Bram Roosen – Eulogii Alexandrini quae supersunt ἓulὁgiiΝχlἷx̅ὀἶὄiὀiΝὃu̅ἷΝὅupἷὄὅuὀt Old and new fragments from Eulogius of Alexandria's oeuvre [CPG 6971 – 6979] * Of Syrian origin, monk and priest in Antioch, where he presided over the monastery or church πα α α υ υ α ,1 Melkite Patriarch in Alexandria between 580/581 and 607/608; longtime friend of pope Gregory the Great;2 involved in the dispute over the ecumenical title of the Patriarch of Constantinople;3 well-known for his defence of the Tomus Leonis 4 and restorer of a church devoted to Julian the Martyr in Alexandria: 5 the facts we have on the life of Eulogius of * We would like to thank Prof. Dr. A. Camplani, Dr. J.A. Demetracopoulos and Prof. dr. Peter Van Deun for their valuable suggestions and corrections in preparing this article. 1 See Photius, Bibliotheca, cod. 226 (244a3-5). Procopius (cf. De aedificiis II, 10, 24) indeed mentions a large church ( ) for the mother of God, founded by Emperor Justinian in Antioch: α α α ῳπ π α α. α πα α α π π π ῖ ῳ α · α π ῳ . However, it is unclear whether this is the same foundation as the one referred to by Photius. – References to Photius' Bibliotheca here and further down in this article are to the edition by R. Henry, Photius. Bibliothèque, Paris 1959-1991 (Collection Byzantine). 2 Personal letters of Gregory to Eulogius are the following: VI, 61; VII, 37; VIII, 28-29; IX, 176; X, 14; X, 21; XII, 16; XIII, 42- 43. To that should be added the two letters of Gregory addressed to both Eulogius and Anastasius I of Antioch, viz. V, 41 and VII, 31. We refer to the edition by D. Norberg, S. Gregorii Magni Registrum epistularum, Turnhout 1982 (CCSL 140 and 140A). The letters of Eulogius to Gregory have not survived. See also chapter 7 of the present article. 3 See G.E. Demacopoulos, Gregory the Great and the Sixth-Century Dispute over the Ecumenical Title, «Theological Studies» 70, 2009, pp. 600-621. 4 See Apophthegma 148 of the Pratum Spirituale by John Moschus, where Theodore, the bishop of Dara in Libya, dreams that Leo says to Eulogius: "I have come to thank you (...), because you have defended so well, and so intelligently, the letter which I wrote to our brother, Flavian, Patriarch of Constantinople. You have declared my meaning and sealed up the mouth of the heretics." (transl. by J. Wortley, The Spiritual Meadow (Pratum Spirituale), Kalamazoo, Michigan 1992 [Cistercian Studies Series 139], p. 121). A similar story is recorded in the Synaxarium Constantinopolitanum, February 13. Apart from these legendary stories, Eulogius is mentioned in act 12 of Constantinopolitanum III (680/681) as the example par excellence of a defender of the Tomus Leonis (see ACO Ser. II, 2, 2, p. 530, ll. 7-12): ’ α π α α α , π π α α ᾳ πα π π α υ πα ,φ υ α Ἀ α υπ , π αφ π π φ υ ῳ πα α υπ α α πα υ α . See also Germanus I of Constantinople's Tractatus de haeresibus et synodis [CPG 8020], PG XCVIII, col. 69B12-C4: Ἀ ’ π α , α α π α π , ῖ α π υπ α α, π α α α υ υ α α π α. 5 Apophthegma 146 of the Pratum Spirituale by John Moschus recounts how after having had a nightly vision of Julian the Martyr, Patriarch Eulogius had the martyr's church rebuilt: "Then the great Eulogios realised that it was Julian the Martyr he had 1 Bram Roosen – Eulogii Alexandrini quae supersunt Alexandria are as scant as the writings that survived the more than 1400 years that separate us from him. In the ninth century Photius' library still held seven mss. exclusively devoted to the Patriarch's writings, viz. codd. 182, 208, 225, 226, 227, 230 and 280. Notwithstanding some critical remarks about Eulogius' style of writing and purity of language,6 the large number of pages Photius devoted to Eulogius clearly prove that he liked what he read. 7 Today, however, we have to content ourselves with some bits and pieces, little more than snippets of this rich oeuvre. And although it helps that we can still read Gregory the Great's letters to Eulogius and that in his Bibliotheca Photius went into quite some detail, the fact remains that the picture we have of Eulogius is not as high-definition, so to speak, as we would have liked. Hence, Eulogius is, as far as his biography is concerned, almost completely absent from modern encyclopedias and lexica,8 probably the most comprehensive survey still being that by Joannes Stiltingus from the year 1868.9 As such, every fine-tuning of the existing material and every discovery of unknown material is quite welcome. In this contribution we present a new edition of his so-called Dubitationes orthodoxi, a short text with a relatively small, but remarkably complex textual tradition; the editio princeps of some lines from Eulogius' Adversus eos qui putant humanis conceptionibus veram theologiam christianam posse subiici; the editio princeps of a small fragment preserved in the famous Florilegium Achridense and some remarks on a number of other writings listed (or not) in CPG 6971 – 6979. As such it is hoped that this article will serve as a basis for updating the entry on Eulogius in the Clavis Patrum Graecorum and as an incentive for further study. seen, urging him to <re>build his church which had been dilapidated for some time and antiquated, threatening to fall down. The godly Eulogios, the friend of martyrs, set his hand to the task with determination. By rebuilding the martyr's temple from its foundations and distinguishing it with a variety of decoration, he provided a shrine worthy of a holy martyr." (transl. by Wortley, The Spiritual Meadow, cit., p. 120). 6 See Photius, Bibliotheca, cod. 182 (127a18-21): Ἔ φ , α , υπ π’ α , α υ π φ ... Elsewhere Photius refers to, what he calls, πα υ α υ (cf. cod. 208, 165a13-14) 7 See e.g. also Photius' remark in his discussion of codex 226 (243b10-14): Ἔ υ αφ α α α , α υ υ α α υ π , α π α α υφ . 8 A list can be found in J.A. Demetracopoulos, Philonic Theology and Stoic Logic as the Background to Eulogius of Alexandria's and Gregory the Great's Doctrine of "Scientia Christi", in G.I. Gargano (ed.), L'eredità spirituale di Gregorio Magno tra Occidente e Oriente. Atti del Simposio Internazionale "Gregorio Magno 604-2004" Roma 10-12 marzo 2004, Verona 2005, p. 132 n. 136 and 137. 9 Cf. AASS Septembris IV, Parisiis – Romae 1868, pp. 83-94. 2 Bram Roosen – Eulogii Alexandrini quae supersunt 1 Dubitationes orthodoxi [CPG 6971 and 7697.23b] The generally albeit misleadingly10 called Dubitationes orthodoxi belong to the genre of the capita, not however to the rather well-known monastic capita,11 but to the subgenre of the π α or παπ α α,12 short "syllogistische Widerlegungen, welche dem Gegner die begriffliche Inkonsistenz, die Widersprüchlichkeit, ja die Absurdität seiner dogmatischen Formulierungen nachzuweisen trachten", as Grillmeier writes, quoting Uthemann.13 Such π α appeared in the early sixth century, quickly became en vogue and thrived throughout the following centuries. It is a period in which the Byzantine empire saw a rapid sequence of drastic changes, that inevitably also hightened religious tensions between orthodox and heretics and between Christians and Jews or Arabs: different groups sought to redefine and strengthen their position against the outside world. These interconfessional and intraconfessional tensions demanded a steady production of polemical writings (whether they be homilies, dialogues or, as in this case, aporetic chapters) with arguments taken from the Scriptures, the Councils, a canon of Fathers and increasingly from philosophy. Indeed, just like the collections of definitions, which appeared in the same period, such chapters testify to the increasing conceptual and methodological influence of philosophy on the discussions concerning faith.14 As Grillmeier writes: "Wir stehen an der Berührungsstelle von Theologie 10 See Demetracopoulos, Philonic Theology, cit., p. 136 n. 152. 11 On the genre of the monastic capita, see the recent tour d'horizon by P. Géhin (Les collections de kephalaia monastiques: naissance et succès d'un genre entre création originale, plagiat et florilège, in A. Rigo e.al. [ed.], Theologica minora. The Minor Genres of Byzantine Theological Literature, Turnhout 2013 [Byzantios. Studies in Byzantine History and Civilization 8], pp. 1- 50) and the first chapters of the doctoral dissertation by K. Levrie (L'ordre du désordre: La littérature des chapîtres à Byzance. Édition critique et traduction du De duabus Christi naturis et des Capita gnostica attribués à Maxime le Confesseur [Doctoral dissertation], Leuven 2014, pp. 60-75). In September 2014 a round-table was held in Leuven on the genre of the capita ("Chapters and Titles in Byzantine Literature"). 12 Most of the general remarks concerning this subgenre are found in the introductions to the editions of such collections of π α : K.-H. Uthemann, Antimonophysitische Aporien des Anastasios Sinaites, «Byzantinische Zeitschrift» 74, 1981, pp. 11-26, especially pp. 16-19; S. Brock, Two Sets of Monothelete Questions to the Maximianists, «Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica» 17, 1986, pp. 121-122 (reprinted in S. Brock, Studies in Syriac Christianity. History, Literature and Theology, London 1992 [Variorum Reprints. Collected Studies Series 357], n. XV). For a more comprehensive, though still summary treatment, see A. Grillmeier, Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche, Band 2/1, Das Konzil von Chalcedon (451). Rezeption und Widerspruch (451-518), Freiburg – Basel – Wien 19912 (2004), pp. 94, 96 and 99-100. 13 Cf. Grillmeier, Jesus der Christus, 2/1, cit., p. 96 and K.-H. Uthemann, Syllogistik im Dienst der Orthodoxie. Zwei unedierte Texte Byzantinischer Kontroverstheologie des 6. Jahrhunderts, «Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik» 30, 1981, p. 107. Unfortunately, Grillmeier's list of works belonging to this subgenre is far from exhaustive, lacking, for one, several of the writings by Maximus the Confessor. 14 See e.g. the famous article by C. Moeller, Le chalcédonisme et le néo-chalcédonisme en Orient de 451 à la fin du VIe siècle, in A. Grillmeier – H. Bacht (edd.), Das Konzil von Chalkedon: Geschichte und Gegenwart, I, Der Glaube von Chalkedon, Würzburg 1951, pp. 637-643. 3 Bram Roosen – Eulogii Alexandrini quae supersunt und Philosophie oder, konkreter, vor dem Versuch, die christologischen Aussagen nach den Gesetzen der aristotelischen Logik und Syllogistik zu untersuchen und diese Mittel in der Polemik einzusetzen".15 Soon after the appearance of the genre a degree of standardization can be noticed both in the arguments and in their wording.16 The Dubitationes orthodoxi are directed against those who profess only one nature in Christ or, as T. Hainthaler puts it, "gegen die bloße 'mia physis' mit dem Hinweis, daß man dann ja eine Wesensgleichheit von Gott (Vater, Logos) und Sarx annehmen müßte".17 Also in this case, most, if not all of the arguments are of a highly standardized nature: they are found throughout the anti-monophysite literature, and, mutatis mutandis, in other christological disputes.18 The line of reasoning is concise, stripped down to the essence with a mostly bipartite ("if A, then why B? and if B, then why not A?"), sometimes tripartite, i.e. syllogistic, structure ("if A and if B, then how come C?") – in the translation that follows our edition we have highlighted the structural elements by quoting them between brackets –. In most cases, the argument starts from a monophysite statement which is then shown to result inevitably in one of three situations, viz. an "impossibility to answer", an "absurdity" or "orthodoxy". The agressive and polemical wording suggests these chapters to have been conceived as a direct attack against the monophysites. They do not convince, they deal blows to the adversaries, corner them immediately by stressing the inevitability of the conclusion. But was this really the purpose of these chapters? Similar chapters were also devised by the adversaries, equally tressing the inevitability of their 15 See Grillmeier, Jesus der Christus 2/1, cit., p. 94. Very similar is K.-H. Uthemann, Definitionen und Paradigmen in der Rezeption des Dogmas von Chalkedon bis in die Zeit Kaiser Justinians, in J. van Oort – J. Roldanus (edd.), Chalkedon: Geschichte und Aktualität. Studien zur Rezeption der Christologischen Formel von Chalkedon, Leuven 1997 (Studien der Patristischen Arbeitsgemeinschaft 4), cit., p. 60. 16 Examples are given by P. Bettiolo, Una raccolta di opuscoli calcedonensi (Ms. Sinaï Syr. 10), Louvain 1979 (CSCO 404; Scriptores Syri 178), pp. 12*-15*. This volume presents an Italian translation of the Syriac texts edited by the same scholar in Una raccolta di opuscoli calcedonensi (Ms. Sinaï Syr. 10), Louvain 1979 (CSCO 403; Scriptores Syri 177). In the rest of this article these volumes will be referred to as Una raccolta [transl.] and Una raccolta [ed.] respectively. 17 Cf. T. Hainthaler in A. Grillmeier, Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche, 2/4, Die Kirche von Alexandrien mit Nubien und Äthiopien nach 451 (unter Mitarbeit von Theresia Hainthaler. Mit einem Nachtrag aktualisiert), Freiburg – Basel – Wien 2004, p. 68. 18 Compare e.g. ʹ of the Dubitationes orthodoxi with the first part of chapter αʹ of Maximus Confessor's Capita xiii de voluntatibus [CPG 7707.18], a short collection of π α from the monothelite controversy – we quote from the edition in our doctoral dissertation (Epifanovitch Revisited. (Pseudo-)Maximi Confessoris Opuscula varia: a critical edition with extensive notes on manuscript tradition and authenticity, Leuven 2001, p. 682) –: α ῳ α α , πα α υ, α α α πα α α (see also the old edition by ἥέδέΝ ἓpiἸ̅ὀὁvič, М і і і .М И ѣ , Kiev 1917, p. 65, ll. 11-12). As such, we do not pretend that the Apparatus fontium et locorum parallelorum is exhaustive. 