèñòîòåëÿ, Î äóøå, îñîáåííî â ÷àñòè ó÷åíèÿ î ïàìÿòè). Î òîì, ÷òî íóæíî èäòè èìåííî ê Ïëîòèíó, äèññåðòàíò ñìîã çàêëþ÷èòü, ïðåæäå âñåãî, èç ïëîòèíîâñêîé òðàêòîâêè ïëàòîíîâñêîãî îáðàçà ìèðà êàê òåàòðà, â êîòîðîì ëþäè èãðàþò ðîëè (óïîìÿíóòûé âûøå ðàçäåë Ýííåàä: III, 2, 1518).  òîì, â ÷åì çäåñü Ïëîòèí îòëè÷àåòñÿ îò Ïëàòîíà, îí ñèëüíî ñáëèæàåòñÿ ñ èäåÿìè Ãðèãîðèÿ Íèññêîãî, îñíîâîïîëàãàþùèìè äëÿ åãî êîíöåïöèè àïîêàòàñòàñèñà. Àâòîð òàê ðåçþìèðóåò ãëàâíóþ òóò äëÿ íåãî èäåþ Ïëîòèíà: «Ðîëü ýòî íå ñóäüáà, à åñëè è ñóäüáà, òî íå â ñòîè÷åñêîì ñìûñëå ýòîãî ñëîâà, íå ÷åëîâåê ïðèíàäëåæèò ñâîåé ðîëè, à îíà åìó åñëè îí çîë ñàì ïî ñåáå, îí ïîëó÷àåò ïëîõóþ ðîëü, êîòîðàÿ ïîçâîëÿåò åìó ñîõðàíèòü íåïîâðåæä¸ííîé ñîáñòâåííóþ ñâîáîäó, îäíîâðåìåííî ñîõðàíÿÿ íåïîâðåæä¸ííûì ìèð, íàñåë¸ííûé òàêèìè ëþäüìè. ×åëîâå÷åñêàÿ ãðÿçü êàñàåòñÿ ëèøü ñàìîãî ÷åëîâåêà, îíà íå ïà÷êàåò ìèð». Ýòî âàæíî ïîòîìó, ÷òî òàêèì îáðàçîì Ïëîòèí, â îòëè÷èå îò Ïëàòîíà, ìîæåò «
îòëè÷èòü õàðàêòåðèñòèêó ðîëè, êîòîðóþ èãðàåò ÷åëîâåê â ìèðîâîì ñïåêòàêëå, îò õàðàêòåðèñòèêè ñàìîãî ýòîãî ÷åëîâåêà. Ýòî î÷åíü âàæíî è ñíîâà çàñòàâëÿåò íàñ âñïîìíèòü î ïðèíöèïèàëüíîñòè äëÿ Ïëîòèíà ÷åëîâå÷åñêîé ñâîáîäû» (ñ. 65). Çäåñü ìû óæå âïëîòíóþ ïîäõîäèì ê ïðèíöèïèàëüíîé ïðîáëåìå äëÿ Ãðèãîðèÿ Íèññêîãî: ñîâìåñòèòü àïîêàòàñòàñèñ ñî ñâîáîäîé âîëè. Ïðåæäå ÷åì äâèãàòüñÿ äàëüøå, îòìåòèì è îäèí ñèñòåìàòè÷åñêèé íåäîñòàòîê àíàëèçà, ïðîâîäèìîãî äèññåðòàíòîì, ïîñêîëüêó èìåííî â ñâÿçè ñ êëþ÷åâîé äëÿ òîëüêî ÷òî ïðîöèòèðîâàííîãî âûâîäà öèòàòå Ïëîòèíà ýòîò íåäîñòàòîê ïðîÿâèëñÿ îñîáåííî ÿðêî. Íåäîñòàòîê çàêëþ÷àåòñÿ â òîì, ÷òî, òðàêòóÿ àïîêàòàñòàñèñ Ãðèãîðèÿ Íèññêîãî êàê ïðîáëåìó àíòðîïîëîãè÷åñêóþ, àâòîð ïî÷òè çàáûâàåò, ÷òî ýòî, âìåñòå ñ òåì, ïðîáëåìà àíãåëîëîãèè: âåäü â àïîêàòàñòàñèñå ó Ãðèãîðèÿ Íèññêîãî ñïàñàþòñÿ íå òîëüêî âñå ëþäè, íî è âñå âîîáùå ðàçóìíûå ñîçäàíèÿ, äî ñàìîãî Äèàâîëà âêëþ÷èòåëüíî (òàê, î ñïàñåíèè äàæå «ñàìîãî èçîáðåòàòåëÿ çëà» Ãðèãîðèé Íèññêèé ïèøåò äàæå â ñâîåì ïðåäñìåðòíîì ñî÷èíåíèè, Áîëüøîì Îãëàñèòåëüíîì ñëîâå). Ýòîò íåäîñòàòîê íå âëèÿåò íà ãëàâíûé ñìûñë àíàëèçà, íî ëèøàåò åãî æåëàòåëüíîé â òàêîì èññëåäîâàíèè ïîëíîòû. Ïîýòîìó îáðàòèìñÿ ê êëþ÷åâîé öèòàòå èç Ïëîòèíà åùå ðàç: «Íàëè÷èå õóäøåãî íå äåëàåò Öåëîå õóæå; ìîæíî ñêàçàòü, ÷òî õóäøåå ïîäîáíî ãíóñíîìó (ðïíçñüò) ïàëà÷ó, íå äåëàþùèì õóæå ãîðîäà ñ õîðîøèì çàêîíîäàòåëüñòâîì. Äîëæíî è ïàëà÷ó áûòü â ãîðîäå, âåäü ïîäîáíûå åìó ëþäè â íåì ÷àñòî íóæäàþòñÿ, è ïîòîìó ïðåêðàñíî îí ó÷ðåæäåí» (Ýííåàäû, III, 2, 17). Äèññåðòàíò ðàññóæäàåò î òåðìèíå ðïíçñüò, çàìå÷àÿ, ÷òî â õðèñòèàíñêîì êîíòåêñòå îí ñòàë îäíèì èç ñîáñòâåííûõ èìåí Äèàâîëà (ñ. 65), òàê êàê èìåííî ýòèì ñëîâîì (â âèäå ñóáñòàíòèâèðîâàííîãî ïðèëàãàòåëüíîãî) Äèàâîë íàçûâàåòñÿ â ìîëèòâå «Îò÷å íàø»: «
íî èçáàâè íàñ îò
Апокатастасис и учение о свободе воли
"%!
Ëóêàâàãî». Îäíàêî ýòî áðîøåííîå âñêîëüçü íàáëþäåíèå îñòàåòñÿ â äèññåðòàöèè áåç íàäëåæàùåãî, íà ìîé âçãëÿä, ðàçâèòèÿ. Ðîëü Äèàâîëà êàê «ïàëà÷à» àáñîëþòíî ñîîòâåòñòâóåò ïðåäñòàâëåíèÿì íå òîëüêî Ãðèãîðèÿ Íèññêîãî, íî è Êàïïàäîêèéñêîãî êðóæêà â öåëîì (ñì. îñîá. Âàñèëèÿ Âåëèêîãî, Áåñåäà 9. Î òîì, ÷òî Áîã íå âèíîâíèê çëà). Íà ìîé âçãëÿä, ïðè äîðàáîòêå ìàòåðèàëîâ äèññåðòàöèîííîãî èññëåäîâàíèÿ äëÿ ïóáëèêàöèè áûëî áû æåëàòåëüíî ïîñâÿòèòü îñîáûé ðàçäåë ïðåäñòàâëåíèÿì Ãðèãîðèÿ Íèññêîãî î ñïàñåíèè ïàäøèõ äóõîâ è â ýòîì ðàçäåëå åùå ðàç îáðàòèòü âíèìàíèå íà âîçìîæíîñòü èìåííî ïëîòèíîâñêèõ êîðíåé ó ïðåäñòàâëåíèé Ãðèãîðèÿ î ìåñòå â ìèðå «Ëóêàâîãî». Èòàê, Ïëîòèí, êàê áóäòî áû, óêàçàë íà êàêóþ-òî âîçìîæíîñòü àïîêàòàñòàñèñà íå «ðåïðåññèâíîãî» ïðè ïîëíîì ñîáëþäåíèè ñâîáîäû âîëè. Ýòî çàñòàâèëî àâòîðà èññëåäîâàíèÿ áîëåå ïîäðîáíî ðàññìîòðåòü åùå íåêîòîðûå àñïåêòû ó÷åíèÿ Ïëîòèíà. Êàê íè ñòðàííî, îäíèì èç òàêèõ àñïåêòîâ ÿâëÿåòñÿ ó÷åíèå Ïëîòèíà î ìàòåðèè êàê çëå. Íà ïåðâûé âçãëÿä, îíî ÷ðåçâû÷àéíî äàëåêî îò Ãðèãîðèÿ Íèññêîãî, êîòîðûé, êàê è âñå äðóãèå Îòöû, ó÷èò î âîñêðåñåíèè â ïëîòè è â âîççðåíèÿõ ñîáñòâåííî íà ìàòåðèþ îò Ïëîòèíà ÷ðåçâû÷àéíî äàëåê. Îäíàêî ó÷åíèå Ïëîòèíà î ìàòåðèè îêàçûâàåòñÿ ÷ðåçâû÷àéíî âàæíûì äëÿ ïîíèìàíèÿ Ãðèãîðèåì Íèññêèì ïðèðîäû çëà. Äèññåðòàíò ïîä÷åðêèâàåò, ÷òî ó÷åíèå Ïëîòèíà íå ÿâëÿåòñÿ äóàëèñòè÷åñêèì â òàêîì ñìûñëå ñëîâà, â êîòîðîì ãîâîðÿò, íàïðèìåð, î äóàëèçìå ãíîñòèêîâ. Ìàòåðèÿ ó Ïëîòèíà íå ÿâëÿåòñÿ ñàìîñòîÿòåëüíîé ñóùíîñòüþ. Êàê ðåçþìèðóåò Ïëîòèíà àâòîð èññëåäîâàíèÿ, «
ìàòåðèÿ åñòü çëî, êîòîðîå åñòü íåáûòèå, êîòîðîå åñòü ëèøåííîñòü, ïîð÷à, ïîìåõà òî åñòü òî, ÷òî íå èìååò ñîáñòâåííîé ñóùíîñòè, à, òî÷íåå, ÷üÿ ñîáñòâåííàÿ ñóùíîñòü êîðåíèòñÿ â èñêàæåíèè ñîáñòâåííî ñóùåñòâóþùåãî, ïîýòîìó î äóàëèçìå ãîâîðèòü â ýòîì êîíòåêñòå íåò íèêàêîé âîçìîæíîñòè. ×åëîâåê çîë íàñòîëüêî, íàñêîëüêî îí ñàì ñåáÿ îáìàíóë âîò êðàòêàÿ ôîðìóëà ó÷åíèÿ Ïëîòèíà î çëå â ÷åëîâåêå» (ñ. 67). Ñëåäîâàòåëüíî, îñâîáîäèòüñÿ îò îáìàíà áóäåò îçíà÷àòü îñâîáîäèòüñÿ îò çëà. Ýòîò âûâîä ñîãëàñóåòñÿ è ñ ýñõàòîëîãèåé Ãðèãîðèÿ Íèññêîãî.  òî æå âðåìÿ è àâòîðó ñëåäîâàëî áû ñäåëàòü íà ýòîì àêöåíò, îí äîâîëüíî ðàäèêàëüíî ïðîòèâîðå÷èò õðèñòèàíñêîé ýñõàòîëîãèè, íå òîëüêî â ïàòðèñòèêå, íî óæå è â Åâàíãåëèè, ãäå ñöåíû Ñòðàøíîãî Ñóäà ðèñóþòñÿ êàê ñöåíû èçîáëè÷åíèÿ çëà, íî ïðè ýòîì ðàçóìíûå íîñèòåëè çëà âîâñå íå ïðåâðàùàþòñÿ â äîáðûõ. Ïîýòîìó Ãðèãîðèþ Íèññêîìó ïðåäñòîÿëî íàéòè ñïîñîá ñîãëàñîâàòü ïëîòèíîâñêîå ïðåäñòàâëåíèå îá èçáàâëåíèè îò çëà ÷åðåç ïîçíàíèå ñ òðàäèöèîííûì äëÿ õðèñòèàíñòâà ïðåäñòàâëåíèåì î âå÷íûõ ìó÷åíèÿõ, êîòîðûå ñëåäóþò çà ïîçíàíèåì çëà. Ýòî è åñòü ãëàâíàÿ ïðîáëåìà àïîêàòàñòàñèñà. Êàê îòìå÷àëñü åùå â XIX âåêå, ó÷åíèþ Ãðèãîðèÿ Íèññêîãî òóò ñâîéñòâåíåí ïàðàäîêñ: îí íåîäíîêðàòíî ãîâîðèò î âå÷íîñòè ìó÷åíèé, íî ïðè
"%"
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
