Ornamentation in Baroque and Post-Baroque Music

12
7/25/2019 Ornamentation in Baroque and Post-Baroque Music http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ornamentation-in-baroque-and-post-baroque-music 1/12 Ohio Slavic Papers 9(2009): 375–386 The Systematic Collection of Apophthegmata Patrum (CPG 5562 1 ): The Life of Its First Greek Codex from ca. 500 AD to 885 AD William R. Veder To honor the memory of Jean–Claude Guy sj Quod te jubente cœpi, te orante perficiam (Paschasius) The tradition of Slavonic texts is deeply marked by conservatism. If not used in regular observance, they are neither updated nor edited, save quantitatively (conflation, excerption, interpolation), even contamination of manuscripts is rare; ubiquitous is degradation, but that can effectively be healed by the proven procedures of textual criticism. Owing to this conservatism, the Slavonic tradition preserves not only entire texts, apparently lost in the Greek tradition to which the Slavonic is subsidiary, 2  but also indispensable complements to the establishment of texts degraded in transmission. 3  It would, in fact, be prudent to check the elements of the corpus christianorum that have a Slavonic translation against the readings of those translations before considering them reliably established. An impressive demonstration of the value of Slavonic translations for the establishment of a Greek source text is provided by the Scete Patericon, 4  the translation 1  The CPG  – and CPL  –numbers in this paper refer to the two great repertories of Greek and Latin patristic texts by M. Geerard (ed.). Clavis patrum græcorum, 1–5 + Supplementum. Turnhout 1974–1987, 1998, and  by E. Dekker (ed.). Clavis patrum latinorum. Turnhout 1995; the PG and PL references are to the collection of texts reprinted by J.–P. Migne (ed.). Patrolog iæ cursu s comple tus. Serie s græca . Paris 1857– 1866, and idem Series Latina. Paris 1844–1855. The BHG references are to the great repertory of Greek hagiographic texts by François Halkin (ed.) Biblioth eca hagio graphica graeca, 1–3 + Novum auctarium . Bruxelles (= Subsidia hagiographica 8a + 65) 1957–1984. 2  E.g. 2 Enoch (cf. The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium. New York–Oxford 1991: Vol.1: 701), numerous vitæ and homilies (cf. e.g. M. Capaldo, J. Zaimov. Supras!lski ili Retkov sbornik, I . Sofia 1982: 11–12), as well as edificatory texts like the Centuria de fide orthodoxa attributed to patriarch Gennadios I (M.N. Speranskij. Perevodn ye sborn iki izre enij v slavjano–russkoj pis’mennosti. Issledovanie i teksty. Moskva 1904: 507–511). 3  E.g. 3 Baruch (H.E. Gaylord. ‘Slavjanskij tekst Tret’ej knigi Varuxa’.  Polata kn igopisna ja 7 (1983): 49– 56.), Esther  (Horace G. Lunt, Moshe Taube. The Slavonic Book of Esther. Text, Lexicon, Linguistic  Analysis , Problem s of Tran slation . Cambridge 1998, F.J. Thomson. ‘The Slavonic Translation of the Old Testament’. In: J. Kra!ovec (ed.) Interpre tation of the Bible . Ljubljana–Sheffield 1998: 780–788), the Euthalian Apparatus to the Acts and Epistles  (J.G. van der Tak.  Euthalius Diaconu s: Prolo gues and  Abstract s to the A cts and th e Epistle s of the A postles i n Greek T ext and Slavonic Translati on. Sofia (=  Kirilo–M etodievs ki studii  15) 2004), the vita of St Nephon of Constantia (A.S. Gerd, U.R. Feder. Cerkovnoslavjanskie teksty i ix jazyk.  S.–Peterburg 2003), and the Pratum spiritual e of John Moschus (Evgeni Za!ev. ‘K "m problema za gr "ckija p"rvoobraz na Sinajskija paterik’. Preslavs ka kni  # ovna $ kola 8/2005: 53–68). 4  Scete was added to Paterico n when the appearance of more paterica  in Slavonic (cf. the next note) necessitated a differentiated nomenclature. The name does justice to the prominence of the monastic center of Scete in the collection (cf. J.–C. Guy.  Les Apo phtègme s des Pèr es, Colle ction sys tématique , chapitr es I–  

Transcript of Ornamentation in Baroque and Post-Baroque Music

Page 1: Ornamentation in Baroque and Post-Baroque Music

7/25/2019 Ornamentation in Baroque and Post-Baroque Music

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ornamentation-in-baroque-and-post-baroque-music 1/12

Ohio Slavic Papers 9(2009): 375–386 

The Systematic Collection of Apophthegmata Patrum (CPG 55621):

The Life of Its First Greek Codex from ca. 500 AD to 885 AD

William R. Veder

To honor the memory of Jean–Claude Guy sj

Quod te jubente cœpi, te orante perficiam (Paschasius)

The tradition of Slavonic texts is deeply marked by conservatism. If not used in regular

observance, they are neither updated nor edited, save quantitatively (conflation,

excerption, interpolation), even contamination of manuscripts is rare; ubiquitous is

degradation, but that can effectively be healed by the proven procedures of textual

criticism. Owing to this conservatism, the Slavonic tradition preserves not only entire

texts, apparently lost in the Greek tradition to which the Slavonic is subsidiary,2 but also

indispensable complements to the establishment of texts degraded in transmission.3

 Itwould, in fact, be prudent to check the elements of the corpus christianorum that have a

Slavonic translation against the readings of those translations before considering them

reliably established.

An impressive demonstration of the value of Slavonic translations for the

establishment of a Greek source text is provided by the Scete Patericon,4 the translation

1 The CPG – and CPL –numbers in this paper refer to the two great repertories of Greek and Latin patristic

texts by M. Geerard (ed.). Clavis patrum græcorum, 1–5 + Supplementum. Turnhout 1974–1987, 1998, and

 by E. Dekker (ed.). Clavis patrum latinorum. Turnhout 1995; the PG and PL references are to the

collection of texts reprinted by J.–P. Migne (ed.). Patrologiæ cursus completus. Series græca . Paris 1857– 

1866, and idem Series Latina. Paris 1844–1855. The BHG references are to the great repertory of Greekhagiographic texts by François Halkin (ed.) Bibliotheca hagiographica graeca, 1–3 + Novum auctarium .

Bruxelles (= Subsidia hagiographica 8a + 65) 1957–1984. 2 E.g. 2 Enoch (cf. The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium. New York–Oxford 1991: Vol.1: 701), numerous

vitæ and homilies (cf. e.g. M. Capaldo, J. Zaimov. Supras!lski ili Retkov sbornik, I . Sofia 1982: 11–12), as

well as edificatory texts like the Centuria de fide orthodoxa attributed to patriarch Gennadios I (M.N.