4 Bram Roosen – Eulogii Alexandrini quae supersunt conclusions and it is hard to imagine that anyone would believe that these embryonic arguments could actually overpower the arguments of the other party. Why would a monophysite go through the trouble of reading this anyway? The first lines of John of Damascus' Adversus Nestorianos [CPG 8053] suggest another possibility,19 viz. that such π α were intended as a mnemonic device, embryonic arguments that could be expanded in altercations, a theological arsenal so to speak. The protasis then words the possible argument of a monophysite, the apodosis the counterargument that can be brought forward by his orthodox interlocutor. This can also be seen e.g. in Anastasius I Antiochenus' Adversus eos qui in divinis dicunt tres essentias [CPG 6958].20 However, this interconfessional use of the π α is only one side of the picture. The other side is that these and similar texts inevitably also served an intraconfessional purpose in strengthening the confessional identity of the coreligionists. As worded by Averil Cameron in discussing Christian – Jewish polemical literature: "they helped to define the limits of the safe Christian world, beyond which Christians must not go", and further down "Disputation literature, polemics against outsider groups (...) all had their uses in this strengthening of ideological boundaries to define a Christian".21 The aforementioned high level of standardization of the wording and the arguments considerably limits the possibilities of pinpointing such π α to a certain place and date and, thus, of attributing it to a certain author. In the case of the Dubitationes orthodoxi this porblem is further complicated by the existence of two, clearly distinct versions.22 The shorter one has seven chapters (henceforth D.O.7): it exists not only in its Greek original, in which case it is attributed to Eulogius π πα Ἀ α α , but also in a seventh-century Syriac translation headed by the name Phokas. The longer version is made of twelve chapters (henceforth D.O.12), i.e. the seven chapters of the shorter version plus five extra at the end, sometimes has a slightly different wording and adds some extra lines in chapter ʹ. This version is anonymous and is found in two different families of mss.: one family consists of the five mss. of the 19 See the edition by B. Kotter, Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos, IV. Liber de haeresibus. Opera polemica, Berlin – New York 1981 (PTS 22), p. 263: υ φ α υ· πα ῖ , , α υ α α πα , φ υ α π ; π · φ υ α , . Ἐ α α πα υ · υ α α α α α απ ; π ·Ἄ π , α ῖ α α... 20 See the edition of this text by K.-H. Uthemann, Des Patriarchen Anastasius I. von Antiochien Jerusalemer Streitgespräch mit einem Tritheiten (CPG 6958), «Traditio» 37, 1981, pp. 73-108 (see e.g. ll. 475-478 [p. 94]). 21 See A. Cameron, Disputations, Polemical Literature and the Formation of Opinion in the Early Byzantine Period, in G.J. Reinink – H.L.J. Vanstiphout (edd.), Dispute Poems and Dialogues in the Ancient and Mediaeval Near East. Forms and Types of Literary Debates in Semitic and Related Literatures, Leuven 1991 (OLA 42), p. 107. 22 The following two paragraphs in the present contribution only present a short overview. The details can be found further down. 5 Bram Roosen – Eulogii Alexandrini quae supersunt Doctrina Patrum [CPG 7781], while the other family of four mss. has no clear relationship with the Doctrina Patrum. The presence or absence of the words and , suggests a similar division. They are used exclusively in the parts proper to D.O.12, i.e. the middle part of ʹ and ʹ– ʹ, and are typical of the less combative style of the lines proper to D.O.12. Moreover, it seems noteworthy that in D.O.7 the ao. imp. 2 sing. π is used, while in D.O.12 only the plural πα appears. This coming to the fore of the second person plural in D.O.12 is also noticeable in chapter ʹ, as can be concluded from a comparison of the following two passages: D.O.7 and its Syriac translation D.O.12 φα . α α . ῖ Ν Ν ῖ Ν Ν ῖ Ν Ν As concerns the additional lines in chapter ( ʹ), there are some elements which make them look suspicious and which suggest that they are later additions. Not only do these additional lines break with the conciseness of the foregoing and following chapters, while omitting them changes nothing to the meaning of the caput, even if, as Bettiolo puts it: "lo impoverisce recidendo uno sviluppo forse dei più interessanti sotto il profilo dell'approfondimento filosofico".23 There is also the parallel with chapter 19 of the Syriac version of Probus' Dubitationes adversus Iacobitas, which in the Italian translation by Bettiolo runs like this:24 Dio Verbo è connaturale alla carne che fu da lui assunta o è un'altra natura? Se (le) è connaturale, come la Trinità non divenne una Quaternità? Se invece la carne di Dio Verbo è un'altra natura, come Cristo non è due nature? Also in this case, no extra explanation of the first sentence was needed to make the chapter work. And, finally, the sequence of the sentences – π φυ (ll. 3-4) and α 1 – π α (ll. 5-6), is rather strange, mainly because of the change of subject of φυ α into a simple . In short, we are convinced that D.O.7 is the original version and that someone, possibly, but – as will be shown further down – not necessarily the compiler of the Doctrina Patrum, used it as the nucleus for D.O.12. Whether the five extra chapters were written for that occasion or were drawn from another source is unclear. In any case, if indeed D.O.12 is a secondary expansion of D.O.7, it might explain the fact that no author is mentioned. But what about the authors mentioned in D.O.7 and its Syriac translation? According to the latter a certain Phokas would have written the text. But while we found no possible Greek author of that name, 23 Cf. Bettiolo, Una raccolta [transl.], cit., p. 15* n. 23. 24 Cf. Bettiolo, Una raccolta [ed.], p. 12, l. 30 – p. 13, l. 3 and [transl.], cit., p. 9, ll. 24-27. 6 Bram Roosen – Eulogii Alexandrini quae supersunt there is the quite famous Phokas bar Sargis, who translated the Corpus Dionysiacum into Syriac.25 He was long believed to have lived in the 8th century26 until S. Brock discovered that in his Discourse on the Myron Jacob of Edessa quotes several times Phokas' translation of the Corpus Dionysiacum. As a consequence Phokas' translation cannot but antedate Jacob's death in 708.27 The translation of D.O.7 fits in remarkably well with this date, as the period before the year 708 is certainly "coerente all'interesse ancora vivo a quella data di alcuni dei testi ivi racchiusi, quelli teologici appunto", as Bettiolo states about the whole of the collection of texts in which the Syriac translation of D.O.7 is found.28 In other words, Phokas is more likely to have been the translator than the author of the text. Remains Eulogius of Alexandria, mentioned as author in the Greek original of D.O.7. As already said, the standardized language typical of the aporetic subgenre hampers the possibilities of confirming this attribution. Still, there is nothing that contradicts it either. Eulogius' dealings with the monophysites and with Cyril of Alexandria's αφ α -formula are well-attested from what Photius writes, as is his predilection for the aporetic. In other words, there is no reason to reject or question the generally accepted attribution in the Greek mss.29 One last question needs to be addressed before we turn to the edition of the Dubitationes orthodoxi, viz. whether there is a connection with Maximus the Confessor.30 The question is relevant because Fr. Combefis included D.O.7 in his Opera omnia-edition of Maximus the Confessor and P. Sherwood 31 numbered it in such a way, i.e. Op. 23b, that at least the suggestion is made that (together with the two 25 On Phokas' translation of the Corpus Dionysiacum, see most recently M. van Esbroeck, La triple préface syriaque de Phocas, in Y. de Andia (ed.), Denys l'Aréopagite et sa postérité en orient et en occident. Actes du Colloque International Paris, 21-24 septembre 1994, Paris 1997 (Collection des Études Augustiniennes. Série Antiquité 151), pp. 167-186. 26 Cf. still G. Wiessner, Zur Handschriftenüberlieferung der syrischen Fassung des Corpus Dionysiacum, Göttingen 1972 (Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, I, Philologisch-historische Klasse 3/1972), pp. 168 and 199. 27 Cf. S. Brock, Jacob of Edessa's Discourse on the Myron, «Oriens Christianus» 63, 1979, p. 21. According to Brock there is reason to narrow the date of Phokas' translation down to the years 684-686. 28 Cf. Bettiolo, Una raccolta [ed.], cit., p. 6*. 29 Cf. M. Richard, Iohannis Caesariensis Presbyteri et Grammatici Opera quae supersunt, Turnhout – Leuven 1977 (CCSG 1), p. XVIII (quoted further down, in footnote 33) and more recently T. Hainthaler in Grillmeier, Jesus der Christus 2/4, cit., p. 67 and Demetracopoulos, Philonic Theology, cit., p. 136. 30 In the following paragraph we refer with Op. to Maximus' Opuscula theologica et polemica [CPG 7697] and with Add. to the so-called Additamenta e variis codicibus [CPG 7707]. The number that follows Op. or Add. is the number as used in the CPG (e.g. Op. 23a refers to CPG 7697.23a). Op. 23a – Add. 22 indicates that Add. 22 is but an alternative, in this case lengthened version of Op. 23a. 31 Cf. P. Sherwood, An Annotated Date-list of the Works of Maximus the Confessor, Roma 1952 (Studia Anselmiana 30), pp. 30- 31. 7 Bram Roosen – Eulogii Alexandrini quae supersunt short fragments that follow Op. 23a32 and the selection of definitions referred to as Op. 23c) Op. 23b is part of an appendix added by Maximus to Op. 23a – Add. 22.33 However, Maximus' authorship of Op. 23a – Add. 22 is, we believe, anything but certain and most likely to be rejected.34 And the number of mss. that contain Op. 23b in the wake, so to speak, of Op. 23a – Add. 22 is too small (it is the case only in one of the six families of mss. that contain Op. 23a – Add. 22, i.e. in only four out of 22 mss.) for this sequence of the texts to be the result of anything else than coincidence. But let us turn to the edition of the Dubitationes orthodoxi. The following list presents the extant mss., all of which were also collated: I. Traditio 7 capitum (D.O.7) a. Greek text, attributed to Eulogius of Alexandria Ac Atheniensis, Bibliothecae Nationalis 225 (s. XIV), ff. 181v-182 Ug Vaticanus graecus 504 (a. 1105), f. 146va-b Uh Vaticanus graecus 507 (a. 1344), ff. 128v-129 Ui Vaticanus graecus 508 (s. XII-XIII), f. 203r-v b. Syriac translation, attributed to Phokas Syr Sinaïticus syriacus 10 (s. VII, post 641), ff. 5-7 II. Traditio 12 capitum (anonymous; D.O.12) a. Mss. containing the Doctrina Patrum DPatr(A) Vaticanus graecus 2200 (s. VIII-IX), pp. 233-236 DPatr(B) Athous, Vatopediou 594 (olim 507) (s. XII in.), ff. 98-99 DPatr(C) Oxoniensis, Bibliothecae Bodleianae, Auctarii T.1.6 [Micellaneus 184] (s. XII), ff. 121v-122v DPatr(D) Parisinus graecus 1144 (s. XV), ff. 120-122v DPatr(E) Vaticanus graecus 1102 (s. XV), f. 409r-v b. Mss. with no clear link with the Doctrina Patrum Cc Atheniensis, Metochiou tou Panagiou Taphou 145 (s. XVI), ff. 494-495 Mb Mediolanensis, Bibliothecae Ambrosianae Q74 sup. [681] (s. X), f. 206r-v 32 Since the edition in 1909 of the third volume of Stählin's Clement-edition, the first fragment, entitled υ π υ υ Ἀ α α, π α υ, is generally known as fragment 37 of Ps. Clement of Alexandria's De providentia (ed. O. Stählin, in zweiter Auflage neu herausgegeben von δέΝ ἔὄὸἵhtἷlό, zum Druck besorgt von Ursula Treu, Clemens Alexandrinus, III. Stromata Buch VII und VIII. Excerpta ex Theodoto – Eclogae propheticae – Quis dives salvetur – Fragmente, Berlin 19702 [GCS 172], p. 219, ll. 15-22). It consists of three definitions of α, followed by three definitions of φ . The second fragment following Op. 23a is a definition of π α taken from Maximus' Epistula 13 (see PG XCI, col. 528A14-B7). 33 Richard (Iohannes Caesariensis, cit., p. XVIII) e.g. explicitly states: "Le seul texte original d'Euloge d'Alexandrie qui n'ait pas été contesté est l'opuscule Ἐπαπ υπ α π α π φ , anonyme dans la Doctrina Patrum, ch. 24, I, mais dont les sept premières sont citées sous le nom d'Euloge par Maxime le Confesseur." 34 For the reasons we have for rejecting Maximus' authorship, see our doctoral dissertation, Epifanovitch Revisited, cit., pp. 695- 701. We are reworking this part of the dissertation for a future publication. Maximus' authorship has recently been rejected also by B. Gleede, The Development of the Term υπ α from Origen to John of Damascus, Leiden – Boston 2012 (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 113), pp. 143-144. 8 Bram Roosen – Eulogii Alexandrini quae supersunt Mo Mosquensis, .И.М., graecus 394 [Vlad. 231] (a. 932), ff. 103v-104v Ul Vaticanus graecus 1101 (s. XIII-XIV), ff. 308v-309 Before we try to assign these witnesses to their proper place in the stemma, two preliminary remarks should be made, both relating to the limited length of the text. In the first place, this shortness almost inevitably results in a paucity of decisive faults and variants. Fortunately, for each of the three families of mss. this can be remedied – at least partly and with all due carefulness – by taking into account earlier editions of texts in the immediate surroundings of D.O.7 and D.O.12. In the second place, listing the faults and variants proper to each single ms. would be of little or no avail: again because of the shortness of the text the reader can easily find them in the critical apparatus accompanying the text. 1.1 The seven chapters: the Greek tradition and its Syriac translation. The family Ug Ac Ui Uh is quite famous among the mss. that transmit Maximus the Confessor's literary oeuvre.35 Suffice it to repeat the stemma and confirm it for the present text: μ μ* μ** Ug x Ui Ac Uh Unfortunately, as for most of the other texts that belong to the same series, 36 these mss. are characterized by only a small number of faults and variants: there are no readings proper to Ug or Ui, while Ac, Uh and ** stand out by only one fault each.37 As to , the common ancestor of this family, the situation is quite different, or at least seems to be different. On more than 20 occasions it presents a reading that differs from D.O.12. However, a comparison with the Syriac translation will reveal that most of these differences at least go back to the second half of the seventh century. This Syriac translation is preserved in a melchite estranghelo ms., viz. number 10 of the Syriac mss. in Saint Catherine's Monastery in the Sinaï. On the basis of a chronicle on ff. 42-53 A. de Halleux identified 35 For a description of these mss. (with bibliography) we refer to our article Precepts for a Tranquil Life. A new edition of the Ad neophytos de patientia [CPG 7707.32], «Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik» 64, 2014, pp. 247-284. 