CLOTHO volume 3 · issue 2 · 2021 CLOTHOvolume 3, issue 2 / letnik 3, številka 2, 2021 ISSN: 2670-6210 (print / tisk), 2670-6229 (online / splet) Editor-in-chief / odgovorni urednik: David Movrin Editorial assistants / pomocniki odgovornega urednika: Anja Božic, Zala Mele, Jonathan Rebetz, Meta Skubic, Tjaša Šimunic Editorial board / uredniški odbor: Andrea Balbo, Università degli Studi di Torino; Alenka Cedilnik, Univerza v Ljubljani; Jan Ciglenecki, Univerza v Ljubljani; James J. Clauss, University of Washington; Péter Hajdu, Shenzhèn Dàxué; Elizabeth Hale, University of New England; Stanko Kokole, Univerza v Ljubljani; Christian Laes, Antwerpen Universiteit; Katarzyna Marciniak, Uniwersytet Warszawski; Petra Matovic, Sveucilište u Zagrebu; Aleš Maver, Univerza v Mariboru; Tina Milavec, Univerza v Ljubljani; Gregor Pobežin, Univerza na Primorskem, Koper; Sonja Schreiner, Universität Wien; Henry Stead, University of St Andrews; Katalin Szende, Central European University, Wien; Yasunari Takada, Tokyo daigaku; Daniela Urbanová, Masarykova univerzita, Brno; Andrii Yasinovskyi, Ukrains'kyy Katolyts'kyy Universytet, Lviv Address / naslov: Aškerceva cesta 2, 1000 Ljubljana Publisher / založnik:Ljubljana University Press, Faculty of Arts / Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani Design and typesetting / oblikovanje in prelom: Nika Bronic Language advisor / jezikovni pregled: Anja Božic (Slovenian / slovenšcina), Jonathan Rebetz (English / anglešcina), Meta Skubic (français / francošcina) Website / spletna stran: revije.ff.uni-lj.si/clotho Email / e-pošta: clotho@uni-lj.si Printing / tisk: Birografika Bori d.o.o., Ljubljana Price / cena: 7 € For the publisher / odgovorna oseba založnika: Mojca Schlamberger Brezar, Dean of Faculty / dekanja This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. / To delo je ponujeno pod licenco Creative Commons Priznanje avtorstva – deljenje pod enakimi pogoji 4.0, mednarodna licenca. Front page / naslovnica: Clotho, Lachesis, and Atropos, a fragment from a Flemish tapestry series from the 16th century, based on the series of poems “I Trionfi,” written by Petrarch between 1352 and 1374 (Victoria and Albert Museum, London) / Kloto, Lahesis in Atropos, fragment iz serije flamskih tapiserij iz 16. stoletja, stkanih po pesnitvi »I Trionfi«, ki jo je Petrarka napisal med letoma 1352 in 1374 (Viktorijin in Albertov muzej v Londonu) Photo essay / foto esej: Saint Jerome in early-modern prints with Latin tituli (from Rijksmu­seum, Amsterdam, and the Wellcome Collection, London) / Sveti Hieronim v zgodnjenovoveš­kih tiskih z latinskimi podpisi (Rijksmuseum v Amsterdamu in Wellcome Collection, London) CONTENTS ARTICLES 05 Aleksandar Andelovic and György Geréby Contrastive Linguistic and Cultural Backgrounds of the Two Latin Translators of the Life of Antony 31 Sibil Gruntar Vilfan and Cristian-Nicolae Gaspar Quasi nani super humeros gigantum? Reusing Classical and Medieval Quotations in the Hagiographic Discourse in Tenth-Century Liège 55 Matic Kocijancic Truly Bewept, Full of Strife: The Myth of Antigone, the Burial of Enemies, and the Ideal of Reconciliation in Ancient Greek Literature 75 Levente Pap Jerome’s Reception in an Early Eighteenth-Century Hungarian Historical Work 93 Miran Sajovic SDB Preliminary Remarks on the Latin of Jerome 129 147 167 191 223 Jane Schatkin Hettrick Johann Michael Haydn’s Missa Sancti Hieronymi: An Unusual Eighteenth-Century Tribute to Saint Jerome Ágnes Korondi Saint Jerome as a Model and Author for Nuns in Early Hungarian Texts Marie Frey Rébeillé-Borgella La diffusion de la révision hiéronymienne des traductions bibliques dans les livres liturgiques latins (Ve–XIIe siècle) : l’exemple des Douze Prophètes Mohamed-Arbi Nsiri « Nos…inter nos eruditionis causa disserimus » : Désaccords et conciliations dans les échanges épistolaires augustino-hieronymiens REVIEW Willum Westenholz Philip Polcar’s Hieronymus’ Witwenbu¨chlein fu¨r Salvina NEWS 115 Filomena Giannotti Saint Jerome’s 229 Anja Božic Posthumous Life: Aspects CEU Summer University of His Reception in the Call for Applications Twentieth Century Saint Jerome as Penitent in the Desert (Hieronymus Wierix, 1563 – before 1619) doI:https://doi.org/10.4312/clotho.3.2.5-28 Contrastive Linguisticand Cultural Backgrounds of theTwo Latin Translators of the Life of Antony Aleksandar Andelovic* and György Geréby** INTRODUCTION Soon after its composition, Athanasius’ Life of Antony (henceforth Life) was translated twice from Greek into Latin.1 One version originated in about 375 CE, written by Evagrius,2 a Christian intellectual from Antioch in Syria, a close friend and patron of Jerome, whose career and * Department of History, University of Vienna, Maria-Theresen-Straße 9, 1090 Wien; aleksandar.andjelovic@univie.ac.at. ** Department of Medieval Studies, Central European University, Quellenstraße 51, A-1100 Wien, gerebygy@ceu.edu. 1 Athanasius’ authorship of the Life of Antony has been the subject of numerous debates. Apart from Athanasian paternity, the question has also been whether the Greek text preserved is a revision of an original, now lost, Coptic text and whether the Syriac Life that we have translates an original “Copticizing” Greek text or an original Coptic; for a brief overview, see Louth, “St. Athanasius and the Greek Life of Antony,” 504–5. Given the lack of evidence of any other Vorlage than the extant Greek Life, one can agree with David Brakke that the extant Greek Life of Antony is the earliest form of Antony’s biography; for details regarding his arguments, see Brakke, “The Greek and Syriac versions of the Life of Antony,” 53. 2 The critical edition of Evagrius’ translation (henceforth VE) used in this article is Vitae Antonii Versiones latinae, Vita beati Antonii abbatis Evagrio interprete, ed. by Bertrand, 3–103. personality are relatively easy to trace3 in the extant ancient sources.4 Evagrius’ Latin translation became very popular in the Latin West. It was widely read during the Middle Ages, as witnessed by more than four hundred manuscripts in which it has survived. It was composed in a high register of Latin. Evagrius sprinkled the text with classical quotations such as Vergil and Horace, and it was written probably for a late-antique elite readership. Evagrius’ translation (henceforth VE) was long believed to be the only translation of the Greek Life. In 1914, however, the French Benedictine medievalist and liturgist Dom André Wilmart found a manuscript in the Archives of the Chapter of Saint Peter in Rome.5 Wilmart identified it as an eleventh-century copy of an older Latin translation of the Greek Life of Antony produced some twenty years before VE. The first edition of the text was published some twenty-five years after its discovery.6 This anonymous translator’s (henceforth AT) work, unlike Evagrius’ celebrated translation, was disregarded by scholarship as being too literal, labeled as “barbarous,” “low,” “monastic,” or “Christian” Latin, written for uneducated monks.7 Who was the AT? Unlike his later counterpart Evagrius, the author of the first Latin translation of the Life remains an unknown figure despite several attempts to uncover his identity.8 Henricus Hoppenbro­uwers speculated that he was a prominent Egyptian monk named Isidore. Lois Gandt, the most recent editor of the anonymous trans­ 3 In any case, both translators worked with the Greek text they believed to have been authored by Athanasius; for the current purposes, the question of whether there existed an earlier redaction of the Life of Antony in Coptic or “Copticizing” Greek is irrelevant. The critical edition of the Greek Life of Antony (henceforth VA) used in this paper is Bartelink, Sant’Antonio Abate, based on the Greek text of the VA published by Bartelink, Vie d’Antoine. 4 For an overview of Evagrius’ life see Rebenich, Hieronymus und sein Kreis, 52–75. See also Bertrand, “Die Evagriusübersetzung der Vita Antonii: Reception – Überlieferung – Edition,” 24–28. 5 Available online in the digital database of the Vatican Library, “Arch.Cap.S.Pi­etro.A.2,” DigiVatLib. 6 Garitte, Un témoin important. The critical edition of the anonymous translation (henceforth VV) used in this article is Vitae Antonii Versiones latinae, Versio uetustissima, ed. by Lois Gandt, 107–177. 7 For a brief overview of the theories on “Christian” Latin developed by the so-cal­led Nijmegen school, see Burton, The Old Latin Gospels, 153–54. The notion of “Christian” Latin as Sondersprache is now outdated, and it never lacked critics, see, for example, the most recent publications on this topic, Denecker, “Among Latinists,” as well as “The Nijmegen School.” 8 For the little that is known about the AT, see ed. Gandt, 205–8. lation (henceforth VV), identified this AT with another well-known Egyptian erudite monk, Ammonius.9 Still, it is unlikely that one will ever know the actual name of the translator. Therefore, while one can agree that the AT probably originates from Egypt,10 rather than attempting to identify him with one or another well-known figure of fourth-century Egyptian monasticism, this paper will try to glean information on the AT from the translation’s text. This approach, particularly beneficial in the case of the AT, works even in Evagrius’ case. His text has not been fully quarried for information about its translator either. In particular, given that the Greek Life is suffused with biblical quotations as Athanasius widely quoted the Bible in shaping Antony as a normative and monastic model,11 the biblical quotations that both translators translated from Greek in their versions of the Life reveal a lot about the two translators’ distinctive modus operandi. When saying this, one can have in mind the direct quotations (i.e., quotations with no or minimal change in respect to their original formulation in the Greek Bible, henceforth verbatim) from the Bible rendered into Latin that each translator did in his way. Thus, the translations of verba­tim biblical quotations from Greek into Latin have the potential to reveal more about the two translators’ approaches to translation and about their linguistic, cultural, and theological background than is known so far. Did the AT of the Life use any of the existing Latin translations of the Bible to translate the biblical quotations he found in the Greek original, or did he translate them himself, without recourse to translations already available? What does the AT’s “literal” and “low­ 9 Another fourth-century desert ascetic and one of the Tall Brothers, the four monks from Nitria known for their exceptional height as well as for erudition, see Gandt, “A Philological and Theological Analysis,” 298. 10 Primarily because of his familiarity with the Egyptian desert, as rightly noticed by Gandt, see ibid., 73. 11 It is difficult to give a precise number, but the biblical quotations in the Life seem to come in hundreds. See, for instance, Bartelink, “Die literarische Gattung,” 52, where the number of Bible-related passages is estimated at two hundred. An even more generous assessment is given by Tim Vivian, who performed a “rough count” resulting in “some four hundred references or allusions” in Athanasius, The Life of Antony, xxvi, trans. by Tim Vivian and Apostolos N. Athanassakis. The text of the Greek Old Testament used in this article is the latest standard edition of the LXX, published by Rahlfs and Hanhart, Septuaginta. The text of the Greek New Testament used in this article is Karakolis, Novum Testamentum Graece. register” style tell us about the translator? What version of the Bible did he use when translating the Bible in Latin or Greek? On the other hand, what does Evagrius’ “high” and stylistically sophisticated and improved Latin tell us about Evagrius? Whom does he write for, and what do his readers expect from him? This paper aims at answering these questions. THE ANONYMOUS TRANSLATOR: WHAT WAS THE LANGUAGE OF THE BIBLE HE USED – AND WAS LATIN HIS NATIVE LANGUAGE? An initial research question is whether the biblical quotations in Latin that the AT rendered from Greek as part of his translation of the Life are attested in other Latin writings of the period – or did he translate the biblical quotations by himself? The same question will then be asked about Evagrius and his translation. The answer determines the extent to which the AT and Evagrius used any translation of the Bible circulating in the fourth century. In chapter 48.3 of the Life, Athanasius justified the miracles per­formed by Antony with a quote from the Gospels: ..... te .a. ...a d.’ a.t.. pep....e. . ......, . .....· ..te.te, .a. d...seta. .µ...12 The AT rendered this as follows: Multa et alia per seruum suum Dominus fecit qui dicit: Postulate et dabitur uobis.13 On the other hand, Evagrius translated the same passage as Multa et alia miracula per illum Dominus operatus est, et merito: qui enim promisit in Euangelio: Petite et dabitur uobis.14 The biblical quotation in Athanasius’ Greek text reproduced Matt. 7:7 or Luke 11:9 verbatim, and the different ways the two translators rendered this short passage illustrate their different modus operandi.15 First, how the AT, on the one hand, and Evagrius, on the other, introduce the quotation is particularly interesting. While the AT, apart from translating “through him” (d.’ a.t..) as “through 12 VA 48.3 (ed. Bartelink, 298) quoting Matt. 7:7 and Luke 11:9: “Many other things through him [Antony] did the Lord, who says: ‘Ask, and it will be given to you.’” (Trans. Vivian and Athanassakis, 161–63, slightly changed.) 13 VV 48 (ed. Gandt, 145): “Many other things through his servant did the Lord, who said: ‘Require, and it will be given to you.’” Translations of the VV from Latin into English are by the authors unless indicated otherwise. 14 VE 48 (ed. Gandt, 54): “The Lord also worked many other miracles through Antony, and justly so, for He who promised in the Gospel, Ask and it will be given to you” (trans. White, 38). 15 In the Bertrand-Gandt edition, this passage is not recognized as a verbatim biblical quotation. his servant” (per seruum suum),16 simply renders . ..... ([the Lord,] who says) as “[the Lord] says” (dicit), Evagrius used a different verb, “he promised” (promisit), which enhances the meaning of the original and can be considered an exegetic translation, as opposed to the simple translation of the AT. What is more, Evagrius added a precise textual reference “in the Gospel” (in Euangelio), absent from both the Greek original and the earlier AT. Evagrius may have wanted to demonstrate his accurate knowledge of the Bible, or, more probably, he deemed it necessary to provide his readers with an immediately identifiable context. This case further raises the question of his intended reader­ship that could have made necessary such an indication about the origin of the biblical passage quoted. Possible alternatives are that his intended audience was made up of recent converts to Christianity or elite non-Christians unfamiliar with the Bible, or an elite readership already familiar with the Bible for whom he was providing not just instruction but also reassurance about the message of the text (promisit) as a means of articulating a specific Christian identity. The difference between the verbal forms postulate used by the AT and Evagrius’ petite is significant; petite et dabitur uobis was the “standard” rendering of this biblical passage, widely used in the late-antique texts, and, in addition to Evagrius, also attested in the revised Old Latin Gospels that became part of the Vulgate.17 It was also adopted by Ambrose,18 Ambrosiaster,19 Arnobius,20 Augustine,21 Hilary of Poitiers,22 and Jerome.23 The choice of the AT, postulate, is never attested outside his translation. It suggests that the AT trans­lated without knowing about the existing Latin translation of the Gospels. On the other hand, Evagrius was undoubtedly familiar with an established and widely circulating Latin version. 16 Lorié’s claim that the AT’s seruus always corresponds to Athanasius’ d..... (“slave”) is therefore incorrect, as evidenced by this biblical quotation of the VA, where the AT’s per servum corresponds to d.’ a.t.. (“through him”); cf. Lorié, Spiritual Terminology, 87. 17 The text of the Vulgate used in this article is Biblia Sacra iuxta vulgatam versio­ nem, ed. Robert Weber, 5th ed. by Roger Gryson; available, without the critical apparatus, in a searchable electronic format in the Library of Latin Texts (LLT). 18 Cain et Ab. 1.6. The abbreviations used in this paper are made according to the “TLL Digital Index,” Thesaurus linguae Latinae (TLL), available online. 19 Quaest. 115.82. 20 Praedest. 3.12. 21 In Psalm. 139.17. 22 Tract. 60.4. 23 In Matth. 1. This example further shows that the AT may have operated with a standard equivalence for a.t.., “ask for, demand,” always translated with postulare, both in direct Bible quotations and in the other parts of the Life.24 This translation choice, apart from illustrating the literal nature of the VV, also offers a clue to the linguistic background of the translator, who elsewhere constructed the Latin verb postulare with a direct object in the accusative (Dominum, “Lord”).25 This usage is rarely attested in standard Latin,26 where an indirect object in the ablative with the preposition a, “from,” would have been the more common option, as Evagrius’ rendering of the same construction illustrates.27 This peculiar choice of the AT can be explained as a mirror translation of the Greek syntactic structure. The verb “to ask for” (a.t..) is typically constructed with the accusative.28 This kind of equivalence is a characteristic feature of translations produced by bilingual speakers with insufficient command in the target language.29 This example is by no means the only one where the translations produced by the AT strongly suggest that he was unfamiliar with the versions of the Latin Bible text circulating in the second half 24 See, for example, the reference to John 16:23–24 in VA 83.3 (ed. Bartelink, 404): ..te.te, ...es.e. “Ask, and you will receive.” (Trans. Vivian and Athanas­sakis, 237.) See also VV 83 (ed. Gandt, 169): Postulate et accipietis. Compare this to the non-biblical context in VA 29.3 (ed. Bartelink, 249): .. ... .s..se., ... .. .t.se.. “If he had had power, he would not have asked.” (Trans. Vivian and Athanassakis, 125.) See also VV 29 (ed. Gandt, 132): si enim ualuisset, non postulasset. 25 VA 83.3 (ed. Bartelink, 404): a.t.s.te t.. .at..a, in VV 83 (ed. Gandt, 169), translated as postulaueritis Patrem meum. 26 On the standard usage of postulare, see the Oxford Latin Dictionary (hence­forth OLD), 1557 s.v. postulo, section 1. For the very few attested examples of the so-called ablative of person, see Löfstedt, Commento Filologico, 274–275. 27 VE 34 (ed. Gandt, 40): ab auxiliatore Domino postulare. 28 See Diccionario Griego–Español, 121–122, s.v. ..t... 29 Apart from mirror translations, the AT also employed mechanical translations, for example, his de cetero was used automatically as an equivalent of ...p.., either in a biblical quotation or elsewhere in Athanasius’ text. See, for example, VA 6.4 (ed. Bartelink, 170): ..deµ.a µ.. ...p.. .st. f...t.. pe.. s.., “ from now on I am not going to pay any attention to you” (trans. Vivian and Athanas­sakis, 73), and the AT’s nulla de cetero sollicitudo est de te, VV 6 (ed. Gandt, 113): “no care about you anymore.” The same equivalence occurs with ...p.. in VA 3.7, 4.2, 6.1, 7.7, 14.7, 23.6, 25.3, 31.1, 37.2, 50.9, 90.6, 91.9, and de cetero in the corresponding chapters of VV (Bertrand and Gandt, Vitae Antonii Versiones latinae). of the fourth century.30 His ignorance in this and other cases of the existing versions of the Bible in Latin suggests that the Bible text he regarded as authoritative was in a language other than Latin. In several instances, the AT produced a text different from the original Greek text of the Life and Evagrius. In these instances, one finds the AT either omitting a portion of the Greek text or adding a (more) complete form of a biblical quotation absent from Athanasius’ text. In the latter case, the AT’s Latin translation often corresponds precisely to the relevant passage in the Greek Bible. The following example aims at providing arguments for the hypothesis that the Bible the AT used was in Greek. At the beginning of the Life, Athanasius’ Antony discusses tradi­tional philosophical topics, like the definition of virtue, the transient nature of wealth and success, and the importance of an unceasing daily ascetic discipline.31 To corroborate his statements, he refers to the Bible: ..t. .a. .. t. .e.e.... ....saµe..32 In the original, this reference to a passage from the Book of Ezekiel is vague and does not contain the actual biblical text to which it alludes. Evagrius rendered the passage exactly as it stood in the Greek original: Quod prophetica per Ezechielem uoce testatur.33 The AT, on the other hand, expanded the original reference with several quotations from Ezekiel which, as mentioned above, he could not have found in the Athanasian text that served as the basis for his translation: Sic enim et in Ezechiel propheta audiuimus dicentem Dominum: Iustus si recesserit a iustitia sua et fecerit facinus, uiuo ego dicit Dominus, quia non memorabo iustitiae eius sed in eo quod fecit, in illo morietur.34 Interestingly, although constructed as one sentence, as quoted by the AT, this biblical passage is a combination of phrases taken from at least three passages of the Book of Ezekiel (known for its repetitive phraseology). These are as follows: Ezek. 3:20 (cf. 18:24 and 26): “when the righteous turn away from their righteousness and 30 For further examples, see Andelovic, “Between the Literal and the Literary,” 28–58. 31 VA 16–20. See also Rousseau, “Antony as Teacher,” 95. 32 VA 18.3 (ed. Bartelink, 212): “Thus we have also heard in Ezekiel.” (Trans. Vivian and Athanassakis, 103.) 33 VE 18 (ed. Bertrand, 25): “as testified by the words of the prophet Ezechiel” (trans. White, 21). 34 VV 18 (ed. Gandt, 123): “Thus we have also heard in the prophet Ezekiel the Lord saying: If a righteous person turns away from his righteousness and commits a crime, as I live says the Lord, [I am telling you] that I will not remember his righteousness, but in what he did, in that he will die.” commit iniquity,”35 Ezek. 33:13: “none of their righteous deeds shall be remembered, but in the iniquity that they have committed they shall die,”36 and the oft-repeated formulation found, for instance, in Ezek. 5:11: “(as) I live, says the Lord.”37 Even though the phrase “I live, says the Lord” (uiuo ego dicit Do-minus) is present in Jerome’s translation of Ezekiel, later included in the Vulgate, it is unlikely that the AT and Jerome shared the same version of the Bible. It seems that the AT here quoted Ezekiel from memory and directly from the Greek. Such a “hybrid” quotation, or flattening, is characteristic of quoting from memory.38 The AT associated Athanasius’ vague reference to Ezekiel with some of the most well-known phrases of the Book of Ezekiel, such as the formula “I live, says the Lord” (uiuo ego dicit Dominus),39 a word-for-word translation from .. ..., ...e. ...... into Latin, which he used as a link between the other two quotations that he supplied from the text of Ezekiel. This formula is attested no less than thirteen times in the Book of Ezekiel alone.40 The other quote, “if a righteous turns away from his righteousness and commits a crime” (iustus si recesserit a iustitia sua et fecerit facinus), is “flattened” out of at least three quotations similar to each other.41 The wording of these quotations from Ezekiel by AT is unattested elsewhere in Latin. The most likely explanation for how the AT rendered the additional material is that 35 Ezek. 3:20 (.. t. .p.st..fe.. d..a... .p. t.. d..a..s.... a.t.. .a. p...s. pa..pt.