ýòîì ó÷èò î êîíå÷íîì àïîêàòàñòàñèñå ñïàñåíèè âñåõ, à ïîýòîìó è î òîì, ÷òî äëÿ âñåõ, ïðåäàííûõ âå÷íûì ìó÷åíèÿì, ýòè ìó÷åíèÿ áóäóò èìåòü êîíåö òîãäà, êîãäà â äîñòàòî÷íîé ìåðå ïîñëóæàò èõ î÷èùåíèþ. Ìíîãèå èññëåäîâàòåëè, ïûòàþùèåñÿ ïîíÿòü Ãðèãîðèÿ Íèññêîãî, èùóò âûõîä èç ýòîãî ïàðàäîêñà â òîì, ÷òî, áóäòî áû, ãîâîðÿ î «âå÷íîñòè» ìó÷åíèé, Ãðèãîðèé èìåë â âèäó ÷òî-òî äðóãîå èõ äëèòåëüíîñòü, èíòåíñèâíîñòü è ò. ï., íî íå âå÷íîñòü â áóêâàëüíîì ñìûñëå ýòîãî ñëîâà. Äèññåðòàíò ïîäðîáíî ðàçáèðàåò òå âûñêàçûâàíèÿ ñâ. Ãðèãîðèÿ, êîòîðûå èìåþò îòíîøåíèå ê âå÷íîñòè ìó÷åíèé, è ïðèõîäèò ê âûâîäó î íåîáõîäèìîñòè èõ áóêâàëüíîãî, à íå êàêîãî-ëèáî äðóãîãî ïîíèìàíèÿ (ñ. 106110). Èòàê, ïàðàäîêñ åñòü íà ñàìîì äåëå, è îí äîëæåí ðåøàòüñÿ íà óðîâíå ôèëîñîôñêî-áîãîñëîâñêîì, à íå õóäîæåñòâåííî-ìåòàôîðè÷åñêîì. Âûõîä èç íàáëþäàåìîãî â ó÷åíèè Ãðèãîðèÿ Íèññêîãî ïàðàäîêñà àâòîð íàõîäèò â òîì, ÷òî ïðèðîäà âå÷íûõ ìó÷åíèé, Àäà, åñòü ÷èñòîå çëî, òî åñòü ÷èñòîå íåñóùåñòâîâàíèå. Ýòî ñîãëàñíî ñ ïðåäñòàâëåíèåì î ïðèðîäå çëà ó Ïëîòèíà (è òàêæå ñ îáùèì äëÿ âñåé ïàòðèñòèêè ïðåäñòàâëåíèåì î ïðèðîäå çëà êàê îòñóòñòâèÿ äîáðà, à íå êàêîãî-ëèáî ñóùåñòâîâàíèÿ), íî Ãðèãîðèé Íèññêèé, ðàçóìååòñÿ, ðàñõîäèòñÿ ñ Ïëîòèíîì â òîì, ÷òî íå îòîæäåñòâëÿåò ïîíÿòîå òàêèì îáðàçîì çëî ñ ìàòåðèåé. «Àä âå÷åí, ðåçþìèðóåò äèññåðòàíò ñâîå ïîíèìàíèå Ãðèãîðèÿ Íèññêîãî, âïîëíå âå÷åí êàê âå÷íîå ñâîå îòñóòñòâèå, èáî åãî ñóòü â íåáûòèè êàê çëå; àïîêàòàñòàñèñ æå âîññòàíàâëèâàåò ïîäëèííî ñóùåñòâóþùåå, óáèðàÿ íåñóùåñòâóþùåå â îòñóòñòâèå, òî åñòü ïðåäàâàÿ åãî àäó, òüìå êðîìåøíîé, ÷èñòîìó íåñóùåñòâîâàíèþ» (ñ. 110). Èòàê, ïàðàäîêñ ìåæäó âå÷íîñòüþ àäñêèõ ìó÷åíèé è îêîí÷àòåëüíûì ñïàñåíèåì âñåõ âïëîòü äî ñàìîãî Äèàâîëà â ó÷åíèè Ãðèãîðèÿ Íèññêîãî îêàçûâàåòñÿ ðàçðåøèì. Íî òåïåðü ìû ïîäõîäèì ê äðóãîìó âîïðîñó: ÷òî æå èìåííî â ðàçóìíîì ñîçäàíèè, ÷åëîâåêå èëè àíãåëå, ÿâëÿåòñÿ «ïîäëèííî ñóùåñòâóþùèì»? Ýòî è áóäåò ãëàâíûé âîïðîñ, êîòîðûì îïðåäåëÿåòñÿ ñïåöèôèêà ó÷åíèÿ Ãðèãîðèÿ Íèññêîãî îá àïîêàòàñòàñèñå. Îòíîñèòåëüíî çíà÷åíèÿ ýòîãî âîïðîñà äëÿ ïîíèìàíèÿ Ãðèãîðèÿ Íèññêîãî ÿ ñîãëàøàþñü ñ àâòîðîì, íî ïîñòàâëþ åìó â ëåãêèé óïðåê òî, ÷òî îí íå îñòàíîâèëñÿ íà íåòðèâèàëüíîñòè è, â íåêîòîðîé ìåðå, ñïîðíîñòè èìåííî òàêîé ïîñòàíîâêè âîïðîñà.  ó÷åíèè îá àïîêàòàñòàñèñå âàæíû êàê ýòà, èíäèâèäóàëüíàÿ, òàê è «îáùåïðèðîäíàÿ» ñòîðîíà. Ñóáúåêòîì ñïàñåíèÿ ÿâëÿåòñÿ êàê èíäèâèäóàëüíûé ÷åëîâåê è èíäèâèäóàëüíûé àíãåë, òàê è âñÿ ñîâîêóïíîñòü ëþäåé, âñÿ ÷åëîâå÷åñêàÿ ïðèðîäà (äëÿ êîòîðîé ó Ãðèãîðèÿ Íèññêîãî åñòü çàìå÷àòåëüíûé òåðìèí ðëÞñùìá ô§í Píèñüðùí) è âñÿ â ñîâîêóïíîñòè ïðèðîäà áåñïëîòíûõ ñóùåñòâ. Ïîýòîìó, ãîâîðÿ â öåëîì î êîíöåïöèè àïîêàòàñòàñèñà ó Ãðèãîðèÿ Íèññêîãî, íóæíî îáñóæäàòü òàêæå è åãî ó÷åíèå î ïðèðîäàõ è èïîñòàñÿõ. Îäíàêî, äèññåðòàíò ïðàâèëüíî, íà ìîé
Апокатастасис и учение о свободе воли
"%#
âçãëÿä, óêëîíèëñÿ îò òàêîãî îáñóæäåíèÿ, ïîñêîëüêó èìåííî ýòîò àñïåêò ó÷åíèÿ îá àïîêàòàñòàñèñå íå ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ âñå æå ñëèøêîì ñïåöèôè÷íûì äëÿ Ãðèãîðèÿ Íèññêîãî è äîâîëüíî î÷åâèäíî ñîãëàñóåòñÿ ñ îñòàëüíîé ïàòðèñòèêîé. Ýòîò àñïåêò èíòåðåñåí, ñêîðåå, äëÿ äðóãèõ èñòîðèêîôèëîñîôñêèõ èññëåäîâàíèé ïî èñòîðèè ñàìèõ ïîíÿòèé «ñóùíîñòü», «ïðèðîäà» è «èïîñòàñü». Èçó÷àÿ ïðîáëåìàòèêó àïîêàòàñòàñèñà êàê òàêîâîãî, ñëåäîâàëî âñå-òàêè ñîñðåäîòî÷èòüñÿ èìåííî íà ïðîáëåìå ñïàñåíèÿ ðàçóìíîãî èíäèâèäóóìà. Îñòðîòó âîïðîñà äèññåðòàíò ñôîðìóëèðîâàë ïðåäåëüíî ÷åòêî: «Òàêîâ èòîã áîãîñëîâèÿ ñâ. Ãðèãîðèÿ, òàêîâ èòîã è ñóäüáû ÷åëîâåêà â åãî ó÷åíèè: âñå ëþäè âîññòàíîâÿòñÿ, íî íå âñå óçíàþò ñåáÿ â ýòîì âîññòàíîâëåíèè, òî÷íåå ãîâîðÿ, íå âñå çäåñü, â ýòîì ìèðå, çíàþò, ÷òî îíè ëþäè» (ñ. 110). Ýòî ñëåäóåò àêöåíòèðîâàòü êàê îñíîâíóþ ïðîáëåìó ïîíèìàíèÿ àïîêàòàñòàñèñà: îíà âîâñå íå â òîì, ñïàñóòñÿ âñå èëè íå âñå, à â òîì, ÷òî îçíà÷àåò ñàìîèäåíòè÷íîñòü ðàçóìíîãî ñóùåñòâà (âíîâü ïîä÷åðêíó: ñëåäóåò ãîâîðèòü íå òîëüêî î ëþäÿõ, êàê ýòî äåëàåò äèññåðòàíò, íî è îá àíãåëàõ, êàê ýòî äåëàåò èçó÷àåìûé èì àâòîð). Èìåííî â ýòîì ïóíêòå íóæíî èñêàòü áàçîâûå îñîáåííîñòè ó÷åíèÿ Ãðèãîðèÿ Íèññêîãî ïî ñðàâíåíèþ ñî âñåé îñòàëüíîé ïàòðèñòè÷åñêîé òðàäèöèåé. Òàêàÿ ïîñòàíîâêà èññëåäîâàíèÿ, äåéñòâèòåëüíî, íîâà è ÿâëÿåòñÿ çíà÷èòåëüíîé çàñëóãîé äèññåðòàíòà. Ìîæåò áûòü, èç ïðåäñòàâëåííîãî â äèññåðòàöèè îáçîðà ëèòåðàòóðû ýòîãî è íåëüçÿ çàêëþ÷èòü ñ äîñòàòî÷íîé ÿñíîñòüþ (ê ýòîìó îáçîðó ìîæíî ïðåäúÿâèòü èçâåñòíîå êîëè÷åñòâî ïðåòåíçèé, õîòÿ, êàê ÿ äóìàþ, âñå ýòè íåäîñòàòêè ðàáîòû ñ ëèòåðàòóðîé ìîãóò áûòü èñïðàâëåíû ïðè ïîäãîòîâêå ðåçóëüòàòîâ èññëåäîâàíèÿ ê ïå÷àòè, à íà äîêàçûâàåìûå àâòîðîì ïîëîæåíèÿ îíè ñóùåñòâåííîãî âëèÿíèÿ íå îêàçàëè). Ïîýòîìó ÿ ïîçâîëþ ñåáå óïîìÿíóòü ðàáîòû àâòîðà, íà êîòîðîãî ñëåäîâàëî ññûëàòüñÿ ñàìîìó äèññåðòàíòó, Êåâèíà Êàððèãåíà (êðóïíåéøåãî ñïåöèàëèñòà ïî Ïëîòèíó è íåîïëàòîíèçìó, à òàêæå è ïî íåîïëàòîíèñòè÷åñêèì àñïåêòàì ó÷åíèÿ Ãðèãîðèÿ Íèññêîãî), è â îñîáåííîñòè, åãî ñòàòüþ: K. CORRIGAN, The problem of personal and human identity in Plotinus and Gregory of Nyssa // Studia Patristica 37.4 (1999) 5168. Ýòà ñòàòüÿ è óïîìèíàåìûå â íåé ðàáîòû, ñ îäíîé ñòîðîíû, äàþò àíàëèç èñòî÷íèêîâ, ðåçóëüòàòû êîòîðîãî áûëî áû ïîëåçíî ó÷åñòü è àâòîðó íàñòîÿùåãî èññëåäîâàíèÿ, íî, ñ äðóãîé ñòîðîíû, èç íåå ìîæíî çàêëþ÷èòü, ÷òî è â ïîñëåäíèå ãîäû, êàê ýòî áûëî è ðàíåå, òðàêòîâêó Ãðèãîðèåì Íèññêèì ïîíÿòèÿ ñàìîèäåíòè÷íîñòè ðàçóìíîãî ñóùåñòâà íå ðàññìàòðèâàëè ñïåöèàëüíî â ñâÿçè ñ àïîêàòàñòàñèñîì, è ïîýòîìó äèññåðòàíò ìîæåò çäåñü ñ÷èòàòüñÿ ïåðâîïðîõîäöåì. Èòàê, ãëàâíûì âîïðîñîì îêàçûâàåòñÿ èäåíòè÷íîñòü ðàçóìíîãî ñóùåñòâà ñàìîìó ñåáå ïîñëå àïîêàòàñòàñèñà. Ó ýòîãî âîïðîñà åñòü îäèí îòíîñèòåëüíî èçó÷åííûé àñïåêò èäåíòè÷íîñòü ñàìîìó ñåáå òåëà ïî âîñêðåñåíèè. Çäåñü Ãðèãîðèé Íèññêèé, ìîæåò áûòü, íàèáîëåå ýêñïëèöè-
"%$
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