36 For this series of texts, see the comparative table presented on pp. 254-256 of the article mentioned in the foregoing footnote. 37 For Ac, see (α') 3 φ α for φ α ; for Uh, see ( ') 2 υ πα for υ α πα , which is a variant reading in for πα α υ; for **, finally, there is the reading φ for φ on ( ') 8, which coincidentally is also found in Cc. 9 Bram Roosen – Eulogii Alexandrini quae supersunt the death of emperor Heraclius on May 26th 641 as the terminus post quem for this ms.38 and there is indeed reason to believe that Syr dates back to the second half of the seventh century.39 D.O.7 is found as the fifth text (ff. 5-7) of an acephalous collection of Chalcedonian texts (ff. 2-41), which was partly edited 'tel quel' and translated into Italian by P. Bettiolo.40 The collation for the present article was done on the basis of Bettiolo's edition. Now if we look at the passages where D.O.7, or better , the common ancestor of that version, differs from D.O.12, we see that in the majority of the cases Syr confirms the text of – we list the readings for which differs from D.O.12 and underline the readings which are also found in Syr –: (αʹ) 1 (om. of 2 [coincidentally also in DPatr(E) and Cc]); ( ʹ) 1 (add. of after ; α for ῖ α [coincidentally also in DPatr(B)] and addition of after α ); ( ʹ) 3 ( α for ῖ α [coincidentally also in DPatr(ABE)] and φ for φ ); ( ʹ) 4 (transposition of before 41 ); ( ʹ) 1 (πα 'α φ for π φ ); ( ʹ) 2 (om. of υ–π π υ [coincidentally also in Mb Cc]); ( ʹ) 3/7 (om. of – π ); ( ʹ) 1 (φα .42 α α for ῖ ῖ ); ( ʹ) 2 ( α for α α 43 and om. of υ); ( ʹ) 2/3 ( for ῖ ); ( ʹ) 4 (om. of α ' α ); ( ʹ) 5 (om. of ); ( ʹ) 1/2 (om. of – α 1); ( ʹ) 2( υ α πα for πα 2 – υ ); (ϛʹ) 3 ( υ αΐ 2 πα α for ΐ – ); (ϛʹ) 4 (add. of before 1 44 ); (ϛʹ) 5 (the correct reading α 45 while D.O.12 reads , or ); ( ʹ) 1 ( while D.O.12 reads ); ( ʹ) 2 (om. of 46 ); ( ʹ) 2/3 (om. of 3 – α ). For the readings we underlined, the evidence of Syr shows that they go back at least to the seventh century. For smaller problems, like those with the verb ῖ α (cf. [ ʹ] 1 and [ ʹ] 3) and that with the position of (cf. [ ʹ] 3) and (cf. [ ʹ] 4), it is unclear whether the translation is made carefully enough to show this. In other words, only the readings on ( ʹ) 4, ( ʹ) 1/2, ( ʹ) 2, (ϛʹ) 3 and ( ʹ) 2/3 can be considered with a sufficient degree of certainty as faults which were made during the transmission of the Greek text of D.O.747. 38 Cf. A. de Halleux, À la source d'une biographie expurgée de Philoxène de Mabbog, «Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica» 6-7, 1975-1976, p. 254. 39 Cf. Bettiolo, Una raccolta [ed.], cit., p. 6* (and the bibliography mentioned there). 40 See Bettiolo, Una raccolta, cit. For Op. 23b, see pp. 6-7 [ed.] and pp. 4-5 [transl.] respectively. 41 There is no trace of in Syr. 42 Instead of φα Syr reads something like φα πα . 43 Syr seems to read something like α . 44 While Ug Ac Ui read , Syr reads, if we translate it into Greek, . 45 Syr reads something like – and is closer to D.O.7 than to D.O.12. The simple addition of a preposition ‫ ܒ‬before Ν‫ܚܕ‬ Χ‫ܡܕܡ‬Ψ would make the reading of Syr identical to that of D.O.7. 46 In Syr is positioned after α ([ ʹ] 2). 47 Whether these faults were made by or by one of its ancestors is impossible to establish and irrelevant for the present purpose. 10 Bram Roosen – Eulogii Alexandrini quae supersunt 1.2 The twelve chapters 1.2.1 The Doctrina Patrum We start from the stemma built by Franz Diekamp, the editor of the Doctrina Patrum:48 x y y1 a A B E C D The following variants in our text confirm it – we only list the faults and variants proper to a, y, y1 and x, kindly referring the reader to the critical apparatus for those proper to the different mss. –: — The existence of a is proved by some admittedly not very decisive faults common to C and D: ( ʹ) 4 ( π for π [coincidentally also in Mo]); ( ʹ) 5 ( φ' for φ'); ( ʹ) 3 ( π ῖα for π α) and ( ʹ) 3 ( for ) — For y our collations provide no textual evidence, neither pro nor contra, but an extratextual indication is the presence in the three mss. concerned of Leontius Byzantinus' Triginta capita contra Severum [CPG 6814].49 — For y1 then we can refer to the following faults B and E have in common: (ϛʹ) 4/5 (om. of π – , omission which the scribe of DPatr(B) has tried to correct by writing φ ); ( ʹ) 1 ( for ); ( ʹ) 5 ( for [coincidentally also in Mb Cc Mo]) and ( ʹ) 6 (om. of ῖ π π ῖ ) — Valuable proof for the existence of x are, besides some small variants, four omissions common to all five Doctrina Patrum mss.: ( ʹ) (5/6 om. of φ – α ); (ϛʹ) 1/2 (om. of π – 1 ); ( ʹ) 2 (om. of π – πα 2 [coincidentally also in Mo]) and ( ʹ) 4 (om. of πα – πα 2) 1.2.2 Outside the Doctrina Patrum: Mb Cc Mo Ul Finally, D.O.12 is also transmitted by four mss., viz. Mb Cc Mo and Ul, which neither as concerns their contents, nor as concerns the text of D.O.12 show a clear relationship with the Doctrina Patrum: they have none of the faults and variants typical of x. They share some admittedly not very decisive, faults and variants: ( ʹ) 1 om. of α 2 [coincidentally also in DPatr(A)] ( ʹ) 5 for [coincidentally also in DPatr(BE)] 48 Cf. F. Diekamp – B. Phanourgakis – E. Chrysos, Doctrina Patrum de incarnatione Verbi. Ein griechisches Florilegium aus der Wende des 7. und 8. Jahrhunderts, Münster 19812, p. XLIV. 49 In A this text is found as chapter 24, II, in C and D, however, as chapter 31. 11 Bram Roosen – Eulogii Alexandrini quae supersunt We have called the hypothetical ms. responsible for this list . And although has hardly any readings of its own, we have found no arguments to reject this hypothetical ms. either. In fact, in 1981 K.-H. Uthemann edited what he called the 'antimonophysitische Aporien' of Anastasius of Sinai [CPG 7757], of which the ms. tradition consists of these same four mss. He built the following stemma (we substitute his sigla with ours):50 ξ φ Mo Mb Cc Ul The evidence we have for D.O.12 will confirm Uthemann's stemma. In the following paragraphs we will devote a bit more attention to these mss. than we have devoted to the other mss., as recent years have seen some interesting new finds and publications. Mb,51 dating from the second half of the tenth century,52 is on all accounts a very interesting ms. While the place of origin is difficult to establish on palaeographical grounds,53 textually Mb is each time related 50 Cf. Uthemann, Aporien, cit., p. 19 (for the stemma). 51 On this ms., see A. Martini – D. Bassi, Catalogus codicum graecorum Bibliothecae Ambrosianae II, Milano 1906, pp. 767-780; C. Pasini, Codici e frammenti greci dell'Ambrosiana. Integrazioni al Catalogo de Emidio Martini e Domenico Bassi, Roma 1997 (Testi e studi bizantino-neoellenici IX), pp. 83-87 and the doctoral dissertation by T. Fernández, Book Alpha of the Florilegium Coislinianum: A Critical Edition with a Philological Introduction, Leuven 2010, pp. LXXVII-LXXX. Further bibliography can be found in C. Pasini, Bibliografia dei manoscritti greci dell'Ambrosiana (1857–2006), Milano 2007 (Bibliotheca erudita: studi e documenti di storia e filologia 30), pp. 306-307. The codicological characteristics of Mb are the following: Membranaceus; 258 x 180 mm; 1 col.; 26-33 ll.; now 267 ff., but some folios are lost at the beginning (see below) and an undeterminable number of folios is lost at the end; ff. 1-2 and ff. 266-267 were taken from a 13th-century Latin ms. containing a Capitularium (for the details on these folios, see C.M. Mazzucchi, Un testimone della conoscenza del greco negli ordini mendicanti verso la fine del Duecento (Ambr. Q 74 sup.) e un codice appartenuto al Sacro Convento di Assisi (Ambr. E 88 inf.), « αῬ » 3, 2006, pp. 355-359); and both in the 29th and 32nd quire the second and third bifolios have switched places: the correct order is ff. 220-219; ff. 224-223; ff. 244-243; ff. 248-247. There are 34 quires with the first quire number ʹ seen on f. 11 in the upper right-hand corner. With the exception of the 4th (ff. 19-23) and the 28th quire (ff. 208-217), all quires are quaternions. As such probably one quaternion is lost at the beginning of the ms. Fortunately, the inner two bifolios of this quire have recently been rediscovered by C. Pasini (Codici e frammenti, cit., p. 84 n. 4) as ff. 4-7 of Mediolanensis, Bibliothecae Ambrosianae D137 suss. They contain an acephalous π α of the first part of our ms. (ff. 4-5v) and a π α of the second part, of which, however, the end is lacking (ff. 5v-7v). For the ruling, see J. Leroy in H. Sautel, Répertoire de réglures dans les manuscrits grecs sur parchemin, Turnhout 1995 (Bibliologia. Elementa ad librorum studia pertinentia 13), pp. 130, 110 and 304. 52 Similar scripts are found in Parisinus, Supplementi graeci 469A (a. 986) and Patmiacus graecus 138 (a. 988). We are not entirely convinced of the correctness of Pasini's statement (Codici e frammenti, cit., p. 85 n. 6) that the ms. was probably copied 12 Bram Roosen – Eulogii Alexandrini quae supersunt to mss. of a clearly Eastern Mediterranean origin. In the early 16th century Mb was found as number 317 in the collection of Cardinal Domenico Grimani (1461-1523).54 After Grimani's death his collection was inherited by the Venetian monastery of S. Antonio di Castello, but already before 1528 Mb disappeared from that library55 to resurface in the second half of the 16th century as part of the rich collection of books and mss. of Gian Vincenzo Pinelli (1535-1601).56 In 1609, after 8 years of several people trying to get hold of the precious library, 70 boxes full of books and mss. from Pinelli's library were bought by the agents of Cardinal Federico Borromei (1564-1631) for the Bibliotheca Ambrosiana.57 The first part of the codex (ff. 3-131v) contains the third recension of the Florilegium Coislinianum.58 The second part (ff. 132-267v) is devoted to a large miscellany of dogmatic and philosophic nature, with by at least two scribes. If so, their hands differ so very little that it has to be assumed that they were contemporaries and probably worked together. 53 There are affinities both with Italian mss. and with mss. of the "tipo Efrem". On this last style of writing, see E. Follieri, La minuscola libraria dei secoli IX e X, in La paléographie grecque et byzantine. Paris 21-25 octobre 1974, Paris 1977 (Colloques internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique 559), p. 148 and n. 47. This article was reprinted in E. Follieri, Byzantina et italograeca. Studi di filologia e di paleografia, Roma 1997 (Storia e Letteratura 195), pp. 205-248 (see p. 218 for the relevant passage). 54 See the note on f. 4 of Mediolanensis, Bibliothecae Ambrosianae D 137 suss. (see footnote 51 above). The catalogue of the Greek mss. and printed books in Grimani's library is preserved in Vaticanus, B.A.V., lat. 3960, ff. 1-13. It was probably made in Rome before the move of the library to Venice in 1522. It has recently been edited by A. Diller – H.D. Saffrey – L.G. Westerink, Bibliotheca Graeca Manuscripta Cardinalis Dominici Grimani (1461-1523), Mariano del Friuli 2004 (Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana. Collana di Studi 1), pp. 107-165 (see p. 156, number 317 for Mb: "Sermones ecclesiastici diversorum"). 55 For further details and proof we refer to the account by Pasini (Codici e frammenti, cit., pp. 85-86). 56 See the note on f. 2, upper margin: "J. V. Pinelli | Quaedam Theologica selecta, ut videre potes | in indice sequenti etc." On the life of Gian Vincenzo Pinelli and the history of his library, see A. Rivolta, Catalogo dei Codici Pinelliani dell'Ambrosiana, Milano 1933, pp. XVII-LXXX and more recently M. Grendler, A Greek Collection in Padua. The Library of Gian Vincenzo Pinelli (1535-1601), «Renaissance Quarterly» 33, 1980, pp. 386-416. Some extra titles are found in A. Paredi – M. Rodella, Le raccolte manoscritte e i primi fondi librari, in Storia dell'Ambrosiana. Il Seicento, Milano 1992, p. 85 n. 64, but they were not accessible to us. 57 On this period after the death of Pinelli, on the auction of his library in 1609 and on the entry of the mss. in the Bibliotheca Ambrosiana, see Grendler, Pinelli, cit., pp. 388-390 and Paredi – Rodella, Le raccolte manoscritte, cit., pp. 64-73. 