Speranskij. Perevodnye sborniki izre" enij v slavjano–russkoj pis’mennosti. Issledovanie i teksty. Moskva

1904: 507–511). 3 E.g. 3 Baruch (H.E. Gaylord. ‘Slavjanskij tekst Tret’ej knigi Varuxa’. Polata knigopisnaja 7 (1983): 49– 

56.), Esther  (Horace G. Lunt, Moshe Taube. The Slavonic Book of Esther. Text, Lexicon, Linguistic

 Analysis, Problems of Translation. Cambridge 1998, F.J. Thomson. ‘The Slavonic Translation of the Old

Testament’. In: J. Kra!ovec (ed.) Interpretation of the Bible . Ljubljana–Sheffield 1998: 780–788), the

Euthalian Apparatus to the Acts and Epistles  (J.G. van der Tak. Euthalius Diaconus: Prologues and

 Abstracts to the Acts and the Epistles of the Apostles in Greek Text and Slavonic Translation. Sofia (=

 Kirilo–Metodievski studii 15) 2004), the vita of St Nephon of Constantia (A.S. Gerd, U.R. Feder.

Cerkovnoslavjanskie teksty i ix jazyk. S.–Peterburg 2003), and the Pratum spirituale of John Moschus

(Evgeni Za!ev. ‘K "m problema za gr "ckija p"rvoobraz na Sinajskija paterik’. Preslavska kni # ovna $ kola 

8/2005: 53–68). 4 Scete was added to Patericon when the appearance of more paterica  in Slavonic (cf. the next note)

necessitated a differentiated nomenclature. The name does justice to the prominence of the monastic center

of Scete in the collection (cf. J.–C. Guy.  Les Apophtègmes des Pères, Collection systématique, chapitres I– 

 

Page 2: Ornamentation in Baroque and Post-Baroque Music

7/25/2019 Ornamentation in Baroque and Post-Baroque Music

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ornamentation-in-baroque-and-post-baroque-music 2/12

William R. Veder

376

of the Systematic Collection of Apophthegmata patrum. It is the first of the paterica to be

translated into Slavonic,5 and it may be ascribed to none less than St Methodius6 (perhaps

with the collaboration of one or more disciples7), which would date its completion prior

to 6 April 885.8 

Let us first review its inventory9 in comparison to that of the Latin translation

made before ca. 560 by the Roman deacons Pelagius and John ( PJ 10

). All deviations aremarked bold and reflect the numbering of the Greek Systematic Collection by Jean– 

Claude Guy; those with the letters A and B mark additions not attested in the Greek

Systematic Collection and are followed by an identification11

 in parentheses; brackets and

 IX. Paris (= Sources chrétiennes 387) 1993; 35). 5 The others are (not in chronological order): [2] the  Rimskij  Paterik CPL 1713 (ed. C. Diddi. Paterik

 Rimskij. Dialogi Grigorija Velikogo v drevneslavjanskom perevode. Moskva 2001); [3] the Egipetskij 

 Paterik CPG 6036+6038+5820 (cf. M. Capaldo. Caratteristiche strutturali e prototipi greci dell’Azbu#no– 

Ierusalimskij e dell’Egipetskij Paterik. Cyrillomethodianum 3/1976: 13–27); [4] the Sinajskij  Paterik BHG

1440z–1442 (ed. unius manuscripti V.S. Goly!enko, V.F. Dubrovina. Sinajskij Paterik . Moskva 1967); and

[5] the Azbu" no–Ierusalimskij Paterik  CPG 5560–5561 (Alphabetic Collection ed. R. Caldarelli.  Il Paterik

alfabetico–anonimo in traduzione slavo–ecclesiastica. Roma (La Sapienza, dissertation) 1996; AnonymousCollection cf. N. van Wijk. ‘Podrobnyj obzor cerkovnoslavjanskogo perevoda Bol’!ogo Limonarija’.

 Byzantinoslavica 6/1936–1937: 38–84, L.B. Belova: Azbu" no–Ierusalimskij paterik. Ukazatel’ na" al’nyx

 slov. S.–Peterburg 1991). 6 This attribution, which goes back to N. van Wijk. Studien zu den altkirchenslavischen Paterika.

Amsterdam (= Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen. Afdeling letterkunde.

 Nieuwe reeks 30/2) 1931, is examined by U.R. Feder. Hiljada godini kato edin den. % ivot !t na tekstovete v

 Pravoslavnoto slavjanstvo . Sofia 2005: 287–288. To the arguments in its support must now be added the

great Biblical erudition of the translator who, in contrast to Pelagius and John, missed no more than two out

of over 500 Biblical references in the Greek text, even adding one of his own: in apophthegm 18:13, St

Macarius encounters the devil wearing a $%&'()&*+ ,&+*-+ %)./,.%0+, 123 12%4 %)5µ2,62+ 71)8µ2%* 

,91:+;&*+ ( PJ  tunica linea omnino vetusta et tota cribrata, et per omnia foramina ejus pendebant ampullæ),

 but in Slavonic he wears a !"#$ %&'()*$+ " ,!" %&-(./0& %&'(1 2"'1)34 *5%62"7) ‘a hairy mantle, and at

every hair there hung a gourd’, which associates the scene with the prophet ( Zech 13:4), who will not ‘put

on a hairy mantle in order to deceive’ (cf. W.R. Veder. ‘Biblical Quotations and References in the Scete

Patericon’. Polata knigopisnaja 35 at <kb.osu.edu/handle/1811/6591/>). 7 Differences in the translation of some key concepts mark chapters M and O, cf. Feder.  Hiljada godini:

280–281. 8 The subsequent tradition of the Slavonic translation is surveyed by U.R. Feder. ‘Metodievata zla hiena’.

 Kirilo–Metodievski studii 17, in print. 9 The full incipitarium of the collection is presented in Veder.  Hiljada godini: 254–278. 10 The edition of PJ  by H. Rosweyde. Vitæ patrum. De vita et verbis seniorum libri x... Antwerpen 1615,

(repr. PL 73–74) is defective: it must be complemented with the additions and emendations of P.V. Nikitin.

‘Gre#eskij Skitksij Paterik i ego drevnij latinskij perevod’. Vizantijskij vremennik  22/1915–1916: 127–171

(C.M. Batlle. ‘Vetera nova. Vorläufige kritische Ausgabe bei Rosweyde fehlender Vätersprüche’. In:

 Festschrift für Bernhard Bischoff . Stuttgart 1971: 32–42, who independently carried out the same work,

 produced only the additions) and chapter 21 (ed. A. Wilmart. ‘Le recueil latin des apophtègmes’. Revue

bénédictine 34/1922: 185–198). 11 Identifications are first and foremost by reference to the Greek Alphabetic–Anonymous Collection CPG

5560-61, for which L. Régnault. Les sentences des pères du désert. Troisième recueil et tables. Solesmes

1976 introduced a continuous numbering: 1–948 = apophthegms Antonius 1–Or 15 (ed. J.–B. Cotelier.