òåí, ïî ñðàâíåíèþ ñ äðóãèìè Îòöàìè, íî íå ðàñõîäèòñÿ ñ íèìè îñîáåííî ðåçêî. Êàêîå-òî èçìåíåíèå òåë ïîñëå âîñêðåñåíèÿ ïðèçíàâàëîñü âñåìè è âñåãäà. Ïîýòîìó îñòðîòà ïðîáëåìû â èäåíòè÷íîñòè ñàìîé ñåáå áåñïëîòíîé ÷àñòè ðàçóìíîãî ñóùåñòâà, òî åñòü èìåííî äóøè, åñëè ðå÷ü èäåò î ÷åëîâåêå, èëè àíãåëà. Äèññåðòàíò î÷åíü ÿñíî àêöåíòèðóåò ýòîò ïàðàëëåëèçì ìåæäó ñàìîèäåíòè÷íîñòüþ òåëà è ñàìîèäåíòè÷íîñòüþ äóøè: «Êàê íåäîñòàòêè ÷åëîâå÷åñêîãî òåëà, ïî Ãðèãîðèþ Íèññêîìó, áóäóò èñïðàâëåíû âîñêðåñåíèåì, òàê è, òåì áîëåå, íåäîñòàòêè äóøè «ñåáÿ» ñîõðàíÿò ëèøü òå ëþäè, êîòîðûå õîòÿ áû îò÷àñòè çíàëè ñåáÿ çäåñü, ÷óâñòâîâàëè ñåáÿ, äîãàäûâàëèñü î ñåáå è çàáîòèëèñü î ñåáå ëèøü ýòè ëþäè ñìîãóò óçíàòü ñåáÿ ïî âîññòàíîâëåíèè, èçóðîäîâàâøèå æå ñâîè äóøè è òîëüêî â óðîäñòâå âèäÿùèå ñâîþ ëè÷íîñòü åå ëèøàòñÿ, èáî íèêîãäà åå íå èìåëè, òî åñòü ëèøàòñÿ îíè òîëüêî ëèøåííîñòè, ëæè è èñêàæåíèÿ» (ñ. 110111). Âîò ýòî è íàäî òåïåðü îáúÿñíèòü ïîäðîáíî: ïî÷åìó, ëèøàÿñü òîëüêî, âðîäå áû, íå ñóùåñòâóþùåãî (ò. å. çëà), äóøè ìåíÿþòñÿ òàê, ÷òî äàæå íå ñìîãóò óçíàòü ñàìè ñåáÿ. Àïîêàòàñòàñèñ îêàçûâàåòñÿ êàê-òî ïîäîçðèòåëüíî ïîõîæèì íà ëîáîòîìèþ. Äèññåðòàíò, âñëåä çà ñâîèì àâòîðîì, îòâå÷àåò íà ýòîò âîïðîñ, âî-ïåðâûõ, òåì, ÷òî àïîêàòàñòàñèñ íå óíè÷òîæàåò ñâîáîäó âûáîðà: «
óíè÷òîæåííîå àïîêàòàñòàñèñîì çëî íåìàòåðèàëüíî (â òåðìèíîëîãèè ñâ. Ãðèãîðèÿ) è íå åñòü ñâîáîäà âûáîðà, ò. ê. èíà÷å íå ìîãëà áû èäòè ðå÷ü î âîññòàíîâëåíèè èìåííî ëþäåé. Ýòî óíè÷òîæåííîå åñòü ëîæíûé îáúåêò ñâîáîäíîãî âûáîðà, êîòîðûé íå ñóùåñòâóåò, ïîêà åãî íå âûáèðàþò, è åãî íèêòî íå ìîæåò âûáðàòü, åñëè òîëüêî îí ëîæüþ íå âûäàñò ñåáÿ çà áëàãî. Ñóùíîñòü, îïèñûâàåìàÿ òàêèì îáðàçîì, îêàçûâàåòñÿ äî ìåëî÷åé òîæäåñòâåííîé òîìó, ÷òî Ïëîòèí ïîíèìàë ïîä ìàòåðèåé/çëîì» (ñ òåì î÷åâèäíûì îòëè÷èåì, ÷òî äëÿ Ãðèãîðèÿ Íèññêîãî ýòî óæå íå ìàòåðèÿ) (ñ. 117). Ýòî î÷åíü ïîíÿòíî è ñîãëàñíî ñ ó÷åíèåì Ïëîòèíà î òîì, ÷òî çëî ïîáåæäàåòñÿ ÷åðåç ïîçíàíèå äîáðà. Ïîñëåäíÿÿ ìûñëü íå ÷óæäà è õðèñòèàíñêîé òðàäèöèè, íî â îòíîøåíèè ê ýñõàòîëîãè÷åñêîìó, çàãðîáíîìó ïîçíàíèþ äîáðà ïðåîáëàäàâøèå â õðèñòèàíñêîé òðàäèöèè íàïðàâëåíèÿ ñìîòðåëè èíà÷å: ýòî òàêîå ïîçíàíèå, êîòîðîå ïðèõîäèò ñëèøêîì ïîçäíî, íàïîäîáèå ðàñêàÿíèÿ Èóäû. Ýòîãî íå îòðèöàåò è Ãðèãîðèé Íèññêèé, íî òóò-òî îí è ââîäèò ñâîå ó÷åíèå îá àïîêàòàñòàñèñå êàê ñðåäñòâå «ïîäâåçòè» â Öàðñòâèå Íåáåñíîå îïîçäàâøèõ ñ ïîçíàíèåì äîáðà
Òåïåðü ìû ïîäîøëè ê âîïðîñó åùå áîëåå òåõíè÷åñêîãî õàðàêòåðà: êàêîâ èìåííî ìåõàíèçì àïîêàòàñòàñèñà? Çà ñ÷åò ÷åãî îí «ðàáîòàåò»? Åñëè áû àïîêàòàñòàñèñ îñóùåñòâëÿëñÿ êàê ïðèíóäèòåëüíûé âûáîð, óíè÷òîæàþùèé ñàìó ñâîáîäó âûáîðà, òî ýòî áû îçíà÷àëî óíè÷òîæåíèå ðàçóìíîé ïðèðîäû, êàê ÷åëîâå÷åñêîé, òàê è àíãåëüñêîé. Ïîýòîìó Ãðèãîðèé Íèññêèé òàêîé âîçìîæíîñòè íå äîïóñêàåò.  äèññåðòàöèè èìåþòñÿ òîíêèå íàáëþäåíèÿ (ñ. 110112) î òîì, ÷òî âñÿ âîîáùå ïðîáëåìà àïîêà-
Апокатастасис и учение о свободе воли
"%%
òàñòàñèñà âûðàñòàåò êàê ïðîáëåìà ñâîáîäû âîëè: âåäü åñëè ðàçóìíûå ñóùåñòâà ñâîáîäíû, òî îíè âñå äî åäèíîãî ìîãóò âîñïðîòèâèòüñÿ âîëå Áîæèåé; êàê æå òîãäà áûòü ñî ñïàñåíèåì, êîòîðîå åñòü âîëÿ Áîæèÿ è íå ìîæåò íå îñóùåñòâèòüñÿ? Òîíêîñòü çäåñü â òîì, êàê ïîíèìàòü ýòî «íå ìîæåò»: òîëüêî ëè â ñìûñëå ïðåäâèäåíèÿ áóäóùåãî (òî åñòü òåîðåòè÷åñêè íèêòî íå ñïàñòèñü «ìîæåò», íî ýòîãî íå ïðîèçîéäåò ïðîñòî ïîòîìó, ÷òî ðåçóëüòàòû ñâîáîäíî ñäåëàííîãî âûáîðà èçâåñòíû çàðàíåå) èëè â ñìûñëå ëîãè÷åñêîé íåîáõîäèìîñòè? Õðèñòèàíñêàÿ òðàäèöèÿ â öåëîì äåðæàëàñü ïåðâîãî ïîäõîäà, à Ãðèãîðèé Íèññêèé è Àâãóñòèí (àâòîð ïðàâ, ïðèâåäÿ ýòó ïàðàëëåëü) âòîðîãî, õîòÿ è êàæäûé ïî-ñâîåìó: Àâãóñòèí ïîæåðòâîâàë ñâîáîäîé âîëè ðàäè òîãî, ÷òîáû ñïàñåíèå õîòÿ áû íåêîòîðûõ ñòàëî ëîãè÷åñêîé íåîáõîäèìîñòüþ, à Ãðèãîðèé Íèññêèé ðåøèë íå æåðòâîâàòü íè ñâîáîäîé âîëè, íè ñïàñåíèåì êîãî áû òî íè áûëî, íî âñåòàêè ñäåëàòü ñïàñåíèå ëîãè÷åñêè íåîáõîäèìûì. Èòàê, àïîêàòàñòàñèñ ýòî ïîïûòêà ñîõðàíèòü ó÷åíèå î ñâîáîäå âîëè. Íî íå çàìåíÿåò ëè àïîêàòàñòàñèñ îäíî ðàçóìíîå òâîðåíèå (÷åëîâåêà èëè àíãåëà) äðóãèì íå çàìåíÿåò ëè îí òîãî, êòî ñäåëàë âûáîð çëà, êåì-òî äðóãèì, êòî ñäåëàë âûáîð äîáðà? ×òîáû ïîíÿòü, ïî÷åìó Ãðèãîðèé Íèññêèé îòâå÷àë íà ýòîò âîïðîñ îòðèöàòåëüíî («íå çàìåíÿåò»), à âñÿ ïàòðèñòè÷åñêàÿ òðàäèöèÿ ïîëîæèòåëüíî (è ïîýòîìó îíà íå ïðèíÿëà àïîêàòàñòàñèñ), íóæíî óâèäåòü, â ÷åì ðàçëè÷èå â ñîîòâåòñòâóþùèõ òðàêòîâêàõ ñàìîãî ïðîöåññà âûáîðà äîáðà èëè çëà. Ñàì ïî ñåáå, ëþáîé âûáîð ÿâëÿåòñÿ ìãíîâåííûì àêòîì, à â ÷åëîâåêå îí îñòàåòñÿ ëèøü â ñâÿçè ñ òîé åãî ñïîñîáíîñòüþ, êîòîðóþ â ñàìîì øèðîêîì ñìûñëå ýòîãî ñëîâà ìîæíî íàçâàòü ïàìÿòüþ. «Ïàìÿòü», â òàêîì ñìûñëå, áóäåò âêëþ÷àòü â ñåáÿ è âñåâîçìîæíûå ñâîéñòâà õàðàêòåðà, ïðèâû÷êè, ãðåõîâíûå ñòðàñòè. (Âîçìîæíî, ïðåäñòàâëÿëî áû èíòåðåñ ïðîñëåäèòü ñîîòâåòñòâóþùèå ïðåäñòàâëåíèÿ Ãðèãîðèÿ Íèññêîãî â ñâÿçè ñ åãî àñêåòèêîé). Ãäå íàõîäèòñÿ ýòà «ïàìÿòü» ïî îòíîøåíèþ ê äóøå?  íåé ñàìîé èëè òîëüêî ãäå-òî íà åå ïîâåðõíîñòè? Ïëîòèí íàñòàèâàë íà âòîðîì îòâåòå, è åãî-òî (ïîä äîïîëíèòåëüíûì äàâëåíèåì ó÷åíèÿ î ïàìÿòè ó Àðèñòîòåëÿ, ñ. 4447) ïðèíÿë Ãðèãîðèé Íèññêèé. «Ïî ó÷åíèþ ñâ. Ãðèãîðèÿ, ïèøåò àâòîð, ìóêè àäà ïðèçâàíû ëèøèòü ÷åëîâåêà âñåãî çëà, êîòîðîå îí ïðèîáðåë çà âðåìÿ ñâîåé æèçíè... Òåì íå ìåíåå, ëþäè ïîñëå âñåâîññòàíîâëåíèÿ áóäóò âïîëíå «èíäèâèäóàëüíû», íåñëèòíû â êà÷åñòâå îòäåëüíûõ åäèíè÷íîñòåé, òàê êàê «ñëèòíîñòü» êàê ðàç ñäåëàëà áû íåâîçìîæíûì èõ áûòèå-åäèíûì. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, ìû ìîæåì ñêàçàòü, ÷òî èìåííî ïàìÿòü åñòü òî, ÷òî â ÷åëîâåêå ïðåïÿòñòâóåò ðåàëèçàöèè èíäèâèäóàëüíîñòè, òàê êàê èìåííî îíà ïîñòîÿííî âîçâðàùàåò åãî íàçàä, çàñòàâëÿÿ âðàùàòüñÿ â ôèêòèâíûõ âðåìåííû± õ öèêëàõ, îáìàíûâàÿ ñåáÿ, ïîðîæäàÿ çëî â ñåáå è â ìèðå. Ïàìÿòü â ÷åëîâåêå åñòü íîñèòåëü çëà
» (ñ. 47).