µa), 18:24 (.. d. t. .p.st...a. d..a... .. t.. d..a..s.... a.t.. .a. p...s. .d...a.), 18:26 (.. t. .p.st...a. t.. d..a... .. t.. d..a..s.... a.t.. .a. p...s. pa..pt.µa .. t. pa.apt.µat.). 36 Ezek. 33:13 (p.sa. a. d..a..s..a. a.t.. .. µ. ..aµ..s..s... .. t. .d.... a.t.., . .p...se., .. a.t. .p..a.e.ta.). 37 Ezek. 5:11 (.. ..., ...e. ......). 38 For the process of flattening, see Houghton, “‘Flattening’ in Latin Biblical Cita­tions.” 39 Bartelink noted how this formula found in the Old and the New Testament frequently introduced the oath of God and that the text of the AT differs consi­derably from Ezek. 18:24 in the Vulgate version, where there is no uiuo ego but uiuet with iustus as a subject, see his commentary in Bartelink, Vita di Antonio, 210, n. 14. 40 Ezek. 5:11, 14:16, 18, 20, 16:48, 17:16, 19, 18:3, 20:31, 33, 34:8, 35:6, 11: see Hauspie, “.. ..., ...e. ......, e. µ..,” 4, n. 2. Ezek. 20:3 and 33:11, 27 only have “(as) I live,” without “says the Lord.” This formula is attested in the New Testament as well, for instance in Rom. 14:11: ....apta. ... .. ..., ...e. ......, .t. .µ.. ..µ.e. p.. ...., .a. p.sa ...ssa ...µ.....seta. t. Te.. 41 Ezek. 3:20, 18:24, 18:26. it resulted from quoting Ezekiel from memory in a language other than Latin, very likely Greek.42 One possible justification for such an intervention is that he deemed it necessary to provide his readers with immediately identi­fiable quotations.43 This suggestion is supported by the fact that the above-discussed example is by no means singular; there are several other places in his translation where he added biblical quotations or references absent from the Greek text.44 This fact further raises the question of what his intended readership could have been. The AT regarded a biblical reference without quotation as insufficient for his readers to understand the full context of this part of the Life, from which one can further deduce that he may have viewed his target readership as not familiar enough with the Bible. Another possible explanation might be that he wished to demonstrate his knowledge of the Bible by quoting it in fuller form. The AT’s ignorance of the Bible in Latin suggests that he was not a native speaker of Latin and had limited competence in the language. This deficiency is supported by several “mechanical” translations of Christian key terms in Greek.45 Fashioning Antony as fully adherent to “orthodox” theology was a powerful weapon in Athanasius’ anti-Arian campaign. In chapter 69 of the Life, he wrote that “the Arians lied and said that Antony held the same beliefs as they.”46 Here, Athanasius “de­picted Antony as responding to this claim by appearing in Alexandria 42 For instance, the use of the verb in 1st person sg. “I will not remember” (non memorabo) as a translation for 3rd person pl. .. µ. ..aµ..s..s.., unattested in other Christian writers of the time who quoted from Ezekiel, was influenced by the 1st person singular “I live” (uiuo ego). 43 The possibility that actual full quotations from Ezekiel may have been present in the initial text of the Greek Life should be discarded, as there are no manuscripts of the Greek Life that attest such a version of the text, see VA 18.3 (ed. Bartelink, 212, with the apparatus ad loc.). As shown, there is no trace of these quotations in VE either. 44 See also VA 17.5, where the AT added the whole text of Eccles. 4:8, 6:2, absent from Athanasius’ text, or VA 51.1, where he added a reference absent from the Greek original, ut scriptum est in Iob, “as it is written in Job.” For other such interven­tions of the AT, see Gandt, “A Philological and Theological Analysis,” 82–83. 45 The term mechanical is used in this article as equal to non-idiomatic and word-for-word approach to translation, resulting in an automatic equivalence between words translated from one language to another, in this case from Greek into Latin, as opposed to a language choice that is seen as idiomatic and dyna­mic. For the use of such terminology see, for instance, Adams, Bilingualism, 37. 46 Trans. Vivian and Athanassakis, 205. and publicly denouncing Arian thought,”47 which he characterized as “ungodly.”48 As usual, when treating critical theological issues, Atha­nasius lent authority to Antony’s words by quoting the Bible:  ..e. µ.deµ.a. ..ete .......a. p... t... .seßest.t... ..e.a....· ..deµ.a ... .......a f.t. p... s..t...49 The AT rendered this as unde nolite habere cum impiis, ipsi Ariani, ullam communicationem, nulla enim communicatio lucis cum tenebra.50 VE of the passage reads as follows: cum Arianis sit uobis nulla coniunctio. Quae enim societas luci ad tenebras?51 The two translators’ renderings differ significantly. First, it should be noted that Athanasius’ “for light has no fellowship with darkness” is not a verbatim biblical quotation but instead his reworking of a question into a negative statement.52 The quotation that Athanasius “flattened” here is 2 Cor. 6:14, which reads: “what fellowship can light have with darkness?” (t.. .......a f.t. p... s..t..;).53 As it now becomes clear, this is precisely how Evagrius translated it, as a question. In other words, he recognized 2 Cor. 6:14 in the Greek text and decided to translate the rhetorical question of the biblical original, not Athanasius’ negative “answer” to it. Furthermore, it seems likely that Evagrius did not sim­ply translate the Bible anew here but used an already existing version of 2 Cor. 6:14 in Latin, as attested in Rufinus’ translation of Origen,54 Paulinus of Nola,55 Chromatius,56 Augustine,57 and Jerome.58 47 Ibid., 135. 48 Note that Athanasius here uses the adjective .seß.., “ungodly, godless,” as opposed to e.seß... These opposing terms play an essential role in Athanasius’ theological discourse and anti-Arian propaganda. 49 VA 69.4–5 (ed. Bartelink, 362): “As a result, you are to have no fellowship with the godless and iniquitous Arians, for ‘light has no fellowship with darkness.’” (Trans. Vivian and Athanassakis, 205.) 50 VV 69 (ed. Gandt, 159, slightly altered, retaining Bartelink’s reading communi­cationem, which is that of the manuscript against communicatione printed in Gandt’s edition): “Hence, do not have with the godless, the Arians, any fellow­ship, for light has no fellowship with darkness.” 51 VE 69 (ed. Bertrand, 76): “You must have nothing to do with the Arians. For what fellowship can there be between light and darkness?” (Trans. White, 52.) 52 The same as in the case of VA 9.2, “nothing ‘will separate me from the love of Christ’,” and Rom. 8:35, “who will separate us from the love of Christ?” See Andelovic, “Between the Literal and the Literary,” 28–30. 53 . t.. .......a f.t. p... s..t..; 54 Orig. in Leu. 4.4. 55 Epist. 1.8. 56 In Matth. 31. 57 Spec. 32. 58 In Is. 14.52. In contrast to VE, the rendering of the AT reflects his low-register Latin usage and is otherwise unattested,59 which suggests that the translator translated without prior knowledge of existing versions of the Bible in Latin. While .......a, “fellowship,” which appears twice in the Greek original, was translated by Evagrius first as coniunctio and then, in keeping with the established form of 2 Cor. 6:14 in Latin in Late Antiquity, as societas, the AT used communicatio in both instances. Although communicatio was not uncommon as a Latin translation for .......a in biblical contexts,60 the AT used communicatio and com-municare as standard equivalents for .......a and ........ of the Greek original as if working with a dictionary or a bilingual glossary.61 In contrast, VE of the same passages renders these terms with a more lexical variety in a more idiomatic and rhetorically elaborated fashion.62 The examples discussed indicate that the text of the Bible that the AT used in personal and liturgical contexts was not in Latin but very likely in Greek. Bearing in mind the importance of the Scriptures in Christian monastic circles in the fourth century, this would thus further 59 The apposition in the nominative ipsi Ariani is, according to Bartelink, a low-register construction. See his commentary ad loc. in Bartelink, Vite dei Santi, 253, n. 12. Also, the use of tenebrae, -arum in the singular (such as in “cum tene-bra”) is rarely attested in standard Latin, see ibid., n. 13, as well as the OLD, 2115, s.v. tenebrae. 60 See TLL, s.v. communicatio, coll. 1953, I A. 61 Of course, that the AT used a glossary or a dictionary is, although probable, beyond any proof. However, he might have operated with some kind of a Greek-Latin bilingual glossary that merged Greek words and phrases with Latin ones in the form of a vocabulary list, which was not uncommon in late- antique Egypt among Greek speakers at an early stage of learning Latin, see, for example, Adams, Bilingualism, 735. On Greek-Latin glossaries as Latin-learning material in general, see Dickey, Colloquia, 11–12. 62 Thus, in VA 94.1 (.a. µ.deµ.a .st. .µ.. .......a p... t... s..sµat.....), the AT has: et non sit uobis communicatio cum schismaticis (VV 94). Compare this to Evagrius’ rendering of the same passage: Schismaticorum quoque et haere­ticorum uenena uitate (VE 91). Further examples are VA 89.4: µ.d. .......a. ..e.. t... p... t... ..e.a...., with the AT’s VV 89: Neque aliquam commu­nicationem habueritis cum Arianis, in contrast to VE 89: neque cum Arianis in commune iungamini. See also VA 74.4: ..e...fe s.µa .....p.... ..a, t. .....p... .e..se. .......sa., p...s. t... .....p... .......sa. .e.a. .a. ..e... f.se.., and the two translator’s renderings of ........ in VV 74: assumpsit corpus humanum ut per communicationem humanae natiuitatis faciat communicare cum diuina illa et intelligibili proprietate, and VE 74: ob salutem nostram humanum corpus assumpserit, ut societate mortalitatis nos ueheret ad caelum participesque naturae caelestis efficeret. suggest that Latin was not the native language of the AT; otherwise, the Bible that he would hear in the church would have been in Latin. Not being his native language, Latin would explain the issues the AT faced when translating and the solutions he devised. EVAGRIUS OF ANTIOCH: LATE-ANTIQUE CHRISTIAN ELITE AND RHETORICAL MASTERY Let us now shift our focus to the AT’s counterpart, Evagrius, and his handling of biblical material in his Latin translation of the Life. In contrast to the AT, VE is characterized by the translator’s familiarity with existing versions of the contemporary Latin Biblical text and his intention to upgrade these existing versions stylistically. Further­more, the following discussion hopes to demonstrate that Evagrius’ decision to adopt such a “free” and “literary” approach to translation was not only of a purely stylistic nature, but that the reasons might be philosophical and ideological as well.63 In one of many addresses delivered to his fellow monks on the ascetic and spiritual life, Athanasius’ Antony draws on Paul’s Epistles to the Romans (Rom. 8:28) and the Corinthians (1 Cor. 15:31), re­spectively: .a.t. t. p..a....µ... t. ..a... s..e..e. . .e.. e.. t. ..a.... ... d. t. µ. ......e.. .µ.. .a... t. t.. .p.st.... ..t.. µe.et.., t. .a.’ .µ..a. .p....s...64 The AT offers a literal rendering of Athanasius’ passage: omni uolenti bonum Deus cooperatur in bono. […] bonum est meditari Apostoli dictum quod dicit Cotidie morior.65 Evagrius, however, provides a somewhat different translation of the same passage: omni proponenti bonum et Deus cooperatur. […] Apostoli praecepta replicemus quibus se mori quotidie testabatur.66 63 A perfect example of a “free,” exegetic and stylistically upgraded Evagrius’ trans­lation that reflects his rhetorical training and mastery is his per Filium suum propriis Ecclesias ditauerit eloquiis (VE 81, ed. Bertrand, 88): “and that through His Son He enriched the churches with His own words” (trans. White, 60) for d.. t.. .d... .... .e.....e. .µ.. (VA 81.3, ed. Bartelink, 394), “has spoken to us through his own Son” (trans. Vivian and Athanassakis, 229). See Andelovic, “Between the Literal and the Literary,” 66–8. 64 VA 19.1–2 (ed. Bartelink, 214): “God helps everyone to do good who deliberately chooses to do good. Now with regard to losing heart, it is good for us to meditate on the Apostle’s statement: ‘I die daily.’” (Trans. Vivian and Athanassakis, 103.) 65 VV 19 (ed. Gandt, 123): “To everyone who wants good God assists in good. […] It is good to meditate on the Apostle’s saying which says ‘I die daily.’” 66 VE 19 (ed. Bertrand, 25): “To everyone who deliberately chooses [to do] good God helps as well. […] let us reflect upon the Apostle’s words when he claims that he First, it is worthy of note that Rom. 8:28 reads t... ..ap.s.. t.. .e.. p..ta s..e..e. . .e.. e.. ..a...,67 and that the second part of the quotation, i. e., s..e..e. . .e.. e.. t. ..a..., “God helps towards good,” is the only part that Athanasius quoted verbatim. This paraphrase of Rom. 8:28 is either a result of Athanasius quoting from memory or his rhetorical strategy in quoting. The first part of Athanasius’ passage, i. e., pa.t. t. p..a....µ... t. ..a..., “to everyone who deliberately chooses to do good,” is thus added by Athanasius, and it is this wording that is particularly interesting for the analysis of our two translators’ renderings of this passage of the Life. The AT’s rendering is rather literal, preserving even the word order of the Greek original; the translator kept the two instances of the Greek term t. ..a... and, as a result, has bonum twice in his translation. The second occurrence, i. e., in bono, implies that he was translating verbatim. He probably did so without recourse to any of the circulating Latin versions for Rom. 8:28 because in bono, in the ablative, in this biblical verse, is not attested elsewhere outside the AT’s work.68 Also, Athanasius’ p..a...., a critical philosophical term in Antony’s discourse meaning “to choose deliberately” was translated in the VV with a simple velle, “to want.” Evagrius, for his part, instead of rendering Athanasius’ p..a.... with a simple “to want,” translated it with propono, which implies primarily moral choice and likewise has a more specific meaning than the AT’s simple velle.69 By deciding to translate pa.t. t. p..a....µ... as omni proponenti, Evagrius is in a sense more literal than the AT, however for different reasons than the latter in the examples dis­cussed in the previous section. Evagrius seized the depth and moral meaning of Athanasius’ use of the verb p..a...., at the same time reducing both Athanasius’ two occurrences of t. ..a... and the AT’s two bonum into one bonum, probably to avoid repetition and stylistically upgrade this quotation.70 Regarding the second biblical quotation from Paul’s epistles in this passage of the Life, i. e., 1 Cor. dies each day.” (Trans. White, 21, slightly altered.) 67 “To those who love God, [he] helps in all respects towards [doing] good.” 68 The Vulgate version, for instance, has quoniam diligentibus Deum omnia coope­ rantur in bonum, while Augustine (e. g., Civ. 18.51) writes et diligentibus eum omnia cooperatur in bonum. 69 See the OLD, 1644, s.v. propono, 11A. 70 Another example where Evagrius shortens a biblical quotation is in VE 55, where he rendered 2 Cor. 13.15, .a.t... ..a....ete, .a.t... d...µ..ete, and the AT’s uosmetipsos scrutamini, uosmetipsos probate, as diiudicate uosmetipsos et pro­bate. 15:31, Athanasius quoted it verbatim: .a.’ .µ..a. .p....s...71 While the AT’s rendering matches all the other attestations of 1 Cor. 15:31 in Latin from Late Antiquity,72 Evagrius, by writing se mori quotidie tes­tabatur, decided to incorporate the biblical quotation into the specific syntactic context of his rendering of Athanasius’ passage. However, the two translators’ rendering of this biblical quotation is too short to draw general conclusions. As it was previously the case with Athanasius’ p..a.... translated as propono by Evagrius, the latter in a similar way revised Athana­sius’ µe.et.., “to meditate on [the Apostle’s statement].”73 While the AT simply translated it with meditari, Evagrius’ lexical choice was replicare, “to think about and duplicate, to go over and over again [the Apostle’s saying].”74 Replicare was not Evagrius’ lexical choice made out of purely aesthetic reasons but also a philosophical concept. A ruminative and repetitive nature of replicare enhances the message of Athanasius’ quote “I die every day” (.a.’ .µ..a. .p....s..),75 which itself emphasizes the importance of repeti­tiveness and constancy for ascetic discipline. Emphasizing certain concepts, at times staying close to the Greek original, while some­times highlighting Athanasius’ message by offering a different verb 71 “I die every day.” 72 The Vulgate has the same wording, as well as Tertullian (Resurr. 48.54), Rufinus (Orig. in Rom. 5.8), Jerome (In Is. 12.41 and Epist. 60.19), and Augustine (Epist. 157.40). This, however, does not mean that the AT shared the same source with the authors as mentioned earlier writing in Latin. The AT could have trans­lated this on his own, as there are not many other ways to translate .a.’ .µ..a. .p....s.. but cotidie morior. 73 On µe.et.. with the meaning “meditatively uttering the words of the Scripture (and especially the Psalms),” see Vivian and Athanassakis, 177, n. 331. 74 See OLD, 1785, s.v. replico, 3. 75 Discussing the use of replicare by Hugh of St. Victor, Emily Runde has noted that “his use of replicare enforces a sense of cyclical movement, of turning over and unrolling, and of repetition. If they are not to be forgotten or to decay through long disuse (longa intermissione obsolescat), remembered things must be revi­sited, even literally recollected and put to use.” See Runde, “Ways of Reading and Framing Collection,” 31. Replicare in general puts a strong emphasis on memory, and as such also means “to recount [events].” Evagrius used replicare four times in his translation of the VA, and, apart from the case discussed here, the other three times (VE 39, 65, and 82) he used it in the meaning “to recount [an event].” It is worth mentioning that in VE 82 (ed. Bertrand, 90), he did not translate anything literally from Greek, but rather quoted Vergil verbatim (Aen. 2.12): horret animus replicare quae gesta sunt, “the mind recoils from repeating what happened.” (Trans. White, 61.) but also keeping the original meaning, as is the case with replicare, suggests Evagrius’ not only different theoretical, but also different philosophical approach to translation than it was the case with the AT. The following example will further illustrate Evagrius’ concern for a crucial philosophical term such as “wisdom” (s.f.a / sapientia) and how his interventions reshape the meaning of a term and that of Athanasius’ message. In the episode in which Antony debates with philosophers over the true faith, pointing to their “erroneous” beliefs, he attempts to convince them by offering proof for his worship of God. At-hanasius’ Antony stresses that, if the philosophers are expecting to hear logical proofs made out of wordy fabrications, he will not offer any, and further elaborates on this by quoting 1 Cor. 2:4: .µe.. µ.. ... .. pe.... s.f.a. ........., .. e.pe. . d.d.s.a... .µ.., .p.de....µe..76 The AT’s rendering of this passage is nos quidem non in suadela sapientiae paganorum, ut dixit magister noster, probamus,77 while Evagrius translated it as ecce nos, ut dixit Doctor noster, non in gentili persuasione … suademus.78 First, it is noteworthy that the AT translated Athanasius’ “our te­acher” (d.d.s.a... .µ..), i. e., the apostle Paul, as magister noster, while for Evagrius he was doctor noster. The AT’s magister is a literal translation of d.d.s.a.... Evagrius’ lexical choice was, however, by no means literal nor accidental, as he used doctor not only here, but also in places where Paul is not named d.d.s.a... in the Greek original.79 Although doctor is indeed similar to magister in the mea­ning “teacher,” Evagrius’ usage of doctor, always coming with noster, sermonum, or eloquium, and referring to Paul, implies that Paul for 76 VA 80.1 (ed. Bartelink, 388): “We will not offer proof by means of ‘plausible wisdom’ of Greeks, as our teacher said.” (Trans. Vivian and Athanassakis, 227, slightly altered: from “plausible Greek wisdom” to “plausible wisdom of Greeks,” as ........., “Greek,” is not a part of the biblical quotation 1 Cor. 2:4 and Athanasius added it in the VA.) 77 VV 80 (ed. Gandt, 166, slightly altered: suadilla from Gandt’s edition and the manuscript to suadela, conjectured by Bartelink, Vita di Antonio, 150): “we will certainly not prove by the persuasion of the wisdom of the pagans, as our teacher said.” 78 VE 80 (ed. Bertrand, 86): “look how we convince not by means of the gen­tiles’ attempts at persuasion […] as our teacher said” (trans. White, 58, slightly altered, from “pagans” to “gentiles”). Evagrius’ rendering of 1 Cor. 2:4 was apparently not recognized as a direct biblical quotation in the latest critical edition by Bertrand. 79 VE 7: doctor sermonum, VE 55: doctor eloquium. Evagrius was primarily a teacher in Christian context.80 Other promi­nent Latin patristic authors, with whom, as already shown, Evagrius shared versions of the Bible in Latin, also called Paul doctor gentium, “the teacher of the gentiles.”81 Furthermore, it is striking that the adjective “Greek,” (........ [s.f.a]), was translated with the term paganus in VV, while in VE it was rendered by gentilis. Though the discussion of all the terms for non-Christians in Late Antiquity and an overview of their history and semantic development deserve separate discussion,82 in the context of the Life and its translations, Athanasius’ ....., “Greek,” and the translators’ paganus and gentilis were all used as negative religious qualifications for non-Christians. The AT resorted to paganus eleven times in his translation, whereas he used gentilis / gentes three times but only as translations for ....... / t. ....,83 which is certainly not the same as ..........84 The AT thus seems to have been operating with an equivalence between ..... / ......... and paganus. On the other hand, Evagrius used the adjective gentilis thirteen times in his translation, as opposed to paganus, which is mentioned only three times in the VE.85 Thus, in contrast to the AT, Evagrius operated with both options, i. e., paganus and gentilis. The reason why gentilis, and not paganus,was still Evagrius’ favorite term for translating ..... / ......... or ....... / t. .... might have been that the meaning “non-Christian” for paganus was a semantic neologism, as reported by Augustine.86 As far as their translations of the biblical quotation are concer­ned, the AT is the only one to use suadela, “persuasion,” to translate pe... in this context, which points to a high probability that he 80 “St. Paul speaks of himself as a doctor of the Gentiles in faith and truth (1 Timothy 2:7), and Doctor gentium is one of the titles given to him in the liturgy. In the early Church, teachers in the catechetical schools were known as doctores audientium (Cyprian, Ep. 29); and finally, over time, some of the most illustrious theologians were designated as ‘Doctors of the Church.’” Pace, “Doctor,” in The Catholic Encyclopedia, available online. 