 Ecclesiæ græcæ monumenta..., Vol. 1. [Paris], repr. PG 65: 75–440); 949–1001 = Arsenius S1–Syncletica

S10 (ed. J.–C. Guy. Recherches sur la tradition manuscrite des Apophthegmata Patrum. Bruxelles (=

Page 3: Ornamentation in Baroque and Post-Baroque Music

7/25/2019 Ornamentation in Baroque and Post-Baroque Music

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ornamentation-in-baroque-and-post-baroque-music 3/12

Apophthegmata Patrum

377

Roman numerals mark seven sets of foreign texts in the inventory that will be discussed

in greater detail below.

[i]

 PJ 1: 1–12 19 21 13–22 33 23 

[ii]  PJ 2: 1–5 7–16  

 PJ 3: 1–2 [iii] 3 [iv] 4–27  

[v] 

 PJ 4: 1–15 17–22 24–25 28 26–54 65 55 67 – 68 56–67 69–70 85A (SyGr 10:184) 

 PJ 5: 1–9 10 10–24 26–41 

 PJ 6: 1–9 11 10–22 

 PJ 7: 1–4 5 5–12 19 14 21 15–23 25–36 44 37–38 47 39–47  

 PJ 8: 1–4 6–22 24 

 PJ 9: 2–9 14 10–13 

 PJ 10: 1–7 9 8 10–14 47 15–17 21 18–25 27–28 52 29–39 55 – 56 40–44 64 45 62 46–48

70 49–52 84 53–57 85 58 87 59–67 97 68–71 103 – 104 72–79 114 80–82 118 83– 86 88–90 134 91–93 145 – 146 94 147A (1511) 95–103 161 – 163 104–108 169 109– 

114

[vi] 

 PJ 11: 1–14 40 15–24 62 25–31 72 32–40 93 41–42 96 – 98 100 43–47 106 48–49 109 

50–52 116 53–54 

 PJ 12: 1–6 7 7–11 14 17A (1687) 15 13 12 

 PJ 13: 1–6 7 7–15 

 PJ 14: 1–14 13 15–19 

 PJ 15: 1–16 18 17–18 20A (736) 19–26 28 27 29–34 52 35–72 92 73–82 104 83–89 

 PJ 16: 1–7 9A – B (492) 8–13 22 14 23A (1382) 15–19 

 PJ 17: 1–5 7 6–13 17 14–25  PJ 18: 1 1–18 20–22 47 32 23–34 43 44 35–37  

 PJ 19: 1–5 6 8 6–17 21A (1628) 

Subsidia hagiographica 36) 1962: 20–55); 1002–1003 = anonymous apophtghegms N 1–2 (ed. F. Nau.

‘Histoires des solitaires égyptiens’. Revue de l’orient chrétien 12/1907: 48); 1004–1132 = N 4–132 (ed.

ibidem: 48–69, 171–193); 1132A–E = N 132A–E (ed. F. Nau. ‘Le chapitre <=)3 >+2'.)9%?+ @/6.+ et les

sources de la vie de St. Paul de Thèbes’. Revue de l’orient chrétien 10/1905: 387–417); 1133–1392 = N

133–392 (ed. F. Nau. ‘Histoires des solitaires égyptiens’.  Revue de l’orient chrétien 13/1908: 47–66, 266– 

297; 14/1909: 357–379; 17/1912: 204–211, 294–301; 18/1913: 137–144); 1393–1643 = N 393–643

(French translation in L. Régnault. Les sentences des pères du désert. Solesmes 1966 and idem. Les

 sentences des pères du désert. Nouveau recueil . Solesmes 1970); 1660 = J 660 = N 644 (translation

ibidem); 1661–1675 = J 661–675 (translation ibidem and in Régnault. Sentences 1976); 1676–1701 = J

676–701 = N 645–669 (translation in Régnault. Sentences 1970); 1702–1765 = J 702–765 (translation in

Régnault. Sentences 1976). The siglum SyGr  refers to the Greek Systematic Collection CPG 5562 (ed.

Guy. Apophtègmes 1993; Chapitres X-XVI. Paris (= Sources chrétiennes 474) 2003; Chapitres XVII–XXI .

Paris (= Sources chrétiennes 498) 2005. The siglum Mosq refers to the systematic collection of cod.

Mosquensis Synodalis græcus 345 (Russian translation in [ep. Vissarion] Drevnij paterik, izlo # ennyj po

 glavam. Moskva 1892, 2nd. ed.; Bulgarian translation in ierom. P. Stefanov.  Dreven Paterik ili duxovnata

m!drost na otcite na pustinjata. Sofia 1994). 

Page 4: Ornamentation in Baroque and Post-Baroque Music

7/25/2019 Ornamentation in Baroque and Post-Baroque Music

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ornamentation-in-baroque-and-post-baroque-music 4/12

William R. Veder

378

 PJ 20: 1–2 3A (875) 3–7 11 8–12 14 16A (Mosq 20:18) 

 PJ 21: 1–16 21 17–36

 –– 22: 1–1412

 

[vii]

Guy ( Apophtègmes) recognizes in PJ  the sole surviving witness to the original state of theSystematic Collection, the edition of which from the Alphabetico–Anonymous Collection

of Apophthegmata patrum he connects to the institutionalisation of monasticism by the

Council of Chalcedon in 451, i.e. roughly a century before the appearance of the Latin

translation. The Scete Patericon omits 18 of PJ ’s apophthegms, but adds 83. The

moderate increase by 65 apophthegms falls far short of the massive increase of the

inventory by up to 395 apophthegms in the copies from the Eastern part of the empire and

shows that the Greek exemplar perused by the translator was not far remote from that

used by PJ .

This is borne out by the fact that the Slavonic translation contains readings of PJ  

(underlined), which have apparently been replaced by younger readings in the extant

Greek witnesses, e.g. 4:84 PJ 4:69: $=5%,62 µ=%4 A,2%*B CD2/=+ '.)3B [E)%*5 123]7,26*5 – PJ  betas elixas cum sale manducabat sine pane = Slavonic '24%68) &9)!4:) '6 

'&8";  '6:1'*6 94'  <819);13

 15:111b PJ 15:88b: F/.µ=+ =GB HIJµ9+ K)LB %L+ K(K2+ – PJ  

Eamus Romam ad patriarcham = Slavonic ,&"0121 26 !"(6 %6 ,)*!")!6<=; K)LB %L+ 

>)'&=K6$1*K*+ HIJµ9B – PJ  ad summum archiepiscopum Romanæ civitatis = Slavonic%6 248"%=-(= )!6<"4,"'%&,= !"(.'%=.