"%&
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
Ìíå êàæåòñÿ, ÷òî àâòîðó ñëåäîâàëî â ýòîé ñâÿçè îáðàòèòü áîëüøå âíèìàíèÿ íà ó÷åíèå Ïëîòèíà, ñîãëàñíî êîòîðîìó ïàìÿòü î ÷óâñòâåííîì ÿâëÿåòñÿ ýíåðãèåé äóøè: èç íåãî ñëåäóåò, ÷òî íåò ýíåðãèè, íåò ïàìÿòè íå áóäåò è çëà â äóøå (Ýííåàäû IV, 6, 3). Èòàê, ïàìÿòü íîñèòåëü çëà, íî äóøà íå ÿâëÿåòñÿ îáÿçàòåëüíî íîñèòåëåì ïàìÿòè: îò ïàìÿòè îíà âïîëíå ìîæåò è äàæå äîëæíà îñâîáîäèòüñÿ. Ïîëó÷àåòñÿ, ÷òî äóøà ìîæåò î÷èñòèòüñÿ àïîêàòàñòàñèñîì, åñëè îò íåå áóäåò îòäåëåíî çëî êàê ðåçóëüòàò íåïðàâèëüíîãî âûáîðà, à òàêæå ïàìÿòü îá ýòîì âûáîðå, êîòîðàÿ è ÿâëÿåòñÿ, â òàêîé òðàêòîâêå, ðàñïîëîæåíèåì äóøè êî çëó. Òàêàÿ àìíåçèÿ âñå-òàêè î÷åíü ïîõîæà íà ðåçóëüòàò ëîáîòîìèè. Îíà ñíèìàåò ïîñëåäñòâèÿ âûáîðà çëà, íî èç íåå åùå íèêàê íå ñëåäóåò âûáîð äîáðà, áåç ÷åãî íåâîçìîæíà õðèñòèàíñêîå ïîíèìàíèå ñïàñåíèÿ. Íî çäåñü íà ïîìîùü Ãðèãîðèþ Íèññêîìó îïÿòü ïðèõîäèò Ïëîòèí (èç äèññåðòàöèè ýòî âèäíî, íî ëè÷íî ÿ ïðåäïî÷åë áû óâèäåòü ýòî ðàçúÿñíåííûì áîëåå ýêñïëèöèòíî): áûòèå ýòî óæå è åñòü áëàãî; äîáðî êàê áû íå íóæäàåòñÿ â òîì, ÷òîáû åãî ñïåöèàëüíî âûáèðàëè, â òîì ñìûñëå, ÷òî âûáîðîì äîáðà áóäåò óæå ïðîñòîé îòêàç îò âûáîðà çëà. Åñëè áûòèå òî äîáðî, åñëè íåáûòèå òî çëî. Ãðèãîðèé Íèññêèé îòîøåë òóò îò Ïëîòèíà òîëüêî ëèøü â òîì, ÷òî ðàñïðîñòðàíèë ïîíÿòèå äîáðà íà ìàòåðèþ. Ýñõàòîëîãè÷åñêèé è áîãîñëîâñêèé âîïðîñ àïîêàòàñòàñèñà, êîòîðûé óæå ïðåâðàòèëñÿ ó íàñ â àíòðîïîëîãè÷åñêèé âîïðîñ î ñâîáîäå âîëè è åå ñóáúåêòå, òåïåðü îáîðà÷èâàåòñÿ âîïðîñîì îíòîëîãè÷åñêèì âîïðîñîì î áûòèè. Òî÷íåå âîïðîñîì î ãðàäàöèÿõ áûòèÿ, î ðàçíîì îíòîëîãè÷åñêîì ñòàòóñå ðàçíûõ óðîâíåé áûòèÿ. Ýòî âîïðîñ ïî-íàñòîÿùåìó ñëîæíûé. Êàê âèäèì, îí ñâåëñÿ ó Ãðèãîðèÿ Íèññêîãî (âñëåä çà Ïëîòèíîì) ê òîìó, ÷òî äîáðî ëþáûì ðàçóìíûì ñîçäàíèåì óæå èçáðàíî «ïî óìîë÷àíèþ», by default; ÷òîáû ñòàòü äîáðûì, åìó äîñòàòî÷íî ëèøü îòêàçàòüñÿ îò âûáîðà çëà. Êàê ôîðìóëèðóåò ýòî àâòîð, «òî, ÷òî ïîðîæäåíî âðåìåíåì, äîñòàåòñÿ àäó íåáûòèÿ, òî æå, ÷òî âðåìåíåì çàêàëèëîñü è î÷èñòèëîñü, ïðåáûâàåò â âå÷íîñòè, âîññòàíàâëèâàÿñü â ïåðâîçäàííîñòè; àïîêàòàñòàñèñ íå åñòü áóäóùåå ïðèíóäèòåëüíîå ëå÷åíèå, îí åñòü âîçìîæíîñòü äëÿ íàñ çäåñü ÷óâñòâîâàòü ñåáÿ ëþäüìè êàê ïðèçâàííûìè ê áûòèþ» (ñ. 85). Åñòü íåêîå ïîäëèííîå áûòèå, ê êîòîðîìó ìû ïðèçâàíû, è â îòíîøåíèè ê êîòîðîìó íàøå íûíåøíåå, èñõîäíîå áûòèå ëèøü íåêàÿ ïîòåíöèÿ (íî òàêîå ïðåäñòàâëåíèå î íàøåì íûíåøíåì è áóäóùåì áûòèè áûëî ñâîéñòâåííî õðèñòèàíñêîìó áîãîñëîâèþ åùå ñî âðåìåí àïîëîãåòîâ). Ïîýòîìó àïîêàòàñòàñèñ, ðåàëèçóÿ ýòó ïîòåíöèþ, ïðèâîäèò âîâñå íå ê çàìåíå îäíîé ëè÷íîñòè, çëîé, äðóãîé ëè÷íîñòüþ, äîáðîé, à òîëüêî ëèøü ê ïîëíîòå àêòóàëèçàöèè ïðåæíåé ëè÷íîñòè. Íà ýòîì ìû, âìåñòå ñ àâòîðîì, ìîæåì çàêîí÷èòü àíàëèç êîíöåïöèè Ãðèãîðèÿ Íèññêîãî. Ïîñëå òîãî, êàê íóæíàÿ ãëóáèíà àíàëèçà áûëà äîñ-
Новая серия, посвященная текстам Христианского Востока "%'
òèãíóòà à â ýòîì è ñîñòîèò ãëàâíîå äîñòèæåíèå íàñòîÿùåãî èññëåäîâàíèÿ, ñòàëî âèäíî, íàñêîëüêî êîíöåïöèÿ àïîêàòàñòàñèñà äîëæíà áûëà êàçàòüñÿ òðàäèöèîííîé äëÿ ñîâðåìåííèêîâ Ãðèãîðèÿ Íèññêîãî è äàæå äëÿ ïîòîìêîâ, âïëîòü äî íà÷àëà îðèãåíèñòñêèõ ñïîðîâ â VI âåêå; íî è òîãäà îíà ñòàëà çàäåâàòü öåðêîâíîå ñîçíàíèå íå ñòîëüêî ñâîèìè îñíîâàíèÿìè, ñêîëüêî âûâîäîì î êîíå÷íîì ñïàñåíèè âñåõ. Äåëî â òîì, ÷òî íèêàêîãî äîãìàòè÷åñêè çíà÷èìîãî ó÷åíèÿ î ñâîáîäå ÷åëîâå÷åñêîé âîëè, êîòîðîå âñòóïàëî áû â ÿâíûé êîíôëèêò ñ ó÷åíèåì Ãðèãîðèÿ Íèññêîãî, íå áûëî âûðàáîòàíî äî ñåðåäèíû VI âåêà. Íî ñ ýòîãî âðåìåíè, âñëåäñòâèå êîíôëèêòà ñ åðåñüþ àãíîèòîâ, êîòîðîé ðàçâèâàëñÿ ïàðàëëåëüíî ñ îðèãåíèñòñêèìè ñïîðàìè, äîãìàòè÷åñêè çíà÷èìîå ó÷åíèå î ÷åëîâå÷åñêîé âîëå ïîÿâèëîñü, è îíî îêàçàëîñü àáñîëþòíî íåñîâìåñòèìûì ñ ó÷åíèåì Ãðèãîðèÿ Íèññêîãî: â íåì èìåííî âîëÿ ïîíèìàëàñü êàê âìåñòèëèùå âåäåíèÿ, è, òàêèì îáðàçîì, â êàêèõ-òî ïðåäåëàõ, «ïàìÿòü» ñòàëà ðàññìàòðèâàòüñÿ êàê îáÿçàòåëüíîå ñâîéñòâî áåññìåðòíîé äóøè. Åñëè ðàíüøå, âî âðåìåíà Ãðèãîðèÿ Íèññêîãî, ýòî áûë âîïðîñ àíòðîïîëîãèè, òî òåïåðü ýòî ñòàëî âîïðîñîì õðèñòîëîãèè. Âïðî÷åì, äëÿ ïîÿâëåíèÿ âïîëíå àðãóìåíòèðîâàííîãî è âïîëíå ñîçíàòåëüíîãî îòâåòà Ãðèãîðèþ Íèññêîìó íóæíî áûëî æäàòü Ìàêñèìà Èñïîâåäíèêà (VII â.). Òîëüêî â ó÷åíèè ñâ. Ìàêñèìà ñòàíîâèòñÿ ïîíÿòíî, ïî÷åìó ïîòåíöèàëüíîñòü ÷åëîâå÷åñêîãî áûòèÿ íå òîæäåñòâåííà ïîòåíöèàëüíîìó âûáîðó áëàãà, à, çíà÷èò, ïî÷åìó íåâîçìîæåí àïîêàòàñòàñèñ Ãðèãîðèÿ Íèññêîãî. Ýòî íåáîëüøîå ïîñëåñëîâèå ìîæåò õîòÿ áû îò÷àñòè ïîêàçàòü ñòåïåíü àêòóàëüíîñòè íàñòîÿùåãî èññëåäîâàíèÿ äëÿ ïàòðîëîãèè â öåëîì. ¬. Ã. ÀÛ¸Â
œŒ—¬flŸ≈ÕÕ¿fl
ÕŒ¬¿fl —≈–»fl, “≈ —“¿Ã ’–»—“»¿Õ— Œ√Œ ¬Œ—“Œ ¿
Yah³ya³ ibn cAd î, The Reformation of Morals / A parallel Arabic-English text translated and introduced by Sidney H. GRIFFITH (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 2002) (Eastern Christian Texts. Vol. 1) xlvi, 137 pp. ISBN 0-934893-69-1. Òðàêòàòîì çíàìåíèòîãî ñåâèðèàíñêîãî áîãîñëîâà X âåêà ßõüè èáí Àäè îòêðûâàåòñÿ íîâàÿ ñåðèÿ Eastern Christian Texts, — èäåÿ êîòîðîé íàïîìèíàåò íàì çíàìåíèòûå Sources chrétiennes, ñ òåì, îäíàêî, ðàçëè÷èåì, ÷òî òåêñòû íåãðå÷åñêîãî âîñòîêà ïðåäïîëàãàåòñÿ ïóáëèêîâàòü â ýòîé íîâîé ñåðèè íå òîëüêî â ïåðåâîäå, íî è ñ ïàðàëëåëüíûì èçäàíèåì îðèãèíàëà.