81 For example, Ambrose (Noe 8.25), Rufinus (Orig. in. gen. 3.4), Augustine (Epist. 157.11), Jerome (In Gal. 1.1). 82 For a detailed overview and discussion on paganus and its relation to gentes, gentiles, or nationes, see Cameron, The Last Pagans, 14–25. 83 VV 13, 45, and 69. 84 See Bartelink’s commentary ad loc. in Vite dei Santi, 253, n. 70. 85 In VE 70 and 72 for ..... and in VE 82 for ........ Similar is the case of Ambrose, for instance, using gentes nineteen times and never pagani, see Came­ron, The Last Pagans, 16. 86 Epist. 184A.5: quos uel gentiles uel iam uulgo usitato uocabulo paganos appellare consueuimus. was not aware of the existing versions of 1 Cor. 2:4 in Latin. On the other hand, Evagrius’ persuasio indicates that he was familiar with an already existing version of 1 Cor. 2:4 in Latin, as witnessed by Ambrose and Jerome.87 What is particularly puzzling, however, is not that VE, as it usually happens, has parallels in other writers’ writing in Latin in Late Antiquity, but that he altogether avoided translating Athanasius’ s.f.a, “wisdom,” deeming it sufficient to translate only pe..., “persuasion.” The Greek term s.f.a, “wisdom,” appears four times in the Life. In all four occurrences and contexts, the AT translated it simply as sapientia, without revisions to the Greek text. Such a word-for-word translation is probably due to the translator’s adoption of the “one­-word-one-concept” strategy, in which s.f.a always equals sapientia. On the other hand, Evagrius, as mentioned above, did not translate s.f.a from the Greek original at all. Judging by Evagrius’ compe­tence in translating from Greek into Latin, the possibility that he simply overlooked such an important term in Antony’s debate over philosophers as s.f.a should be discarded. Instead, a closer look into his rendering of s.f.a throughout his translation offers further explanations for Evagrius’ particular choice in this case and explains how he employed sapientia. Out of the four instances where s.f.a appears in the Greek text, Evagrius translated it as sapientia only once and, even then, he added to it the explanatory term mundi, “of [this] world.”88 Most of the times in the Life, s.f.a is mentioned with a negative connotation and in a polemic context, in Antony’s long speeches against non-Christians who relied on the wisdom of words and this world, as opposed to his “true” faith. Evagrius’ reluctance to present “wisdom” as necessarily negative becomes even more apparent when one notices that he attempted to incorporate the noun sapientia in other places in his translation where there was no s.f.a in corresponding passages of the Greek original. Three times, he employed sapientia with a posi­tive connotation: in a translation of f....s.. as one of the Christian ideals that lead to heaven, then of .... in Athanasius’ words of praise for Antony’s intelligence, and in a phrase sapientia bonum est as an addition in the form of an exegetic translation.89 On the other hand, in the Evagrian translation, there are precisely three occurrences of 87 Ambrose, In psalm. 47.24.1: non in persuasione sapientiae uerbi; Jerome: Adv. Rufin. 1.17: non in persuasione uerborum. 88 VE 78. 89 VE 17, 85, and 72. sapientia with a negative connotation: apart from sapientia mundi mentioned above, he used it as uana et confutata sapientia as well as mundana sapientia.90 This is to say, Evagrius was fully aware of what “wisdom” (s.f.a) meant in Athanasius’ discourse and theology and of its connotations. When used alone, sapientia in VE is always presented as a virtue and an advantage; when needed to present it as “empty” wisdom of non-Christians, Evagrius indicated so by adding explanatory terms. It indeed seems as if Evagrius wanted to find a balance between Atha­nasius’ presentation of s.f.a as a “sin” and what sapientia meant in Evagrius’ daily life among literati. CONCLUSION Ever since the discovery of the manuscript with the older anonymous Latin translation, the scholarly stances towards the two Latin trans­lations of the Life of Antony were fixed and viewed them as striking contrasts. It has not been disputable that the VV stands for a literal and an excessively wordy translation, and that, on the other hand, Evagrius’ final product is a literary, free, elegant, and stylistically improved translation, composed in high-style Latin by a prominent fourth-century Christian intellectual from Antioch. While all these hold, the two Latin translations of the Life have not been thoroughly mined for all possible information about the two translators. By discussing the modus operandi of the translators, this research has yielded several discoveries. Firstly, it became apparent that the AT rendered the biblical quotations he found in the Life from Greek into Latin himself without recourse to the available translations. His renderings are unparalleled in other texts that quote the Bible in Latin. In addition, it became apparent that the AT was familiar with the Greek Bible based on the exact verbal correspondences in the word order between several passages in the Greek Bible and the AT’s renderings of the biblical quotations, otherwise absent from Athanasius’ text. The main conclusion is that his literal and word-for-word approach to translation was not a translation preference but rather a limitation. Namely, the analysis of the AT’s mirror and mechanical translations of many terms and several syntactic structures from Greek resulting in non-idiomatic Latin supports the hypothesis that the translator was a bilingual speaker. However, he had insufficient command of the language he was translating into, in this case, Latin. 90 VE 80 and 93. On the other hand, this study has shown that Evagrius was using the version of the Bible of which numerous textual parallels are atte­sted in the works of other authors writing in Latin, such as Cyprian, Tertullian, Jerome, Augustine, Rufinus, or Ambrose. While Evagrius’ rhetorical education and his translating ad sensum have been noted by various scholars, this study has also shown that Evagrius occasi­onally stylistically upgraded the language of the existing versions of the Latin Bible, as if he was not content with the material available to him. Evagrius exercised his mastery in rhetoric even on the text that was considered sacred by him and his Christian contemporaries. The investigation of his renderings of biblical quotations from Greek into Latin brought about other important discoveries along the way. For instance, even if Evagrius’ close ties with Jerome were acknowledged before, this study has shown that Evagrius and Jerome frequently sha­red specific wordings of the Bible in Latin that no other Latin author used. This confirms anticipations that Evagrius belonged to the same circle of literati, i. e., the late-antique Christian elite, as Jerome did. On these grounds, the investigation of how the two translators chose to articulate the text they considered sacred led to discoveries about their linguistic, ideological, and theological backgrounds. Rather than looking for “historical facts” and attempting to “reveal” identities, this article focuses on the very texts, which proved to be fertile research material. After all, this case reminds us of the impor­tance and potential of returning to texts for any philological research. BIBLIOGRAPHY Primary sources Athanasius. “Life of Antony.” In Early Christian Lives, edited and translated by Caroline White, 1–71. London: Penguin Books, 1998. ——— . Sant’Antonio Abate: La sua vita. Edited by Gerhardus J. M. Bartelink and translated by Luca Bruzzese. Bologna: Edizioni San Clemente and Edizioni Studio Domenicano, 2013. ——— . The Life of Antony by Athanasius of Alexandria: The Coptic Life and The Greek Life. Translated by Tim Vivian and Aposto­los N. Athanassakis. Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 2003. ——— . Vita di Antonio. Edited by Gerhardus J. M. Bartelink. Mi-lano: Fondazione Lorenzo Valla, 1974. Reprint Milano: Fonda-zione Lorenzo Valla, 2003. Novum Testamentum Graece: 28th edition. Edited by Christos Kara-kolis et al. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012. Septuaginta, id est Vetus Testamentorum graece iuxta LXX interpre­tes. Edited by Alfred Rahlfs, second revised edition by Robert Hanhart. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006. Vitae Antonii Versiones latinae: Vita beati Antonii abbatis Evagrio interprete; Versio uetustissima. Edited by Pascal H. E. Bertrand and Lois Gandt. Turnhout: Brepols, 2018. Secondary sources Adams, James N. Bilingualism and the Latin Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Andelovic, Aleksandar. “Between the Literal and the Literary: So­cial Background, Linguistic Competence, and the Bible in the Late-antique Latin Translations of the Vita Antonii.” MA thesis, Central European University, 2021. Bartelink, Gerhardus J. M. “Die Literarische Gattung der ‘Vita Antonii’: Struktur und Motive.” Vigiliae Christianae 36.1 (1982): 38–62. Bertrand, Pascal H. E. “Die Evagriusübersetzung der Vita Antonii: Reception – Überliefung – Edition; Unter besonderer Berück­sichtigung der Vitas Patrum-Tradition.” PhD dissertation, Utrecht University, 2005. Brakke, David. “The Greek and Syriac versions of the Life of An­tony,” Le Muséon 107 (1994): 29–53. Burton, Philip. The Old Latin Gospels: A Study of their Texts and Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Cameron, Alan. The Last Pagans of Rome. Oxford: Oxford Uni­versity Press, 2011. Denecker, Tim. “Among Latinists: Alfred Ernout and Einar Löf­stedt’s Responses to the ‘Nijmegen School’ and its Christian Sondersprache Hypothesis.” Historiographia Linguistica 45.3 (2018): 325–62. ———. “The Nijmegen School and its ‘Sociological’ Approach to the So-Called ‘Sondersprache’ of Early Christians: A Prelimi­nary Historiographical Study.” Latomus: revue d’études latines 77.2 (2018): 335–57. Dickey, Eleanor. The Colloquia of the Hermeneumata Pseudo-dositheana. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Gandt, Lois. “A Philological and Theological Analysis of the An­cient Latin Translations of the Vita Antonii.” PhD dissertation, Fordham University, 2008. Garitte, Gérard. Un témoin important du texte de La vie de s. Antoine par s. Athanase: La version latine inédite des Archives du Chapitre de S. Pierre à Rome. Bruxelles and Rome: Palais des Académies and Academia Belgica, 1939. Hauspie, Katrin. “.. ..., ...e. ......, e. µ..: Dans la Septante d’E´zéchiel.” Bulletin of the International Organization for Sep­tuagint and Cognate Studies 36 (2003): 3–25. Hoppenbrouwers, Henricus. “La technique de la traduction dans l’Antiquité d’après la première version latine de la Vita Anto­nii.” In Mélanges Christine Mohrmann: Nouveau recueil offert par ses anciens élèves, edited by Christine Mohrmann, 80–95. Utrecht: Spectrum, 1973. Houghton, Hugh A. G. “‘Flattening’ in Latin Biblical Citations.” In Papers from the Fifteenth International Patristics Conference, edited by Jane Braun et al., 271–76. Leuven: Peeters Publishers, 2010. Löfstedt, Einar. Commento Filologico Alla Peregrinatio Aetheriae. Bologna: Pátron Editore, 2007. Lorié, Ludovicus T. A. Spiritual Terminology in the Latin Transla­tions of the Vita Antonii, with Reference to Fourth and Fifth Century Monastic Literature. Utrecht: Dekker & van de Vegt, 1955. Louth, Andrew. “St. Athanasius and the Greek Life of Antony.” Journal of Theological Studies 39 (1988): 504–09. Rebenich, Stefan. Hieronymus und sein Kreis: Prosopographische und sozialgeschichtliche Untersuchungen. Stuttgart: Franz Stei­ner Verlag, 1992. Rousseau, Philip. “Antony as Teacher in the Greek Life.” In Greek Biography and Panegyric in Late Antiquity, edited by Tomas Hägg and Philip Rousseau, 89–109. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000. Runde, Emily Christina. “Ways of Reading and Framing Col­lection in Late Medieval England.” PhD dissertation, University of California, 2014. Wilmart, André. “Une version latine inédite de la vie de saint An­toine.” Revue bénédictine 31 (1914): 163–173. ABSTRACT The paper focuses on the direct Bible quotations that the anonymous translator and Evagrius of Antioch rendered from Greek into Latin as part of their versions of the Life of Antony, each in his own way. Did the anonymous translator use any of the existing fourth-century Latin translations of the Bible to translate the biblical quotations he found in the Greek original, or did he translate them himself, without recourse to translations already available? Which version of the Bible did he use when translating the biblical quotations, in Latin or in Greek? What does the anonymous translator’s “literal” and “low-register” style tell us about the translator? Was his non-idiomatic Latin a choice, “Christian” Latin, or rather a limitation in translating into Latin as his target language? On the other hand, what does Evagrius’ “high” and stylistically sophisticated and improved Latin tell us about Evagrius? Whom does he write for, and what do his readers expect from him? This paper aims at answering these questions. KEYWoRdS:translation theory, Graeco-Latin bilingualism, hagiography, biblical quotations, late-antique literati, education KONTRASTNO JEZIKOVNO IN KULTURNO OZADJE DVEH LATINSKIH PREVAJALCEV ANTONOVEGA ŽIVLJENJA IZVLECEK Pricujoca razprava se osredotoca na neposredne biblijske citate, ki sta jih anonimni prevajalec in Evagrij Antiohijski prestavila iz gršcine v latinšcino v okviru svojih razlicic Življenja svetega Antona, vsak na svoj nacin. Je anonimni prevajalec Življenja uporabil katere­ga od obstojecih latinskih prevodov Svetega pisma iz cetrtega stoletja za prevajanje svetopisemskih citatov, ki jih je našel v grškem izvirniku, ali jih je prevedel sam, ne da bi se zatekel k že dostopnim prevodom? Katero razlicico Svetega pisma je uporabil pri prevajanju svetopisemskih citatov, latinsko ali grško? Kaj nam o piscu pove »dobesedni« slog anonimnega prevajalca in njegov skromni register? Je bila njegova neidiomatska latinšcina izbira, je šlo za »kršcansko« latinšcino ali za omejenost pri prevajanju v latinšcino kot ciljni jezik? Kaj po drugi strani o Evagriju pove njegova »visoka« in slogovno dovršena ter izbrušena latinšcina? Za koga piše in kaj od njega pricakujejo bralci? Prispevek skuša odgovoriti na ta vprašanja. KLJUCNE BESEdE: prevajalska teorija, grško-latinska dvojezicnost, hagiografija, svetopisemski citati, poznoanticni literati, izobraževanje Saint Jerome (Philips Galle, 1561) Saint Jerome (anonymous, after Ventura Salimbeni, 1581 – after 1635) doI:https://doi.org/10.4312/clotho.3.2.31-52 Quasi nani superhumeros gigantum?Reusing Classical and Medieval Quotations in the HagiographicDiscourse in Tenth-Century Liège Sibil GruntarVilfan* and Cristian-Nicolae Gaspar** INTRODUCTION – THE SCHOOL OF LIÈGE AT THE TIME OF THE OTTONIAN RENAISSANCE AND RHYMED PROSE: VITA REMACLI II The tenth century has been known under many names and described variously as “post-Carolingian,” “pre-Gregorian,” “the iron century,” and “the dark century.”1 Some see it as a period of literary and intel­lectual decline.2 However, instead of focusing on the search for adequate terminology to describe it, it would be better to perceive the tenth century as an age of intellectual transition, especially when seen from the perspective of the better-known periods of flourishing intellectual life that preceded or followed it. Furthermore, there has recently * Swansea University; gruntar-vilfan_sibil@alumni.ceu.edu. ** Central European University; gasparc@ceu.edu. 1 Leonardi, “Intellectual Life,” 186. The titular simile, quasi nani super humeros gigantum, is from Neckam, De Nat. rer., 1.78.24–25. 2 Baronius, Annales ecclesiastici, 467; Contreni, Carolingian Learning, Masters and Manuscripts, 380; Grotans, Reading in Medieval St. Gall, 3; Haskins, Renais­sance of the Twelfth Century, 16. been a more nuanced assessment of the tenth century, referring to it with the term of the Ottonian Renaissance, which emphasizes the cultural and intellectual development of the era and avoids previous pejorative designations.3 One of the main centres of the Ottonian Renaissance, apart from the court in Aachen, was the area of Liège, especially its cathedral school and the intellectual circle around Notger (940–1008), the first prince and bishop of Liège.4 The cathedral school of Liège at the time of the Ottonian Renaissance produced hagiographical texts that display one of the main characteristics of the Ottonian Renaissance, i.e. building a new piece of art with extensive use of various ancient elements.5 In the Latin prose texts created during the time of the Ottonian emperors, this creative strategy is reflected in the extensive use of quotations from classical authors and the Bible and Christian authors. Such quotations were used as textual building blocks.6 At the same time, the use of rhymed prose emerged as a fashionable stylistic convention in Latin prose. The Ottonian Renaissance and the emer­gence of rhymed prose gave rise to the creation of remarkable Latin hagiographic prose text known as the Vita Remacli Secunda (Vita II) [Bibliotheca Hagiographica Latina (BHL) 7115, 7116]. Vita II is one of the most representative texts associated with Liège, where it was also produced. The modern conventional name suggests that this is the second Vita written about St. Remaclus. He was a seventh-century bishop (d. 673), who founded the abbey of Malmedy in the bishopric of Cologne and not long afterward also the abbey of Stavelot, a few kilometers west of Malmedy.7 As an abbot, he decided to live the rest of his life in the abbey of Malmedy, where he also died.8 The two abbeys kept fighting for the “ownership” of the saint’s cult until, in 938, both came to be ruled by a single abbot.9 In these circumstances, the abbot of the imperial monastery of Stavelot, Werinfrid (954–980), 3 Jacobsen, “Formen und Strukturen der lateinischen Literatur,” 917–49; McKit­ terick, “Continuity and Innovation,” 15–24; Head, Hagiography; Bayer, “La Vita.” 4 Wilkin and Kupper, “Introduction,” 12; Kurth, Notger, passim. 5 A helpful discussion of the use of quotations in medieval texts (and of spolia in medieval art) is available in the various studies collected in the volume Ideologie e pratiche del reimpiego nell’alto medioevo (Eco, 461–484; Kinney, 233–52). 6 The result of such use of classical and Christian spolia (Spolientechnik) is what Walter Berschin calls Ottonischer Schmuckstil. See Berschin, Biographie und Epochenstil, vol. 4.1, 100–1, 127, 157. 7 Thomas, Butler’s Lives of the Saints, 26. 8 Ibid. 9 Ibid. requested from Notger, bishop of Liège (972–1008), to revise the existing saint’s life, now commonly referred to as Vita Remacli I.10 When the Vita II was finished, sometime between 972 and 980, it was prefaced by a letter in Notger’s name.11 At that time, Notger’s secretary was the abbot of Lobbes, Heriger, most probably responsible for drafting much of Notger’s correspondence.12 The two men worked closely together, and to this day, there is an intense dispute among scholars regarding the authorship of Vita II.13 When analyzing a text of such stylistic, contextual, and content complexity as displayed in the Epistula and Vita II, it is worth ad­dressing it from different perspectives. This paper will focus on three aspects: the quotations from classical and medieval authors, rhymed prose, and manuscript tradition. How were the quotations from classical and Christian sources modified when included in the new text? To what degree were they adapted to the rules of rhymed prose? What patterns of the rhymed prose are discernible in the text? Was the quotation’s meaning altered when included in the new (con)text? The aim of the present article is therefore threefold. First, to show how the later Vita Secunda Sancti Remacli (Vita II) and its preface, i.e., The Letter to the Abbot Werinfrid of Stavelot (Epistula), written in the area of Liège in the tenth century, use quotations from ancient and Christian sources. These were not merely petrified forms of lifeless ancient wisdom but rather raw gems that were polished to fit into the new linguistic framework of rhymed prose. Thus, quotations played a double role: they enriched both the form of the text and its content, closely connected to the cultural and political context of the age.14 Second, to point out that the old nineteenth- and twentieth-century editions of this text are likely to act as distorting mirrors for the mo­dern reader, since they, in keeping with the common practice of that time, did not always pay attention to the role of the classical quotations reemployed in medieval texts where they were subjected to the rules of rhymed prose. Third, the last part of the article suggests an alternative way of editing similar hagiographic texts written in rhymed prose, where the quotations of classical and medieval authors are placed in their proper context considering the manuscript tradition, stylistic 10 Webb, “The Decrees,” 33; Snijders, “Obtulisti libellum,” passim. 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid, 34. 13 Ibid. 14 For stylistic and content analysis, see Gruntar Vilfan, Quasi nani super humeros gigantum, 2017. rules that governed the use of rhymed prose, and the multi-functional role that these quotations had in the new linguistic framework. In this way, it would become even clearer that whoever the author(s) of the Epistula and Vita II was or were, their work would not have been possible without the great writers who came before and that they, indeed, were “standing on the shoulders of the giants.”15 PREVIOUS SCHOLARSHIP AND THE VITA REMACLI II The scholars who have dealt with the Vita Remacli II have so far focused on the questions of its authorship, the context of the rewriting of the earlier Vita Remacli [BHL 7113, 7114], which served as the basis for the Vita II, and the function played by St. Remaclus’ cult at the abbey of Stavelot-Malmedy, which claimed him as its founder. However, the studies on the text have focused less on its formal features or structure, especially its extensive use of rhymed prose and the wealth of quotations from earlier sources that it contains. The study of the stylistic features of the Vita II is necessary because it can help shed light on some of the intellectual practices that informed the composition of hagiographic material produced in the area of Liège, thus reflecting the intellectual and literary achievements of the cathedral school of Liège at the end of the tenth century. Further­more, such research may contribute to the ongoing discussion on the authorship of Vita II. It should be noted that the existing studies on the use of rhymed prose in medieval texts, and more specifically, in hagiographic material, remain rare. One of the few scholars who studied rhymed prose in detail was Karl Polheim.16 His work, however, rather than offering a systematic discussion of rhymed prose as a stylistic feature of medieval prose, consists of individual chapters dedicated to several chosen texts, whose use of rhymed prose it analyses in detail. These include various works by Hrotsvitha of Gandersheim, the Vita Mathildis reginae, the Chronicle of Gallus Anonymus, and charters. A historical overview of the development of rhymed prose is also included. The only recent author who has carried out extensive research on rhymed prose in medieval hagiographic texts is Anne-Marie Turcan-Verkerk.17 She traced the beginning of rhymed prose to the works of Gregory the 15 Neckam, De Nat. rer., 1.78.24–25. 