Significant is the fact that the Slavonic translation shares with PJ  a number of

gaps, mostly on the level of words and collocations; in one case, the gap covers three

syntagms (underlined): 10:38 PJ 10:29 MB N25%O =PK8 µ*&; Q23 =PK=+R *S%.B CT=&.U.=/=& 2V%O W /8).+R X4+ /4) =G$8,;Y %4 K(;9, 123 ZOB 123 ,([YB µ=%' 2V%?+,Z*1&µJ%=)0+ $= 12;&$%?$&+. – PJ  Ut sicut mihi ipsi, ita tibi dicerem quod sentirem?

Etenim si intraverint tentationes, et dederis atque acceperis cum eis, probatiorem tefaciunt. = Slavonic 

>%& '491+ *)%& " (.:1 !.7"+ )?4 9& 26:"0$*6 ,&<&*"+ " 9"-3" '@  '6 

:"("+ %!1,8.3) *@  '6*2)!>;*6; in another case, the gap comprises four apophthegms

(20:24–21:3). These gaps make it probable that the Slavonic translator perused the same

exemplar as the Latin translators three centuries before him.

Supporting evidence for such probability is to be found in the seven sets of

foreign texts that surround the Systematic Collection and are partly inserted into it:14 

12  Chapter 22 (= 1487, ed. PL 73: 1062–1064 and J.–C. Guy. ‘La collation des douze anachorètes’.

 Analecta Bollandiana 76/1985: 419–427) is not recognized as part of the Systematic Collection, yet the

majority of the Latin and Greek manuscripts contain it at some place after chapter 21. This makes it, if not

 part of the original structure, at least part of the tradition of the Systematic Collection, unlike the chapterscontained in the additions [i – vii] in the Slavonic translation, which are identified by letters, not numbers, to

mark the difference in their status. 13 The rentention of ‘bread’ belongs to the Greek witnesses P and H (see notes 25–26), but the addition of

‘oil’ in all Greek witnesses presumably reflects a dietary innovation (compare 4:10 (126) and other

apophthegms s.v. ‘pain’ in Régnault. Sentences 1976: 363). 14 Here, identifications require additional sigla: Arm = Armenian Systematic Collection (Latin translation

in L. Leloir. Paterica armeniaca a PP. Mechitaristis (1855) edita nunc latine reddita. Louvain (= Corpus

Page 5: Ornamentation in Baroque and Post-Baroque Music

7/25/2019 Ornamentation in Baroque and Post-Baroque Music

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ornamentation-in-baroque-and-post-baroque-music 5/12

Apophthegmata Patrum

379

[i]  Chapter A: /"*"> " ,&21'*" !)#8"A.:5 '2@*5"<6 &*.7. Various Ways of Life And

Stories of the Holy Fathers: 1 (128), 2 (784), 3 (664a, doublet of 1:73a), 4 (SyGr 9:20), 5 (Arm 10:6),

6 (28), 7 (849), 8 (834), 9 (827), 10 (293), 11 (111a), 12 (PA 19:1, Ruf 75), 13 (92, doublet of 10:14), 14 

(863), 15 (1439), 16 (1733), 17 (1061), 18 (Budge II:117), 19 (unidentified), 20 (1143, doublet of 6:20,

+1460b), 21 (VP vi:4:30), 22 (H 21:49), 23 (434), 24 (M 81), 25 (unidentified), 26 (1381), 27 (560b), 28 (1485), 29 (Budge I:530), 30 (Budge I:531), 31 (Budge I:534), 32 (1700, doublet of 15:101), 33 (H 21:53),

34 (1602), 35 (1660), 36 (unidentified), 37 (1107, doublet of 21:26), 38 (1132E), 39 (35), 40 (1614), 41 

(1021), 42 (PA 53:1), 43 (1407), 44 (1007), 45 (1665), 46 (Budge I:521), 47 (1472), 48 (407), 49 (Arm

10:151), 50 (Budge I:167), 51 (1467), 52 (1482), 53 (Budge II:275), 54 (1344). 

[ii]  Chapter 1: 38 (1048), 39 (237a), 40 (236), 41 (373), 42 (SyGr 20:14), 43 (289), 44 (102), 45 

(857), 46 (1480), 47 (Budge I:210), 48 (1020), 49 (SyGr 4:95), 50 (Chaîne 260), 51 (1038), 52 

(unidentified), 53 (PE III:30:4–5), 54 (Budge I:607), 55 (1435+1330), 56 (1475), 57 (1476), 58 (1432+568

Xanthias 1+1663), 59 (756), 60 – 61 (1454), 62 (1484), 63 (1023), 64 (1292), 65a (1128), 65b (QRT 18), 66 

(H f.164), 67 (1464), 68 (1030), 69 (1428), 70 (1498), 71 (PA 36:3), 72 (H 7:62), 73 (664, doublet of A:3),

74 (1051), 75 (1043), 76 (1016), 77 (831).Chapter B: 0!=B)> '*)!.A.'%)> ,!&21?):"> :4 ,!":&'"() ,& A":=+ & )262) 

)(6(&:) The Other Pronouncements of the Old Men not Adduced in Order. On Abba

 Ammonas: 1 (119–120), 2 (118), 3 (114), 4 (unidentified), 5 (1022), 6 (Arm 17:7), 7 (150), 8 (Budge

II:388), 9 (Budge II:488), 10 (unidentified), 11 (27), 12 (937), 13 (163), 14 (unidentified), 15 (110), 16

(109), 17 (448), 18 (1082), 19 (1159), 20 (490), 21 (483), 22 – 26 (unidentified), 27 (1046).

Chapter C: ,& A.*& =9& ,&'@B63""(6 (6:&B6 =',1<6 0)-*6+ 0125 /4 :4 ,&%)>-*6 

&*6 *!=0&26  Now Why Does He Give the Married Much Succes but Does not Relieve the

Celibates from Labors?: John Chrysostom De virginitate CPG 4313, 38–39. 

Chapter D: ,& A.*& )?4 A.'*.:6 9!)%6 )86A$?@C =A"*6 ,)D86 '626%=,84:"" 

91B)*" Why, if Marriage Is Honorable, Does Paul Teach the Ascetics to Flee from

Conjunctions?: John Chrysostom De virginitate CPG 4313, 30. Chapter E: &*6! !"         !+ '8&24'4 &*6 ,&=A4:"> 26 :4(./4 B8)B&84*6 -/4 :4 9&B)*1*" 8"<& 

 From The 23rd Discourse, From The Teaching in Which it Is Said not to Get Rich

 Excessively: John Chrysostom Homilia xxiii in Epistulam ii ad Corinthios CPG 4429, 6. 

Chapter F: '2@*)-B& 4D'42"> '8&2& Saint Eusebius’ Discourse: Eusebius of Cæsarea

Commentarii in Esaiam CPG 3468, 40:6–8. 

 scriptorum christianorum orientalium 353, 361, 371, 379) 1974–1976; Budge I = Ernest A. Wallis Budge.

The Paradise or Garden of the Holy Fathers, Vol.2. London 1907: 4–148; Budge II = ibidem 149–260;

Chaîne = Coptic Collection (ed. M. Chaîne. Le manuscrit de la version copte des Apophthegmata Patrum.