"&
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
Íóæäà â òàêîé ñåðèè áûëà î÷åâèäíà ìíîãî äåñÿòèëåòèé íàçàä, êîãäà âî ôðàíöóçñêîé ñåðèè ñòàëè ïóáëèêîâàòüñÿ òîìà, ïîñâÿùåííûå âîñòî÷íîõðèñòèàíñêèì àâòîðàì, íî ëèøåííûå òåêñòà íà ÿçûêå îðèãèíàëà. Îäíàêî òîëüêî ñåé÷àñ ýòà íîñèâøàÿñÿ â âîçäóõå èäåÿ íà÷àëà âîïëîùàòüñÿ. Èòàê, ïåðåä íàìè òåêñò, àíãëèéñêèé ïåðåâîä è äîâîëüíî ïîäðîáíîå ââåäåíèå ê òðàêòàòó ßõüè. Àðàáñêèé òåêñò ïðåäñòàâëÿåò ñîáîé ïåðåïå÷àòêó íåäàâíî âûøåäøåãî (1994 ã.) áåéðóòñêîãî êðèòè÷åñêîãî èçäàíèÿ. Ñàì òðàêòàò ïîñâÿùåí òåìàòèêå, êîòîðàÿ â âèçàíòèéñêîé ñðåäå âñåãäà îñòàâàëàñü íà ïåðèôåðèè èíòåëëåêòóàëüíîé æèçíè, õîòÿ è çàíèìàëà âåñüìà ïî÷åòíîå ìåñòî â àíòè÷íîñòè, ïðîáëåìå ýìïèðè÷åñêîãî ìîðàëüíîãî ñîñòîÿíèÿ ÷åëîâåêà è äîñòèæåíèþ èì ñîâåðøåíñòâà. Èìåííî ÷åëîâå÷åñêîãî ñîâåðøåíñòâà, à íå îáîæåíèÿ. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, òåìà òðàêòàòà íå õðèñòèàíñêàÿ àñêåòèêà, à ñâåòñêàÿ ìîðàëü. Íå óäèâèòåëüíî, ÷òî ýòîò òðóä õðèñòèàíñêîãî àâòîðà îêàçàëñÿ â ÷èñëå îñíîâîïîëàãàþùèõ ïðîèçâåäåíèé è èñëàìñêîé òðàäèöèè ôèëîñîôñêîé ýòèêè, îêàçàâøèñü îäíèì èç çâåíüåâ, ñâÿçàâøèõ ïîñëåäíþþ ñ àíòè÷íîñòüþ.  ìóñóëüìàíñêîé ñðåäå ßõüÿ íàøåë ñåáå áëàãîäàðíûõ ÷èòàòåëåé. «Ãëÿäÿ èç Âèçàíòèè», ìû, êîíå÷íî, ìîæåì óäèâèòüñÿ, êàê ýòî áîãîñëîâ ìîã ñòîëü ïîäðîáíî è ãëóáîêî èçó÷àòü ìîðàëü âíå õðèñòèàíñêîãî àñêåòè÷åñêîãî êîíòåêñòà, íî íå çàáóäåì, ÷òî ßõüÿ ïðèíàäëåæàë íå òîëüêî ê äðóãîé áîãîñëîâñêîé òðàäèöèè, íî è ê ñóùåñòâåííî äðóãîìó êóëüòóðíîìó ìèðó, ãäå îáùíîñòü õðèñòèàí è ìóñóëüìàí âûõîäèëà äàëåêî çà ïðåäåëû îáùíîñòè ÿçûêà (àðàáñêîãî) è ðàñïðîñòðàíÿëàñü íà ìíîãèå âîïðîñû ìèðîâîççðåíèÿ. Èçäàíèå òðàêòàòà ßõüè ñ ïåðåâîäîì íà àíãëèéñêèé ÿçûê, íåñîìíåííî, áóäåò ñîäåéñòâîâàòü èçó÷åíèþ ñóäåá àíòè÷íîé ôèëîñîôñêîé òðàäèöèè â ñðåäíèå âåêà è îñîáåííî â òîé ïåðåõîäíîé îáëàñòè ìåæäó ïîçäíåé àíòè÷íîñòüþ è èñëàìîì, â êîòîðîé ñòîëü çíà÷èòåëüíàÿ ðîëü ïðèíàäëåæàëà ñèðèéöàì è, â ÷àñòíîñòè, ßõüå èáí Àäè. Ïîæåëàåì èçäàòåëÿì íîâîé ñåðèè òàêîãî æå áëåñòÿùåãî áóäóùåãî, êàêîå ïîëó÷èë èõ áëèæàéøèé «ãðåêî-ëàòèíñêèé» àíàëîã Sources chrétiennes.1 ¬. Ã. ÀÛ¸Â
Ê ñîæàëåíèþ, ïîñëå âûõîäà ïåðâîãî òîìà èçäàíèå ñåðèè çàñòîïîðèëîñü, è íè î êàêèõ ïåðâîíà÷àëüíî íàìå÷àâøèõñÿ 23 òîìàõ â ãîä ðå÷è íåò. (Ñâåäåíèÿ ñ ñàéòà Brigham Young University http://meti.byu.edu ïî ñîñòîÿíèþ íà 8.03.2006.) 1
Новые публикации по сирологии на русском языке
"&
Õ. Õ. —≈À≈«Õ≈¬, ÕÂÒÚÓËÈ Ë ÷ÂÍÓ‚¸ ¬ÓÒÚÓ͇ (Ã.: œÛÚ¸, 2005) 111 Ò. Nicholai SELEZNYOV, Nestorius and the Church of the East (Moscow: Putí, 2005) 111 pp., with an English Summary. ISBN 5-86748-032-1 This is the third booklet by Nicholai Seleznyov dedicated to the Church of the East. Two former were the following (both in Russian): Assyrian Church of the East (2001) [cf. annotation in XB 3 (2001) 506) and Christology of the Assyrian Church of the East. The Main Documents & Development of the Doctrine (2002) [cf. annotation in XB 4 (2002) 593]. The author continues to explore the history and the theology of the Church of the East trying to both introduce the lay people to the field and present a theological apology of the Eastern Christological tradition connected to the name of Nestorius. Trying to summarise his point, I dare to say that he managed to demonstrate, once more, that there is no reason to reject Nestorius if only one does not accept the Christology of the Fifth Ecumenical Council (that which was labeled by Charles Mœller as «néochalcédonisme»). Basil Lourie±
ÕŒ¬¤≈ œ”¡À» ¿÷»» œŒ —»–ŒÀŒ√»» Õ¿ –”—— ŒÃ fl«¤ ≈ SYRIAN CHRISTIANITY: RECENT BIBLIOGRAPHY IN RUSSIAN1 2000 Èëàðèîí (ÀËÔÅÅÂ), èåðîì., Àññèðèéñêàÿ Öåðêîâü Âîñòîêà: âçãëÿä íà èñòîðèþ è ñîâðåìåííîå ïîëîæåíèå // Èñòîðèÿ Äðåâíåé Öåðêâè â íàó÷íûõ òðàäèöèÿõ XX âåêà. Ìàòåðèàëû öåðêîâíî-íàó÷íîé êîíôåðåíöèè, ïîñâÿùåííîé 100-ëåòèþ ñî äíÿ êîí÷èíû Â. Â. Áîëîòîâà (Ñàíêò-Ïåòåðáóðã, 2000) 7275. Èëàðèîí (ÀËÔÅÅÂ), èåðîì., Ïðåïîäîáíûé Èñààê Ñèðèí. Î çíàíèè (Èçáðàííûå ãëàâû). Ïåðåâîä ñ ñèðèéñêîãî // Öåðêîâü è âðåìÿ 4 (13) (2000) 315324. Èëàðèîí (ÀËÔÅÅÂ), èåðîì., Ñïîð î íàñëåäèè ïðåïîäîáíîãî Èñààêà Ñèðèíà // Ïðàâîñëàâíàÿ áåñåäà 3 (2000) 2932. 1
La bibliographie qui suit n’inclut que publications en dehors des périodiques internationaux publiés en Russie, Õðèñòèàíñêèé Âîñòîê et Scrinium, et ignore les réimpressions. — NdlR.
"&
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
2001 Í. Í. ÑÅËÅÇÍÅÂ, Àññèðèéñêàÿ Öåðêîâü Âîñòîêà. Èñòîðè÷åñêèé î÷åðê / Ïðåäèñë. Ìàð Èñõàêà Éîñåïà, åïèñêîïà Íóõàäðû (Äîõóêà, Ñåâåðíûé Èðàê) è ÑÍÃ. (Ìîñêâà: Àññèðèéñêàÿ Öåðêîâü Âîñòîêà, 2001) 104 ñ. ISBN 5-86748-082-8. È. Ô. Ø ÀÍÅÍÊÎ, Õðèñòîëîãè÷åñêàÿ ôîðìóëà Íåñòîðèÿ â áîãîñëîâèè Áàáàÿ Âåëèêîãî // XI Åæåãîäíàÿ Áîãîñëîâñêàÿ Êîíôåðåíöèÿ Ïðàâîñëàâíîãî Ñâÿòî-Òèõîíîâñêîãî Áîãîñëîâñêîãî Èíñòèòóòà: Ìàòåðèàëû 2001 ã. (Ìîñêâà: ÏÑÒÁÈ, 2001) 1324.
2002 Í. Í. ÑÅËÅÇÍÅÂ, Õðèñòîëîãèÿ Àññèðèéñêîé Öåðêâè Âîñòîêà. Àíàëèç îñíîâíûõ ìàòåðèàëîâ â êîíòåêñòå èñòîðèè ôîðìèðîâàíèÿ âåðîó÷åíèÿ (Ìîñêâà: Euroasiatica, 2002) 198 ñ. ISBN 5-86748-101-8.