16 Polheim, Lateinische Reimprosa. 17 Turcan-Verkerk, “Forme et réforme.” Great, which offered possible inspiration and models for later usage. According to most scholars, the use of rhymed prose as a stylistic device in Latin texts peaked in the eleventh and twelfth centuries.18 The texts analyzed here, the Vita II and the Epistula, date back to the late tenth century. Despite their relatively early date, they both display a high literary style and an already very sophisticated use of rhymed prose. THE EPISTULA AND VITA II AND THEIR USE OF ANCIENT TEXTUAL MATERIAL In what follows, let us look at the way in which textual material from ancient and Christian sources is reused by the author of the prefatory Epistula to the Vita II. Epistola ad Werinfridum abbatem Stabulensem19 2 Omnis antiquitas ut ait oratorum maximus x 7 quo propius aberat b8 ab ortu et divina progenie c9 hoc melius ea fortasse c 10 quae erant vera cernebat. b11 3 Verum angelo Danieli narrante novimus x 12 quia pertransibunt plurimi et multiplex erit scientia 13 in antiquis utique vigente b 14 ratione veritatis indagatrice b 15 et perspicacia futurorum c 16 in modernis vero fide b 17 credulitatis quamprimum pollente b 18 cum plurima scientia praeteritorum. c19 18 Tunberg, “Prose Style and Cursus,” 112. 19 Krusch, Monumenta Germaniae Historica (MGH) SS rer. Merov. 5 (1905), 109. In the Latin text, the verbatim quotes from various sources are given in italics, underlining has been used for those parts where the original quote has been remodelled to a degree. The last column shows the numbering of cola that does not appear in Krusch’s edition. The entire Epistula is divided into 32 paragraphs in the modern editions, three of which (2–4) are analyzed here. 4 Illis diuturnitas vitae vetustatis obducens callum cognitionem praestitit omnium rerum nobis contra quos calidus sanguis quos rerum inscitia versat utinam non avolet ob brevem vitam et curam sollicitudinum antiquorum memorare inventa virorum! All antiquity as the greatest among the orators said the further away it was from the source and the divine origin the better those things, perhaps, it could perceive which were true. But we learn from the angel who revealed to Daniel that many shall cross over and the knowledge shall be manifold. In ancient times certainly there flourished reason and seeking of the truth speculating about the future in modern times, however, the faith of [our] belief is first and foremost strong with an abundance of knowledge about the past. To them a long-lived life by the hardening effect of time gave knowledge of all things. As for us, however, driven by hot blood and ignorance of the world I wish our short lifespan and everyday worries should not distract us from remembering the achievements of the ancients. a1 20 a2 21 x 22 b 23 b 24 a1 25 a2 26 The origin of the quotation Cic., Tusc. Disp. 1.12.26 omni antiquitate, quae quo propius aberat ab ortu et divina progenie, hoc melius ea fortasse quae erant vera cernebant. Dan. 12:4 pertransibunt plurimi, et multiplex erit scientia Aug., Epist. 187.57.7 credulitatis fidem Cic., Tusc. Disp. 3.22.53 quorum animis diuturna cogitatio callum vetustatis obduxerat Hor., Ep. 1.3.33 seu calidus sanguis seu rerum inscitia vexat Epistula Omnis antiquitas ut ait oratorum maximus quo propius aberat ab ortu et divina progenie hoc melius ea fortasse quae erant vera cernebat. pertransibunt plurimi et multiplex erit scientia fide credulitatis Illis diuturnitas vitae vetustatis obducens callum quos calidus sanguis quos rerum inscientia versat The Epistola ad Werinfridum abbatem Stabulensem, which pre­faces the Vita II, serving as an introduction into the subject of a religious nature, starts with a quote from Cicero. The quote is not from Cicero’s rhetorical writings, but from one of his philosophical works, the Tusculanae Disputationes. This prefatory quote creates the framework for the text and may have been intended to remind the reader of the classical style and the philosophical meaning of the original. The quote is altered to make it fit into the scheme of rhymed prose, thus making it instrumental to the grander scheme of the narrative. It expresses the idea that the entire Antiquity was as close to the true nature of things as further away it was from the divine source and origin, which is in sharp contrast to how truth is perceived in Christianity because truth comes from closeness to God, not from temporal distance from him. The next sentence introduces the immovable word of God through the words of the Prophet Daniel in marked contrast to the previously cited pagan authority. The quote from Daniel 12:4 suggests the image of apocalyptic visions, but these visions, as they came from God, are not false or to be doubted. This biblical quote was not altered to fit into the scheme of rhymed prose. Instead, it provides a colon of its own, ending with scientia, “knowledge,” which does not rhyme with any of the following or previous cola and stands out in isolation as an “orphan member.”20 This and the previous sentence serve as a prelude to the fundamental philo­sophical and religious idea the author would express in the next section of the Epistula. The reader is faced with a powerful opposition between the anci­ent (in antiquis) and the modern world (in modernis), the world of the tenth century. This contrast is vividly marked in the structure of the text because in antiquis spans cola 14–16 and in modernis cola 17–19. What is more, the two contrasting phrases rhyme with each other, creating a dynamically intertwined relationship. As the text continues, there is a rhyme at the end of colon 14 and colon 15, namely vigente and indagatrice, and a rhyme across cola 14 and 15 vigente and ratione. This connects the two cola more closely together and, at the same time, creates an internal rhyme inside colon 15 between ratione and indagatrice, which embrace the word verita-tis. This subtle structure reflects the meaning itself. In antiquity, people had to rely on the flourishing – vigente – of reason, ratione, and they had to seek – indagatrice – for the truth, veritatis. What is more, they had to try and foresee the future, to predict it as the text implies by using the phrase perspicatia futurorum, “speculating about the future.” In colon 17, in modernis first echoes in antiquis, setting itself as the mirror to the ancient times. At the end of colon 17, the word fide, which rhymes with vigente and indagatrice from cola 14 and 15, invokes faith in God as opposed to the merely human searching for meaning. Faith is something firm, something one can rely on while searching is uncertain. This very faith is based on the Christian belief in the word of God, while the search for meaning practiced by the ancients is something quite different and based on human reasoning. In addition to this, the use of the words pollente to describe fide and vigente to describe ratione, which rhyme across cola 17–18 and 14–15 respectively, emphasizes the contrast between fides and ratio. 20 To use the terminology proposed by Turcan-Verkerk, “Forme et la réforme,” 215: one may also refer to such non-rhyming cola as “stray members,” which stand out from the regular system of rhyming cola used in texts that employ rhyming prose. In the past, reason was, as the word vigente suggests, alive, thriving, flourishing, which implies it is also something which inevitably will die, as all living things do. However, the word describing faith, pollente, suggests this is potent and durable, not something with a beginning and an end as that of all living things. Faith is eternal. However, in modern times, people have the faith of their belief and the abundance of knowledge of the past expressed as plurima scientia praeteritorum, “an abundance of knowledge about the past,” which again recalls perspicatia futurorum from colon 16 above, making a double rhyme across the cola 16 and 19, so as to emphasize this. The very word scientia looks back to the biblical quote in which scientia was multiplex, suggesting that the knowledge of the past that people have in modern times is not the speculative knowledge of the ancients but the unique knowledge from God as revealed in the Bible. The biblical quote was not changed according to the stylistic demands of rhymed prose. One could appropriate the way the ancients’ message was uttered because it was speculation, based on causality and, therefore, subject to change and reshaping. How­ever, the word of God, which contained the eternal, unchangeable truth, was not to be touched. The text continues with another opposition between illis, i.e., the ancients, and nobis, i.e., the Christians in the tenth century, again creating a rhyme across cola 20 and 23. Colon 20 introduced by illis concludes with vetustatis creating an internal rhyme. The idea presented here is that the ancients had to live a long life to be able to acquire, praestitit, the understanding, cognitionem, of things, omnium rerum. The antagonism between then and now is firmly established by the word econtra following nobis. However, this antagonism, which is embedded in the meaning of the text, is further emphasized with two rhymes across cola 20 and 22. The first one, already mentioned, connects the beginnings of cola 20 and 22, illis – nobis, and the second one connects the middle of colon 20 and the ending of colon 22, vetustatis – sanguis, adding coherence and internal logic to the text. What follows is a wish to remember, utinam memorare, which contrasts the longevity of old with the brevity of modern life and the worries that beset it, and the acquired knowledge of things from the past with passions, calidus sanguis, and ignorance, insci­entia, of today. This message, in the center of which stands colon 23 ending with versat, rhyming with aberat and cernebat from cola 8 and 11, a cross-reference to the very beginning, is in dialogue with the message from the previous sentence, where modernity was said to possess scientia praeteritorum. The author of the text expresses a wish that the discoveries, inventa, i.e., the knowledge of the ancients, antiquorum virorum, would not fade away from modern times, precisely because the moderns do not have a long life which would allow them to come to those discoveries. Again, the use of rhymed prose supports the internal structure. Brevem in colon 25 of this sentence rhymes back with cognitionem in colon 21, and the last two cola end with the rhyming antiquorum and virorum. The speech of the dying saint (Exhortacio 10–12, cola 93–111)21 10 Ab omnibus quae ira fieri amat temperate, a93 quia verum est solum esse b 94 triumphum innocentiae, a95 non peccare, a96 ubi liceat posse. b97 11 In optimis quoque et adiudicantes a 98 temperantes estote, x 99 quia est modus in rebus; x 100 sunt certi denique fines a 101 quos ultra citraque nequit consistere verum. x 102 12 Metiri se quemque suo modulo ac pede verum est. a 103 Nemo iniuriosus sit alteri, b 104 quia accipere quam facere praestat iniuriam. x 105 Pacientiam, quae miseriarum portus est, a 106 amplectimini; b 107 quoniam nemo adeo ferus est, a 108 ut non mitescere possit, x 109 si modo culturae pacientem c 110 commodet aurem. c 111 21 Paragraphs 10, 11, and 12 of the Proemium. The text analysed here is taken from the version of the Vita Remacli Secunda [BHL 7116], which has been transmitted individually, not as part of the Gesta. The ready availability online of the three mss. of BHL 7116, which had been used by previous editors, made it easier to work with both mss. and critical editions. The last column shows the sequential numbering of cola that does not appear in the critical edition. Beware of that which anger is in the habit to love for the truth is that innocence is victorious only then when sin has not been committed even though the opportunity presented itself. Do not lose your better judgment even in the most pleasant things, be modest for there is a limit in things and a firm boundary beyond which truth cannot exist. It is only true that each is his own measure. No one is to be unjust to the other for it is far better to receive injustice than to inflict it. Accept patience that is a shelter from the storm for no one is so ferocious that could not be tamed if they only patiently open their ear to education. The origin of the quotation Vita II Sal., De Bello Iug. 34.1.83 atque aliis omnibus, quae ira fieri amat Ab omnibus quae ira fieri amat temperate, [Dictum quoted by several authors22 and attributed either to Plato or to Aristotle] Triumphus innocentiae est non peccare ubi liceat posse solum esse triumphum innocentiae, non peccare, ubi liceat posse 22 See, for instance, the Benedictine theologian Heiric d’Auxerre (841–876), Collec­tanea di Eirico, 135, 12. Hor., Serm. 1.1.105–106 est modus in rebus, sunt certi denique fines / quos ultra citraque nequit consistere rectum. Hor., Ep. 1.7.98 metiri se quemque suo modulo ac pede verum est. Cic., Tusc. Dis. 5.19 accipere quam facere praestat iniuriam est modus in rebus; sunt certi denique fines quos ultra citraque nequit consistere verum Metiri se quemque suo modulo ac pede verum est accipere quam facere praestat iniuriam Hor. Ep. 1.1.39–40 nemo adeo ferus est, nemo adeo ferus est ut non mitescere ut non mitescere possit, possit, / si modo culturae patientem com-si modo culturae pacientem modet aurem commodet aurem This passage of the Vita II, referred to here as the Exhortacio, contains Remaclus’ deathbed speech full of admonitions, suggestions, and exhortations to his fellow monks. The entire speech comes through as an address full of Christian zeal couched in the words of both ancient pagan writers and Christian authors. Pagan and Christian thought are skillfully intertwined, leaving aside any dichotomy which might arise from the religious allegiance of the authors quoted. The segment where this is illustrated most vividly is represented by paragraphs 10 to 13 of chapter 21 of the Vita II. Paragraph 10 starts with a warning to the monks to stay away from everything that anger loves, which echoes the words of Sallust’s Bellum Iugurthinum. The military context of pagan antiquity is then replaced with the Christian metaphor of a monk as Christ’s soldier. In the following sentence, this is further reinforced with the choice of the word triumphus, emphasizing that the only triumph of innocence is not to sin, although there was an opportunity. The idea and its formulation were most often attributed to Plato (for instance, in the compilation of philosophical sayings, Sententiae philosophorum, attributed to Caecilius Balbus and transmitted in Heiric of Auxerre’s compilation Collectanea). Here the rhyme esse – posse frames the message, which also contrasts the two opposing concepts, innocentiae and peccare, connected by the same rhyme. Next comes a quote from one of Seneca’s philosophical letters, which states that not only in bad things, such as anger, but also in good ones, one needs to have a measure. This connects seamlessly with Horace’s famous dictum that there is a measure for everything. There is even an internal rhyme between adiudicantes and temperantes, which then rhymes with fines in the second part, thus serving as a link and creating coherence. The quotation from Horace remains almost unchanged and is incorporated so that the rhyme comes naturally. Then follows a verbatim quote from Horace’s Letters illustrating the idea that everyone must measure their step, meaning that no one is to compete with another. Furthermore, no one is to be harmful to another person because it is far better to receive an insult than be the cause of one. This is reminiscent of Christ’s teaching about turning the other cheek. However, this wisdom comes from a pagan authority, namely, Cicero, rather than the Bible. Cicero’s quote is skillfully con­nected with the author’s thoughts by another internal rhyme between iniuriam and pacientiam, stressing the antagonism of the meaning. The author’s own words ending in est and amplectimini are connected through the rhyme to the quotation from Horace, which ends in est, and the author’s own words ending in alteri. The next verbatim quote from Horace is introduced by the con­junction quoniam, connecting the idea of patience from the previous colon with the idea that everybody can be softened if they offer a pati­ent ear to advice and education. The word est in the colon 108 rhymes back with the two identical verbal forms in two previous cola, while pacientem in the quote rhymes with aurem as the last word of the quote. REVIEW OF EXISTING EDITORIAL PRACTICES To show why, in our opinion, modern editorial practices do not do enough credit to the original text, one first needs to look at the manuscript tradition of the texts discussed here and their critical editions. The latest critical edition of the Epistula is that published by Bruno Krusch.23 This edition was based on three manuscripts, namely Vatican, Reg. lat. 615; St. Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek Cod. Sang. 565; St. Gallen Stiftsbibliothek Cod. Sang. 571. Krusch based his edition on the Vatican manuscript, which he compared with the two St. Gallen manuscripts; these have similar text versions and are probably related. Vita II has been transmitted in two ways, namely as part of the Gesta [BHL 7115] and individually as a separate text [BHL 7116]. BHL 7115 was edited by Rudolph Köpke; his edition was then reprinted in 23 MGH SS rer. Merov. 5 (1905), 109–111. Migne’s Patrologia Latina.24 BHL 7116 was first edited by Laurentius Surius; his edition was also reprinted in Migne’s Patrologia Latina.25 Krusch’s approach to editing the text illustrates the importance ascribed to classical Latin quotations, which he printed in italics, separating them visually from the rest of the text. He also distin­guished between prose and verse in terms of visual representation of quotations. He kept the prose quotations as part of the text while indenting the verse quotations as separate units. Furthermore, Krusch provided references to the source of a particular quotation, i.e., the author, the title of the work, and the textual division, without going into a detailed analysis of all the textual changes which allowed the author of the Epistula to rework such quotations into the framework of the rhymed prose which structures his text. In accordance with the practice of most modern editors, Krusch’s punctuation of the Latin text completely disregards the use of rhymed prose in the text of the Epistula, thus obscuring the rhymed prose’s very existence.26 PROPOSAL OF A NEW EDITORIAL PRACTICE In contrast to Krusch’s editorial practice, the manuscripts used for his edition handled textual material borrowed from classical Latin authors and the system of rhymed prose, which informed the structure of the text in very different ways. In the ms. Vatican, Reg. lat. 615,27 the begin­ning of every sentence is marked with a gold capital letter, and punctum separates parts of sentences. The use of punctum does not correspond to modern punctuation usage, but follows medieval practice based on reading the texts aloud in monastic contexts, which, in many places, coincides with the divisions created by the use of rhymed prose.28 As expected, quotations of classical and medieval authors are not marked in any particular way in the text and do not stand out. Both manuscripts from Switzerland show similar characteristics, the difference being the absence of gold capital letters at the paragraph incipits. In the St. Gallen mss., punctum was used in the same way as in the Vatican ms., 24 Gesta pontificum, MGH SS 7 (1846), 166–189; Migne, PL, vol. 139, coll. 1043–46. 25 L. Surius, De probatis Sanctorum historiis: partim ex tomis Aloysii Lipomani … partim etiam ex egregiis manuscriptis codicibus …: nunc recens optima fide collectis, vol. 5 (Köln, 1574), 17–29; J. P. Migne, PL, vol. 139, coll. 1149–68. 26 For a detailed discussion of such editorial practices, see Turcan-Verkerk, “Forme et réforme,” vol. 1, 32–40. 27 Accessed online at the DigiVatLib. 28 Grotans, Reading in Medieval St. Gall, 153. although it was not always placed at the same point in the text, and the quotations of classical and medieval authors were, again, not marked. In our opinion, in order to bring the original text closer to the reader and reveal its complex composition, a novel approach to the editorial practices of hagiographic texts that include classical and medieval quotations and rhymed prose would be needed.29 The present study offers just an example of such an editorial (and hermeneutic) approach for the selected passages from Epistula and Vita II. The two passages are transcribed and divided into cola according to the system of the rhymed prose which structures the text of the original. In our presentation of the text by cola, which follows the guidelines proposed by Polheim,30 modern editors’ conventions of punctuation, capitalization, and division of the text were ignored. Rhymed prose is commonly defined as prose divided into cola with end rhyme. Latin rhymed prose was initially (and remained, for the most part,) monosyllabic, i.e., characterized by the phonetic identity (or, at least, similarity) of the final syllable of the cola involved. The emergence of two- and three-syllabic rhyme represents a later deve­lopment.31 The division of the text proposed here follows, in general, Polheim’s understanding of rhymed prose. It is, however, possible that other readers might suggest alternative divisions of the same text. Our practice was to identify, as far as possible, anything susceptible of being interpreted as rhymed cola. When rhyme occurs at the end of the different cola within the same section of the text, it is marked in bold letters. However, if rhyme occurs between the end of one colon and the beginning of the next or between two consecutive cola it is marked by double underlining. The present analysis also includes a line-by-line survey of the quotations contained in the text. The differences between the original form of the passage quoted and the form of the text re-employed in the Vita II have been pointed out, as well as the discrepancies between the edited text and the manuscripts in those cases where it appears that the modern editors’ choice has disregarded the conventions of rhymed prose followed by the author of the original text. In the Latin text as presented here, the verbatim quotes from various sources are given in italics and underlining has been used for those parts where the original quote has been remodelled to a certain degree. 