Cairo 1960); Dyobouniotis = Q .\. ]5*[*5+&0%9B. ‘^%8D2+*B W ^2[2_%9B’. &'()*  +,-.'+  µ/*  193/1913: 11– 

12; H = cod. Ambrosianus C 30–Inf. (French translation in Régnault Sentences 1976: 109); M =

 Ægyptiorum patrum sententiæ. PL 74: 381–394; PA = Latin Systematic collection of Paschasius of Dumio

(ed. J.G. Freire. A versão latina por Pascásio de Dume dos Apophtghegmata Patrum, Vol. 1. Coimbra

1971); PE = Paul of the Evergetis’ Synagogue (ed. `61%*)*B a2%;26*5. 01'(2'34-5*  , 63/4 +7-8292: 3;- 

<'/=<5229-  >? µ@39- A8B .4.8+A8C8D9- 3;- <'/=5(9- A8B E2D9- F83G(9- , 5 Vols. Athens 1957–1966;

QRT = codd. Parisini græci 914, 917, Atheniensis 500 (Franch translation in Régnault Sentences 1976:

110–121); Ruf   = Latin Collection of Pseudo–Rufinus (ed. De vitis patrum liber tertius. PL 73: 739–810;

VP vi:4 = Appendix to the Latin Systematic Collection of  PJ  (ed. De vitis patrum liber sextus, libellus

quartus. PL 73: 1014–1022). 

Page 6: Ornamentation in Baroque and Post-Baroque Music

7/25/2019 Ornamentation in Baroque and Post-Baroque Music

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ornamentation-in-baroque-and-post-baroque-music 6/12

William R. Veder

380

Chapter G: '8&2& '2@*)-B& EF):6:) #8)*&='*)-B& & *&(.+ %)%& ,&0&9)-*6 A.*4:"> 

,&'8=3)*" " 26:"()*"  Discourse of Saint John Chrysostom on How it Is Fitting to Listen

and Heed Reading  (1702). 

[iii]  Chapter 3: 4A (1041) 4B (1575)

[iv]  Chapter 3: 5A (unidentified, cf. Abba Isaias Asceticon CPG 5555 25:65) 5B (QRT 36)

[v]  Chapter 3: 57 (1591), 58 – 72 (1592:1–25), 73a (1556a), 73b – 93 (1592:26–47), 94 (1533), 95 

(1535), 96 (1536), 97 (1537a), 98 (1537b–1538), 99 (1539), 100 (1540), 101 (1558), 102 (1559), 103 

(1566), 104 – 105 (1561), 106 (1564), 107 – 108 (1548), 109 (1550), 110 (1552), 111 (1553). 

[vi]  Chapter 10: 192A (122) 192B (147) 

[vii]  Chapter 22: 15 (1565), 16 (1566), 17 (1582), 18 (1583). 

Chapter H: #),&210" &*.7) '*4G):)+ !"         ! The12 Commandments of Father Stephen:

Dyobouniotis 1913. Chapter I: '8&2& '2@*)-B& &*.7) :)34B& 4G!1() & ,8.H" 0=3" " & '6(1!4:"" 

 Discourse of Our Holy Father Ephraem on the Profit to the Soul and on Humility: 1 

(unidentified), 2 (Abba Isaias Asceticon CPG 5555, 13:13), 3 – 4 (unidentified).

Chapter J: '8&2& &*.7) (&D'"> '$?)-B& 26 '%"*1 %6 &*.7= ,D(":=  Discourse of

 Father Moses in Scete to Father Poemen: Abba Isaias Asceticon  CPG 5555, 15:1–123. 

Chapter K : '8&2& &*.7) ()%)!"> & =("84:""  Discourse of Father Macarius on

Compunction (unidentified).

Chapter L: %)8&B4!) (&D'"> #),&210. The Commandment of the Monk Moses: 1 – 8 

(508–512), 9 – 15 (1577–1581), 16 (Arm 15:8), 17 (unidentified), 18 – 20 (1584–1586), 21 – 22 (1588–1589),

23 (H 15:123), 24 (1590), 25 – 26 (QRT 39–40), 27 (Budge II:382), 28 (unidentified), 29 (1440), 30 

(unidentified), 31 (611), 32 (983). Chapter M: & :!)21<6 0&9!5"<6 On the Good Habits: Abba Isaias Asceticon CPG 5555,

13:10–26. 

Chapter N: EF):6:) #8)*&='*)-B& ,&'68):"- %6 4*4!= "B=(4:=  John

Chrysostom’s Epistle to a Certain Abbot : Pseudo–John Chysostom Epistula ad abbatem CPG

4734. 

Chapter O: :)%)#):"- '2@*;"<6 &*.7. Teaching of the Holy Fathers: 1 (1764), 2 

(1054), 3 (1481), 4 (1466), 5 (doublet of 4:35), 6 (1073), 7 (392), 8 (unidentified), 9 (1453), 10 (H 4:102),

11 (1063), 12 (Budge I:384), 13 (1683), 14 (unidentified), 15 (1473, a = doublet of 11:96), 16 – 17 

(unidentified), 18 (1413), 19 (1515), 20 – 21 (Budge II:173–174), 22 (643, doublet of 13:7), 23 

(unidentified), 24 (Arm 9:3), 25 (1478), 26 (SyGr 8:30), 27 (1493), 28 (Budge I:227), 29 (1036), 30 

(unidentified), 31 (1053), 32 (1320A, doublet of 15:98), 33 (Budge I:228), 34 (Budge I:337), 35 (unidentified), 36 (1607), 37 (1496), 38 (1006), 39 (1026), 40 (221), 41 (Budge II:347a, 440), 42 

(unidentified), 43 (1035), 44 (Budge II:320), 45 – 48 (unidentified), 49 (1029), 50 (unidentified), 51 (1042),

52 (H 10:131), 53 (unidentified), 54 (H 10:132), 55 (PA 58:2), 56 – 58 (H 10:128–130), 59 (H 12:24), 60 (H

21:65), 61 (unidentified), 62 (PA 39:7), 63 (H 21:56). 