58 The Institute of Palaeochristian and Byzantine Studies of the KULeuven is undertaking the edition of the Florilegium Coislinianum. So far the following parts have been published or are in the process of being published – in alphabetical order of the letters –: the letter A, by T. Fernández (forthcoming as volume 66 of the CCSG); the letter B, by I. De Vos – E. Gielen – C. Macé – P. Van Deun, La lettre B du Florilège Coislin: editio princeps, «Byzantion» 80, 2010, pp. 72-120; the letter Γ, by I. De Vos – E. Gielen – C. Macé – P. Van Deun, L'art de compiler à Byzance: la lettre Γ du Florilège Coislin, «Byzantion» 78, 2008, pp. 159-223; the letter Η, by R. Ceulemans – I. De Vos – E. Gielen – P. Van Deun, La continuation de l'exploration du Florilegium Coislinianum: la lettre èta, «Byzantion» 81, 2011, pp. 74-126; the letter , by R. Ceulemans – P. Van Deun – F.A. Wildenboer, Questions sur les deux arbres du paradis: la lettre du Florilège Coislin, «Byzantion» 84, 2014, pp. 49-79; the 13 Bram Roosen – Eulogii Alexandrini quae supersunt each text being numbered in the margin. Many of the texts are shortened, excerpted or adapted. The texts relevant to this contribution, viz. D.O.12 and the lines from Eulogius' Adversus eos qui putant humanis conceptionibus veram theologiam christianam posse subiici (see chapter 2 of this article), are found on f. 206r-v (number ϛ´) and ff. 251-252 (number ´) respectively. The situation of Cc is quite different.59 The 600 years by which it postdates Mb do not result in more information about its origin and possible peregrinations. On the contrary: we are completely in the dark. The text it presents of D.O.12, however, is clear enough and a sufficiently large number of faults and variants – some common to Mb Cc and some proper to each of them60 – confirm the stemma drawn by Uthemann. A partial comparison of the contents of Mb and Cc may give an idea about the texts their common ancestor, dubbed φ by us, must have contained: Mb Cc Anastasius Sinaita, Capita XVI contra monophysitas [CPG 7757] ff. 196v-197v ff. 487-488 Maximus Confessor, Op. 19 ff. 197v-200 ff. 488-491 Two texts by Theodore Abu Qurrah61 ff. 200v-201 -- Excerpts from Iohannes Damascenus, Contra Iacobitas [CPG 8047] ff. 201v-203v ff. 491-49362 Excerpts from Gregorius Nyssenus, Antirrheticus adversus Apollinarium [CPG 3144] ff. 203v-204v f. 493r-v Anonymous question entitled Χ υΨΝ ,Ν υ αΝ Ν α α 63 ff. 204v-205 ff. 493v-494 12 anathemata of Cyrillus Alexandrinus [CPG 5221-3] ff. 205-206 -- letter by R. Ceulemans – E. De Ridder – K. Levrie – P. Van Deun, Sur le mensonge, l'ame de l'homme et les faux prophètes: la lettre Ψ du Florilège Coislin, «Byzantion» 83, 2013, pp. 49-82. At the moment R. Ceulemans, P. Van Deun and S. Van Pee are preparing the edition of the letter Θ, while J. Maksimczuk recently started on a project of four years to edit the letters and . References to older studies of this florilegium can be found in the introductions to these partial editions. 59 A description of Cc can be found in the catalogue by A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, υ ἤ α ῶ αῖ α ῦ ω υ π ῦ α α ῦ ὀ υ πα α χ ῦ υ ῶ ω α π α α π ω ῶ ω ω IV, Sankt-Peterburg 1899, pp. 126-134. The codicological characteristics of the ms. are the following: chartaceus, except for ff. 544-551: 14th-century bombycinus; 216 x 150 mm; 1 col.; 27-28 ll.; 610 ff.; no quire numbers visible on our microfilm, which unfortunately, however, is of bad quality. 60 For the faults and variants that characterize Mb and Cc, please refer to the critical apparatus. The faults and variants they share, are the following: Tit. –1 παπ for Ἐπαπ υ; Txt. – (αʹ) 3 α φ for φ ; ( ʹ) 1 add. of after ; ( ʹ) 1/2 for ; ( ʹ) 2 om. of υ πα π π υ (coincidentally also in Ug Ac Ui); (ϛʹ) 1 and 2 α for ; ( ʹ) 4 α for (coincidentally also in DPatr(B)); ( ʹ) 3/4 α π for α – ; ( ʹ) 4 , α for α ; ( ʹ) 6 α π ῖ α in Mba. corr. and α π ῖ in Cc for π π ῖ . 61 I.e. Opusculum 5 (PG XCVII, coll. 1521C-1524A) (f. 200v) and an apparently unedited text by Theodore, entitled α π π υ υ α α υπ and with the incipit α αφ α ... (ff. 200v-201). 62 Cc is not mentioned in the edition of this text by Kotter, Johannes von Damaskos IV, cit., pp. 99-153. 63 This is a corruption of πα α. 14 Bram Roosen – Eulogii Alexandrini quae supersunt D.O.12 f. 206r-v ff. 494-495 Mo dates from the same century as Mb. It was finished in April of the year 6440 A.M., i.e. 932 A.D., the 5th year of the indiction by the deacon Stylianus for Arethas, the famous Archbishop of the Cappadocian Caesarea. How the ms. arrived in the Dionysiou monastery on Mount Athos is unclear, but it was from there that in the middle of the 17th century the ms. was conveyed to Moscow.64 Despite its venerable age, Mo is not entirely trustworthy: it has a remarkably large number of readings of its own.65 The Fettaugenstil of Ul, finally, is a typical product of the late 13th, early 14th century.66 There are some indications that already in 1516 the ms. was found in the Vatican Library.67 According to Uthemann, 64 For further details on this ms., see Vladimir Filantropov, і М ( і ) і , Ча ь I. і , Moscow 1894, pp. 296-301; B.L. ἔὁὀkič – F.B. Poljakov, М . , (Ф ), Moscow 1993, pp. 83-84; L.G. Westerink, Marginalia by Arethas in Moscow Greek 231, «Byzantion» 42, 1972, pp. 196-244 (reprinted in Id., Texts and Studies in Neoplatonism and Byzantine Literature. Collected Studies, Amsterdam 1980, pp. 295-343); L. Perria, Arethaea II. Impaginazione e scrittura nei codici di Areta, «Rivista di Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici» n.s. 27, 1990, pp. 66-67, 68, 69 and 72 and P. Van Deun, Une collection inconnue de questions et réponses traitant du trithéisme: étude et édition, «Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik» 51, 2001, pp. 105-106. The 25 anti-Judaic capita on ff. 83v-86 were edited by V. Déroche, La polémique anti-judaïque au VIe et au VIIe siècle. Un mémento inédit, les Kephalaia, «Travaux et Mémoires» 11, 1991, pp. 275-311 (text: pp. 299-304; French translation: pp. 304-307. This article is reprinted in G. Dagron – V. Déroche, Juifs et chrétiens en Orient byzantin, Paris 2010 [Bilans de recherche 5], pp. 275-311) and discussed by the same in Les dialogues adversus Iudaeos face aux genres parallèles, in S. Morlet – O. Munnich – B. Pouderon (edd.), Les dialogues adversus Iudaeos. Permanences et mutations d'une tradition polémique. Actes du colloque international organisé les 7 et 8 décembre 2011 à l'Université de Paris-Sorbonne, Paris 2013 (Collection des Etudes Augustiniennes. Série Antiquité 196), pp. 257-266. 65 Please refer to the apparatus criticus of our edition. 66 Not catalogued as yet; K.-H. Uthemann, Anastasii Sinaitae Viae dux, Turnhout – Leuven 1981 (CCSG 8), pp. LX and CII-CVI; Uthemann, Syllogistik, cit., pp. 108-109 n. 25 and almost identically in id., Aporien, cit., p. 17 n. 38; P.J. Fedwick, Bibliotheca Basiliana Universalis II, 1, Turnhout 1996 (Corpus Christianorum), p. 350. Further bibliography is listed in P. Canart – V. Peri, Sussidi bibliografici per i manoscritti greci della Biblioteca Vaticana, Città del Vaticano 1970 (ST 261), p. 536; M. Buonocore, Bibliografia dei fondi manoscritti della Biblioteca Vaticana (1968-1980), Città del Vaticano 1986 (ST 318-319), p. 871; M. Ceresa, Bibliografia dei fondi manoscritti della Biblioteca Vaticana (1981–1985), Città del Vaticano 1991 (ST 342), p. 366; M. Ceresa, Bibliografia dei fondi manoscritti della Biblioteca Vaticana (1986–1990), Città del Vaticano 1998 (ST 379), p. 441 and M. Ceresa, Bibliografia dei fondi manoscritti della Biblioteca Vaticana (1991–2000), Città del Vaticano 2005 (ST 426), p. 323. 67 Ul is mentioned as "Anastasii disputationes contra hereticos in gilbo ex papyro" in the list made by Romolo Mammacino d'Arezzo shortly after September 1516 of the mss. bound in the Vaticana by librarian Thomas Inghirami. See the edition of this list by R. Devreesse, Le fonds grec de la Bibliothèque Vaticane des origines à Paul V, Città del Vaticano, 1965 (ST 244), p. 184, n. 70. 15 Bram Roosen – Eulogii Alexandrini quae supersunt Ul was copied from Mo, a conclusion confirmed by our collations: on the one hand, Ul has all the readings proper to Mo and at least partly a similar contents;68 on the other hand, Ul has a number of extra faults and variants.69 Rather surprisingly, the evidence we have does not lead to the expected conclusion that is dependent on a ms. of the Doctrina Patrum postdating their common ancestor x. Since as well as x have readings of their own, they must go back to the same ancestor. In other words, via the Mb Cc Mo Ul branch it is possible to go back to the time before x. Hence there are two possibilities. Either x is nothing more than a copy of the Doctrina Patrum and was copied from the original version or at least from a copy of the Doctrina Patrum preceding x: DPatr x Or, independent from the question whether x is to be identified with the original version of Doctrina Patrum or not, goes back to the text as it was found before it was inserted into the Doctrina Patrum: D.O.12 DPatr(x) It is unclear which of the two stemmata is the more probable – below we will draw the first one without suggesting, however, that it is the correct one. As a matter of fact, an answer would be of little consequence for our appreciation of the D.O.12. Even if it were true that goes back to a ms. of the Doctrina Patrum preceding x (= first stemma) that would not exclude the possibility that D.O.12 existed already before the compilation of the Doctrina Patrum. 68 Cf. Uthemann, Aporien, cit., p. 108 n. 25 and Westerink, Marginalia, cit., pp. 197-199. See especially the excerpts from Ps. Iustinus martyr, Quaestiones Graecorum ad Christianos [CPG 1088] and Quaestiones Christianorum ad Graecos [CPG 1087], the series of opuscula from Theodore Abu Qurrah and of course the presence of D.O.12, followed by Anastasius Sinaita, Capita XVI contra monophysitas [CPG 7757]. 69 The following list is exhaustive: ( ʹ) 4 (om. of ); ( ʹ) 4 (π φυ α for α π φυ [coincidentally also in DPatr(B)]); ( ʹ) 8 (om. of π ); ( ʹ) 1 (add. ut videtur of after ); ( ʹ) 4 (om. through Augensprung of πα – πα 2 [coincidentally also in DPatr(ABCDE)]); ( ʹ) 1/2 ( ῖα for ῖ α ); ( ʹ) 5 (unlike 2). Mo, Ul does not omit the preposition 16 Bram Roosen – Eulogii Alexandrini quae supersunt 1.3 The final stemma The stemma of both versions together should in all probability look like this. vi 501 Eulogius Alexandrinus other source? vii 601 Syr Doctrina Patrum viii 701 ? x ? y ix A 801 x φ 901 Mo Mb xi a y1 1001 * xii 1101 Ug ** C B xiii x Ui Ul 1201 xiv 1301 Uh Ac xv 1401 D E xvi 1501 Cc xvii 1601 After having collated all extant witnesses, it is clear that D.O.7 and D.O.12 differ considerably less than a comparison between the text in the PG and the text in the Doctrina Patrum suggests. Indeed, if one corrects the text of the PG with the help of Syr and the text in the Doctrina Patrum with the help of Mb Cc 17 Bram Roosen – Eulogii Alexandrini quae supersunt Mo Ul, only three significant differences remain: the middle part of ( ʹ), the different wording in ( ʹ) and of course capita ( ʹ) – ( ʹ). 1.4 Indirect tradition Capita ( ʹ) 1/3, ( ʹ) 1/2 and ( ʹ) 1/3 of D.O.12 were used by Euthymius Zygadenus in his Panoplia dogmatica, in Titulus XXIII α Ἀ (cf. PG CXXX, col. 1176B6-9, B10-12 and C1-4 respectively). We quote the text as it is found in the Patrologia Graeca:70 αφ υ, α α α , α φ υ, α πα ·π αφ πα , α υ, α α ν α φ , υ υ φ πα , π α πα ν α π ῖ α, α φ , , α α π ·π φ ,α α π ν It is unclear which ms. of D.O.12 was used by Zygadenus, although it would come as no surprise if he used a copy of the Doctrina Patrum. In the 14th century Neophytus Prodromenus excerpted Zygadenus for his Quaestiones et Responsiones. The changes to Zygadenus' text of the Dubitationes Orthodoxi are minor:71 αφ Θ α υ α α α ,ὡ ῖ έ α φ , Θ υ α α ,π αφ α α υ α α ; Ὅπ π . αφ , υ υφ α ,π α α ; Θ α π ῖ α, α φ , Θ , α α π ,π φ ,α Θ α π ; 1.5 The previous editions 1.5.1 The edition of D.O.7 by Fr. Combefis (pp. 145-146) In his Elenchus operum sancti Maximi redacted in December 1660, i.e. 15 years before his edition, Combefis wrote:72 70 A collation of the Panoplia mss. we had at our disposal, viz. Parisinus graecus 1232A (a. 1131), f. 163, Patmiacus graecus 103 (a. 1156/1157), f. 156v, Vaticanus graecus 668 (a. 1305/1306), f. 252 and Vaticanus, Palatinus graecus 200 (s. XII-XIII), f. 178v, revealed hardly any variants. The second ms. omits the last α of the first caput. The third one omits in the third caput. 71 Neophytus' Quaestiones et responsiones were edited by . Kalogeropoulou-Metallinou, Ὁ αχ όφυ α ό υἔ , Athens 1996, pp. 409-527. For the fragment quoted above, see Qu. et Resp. 2α, ll. 222-232 (p. 440). For these lines the dependency on Zygadenus was overlooked by the editor. On Prodromenus, see also the article by M. Cacouros, Néophytos Prodromènos copiste et responsable (?) de l'édition quadrivium-corpus aristotelicum du 14e siècle, «Revue des Études Byzantines» 56, 1998, pp. 193-212. 72 The text of the Elenchus can be found in B. de Montfaucon, Bibliotheca Coisliniana, olim Segueriana; sive manuscriptorum omnium Graecorum, quae in ea continentur, accurata descriptio, ubi operum singulorum notitia datur, aetas cuiusque 18 Bram Roosen – Eulogii Alexandrini quae supersunt Capitula XV. dubitationum, de naturalibus voluntatibus & operationibus. Reg. Cod. extat. & Vat. DIV. ex quo capitula alia XIII. de iisdem, Ὅ α .α : cum subjunctis definitionibus Clementis Alexandrini, & Eulogii Patriarchae Alexandrini, capitula VII. Tum aliae XI. definitiones. This clearly is a description of ff. 146ra-146vb of Ug: 73 subsequently, Combefis refers to Add. 19 ("Capitula XV 74 . dubitationum, de naturalibus voluntatibus & operationibus"), Add. 18 ("capitula alia XIII. de iisdem"), Op. 23a ("Ὅ α . α "), the fragment from Ps. Clement's De providentia following Op. 23a in the PG ("cum subjunctis definitionibus Clementis Alexandrini"), Op. 23b ("& Eulogii Patriarchae Alexandrini, capitula VII") and Op. 23c ("Tum aliae XI. definitiones"). The differences between his edition and the text in Ug are small ([ ʹ] 1 for ; [ ʹ] 2 for ; [ ʹ] 1 π for π ), with the notable exception, however, of the reading φ for φ on line 8 of the third chapter. This reading would suggest that Combefis used Ac, Ui or Uh for his edition. However, the change of the nominative into the genitive is too easily made to allow for the conclusion that Combefis did not do what he announced himself in his Elenchus. J.-P. Migne reprinted Combefis' edition of Op. 23b twice, once amongst Maximus' writings (cf. PG XCI, coll. 264D1-265C4) and once amongst the texts by Eulogius (cf. PG LXXXVI, coll. 2937C1- 2940C12). Both reprints are trustworthy, but not identical. In the former was changed into α ([αʹ] 1), a misinterpretation of the abbreviation for used in Combefis' edition, and α Θ was wrongly omitted after υ υ in the title. In the latter the capita were numbered, as found in Combefis' edition was corrected into ([ ʹ] 2) and was correctly changed into ([ ʹ] 2). 