29 As argued already by Turcan-Verkerk, see above, n. 17, and, for concrete exam­ ples, Berschin, Biographie und Epochenstil, 4.1, 67, 119, 123. 30 Polheim, Lateinische Reimprosa, 9. 31 Polheim, Lateinische Reimprosa, 9. Edited and interpreted in this way, the hagiographic text is more likely, we believe, to reveal not just its intricate formal structure, but also, its underlying ideological content. Rhymed prose and the formal divisions it imposes on the text contribute to the effective articulation of its message. The quotations form various sources are not simply re-shaped so as to formally fit the new context, but also re-purposed in order to articulate an original new meaning. Such quotations are not important in themselves and as they stand on their own, but rather to the extent and because of the way in which they have been stylistically and semantically integrated into the new text. CONCLUSION As the analysis of the quotations, rhymed prose, and their relation to the actual content of the text of selected passages from the Epistula ad Werinfridum and Vita II has shown, both texts are embellished with passages and fragments taken from other classical and medieval Latin texts. It can be argued that one of the primary motivations for this compositional strategy was to make the text more modern, especially if compared to the earlier hagiographic production that it was rewriting, the Vita I Remacli. The resulting text was modern in the way that it was more up to date ideologically and followed better the stylistic conventions that informed other hagiographic texts (but not exclusively) produced during the late tenth century in the diocese of Liège. Such a stylistic upgrading had been requested expressely by Abbot Werinfrid, who commissioned the text of the new vita from Notger of Liège.32 Our analysis of two passages of this text, limited as it is, could not illustrate the entire wealth of the sources quoted in Epistula and Vita II, which goes far beyond the few names mentioned here. It is clear, however, that such quotations were systematically re-employed either as verbatim or as remodeled quotes, regardless of their origin. Moreover, this was done in a way that, with few exceptions, made them conform to the pattern of rhymed prose. Significantly, it is the quotes from the Bible which tend not to be adapted and are incorporated into the text in their original form. This suggests that a quote from the Bible seems to represent the words of God, which makes such changes unacceptable. The quotes from the authors of antiquity, on the other hand, undergo the necessary degree of change 32 Donatus, Vita Trudonis, ed. W. Levison, 279. to adapt them to the strictures of rhymed prose and a meaning in tune with the message of the text. A detailed reading of Epistula and Vita II has shown that, for the author of this hagiographic text, rhymed prose was not only a stylistic convention but a way of building the structure of the text and ensuring its coherence. The meaning is intertwined with the form, often changing the sense of the original quotation in order to make it fit into the new context. The governing system of rhymed prose and the way Latin quotations have been appropriated to fit into this system seem to be applied consistently and in the same manner in both texts. This would argue in favor of a single authorship for both the Epistula and the Vita II. However, whether this single author is Heriger of Lobbes or Notger of Liège is impossible to tell. Furthermore, in order to better illustrate and appreciate how skillfully the text was composed in keeping with the intellectual trends of the Ottonian Renaissance and the emergence of rhymed prose, a novel approach to the editorial practices applied to such texts is needed. According to this approach, the text should be divi­ded into cola following the principles of rhymed prose rather than modern conventions of punctuation, capitalization, and division of the text. The rhyme, either end rhyme or rhyme across cola, should be clearly marked and textual quotations identified, not just in terms of their original sources, but also, as much as possible, with respect to the degree to which they have been adapted to become part of the new text. Whoever the author of Epistula and the Vita II was, he was remarkably learned in both the Christian scriptures and the great authors of classical antiquity. His skill at integrating expressions of both classical and Biblical wisdom in the novel stylistic form of the rhymed prose is indisputable, just as indisputable as the fact that he could not have achieved his masterpiece without the luminaries who came before him. In this sense, he was indeed “standing on the shoulders of the giants.” BIBLIOGRAPHY Primary Sources Baronius, Caesar. Annales ecclesiastici. Vol. 15. Ed. Augustin Theiner. Paris: Bar-le-Duc, 1868. Donatus. “Vita Trudonis.” In MGH SS rer. Merov. 6, edited by B. Krusch and W. Levison, 274–28. Hannover, 1913. Heiric d’Auxerre. I Collectanea di Eirico di Auxerre, edited by Riccardo Quadri. Fribourg: Edizioni Universitarie Friburgo, 1966. Heriger / Notger. “Epistula ad Werinfridum abbatem Stabulen­sem.” In MGH SS rer. Merov. 5, edited by B. Krusch and W. Lewison, 109–111. Hannover, 1910. ———. “Vita Remacli Secunda.” In MGH SS 7, edited by R Köpke, 180–189. Hannover, 1846. ———. “Vita Remacli Secunda.” In De probatis Sanctorum his-toriis: partim ex tomis Aloysii Lipomani … partim etiam ex egregiis manuscriptis codicibus … : nunc recens optima fide collectis. Vol. 5, edited by Laurentius Surus, 17–39. Köln, 1574. Neckam, Alexander. “Alexandri Neckam De naturis rerum libri duo: With the Poem of the Same Author, De laudibus divinae sapientiae,” edited by T. Wright. London, 1863. Literature Bayer, Clemens M. M. “La Vita Handelini de Notger de Liège et la protohistoire de l’abbaye de Celles.” In Éveque et prince: Not-ger et la Basse-Lotharingie aux alentours de l’an mil, edited by Alexis Wilkin and Jean-Louis Kupper, 403–84. Liège: Presses Universitaires de Liège, 2013. Berschin, Walter. Biographie und Epochenstil im lateinischen Mittelalter. Vol. 4.1, Ottonische Biographie: Das hohe Mittelalter 920–1220. Stuttgart: A. Hiersemann, 1999. Contreni, John J. Carolingian Learning, Masters and Manuscripts. Aldershot: Ashgate, 1992. Eco, Umberto. “Riflessioni sulle tecniche di citazione nel medio­evo.” Ideologie e pratiche del reimpiego nell’alto medioevo. Settimane di Studi del Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Me­dioevo 46. Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 1999. 461–84. Grotans, Anna A. Reading in Medieval St. Gall. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Gruntar Vilfan, Sibil. “Quasi nani super humeros gigantum? Reusing Classical and Medieval Quotations in Hagiographic Discourse in the Area of Liège (10th century).” MA Thesis, Central European University, 2017. Haskins, Charles Homer. The Renaissance of the Twelfth Century. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1955. Head, Thomas. Hagiography and the Cult of Saints: The diocese of Orléans, 800–1200. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Jacobsen, Peter Christian. “Formen und Strukturen der lateini­schen Literatur der ottonischen Zeit.” Il secolo di ferro: mito e realtà del secolo X. Settimane di Studio del Centro Staliano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 38. Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 1991. 917–49. Kinney, Dale. “The Concept of Spolia.” In A Companion to Medi­eval Art: Romanesque and Gothic in Northern Europe, edited by C. Rudolph, 233–52. Oxford: Blackwell, 2006. Kurth, Godefroid. Notger de Liège et la civilisation au Xe siècle. Brussels: A. Picard, O. Schepens, L. Demarteau, 1905. Leonardi, Claudio. “Intellectual Life.” In The New Cambridge Medieval History 3, c.900–c.1024, edited by Timothy Reuter, 186–211. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. McKitterick, Rosamond. “Continuity and Innovation in Tenth­-Century Ottonian Culture.” In Intellectual Life in the Middle Ages: Essays Presented to Margaret Gibson, edited by Lesley Smith and Benedicta Ward, 15–24. London: Hambledon, 1992. Polheim, Karl. Die Lateinische Reimprosa. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1925. Snijders, Tjamke. “Obtulisti libellum de vita domni Remacli: The Evolution of Patron Saint Libelli as Propagandist Instruments in the Monastery of Stavelot-Malmedy, 938–1247.” BMGN – Low Countries Historical Overview 128, no. 2 (2013): 3–30. Thomas, Sarah Fawcett. Butler’s Lives of the Saints (September). Collegeville: Burns&Oates, 2000. Tunberg, Terence O. “Prose Style and Cursus.” In Medieval Latin: An Introduction and Bibliographical Guide, edited by F. A. C. Mantello and A. G. Rigg, 111–21. Toronto: University of Toronto, 1996. Turcan-Verkerk, Anne-Marie. “Forme et la réforme: Le grégori­anisme du Moyen Âge latin, essai d’interprétation historique du phénomène de la prose rimée latin aux XIe et XIIe siècles.” PhD dissertation, Sorbonne, 1995. Webb, J. R. “The Decrees of the Fathers and the Wisdom of the Ancients in Heriger of Lobbes’ Vita Remacli.” Revue Bénédi­ctine 120, no. 1 (2010): 31–58. Wilkin, Alex, and Jean-Louis Kupper, “Introduction.” In Évêque et prince: Notger et la Basse-Lotharingie aux alentours de l’an mil, edited by Alex Wilkin and Jean-Louis Kupper. Liège: Presses Universitaires de Liège, 2013. ABSTRACT The paper offers a detailed investigation of select passages from the Vita II Sancti Remacli, a hagiographic text produced in the diocese of Liège in the last decades of the tenth century. The purpose of this investigation is threefold. First, to illustrate the point that the tenth­-century Latin hagiographic texts produced in the diocese of Liège did not display quotations from classical and patristic authors only as petrified forms of frozen ancient wisdom with a merely decorative function, but rather as raw gems which were polished and adjusted to fit seamlessly into a new framework. Thus, they could enhance both the form and contents of texts closely connected to their age’s political and intellectual realities. Second, to show that nineteenth- and twentieth-century editions of such texts can act as distorting mirrors to modern readers and researchers, since, due to an editorial strategy that privileged classical material over its medieval context, the editors sometimes completely neglected how quotations from ancient authors were re-worked by the tenth-century hagiographer following the stylistic requirements of rhymed prose. Third, to suggest as a necessary corrective to this distorting approach a new way of reading and consequently editing these types of texts, which places classical and patristic quotations in their proper context, by paying due attention to manuscript evidence, to the stylistic requirements of their new context, and to the complex functions they play in their new textual environment. KEYWoRdS:classical quotations, hagiographic discourse, Vita II Sancti Remacli, Liège, rhymed prose QUASI NANI SUPER HUMEROS GIGANTUM? PONOVNA UPORABA CITATOV IZ KLASICNIH IN SREDNJEVEŠKIH AVTORJEV V HAGIOGRAFSKEM DISKURZU NA PODROCJU LIÈGA V DESETEM STOLETJU IZVLECEK Clanek ponuja vpogled v izbrane odlomke iz dela Vita secunda sancti Remacli, hagiografskega besedila, ki je nastalo v škofiji Liège v zadnjih desetletjih desetega stoletja. Namen te razprave je trodelen. Najprej prikazati, da besedila, ki so nastala na podrocju Lièga v desetem stoletju, ne vsebujejo citatov klasicnih in srednjeveških avtorjev zgolj v nespremenjeni razlicici kot avtoriteto anticne modrosti in stilisticni okras, ampak kakor neobrušene dragulje, ki jih je bilo pred vkljucitvijo v besedilo potrebno obrusiti, da so se dovršeno prilegali v novo jezikovno okolje. Na ta nacin so citati odigrali dvojno vlogo, saj so doprinesli ne samo k obliki besedila, ampak tudi k njegovi vsebini, ki je bila tesno povezana s kulturnim in politicnim ozadjem casa. Tekstno kriticne izdaje tovrstnih besedil, nastale v 19. in 20. stoletju, so lahko zavajajoce, saj so na podlagi takratne prakse izdajatelji klasicnim vsebinam namenili privilegiran položaj in so zanemarili vlogo citatov klasicnih avtorjev v srednjeveških besedilih, kjer so bili ti citati podrejeni pravilom rimane proze. Zadnji del ponuja alternativen nacin izdaje in prikaza hagiografskih besedil v rimani prozi, ki citate postavi v pravi kontekst s tem, da se nasloni na tradicijo rokopisov, stilisticna pravila, ki so veljala za rimano prozo, in vecplastno vlogo, ki so jo citati odigrali v novem jezikovnem kontekstu. KLJUCNE BESEdE: citati klasicnih avtorjev, hagiografski diskurz, Vita II sancti Remacli, Liège, rimana proza Saint Jerome (anonymous, after Ventura Salimbeni, 1581 – before 1663) Saint Jerome (Cornelis BloemaertII, after Abraham Bloemaert, ca. 16221630) doI:https://doi.org/10.4312/clotho.3.2.55-72 Truly Bewept, Full of Strife: The Myth of Antigone, the Burial of Enemies, and the Ideal of Reconciliation in Ancient Greek Literature Matic Kocijancic* In the second half of the twentieth century, the myth of Antigone gained enduring prominence in Western public discourse under the influence of its rich literary, dramatic, philosophical, and philological reception.1 In this reception, one can recognize some clear interpre­tive trends, namely: interrogating the meaning of individual and collective revolt, in-depth treatments of fundamental existential and ontological questions (seen through Antigone’s situation), and more or less successful comparisons of the struggle between Antigone and Creon with modern political phenomena. Some such traditions of reception – for instance the Slovenian, Polish, and Argentine ones – also have certain distinctive features that strongly diverge from the central interpretive trends.2 Two of these distinctive features are particularly evident. The first is that connections * University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Arts, Department of Comparative Literature and Literary Theory, Aškerceva 2, 1000 Ljubljana; matic.kocijancic@ff.uni-lj.si. 1 This article was written in the framework of research program no. P6-0239, which was co-funded by the Slovenian Research Agency. For the Slovenian ver­sion, on which the English one is based, see Kocijancic, “Objokovati Mnogo­zdraha.” 2 For an introduction to these features in Slovenian and Polish tradition, see Inkret, “Agnieszka, Antigona,” 361–77. For an introduction to Argentine inter­ are drawn between the myth of Antigone and the concrete historical issues of the unburied victims of mass killings in the Second World War and later conflicts of the twentieth century. The second – related to the first but raising its own set of problems – is that connections are drawn between the myth and socio-political projects of reconciliation (this holds especially true for Slovenia, where the project of so-called national reconciliation played a pivotal role in cultural life in the second half of the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s). The leading contemporary interpreters of the myth of Antigone most often deal with its most famous formulation, Antigone by So­phocles. Less attention is paid – hardly any of it outside philological debates – to its broader classical context, its epic sources, other tragic versions of it, and the responses to them in late antiquity. What, then, are the fundamental features of this almost thousand-year-long ancient tradition, and to what extent do they connect with the cen­tral emphases of the Slovenian – and in important ways also of the Polish and Argentine – reception of its core myth: the questions of the unburied dead and reconciliation? PRE-SOPHOCLEAN SOURCES OF THE ANTIGONE MYTH Some of the key characters and motifs of the Theban myth appear for the first time in Greek literature already in Homer. Oedipus is fleetingly mentioned in Book 23 of the Iliad (677–80): ....a... d. .. .... ...stat., .s..e.. f.., ....st... .... .a.a....da. ..a.t.., .. p.te T.ßasd. ...e ded..p.t.. ..d.p.da. .. t.f... ...a d. p..ta. ....a .adµe...a.. Euryalus alone uprose to face him, a godlike man, son of king Mecisteus, son of Talaus, who one time had come to Thebes for the burial of Oedipus, when he had fallen, and there had worsted all the sons of Cadmus.3 In the Odyssey (11.271–80), the outlines of the myth of Oedipus have already become more straightforward and its details somewhat more recognizable: pretations of the Antigone myth, see Fradinger, “An Argentine Tradition,” 67–89. Translation by A. T. Murray. µ.t..a t. ..d.p.da. .d.., .a... .p...st.., . µ..a ..... ..e.e. ..d.e..s. ..... ..µaµ... . .... . d. .. pat... ..e.a...a. ..µe.. .fa. d. ...p.sta .e.. ..sa. .....p..s... .... . µ.. .. T.ß. p......t. ...ea p.s... .adµe... ..asse .e.. ..... d.. ß...... . d. .ß. e.. ..da. p....ta. ..ate...., ..aµ... ß..... a.p.. .f. ....... µe......, . ..e. s..µ.... t. d. ...ea .....p. .p.ss. p.... µ..., .ssa te µ.t... .....e. ..te....s... And I saw the mother of Oedipodes, fair Epicaste, who wrought a monstrous deed in ignorance of mind, in that she wedded her own son, and he, when he had slain his own father, wedded her, and straightway the gods made these things known among men. Howbeit he abode as lord of the Cadmeans in lovely Thebe, suffering woes through the baneful counsels of the gods, but she went down to the house of Hades, the strong warder. She made fast a noose on high from a lofty beam, overpowered by her sorrow, but for him she left behind woes full many, even all that the Avengers of a mother bring to pass.4 The passage describes Oedipus’ incestuous relationship with his mother – in Homer, her name is Epicaste, in Sophocles, Iocaste – but Homer does not mention any children from this relationship. However, the Iliad (4.376–86) does also feature Polyneices and Eteocles (whom a vital part of the literary tradition prior to Attic tragedy held to be the sons from Oedipus’ second marriage): . t.. µ.. ... .te. p...µ.. e.s...e .....a. .e.... .µ. ..t.... .....e..e., .a.. ..e..... .. d. t.t. .st.at..... .e.. p... te..ea T.ß.., .a. .a µ..a ..ss..t. d.µe. ..e.t... .p......... .. d. ..e... d.µe.a. .a. .p..e.. .. ....e.... .... .e.. .t.e.e pa.a.s.a s.µata fa..... .. d. .pe. ... ....t. .d. p.. .d.. ......t., .s.p.. d. ....t. ßa..s...... .e.ep...., .... a.t. ...e.... .p. ..d. ste..a. ..a.... a.t.. . ß., p...a. d. ....sat. .adµe...a. da...µ..... .at. d.µa ß... .te....e.... Translation by A. T. Murray. Once verily he came to Mycenae, not as an enemy, but as a guest, in company with godlike Polyneices, to gather a host; for in that day they were waging war against the sacred walls of Thebe, and earnestly did they make prayer that glorious allies be granted them; and the men of Mycenae were minded to grant them, and were assenting even as they bade, but Zeus turned their minds by showing tokens of ill. So when they had departed and were with deep reeds, that coucheth in the grass, there did the Achaeans send forth Tydeus on an embassage. And he went his way, and found the many sons of Cadmus feasting in the house of mighty Eteocles.5 A key aspect of Homer’s fleeting treatments of the Theban myth is the following. Precisely due to their fleeting nature and lack of explana­tions, one can read out of them the presumption that they were widely familiar, from which one may deduce that the myth is considerably older yet. At the same time, it is plain that the myth differs in certain essential features from its most celebrated portrayals in Attic tragedy: the Homeric Oedipus falls in an armed struggle; there is no informa­tion in the text about his blindness or his exile; after the disclosure of his incestuous relationship, he continues to rule Thebes, where he also dies in the end (the epic tradition is consistent concerning these significant differences from Sophocles’ representations).6 For our purposes here, the most crucial difference is that Antigone does not appear at all in Homer. Other vital characters from Antigone, however, do appear in Homer, albeit not in any way that would be comparable to their role in Sophocles’ version of the Theban story: Tiresias plays a notable role in the Odyssey (11); the Iliad also mentions Haemon (4.391–400) and Creon (9.98), and the latter is also mentioned in the Odyssey (11.269–70). Antigone is also absent from later sources up to the fifth century BC, although some key texts about the Theban myth – e.g., the The-baid, which according to Christiane Zimmermann’s speculations, is the likeliest candidate for a mention of Antigone in the early epic literature7 – have been lost (except for a few fragments and testimonies that make at least a partial reconstruction possible). The Thebaid is part of the Theban cycle, which included the Oe­dipodea and two works of lesser relevance for our topic, the Epigoni and the Alcmeonis. The Thebaid and the Oedipodea held an important 5 Translation by A. T. Murray. 6 Cf. Cingano, “Oedipodea,” 221. 7 Zimmermann, Der Antigone-Mythos, 66. place in ancient Greek literature: the Greek geographer Pausanias, who lived around 110–180 CE, bestowed on the Thebaid the title of the third most crucial poetic work after the Iliad and the Odyssey.8 They also formed the primary written source of Theban mythology in the Greek world before the Attic tragedy (and were also the primary source on which the tragedians drew for their fresh interpretation of this mythological material).9 Together they form an extensive poetic work, comparable to the Odyssey in length, in terms of the total verse count. Their authorship has often been attributed to Homer, although even ancient writers already had their doubts. The present-day con­sensus on their dating holds that they are younger than the Homeric epics but that places in the latter indicate knowledge of the Thebaid and summarize it. Therefore, researchers speculate that this poetry had lived in the oral tradition before the Iliad was composed and was most likely written down in the first half of the sixth century BC.10 The Oedipodea is, in all probability, the first poem in the Theban cycle and is, therefore, older than the Thebaid; however, it is currently not possible to date its composition more accurately.11 What characteristic contents, then, can one reconstruct from the few fragments (two fragments of the Oedipodea and eleven fragments of the Thebaid) and testimonies available to us? The two preserved fragments of the Oedipodea12 are both extremely intriguing concerning the broader context of the myth of Antigone, and they offer insights into the originality of Sophocles’ approach to the inherited myth. In the first fragment, we learn that the Sphinx killed “great and small,” among them also “the most handsome and loveliest of all, the dear son of blameless Creon (..e...t.. .