2003 Àôðààò, ïåðñèäñêèé ìóäðåö. Òàõâèòû «Î ëþáâè» è «Î âåðå» / Ïåð. ñ ñèð. ïðîò. Ëåîíèäà ÃÐÈËÈÕÅÑÀ è Ã. ÊÅÑÑÅËß, âñòóï. còàòüÿ Ã. ÊÅÑÑÅËß // Áîãîñëîâñêèé Âåñòíèê 3 (Ñåðãèåâ Ïîñàä: Ìîñêîâñêàÿ Äóõîâíàÿ Àêàäåìèÿ, 2003) 3169. Àôðààò Ïåðñèäñêèé Ìóäðåö. Òàõâèòà î ñûíàõ Çàâåòà / Ïåð. ñ ñèð. ïðîò. Ëåîíèäà ÃÐÈËÈÕÅÑÀ è Ã. ÊÅÑÑÅËß // Áîãîñëîâñêèå Òðóäû 38 (Ìîñêâà: Èçäàòåëüñêèé Ñîâåò Ðóññêîé Ïðàâîñëàâíîé Öåðêâè, 2003) 120146. Í. ÃÀÐÀÅÂÀ, «Ðóêîïèñü ñèðèéñêàÿ, ñîäåðæèò çàêëèíàíèÿ è ìîëèòâû...» // Ãàñûðëàð àâàçû / Ýõî âåêîâ (Êàçàíü) 3/4 (32/33) (2003) 4753. Ã. Ì. ÊÅÑÑÅËÜ, Ó÷åíèå î äóõîâíîé æèçíè Àôðààòà Ïåðñèäñêîãî Ìóäðåöà // Áîãîñëîâñêèå Òðóäû 38 (Ìîñêâà: Èçäàòåëüñêèé Ñîâåò Ðóññêîé Ïðàâîñëàâíîé Öåðêâè, 2003) 356375.
2004 Îäû Ñîëîìîíà / Ïåð. ñ ñèð., âñòóï. ñòàòüÿ ïðîò. Ëåîíèäà ÃÐÈËÈÕÅÑÀ (Ìîñêâà: Èçäàòåëüñòâî Ñâÿòî-Âëàäèìèðñêîãî Áðàòñòâà, 2004) (Êàôåäðà Áèáëåèñòèêè Ìîñêîâñêîé Äóõîâíîé Àêàäåìèè) 64 ñ. Àôðààò, ïåðñèäñêèé ìóäðåö. Òàõâèòû «Î ïîñòå» è «Î ìîëèòâå» / Ïåð. ñ ñèð. ïðîò. Ëåîíèäà ÃÐÈËÈÕÅÑÀ è Ã. ÊÅÑÑÅËß, âñòóï. còàòüÿ Ã. ÊÅÑÑÅËß // Áîãîñëîâñêèé Âåñòíèê 4 (Ñåðãèåâ Ïîñàä: Ìîñêîâñêàÿ Äóõîâíàÿ Àêàäåìèÿ, 2004) 2868. Àôðààò Ïåðñèäñêèé Ìóäðåö. Òàõâèòà î âîéíàõ / Ïåð. ñ ñèð. ïðîò. Ëåîíèäà ÃÐÈËÈÕÅÑÀ è Ã. ÊÅÑÑÅËß, âñòóï. còàòüÿ Ã. ÊÅÑÑÅËß // Áîãîñëîâñêèå Òðóäû 39 (Ìîñêâà: Èçäàòåëüñêèé Ñîâåò Ðóññêîé Ïðàâîñëàâíîé Öåðêâè, 2004) 6178.
Новые публикации по сирологии на русском языке
"&!
Ä. À. ÌÎÐÎÇÎÂ, Çàòåðÿííûå òåêñòû Åôðåìà Ñèðèíà. // Âòîðûå ÷òåíèÿ ïàìÿòè ïðîôåññîðà Íèêîëàÿ Ôåäîðîâè÷à Êàïòåðåâà (Ìîñêâà, 2829 îêòÿáðÿ 2004 ã.). Ìàòåðèàëû (Ìîñêâà: ÈÂÈ ÐÀÍ, 2004) 1112. À. Â. ÌÓÐÀÂÜÅÂ, Ñèðèéñêèé èñèõàçì // Èñèõàçì. Àííîòèðîâàííàÿ áèáëèîãðàôèÿ (Ìîñêâà: Èçäàòåëüñêèé Ñîâåò Ðóññêîé Ïðàâîñëàâíîé Öåðêâè, 2004) 267299. À. Â. ÌÓÐÀÂÜÅÂ, Ñèðèéñêèé ïñîãîñ // Äèñïóò ñ Ïèððîì: ïðï. Ìàêñèì Èñïîâåäíèê è õðèñòîëîãè÷åñêèå ñïîðû VII ñòîëåòèÿ / Îòâ. ðåä. Ä. À. Ïîñïåëîâ (Ìîñêâà: Õðàì Ñîôèè Ïðåìóäðîñòè Áîæèåé â Ñðåäíèõ Ñàäîâíèêàõ, 2004) (Smaragdos Philocalias) 322331. Áîãîñëîâñêèå ñîáåñåäîâàíèÿ ìåæäó Êàòîëèêîñîì Öåðêâè Âîñòîêà Ìàð Òèìàòåîñîì I (727823) è õàëèôîì àë-Ìàõäè, ïîâåëèòåëåì ïðàâîâåðíûõ / Ïåð. ñ àðàá. Í. Í. ÑÅËÅÇÍÅÂÀ ïîä ðåä. Ä. À. ÌÎÐÎÇÎÂÀ; âñòóïèò. ñòàòüÿ è ïðèìå÷. Í. Í. ÑÅËÅÇÍÅÂÀ (Ìîñêâà: Àññèðèéñêàÿ Öåðêîâü Âîñòîêà, 2005) 48 ñ.; òî æå // Òî÷êè / Puncta 34/4 (èþëüäåêàáðü 2004) 739. À. ÑÒ¨ÏÈÍÀ, Ñâÿòàÿ Àïîñòîëüñêàÿ Ñîáîðíàÿ Àññèðèéñêàÿ Öåðêîâü Âîñòîêà // Ñîâðåìåííàÿ ðåëèãèîçíàÿ æèçíü Ðîññèè. Îïûò ñèñòåìàòè÷åñêîãî îïèñàíèÿ. Ò. I / Îòâ. ðåä. Ì. Áóðäî, Ñ. Á. Ôèëàòîâ (Ìîñêâà: Ëîãîñ, 2004) 296309.
2005 Æèòèå áëàæåííîãî Ìàð Çàéÿ / Ïåð. ñ ñèð. äèàê. Ðîëàíäà ÁÈÄÆÀÌÎÂÀ (Ìîñêâà: Àññèðèéñêàÿ Öåðêîâü Âîñòîêà, 2005) 33 ñ. ISBN íåò. Àôðààò Ïåðñèäñêèé Ìóäðåö. Òàõâèòà î êàþùèõñÿ / Ïåð. ñ ñèð. ïðîò. Ëåîíèäà ÃÐÈËÈÕÅÑÀ è Ã. ÊÅÑÑÅËß, âñòóï. còàòüÿ Ã. ÊÅÑÑÅËß // Áîãîñëîâñêèå Òðóäû 40 (Ìîñêâà: Èçäàòåëüñêèé Ñîâåò Ðóññêîé Ïðàâîñëàâíîé Öåðêâè, 2005) 1130. È. À. ÊÓÊÎÒÀ, Ðóññêèé ïåðåâîä êðèòè÷åñêîãî òåêñòà âîñòî÷íî-ñèðèéñêîé àíàôîðû àïï. Àääàÿ è Ìàðè // Âåñòíèê ÏÑÒÃÓ. Ñåðèÿ I: «Áîãîñëîâèå. Ôèëîñîôèÿ». Âûïóñê 14 (2005) 178184 Å. Í. ÌÅÙÅÐÑÊÀß, Àïîêðèôè÷åñêèå ñþæåòû â äðåâíèõ ñèðèéñêèõ ðóêîïèñÿõ // Albo dies notanda lapillo: êîëëåãè è ó÷åíèêè Ã. Å. Ëåáåäåâîé / Îòâ. ðåä. Â. À. ßêóáñêèé (Ñàíêò-Ïåòåðáóðã: Àëåòåéÿ, 2005) (Âèçàíòèéñêàÿ áèáëèîòåêà. Èññëåäîâàíèÿ) 94108. À. Â. ÌÓÐÀÂÜÅÂ, Îáðàç Øàïóðà II â ñèðèéñêîé ëèòåðàòóðå // Âåñòíèê äðåâíåé èñòîðèè 3 (2005) 115125. Í. Í. ÑÅËÅÇÍÅÂ, Àññèðèéñêàÿ Öåðêîâü Âîñòîêà // Áîëüøàÿ Ðîññèéñêàÿ Ýíöèêëîïåäèÿ. Ò. 2: «ÀíêèëîçÁàíêà» (Ìîñêâà: Íàó÷íîå èçäàòåëüñòâî «Áîëüøàÿ Ðîññèéñêàÿ Ýíöèêëîïåäèÿ», 2005) 375376. Í. Í. ÑÅËÅÇÍÅÂ, Íåñòîðèé è Öåðêîâü Âîñòîêà / Ïîä íàó÷í. ðåä. è ñ ïðåäèñë. Í. Â. Øàáóðîâà (Ìîñêâà: Ïóòü, 2005) (Ðîññèéñêèé Ãîñóäàðñò-
"&"
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
âåííûé Ãóìàíèòàðíûé Óíèâåðñèòåò, Öåíòð èçó÷åíèÿ ðåëèãèé) 111 ñ., óêàç., áèáëèîãð. ISBN 5-86748-032-1. Í. Í. ÑÅËÅÇÍÅÂ, Óéãóðû-õðèñòèàíå è èõ ðåëèãèîçíî-èñòîðè÷åñêàÿ ñóäüáà // Âîëøåáíàÿ Ãîðà: Òðàäèöèÿ, ðåëèãèÿ, êóëüòóðà. Âûï. XI (Ìîñêâà: Âîëøåáíàÿ Ãîðà, 2005) 7276.
2006 Êíèãà ñòðàíñòâèé / Liber Peregrinationis / Ïåð. ñ ëàò. è ñò.-ôð., ñîñò., ñòàòüè è êîìì. Í. ÃÎÐÅËÎÂÀ (Ñàíêò-Ïåòåðáóðã: Àçáóêà-êëàññèêà, 2006) (Àçáóêà Ñðåäíåâåêîâüÿ) 320 ñ. ISBN 5-352-01786-9. Ñâ. Åôðåì Ñèðèí, Ãèìí (Ìàäðàøà) íà Ðîæäåñòâî / Ïåð. ñ ñèð., âñòóï. còàòüÿ ïðîò. Ëåîíèäà ÃÐÈËÈÕÅÑÀ // Áîãîñëîâñêèé Âåñòíèê 56 (Ñåðãèåâ Ïîñàä: Ìîñêîâñêàÿ Äóõîâíàÿ Àêàäåìèÿ, 2006) 1741. Èîàíí Îòøåëüíèê, Î ìîëèòâå / Ïåð. ñ ñèð., âñòóï. ñòàòüÿ Ã. Ì. ÊÅÑÑÅËß // Òàì æå. 4257. Ã. Ì. ÊÅÑÑÅËÜ, Èîàíí Îòøåëüíèê, ñèðèéñêèé ïèñàòåëü V â.: àííîòèðîâàííàÿ áèáëèîãðàôèÿ // Òàì æå. 642649. Map Àôðåì Íèñèáèíñêèé (ïðï. Åôðåì Ñèðèí) Þëèàíîâñêèé öèêë / Ïðåäèñë., ïåð. ñ ñèð., êîìì, è óêàç. À. Â. ÌÓÐÀÂÜÅÂ; íàó÷í. ðåä. Ä. À. ÏÎÑÏÅËΠ(Ìîñêâà: Ôîíä «Íàñëåäèå Ïðàâîñëàâíîãî Âîñòîêà», Áðàòñòâî ñâÿòèòåëÿ Ãðèãîðèÿ Ïàëàìû, Èçäàòåëüñòâî «Èíôîðåñ», 2006) (Smaragdos Philocalias) 240 ñ. Èç èñòîðèè âîñòî÷íî-ñèðèéñêîé ëèòóðãè÷åñêîé ïîýçèè: çàêëþ÷èòåëüíîå ïåñíîïåíèå «Ìîëåíèÿ íèíåâèòÿí» / Ïåð. ñ ñèð., âñòóï. ñòàòüÿ è ïðèì. À. Ä. ÏÐÈÒÓËÛ // Âîëøåáíàÿ Ãîðà: Òðàäèöèÿ, ðåëèãèÿ, êóëüòóðà. Âûï. XII (Ìîñêâà: Âîëøåáíàÿ Ãîðà, 2006) 147159. Íåñòîðèé, Êíèãà Ãåðàêëèäà Äàìàññêîãî (èçáðàííîå) / Ïåð. ñ ñèð., âñòóï. ñòàòüÿ è ïðèì. Í. Í. ÑÅËÅÇÍÅÂÀ // Òàì æå. 6682. Í. Í. ÑÅËÅÇÍÅÂ, Ñòàðîîáðÿäöû XVIII â. è «àñèðñêèå õðèñòèàíå» ßïîíèè // Òàì æå. 181186. Í. Í. ÑÅËÅÇÍÅÂ, Áûëà ëè Öåðêîâü Âîñòîêà â ïîä÷èíåíèè ó Àíòèîõèè? // Surgada d-Edta d-Madnkha d-aturaye 2006 / Êàëåíäàðü Àññèðèéñêîé Öåðêâè Âîñòîêà 2006 [Mîñêâà: ÀÖÂ, 2005] Ñ. [16].