1.5.2 Diekamp's edition of the Doctrina Patrum For his edition of D.O.12 in the context of the Doctrina Patrum 75 Diekamp collated the five mss. which contain that florilegium. Moreover, he referred to the presence of Op. 23b in Mb, without however using the ms.76 This is all the more pityful as a collation might have considerably improved the text as found in the mss. of the Doctrina Patrum. Manuscripti indicatur, vetustiorum specimina exhibentur, aliaque multa annotantur, quae ad Palaeographiam Graecam pertinent, Parisiis 1715, p. 309. For more details on this Elenchus, see B. Janssens, François Combefis and the Edition of Maximus the Confessor' Complete Works (Paris, 1675/1679), in «Analecta Bollandiana» 119, 2001, pp. 357-362. 73 For the "Reg. Cod." mentioned by Combefis, see the last paragraph of the present chapter 2.1. 74 The fact that the Elenchus mentions 15 capita for Add. 19 is probably due to a misprint. The description cannot refer to another text, because no text with 15 chapters of dubitationes concerning the natural wills and operations is known to have been written by Maximus and because the words "dubitationum, de naturalibus voluntatibus & operationibus" are a verbal translation of the title of Add. 19 in Ug. 75 Cf. Diekamp, Doctrina Patrum, cit., p. 152, l. 15 – p. 155, l. 10. 76 Cf. the critical apparatus on p. 152 in Diekamp, Doctrina Patrum, cit. He only notes (cf. the apparatus fontium on p. 153) that Mb wrote υ in the margin. However, this marginal note has nothing to do with Gregorius Nazianzenus as he thought – 19 Bram Roosen – Eulogii Alexandrini quae supersunt His critical apparatus is concise, but mostly correct. Still, after double-checking the mss. we would like to make the following additions and corrections – we first give the line number in our edition, then the line number in Diekamp's edition –: ([ ʹ] 1; p. 153, l. 6) no indications of the problems with π φ in DPatr(D) ([ ʹ] 2; p. 153, l. 8) DPatr(C) does not read but for ([ ʹ] 5/6; p. 153, ll. 11/12) before the entry " π α bis mit Tilgungspunkten C" the line numbers 11-12 should be added ([ ʹ] 5; p. 153, l. 21) the variant φ' for φ' in DPatr(CD) is not found in Diekamp's apparatus ([ ʹ] 3; p. 154, l. 5) the omission of in DPatr(C) is not mentioned by Diekamp ([ ʹ] 2; p. 154, l. 8) the reading ' in DPatr(B) for the reading ' as found in the other Doctrina Patrum mss. is not mentioned by Diekamp ([ ʹ] 1; p. 154, l. 18) the fault for is only found in DPatr(BE), not in DPatr(A) as indicated by Diekamp ([ ʹ] 3; p. 154, l. 20) DPatr(A) has , not and DPatr(E) has not instead of 1.6 Ratio edendi In order to avoid having to print three quarters of the text and apparatus twice, the edition we present is one of both versions at once and this has important consequences. On the one hand, because on several occasions it is impossible to decide between one of the two versions, because it should be avoided to make a mere mixture of both versions and because D.O.12 is the longest, we decided to choose the most practical solution and present in principle the text of D.O.12. We are fully aware that this may seem in contradiction with our conclusion that D.O.7 predates D.O.12. On the other hand, in the critical apparatus we underlined the readings of D.O.7, so that the reader of our edition can easily get an idea of that version: were underlined once, the readings common to Ug Ac Ui, but which are not found in Syr; were underlined twice, the readings common to Ug Ac Ui and Syr. The critical edition of this text is made with as much respect for the mss. as can be justified on the basis of present-day scholarly standards. This has the following consequences:  punctuation: the mss. have been double-checked for the position of the punctuation marks. As a result, every punctuation mark in our edition corresponds to a punctuation mark in the majority of  the mss., although no all punctuation marks have been preserved. accentuation: special attention has been payed to the accentuation in the mss., which, as is well- known, differs from the rules in school grammars.77 As such the reader will find πα , α (even if is indefinite) or α φα . Moreover, since the use of a gravis before 'weak Diekamp refers to Ep. 101, 4 (edd. P. Gallay – M. Jourjon, Grégoire de Nazianze, Lettres théologiques, Paris 1978 [SC 250], p. 38) –, but with the words υ ([ ʹ] 1), of which it probably is a correction or a variant reading. 77 See most recently J. Noret, L'accentuation byzantine: en quoi et pourquoi elle diffère de l'accentuation «savante» actuelle, parfois absurde, in M. Hinterberger (ed.), The Language of Byzantine Learned Literature, Turnhout 2014 (Studies in Byzantine Literature and Civilization 9), pp. 96-146. 20 Bram Roosen – Eulogii Alexandrini quae supersunt punctuations' like a comma is quite common in mss. (and, as a matter of fact, quite justified), we decided to preserve also this feature.78  apostrophe: except in fairly late mss., scribes rarely end a line with an apostrophe, and would rather write ' -| than '| . It is a clear indication for the close connection between the apostrophized word and the next word. Therefore, as in French or Italian, we never added a space (or punctuation) after an apostrophe. Ἐπαπ υπ α π α PG1 264D PG2 2937C π φ DPatr 152 αʹέΝ Νφ Ν Ν Ν Ν Ν Ν Ν ,Ν π π α ,Ν Ν α ,|Ν Ν φ νΝ α Ν ανΝ PG2 2940A π υ Ν φ α ,Ν π Ν α,Ν Ν φ Ν αΝ π Ν νΝ ,Νπ Ν Υ Ν Ν πα ,Ν υ υΝ 5 π ν| ʹέΝ π Ν Νφ Ν Ν ῖ α ,Ν π Ν υ α Ν Ν DPatr 153 Ν Ν Ν Ν ,Ν α Ν Ν |Ν νΝ PG1 265A ῖ αΝ Ν Νφ Ν α ,Ν π π Ν Ν Νφ Ν ,Ν α Νπ Ν Ν έ ʹέΝὉ Ν Ν Ν π φ α , νΝἈ Υ Ν ,Ν π Ν Ν Ν ,Ν υΝ πα Ν π π υνΝ Ν φυ Ν α Ν π Ν π Ν α Ν α Ν α Ν Ν α Νπ φυ ,Ν α αῖ Ν π Ν αῖ Ν π Ν α 5 α Ν αφ α Ν Ν π α ·Ν φ Ν Νφ Ν Ν π Ν α ,Ν Ν π Ν Ν α ῖ α έΝ Ν Ν Ν Ν α ,Ν Ν α Ν π έΝ Ν Ν υ,Νπ Ν Νφ Ν ν ʹ. α φ υ α ῖ ῖ . Ἀ ' α α υ α α ῖ , π ῳ α ΐ π α α ' α αυ ν φ α 5 φ' α , π α α α , α π ῖ ν ʹέΝ αΝ φ Ν υΝ α Ν α ,Ν αΝ φ Ν υΝ α πα ,Ν π Ν αΝ φ Ν πα Ν α υΝ α Ν 78 See e.g. S. Panteghini, La prassi interpuntiva nel Cod. Vind. Hist. gr. 8 (Nicephorus Callisti Xanthopulus, Historia ecclesiastica): un tentativo di descrizione, in A. Giannouli – E. Schiffer (edd.), From Manuscripts to Books. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Textual Criticism and Editorial Practice for Byzantine Texts (Vienna, 10–11 December 2009), Wien 2011 (Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse. Denkschriften, 431. Band), p. 142: "Anzi, parrebbe in molti casi che la scelta dell'accento discenda da una percezione del grado d'indipendenza di un all'interno della superiore gerarchia sintattica: si dipende da un verbo finito che si trova altrove – o nell'enunciato principale o nel successivo –, o se è in relazione stretta con elementi che lo circondano, la non determina quel grado di indipendenza che le consente di impedire la baritonesi." 21 Bram Roosen – Eulogii Alexandrini quae supersunt α ν ϛʹέΝ α Υ Ν Ν Ν Ν α ,Νπ Ν α π αΝ Ν Ν Ν α νΝ α α π αΝ Ν Ν Ν α ,Ν π Ν Ν αΝ Ν ,Ν α Ν ,Ν α ΐ Ν π Ν α |Ν πα DPatr 154 Ν Ν νΝ α π αΝ Ν Ν Ν α ,Νπ Ν 5 α Ν Ν Ν α ν ʹέΝ α Νπ Ν αΝ Ν Ν Ν α Ν α,Ν αΝ Ν Ν α πα ,Νπ Ν Ν Ν Ν Ν α πα ,Ν α Ν ,Ν Ν Ν Ν α ,Ν α Υ Ν Ν ν ʹέΝ Ν Νφ Ν αΝφ Ν Ν Ν Νφα ,Ν πα Ν Ν Ν έΝ α Ν Ν α αΝ ,Ν φ Ν Ν αΝ πα Ν Ν Ν ,Ν πα Ν π αΝ α ,Ν α Ν α Νφ Ν αΝ έΝ Ἀ Ν Ν Ν α Νφ ,Ν α α αΝ 5 έ ʹέΝ αΝφ Ν Ν Ν Ν ,Ν Ν υ υΝ φ Ν πα ,Νπ Ν α Ν Ν πα Ν Ν νΝ α Ν α Ν Ν αυ φ Ν Ν Ν Ν πα ,Ν πα Ν α π α Ν φ Ν Να Ν Ν πα ,Ν α 5 α Υ Ν α ῖ Ν ,Ν α Υ έ ʹέΝ Ν α π Ν α α Υ Ν Ν Ν Ν ῖ α ,Ν α φ Ν Ν Ν α α π ,Νπ Ν Νφ ,Ν Ν α π Ν ν αʹέΝ υ Ν α Ν Ν Ν α υΝ α Να φ ,Ν ῖ αΝ α Ν αφ Ν Ν α Ν α ,Ν π Ν Ν Ν Ν Νφ Ν Ν Ν Ν αφ έΝ Ν α φ Ν α ,Ν α Ν αφ 5 α α ,Ν Ν υ αΝ π Ν π νΝ αφ Ν Ν αΝ Νπ α ·Νπ Ν Ν Ν α α αφ Ν αυ νΝ Ἀ Ν Νπ Ν Ν|Ν Ν αφ Ν π Ν π ῖ Ν Ν αφ ,Ν DPatr 155 αΝ Ν α ππ α Ν φ Ν Ν Ν αφ έ ʹέΝ Ν Ν α π Ν Ν Ν Ν υ ῖ α ,Ν α φ Ν ῖ Ν Ν Ν Ν α π Ν Ν α Ν Ν φ Ν Ν ,Ν Ν Ν Ν Ν α π Ν Ν Ν α ,Ν Ν Νφ Να Ν Ν ῖ ,Ν 5 π π α Ν α Υ π Ν Ν Ν Ν α Ν π Ν Ν ῖ Νπ π ῖ ν — Apparatus fontium et locorum parallelorum αʹ. 3/5 ( – π ) cf. Leont. Byz., Triginta Cap. [CPG 6814] 19 (ed. Diekamp, Doctrina Patrum, cit., p. 158, l. 34 – p. 159, l. 1); Leont. Hierosol., C. Monophys. [CPG 6917] 36 (PG LXXXVI, col. 1792B12-14); Probus, Syllog. adv. Iacob. (gr.) 4 (ed. J.H. Declerck, Probus, l'ex-jacobite et ses Ἐπαπ ααπ α ω α , «Byzantion» 53 [1983], ll. 14-17 [p. 230]); Leont. mon. Pal., Syllog. adv. Iacob. (syr.) 3 (ed. Bettiolo, Una raccolta [ed.], p. 26, l. 25 – p. 27, l. 1; [transl.], cit., p. 18, ll. 31-32); Op. Chalc. anon. VIII, 4 (ed. Bettiolo, Una raccolta [ed.], p. 18, ll. 9-14; [transl.], cit., p. 13, ll. 10-14) 22 Bram Roosen – Eulogii Alexandrini quae supersunt ʹ. 1/2 (Ὁ – ) Probus, Syllog. adv. Iacob. (syr.) 19 (ed. Bettiolo, Una raccolta [ed.], p. 12, l. 30 – p. 13, l. 1; [transl.], cit., p. 9, ll. 24-26) 7/8 ( – ν) cf. Ioh. Gramm., C. Monophys. [CPG 6856] 15, ll. 150-151 (ed. Richard, Iohannes Caesariensis, cit., p. 65; = Anast. Sin., C. Monophys. [CPG 7757] 1, ll. 7-8 [ed. Uthemann, Aporien, cit., p. 23]); Probus, Syllog. adv. Iacob. (syr.) 19 (ed. Bettiolo, Una raccolta [ed.], p. 13, ll. 1-3; [transl.], cit., p. 9, ll. 26-27) ʹ. 1 ( α – α ) A Leont. Hierosol., C. Monophys. [CPG 6917] (PG LXXXVI, col. 1809B14-C3) ad Arium et ad Apollinarium attributum (cf. Apollin. Laod., Ep. ad Iov. [CPG 3665] [ed. H. Lietzmann, Apollinaris von Laodicea und seine Schule I, Tübingen 1904, p. 251, ll. 1-2; vide et in Diekamp, Doctrina Patrum, cit., 9, XI, p. 62, ll. 15-16]), sed praesertim apud Cyrill. Alex., e.g. C. Nestorianos [CPG 5217] II prooem. (ed. ACO I, 1, 6, p. 33, ll. 6-7) vel Ep. 45 [CPG 5345] (ed. ACO I, 1, 6, p. 153, l. 23). Vide A. Grillmeier, Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche, Band 1, Von der Apostolischen Zeit bis zum Konzil von Chalcedon (451), Freiburg – Basel – Wien 19903 (2004), p. 674, n. 2 2/4 (Ἀ ' – αυ ) Greg. Naz., Ep. 101 [CPG 3032], 19-20 (ed. Gallay – Jourjon, Lettres théologiques, cit., p. 44); Ioh. Gramm., C. Monophys. 2, ll. 31-36 (ed. Richard, Iohannes Caesariensis, cit., pp. 61-62); Ioh. Gramm., Apol. conc. Chalc. [CPG 6855] ll. 242-245 (ed. Richard, Iohannes Caesariensis, cit., p. 57) ʹ. 1/3 ( – α ν) Cf. Ps. Quintian., Ep. ad Petr. Full. [CPG 6525] 3 (ed. ACO III, p. 15, ll. 18-20 [coll. Sabb.]; p. 227, ll. 27-28 [coll. antiq.]); Ioh. Gramm., C. Monophys. [CPG 6856] 2, ll. 29-31 (ed. Richard, Iohannes Caesariensis, cit., p. 61); Anast. monach. (Antioch.?), C. Monophys. (syr.) 11 (ed. Bettiolo, Una raccolta [ed.], p. 30, ll. 12-17; [transl.], cit., p. 21, ll. 11-15); Probus, Syllog. adv. Iacob. (syr.) 7 (ed. Bettiolo, Una raccolta [ed.], p. 9, ll. 9-14; [transl.], cit., p. 6, ll. 30-34); Op. Chalc. anon. II, 3 (ed. Bettiolo, Una raccolta [ed.], p. 2, ll. 16-21; [transl.], cit., p. 2, ll. 8-13); Op. Chalc. anon. XII, 15 (ed. Bettiolo, Una raccolta [ed.], p. 36, ll. 12-17; [transl.], cit., p. 25, l. 31 – p. 26, l. 5) ϛʹ. 1/5 ( – ν) Cap. syllog. (in cod. Vat. gr. 2220, ff. 83-84v), 2, ll. 5-12 (ed. Uthemann, Syllogistik, cit., p. 111) ʹ. 1/2 ( – ) vide supra ad caput αʹ, ll. 3/4 ʹ. 1/3 ( – ) Leont. Byz., Triginta Cap. [CPG 6814] 20 (ed. Diekamp, Doctrina Patrum, cit., p. 159, ll. 15-19) αʹ. 1/8 ( – αφ ) Cf. Leont. mon. Pal., Syllog. adv. Iacob. (syr.) 6 (ed. Bettiolo, Una raccolta [ed.], p. 27, ll. 16-20; [transl.], cit., p. 19, ll. 11-14); Op. Chalc. anon. XII, 2 (ed. Bettiolo, Una raccolta [ed.], p. 33, ll. 11-18; [transl.], cit., p. 23, ll. 15- 21) 1/2 ( υ – α α φ ) Cyrill. Alex., Scholia 11 [CPG 5225] (ed. ACO I, 5, p. 190, 28 [lat.]; p. 227, l. 12 [fragm. gr.]) 2( ῖα – α ) Symb. Chalc. (ed. ACO II, 1, 2, p. 129, ll. 31-32) 6 (π ... ;) Anast. I Antioch., Dialogus [CPG 6958] 614 (ed. Uthemann, Streitgespräch, cit., p. 98) ʹ. 1/6 ( – π π ῖ ) cf. Leont. Byz., Triginta Cap. [CPG 6814] 3 (ed. Diekamp, Doctrina Patrum, cit., p. 155, ll. 24- 28); Anast. I Antioch., Dialogus [CPG 6958] 475-478 (ed. Uthemann, Streitgespräch, cit., p. 94) — Sigla et Apparatus criticus Tit. 1/2 Ἐπαπ – φ ] α α υ υ π πα α α φ αα π ( Ac Ui) π φ υ υ α Ug Ac Ui; π α απ υ α α φ υ . φ αα ´ Mo; ‫ ܒܥܐ‬Ν‫ܕܦ ܩܐ‬Ν‫ܐܐ‬ Νέ‫'( ܬ ܒ‬ · π π Φ π ') Syr 1 Ἐπαπ υ] παπ Mb Cc; παπ α DPatr(B); παπ υ DPatr(CE); πα υ DPatr(D) αʹ. DPatr(ABCDE), Mb Cc Mo, Ug Ac Ui, Syr 1 αʹ]Ν ‫ܩܕܚܝܐ‬Ν ‫ '( ܐܐ‬παπ Νπ ΥΨ Syr Νφ ]Ν ‫ܟܝܢܐ‬Ν ‫ ܚܕ‬ΧΥ αΝφ ΥΨ Syr 1/2 – ] inv. ord. Syr 1 2] om. DPatr(E), Cc, Ug Ac Ui 2 π α ] Ν‫ ܐܝܢܐ‬ΧΥπ αΥΨΝSyr 3 ] ' DPatr(E) φ α] φ α Ac ] Mo φ ] α φ Mb Cc α π ] α π DPatr(C); π α Mo 4 '] DPatr(E) 4/5 – π ] ut partem capitis ʹ scripsit Cc ʹ. DPatr(ABCDE), Mb Cc Mo, Ug Ac Ui, Syr 1 ] add. Mb Cc φ ] ‫ܟܝ ܐ‬Ν ‫ ܬܪܝ‬ΧΥ Νφ ΥΨ Syr ] add. Ug Ac Ui, Syr ῖ α] α DPatr(B); α et add. Ug Ac Ui, Syr 1/2 ] inv. ord. Mb Cc, Syr 2 ] ‫ '( ܚܕ‬α ') Syr 23 Bram Roosen – Eulogii Alexandrini quae supersunt ] om. Mo α ] om. Syr 3 ῖ α] α DPatr(ABE), Ug Ac Ui ] om. Mo φ 1] ‫ܟܝ ܐ‬Ν ‫'( ܬܪܝ‬ φ ') Syr φ ] φ Ug Ac Ui φ 2] ‫ܬܪܝ‬Ν‫'( ܟܝ ܐ‬ φ ') Syr 4 π ] π DPatr(CD), Mo ] om. Mb Cc; a. (l. 4) trps. Ug Ac Ui ] ‫ܟܝܢܐ‬Ν‫ '( ܚܕ‬α φ ') Syr ʹ. DPatr(ABCDE), Mb Cc Mo, Ug Ac Ui, Syr 1. ] om. Mb π φ ]π φ (sic) DPatr(Da. corr.); π φ DPatr(Dp. corr.); πα 'α φ Ug Ac Ui, Syr 2 ] DPatr(C); Cc υ–π π υ] υπ π υ πα DPatr(D); om. Mb Cc, Ug Ac Ui, Syr 3/7 – π ] om. Ug Ac Ui, Syr 3/4 α – ] α α Cc; α Moa. corr.; α φ Mo p. corr. in marg. 4 α π φυ ] π φυ α DPatr(B) αῖ – αῖ ] αῖ π αῖ (sic) DPatr(C) π ] supra l. add. DPatr(C) 5 1] om. Mb 5/6 π α – ] expunxit DPatr(C) 5 π α] π Cc; π α Mo 5/6 φ – α ] om. DPatr(ABCDE) 5 φ ] om. Mo 6 ] α DPatr(Bp. corr. a manu recentiore) 7 ] DPatr(E) α] Cc; α Mo 8 ] α add. DPatr(ABCDE); bis scripsit Cc υ] ‫ܡܠܬܐ‬Ν‫'( ܐ ܐ‬ ῳ') Syr ] Mo φ ]φ Cc, Ac Ui ʹ. DPatr(ABCDE), Mb Cc Mo, Ug Ac Ui, Syr 1 υ] ( υ) Mbp. corr. in margine ut videtur ῖ ῖ ] ῖ ῖ α DPatr(D); ῖ ῖ Mo; φα (φα Ac Ui; ‫ܐܒ ܬܐ‬Ν ‫'[ ܐܡ ܝ‬φα πα '] Syr). α α Ug Ac Ui, Syr 2 α α ] α Ug Ac Ui; ‫ܐܝܬܝ‬Ν‫ܐ ܝܐ‬Ν‫ܕܚܕܐ‬Ν Ν ‫'( ܐܝ‬ α ') Syr, cf. et l. 4 υ] om. Ug Ac Ui 2/3 – ] ῖ DPatr(B); ῖ α DPatr(Da. corr. ); ῖ α Mb a. corr. ; υ α add. Mo; Ug Ac Ui; ‫ܐ ܬܟܠ‬Ν ‫ܕܐ‬ (' ') Syr 3π ]π α DPatr(D); α Mo 1 – ῳ] ‫ܐ‬ Ν‫ܒ ܝܐ‬Ν‫ܒ ܝܐ‬Ν‫ܐ‬Ν (' α ') Syr 1] DPatr(Da. corr. ) α ] om. Mo, Syr 2 ] Mb 4 α' α ] om. Ug Ac Ui 5 φ'] φ' DPatr(CD) ] om. Ug Ac Ui, Syr ] Mo π ῖ ] om. Mo ʹ. DPatr(ABCDE), Mb Cc Mo, Ug Ac Ui, Syr 1/2 – α 1] om. Ug Ac Ui 2 π – πα 2] om. Mo πα 2 – υ2] υ α πα Ug Ac Ui α 3] om. Mb a. corr. ; α praem. Mo ϛʹ. DPatr(ABCDE), Mb Cc Mo, Ug Ac Ui, Syr 1 α '] ‫ '( ܐܦ‬α ') Syr 1/2 π – 1] om. DPatr(ABCDE) 1 π α] om. Mba. corr. ] α Mb Cc (cf. l. 2) 2 α – 2] in marg. DPatr(D) – 2] om. Mo ] α Mb Cc (cf. l. 1) 3 α ] om. Syr 3/4 ΐ – ] υ αΐ πα α Ug Ac Ui 3 πα ] ‫ܐܒܐ‬Ν‫'( ܐ ܐ‬ πα ') Syr 4 ] ‫ '( ܐܦ‬α ') add. Syr 1 ] om. DPatr(ABCD) 1] praem. Ug Ac Ui; ‫'( ܐ ܐ‬ ') add. Syr ] , DPatr(E) α 1] α (sic) DPatr(A) ] om. Cc 4/5 π – ] φ DPatr(B); om. DPatr(E) 5 α ] correxi e α Ug Ac Ui, cf. ( ʹ) 2; DPatr(AC), Mb; DPatr(D); Cc; Ν Mo; ‫ܡܕܡ‬Ν‫ ܚܕ‬... (' – ') Syr 5 ] DPatr(Aa. corr.) α ] om. Cca. corr. ʹ. DPatr(ABCDE), Mb Cc Mo, Ug Ac Ui, Syr 1 ] addidi e Ug Ac Ui, Syr; om. DPatr(ABCDE), Mb Cc Mo ] α ' sic Mout videtur; ‫'( ܝܬܝ‬π ') praem. Syr 2 π – πα 2 ] om. DPatr(ABCDE), Mo ] (sic) Cc ] om. Ug Ac Ui; p. (l. 2) trps. Syr 2/3 3 – α ] om. 2] ‫'( ܠ‬ Ug Ac Ui – ] fenestram habet Cc 3 ] om. DPatr(C) α '] - (' α ') praem. Syr ') add. Syr Scripsit Arethas CaesarἑensἑsΝ ἑnΝ marРἑneΝ codἑcἑsΝ εo,Ν П.