Ornamentation in Baroque and Post-Baroque Music
-
Upload
rein-gar-nichts -
Category
Documents
-
view
236 -
download
1
Transcript of 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–
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 (=
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).
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
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).
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,
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).
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.