œ‡‚ÓÒ·‚̇ˇ ›ÌˆËÍÎÓÔ‰ˡ (ÃÓÒÍ‚‡: ÷ÂÍÓ‚ÌÓ-̇ۘÌ˚È ˆÂÌÚ œ‡‚ÓÒ·‚̇ˇ ›ÌˆËÍÎÓÔ‰ˡ): Ààðîí Ñàðóãñêèé (Ì. Â. ÃÐÀÖÈÀÍÑÊÈÉ) // Ò. I (2000) 21. Àáä àëü-Àõàä (Â. Â. ÂÀÑÈËÈÊ) // Ò. I (2000) 37. Àáä àëü-Ìàñèõ àëü-Êèíäè (À. Â. ÌÓÐÀÂÜÅÂ) // Ò. I (2000) 3738. Àáäàëëàõ èáí àò-Òàéèá àëü-Èðàêè (Î. ÄÀÂÛÄÅÍÊÎÂ, ñâÿù.) // Ò. I (2000) 3940.
Новые публикации по сирологии на русском языке
"&#
Àáó Íóõ (Â. Â. ÂÀÑÈËÈÊ) // Ò. I (2000) 62. Àáó-ëü-Õàñàí èáí Áàõëóëü (Å. Í. ÌÅÙÅÐÑÊÀß) // Ò. I (2000) 66. Àâãàðü (Å. Í. ÌÅÙÅÐÑÊÀß, Ê. À. ÏÀÍ×ÅÍÊÎ) // Ò. I (2000) 8990. Àâäà (Ì. Â. ÃÐÀÖÈÀÍÑÊÈÉ, À. Þ. ÍÈÊÈÔÎÐÎÂÀ) // Ò. I (2000) 117118. Àâäà è Àâäèåñ (Ì. Â. ÃÐÀÖÈÀÍÑÊÈÉ, À. Þ. ÍÈÊÈÔÎÐÎÂÀ) // Ò. I (2000) 118. Àâäèøî (Ñ. À. ÔÐÀÍÖÓÇÎÂ) // Ò. I (2000) 121. Àâäèøî áàð Áàõðèç (Î. ÄÀÂÛÄÅÍÊÎÂ, ñâÿù.) // Ò. I (2000) 121. Àâäèøî áàð Áðèõà (À. Â. ÌÓÐÀÂÜÅÂ) // Ò. I (2000) 121. Àâäóëìàñèõ (Ì. Â. ÃÐÀÖÈÀÍÑÊÈÉ) // Ò. I (2000) 121122. Àâðààì (Ñ. À. ÔÐÀÍÖÓÇÎÂ) // Ò. I (2000) 157. Àâðààì áàð Äàøàíäàä (Å. Í. ÌÅÙÅÐÑÊÀß) // Ò. I (2000) 158159. Àâðààì áåò-Ðàááàíñêèé (À. Â. ÌÓÐÀÂÜÅÂ) // Ò. I (2000) 159. Àâðààì Êàøêàðñêèé (À. Â. ÌÓÐÀÂÜÅÂ) // Ò. I (2000) 160161. Àâðààì Íàòôàðñêèé (Ì. Â. ÒÊÀ×ÅÍÊÎ) // Ò. I (2000) 161. Àääàé (À. Â. ÏÎÑÒÅÐÍÀÊ) // Ò. I (2000) 296. Àäèàáåíà (À. È. ÊÎËÅÑÍÈÊÎÂ, Ê. À. ÏÀÍ×ÅÍÊÎ) // Ò. I (2000) 300301. Àçàçàèë (À. È. ÌÀÊÀÐÎÂ) // Ò. I (2000) 329. Àéòàëëàõ (À. Â. ÌÓÐÀÂÜÅÂ) // Ò. I (2000) 345. Àêàêèé Ñåëåâêèéñêèé (Î. ÄÀÂÛÄÅÍÊÎÂ, ñâÿù.) // Ò. I (2000) 367368. Àëêîø (Å. Í. ÌÅÙÅÐÑÊÀß) // Ò. II (2001) 25. Àëëàõà-Çõà (Å. Í. ÌÅÙÅÐÑÊÀß) // Ò. II (2001) 28. Àìèäà (À. È. ÊÎËÅÑÍÈÊÎÂ, Ê. À. ÏÀÍ×ÅÍÊÎ) // Ò. II (2001) 164165. Àììàð àëü-Áàñðè (Î. ÄÀÂÛÄÅÍÊÎÂ, ñâÿù.) // Ò. II (2001) 170171. Àíàíèè ñâÿòîãî ìîíàñòûðü (Î. ÄÀÂÛÄÅÍÊÎÂ, ñâÿù.) // Ò. II (2001) 219. Àíàíèøî (À. Â. ÌÓÐÀÂÜÅÂ) // Ò. II (2001) 219. Àíòèîõèéñêàÿ Ïðàâîñëàâíàÿ Öåðêîâü (È. Ñ. ×È×ÓÐÎÂ, Ê. À. ÏÀÍ×ÅÍÊÎ, Ò. Ë. ÔÐÀÇÈÅÐ, Á. À. ÍÅËÞÁÎÂ, Ì. ÍÀÄÆÈÌ, ñâÿù.) // Ò. II (2001) 501529. Àïàìåÿ (Ë. À. ÁÅËßÅÂ, Ì. Â. ÃÐÀÖÈÀÍÑÊÈÉ) // Ò. III (2001) 19. Àðàáû-õðèñòèàíå (Ê. À. ÏÀÍ×ÅÍÊÎ) // Ò. III (2001) 152155. Àðàìåéñêèé ÿçûê (À. Ê. ËßÂÄÀÍÑÊÈÉ) // Ò. III (2001) 168173. Àñâàíà (À. Â. ÌÓÐÀÂÜÅÂ) // Ò. III (2001) 588. Àññåìàíè (Í. Ã. ÃÎËÎÂÍÈÍÀ, Ò. Þ. ÊÎÁÈÙÀÍÎÂ) // Ò. III (2001) 619620. Àôðààò (À. Â. ÌÓÐÀÂÜÅÂ) // Ò. IV (2002) 184185. Àôòàðòîäîêåòèçì (Î. ÄÀÂÛÄÅÍÊÎÂ, ñâÿù.) // Ò. IV (2002) 193194. Àõóäýììåõ (À. Â. ÌÓÐÀÂÜÅÂ) // Ò. IV (2002) 220. Áàáàé Âåëèêèé (È. ÉÅÂÒÈ×, À. Â. ÌÓÐÀÂÜÅÂ) // Ò. IV (2002) 239240. Áàáàé Íèñèáèíñêèé (À. È. ÊÎËÅÑÍÈÊÎÂ) // Ò. IV (2002) 240. Áàáóé (À. È. ÊÎËÅÑÍÈÊÎÂ) // Ò. IV (2002) 242. Áàðäåñàí (Ã. À. ÊÎØÅËÅÍÊÎ) // Ò. IV (2002) 333. Áàð Ñàóìà (À. Â. ÌÓÐÀÂÜÅÂ) // Ò. IV (2002) 349350. Áàð Ñàóìà (À. Â. ÌÓÐÀÂÜÅÂ) // Ò. IV (2002) 350. Áàð-Õàäáøàááà Àðáàéÿ (À. Â. ÌÓÐÀÂÜÅÂ) // Ò. IV (2002) 370.
"&$
Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum
Áàð-Õàäáøàááà Õàëâàíñêèé (À. Â. ÌÓÐÀÂÜÅÂ) // Ò. IV (2002) 370371. Áàóìøòàðê, Àíòîí (À. Â. ÌÓÐÀÂÜÅÂ) // Ò. IV (2002) 387388. Áèáëèÿ. Ïåðåâîäû íà ñèðèéñêèé ÿçûê (Ë. ÃÐÈËÈÕÅÑ, ïðîò., À. Â. ÌÓÐÀÂÜÅ , Þ. Ã. Âàñèëü÷åâà) // Ò. V (2002) 126129. Áèáëèÿ. Ïåðåâîäû íà àññèðèéñêèé ÿçûê (Í. Í. ÑÅËÅÇÍÅÂ) // Ò. V (2002) 187188. Áîãîñëîâñêèå øêîëû äðåâíåé Öåðêâè. Ýäåññêî-Íèñèáèíñêàÿ øêîëà (À. È. ÑÈÄÎÐÎÂ) // Ò. V (2002) 528529. Áðîê, Ñåáàñòèàí (À. Â. ÌÓÐÀÂÜÅÂ) // Ò. VI (2003) 259260. Âàðñèìåé (Í. Ñ. ÑÌÅËÎÂÀ) // Ò. VI (2003) 668669. Âàòà Ïåðñÿíèí (Î. Â. Ë.) // Ò. VII (2004) 269. Âåíàì è Ñàðà (Å. Ã. ÁÅËßÅÂÀ, Ã. Ì. ÊÅÑÑÅËÜ) // Ò. VII (2004) 370371. Âèçàíòèéñêàÿ èìïåðèÿ. Ðåãèîíû è ïåðèôåðèÿ Âèçàíòèéñêîé èìïåðèè. Ñèðèÿ è Ïàëåñòèíà (Ê. À. ÏÀÍ×ÅÍÊÎ) // Ò. VIII (2004) 192197. Âîñòî÷íî-ñèðèéñêèé îáðÿä (À. À. ÒÊÀ×ÅÍÊÎ) // Ò. IX (2005) 475484. Âûûáóñ, Àðòóð (Õ. ÊÀÓÔÕÎËÜÄ) // Ò. X (2005) 124. Ãàâðèèë Êàòðàÿ (Ã. Ì. ÊÅÑÑÅËÜ) // Ò. X (2005) 242243. Ãàäèàá è Ñàáèíî (À. À. Â.) // Ò. X (2005) 261262. Ãàññàíèäû (Ñ. À. ÔÐÀÍÖÓÇÎÂ) // Ò. X (2005) 442444. Ãåîðãèé Àðáåëüñêèé (Ã. Ì. ÊÅÑÑÅËÜ) // Ò. XI (2006) 57. Ãåîðãèé Âàðäà (À. Â. ÑÀÐÀÁÜÅÂ) // Ò. XI (2006) 58. Ãåîðãèé Êàôðñêèé (À. Â. ÑÀÐÀÁÜÅÂ) // Ò. XI (2006) 6162. Ãèéîìîí, Àíòóàí (Ã. Ì. ÊÅÑÑÅËÜ) // Ò. XI (2006) 462463.