Ν 10ζ,Ν adΝ caputΝ ʹ, haec verba (cf. et Westerink, Marginalia, cit., p. 227): φ υ π πα α, α υπ α, ῖα α α φ ῖ α ῖ ʹ. DPatr(ABCDE), Mb Cc Mo 1φ ] om. DPatr(D) 2 ] om. Cc Mo ] (sic) DPatr(Cut videtur); Mo ] ' DPatr(ACDE), Mo; ' DPatr(B) 3 ] DPatr(E) ] Mo ]Νom. DPatr(E) π α] π ῖα DPatr(CD); π ῖα Mo α φ ] Mo 4 α] Mo, DPatr(Aa. corr.) ] α DPatr(B), Mb Cc; DPatr(C); Mo α ] α Cc α ] fenestram habet DPatr(D) ʹ. DPatr(ABCDE), Mb Cc Mo 24 Bram Roosen – Eulogii Alexandrini quae supersunt 1 ] DPatr(Aa. corr.) 1/2 υ υφ ]φ υ υ Mo 3 ] om. Mo –φ ] α αυ φ add. DPatr(B); α φ Mo ] α DPatr(BDa. corr.), Cc 4 πα – πα 2] om. DPatr(ABCDE) φ α ]α φ Mo 5 ] DPatr(D) α ῖ ] supra l. add. Mb α ] om. DPatr(E) ] Mb α '] α DPatr(B), Mo ʹ. DPatr(ABCDE), Mb Cc Mo 1 α 2] om. DPatr(A), Mb Cc Mo α ' ] Ν α Υ ΝMo ] DPatr(BE) 2 ῖ α] ῖ DPatr(A), Cc; α DPatr(B) ] DPatr(B); Cc α ]α Mba. corr. ] Cc 3 ] DPatr(A); DPatr(CD); DPatr(E); Mba. corr.; Cc; om. Mo ] Mo αʹ. DPatr(ABCDE), Mb Cc Mo 3 ] om. Mo 4 – αφ ] bis scripsit Cc 6 αφ ] αφ Mo αυ ]α DPatr(B) 7 π ῖ ] π ῖ Mo 8 ] om. Cc ʹ. DPatr(ABCDE), Mb Cc Mo 1 ] α DPatr(BD), Mb υ ῖ α] υ α Mo 2 φ ] φ DPatr(B), Mo α π ] om. Cca. corr. 2/3 α 3 – φ ] expunxit DPatr(C) 3 ] DPatr(BDa. corr.) ] DPatr(D) 3/4 α – ] α π Mb Ccp. corr.; om. Cca. corr. 4 α] , α Mb Cc ῖ ] praem. DPatr(C) 5 ] DPatr(BE), Mb Cc Mo 2] om. Mb Mo 6 2] om. Mo ῖ π π ῖ ] om. DPatr(BE) π π ῖ ] α π ῖ α Mba. corr.; π π ῖ α Mbp. corr.; α π ῖ Cc Objections of an orthodox against those who advocate one nature with regard to Christ 1. If ( ) after the union Our Lord Jesus Christ is of one nature, tell me of which ( π π α ). Of the one that takes or of the one that is taken? And tell me what happened to the other nature? If however ( ) both natures exist, how (π ) can there be one nature, unless ( ) one composite nature was made out of both? But if ( ) so, how (π ') can Christ not be of a different essence with respect to the Father, who is not composite? 2. If ( ) Christ is confessed to be never of two natures, how (π ) is it possible to state that Christ is of one nature after the union, or even on the whole to say union? But if ( ) Christ is confessed to be of two natures, tell me when ( π π ) Christ was of two natures, and from what time onwards ( π ) he was of one nature. 3. Are the God Word and the flesh Ηe assumed of the same or of different essence? If ( ) they are of the same essence, then how (π ) is it that the triad is not a tetrad, since another person is introduced into it? For ( ) identity of nature and identity of essence are naturally predicated of individuals that share the same essence, and identity of essence is said of individuals that share the same form ( ἶ ): indeed ( ), one nature is never said to be of the same essence as another nature, but identity of essence is predicated of individuals. Therefore ( ), if the God Word is of the same essence as the flesh, he will be of two hypostaseis. If on the other hand ( ) the essence of the flesh is different from the essence of the God Word, then how come Christ is not two natures? 4. Maybe you have it in mind to confess one incarnate nature of the God Word. However, if in consequence ( ' ) you want us to think that the God Word and the flesh have one essence, (tell me) how is it possible that (π ) the created and the uncreated, the eternal and the temporal are identical as concerns their essence? If on the contrary ( ) this has to be comprehended as one nature having another nature, or as one nature being held by another nature, who will accept to say ( π ... π ῖ ) that one and one is not two, but one? 25 Bram Roosen – Eulogii Alexandrini quae supersunt 5. If ( ) the God Word and the flesh have one nature and if ( ) the God Word and the Father have one nature, how come (π ) the Father and the Word and the flesh do not have one nature? 6. If ( ) the God Word and the flesh are in no respect two, how come (π ) they are not in every respect one? And if ( α ) the God Word and the flesh are in every respect one, how come (π ) the Word will not be flesh and the flesh will not be Word, as well as eternal and consubstantial to the father, just like the Word? If however ( ) the God Word and the flesh are not in every respect one, how come (π ) they are not in some respect two? 7. If ( ) the God Word and the flesh cannot be united more than the God Word and the Father are united, how (π ) is it that after their union the God Word and the Father are in some respect two, while after their union the God Word and the flesh are in no respect two? 8. If ( ), like you maintain, Christ is one nature out of two natures, then tell me what ( πα ) is it from which Christ is. And if ( α ) Christ is not these things, but if ( ) He has become another nature beside the things from which He is, tell me what kind of nature ( πα π α) this is and with whom ( α ) it will be consubstantial. It is indeed ( ) necessary that this one nature is of the same essence as some one and the same nature. 9. If ( ) after the union Christ is one composite nature, while ( ... ) the Father is not of one composite nature, then how (π ) will Christ be of the same essence as the Father after the union? If, however, ( ) you say that it is not according to his one composite nature that Christ is of the same essence as the Father, then tell me according to which nature ( πα α π α φ ) you say that Christ is of the same essence as the Father, and if ( α ) he is consubstantial also to us according to that nature, or according to another nature. 10. If ( ) you too confess that after the union Christ is both God and man, but ( ... ) that he is not man by the same nature by which he is God, how then (π ) is he not two natures, if ( ) Christ is God and man? 11. If ( ) our holy teachers state that the natures remained unconfused and ( ) that after the union the difference between them is seen and not done away with, at any rate (π ) the two natures that are preserved in Christ are different. For if ( ) the natures are not preserved, then what ( α ) is the difference affirmed of, since it has no quantity underlying it? It is indeed ( ) impossible for difference to be known without quantity, for how (π ) can something that is one and the same be said to differ from itself? In other words ( ), to indicate difference it is necessary to state the quantity of the things that differ. Otherwise the difference we maintain would appear to be hollow and feigned. 12. If ( ) you say that Christ is composed from divinity and humanity, and ( α ) if to you it makes no difference whether you state that Christ is from divinity and humanity or that he is from two natures, you who confess that Christ is in divinity and humanity, what prevents you from ( ) confessing analogically that he is in two natures? Unless of course ( ) your pretending to confess his perfection in divinity and his perfection in humanity is artificial and hypocritical. 2 Defensiones or Σ ηγορίαι [CPG 6972] In 1977 M. Richard 79 proved that the eight fragments which in the Doctrina Patrum are attributed to Eulogius' υ α , in reality were taken from two different Apologiae concilii Chalcedonensis by two 79 See Richard, Iohannes Caesariensis, cit., pp. XVIII-XXVIII. 26 Bram Roosen – Eulogii Alexandrini quae supersunt different writers: six (cf. Doctrina Patrum 11, XIV; 27, III; 28, IV-V; 29, XVII and 30, IV) stem from John of Caesarea's Apologia [CPG 6855], the other two fragments (cf. Doctrina Patrum 29, XIII and 29, XV) from Eulogius' Apologia, the third and fourth text in Photius' codex 230.80 In other words, CPG 6972 is identical to one of the texts listed under CPG 6976 and should not have been given another name and number. In the discussion of Eulogius in the Acta Sanctorum, Joannes Stiltingus writes:81 Gregorius protosyncellus & deinde patriarcha Constantinopolitanus in Apologia contra epistolam Marci Ephesini, apud Harduinum tom. 9 Conciliorum col. 663 laudat Opus aliquod S. Eulogii nomine α , ex eoque textum satis longum adducit ad defensionem concilii Chalcedonensis. Titulus huic Opusculo ibi datus non evincit illud fuisse distinctum ab iis, quae pro concilio Chalcedonensi ab Eulogio scripta recensuit Photius. At inde saltem cognoscimus, superfuisse aliqua ex Opusculis Eulogii seculo XV post concilium Florentinum: nam illo tempore Apologiam istam scripsit Gregorius. Unfortunately, as the adage goes, if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Gregorius Melissenus did not have access to a text by Eulogius that is now lost. He quoted from Photius' Bibliotheca, as he indicates himself in admittedly guarded terms: α πα υ υ α υ πα υἈ α α (PG CLX, coll. 196D15-197A2). Not understanding these words to refer to Photius' Bibliotheca, Stiltingus apparently thought Eulogius to have been the author of some sort of anthology and subsequently missed the identification of the lines quoted by Gregory in his Responsio ad epistolam Marci Ephesii (see PG CLX, col. 197A2-C4) with part of Photius' discussion of Eulogius' Apologiae pro synodo Chalcedonensi (see cod. 230 [275a5-33]). 3 Fragm. in s. Scripturam [CPG 6973, 6974, 6975] and the Contra Novatianos [CPG 6976a] J.A. Demetracopoulos showed that all but two – but as a matter of fact, all but one – of the fragments that are found in PG LXXXVI2, coll. 2959-2964, are to be attributed to Eulogius' invective against the Novatians, who despite Cyril of Alexandria's drastic measures,82 in Eulogius' time apparently were still 80 See the corrected list of writings in Photius' codex 230 on p. 000000 of the present contribution. 81 See AASS Septembris IV, cit., pp. 89-90. 82 According to Socrates Scholasticus (see Historia Ecclesiastica VII, 7, 5 [p. 353, ll. 6-8], ed. G.C. Hansen, Sokrates Kirchengeschichte, Berlin 1995 [GCS N.F. 1]), Cyril of Alexandria, immediately after having taken possession of the patriarchal throne in 412, closed down the churches of the Novatians, confiscated all their sacred vessels and robbed their bishop of all his 27 Bram Roosen – Eulogii Alexandrini quae supersunt influential enough for the patriarch to feel the need for an invective. Photius' library contained three codices with a text against the Novatians by Eulogius, but despite the variation in the titles and Photius' apparent hesitation on the number of the work consisted of (five or six), there is little doubt that this is each time the same text. We refer to cod. 182 ( α αυ υ α π α ), to cod. 208 ( α αυα α ) and to cod. 280 ( α α or α αυα α ). Photius' dealings with this text in cod. 280 are by far the longest and most detailed of the three and it is indeed in cod. 280 that the fragments can be identified. The following table may suffice: Contra Novatianos PG 862 CPG Photius, Bibliotheca, cod. 280 Να´ col. 2964B7-C2 697383 536b22-27 Ν ´ coll. 2959-2962 (Latine) no number 540b7-541a3 Ν ´ col. 2964A14-B6 6974 541a29-b1 84 col. 2961B1-C10 6975 541b23-542a2 Ν ´ coll. 2961D7-2964A3 6974 543a41-b5 In fact, the remarkable similarity between the fragments in the Patrologia Graeca and Photius' Bibliotheca either implies that Photius followed Eulogius' text quite faithfully, or that Photius is the actual source of these fragments. 4 Contra Theodosianos et Gaianitas [CPG 6976d] The same problem exists for the supposed fragment from Eulogius' Contra Theodosianos et Gaianitas mentioned in the CPG. It was discovered by S. Helmer85 in the fifteenth-century Oxoniensis, Baroccianus 85 on f. 6r-v, a folium that was written by Gennadius Scholarius.86 A comparison between the text in the Baroccianus and Photius' Bibliotheca87 did not reveal any noteworthy differences. So again the question is: is it a fragment of Eulogius' text or from Photius' Bibliotheca? If the former is the case, it is proof for possessions. On the legitimacy of Cyril's measures, see the remark by P. Maraval in P. Périchon – P. Maraval, Socrate de Constantinople. Histoire ecclésiastique Livre VII, Paris 2007 (SC 506), p. 36 n. 1. 83 See on this fragment also R. Devreesse, Les anciens commentateurs grecs des Psaumes, Città del Vaticano 1970 (ST 264), p. 316. Demetracopoulos listed this fragment as a "fragmentum adespotum" (see his Philonic Theology, cit., p. 138). 84 On this fragment, see T. Hainthaler in Grillmeier, Jesus der Christus 2/4, cit., p. 70. 85 Cf. S. Helmer, Der Neuchalkedonismus. Geschichte, Berechtigung und Bedeutung eines dogmengeschichtlichen Begriffes (Inaugural-dissertation), Bonn 1962, p. 236. 86 For this identification, see RGK 1A, n. 71 (p. 61). 87 See cod. 227 (244a28 – 245a12). 28 Bram Roosen – Eulogii Alexandrini quae supersunt Photius' faithfulness to the texts he discussed. If, however, the latter is true, the reference to that fragment should be deleted from CPG. Yet, a fragment from this writing did survive. Indeed, the partial edition of the Taktikon by Nicon of the Black Mountain opens with the following short quotation on α taken from an unnamed work by 88 Eulogius: ῖ α π πα Ἀ α α· ῖ φ πα α , α , πα α α π α α α π ῖ α . These same lines seem to have enjoyed some popularity in the 13th century, in the resistance against the Union of Lyon. With minor differences they are found in the Response of Patriarch Joseph I to the unionist Tomos of Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologus; 89 as chapter 34, 4 of Ps.