Chapters C – E (F may not be part of the Slavonic translation, but rather of its tradition),

I:1 and 3, K  and N can immediately be identified as foreign to the Systematic Collection,

Page 7: Ornamentation in Baroque and Post-Baroque Music

7/25/2019 Ornamentation in Baroque and Post-Baroque Music

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ornamentation-in-baroque-and-post-baroque-music 7/12

Apophthegmata Patrum

381

 because they contain no apophthegms; so may chapters H, I:2, J and M, but the Greek

tradition treated the works of Stephen of Thebes and Abba Isaias, in fact, as collections of

apophthegms and subsequently integrated them into the inventory of the Systematic

Collection. The remainder of the additional texts cannot be identified as foreign, unless it

is noted that none of the apophthegmatic chapters in [i], [ii] and [vii] conforms to the

model according to which the chapters in the Systematic Collection are compiled,15

 andthat [i] and [vii] present doublets of apophthegms contained in chapters 1–22. Further, [v] 

and [vii] reflect a continuous section of the Anonymous Collection (1533–1592), and [ii] 

retains in its first title the heading of the dossier of Abba Ammonas in the Alphabetic

Collection. Taken together, these features point to an Alphabetic–Anonymous Collection

as the source of these foreign texts, perhaps – but not necessarily – with the addition of

texts from a non–apophthegmatic codex.16

 

The foreign texts [i – vii] present another striking feature: their bulk is located at

 places where a codex is most prone to damage, viz. the binding and the seams of the first

quires: [i] and [vii] are placed between binding and book block, [ii] in a place where we

may suspect a seam to have broken. In addition, the texts of [iii], [iv] and [vi] correspond

to a single loose folium each, detached from the bulk and displaced. Taken together, thesefeatures point to intrusion rather than purposeful compilation by the translator.

17 They

indicate that the Greek codex of the Systematic Collection was not only defective, as

shown above, but had a loose binding and a broken seam between chapters 1 and 2

(perhaps, but less likely, between 3 and 4 as well18

). In the openings, membra disjecta of

a Greek Alphabetic–Anonymous Collection had been placed for safe keeping by a

librarian or collector, well aware that their content was closely related to that of the

Systematic Collection, but at a loss as to how to order them in a binding of their own and

which title to give them: the Collection was not only in great disarray and disrepair, but

lacked the beginning (up to 27 Antonius 27 = B:11) with its title and prologue.19 

15 The chapters of the Systematic Collection are compiled in a linear selection from the alphabetical

apophthegms 1-1001, followed by a thematic selection from the anonymous apophthegms 1002–1765. The

lack of conformity is reflected in the titles evidently given ad hoc to chapters A (various) and B (not

adduced in order ) by the translator. 16

 Chapters C – F, H – K  and N are varia monastica, H – J identical and the others similar to those added after

either Collection by the majority of the Greek witnesses to the  Apophthegmata Patrum. 17 It should be remembered that the context of the mission of Sts Cyril and Methodius to Morava would

have precluded taking more books than could be carried in a limited number of saddlebags. Moreover, the

hodgepodge presented by [i – vii] and created by its inclusion in the well–ordered Systematic Collection can

only be ascribed to accident, not to purpose. 18 It is not improbable that [v] was taken from [vii] and added to chapter 3 by the translator in an attempt to

establish at least a modicum of coherence among the apophthegms from the two Collections. It would,indeed, be exceptional for the seams between both chapters 1||2 and 3||4 to coincide with a seam between

two quires.19 The codicological explanation for this text structure is by no means a figment of the imagination. A

typological parallel can be found in the Slavonic tradition of the Scete Patericon. The original, copied at

Preslav, arrived at Ohrid lacking all but a few folia of of A – F. The Preslav copy, unbound for ease of

copying, was copied five times, but only copies ! – " retain the original sequence: # has the quires with

chapters A-G after chapter 9, and $ – % after chapter 22 (cf. Veder. Hiljada godini: 216). 

Page 8: Ornamentation in Baroque and Post-Baroque Music

7/25/2019 Ornamentation in Baroque and Post-Baroque Music

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ornamentation-in-baroque-and-post-baroque-music 8/12

William R. Veder

382

What is left of this particular Collection differs from all other known Greek

Alphabetic–Anonymous Collections in sheer singularity: 31 of its apophthegms are

without parallel, some contain information without parallel (e.g. A:12, 1:55), and for

another 51 only single parallels are attested: 1 in Coptic (Chaîne 260), 5 in Armenian, 20 in

Syriac (Budge I – 11, Budge II – 9), 18 in Greek (H – 12, QRT – 4, Mosq – 1, PE – 1) and 7 in Latin

(VP vi:4 – 1, M – 1, PA – 5). The Coptic parallel is to be disregarded, because it is not textual(it represents the independent record of an orally transmitted apophthegm, which was

subjected to literary elaboration in Greek). All other parallels are textual, which means

that they reflect some form of contact with this particular Greek Collection.

The most comprehensive textual parallels are offered by the Armenian translation,

which integrates the apophthegms from the Alphabetic–Anonymous Collection into the

framework of the Systematic Collection. Of the two Syriac translations, both selective,

the first is organized, like the Armenian, in the Systematic frame, and the second,

differential to it,20 lacks any semblance of ordering. The fact that both the Armenian and

the Syriac translations reflect both Greek Collections simultaneously, joined to the fact

that the second Syriac reflects the disarray of the Alphabetic–Anonymous Collection,

while the first and the Amenian eliminate it by pressing all apophthegms into theSystematic framework, makes it plausible that the translators perused precisely this

disorderly dual codex. This is corroborated by the fact that (like the Latin and the

Slavonic) none transmits the apophthegm 5 Antonius 5, the first in the dossier of Antony in

the Alphabetic Collection not to be included in the Systematic Collection. Evidently, the

Alphabetic part of our codex had lost its beginning and its coherence at a very early date.

The Armenian and Syriac translations must have been made before ca. 550 in the

Holy Land, because the Alphabetic Collection had acquired the dossiers of Philagrius,

situated at Jerusalem, and Gelasius, situated at Nicopolis (formerly Emmaus) and dated

after the Council of Chalcedon (451), and the Anonymous Collection two apophthegms

situated in Gaza (B:22) and Antioch (B:26; both preserved only in Slavonic), probably at

the great laura of Mar Saba, which attracted monks from Armenia, Isauria and otherremote places (ODB  s.v. Sabas).

21 This must also be the location, where from this codex a

single Greek copy of the Systematic Collection was made, which transferred apophthegm

19:16 to chapter 12, muddled the sequence in chapter 18, conflated the beginning of 7:32

with the end of 7:33 and corrupted readings in 8:1, 10:4 75 134, 15:12 and 17:24. This

copy then became the archetype of the Greek tradition, its source no longer being

available for verification.

When the codex came to Rome ca. 550, it was never to return to the Eastern half

of the Empire. In the Western half of the Empire, it engendered not one, but two major

and a number of minor translations into Latin. The first of these was that begun by

deacon Pelagius and continued, after Pelagius’ elevation to the pontificate in 556, by

20 The second translation overlaps the first in 36 apophthegms (ca. 3% of the text). For a differential

translation, again, the Slavonic offers a typological parallel: the Azbu" no–Ierusalimskij Paterik  was

translated selectively in order to avoid doublets with the extant translation of the Scete Patericon (cf. M.

Capaldo. ‘L’Azbu#no–Ierusalimskij Paterik (Collection alphabético–anonyme slave des Apophthegmata

Patrum)’. Polata knigopisnaja 4/1981: 26–49). 21 Cf. the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium s.v. Sabas. Guy. Apophtègmes: 80–84 considers it probable that

 both Collections originated in Palestine ca. 480–90. 