‡ÚÓ΢ÂÒ͇ˇ ›ÌˆËÍÎÓÔ‰ˡ (ÃÓÒÍ‚‡: »Á‰‡ÚÂθÒÚ‚Ó ‘‡ÌˆËÒ͇̈‚): Àëåêñåé Ýäåññêèé (È. Â. ËÓÏÀÍÄÈÍ) // Ò. I (2002) Êîë. 165166. Àíàñòàñèé I Àíòèîõèéñêèé (È. Â. ËÓÏÀÍÄÈÍ) // Ò. I (2002) Êîë. 225. Àíàñòàñèé II Àíòèîõèéñêèé (È. Â. ËÓÏÀÍÄÈÍ) // Ò. I (2002) Êîë. 225 226. Àíòèîõèéñêàÿ áîãîñëîâñêàÿ øêîëà (Í. Â. ØÀÁÓÐΠ) // Ò. I (2002) Êîë. 272273. Àíòèîõèéñêèé ïàòðèàðõàò // Ò. I (2002) Êîë. 273278. Àññèðèéñêàÿ Öåðêîâü Âîñòîêà (Ñåðãèé ÃÀÅÊ, àðõèì.) // Ò. I (2002) Êîë. 384385. Àôðààò (Ñòåôàíî ÊÀÏÐÈÎ, ñâÿù.) // Ò. I (2002) Êîë. 415416. Áàóìøòàðê, Àíòîí (Ï. Ä. ÑÀÕÀÐÎÂ) // Ò. I (2002) Êîë. 477478 Áîãîñëóæåáíûå êíèãè Âîñòî÷íûõ Öåðêâåé // Ò. I (2002) Êîë. 639. Åôðåì Ñèðèí (Ì. Ë. ÕÎÐÜÊÎÂ) // Ò. I (2002) Êîë. 18381840. Èàêîâ Ñåðóãñêèé (Ìàíóýëü ÍÈÍ, àðõèì., Ì. Ë. ÕÎÐÜÊÎÂ) // Ò. II (2005) Êîë. 6. Èâà Ýäåññêèé (Ìàíóýëü ÍÈÍ, àðõèì.) // Ò. II (2005) Êîë. 1920.
Новые публикации по сирологии на русском языке
"&%
Èãíàòèé Àíòèîõèéñêèé (Ñòåôàíî Ê ÀÏÐÈÎ , ñâÿù.) // Ò. II (2005) Êîë. 3334. Èîàíí Äàìàñêèí (Ï. Â. ËÅÙÅÍÊÎ) // Ò. II (2005) Êîë. 342344. Èîàíí Çëàòîóñò (Ñòåôàíî ÊÀÏÐÈÎ, ñâÿù.; Í. Â. ØÀÁÓÐÎÂ) // Ò. II (2005) Êîë. 348351. Èðàê // Ò. II (2005) Êîë. 456460. Èðàí // Ò. II (2005) Êîë. 461465. Èñààê Ñèðèí (Ìàíóýëü ÍÈÍ, àðõèì.) // Ò. II (2005) Êîë. 498499. Êîçüìà Èíäèêîïëîâ (È. Â. ËÓÏÀÍÄÈÍ) // Ò. II (2005) Êîë. 11471148. √. Ã. ÂÒÒÂθ Õ. Õ. —ÂÎÂÁÌ‚
SCRINIUM II (2006) Журнал Àäðåñ ðåäàêöèè: Ò. À. Ñåíèíîé («Scrinium») à/ÿ 110, Ñàíêò-Ïåòåðáóðã, 194352, Ðîññèÿ E-mail: [email protected]
Óòâåðæäåíî ê ïå÷àòè Ñàíêò-Ïåòåðáóðãñêèì Îáùåñòâîì âèçàíòèíî-ñëàâÿíñêèõ èññëåäîâàíèé (198097, Ñ.-Ïåòåðáóðã, Ïðîìûøëåííàÿ óë., 38/2)
è ÎÎÎ «ÌÖÔ Ìåæäóíàðîäíûé Öåíòð Ôàíòàñòèêè» (Ìîñêâà, 111250, óë. Êðàñíîêàçàðìåííàÿ, ä. 9, ïîäúåçä 9)
Òåõíè÷åñêèé ðåäàêòîð: Ò. À. Ñåíèíà Îôîðìëåíèå è îðèãèíàë-ìàêåò: Ò. À. Ñåíèíà Îðèãèíàë-ìàêåò ïîäãîòîâëåí â ïðîãðàììå PageMaker 6.5, ñ èñïîëüçîâàíèåì øðèôòîâ Byzantina Plain, GaramondC, PalatinoC, LiteraturnayaC, AGOptimaCyr, Times New Roman, Garamond, EAE-Garamond, UT IPA Times, TranslitLS, TransRoman, Symbol, TNR98, Petersburg Old I, EvangelieCTFbeta, Triodion Ucs, IzhitsaC, Izhitsa-CS, Kirillica Wincyr, UT Greek Ancien Times, UT Greek Acient Bodoni, Sgreek, Graece, Greek, SPTiberian, UT Hebrew Frankruhl, UT Syriac Estrangelo, Fraktur BT, Elephantine, UT Coptic, Coptic, UT Georgian Literaturuli, UT Georgian Didebuli, UT Georgian Dumbadze, UT Georgian Kolheti, Armenisch, UT Armenian Zvartnoc, UT Armenian Maral, UT Ethiopic Serif, GT98. Ïîäïèñàíî ê ïå÷àòè 28.08.2006. Ôîðìàò 70×100/ 16. Ïå÷àòü îôñåòíàÿ. 35 ï. ë. Òèðàæ 500 ýêç. Çàêàç ¹ 00 Îòïå÷àòàíî ñ ãîòîâûõ äèàïîçèòèâîâ â ÃÈÏÏ «Èñêóññòâî Ðîññèè» 198099, Ñàíêò-Ïåòåðáóðã, Ïðîìûøëåííàÿ óë., 38/2.
Printed in Russia
SCRINIUM
Tome 1 (2005) Varia Aethiopica Ïàìÿòè Ñåâèðà Áîðèñîâè÷à ×åðíåöîâà (1943 2005) Ñåâèð Áîðèñîâè÷ ×åðíåöîâ è ðóññêàÿ ýôèîïèñòèêà Áèáëèîãðàôèÿ ðàáîò Ñåâèðà Áîðèñîâè÷à ×åðíåöîâà
Anthropology, History, Philology Alessandro BAUSI. Etiopico ý ellç a proposito di un’ipotesi recente Dirk BUSTORF. Some Notes on the Traditional Religious System of the Éndägañ Gurage Leonardo COHEN. Who are the «Sons of God»? A Jesuit-Ethiopian Controversy on Genesis 6:2 Gianfranco FIACCADORI. Un re di Nubia a Costantinopoli nel 1203 Ñåðãåé À. Ô ÐÀÍÖÓÇÎÂ. Matres lectionis â ðàííåì ãåýçå [Sergei FRANTSOUZOFF. Matres lectionis in early geez] GETATCHEW HAILE. The Mäs³h³afä Gnzät as a Historical Source Regarding the Theology of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church Marilyn E. HELDMAN, Monica S. DEVENS. The Four Gospels of Däbrä Mäar: Colophon and Note of Donation Steven KAPLAN. Ethiopian Prisoners of Zion: the Struggle for Recognition in a Bureaucratic Setting Manfred KROPP. «Antiquae restitutio legis». Zur Alimentation des Hofklerus und einer Zeugenliste als imago imperii und notitia dignitatum in einer Urkunde des Kaisers Zärýa Yaqob im Condaghe der Hs. BM Or. 481, fol. 154 Basile LOURIÉ. S. Alypius Stylite, S. Marc de Tharmaqa et l’origine des malký éthiopiennes Andreu MARTÍNEZ DALÒS-MONER. The Selling of the Nguú: the «Emperor of Ethiopia» in Portuguese and Jesuit Imagination
Ronny MEYER. Riddles as Indicator of Cultural and Linguistic Convergence in the Gurage Region Denis NOSNITSIN. Wäwähabo qob a wäý askema...: Reflections on an Episode from the History of the Ethiopian Monastic Movement Andrei ORLOV. «The Learned Savant Who Guards the Secrets of the Great Gods»: Evolution of the Roles and Titles of the Seventh Antediluvian Hero in Mesopotamian and Enochic Traditions (Part I: Mesopotamian Traditions) Richard PANKHURST. The Short-Lived Newspaper Abyssinia (1935–1936): a Memory of the League of Nations Siegfried PAUSEWANG. The Two-Faced Amhara Identity Wolbert G. C. SMIDT. Deutsche Briefe von Äthiopiern 1855–1869 aus dem Umkreis der protestantischen Mission zur Regierungszeit von Tewodros II Lothar STÖRK. Notizen zu Zaga Krestos
Linguistics Ìaria BULAKH. Semantic Shifts in the Lexical Field of Taste in Geez Olga KAPELIUK. Topicalization in Amharic and its Degrees Leonid KOGAN. Common Origin of Ethiopian Semitic: the Lexical Dimension Nikolay OKHOTIN. Some New Epigraphic South Arabian — Ethiopian Etymologies Renate RICHTER. Jv cò und andere Idiome im Amharischen
SCRINIUM
Tome 3 (2007) The Theophaneia School: Jewish Roots of Eastern Christian Mysticism The Theophaneia School Theophaneia: Forum on the Jewish Roots of Orthodox Spirituality
Jewish Texts Andrei A. ORLOV. “Without Measure and Without Analogy”: The Tradition of the Divine Body in 2 (Slavonic) Enoch Silviu N. BUNTA. Too Vast to Fit in the World: Moses, Adam, and Myhl) Mlc in Testament of Moses 11:8 Andrei A. ORLOV. Celestial Choir-Master: The Liturgical Role of Enoch-Metatron in 2 Enoch and the Merkabah Tradition Andrei A. ORLOV. The Face as the Heavenly Counterpart of the Visionary in the Slavonic Ladder of Jacob Silviu N. BUNTA. The Likeness of the Image: Adamic Motifs and Mlc Anthropology in Rabbinic Traditions about Jacob’s Image Enthroned in Heaven Andrei A. ORLOV. Ex 33 on God’s Face: A Lesson from the Enochic Tradition Andrei A. ORLOV. On the Polemical Nature of 2 (Slavonic) Enoch: A Reply to C. Böttrich Silviu N. BUNTA. The Mçsu-tree and the Animal Inside: Theomorphism and Theriomorphism in Daniel 4 Andrei A. ORLOV. Resurrection of Adam’s Body: The Redeeming Role of EnochMetatron in 2 (Slavonic) Enoch Andrei A. ORLOV. The Origin of the Name “Metatron” and the Text of 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch Andrei A. ORLOV. Titles of Enoch-Metatron in 2 Enoch Andrei A. ORLOV. Overshadowed by Enoch’s Greatness: “Two Tablets” Traditions from the Book of Giants to Palaea Historica
Andrei A. ORLOV. Secrets of Creation in 2 (Slavonic) Enoch Andrei A. ORLOV. The Heirs of the Enochic Lore: ‘Men of Faith’ in 2 Enoch 35:2 and Sefer Hekhalot 48D:10 Andrei A. ORLOV. Noah’s Younger Brother Revisited: Anti-Noachic Polemics and the Date of 2 (Slavonic) Enoch Andrei A. ORLOV. The Flooded Arboretums: The Garden Traditions in the Slavonic Version of 3 Baruch and the Book of Giants
Christian Texts Alexander GOLITZIN. Spirituality: Eastern Christian Bogdan G. BUCUR. The Angelomorphic Spirit in Early Christianity: Revelation, the Shepherd of Hermas, Clement of Alexandria Dragos A. GIULEA. Seeking to See Him at the Festival of Pascha: The Expectation of the Divine Glory in Early Christian Paschal Materials and Rabbinic Literature Alexander GOLITZIN. “The Demons Suggest an Illusion of God’s Glory in a Form”: Controversy over the Divine Body and Vision of Glory in Some Late Fourth-, Early Fifth-Century Monastic Literature Alexander GOLITZIN. Dionysius Areopagites in the Works of St. Gregory Palamas: On the Question of a “Christological Corrective” and Related Matters Alexander GOLITZIN. The Body of Christ: St. Symeon the New Theologian on Spiritual Life and the Hierarchical Church Alexander GOLITZIN. Dionysius Areopagites: A Christian Mysticism? Alexander GOLITZIN. The Image and Glory of God in Jacob of Serug’s Homily: “On the Chariot that Ezekiel the Prophet Saw” Alexander GOLITZIN. The Place of the Presence of God: Aphrahat of Persia’s Portrait of the Christian Holy Man. An Essay in Honor of Archimandrite Aimilianos of the Monastery of Simonos Petras, Mount Athos Andrei ORLOV and Alexander GOLITZIN. “Many Lamps Are Lightened from the One”: Paradigms of the Transformational Vision in the Macarian Homilies