-Michael Cerularius' Panoplia90 and they were versified by Meletius Galesiotes in his Oratio contra Italos, v. 67-71:91 Ν Ν αυ α ,Νπ πα ΝἈ α α· Ν ,Νφ ,Ν Ν ῖ Ν π ῖ Νπα Ν πα α α Ν Ν α ,Ν Ν Ν α π , Νπα α Ν ,Ν Υ Ν α, α Νπ αΝ α Ν αΝ Ν αέ In the early 15th century the quote is used by Manuel II Palaeologus in his Apologia de processione Spiritus sancti92 and twice in Macarius of Ancyra's Contra errores Latinorum.93 It is picked up again in the unionist controversies sparked by the Council of Ferrara-Florence: John Eugenicus quotes it in his 88 See the edition by V. BeneševiΕ, Taktikon Nikona Chermogortsa, St.-Petersburg 1917, p. 4, ll. 14-17. 89 See the edition of this Response by V. Laurent – J. Darrouzès, Dossier grec de l'Union de Lyon (1273-1277), Paris 1976 (AOC 16), p. 273, ll. 1-3. 90 See the edition by A. Michel, Humbert und Kerullarios. Quellen und Studien zum Schisma des XI. Jahrhunderts II, Paderborn, 1930 (Quellen und Forschungen aus dem Gebiete der Geschichte 23), p. 250, l. 31 – p. 252, l. 2. On the attribution of the text to the 13th century, see Laurent – Darrouzès, Union de Lyon, cit., pp. 116-127. 91 See Laurent – Darrouzès, Union de Lyon, cit., p. 556. 92 See chapter 150, ll. 28-31. The editio princeps of this text, prepared by Ch. Dendrinos, will appear as volume 71 of the CCSG. 93 See 113, 3-5 and 122, 11-13 in the edition by Ch. Triantafyllopoulos, An Annotated Critical Edition of the Treatise Against the Errors of the Latins by Makarios, Metropolitan of Ankyra (1397-1405) (doctoral dissertation), London (Royal Holloway College) 2009. 29 Bram Roosen – Eulogii Alexandrini quae supersunt Antirrheticus adversus decretum Concilii Florentini94 and it seems to have been the inspiration for the last paragraph of Gennadius Scholarius' Memorandum to the emperor against the Council of Florence. 95 Finally, Prof. Dr. P. Van Deun drew our attention to the presence of these lines on f. 193 of the 16th- century ms. Athous, Iviron 386.96 Although nowhere the exact source of this quote is mentioned, there are strong indications that it was taken from Eulogius' Contra Theodosianos et Gaianitas. From Photius' description of this treatise – which as a matter of fact is confirmed by Theodore of Stoudion's own reading of Eulogius' text97 – it is clear that Eulogius argued against the short-lived union of 581 between the supporters of Theodosius and the supporters of Gaianus.98 Photius writes e.g. υ (sc. Eulogius) π α α ῖ α , ' α π π α υ .99 further down: Ἔπ α α α α, α α πα α π α· υ υ α απ υ , απ α α υ α α .100 and at the end: α α α α α α φ , π α π α α ῖ α απ π α α , αφ π α α , π π υ π ῖ α .101 94 See p. 116, ll. 9-11 in the edition by E. Rossidou-Koutsou, John Eugenikos' Antirrhetic of the Decree of the Council of Ferrara- Florence. An annotated critical edition, Nicosia 2006. 95 See p. 192, l. 24 – p. 193, l. 6 in the edition by L. Petit – X.A. Siderides – M. Jugie, Œuvres complètes de Gennade Scholarios III, Paris 1930. 96 In this ms. the quote is followed by an excerpt from the Greek translation of Caelestinus I papa's letter to Nestorius [CPG 8639] (see ACO I, 1, 1, p. 79, ll. 22-23) and by the very beginning and end of the letter to Joseph the Exarch by (again) Gennadius Scholarius (see L. Petit – X.A. Siderides – M. Jugie, Œuvres complètes de Gennade Scholarios IV, Paris 1935, pp. 155 – 160, l. 12 and p. 281, l. 35 – p. 284, l. 23). 97 In his letter 49, addressed to the young Naucratius, Theodore writes (cf. ll. 57-92) that he based his own (now lost) treatise α υ α on Eulogius' treatise α . The description he gives of the text closely resembles the description by Photius. This was not noticed by G. Fatouros, the editor of Theodore's letters (see Theodori Studitae Epistulae I, Berlin – New York 1992 [CFHB XXXI, 1, Series Berolinensis], pp. 141-142 and the introduction pp. 193*-194*). 98 See T. Hainthaler, in Grillmeier, Jesus der Christus 2/4, cit., p. 47. 99 Cf. Photius, Bibl. cod. 227 (244a18-20). 100 Cf. Photius, Bibl. cod. 227 (244a33-37). 101 Cf. Photius, Bibl. cod. 227 (245a7-12). 30 Bram Roosen – Eulogii Alexandrini quae supersunt In other words, both the general subject and the wording found in the lines quoted from Photius' Bibliotheca suggest that the line so popular in anti-unionist circles was taken from the anti-unionist treatise α (in the words of Theodore of Stoudion), or Kα ῖ Θ α ῖ α Γα α ῖ α ῖ φ π α υ (in the words of Photius) by Eulogius. 5 Orationes undecim [CPG 6976e] In the list of works in Photius' codex 230 as found in the CPG, two corrections should be made: Photius mentions not three, but only two Apologiae pro synodo Chalcedonensi and one text is overlooked. The list should therefore look like this102 – the changes are marked with an asterisk –: 1. Apologia pro litteris synodicis (267a3 – b30); 2. Expositio fidei (267b31 – 268a22); *3. + 4. Apologiae pro synodo Chalcedonensi (268a23 – 275b21 + 275b22 – 277b41); 5. Adversus eos qui putant humanis conceptionibus veram theologiam christianam posse subiici (277b42 – 280b36); 6. Ad Domitianum Melitenum (280b37 – 281b40); 7. Ad Christophorum (281b 41 – 282b36); *8. Ἐ ῦ υ (282b37 – 283b2); 9. Paraenesis ad eos qui ab ecclesia discesserunt (283b3 – 284a17); 10. Adversus Agnoetas (284a18 – 285a23); 11. Adversus Samaritas Dositheanos (285a24 – 286a11) 5.1 The Apologia pro litteris synodicis [CPG 6976e1] and the Expositio fidei [CPG 6976e2] and their identification with the pseudo-)Eulogian De trinitate et de incarnatione [CPG 6979] A short but interesting re-evaluation and discussion of the authenticity of this text can be found in Demetracopoulos, who also presents a status quaestionis. He argues 103 that in order to solve the authenticity problem of De trinitate et incarnatione and the problem that two different versions of this text seem to have existed, we must identify the version in the PG (see LXXXVI2, coll. 2940D1-2944C10) with 102 See also the discussion of codex 230 by J. Schamp, Photios historien des lettres. La Bibliothèque et ses notices biographiques, Paris 1987 (Bibliothèque de la Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres de l'Université de Liège 248) pp. 115-125. 103 See Philonic Theology, cit., pp. 137-138. 31 Bram Roosen – Eulogii Alexandrini quae supersunt the Apologia pro litteris synodicis and the version as edited by O. Bardenhewer104 with the Expositio fidei. Future research will have to decide whether this conclusion can be accepted. 5.2 Adversus eos qui putant humanis conceptionibus veram theologiam christianam posse subiici [CPG 6976e5] The fragment of which we present the editio princeps is preserved on ff. 251-252 of the aforementioned ms. Mb. Although lacking a reference to the work it was taken from – the title only has Ἐ υ π π υἈ α α –, the fragment shows remarkable similarities with the lines Photius devoted to Eulogius' Adversus eos qui putant humanis conceptionibus veram theologiam christianam posse subiici, the fifth text in his cod. 230. But given Photius' remark in codex 186 "But why should I almost transcribe these things, when I should proceed much more summarily?", such similarities should hardly come as a complete surprise.105 Stylistically speaking the fragment has some similarities with the Dubitationes orthodoxi, although it shows more variation: while, as already said, the Dubitationes orthodoxi are a clear example of the subgenre of the π α , in this case the aporetic alternates with definitions, mere statements and frequently also combines these. Judging the fragment as it is read in Mb the original text may have consisted of a number of thematically ordered φ α α, most of them starting either with or with . The different subjects may have been delineated by subtitles some of which are preserved in Mb (see l. 6, l. 32 and probably also l. 46). To be sure, we have to be careful. The compiler of Mb or his source apparently did not feel the need to follow the texts he used very carefully, adapting and shortening whenever he thought fit.106 But while the level of intervention can be established for other texts in Mb, it is impossible for the present text. In any case, it is remarkable that on some occasions Photius' text is longer than the (supposed) original. 104 Cf. Ungedruckte Excerpte aus einer Schrift des Patriarchen Eulogios von Alexandrien über Trinität und Inkarnation, «Theologische Quartalschrift» 78, 1896, pp. 353-401. 105 See Photius, Bibl. cod. 186 (131b19-20). The translation is by W.T. Treadgold, The Nature of the Bibliotheca of Photius, Washington, D.C. 1980 (DOS 18), p. 23. See also the distinction between "Kurzreferat (= gibt den Inhalt in allgemeinem, kondensierten Wortlaut wieder)", "analytische Referat (= Photios' eigenständige, komprimierte Darlegung des Stoffes)" and "Exzerpte" made and discussed by T. Hägg, Photios als Vermittler antiker Literatur. Untersuchungen zur Technik des Referierens und Exzerpierens in der Bibliotheke, Stockholm 1975 (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Graeca Upsaliensia 8), see pp. 197 and 199 for the definitions of the terms. The fact that the codices containing Eulogius' writings are discussed towards the end of the Bibliotheca makes it more likely that Photius' discussion is at least to some extent close to the texts he discusses (see Treadgold, o.c., p. 113). On Photius' way of working, see finally also J.A. Demetracopoulos, Ὁ α 212 ῆ υ υ ῦ Φω υ: ἰ υ, υ .Κ , φ α α υ χ α, « υ α α » 19, 1999, pp. 349-399. 106 The same is true e.g. for the text of Anastasius I Antiochenus' dialogue Adversus eos qui in divinis dicunt tres essentias [CPG 6958]. See Uthemann, Streitgespräch, cit., pp. 76-77. 32 Bram Roosen – Eulogii Alexandrini quae supersunt For the ratio edendi we refer to p. 0000000000 of the present contribution. The words printed in bold are not found in Photius. Ἐ Ε υ χ π π υἈ α α f. 251 Ὅ Ν π Ν αΝ α Ν Ν υ α ,Ν υ π αΝ Ν α υΝ ,Ν α <...> α Ν αΝ Ν π Ν Ν α έ Ὅ π α α ω | α α α φα , f. 251v υ π Ν αΝ α α ,Ν α φυ ῖ π φ 5 π α . α α π α . Τ ῖ πα ᾶ φ ω ῖ Ν α π α Ν α π αΝ α . Τα Ν φα . ω α α ωπ α , πα ω πα α ω α χ' . αῦ α α α π 10 ῦ υπ α φ α ν αΝ π αΝ υ , α ω α , πα πα Ν π υ α πα ω π' ᾳ Ν π π . Ὅ π α Ν πα Ν α ' αυ Ν φ Ν α Νφα · αυ α α π α Ν , Ν α ' αυ φ Ν α 15 ω α. αυ Ν π α Ν α α, ὡ α Ν α α α π ῖ – Ν π Ν α α –, ὅπ π .Ἐ Ν ᾳ Ν α α α,Ν α π α π χ α υ χ , α α Ν α , α α α α . 20 Ὅ α αΝ ῳ Γ ῳ, « α Νφ Ν Ν Ν »,Ν αυ Ν αΝ α ·Ν Ν α α Ν π , α α α ῳ α ῖ π ῖ πα Ν ῖ. Ὅ Ν α α Ν ,Ν π Ν π α Ν αέ 25 αυ ω α α π α , ῳ α α υ π α ῖ α; Ν π Ν υ υ π χ ω πα α , α Να πα χ α αέ Ε υ π αΝ α α Ν Ν π α , φα ῖ υ · αφ ω υ π , πα π υ ὡ 30 υ α ω υ π α ω υ ῖ α ῖ. Ὁ αῦ α ω π α α π α , π α ω χω , ὅ π Νφ ω π αῖ α α π , υ υ . Ν π α π α ν <Ἡ> π α Ν Ν υ , ἰ Ν ῦ ῦ ῦ υ, Ν Ν αυ 35 Νπα αΝ υ αέΝ α φ α Να Νπ υ α π π , πα α, ' α Ν α Ν πα Ν π α ῃ , ω χ α . Κα ω π , ω 33 Bram Roosen – Eulogii Alexandrini quae supersunt α αυ , α α φα α. Τ ῦ πα α υ π α | π α ῦ ὥ π εῦ α f. 252 40 υἱoθεσίας, ῦ πα π υ , χα ω α υ . Ἡ ῦ πα π α , α φα α υ ω α, ὗ αῦ α, α π ὃ αῦ α. Ε αῦ α , ὅ ὅ αυ ῳ υ πα , α πα α ὅ 45 αυ υ υ · α ῦ πα α α, ῦ υ ᾶ α, π ῦ α α υ παυ α υ. Ν π Νφ νΝ Ν υ Ν . Ὅ Ν α πα ῖ υ ΝK , Ν α Νπ ῖ πέΝ Ἐ Ν π υ Ν Ν πα ῖ Ν α , αΝ π Ν 50 ,Ν Ν Ν Ν φ Ν Ν π Να πα ῖ . α α α υ α π ῦ α ῖ α ,α α Ν π , αῖ Ν α Ν α αυ Ν φ α πα α χ ,π υ α α , α υ χ , π ω ῖ χα α ω – 55 Ν Ν Ν α Ν Ν –. K ῃ α, π , π π πα α α ω α π αφ α , α ω α. Ὅ ὥ π , υ α π ω ῦ Χ ῦ 60 υ χ α , ω φ α α ῖ α αῦ α , α αχω ῖ α ᾶ π φυᾶ α π ω · α αῦ α α α , υ α α υ α ῖ υ χ υ , ῖ α ῦ υ α υ α. 1/2 cf. Photium, Bibl. cod. 230 (278a8-13): π α α υ α υ π α π , α υ α α α π α π υ α α α π α υ φ α ,... 4 cf. Photium, Bibl. cod. 230 (279b13). Vide etiam infra, l. 27. 4/5 cf. Photium, Bibl. cod. 230 (279a2-3): ... π ῖ π π ,... 6 cf. Photium, Bibl. cod. 230 (279a8-9): ... π α α α α π α ... 7/9 cf. Photium, Bibl. cod. 230 (279a11-15): α π α α α, α π α υ φα π α , υ , α π α φ α , φα α α α π φ . 10/12 cf. Photium, Bibl. cod. 230 (279a15-17): α α, π α, α ’Ν α π α α πα α π’Ν ᾳ π α π α ; Vide et ibid. (278b29-31): ... α π υ α , α α, ' π' ᾳ ,... 13/15 cf. Photium, Bibl. cod. 230 (279a18-20): Ἀ α π α π α φ α ’ αυ · α ,π π α α ’Ν αυ , ῳ α α α α α; 13 Ad definitionem vocabuli π α ut α ' αυ α, vide praesertim Leontium Byz., C. Nest. et Eutych. I [CPG 6813] (PG LXXXVI1, col. 1280A6-7), sed etiam eundem, Solutio argum. Severi [CPG 6815] (PG LXXXVI2, col. 1945A6-8). Cf. M. Richard, Léonce et Pamphile, «Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques» 27, 1938, p. 33, reprinted as M. Richard, Opera minora III, Turnhout – Leuven 1977, n. 58. Vide e.g. et G. Bausenhart, »In allem uns gleich außer der Sünde«. Studien zum Beitrag Maximos' des BekennersΝгurΝaltkἑrcἐlἑcἐenΝCἐrἑstoloРἑeΝmἑtΝeἑnerΝkommentἑertenΝоbersetгunРΝderΝ„DἑsputatἑoΝcumΝ Pвrrἐo“, Mainz 1992 (Tübinger Studien zur Theologie und Philosophie 5), pp. 95-96 et D. Krausmüller, Making Sense of the 34 Bram Roosen – Eulogii Alexandrini quae supersunt Formula of Chalcedon: the CappadociansΝandΝArἑstotleΝἑnΝδeontἑusΝoПΝBвгantἑum’s Contra Nestorianos et Eutychianos, «Vigiliae Christianae» 65, 2011, pp. 484-513. 16/19 cf. Photium, Bibl. cod. 230 (279a20-23): α π πα α α , α φα . α ᾳ α π α α α α, α α φα . 16 ( ... α) cf. Photium, Bibl. cod. 230 (279a11): αυ π α α α ... 18 (Ἐ ... π ) cf. Dexipp., In Cat. (p. 40, l. 3), Simplic., In Cat. (p. 62, ll. 4-6) et Ioh. Philop., In Cat. (p. 198, l. 29 – p. 199, l. 4), fortasse ex Aristot., Cat. 7b38-39107 20/22 cf. Photium, Bibl. cod. 230 (279a25-35): α ῳ α α φ π , π α α α, π α ’ πα α α φ , α α π , α α α π α α υ α. α α α α π , π α ῳ α π ῖ πα ῖ, π Γ π ῖ , α π α π α, 20/21 Greg. Naz., Or. 33, 16, 23 (edd. Cl. Moreschini – P. Gallay, Grégoire de Nazianze: Discours 32-37, Paris, 1985 [SC 318], p. 194) 23/24 cf. Photium, Bibl. cod. 230 (279a35-39): ’Ν α α α , υ , π α π α , α π ·« αῖ , α , α ’ αυ φ α », π π πα α α . 25/27 cf. Photium, Bibl. cod. 230 (279a39 – b12): , π α π υ υ υ , α απ α π φ α; α π α υ α α, α π ᾳ υ α α, α αυ απ υ υ α , α , π φ α π α α α α α α φ υ ῖ , α απ α α πα α α ῖ α φυ α α· ᾳ ᾳ φα α α π α π α π α υ υ α.Ἀ α π α. Ἀ ’ ’ φ . 