Page 9: Ornamentation in Baroque and Post-Baroque Music

7/25/2019 Ornamentation in Baroque and Post-Baroque Music

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ornamentation-in-baroque-and-post-baroque-music 9/12

Apophthegmata Patrum

383

subdeacon John until he himself succeeded Pelagius in 561. Their project was evidently

left unfinished: the enigmatic last chapter of John’s translation (VP vi:4) can now be

recognized as the outset to translate also the remainder of the texts in the dual codex. The

second translation was undertaken not in Rome, but in Dumio (Portugal) by St Martin of

Braga’s disciple Paschasius, and completed after St Martin’s death in 579. Like the

Armenian translator before them, they translated both parts of the dual codex, fitting theirtext into the Systematic framework, enlarged to 110 chapters so as to more easily

accomodate the vast mass of sayings.22 St Martin had previously produced a brief

selective translation from the codex.23

 

At this point, it is appropriate to ask, how a missionary among the Suevians in

distant Galicia came to know that this codex was available in Rome? And how could he

 persuade the Roman curia to send it to him for his translation project? What we know of

St Martin allows us to speculate that it was he, who had left his native Pannonia to take

the cowl in the Holy Land,24 and no other 25 who brought the codex from there, when he

set out to fulfill his calling to Galicia in 550. We may further speculate that he traveled to

the Iberian peninsula via Rome and either brought the codex as a gift or was persuaded to

leave it temporarily for translation. Such interpretation of the relations wouldsatisfactorily account both for his making a brief compendium before embarking on the

last leg of his voyage and for his having some claim on the codex.26

 

The other two translations, like St Martin’s, also reflect both parts of the codex: a

 brief compendium falsely attributed to Rufinus of Aquileia27

 and another compendium,28

 

which paraphrases and elaborates upon the Greek text, rather than providing a precise

translation.

We can be sure that the codex returned to Rome from Dumio after the death of St

Martin, because there two Greek copies were made of the codex, each preserved in a

single apograph:

22  Liber geronticon  (full text ed. Freire. Versão, abridged text ed. PL 73: 1025–1062). 23  Ægyptiorum patrum sententiæ (ed. PL 74: 381–394). On the various Latin translations, see J.G. Freire.

‘Traductions latines des Apophthegmata patrum’. In: Ysebaert, J. et al. (eds.)  Mélanges Christine

 Mohrmann: Nouveau recueil offert par ses anciens élèves. Utrecht 1973. 24

 Gregory of Tours ( Historia Francorum V:37) points out that the learning he acquired there made him

second to none: Hic Pannoniæ ortus fuit, et exinde ad visitanda loca sancta in Oriente properans, in tantum

 se litteris imbuit, ut nulli secundus suis temporibus haberetur . Exinde Gallitiam venit... (emphasis added).25 Rosweyde Vitæ: Prolegomenon xiv ( PL 73: 49) speculated that Pelagius might have acquired the codex

on one of his embassages to the imperial court (538–555), but the likelihood of this codex being inConstantinople at that time is not great. 26 Here, again, the Slavonic tradition offers a typological parallel. The original codex of the Scete

 Patericon, brought from Morava, presumably by St Clement, was copied at Preslav, and was not retained

there, but returned to accompany him to Ohrid (cf. Feder.  Metodievata).27

 Verba seniorum (ed. PL 73: 739–810). 28 Commonitiones sanctorum patrum (ed. J.G. Freire. Commonitiones sanctorum patrum. Uma nova

colecção de apotegmas. Coimbra 1974).

Page 10: Ornamentation in Baroque and Post-Baroque Music

7/25/2019 Ornamentation in Baroque and Post-Baroque Music

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ornamentation-in-baroque-and-post-baroque-music 10/12

William R. Veder

384

P = Cod. Parisinus græcus 2474,29

 13th c., with an inventory identical to that of

the Slavonic translation in chapters 1–7 (chapters 8–14 are lost, due to a defect in the

antegraph), chapter 15 lacks PJ 35, 45, chapters 16–17 are identical in inventory, chapter

18 lacks PJ 33 and 44, chapter 19 is identical, chapter 20 lacks 16A (chapter 21 is lost). It

contains no trace of the Alphabetic–Anonymous part of our dual codex. 

H = Cod. Ambrosianus C 30–Inf,30

 12th c., an editio variorum of our dual codex+ a Systematic Collection imported from the Eastern part of the Empire. Although its

structure tends to follow that of the imported Collection, its text, where it relies on our

dual codex, is concordant with that of the Slavonic translation and at variance with the

Eastern text. Moreover, its individual additions to chapters 5 (47–54), 7 (60–62), 9 (12

23–26), 10 (84–85 129–133 178 189–190), 11 (39 64), 12 (24–28), 14 (31–32), 15 (116– 

136), 18 (47–53), 20 (22) and 21 (44–66) reflect precisely the Alphabetic–Anonymous

 part of our dual codex.31

 

P and H (in brackets) together with the Slavonic translation confirm many

readings of PJ  that have been levelled in the Constantinopolitan witnesses, e.g. 5:39 PJ

5:34 ]:* >Z=,D*3 K*,=µ9;8+%=B [=GB K*)+=62+] – PJ  Duo fratres impugnati a fornicatione

= Slavonic I!)*) 

062) 

9!):. 

8J9&01>:"> 

,!""(63); 6:3 PJ 6:3 b$;8+9$8 K*%= [W 2V%LB] >[[c d)$8+&*B – PJ  Ægrotavit aliquando memoratus abbas Arsenius = Slavonic

I&81 ":&B0) *6/04 )262) )!6'4:"". They also contain a high incidence of archaisms, like

indeclinable >[[c where the other Greek witness have K2%e), and more explicit readings

in the narrative framework of the apophthegms, most of them faithfully reproduced in the

Slavonic translation.

P and H together with the Slavonic translation also confirm that the translation of

 PJ is less faithful than that of St Martin and Paschasius: In all chapters, save 2–3, they

omitted a total of 68 apophthegms, adding eight ( PJ 7:24, 8:5, 10:26 , 18:19, 20:13 15–16

1832) and significantly abridging PJ 3:20.33 Numerous little translation problems mar the

text both of Pelagius (e.g. 7:27 PJ 7:20 f$µ2%& 1,8K%.+ %gB WZ*K*)62B %L+ 1(µ2%*+ =

Slavonic ,1:"-(. 