µ.µ....), noble Haemon.” Here for the first time, the family relationship between Haemon and Creon is defined the way we know it from Antigone. However, at the same time, the content of the fragment is entirely different from Sophocles’ story: Creon is characterized in a very positive way as a noble man free of any guilt, and Haemon dies as a victim of the Sphinx, a creature that Oedipus will later defeat, thus triggering the tragic unfolding of his story. This means, of course, that the Haemon of the Oedipodea is considerably older than the Haemon in Sophocles (and the Haemon in later variations on the story of Antigone), and that he plays no role 8 Cf. West, Greek Epic Fragments, 42–43; Torres-Guerra, “Thebaid,” 228. 9 Torres-Guerra, “Thebaid,” 227. 10 Ibid., 243. 11 Cingano, “Oedipodea,” 214–215. 12 Cf. West, Greek Epic Fragments, 38–43. in the crucial events of Theban mythology which follow. From the perspective of our topic, he died before Antigone was even born.13 In the second fragment – summarized from Pausanias’ testimony – one learns that Oedipus did not have children with his mother Epicaste / Iocaste in the Oedipodea either, but instead had his “four children” with his next wife, Euryganeia. From the information about the number of children, one may conclude (though only con­tingently, as Pausanias relies on the broader pre-tragic outlines of the myth and uses the Oedipodea only as proof of the true mother of Oedipus’ children) that the two sisters of Polyneices and Eteocles had already appeared in the Theban cycle. They might have at least been mentioned, even though they do not appear in the preserved fragments. Pausanias begins his testimony with the words “That he [Oedipus] had children by his mother, I do not believe,” supporting his view with an interpretation of Homer’s Odyssey and a reference to the content of the Oedipodea (9.5.10–9.5.11). Here, then, Pausanias uses older sources to polemicize against the later transformation of the myth of Oedipus that characterizes Sophocles’ Theban trilogy. Why was this emphasis so crucial to the ancient geographer, and why did it also interest the Greek epic poets, as it clearly did? According to one of the most convincing historical explanations, the reason is that Greek aristocratic families often justified their status with their blood descent from the heroic lineages of epic mythology, including that of Oedipus; the emphatic rejection of his incestuous offspring thus served an understandable function in affirming this tradition.14 From the fragment under discussion and its historical background, one may deduce that Attic tragedy – with Sophocles leading the charge – pro­vocatively sharpened the elements of incest in the myth of Oedipus and, thereby, the starting points for the tragic fates of his four children. The Thebaid described the dispute between Polyneices and Ete­ocles and the ensuing military campaign of the seven – Polyneices and the six Argive heroes (with their accompanying army) – against Thebes (with its seven city gates and their seven defenders, headed by Eteocles), in which the Argives were defeated and the two brothers killed each other, thus fulfilling the curse pronounced on them by Oedipus. From the preserved fragments15 we learn some details about 13 Walter Kaufmann sees this detail as one of the most significant illustrations of Sophocles’ original departures from the mythological source material: Kauf­ mann, Tragedy and Philosophy, 110. 14 Cingano, “Oedipodea,” 223. 15 Cf. West, Greek Epic Fragments, 42–54. the background of Oedipus’ curse on his sons. However, these details presuppose an acquaintance with an essential segment of Oedipus’ personal history. As we know from the wider Theban mythology, Oedipus as a young man, on his way to Thebes, killed a stranger who, he would later learn, was his father and the former king of Thebes, Laius; thus was fulfilled the first part of the prophecy that Oedipus would kill his father and marry his mother.16 In one of the fragments of the Thebaid, Polyneices gifts his father a table and a cup that had belonged to King Laius, and Oedipus sees his son as trying to evoke the memory of his patricide, seeking to weaken his authority. In this fragment, he curses his sons: they shall not divide their inheritance amicably; rather, the inheritance shall be the cause of unending strife and fighting. In the second fragment, one learns that at every sacrificial slaughter, following custom, Eteocles and Polyneices sent their father the ritually prescribed part of the animal; this time, however, they had sent him an inappropriate, inferior part. The reasons why this troubled Oedipus vary – some researchers see it simply as a mocking dereliction of duty, continuing his sons’ weakening of the authority of their king and father, whereas others, in line with the previous fragment, also see in it a symbolic hint about the incest committed by Oedipus.17 Either way, having received this dishonorable gift, Oedi­pus radically intensifies his curse and prays to Zeus that his sons kill each other in combat. 16 The classical sources differ over how Laius had earned this curse. The pre-Sophocleans, such as Pindar (the second Olympian Ode 39–42), above all men­tion his disobedience to the oracle of Apollo. The tragic writers, especially Euri­pides (the lost play Chrysippus), and later texts add the rape of Chrysippus, one of the sons of Pelops (Pelops prayed to Zeus for Laius to be punished, and his prayer was heard through the intervention of Apollo). Some researchers think rape was the primary cause of the curse in older versions of the myth as well. Cf. Lloyd-Jones, Justice of Zeus, 120. In any case, the transgressions of Laius stand at the beginning of the tragic fate that befell his line. Cf. Kyriakou, The Past in Aeschylus and Sophocles, 45–48. The motif of Laius’ rape of Chrysippus may also have been present in Aeschylus’s lost tragedy Laius. Cf. Kovacs, “The Role of Apollo in Oedipus Tyrannus,” 367. Kovacs speculates that Sophocles did not go over this background in his trilogy because it was already general knowledge at the time. Ibid.; cf. also Lamari, “Phoenician Women,” 264. Thomas K. Hubbard holds that Euripides’ treatment of Laius’ rape (as the source of the curse on his descendants) – which he, contrary to Lloyd-Jones, interprets as the tragedian’s invention – is a sign of changes in the Athenian sexual culture at the end of the fifth century BC. Hubbard, “History’s First Child Molester,” 223–244. 17 Torres-Guerra, “Thebaid,” 231. The other preserved fragments do not refer to motifs of parti­cular relevance to the development of Antigone’s background. In the secondary testimonies about the narrative arch of the Thebaid, however, there is a critical connection to our topic: Adrastus, king of Argos, who had managed to flee the clash of the seven, after the battle expresses the wish to bury his fallen comrades-in-arms; the Thebans grant his request (ibid. 227). Moreover, in connection with this episode, the secondary sources attribute excellent oratorical skills to Adrastus.18 The pre-tragic myth of the clash between Eteocles and Polyneices already describes the beginnings of the unburied attackers of Thebes. However, in the Thebaid, it is resolved without further con­flict, and personal distinctions are attributed to the leading actor in this agreement (the later tradition, e.g., Aeschylus, ascribes the central role in this resolution to Theseus).19 At these critical points in the development of the Theban myth, too, we are still lacking any preserved source for the character of Antigone. In connection with this, it is particularly intriguing that her sister in Sophocles’ work, Ismene, appears as a heroine of Greek literature already in the seventh century BC with the poet Mimnermus.20 Although Ismene does not explicitly have family ties to the Theban royal family, she does appear in the battle for Thebes. However, this love story between her and one of the Theban warriors ends with her murder. Early Greek literature thus connects Ismene to the motif of the juvenile love affair that leads to death, which C. Zimmermann sees as one of the (minor) precursors to the Antigone myth.21 One may see this as extending and confirming the specula­tive framework for the supposition that Sophocles – whose Ismene is a minor character with no explicitly tragic fate – developed the character, motivation, and fate of Antigone by displacing, merging, and accentuating some aspects from the secondary characters and motifs of the Theban epic heritage. At the same time, the case of the pre-Sophoclean Ismene again confirms, as does that of Haemon, that Sophocles’ depiction of events after the attack of the seven features characters whom earlier portrayals of the myth had let die during the battle or even well before it. We will touch on one more pre-tragic source of significance to our topic. The Theban myth appears in the poet Stesichorus (630–555 BC), 18 Torres-Guerra, “Thebaid,” 237. 19 Cf. Sommerstein, “Tragedy and the Epic Cycle,” 470. 20 Cf. Allen, The Fragments of Mimnermus, 133–144. 21 Zimmermann, Antigone-Mythos, 70. in an untitled poem that the philological reception likewise has named the Thebaid. Here, an important role is played by the queen of Thebes, the mother of Eteocles and Polyneices. It is not entirely clear whether this is Iocaste / Epicaste or Oedipus’ second wife (in light of the histor­ical reasons described above, researchers incline toward the latter), but her role is, in any case, more prominent than in previous portrayals of the mother of Oedipus’ children. In Stesichorus, the queen resolutely intervenes in the beginning stages of the dispute between her sons and attempts (unsuccessfully) to achieve their reconciliation.22 Here, then, there appears for the first time in connection with the dispute between Polyneices and Eteocles, a female character with strong family ties, one who stands for the values of love and reconciliation at the outset of a lethal conflict in the family and the state.23 In this, one may, of course (under the speculative framework outlined above), recognize yet another pre-tragic motif that found a place in Sophocles’ condensed and transformed version of the myth, both in the context of Antigone’s (equally unsuccessful) attempt at reconciliation in Oedipus at Colonus and in the love-hate dichotomy that is a distinctive dimension of Sophocles’ Antigone. Stesichorus’ queen character, whose speech implicitly reveals that saving her sons matters more to her than the fate of the polis, also foreshadows the treatment of the tension between ..... and p.... in tragedy.24 In the pre-Sophoclean tragic corpus, the first significant mile­stone in developing the Antigone elements in Theban myth is the lost tragedy of Aeschylus, the Eleusinians (Eleusínioi, approx. 475 BC). Thanks to Plutarch’s Life of Theseus,25 we know that this is the earliest known work to touch the question of the unburied attackers against Thebes and deal explicitly with the dispute over their burial. A key role in its resolution is played by Theseus, the mythic founder of Athens, who, just like Adrastus – who here asks Theseus for help – distinguishes himself with his peaceful, diplomatic approach. Plutarch adds that the bodies obtained were consequently buried in Attic soil.26 From this development of the myth and the role that Theseus, the leading Athenian hero, gains in it, one may read a strong connection between Attic cultural identity and the issue of burying wartime enemies. 22 Finglass, “Stesichorus, Master of Narrative,” 90–91. 23 Zimmermann, Antigone-Mythos, 76. 24 Ibid., 77. 25 Perrin, Plutarch, 67–69. 26 Ibid., 69. The preserved fragments of the tragedy contain a hint that one of the bodies posed a particular problem in the dispute – “the matter was urgent, the body was already putrefying”27 – but have no proof that this was about Polyneices.28 There is no (preserved) mention of Antigone here either, nor Ismene. At the same time, the critical difference from Sophocles’ treatment is that the issue of the unbu­ried in the Eleusinians is developed and resolved primarily on the political, though inter-state, level, and not connected with the issue of religious or family obligation: the dead here belong primarily to the polis.29 SOPHOCLES’ ANTIGONE IN LIGHT OF THE BROADER TRAGIC CORPUS Antigone first appears by name in the fifth century BC, but is first mentioned already before Sophocles, in a fragment by the mytho­grapher Pherecydes of Leros / Athens.30 Pherecydes names all four of Oedipus’ children, but their mother is still Euryganeia, Oedipus’ second wife. As shown in our survey of the development of the Theban myth, Greek literature before Sophocles had already drawn up some of the motifs, on which Sophocles’ portrayal of Antigone is based: the issue of burying fallen enemies, the prominent role of a figure of reconciliation, the tension between obligations to one’s family and one’s state. Still, most researchers agree that the central dramatic idea of Sophocles’ Antigone – with all its fundamental intellectual and political consequences that have fascinated modern thought and art – is highly original. The conflict between Antigone and Creon does not appear before Sophocles; there is no similar dispute in any previous source. The uniqueness of the tragedy was recognized by Sophocles’ contemporaries, confirming his stature as a giant of tragedy, and according to traditional biographical accounts, he was even appointed a general based on the fame it brought him.31 Even so, the core ideas of Sophocles’ Antigone were provocative both to his contemporaries and to their immediate successors. 27 Sommerstein, Aeschylus, 56–57. 28 Zimmermann, Antigone-Mythos, 85. 29 Ibid., 87. 30 Cf. Cairns, Sophocles: Antigone, 9; Zimmermann, Antigone-Mythos, 89. 31 For reservations, see Ruth Scodel, “Sophocles’ Biography,” 30–31. THE ENDING OF AESCHYLUS’ SEVEN AGAINST THEBES Aeschylus’ Seven Against Thebes (467 BC), which describes the Theban campaign and its background – especially from the perspective of Ete­ocles – ends in the style of Sophocles’ Antigone, but with specific vital differences. The burial of Polyneices is not forbidden by the autocrat, but is instead an impersonal decree of the state that has been voted on and is announced by a herald; Antigone’s declaration of disobedience is followed by a split in the chorus – the first half joins her, the second half goes with Ismene to the funeral of Eteocles. Some researchers32 see in this a divide of chorus’ opinion concerning Antigone, although the split could be understood in a less conflictual way. This dramaturgical solution, namely, has the chorus participating proportionally in both funerals, and the explanations for the decisions of the two half-choruses do not exclude each other; thus, the author of this ending is perhaps merely stating (rather guardedly) that both brothers deserved burial regardless of their blame and merit. Seven Against Thebes is, of course, older than Antigone, but the ending outlined above is – in the opinion of most modern researchers – most likely pseudo-Aeschylean and was added to the tragedy some fifty years after it was written, due to the popularity of Sophocles’ Antigone. Aeschylus’ work is thought to have originally ended with the joint lamentation of the chorus for both brothers without pro-blematizing the burial of Polyneices. Nevertheless, the problematic ending of the Seven – regardless of its authorship and exact dating – reveals essential aspects of the Attic understanding of the Antigone myth that was already pointed to in connection with the interpreta­tion of Sophocles’ Antigone.33 At the same time, as Miola has acutely pointed out,34 it is also its first literary reinterpretation (assuming that the predominant view of the dating is correct) and thus forms the beginning of a vibrant literary tradition that one can follow from antiquity to the twenty-first century. Euripides dealt with the Theban mythology in three works: in the Suppliants (423 BC), in the Phoenician Women (ca. 408 BC), and in Antigone (412–406 BC, now almost entirely lost). These works, which form the last great chapter in the Attic transformation of the Theban myth, also form a boundless laboratory for the dissection of Sophocles’ inventive legacy. On the one hand, they employ recognizable (hyper-) 32 E.g., Miola, “Early Modern Antigones,” 239–240. 33 See Kocijancic, “‘Nic drugega kot nic,’” 107–127. 34 Miola, “Early Modern Antigones,” 239. Sophoclean strategies for reinvigorating and re-appropriating the myth. Characters that previous versions had already buried along the various steps of the myth here survive for considerably longer (or they die considerably earlier, as in the case of Eurydice in the Phoenician Women), thus providing a maneuvering space for new relationships and plots; the familiar motifs of the epic, lyric and tragic heritage are gathered and fused in unpredictable reincarnations; the mythological heroes’ wild character reversals breathe new meaning into inherited situations. On the other hand, the central material on which Euripides draws (and contests in many places) is Sophocles. These procedures are perhaps at their most evident in the Phoe­nician Women. Already the first scene holds a big surprise: Iocaste, who in previous versions of the myth (from Homer to Sophocles) commits suicide when it is revealed that Oedipus is her son and her husband’s killer, is here alive and introduces us to the events just before the attack of the seven. During this attack, she also plays a prominent part. One can recognize Euripides’ adaptation of an older tradition of portraying the mother of Oedipus’ children as striving for reconciliation between the two contending sons (see the section on Stesichorus above). Euripides nevertheless takes into account Sophocles’ transposition of this motif and doubles the conciliatory figure: Iocaste is joined in her peacemaking efforts by Antigone. The attempts to bring peace end in failure in Euripides, too; the joint death of Eteocles and Polyneices is similar to those in previous portrayals. However, the background story of (and the events after) their deadly battle differs radically from previous portrayals, and it seems as if Euripides finds particular inspiration in reversing the assumptions of his tragedian predecessors. In Seven Against Thebes, Aeschylus paid particular attention to Eteocles (in this play Polyneices does not even get a word in), the defender of Thebes, who, as Kajetan Gantar notes, is “portrayed in panegyrical strokes as a courageous and blameless hero who is con­stantly consumed by the flames of patriotism; all his thoughts and actions are directed toward saving and liberating the homeland”35 from the enemy army of the traitor Polyneices. Nevertheless, in the final scenes of Aeschylus’ play, the evaluation of the characters and motivations of the brothers evens out (somewhat surprisingly so, considering what place Eteocles otherwise holds in the play). At the death of the brothers, the chorus tells us that they have “pe­rished through their impious intent” (....t. .seße. d.a...., 833) 35 Gantar, “Ajshil in njegova ‘drama polna Aresa,’” 12. as “men of much strife” (p....e..e.., 832);36 the name of Polyneices (.....e....), which is here applied in the plural to both brothers, is composed of the adjective p.... (many, numerous) and the noun .e.... (quarrel, dispute); it thus describes a person with an excessive bent for conflict (Alojz Rebula translated Polyneices as netilec razdora, approx. “sower of division”;37 Kajetan Gantar also offers the alterna­tives Mnogozdrah, “much strife,” and Zdrahar, “quarrelsome”).38 By naming them together in this way, Aeschylus unsettles the meaning of the name Eteocles, which is composed of the adjective .te.. (true, genuine) and the noun ..... (fame): a “hero who personifies true fame”39 or who is “justly famed.”40 However, Aeschylus does not re­habilitate Polyneices by renaming Eteocles; what balances the scales is instead a relativizing of Eteocles’ heroic status, tending toward disclosing their shared guilt. Helen H. Bacon and Anthony Hecht, who place this turn and its etymological dimensions at the center of their interpretation and translation of the Seven, point out a possible alternative etymo­logy for the name of Eteocles, substituting the verb ..a.. (I cry, I (be)weep, I lament) for the noun ...... They defend this reading with the fact that in the opening address of Aeschylus’ tragedy, Eteocles first pronounces his name in connection with a warning that there will be lamentation (..µ..µas.. / ..µ..µa, 7) in the whole city (“the sea-lamentation / would sound the name ‘Eteocles’ / as wail and dirge all through the city”).41 Following their interpretation, Bacon and Hecht somewhat tendentiously insert this attractive philological conjecture into the translation, where Eteocles is not only renamed from “justly famed” to “justly bewept,” but also to the “true cause of weeping.”42 Nevertheless, their final assessment of how Aeschylus evaluates the relationship between the two brothers does not differ substantially from Gantar’s. At the end of the tragedy, it becomes clear that “the names and fates of the brothers are interchangeable”; they are both “full of strife,” causes of the conflict, and hence “cause[s] of weeping”; and not least – with or without the controversial pseudo-Aeschylean ending – they are both worthy of and subject to being “truly bewept.”43 36 Smyth, Aeschylus: Seven Against Thebes, available online. 37 Rebula, Ajshil, 57. 38 Gantar, “Ajshil,” 11–13. 39 Ibid., 11. 40 Bacon and Hecht, “Introduction,” 14. 41 Hecht and Bacon, Aeschylus, 21. 42 Ibid., 57. 43 Bacon and Hecht, “Introduction,” 14–15. This intriguing highlight concludes this overview of the rich an­cient tradition and its variations of Antigone’s myth, which reveals the centrality of the questions of reconciliation and the duty of burial as understood in classical antiquity. These issues, while not among the main interpretative fascinations in its reception in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, have, as indicated in the introduction, a much more significant role in its Slovenian, Polish and Argentinian reception. The focus on the question of the burial of the dead and the question of reconciliation in these distinct interpretive traditions, therefore, establishes a particular bridge with an ancient sensibility that has been sidelined in the broader modern reception of the myth of Antigone. Translated by Christian Moe BIBLIOGRAPHY Allen, Archibald, ed. The Fragments of Mimnermus: Text and Commentary. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1993. Bacon, Helen H. and Anthony Hecht. “Introduction.” In Aeschylus: Seven Against Thebes, translated by Anthony Hecht and Helen H. Bacon, 3–17. New York: Oxford University Press, 1973. Cairns, Douglas. Sophocles: Antigone. London: Bloomsbury, 2016. Cingano, Ettore. “Oedipodea.” In The Greek Epic Cycle and Its Ancient Reception, edited by Marco Fantuzzi and Christos Tsa­ galis, 213–225. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. Finglass, P. J. “Stesichorus, Master of Narrative.” In Stesichorus in Context, edited by P. J. Finglass and Adrian Kelly, 83–97. Cam­bridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. Fradinger, Moira. “An Argentine Tradition.” In Antigone on the Contemporary World Stage, edited by Erin B. Mee and Helene P. Foley, 67–89. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Gantar, Kajetan. “Ajshil in njegova ‘drama polna Aresa’.” In Ajshil: Sedmerica proti Tebam, translated by Alojz Rebula, 5–17. Mari-bor: Študentska založba Litera, 2005. Hecht, Anthony, and Helen H. Bacon, transl. Aeschylus: Seven Against Thebes. New York: Oxford University Press, 1973. Hubbard, Thomas K. “History’s First Child Molester: Euripides’ Chrysippus and the Marginalization of Pederasty in Athenian Democratic Discourse.” Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 78 (2006): 223–244. Inkret, Andreja N. “Agnieszka, Antigona: Motiv Antigone v Katinu Andrzeja Wajde in Antigoni Dominika Smoleta.” Keria: Studia Latina et Graeca 12, no. 2–3 (2010): 361–77. Kaufmann, Walter. Tragedy and Philosophy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992. Kocijancic, Matic. “‘Nic drugega kot nic’: Negativna teopolitika Sofoklove Antigone.” Primerjalna književnost 44, no. 1 (2021): 107–127. ———. “Objokovati Mnogozdraha: Mit o Antigoni, pokop sov­ražnikov in ideal sprave v starogrški literaturi.” Primerjalna književnost 44, no. 2 (2021): 71–83. Kovacs, David. “The Role of Apollo in Oedipus Tyrannus.” In The Play of Texts and Fragments, edited by J. R. C. Cousland and James R. Hume, 357–368. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Kyriakou, Poulheria. The Past in Aeschylus and Sophocles. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011. Lamari, Anna A. “Phoenician Women.” In A Companion to Euri­pides, edited by Laura K. McClure, 258–269. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2017. Lloyd-Jones, Hugh. The Justice of Zeus. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973. Miola, Robert S. “Early Modern Antigones: Receptions, Refrac­tions, Replays.” Classical Receptions Journal 6, no. 2 (2014): 221–244. Murray, A. T., trans. Homer: The Iliad. 2 vols. Loeb Classical Li­brary 170 & 171. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1924. ——— , trans. Homer: The Odyssey. 2 vols. Loeb Classical Library 104 & 105. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1919. Perrin, Bernadotte, trans. Plutarch: Parallel Lives: Volume 1; The­seus and Romulus, Lycurgus and Numa, Solon and Publicola. Loeb Classical Library 46. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967. Rebula, Alojz, trans. Ajshil: Sedmerica proti Tebam. Maribor: Štu­dentska založba Litera, 2005. Scodel, Ruth. “Sophocles’ Biography.” In A Companion to So­phocles, edited by Kirk Ormand, 25–37. Hoboken: Wiley-Black­well, 2012. Smyth, H. W., ed. and trans. Aeschylus: Seven Against Thebes. Loeb Classical Library 145. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1926. Sommerstein, A. H., ed. and trans. Aeschylus: Fragments. Loeb Classical Library 505. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2008. ———. “Tragedy and the Epic Cycle.” In The Greek Epic Cycle and Its Ancient Reception, edited by Marco Fantuzzi and Christos Tsagalis, 461–486. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. Torres-Guerra, José B. “Thebaid.” In The Greek Epic Cycle and Its Ancient Reception, edited by Marco Fantuzzi and Christos Tsa­galis, 226–243. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. West, Martin L., ed. Greek Epic Fragments. Loeb Classical Library 497. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003. Zimmermann, Christiane. Der Antigone-Mythos in der antiken Literatur und Kunst. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag, 1993. ABSTRACT In postwar Western culture, the myth of Antigone has been the sub­ject of noted literary, literary-critical, dramatic, philosophical, and philological treatments, not least due to the strong influence of one of the key plays of the twentieth century, Jean Anouilh’s Antigone. The rich discussion of the myth has often dealt with its most famous formulation, Sophocles’ Antigone, but has paid less attention to the broader ancient context; the epic sources (the Iliad, Odyssey, Thebaid, and Oedipodea); the other tragic versions (Aeschylus’s Seven Against Thebes and his lost Eleusinians; Euripides’s Suppliants, Phoenician Women, and Antigone, of which only a few short fragments have been preserved); and the responses of late antiquity. This paper analyses the basic features of this nearly thousand-year-long ancient tradition and shows how they connect in surprising ways – sometimes even more directly than Sophoclean tragedy does – with the main issues in some unique contemporary traditions of its reception (especially the Slovenian, Polish and Argentine ones): the question of burying the wartime (or postwar) dead and the ideal of reconciliation. KEYWoRdS:the Antigone myth, ancient Greek literature, Homer, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides OBJOKOVATI MNOGOZDRAHA: MIT O ANTIGONI, POKOP SOVRAŽNIKOV IN IDEAL SPRAVE V STAROGRŠKI LITERATURI IZVLECEK V povojni zahodni kulturi je bil mit o Antigoni predmet vidnih literar­nih, literarnokriticnih, dramskih, filozofskih in filoloških obravnav, nenazadnje tudi zaradi mocnega vpliva ene od kljucnih iger dvajsetega stoletja, Antigone Jeana Anouilha. Živahna razprava o mitu se je pogosto ukvarjala z njegovo najbolj znano formulacijo, Sofoklovo Antigono, manj pozornosti pa je posvetila širšemu anticnemu kontekstu; virom v epiki (Iliada, Odiseja, Tebaida in Ojdipodeja); drugim tragiškim razlicicam (Ajshilovi Sedmerici proti Tebam in njegovim izgubljenim Elevzincem; Evripidovim Prošnjicam, Fenicankam in Antigoni, od katere je ohranjenih le nekaj kratkih fragmentov); in odzivom pozne antike. Prispevek analizira osnovne znacilnosti te skoraj tisocletne anticne tradicije in kaže, kako se na presenetljive nacine – vcasih celo bolj neposredno kot Sofoklova tragedija – povezujejo z osrednjimi vprašanji v nekaterih sodobnih izrocilnih vejah njene recepcije (zlasti slovenske, poljske in argentinske): z vprašanjem pokopa vojnih (ali povojnih) mrtvih in idealom sprave. KLJUCNE BESEdE: Antigonin mit, starogrška literatura, Homer, Ajshil, Sofokles, Evripid Saint Jerome (Johann Sadeler I, after Bartholomeus Spranger, 1560 1600) Saint Jerome (anonymous, 17th century) doI:https://doi.org/10.4312/clotho.3.2.75-90 Jerome’s Reception inan Early Eighteenth-Century HungarianHistorical Work Levente Pap* The seventeenth century represents a momentous period in Hungarian ecclesiastical historiography. The historiography of the preceding century was heavily marked by the defeat of Hungary in the Battle of Mohács. Explaining this trauma represents an essential element in these writings. Historians tried to find an answer to the tragic defeat that would not blame any of the churches – it was God’s will, God’s punishment for the ungodly life and behavior of the priests and the clergy in general, or for the various reforms that tore apart the Church, the holy robe of Christ. Naturally, each church tried to emphasize the most suitable and proper narrative for them. However, these histories were not religious or ecclesiastical – besides pointing at each other and blaming the other for being responsible for the defeat at Mohács, these writings did not fulfill the characteristics of ecclesiastical historiography. By the turn of the century, historio­graphy had undergone significant changes in quantity and content. On the one hand, the number of historical works increased. (First due to the Protestants; then, at the end of the century, a substantial increase in number came from the Catholic side). On the other hand, the historical issues of the Protestant reform came to the foreground, which, however unintentional, led to religious polemics. Two major historical events contributed to these changes. Firstly, following the objectives formulated by the Council of Trent, measures were taken in Hungary in the early 1600s in the spirit of Catholic renewal. Then, from the 1610s, the key ecclesiastical provisions were introduced.1 One of the crucial goals of the provincial * Sapientia Hungarian University of Transylvania, Miercurea Ciuc, judetul Harghita, Piata Libertatii nr. 1., 530104; paplevente@uni.sapientia.ro. E.g., synods, church visitations, and theological education. synod of Trnava, held in 1611, was to implement the decisions of the Council of Trent. This was also the period when the Jesuits returned to Hungary. A natural outcome of the Catholic restoration was the literary representation of the increasingly frequent religious debates. Peter Pázmány, one of the devoted religious restorers and polemicists on the Catholic side, wanted to list historical events from the history of the Protestant religious reform in his Ten Arguments (1605)2 and A Guide to Divine Truth (1613).3 However, he soon realized that neither Hungarian nor Transylvanian historiography abounds in such works. To gather information, Pázmány turned to Miklós Istvánffy, hoping that in the absence of historical works he would be able to provide first-hand information, as he had personally experienced most of the events.4 He incorporated the information received into both of his works. His main idea was that Protestant reform was primarily a consequence of the political instability caused by the Mohács defeat. The two works of Pázmány were not particularly interesting from the point of view of religious history; however, they brought eccle­siastical history into the arena of religious debate. On the Protestant side, there were comparable attempts to reconstruct Reformation. In 1637, János Iratosi5 expanded the history of the Reformation, relying on Pázmány’s data.6 However, he depicted its expansion differently from Pázmány: In his work, the lords did not seize the church estates after Mohács but realized that the defeat was caused by the “idolatry,” that is, the sins of the old church. Moreover, seeing there [at Mohács] the great defeat of the bishops, namely, of Pál Tomori, they called for Lutheran preachers.7 In the preface to his collection of sermons the following year, he wrote that there were expropriations of the church, indeed, but the lords were not led by greed – they wanted a fair division and to stop the 2 Pázmány, Az mostan támadt új tudományok hamisságának tíz nyilvánvaló bizonysága és rövid intés a török birodalomrul és vallásrul (1605). 3 Pázmány, Hodoegus: Igazságra vezérlo kalauz. 4 Tóth, “A mellozéstol a hitvitákon át a nagy egyháztörténetekig,” 409. Letter found in Nagy, “Irrepserunt,” 85–90. 5 Iratosi and Perkins, Az ember eletenek bodogul valo igazgatasanak modgyarol (1637). 6 Tóth, “A mellozéstol a hitvitákon át,” 415. 7 Iratosi, Az ember eletenek A7r–A7v, quoted by: Tóth, “A mellozéstol a hitvitákon át,” 415. Catholic priests.8 Pázmány’s interest in the history of Reformation seems to have taken the historical narrative of Protestantism to a new level. His move was so decisive that not even the Protestant writers could ignore it. Instead, they tried to reinterpret it or expand it with additional information.9 The second significant influence was the 1670s, the decade marked by persecution of Protestant religions in Hungary. The enormous damage suffered by the Protestant side forced the churches to register and make an inventory of all the material and spiritual losses, from churches to schools, from estates and properties to priests.10 Moreover, the inhumane treatment of Protestant pastor galley-slaves resonated throughout Europe, increasing the already substantial interest of the European scholarly community in the history of the Reformation in Hungary and thus Transylvania.11 The first complete history of the Hungarian Protestant church was written in 1684 by Ferenc Páriz Pápai, with the title Rudus redivivum. Following Pápai, and thanks to external encouragement, Pál Ember Debreceni12 wrote the Historia Ecclesiae Reformatae in Hungaria et Transilvania around 1706.13 Unfortunately, the work was not pub­lished during his lifetime, and it was only later, in 1728, that Friedrich Adolph Lampe, a professor from Utrecht, published the book under his name.14 Pál Ember Debreceni is the key figure of Hungarian Calvinist history, and besides ecclesiastical historiography, his work extends to the popular genres.15 He was born in 1661 in Debrecen, “the Calvinist Rome,” where he finished his studies at the renowned Collegium. He continued his studies in Leiden in 1684, then at the university in Franeker in 1685, and has probably been to Utrecht and Amsterdam. He had the chance to listen to professors like Friedrich Spanheim, Christopher Wittich, Jan van der Waeyen, and Campegius Vitringa the Elder.16 Unfortunately, Debreceni fell victim to the plague epidemic in 1710. The main achievement of this scholar is a comprehensive work on religious history. Its aim was not simply writing about the history of the Hungarian Reformation but instead presenting this history 8 Tóth, “A mellozéstol a hitvitákon át,” 415–416. 9 Ibid., 415, 416–417. 10 Ibid., 417. 11 Ritoók, “Debreceni Ember Pál egyháztörténetének kéziratai,” 185. 12 For further biographical data see Csorba, “A sovány lelket meg-szépíteni.” 13 Debreceni, Historia Ecclesiae Reformatae in Hungaria et Transylvania. 14 For more details, see Ritoók, “Debreceni,” 175–185. 15 Csorba, “Debreceni Ember Pál fordításai és értelmezési technikái (1702),” 18. 16 Csorba, A sovány lelket,193. in the context of universal Christianity and proving that Hungarian Christianity originated from the Early Christian period. It is interesting to note how its author depicts the beginnings of Hungarian Christianity at the opening of his work. He seeks to shed light on the origin of Hungarian Christianity with the help of the Scythian-Hun-Hungarian origin theory. The Scythian-Hun-Hungarian relationship is a medieval construct. It is not even a Hungarian idea since earlier sources from antiquity deny the Hun-Hungarian lineage. It was advantageous for the Hungarian Christian state, formed after the Hungarian conquest, to identify itself with the Scythian-Hun origins. On the one hand, it was flattering to identify with ancestors of such import. On the other, there was the European belief that all na­tions coming from the East threatening Europe were sent by God to punish the continent for its sins. The medieval Hungarian chroniclers strengthened the theory. The 17–18th-century historiography, already polarized by religious affiliations, built its arguments almost exclusively on its premises.17 Not surprisingly, Pál Ember Debreceni’s first chapter has the following title: The Pannonian origins of the Christian Church can be traced back to sacred history.18 Concerning the early Christianity of the Scythians, he develops the concept further: It is believed that around 45 AD, Saint Andrew preached the gospel to the Scythian apostles. This was proven, among other historians, by Saint Jerome in his work entitled De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis and by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History 3, chapter 1. However, others believe that Saint Philip the Apostle preached the gospel to these Scythians.19 There is no work by St. Jerome with the above-quoted title, although Gennadius of Massilia continued Jerome’s work with the title De 17 Scythian-Hun-Hungarian origin theory has always been the malum discordiae of Hungarian historiography. Its traces have survived, as evidenced by the result of recent genetic research and the debate it provoked: see Neparáczki et al., Revi­sing mtDNA haplotypes of the ancient Hungarian conquerors with next-generation sequencing. 18 Fundamenta Ecclesiae Christianae in oris Pannonicis ex ipsa Historia Sacra hau­riri queunt; Debreceni, Historia Ecclesiae, 6. 19 “Circa annum enim Christi 45 (quadragesimum quintum) S. Andreas Apostolis (sic!) Scythis Evanghelium predicasse perhibetur, teste inter alios S. Hieronymo de scriptor. Eccl. et Eusebio Histor. Eccl. l. 3. c. 1. Sed et Sanctus Philippus apos­tolus iisdem Scythis evanghelium Christi anuntiasse quibusdam existimatur.” Debreceni, Historia Ecclesiae, 6. scriptoribus ecclesiasticis, and the two works are frequently mentioned with the same title. Unfortunately, analyzing Saint Jerome’s De viris illustribus yields no references of this kind. Neither St. Jerome nor Gennadius, who continued his work, wrote about the biography of Saint Andrew. The apostle’s name is mentioned three times but in a different context.20 This could be considered a hoax; however, it is worth analyzing why the name of St. Jerome appears in such a context. The reference to Jerome’s work is followed by Eusebius’ Historia Ecclesiastica (3.1).21 This seems logical since the theory of Scythian apostolic Christianity is primarily linked to his name. According to Eusebius, he got this information elsewhere, namely from Origen. As the original work of Origen has not survived, one could as well believe him. However, there is also the need to consider Hervé In­gelbert’s argument, according to which Eusebius refers to prominent historians solely to prove his literacy and the authenticity of his works.22 In this light, one can agree with Harnack’s statement that Eusebius did not cite Origen’s work directly. Instead, his information comes from tradition, from the Christian paradosis.23 Moreover, it is also worth noting that Origen himself drew from this tradition, from this paradosis.24 If one examines the early Christian texts, it becomes clear that there was no sign of Saint Andrew’s apostolic work in Scythia in the first century.25 Instead, one can find data about St. Andrew in the second century but connected to Patras, where he was crucified and where the cult of the apostle later developed. A significant change occurs in the third century when the works of apocryphal literature start appearing. The primary purpose of these works was to establish religious traditions parallel to the official ecclesiastical tradition and thus prove the antiquity and actual Christian teaching of the various heretic movements.26 For Debreceni, Saint Jerome remains one of the most credible authors in proving the apostolic Christianity of Hungarians. Following the quotation mentioned above, he devotes an extensive section to St. Jerome: 20 Vir. ill. 1.7 and 18. 21 On the relationship between Jerome and Eusebius, see Rebenich, Jerome, 36–38. 22 Inglebert, Les Romains chrétiens face à l’histoire de Rome, 170. 23 Harnack, Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhundert, 1–2, 548. 24 Zugravu, Fontes historiae Daco-romanae Christianitatis, 38. 25 Zugravu, “Apostolotul Sfântului Andrei în ‘Scitia,’” 215–238. 26 Zugravu, Geneza crestinismului popular al românilor. Saint Jerome, who died in 420, was of Pannonian nationality, but according to some, he might have been Dalmatian, and his hometown was Stridon by the river of Sabaria […] Melchior Inchofer in the An-nales Hungariae, year 304, writes that Saint Jerome, the great Doctor of the Church, was born in Stridon, which is one-day walking distance from Sabaria. This is a well-known town in Hungary. How can anyone believe that such a holy man, concerned with spreading his faith, failed to preach Christ’s Gospel to his Hungarian compatriots in Pannonia, who settled there in 380 and lived there until 445? As he spent some time in his country, Pannonia, he later spent many years in the East, in Syria and Canaan (where he emigrated), mainly in Bethlehem, devoting himself to the translation and explanation of prayers, psalms, and holy scrolls. […] And in the time of St. Jerome, the Christian faith was most certainly already widespread; Jerome himself writes with enthusiasm in his letter to the Laeta that: “Paganism is struggling isolated even in the city […] The Egyptian Serapis himself has become Christian. The Marnas of Gaza is mourning in confinement and is terrified of the destruction of his church. There are masses of monks coming daily from India, Persia, and Ethiopia. Armenia has laid down the arms, and the Huns are learning the Psalm. The warmth of faith heats the cold of Scythia, the golden and blonde army of the Getae is carrying temple-tents, and as they share the same faith, they might fight against us in equal battle.27 To sum up, since St. Jerome was born in Stridon and lived in Pannonia (or its immediate surroundings) for a while, he must have preached God’s word to his people and the Huns, who also settled here and stayed for 65 years. Moreover, St. Jerome’s letter to the Laeta also proves that he was far from indifferent to his surroundings. The exact geographical location of Stridon, the hometown of St. Jerome, on the confines of Dalmatia and Pannonia, is still an open question. There have been debates in identifying the exact geographical location of the lost town, and in some cases, heated arguments full of emotions.28 The problem is that no archaeological findings support the written sources. Placing Stridon in the Pannonia region dates back to the 15th century when the counts of Celje placed men of the Pauline Order on their estates. For the monks who settled there, the idea that St. Jerome, the first biographer of St. Paul, the founder of their order, 27 Debreceni, Historia Ecclesiae, 6–7. 28 Valencic, Sveti Hieronim – mož s Krasa, 74–76. was born in this region, had a certain allure. Since the exact location of Stridon was not known, it could also be placed in Pannonia so that the prestige of the well-known predecessor could boost the positive image of the monastic community. The city was destroyed by the Goths around 378–379,29 the Huns invading the region around 380 and settling there could not see much of the city or its inhabitants. Going through the biography of St. Jerome, one can see that in 380, he was still in the Middle East.30 In 381, he traveled to the assembly of the First Council in Constantinople.31 Between 382 and 385, he was in Rome.32 He eventually returned to the Holy Land, settling in Bethlehem in 386 for the rest of his life.33 Considering all this, it becomes evident that there was either little chance or well-nigh impossible for Jerome to preach the word of God among the Huns within the period mentioned by Debreceni.34 The language barrier was a significant problem in Pannonia and Eastern and South-Eastern Europe in general. Most of the inhabi­tants of these provinces spoke neither Latin nor Greek. Except for the apostles who received the gift of speaking in tongues (but none did any missionary work here), preaching in the regional language was a challenge. Besides the Celtic language, there is no evidence of preaching in regional languages in this early period.35 In the case of Pannonia, Jerome may have preached in the language of his native milieu, Illyrian. It could not have been a great success, however, as the Christian population in the province barely reached a few hundred in the first centuries.36 It seems necessary to look at other places in the corpus – besides the above-quoted excerpt from the letter to Laeta – to find references to the Huns. Jerome did not have a favorable opinion regarding their nation. He is terrified of their evil deeds and afraid of the threatening Hun invasion (and the Scythian cold); he speaks of the Hun hordes.37 In his letter to Laeta, also quoted by Debreceni, he depicts the Huns as singing the Psalms.38 This is doubtful since the material and literary evidence of the Huns’ Christianity is sorely lacking. 