28/32 cf. Photius, Bibl. cod. 230 (279b12-16): Φα υ π α α α α π α · π φα υ , α π π α Θ ; 33 cf. Photium, Bibl. cod. 230 (280b6): π α ; 34/38 cf. Photium, Bibl. cod. 230 (280b11-16): αφ φ α π α ἰ ῦ Θ ῦ ῦ υ, αυ α α υ α. α φα α πα α π α α α , ᾳ υ φ α. 34 Col. 1, 15 39/40 Rom. 8, 15 40/41 ( α υ ) cf. e.g. Ps. Dion. Areop., Div. Nom. [CPG 6602] II, 4 (ed. B.R. Suchla, Corpus Dionysiacum I, Berlin – New York 1990 [PTS 33], p. 127, l. 3) 47 Cyrill. Alex., Ep. 46 [CPG 5346] (ed. ACO I, 1, 6, p. 162, l. 14): π φ π υ ; 48/50 ibid. (ed. ACO I, 1, 6, p. 161, ll. 19-22): α πα ῖ υ α π ῖ π · π υ πα ῖ α , α π , φ π α πα ῖ 48 cf. I Petr. 4, 1 52 Greg. Naz., Or. 33, 16, 23-24 (p. 194) (cf. et Photius, Bibl. cod. 230 [279a37-38]; cit. supra ad ll. 23/24) 54/55 ( ... ) cf. e.g. Theodoret. ep. Cyri, Exp. rectae fid. [CPG 6218] (PG VI, col. 1220C5-6); Epiph., Ancoratus [CPG 3744] 22, 7, 3-4 (ed. K. Holl, Epiphanius, I. Ancoratus et Panarion (haer. 1-3), Leipzig 1915 [GCS 25]); Anast. Sin., In constit. hom. [CPG 7747] I, 3, 85-86 (ed. K.-H. Uthemann, Anastasii Sinaitae. Sermones duo in constitutionem hominis secundum imaginem dei necnon Opuscula adversus monotheletas, Turnhout – Leuven 1985 [CCSG 12], p. 21). 2 quaedam verba cecidisse videntur 4 α 2] forsitan delendum sit, ut existimat Demetracopoulos 6 α] correxi; α Mb 34 Ἡ] addidi 37 1] Mb ] Mba. corr. 38 α Mb 47 υ Mb 48 υ ῖ 107 I thank Dr. J.A. Demetracopoulos for these references. 35 Bram Roosen – Eulogii Alexandrini quae supersunt Mb 49 π Mb 52 φ α sic Mb 54 ῖ α Mb 57 α ... α ] correxi cum Demetracopoulos, α ... α Mb π αφ ] π αφ Mb υ α α υ α Mb From the writings of Eulogius, archbishop of Alexandria That as concerns the holy Trinity the essential properties while remaining unmoved, are united through the undivided unity, and <...> that the hypostaseis have one energy. That without investigation some say that hypostaseis are merely non-essential properties, while others say that they are a combination of essence and non-essential property, and as such they do not hesitate to make what is above nature subject to the way the natural world is described. Against those who say that the hypostasis is a non-essential property. The Fathers unanimously believe that one hypostasis of the trinity became incarnate and they call that hypostatis God Word. That a non-essential property ( α) became incarnate however, this we have found transmitted by not one of the Fathers. Should we not say these very things also about the holy Spirit? Indeed, if they call the holy Spirit a non-essential property, that which came forth from the Father and which was sent by the Saviour for the benefit of those receiving it, will be a non-essential property alone. That the Fathers say that the hypostasis belongs to the things that have autonomous existence. However, if non-essential property and hypostasis are identical, then also the non-essential property belongs to the things that have autonomous existence. If hypostasis and non-essential property are the same, clearly it is necessary to say that the essence exists also in the non-essential properties – for the essence is confessed to be in three hypostaseis –. That, however, is impossible. For while the non-essential properties are frequently said to be in and around the essence, we have learned of no one saying that the essence is in the non-essential properties. That even if Gregory the theologian says «one nature in three essential properties», non-essential property and essential property are not the same thing: for the essential property is characteristic of the hypostasis, as Basil and the other Fathers believe. That the theologian calls the hypostasis essential property because of the characteristic mark of an essential property. If non-essential property and hypostasis are the same, by what word would we be able to call the non- essential properties consubstantial? For the Fathers have stated that the hypostaseis are consubstantial with each other, since they are of the same essence. If a hypostasis is the combination of essence and non-essential property, it has the outward appearance of a combination. For it is clear to all that that which is a combination of different things appears to be a compound after the component parts have come together. But he who says that forgets the simplicity and the oneness, because he does not stick to the rule that of a simple nature also the hypostaseis are simple, while of a composite nature also the hypostaseis are composite. What is hypostasis in the case of the holy Trinity? The hypostasis of the Son is icon of the invisible God, showing in itself the whole Father. If you would also call it spiritual wisdom, I do not reject it, but if you would also call it word or power of the Father, I gladly accept what is said. For also by such names that which is united appears in the same person also to be distinguished. 36 Bram Roosen – Eulogii Alexandrini quae supersunt Of the all-holy Spirit we will say that the hypostasis is the spirit of adoption, which comes forth from the Father, the substantial abode and foundation of the gifts. The hypostasis of the Father is to be the begetter of wisdom and power, from whom and towards whom these things (are moved). God, however, is one, since the Father shows Himself completely in the Word, and the Son shows the Father completely in Himself. And it is proper to the Father to be begetter, while it is proper to the Word to be begotten, never starting or ending Himself the act of begetting. What is the nature of humanity? Flesh endowed with an intellectual soul. That he who says that the Lord suffered only in the flesh, makes the suffering irrational and involuntary. But if he were to say that He suffered with his rational spirit, in order that the suffering would be voluntary, nothing prevents him from saying that He suffered in the nature of his humanity. When being taught to confess Father, Son and Holy Spirit, while accepting the monad in three hypostaseis, spiritual, perfect and with autonomous existence, believe without dividing because of the triad, without confounding because of the monad, and without characterizing the other world on the basis of our world – for the monad is in the triad and the triad in the monad –. And if you hear triad, do not reject the monad, because (otherwise) a multitude of gods will meet you, each of them considered in limitation, and the oneness of God will in no way be saveguarded. That it is sacriligeous to profess that the things that came together for the union of Christ are confounded, in the same way as it is blasphemous to think that they are separated, and to dare to separate the supernatural and ineffable union. The path of the Church now runs between these two extremes: for the Church does not commit the same errors as those who confound, nor does she slip together with those who divide. 5.3 Adversus Samaritas Dositheanos [CPG 6976e11] As indicated by Demetracopoulos a fragment from this writing is found in PG LXXXVI2, col. 2961D1-6. The similarities with Photius' discussion of this text (see cod. 230; 286b1-10) are sufficient proof for this identification. 6 Εἰς ὸ Πά ερ ἡ ῶ όγος [no CPG number] Chapter 12 (Ὅ α ) of the famous Florilegium Achridense,108 opens with a short fragment, entitled υ υ πα υἈ α α υ (p. 165, ll. 2-8). The Florilegium is notorious for containing a number of so-called dyothelite forgeries and while it cannot be excluded that the fragment is one of those, the stylistic similarities with the Dubitationes orthodoxi at least makes for a very good fraud, all the more so, if the authenticity of the De 108 On this florilegium and the ms. in which it is preserved (ms. 84 [Inv. 86] of the Naroden Muzej in Ohrid), see our article On the Recent Edition of the Disputatio Bizyae. With an Analysis of Chapter XXIV De providentia of the Florilegium Achridense and an Index manuscriptorum in Appendix, «Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik» 51 (2001), pp. 113-131 and the older literature listed in n. 10 of that article. 37 Bram Roosen – Eulogii Alexandrini quae supersunt trinitate et de incarnatione (see above 5. 1) is accepted, with its arguments in favour of two wills and energies in Christ. υ υ πα υἈ α α υ Ἂ π α υ , π υ υ π , α α α Ἐ α υ , α α · ῖ π α φυ α α ν π π α , π ῖ π 5 π α , ῖ α α υ . φυ π ,π π φ π , α φυ α α α υ υ . Of the holy Eulogius, Patriarch of Alexandria, from his treatise dealing with the ur Father But if again they were to say shamelessly that just like the hypostasis of the incarnate Word ('Emmanuel') is one and composite, in the same way his energy and will are one, ask them: "Then do we have to say that his will and energy are proper to his hypostasis rather than to his nature?" And if they were to answer 'proper to his hypostasis', necessarily, by stating that there are three hypostaseis in the holy triad, they will assign to it also three energies. But if they were to answer 'proper to his nature', by fitly stating that there are two natures in Christ, they piously establish that also their natural wills and energies are two. 7 Epistulae [no CPG number] It goes without saying – although it might come as a surprise to the digital natives among us – that Eulogius also wrote letters to different people. Unfortunately all of them have disappeared, not, however, without leaving a trace. At the end of his discussion of codex 227 Photius writes the following (254a14- 18): ῖ α π α α υ ῳ π πῳ α υπ , α π υ ,π φ α π υ α υ α α α α π . While still priest in Antioch, Eulogius apparently sent a confession of faith to Eutychius, the Patriarch of Constantinople. As far as we know, Photius is the only source of information about this lost text. 38 Bram Roosen – Eulogii Alexandrini quae supersunt Moreover, the gist of some of his letters to Gregory the Great can be reconstructed on the basis of the answers sent by Gregory.109 Finally, Photius explains that the so-called Apologiae pro litteris synodicis [CPG 6976e1] – directed to Gregory the Great and thus in a way also a letter – were written in response to the fact that Gregory had complained about the incompleteness of a synodal letter Eulogius had sent him. On the basis of what Photius writes we can at least conclude what Eulogius' letter did not contain.110 8 Conclusion It should be clear by now that there is much more to be said about Eulogius of Alexandria than might appear from the Clavis Patrum Graecorum and from the small number of lines that are normally devoted to him in general works on Byzantine literature, history or theology. Moreover, it is far from certain that the present article has gathered all that remains. The database Pinakes of the IRHT lists under the mysterious heading "Eulogius Alexandrinus Opera" a considerable number of mss., none of which was accessible to us in writing this article.111 And in her catalogue of the newly found Syriac parchment mss. of patristic, monastic or hagiographic content, Mother Philothea112 discusses some folios on which the title "Of saint Eulogius. 16" is found. But while she considers the text to be of hagiographic nature, P. Géhin's conclusion that the text is polemical is very likely correct.113 It is hoped that this article will encourage other scholars to continue the search for Eulogii Alexandrini quae supersunt, so that one day we will be able to add omnia to Eulogii Alexandrini quae supersunt. Late addition 109 As concerns the discussion over the ecumenical title of the Patriarch of Constantinople, Eulogius' stand is deduced from Gregory's letters by Demacopoulos, Gregory the Great, cit., especially pp. 612-615. 110 See cod. 230 (267a5-12): ῖ α , υ π α α π , ' α υ α , π υ · α ' π π υ , ' α α πα α , α φ υ π . 111 Except of course the ms. from Milan (Mediolanensis, Bibliothecae Ambrosianae Q74 sup. [681]). See http://pinakes.irht.cnrs.fr/notices/oeuvre/id/10331 (checked: 12/12/2014). 112 Cf. Nouveaux Manuscrits Syriaques du Sinaï, Athènes, 2008, p. 473, where the siglum M44N should be corrected into M61N (the correct plate is found on p. 553). The catalogue is found online at https://archive.org/details/NouveauxManuscritsSyriaquesDuSinai) (checked: 12/12/2014). 113 Cf. P. Géhin, Les Fragments patristiques syriaques des «Nouvelles découvertes» de Sainte-Catherine du Sinaï. À propos d'un catalogue récent, «Collectanea Christiana Orientalia» 6, 2009, p. 83. 39 Bram Roosen – Eulogii Alexandrini quae supersunt This contribution was already available in proofs, when we came across the remains of at least one, maybe two festal letters by Eulogius. One has a clear attribution to Eulogius and is preserved in a Grottaferrata palimpsest of possibly Roman origin (E. .VII, pp. 298/297).114 The other is preserved in Coptic, on some papyrus fragments kept in the John Rylands Library of Manchester (Coptic Suppl. n. 47-48). According to A. Camplani, the editor of these Coptic fragments, however, it is more likely that the letter is to be attributed to the antichalcedonian Patriarch of Alexandria, Damian, although Eulogius' authorship is not entirely to be excluded.115 114 See E. Crisci, I palinsesti di Grottaferrata. Studio codicologico e paleografico (Pubblicazioni dell'Università degli studi de Cassino. Sezione di studi filologici, letterari, storici, artistici e geografici, 2), Napoli, 1990, p. 225. The edition of this text by S.J. Voicu and A. Camplani, as announced S.J. Voicu, L'omeliario B.α.LV: note di lettura, «Bollettino della Badia greca di Grottaferrata» N.S. 56/57 (2002-2003), p. 40 (and p. 43-44 for the Roman origin) and by A. Camplani, Coptic Fragments from a Festal Letter of the Late Sixth Century (John Rylands Library, Coptic Suppl. n. 47-48): Damian or Eulogius?, in M. Immerzeel – J. Van Der Vliet, Coptic Studies on the Threshold of a New Millennium, I. Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Coptic Studies. Leiden, 27 August – 2 September 2000 (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 133), Leuven – Paris – Dudley, MA 2004, p. 325, n. 26, has not seen the light yet. 115 See the article by A. Camplani mentioned in the foregoing footnote. 40