%!)04*6 

,$*.:5" 

*!=06 ‘by singing he takes away the weariness ofthe voyage’, but PJ  flando et respirando, oneris et viæ paulatim laborem imminuit; 10:22

is translated twice, viz. PJ 10:17a and 17b) and of John (e.g. 20:12 PJ 20:9 [*%(+2&B 

29 For a survey of the contents, cf. Guy Recherches: 188–190 and M. Capaldo. ‘Sul prototipo greco dello

Skitski paterik’. In: D. Bogdanovih et al. (eds.) Zbornik Vladimira Mo $ ina. Beograd 1977: 53–55. The

intimate relationship, both structural and textual, of this codex to PJ was pointed out by Nikitin. Gre" eskij,

Capaldo. Prototipo and W.R. Veder. ‘Le Skitskij Paterik’. Polata knigopisnaja 4(1981): 51–72. Guy.

 Apophtègmes did not use it for his critical edition.  30

 For a survey of its contents cf. Guy. Recherches: 123. Even though Guy. Apophtègmes, or rather his first

editor Bernard Flusin, endeavors to establish a Greek text concordant with  PJ , the readings of H are for the

most part relegated to the apparatus. 31 These apophthegms are to be eliminated from the inventory of the Systematic Collection of Guy.

 Recherches: 126–181, adopted by Régnault. Sentences 1976: 291–301. 32 None of these additions seems to reflect the Alphabetic–Anonymous part of our dual codex. 33

 In this story of a slothful monk, brought to insight by the vision of his summons and banishment to join

his mother in torment, there is an additional motif of a voice proclaiming that a mistake was made and his

namesake from another monastery had been summoned. Guy Apophtègmes: 173 considers this a post-

archetypal addition, because PJ  does not contain it, but PJ  is now proven singular in such reading. 

Page 11: Ornamentation in Baroque and Post-Baroque Music

7/25/2019 Ornamentation in Baroque and Post-Baroque Music

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ornamentation-in-baroque-and-post-baroque-music 11/12

Apophthegmata Patrum

385

>)1*5µ8+9 123 Z*5,=:*;$2 %O i)&$%O = Slavonic 958"- >0$?" " '8=/@?"  <!"'*= 

‘eating herbs and serving Christ’, but PJ  cum tanta sufficientia serviens Christo).

Conversely, P and H together with PJ  confirm that the Greek codex had lost two

 bifolia (8:32–9:1 and 20:20–23) by the time of its translation into Slavonic.34

 The

Slavonic translator displaced one apopgthegm, added nine from the Alphabetic– 

Anonymous part and omitted eight, two of them because they repeated apophthegms previously translated (4:83 PJ 4:68 = B:19, 10:124 PJ 10:87  = 1:34), and six more, most

of them less than four lines long, either by oversight or because their text was damaged.

We have no way of knowing whether, after the completion of the translation into

Slavonic, the codex was returned to Rome, or whether it perished at the hands of the

Frankish clergy and soldiery who put a definitive end to the mission to Morava in the

spring of 885. What we have is incontrovertible evidence that this unique dual codex of

the Systematic and the Alphabetic–Anonymous Collection did exist, that it was kept in

Rome, and that St Methodius was the man who preserved it for posterity in his Slavonic

translation.35

 And its very existence provides the solution to the enigma of the absence of

any Alphabetic–Anonymous Collection of Apophthegmata Patrum in the medieval West:

It was because a simple accident had bereft it of its title and prologue, and thereby of itsidentity.

Veneration of the most ancient witness seems to have prevented us from

approaching PJ  with the criticism due to the manuscript transmission of any textual

evidence. A simple inversion of Pasquali’s36

 canon recentiores non deteriores to

antiquiores non meliores reveals the inappropriateness of such veneration. It should urge

us to continue where Nikitin left off in 1915–1916, preferably by uniting the data of PJ  

and the other early Latin translations with those of the Italo–Greek witnesses and

34 The terminus ante quem is, of course, the death of St Methodius; the terminus post quem is most

 probably St Methodius’ departure from Rome to Morava in 870, which would date [the bulk of] the

translation to the two and a half years of his detention at Reichenau: the effect :)A@*6 

!)'*" 

=A4:"- 

9&/"- 

!  

"#$!%&'!(!  )*'+%!#!  ",  (Vita Methodii 10, emphasis added), observed before his last visit to Rome, is not

to be dissociated from this text. The formulation 9& 91... ,!18&/"86 ,!.21-+ *&B0) /4 "... ,!18&/" (Vita

 Methodii  15) does not necessarily date the translation to 884–885. 35

 The dual codex provides tangible evidence of the Italo–Greek provenance of at least one of the sources

used by St Cyrillus and Methodius in their mission. Circumstantial evidence has been produced by S.

Parenti. ‘Influssi italo–greci nei testi eucaristici bizantini dei ‘Fogli Slavi’ del Sinai (XI sec.)’. Orientalia

christiana periodica 42/1991: 145–177 and idem. ‘Glagoli#eskij spisok rimsko–vizantijskoj liturgii sv.

Petra’. Palæobulgarica 18(19994)4: 3–14, for the Slavonic Liturgy of St Peter  and certain other liturgical

texts, and by K.A. Maksimovi#. ZakonH soud Inyi ljudemH. Isto" nikoved " eskie i lingvisti" eskie aspekty

issledovanija slavjanskogo juridi" eskogo pamjatnika. Moskva 2004, for St Methodius’ translation of the

 Nomocanon; for other texts of probable Italo–Greek provenance, see F.J. Thomson. ‘Early Slavonic

Translations – an Italo–Greek Connection?’ Slavica Gandensia 12(1985): 221–234. The Italo–Greek

 provenance of the decoration of the oldest Slavic MSS is noted by Kurt Weitzmann. Illustrated Manuscripts at St Catherine’s Monastery on Mount Sinai. Collegeville 1973, and by L. Mavrodinova.

Obrazcite na starob"lgarskata r "kopisna ukrasa i nejnite paraleli v drugi izkustva. In:  Paléographie et

diplomatique slaves, 2. Sofia 1985: 193–213; cf. also I. Dobrev. ‘Ornament’. In: Kirilo–Metodievska

enciklopedija, Vol.2: 872–873. The orientation on the textual heritage of the magna Græcia is in keeping

with the delicate balance between Byzantium and Rome they strove to maintain ever since its outset in the

spring of 863. 36

 G. Pasquali. Storia della tradizione e critica del testo. 3rd ed. Milano 1974: 43–108. 

Page 12: Ornamentation in Baroque and Post-Baroque Music

7/25/2019 Ornamentation in Baroque and Post-Baroque Music

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ornamentation-in-baroque-and-post-baroque-music 12/12

William R. Veder

386

 juxtaposing them with those of the Slavonic translation.37

 This should pave the way for a

critical comparison, first, of the work of Pelagius and John with that of St Martin of

Braga and Paschasius of Dumio, and second, with the work of the Armenian and Syrian

translators. There is not only much insight to be gained into the text as such, but into the

the crucial role of translators and translations as well.

37 The edition of the Slavonic translation is being prepared by J.G. van der Tak and W.R. Veder for

 publication in the series Pegasus Oost–Europese Studies (Amsterdam). It will include both the Greek

source text and all early Latin translations, as well as an interlinear English translation of the Slavonic.