29 Vir. ill. 135.1–5. 30 Rebenich, Jerome, 6–10. 31 Ibid., 10–14. 32 Ibid., 15–20. 33 Ibid., 20–29. 34 Thompson, “Christian Missionaries Among the Huns,” 73–79. 35 Maiburg, “Und bis an di Grenzen der Erde,” 38–53. 36 Gáspár, “Gondolatok a pannóniai ókereszténységrol,” 18–19. 37 Ep. 60.16.1–5; 120.1.14; 130.9.4. 38 Ep. 107.2.3. Analyzing Jerome’s geographical knowledge and concepts, Susan Weingarten stated that his concepts of geography rely on the beliefs and works of previous Roman authors. Starting from this point, Jerome created a new Christian worldview, in which the umbilicus terrestris was no longer Rome but Jerusalem or Bethlehem. Even if the Jerome map, so popular in the Middle Ages, had nothing to do with Saint Jerome,39 he must have had some linear map of the Late Empire, an itinerarium pictum, similar to the Tabula Peutingeriana.40 When he presents people and nations outside the empire, he follows a linear route from the East to the West, similar to the migration route (see Ep. 60. mentioning Scythiam, Thraciam, Macedoniam, Dardaniam, Daciam). This leads to the conclusion that the Scythians, and indirectly the Huns, were not in Pannonia but somewhere around the Caucasus. They are listed after the Armenians, followed by the peoples closer (at least on the map) to the center, Rome (Armenius, Huni discunt psalterium, Scythiae frigora fervent calore fidei: Getarum rutilus). Ammianus Marcellinus of the late Roman Empire depicted the Huns as barbaric people. He devoted a separate chapter in his historical work to the Huns and wrote about them in detail, generally portraying them negatively, mentioning barbarism and other non plus ultras of the cruel Eastern nomads – even though he had never seen a Hun in his life.41 One of the famous urban legends related to Ammianus, still in vogue in certain quarters, refers to the eating habits of the Huns, who ate raw meat.42 Jerome was familiar with the work of Ammianus and cited him when he wrote about the Huns’ strange eating habits and semicrudis caro.43 He did not create (as pointed out above) this image of the Huns from his own experience; instead, he relied on the literary tradition. In this light, one can entertain certain doubts regarding his information about Christianity of the Huns (and the Scythians). As previously mentioned, it is possible to trace the paradosis of the third and fourth centuries in Origen’s and Eusebius’ works. However, a closer connection can be detected as well. It is well-known that Jerome had a good relationship with Paulinus of Nola, and one can assume that he was familiar with his works. Paulinus had another 39 Weingarten, The Saint’s Saints, 205. 40 Ibid., 201–204. 41 Ibid., 179–180. Cf. Hunnorum nova feritas, semicrudis vescuntur carnibus; Adver­ sus Jovianum 2.7, PL 23.308. 42 This is where the urban legend was born. It was later applied to Hungarians, developing the Hun theory of origin, describing how they ate meat, tenderized under the saddle. 43 Weingarten, The Saint’s Saints, 179–180. Christian bishop friend,44 Nicetas.45 Paulinus mentions the name of Nicetas several times, and he even writes a farewell letter in Carmen 17 and 27. In the latter, he mentions the bishop’s missionary work among the barbarians, including the Scythians. Ignoring the controversy and interpolation-theory surrounding Carmen,46 and accepting the work as that of Paulinus, the presentation of Nicetas’ missionary work and its context reveals rhetorical commonplaces used for marking the other, the stranger. The Scythian name for Nicetas was the literary equivalent of underdevelopment, of a primitive way of life.47 Based on the text, it cannot be stated that Nicetas was engaged in authentic missionary work among the Scythians. Using this topos, the author wanted to strengthen and praise the bishop’s merits. E. A. Thompson analyzed the validity and success of any missio­nary work among the Huns in a brief study. Based on the analysis above, Thompson’s conclusion seems to be valid and well-grounded: Neglecting then the vague and rhetorical phrases of Jerome, Orosius, and Theodoret, we may conclude that through the fifth century the Huns as whole remained pagan and the few individuals whom we know to have been converted appear to have had a particularly close relationship with the Romans…48 The Christian faith has been extended to the very end of the Earth. As Rome’s power extended to the entire orbis terrarum, so did Chris­tianity. Neither geography nor nations could create its boundaries; as the Acts proclaimed, it is spread to the ends of the earth. The reality was quite different. Early Christianity had its geographic concept, not much different from the sometimes-propagandistic geographical approach of the Roman Empire, but transposed mutatis mutandis to its rhetoric to fit the given context. It no longer proclaimed the greatness of pagan Rome. It instead praised the glory of the Christian faith and God.49 44 He visited Paulinus twice in Italy – in 400 and 403. For further details on the relationship between Nicetas and Paulinus of Nola, see Cvetkovic, Niceta of Remesiana’s Visit to Nola, 180. 45 For further information on Nicetas, see Burn, Niceta of Remesiana, or Trout, Paulinus of Nola. 46 See Kirstein, Paulinus Nolanus, Carmen 17, and Tränkle, “Vermeintliche Inter- polationen bei Paulinus von Nola.” 47 Kirstein, Paulinus, 214. 48 Thompson, “Christian,” 77. 49 See also Grüll, “Orbem terrarum subicere.” One could say that the blazing Christian faith mentioned by Je­rome in his letter did not exist. It was a fancy rhetorical topos. This topos came to the fore in the era of religious fervor, answering the vital question: “Where was your church before Luther?”50 From the Protestant side, a plausible answer was to emphasize that the people, in this case, the Hungarians (according to the Scythian-Hun-Hungarian kinship theory still valid and accepted in the seventeenth and in the eighteenth century), had already converted to Christianity in the Apostolic Age. The Hungarians did not receive the Christian faith from the Roman Pope but from the Apostles. The Calvinists have only continued this faith. Thus, there were two reasons for extending the period of Hunga­rian Christianity as far as possible. On the one hand, this allowed the Hungarians, frequently considered others and different among Europeans, to join the nations rooted in apostolic Christianity. On the other hand, however, the testimony of apostolic Christianity fit very well in “the Greek missionary” theories coined by János Kocsi Gergo and continued by Debreceni.51 To prove the above, Protestant historians interpreted their texts to fit their needs and purposes, referring to the most credible Church Fathers accepted by both sides, Catholic and Protestant – such as Saint Jerome.52 50 S. J. Barnett, “Where Was Your Church before Luther?” 14–41. 51 The main idea of the theory – propagandistic rather than scientific – is that Hun­garians had taken up Eastern Christianity much earlier, thus denying the Catho­lics any merits linked to converting into Christianity. Gergely Tóth, “Schwarz Gotfried Intiája (1740),” 63. See also Csízy, “Fürstenspiegel in der protestan­tischen Literatur und Pädagogik,” 39–51. 52 Even Calvin referred to the texts of the early Christian writers, including Euse­bius, to support his own religious beliefs and theological teaching. See also Backus, “Calvin’s Judgment of Eusebius of Caesarea,” 419–437. BIBLIOGRAPHY Backus, Irena. “Calvin’s Judgment of Eusebius of Caesarea: An Analysis.” The Sixteenth Century Journal 22, no. 3 (1991): 419–437. Barnett, S. J.: “Where Was Your Church before Luther? Claims for the Antiquity of Protestantism Examined.” Church History 68.1 (1999): 14–41. Borovszky, Samu. “A hun-magyar rokonságról” [On the Hun-Hungarian Kinship]. Ethnographia / A Magyar Néprajzi Tár­saság értesítoje 5 (1894): 96–102. Bulic, Francesco. “Stridone luogo natale di S. Girolamo.” In Miscel­lanea Geronimiana: Scritti varii pubblicati nel XV centenario dalla morte di San Girolamo, ed. Vincenzo Vannutelli, 253–330. Rome: Typografia Poliglotta Vaticana, 1920. Burgersdijk, Diederik. “Creating the Enemy: Ammianus Marcelli-nus’ Double Digression on Huns and Alans (Res Gestae 31.2).” Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 59.1 (2016): 111–132. Burn, Andrew E. Niceta of Remesiana: His Life and Works. Cambridge: CUP, 1905. Csízy, Katalin. “Fürstenspiegel in der protestantischen Literatur und Pädagogik.” In Protestantism, Knowledge and the World of Science, edited by György Kurucz, 39–51. Budapest: L’Harmat-tan, 2017. Csorba, Dávid. “A sovány lelket meg-szépíteni” Debreceni prédikáto­rok (1657–1711) [“To Beautify the Thin Soul” Preachers from Debrecen (1657–1711)]. Debrecen: Hernád kiadó, 2008. ———. “Debreceni Ember Pál fordításai és értelmezési technikái (1702)” [Translations and Interpretation Techniques of Pál Debreceni Ember]. In Nunquam autores, semper interpretes, ed. Réka Lengyel, 15–38. Budapest: MTA BTKITI, 2017. Cvetkovic, Carmen Angela. “Niceta of Remesiana’s Visit to Nola: Between Sacred Travel and Political Mission.” In Episcopal Networks in Late Antiquity: Connection and Communication Across Boundaries, edited by Carmen Angela Cvetkovic and Peter Gemeinhardt, 179–206. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2019. Debreceni Ember, Pál [Lampe Fridriech Adolph]. Historia Ecclesiae Reformatae in Hungaria et Transylvania. Utrecht: Jacobus van Pulsus, 1728. Gáspár, Dorottya. “Gondolatok a pannóniai ókereszténységrol” [Some Thoughts on the Early Christian Era in Pannonia]. In Magyar Egyháztörténeti Vázlatok 1–2 (1993): 5–23. Gombocz, Zoltán. “A magyar oshaza és a nemzeti hagyomány I–II” [The Hungarian Homeland and the National Tradition]. Nyelv­tudományi Közlemények 45.2–3 (1917–1920): 129–194, and 46.1 (1923–1927): 1–33. Grüll, Tibor: “Orbem terrarum subicere: Világbirodalmi törekvé­sek és földrajzi ismeretek az ókori Rómában” [Imperial Aspira­tions and Geographical Knowledge in Ancient Rome]. Ókor 17.1 (2018): 59–77. Harnack, Adolf. Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhundert I–II. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1906. Hartel, Wilhelm von, ed. Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Lati­norum. Wien: F. Tempsky, 1894. Hóman, Bálint. A magyar hún-hagyomány és hún-monda [The Hungarian Hun Traditions and the Hun Legend]. Budapest, 1925. (Reprint: Máriabesnyo–Gödöllo, 2003.) Inglebert, Hervé. Les Romains chrétiens face à l’histoire de Rome: Histoire, christianisme et romanités en Occident dans l’Antiquité tardive (IIIe–Ve siècles). Paris: Institut des E´tudes Augustini­ennes, 1996. Iratosi T., János, and William Perkins. Az ember eletenek bodogul valo igazgatasanak modgyarol (1637) … [About the Ways of Governing One’s Life Happily]. Levoca: Brever Lörinc, 1683. Kirstein, Robert. Paulinus Nolanus, Carmen 17. Basel: Schwabe, 2001. Kordé, Zoltán. “Hun-magyar azonosság” [Hun-Hungarian Simila­rities]. In Korai magyar történeti lexikon (9–14. század), edited by Gyula Kristó, 274–275. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1994. Maiburg, Ursula. “Und bis an di Grenzen der Erde…” Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 26 (1983): 38–53. Marácz, László. “The Huns in Western Consciousness: Images, Stereotypes, and Civilization.” GLOBAL-Turk 1–2 (2015): 62–83. Migne, Jacques Paul, ed. Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Graeca. Paris: Ateliers Catholiques, 1857. ——— , ed. Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina. Paris: Ateliers Catholiques, 1847. Nagy, Gábor. “Irrepserunt: Isthvánffy Miklós levele Pázmány Péterhez a hitújítás magyarországi kezdeteirol” [The Letter of Miklós Isthvánffy to Péter Pázmány about the Beginning of Reformation in Hungary]. Gesta 6.1 (2006): 85–90. Neparáczki, E. et al. “Revising mtDNA haplotypes of the ancient Hungarian conquerors with next-generation sequencing.” In PLoS ONE 12.4 (2017), available online. Pápai Páriz, Ferenc. Rudus redivivum seu breves rerum ecclesiasti­carum Hungaricarum juxta et Transylvanicarum inde a prima reformatione commentarii. Sibiu: Stephanus Jünling, 1684. Pázmány, Péter. Az mostan támadt új tudományok hamisságának tíz nyilvánvaló bizonysága és rövid intés a török birodalomrul és vallásrul (1605) [Ten Arguments Proving the Falsity of the Present Science and a Brief Warning about the Turkish Empire and Religion]. Budapest: Universitas, 2001. ——— . Hodoegus: Igazságra vezérlo kalauz [Hodoegus: A Guide to Divine Truth]. Budapest: Balassi Kiadó, 2000. Rebenich, Stefan. Jerome: The Early Church Fathers. London: Rout-ledge, 2002. Ritoók, Zsigmondné. “Debreceni Ember Pál egyháztörténetének kéziratai” [The Manuscripts of Pál Ember Debreceni’s Ecclesi­astical History]. Magyar Könyvszemle 79.2 (1973): 175–185. Schöne, Alfred. Die Weltchronik des Eusebius in ihrer Bearbeitung durch Hieronymus. Berlin: Weidemannsche Buchhandlung, 1900. Thompson, Edward Arthur. “Christian Missionaries Among the Huns.” Hermathena 67 (1946): 73–79. Tóth, Gergely. “A mellozéstol a hitvitákon át a nagy egyháztörténe­tekig: A magyarországi reformáció a 16.–18. századi történetírásban” [From Neglect through Polemics to Great Church Histories: Hungarian Reformation in the 17th–18th Century Historiography]. In Egyházi társadalom a Magyar Királyságban a 16. században [Church Society in the Kingdom of Hungary in the 16th Century], edited by Szabolcs Varga and Lázár Vértesi, 409–422. Pécs: Pécsi Püspöki Hittudományi Foiskola, 2017. ———. “Schwarz Gotfried Intiája (1740).” In Scientiarum Miscel­lanea, edited by Péter Kasza, Gábor Kiss Farkas, and Dániel Molnár, 61–68. Szeged: Lazi Könyvkiadó, 2017. ——— . Szent István, Szent Korona, államalapítás a protestáns történetírásban (16–18. század) [St. Stephen, the Holy Crown, State Founding in Protestant Historiography (16th–18th Centu­ries)]. Budapest: MTA BTK Történettudományi Intézet, 2016. Tränkle, Hermann. “Vermeintliche Interpolationen bei Paulinus von Nola.” Hermes 130.3 (2002): 338–361. Trout, Dennis E. Paulinus of Nola: Life, Letters, and Poems. Oak­land: University of California Press, 1999. Valencic, Rafko. Sveti Hieronim – mož s Krasa: Prispevek k ubika­ciji Stridona, rojstnega kraja sv. Hieronima [St. Jerome – The Man from the Karst: A Contribution to the Ubiety of Stridon, Birthplace of St. Jerome]. Ljubljana: Družina, 2007. Vásáry, István. “A ‘Megalkotott magyomány’ – szittyák és hunok” [Created Tradition – Scythians and Huns]. Magyar Tudomány 175.5 (2014): 566–572. Weingarten, Susan. The Saint’s Saints: Hagiography and Geography in Jerome. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Zugravu, Nelu. “Apostolotul Sfântului Andrei în ‘Scitia’: Geneza si evolutia unei traditii” [Apostle St. Andrew in “Scythia”: The Origins and Evolution of a Tradition]. Memoria Antiquitatis 20 (1995): 215–238. ——— . Geneza crestinismului popular al românilor [The Genesis of the Romanians’ Popular Christianity]. Bucharest: Inst. Român de Tracologie, 1997. ——— . Izvoarele istoriei crestinismului românesc / Fontes historiae Daco-romanae Christianitatis [The Origins of the History of Romanian Christianity]. Ia.i: EUAIC, 2009. ABSTRACT Works concerning the history of the Hungarian Reform had been almost absent until the second half of the seventeenth century. The relatively peaceful process of the Hungarian Reform, the lack of armed conflicts, and the tragic memory of the battle of Mohács made the appearance of self-justifying religious narratives in Hungarian historiography seem unnecessary. On the other hand, the changes caused by the Tridentine Catholic renewal movement and the deterioration of the religious and political condition of the Protestant confession culminated in punishing actions. This brought the polemical and self-justifying narratives to the forefront in both literature and historiography. First signs of inte­rest regarding the history of Protestantism appeared on the Catholic side, but they emerged under the pressure of the circumstances. On the other hand, a growing foreign interest gradually appeared on the Protestant side, making way to historiographical works. An example of such an opus is the Historia Ecclesiae Reformatae in Hungaria et Transilvania (1706) by Pál Debreceni Ember. The author presents the history of the Reformed Church in Hungary. He also tries to present the origins of Hungarian Christianity, projecting it onto the Apostolic Period. Finally, he turns to the early Christian writers such as Jerome to prove his theory. The paper aims to present this chapter in Jerome’s reception and its religious background. KEYWoRdS:Jerome, ecclesiastical history, Hungary, Protestantism, Huns, Christianity HIERONIMOVA RECEPCIJA V MADŽARSKEM ZGODOVINOPISNEM BESEDILU IZ ZGODNJEGA OSEMNAJSTEGA STOLETJA IZVLECEK Del o zgodovini madžarske reformacije vse do druge polovice se­demnajstega stoletja skoraj ni. Zaradi razmeroma mirnega procesa reformacije, odsotnosti oboroženih spopadov in tragicnega spomina na bitko pri Mohacu v madžarski historiografiji ni bilo potrebe po samoupravicevalnih verskih narativih. Po drugi strani pa so spre­membe, do katerih je pripeljalo tridentsko katoliško obnovitveno gibanje, nato pa poslabšanje verskih in politicnih razmer znotraj protestantizma, dosegle vrhunec v vrsti drasticnih posegov. Vse to je tako v literaturi kot zgodovinopisju postavilo v ospredje polemicne in samoupravicevalne narative. Prvi znaki zanimanja za zgodovino protestantizma so se pojavili na katoliški strani, vendar so vzniknili pod pritiskom okolišcin. Po drugi strani pa se je na protestantski strani postopoma pojavljalo vse vecje zanimanje v tujini, ki je odpiralo prostor zgodovinopisnim delom. Primer takega besedila je Historia Ecclesiae Reformatae in Hungaria et Transilvania (1706) Pála Debre­cenija Emberja. Avtor predstavlja zgodovino reformirane cerkve na Madžarskem. Predstaviti skuša tudi izvor madžarskega kršcanstva, ki ga projicira v cas apostolov. Nazadnje poseže po zgodnjekršcanskih piscih, kot je Hieronim, da bi dokazal svojo teorijo. Clanek predstavi to poglavje v Hieronimovi recepciji in njegovo versko ozadje. KLJUCNE BESEdE: Hieronim, cerkvena zgodovina, Madžarska, protestantizem, Huni, kršcanstvo Saint Jerome (Hendrick Goltzius, after Jacopo Palma, 1596) Saint Jerome (Agostino Carracci, after Francesco Vanni, 15921598) doI:https://doi.org/10.4312/clotho.3.2.93-112 Preliminary Remarkson the Latin of Jerome Miran SajovicSdB* INTRODUCTION Linguistic style is often developed through schooling and studies, over decades.1 Jerome of Stridon was not an exception. The present paper aims at rediscovering the artistic qualities of Jerome’s Latin, an aspect not exactly in the center of scholarly attention.2 This being a preliminary project, the author does not attempt to list every single aspect of Jerome’s Latin in detail, an impossible task due to the vast literary landscape he has left behind. Instead, this article strives to explore the beauty of the Stridonian’s idiom. To understand Jerome as a writer, it seems opportune to trace back his erudition, to understand how he was formed. Jerome, like so many other discipuli of his time, attended classes in grammar and rhetoric by Aelius Donatus and Marius Victorinus. Donatus was a particularly strong influence.3 After * Pontificium Institutum Altioris Latinitatis, Salesian Pontifical University in Rome, Piazza dell’Ateneo Salesiano, 1, 00139 Roma; sajovic@unisal.it. 1 Unless stated otherwise, all translations are by the author. The article was origi­nally written in Italian and translated into English with the assistance of Con­stance Cheung, PhD student of Pontificium Institutum Altioris Latinitatis of Salesian Pontifical University in Rome. 2 To compare the number of the recent studies on Jerome as theologian, exegete, translator, or biographer, on the one hand, and the number of those that address Jerome as a stylist, on the other, is a sombering task, as the intensity of research differs by several orders of magnitude. One of the key works on Jerome’s Latin dates back to 1964; see Wiesen, St. Jerome as a Satirist. Even though he is being hailed as “the Christian Cicero” (see Hritzu, “Comments on Patristic Literature,” 230), little can be found regarding his literary talents. This is not to say that such studies do not exist; for a recent example, see Cain, “Two Allusions to Terence, Eunuchus 579 in Jerome.” 3 Campenhausen, I Padri della Chiesa latina, 138; Colafrancesco, “Una lezione da ‘maestro’ nell’epistolario di Girolamo,” 169–170; Brugnoli, “Donato e Girolamo.” concluding his studies in Rome,4 Jerome went to Trier (after 367),5 where he decided to become a monk and follow the ascetic life.6 At the beginning of his newly converted existence, after his short stay at Aquileia, Jerome traveled several times to see the Desert Fathers and other influential figures of his time, becoming acquainted with both geography and inhabitants of the Holy Land. The following passage is from his Epistula 84: Apollinarem Laodicenum audiui Antiochiae frequenter et co-lui et, cum me in sanctis scripturis erudiret, numquam illius contentiosum super sensu dogma suscepi. […] perrexi tamen Alexandriam, audiui Didymum. in multis ei gratias ago. quod nesciui, didici; quod sciebam, illo diuersum docente non perdidi. putabant me homines finem fecisse discendi: rursum Hierosolymae et Bethleem quo labore, quo pretio Baraninam nocturnum habui praeceptorem! timebat enim Iudaeos et mihi alterum exhibebat Nicodemum. horum omnium frequenter in opusculis meis facio mentionem.7 At Antioch I frequently listened to Apollinaris of Laodicea, and attended his lectures; yet, although he instructed me in the holy scriptures, I never embraced his disputable doctrine as to their meaning. […] Yet I went on to Alexandria and heard Didymus. And I have much to thank him for: for what I did not know I learned from him, and what I knew already I did not forget. So excellent was his teaching. Men fancied that I had now made an end of learning. Yet once more I came to Jerusalem and to Bethlehem. What trouble and expense it cost me to get Baraninas to teach me under cover of night. For by his fear of the Jews he presented to me in his own person a second edition of Nicodemus. Of all of these I have frequently made mention in my works.8 4 The Roman school in the imperial period was divided into three progressive phases, with ludi magister responsible for primary learning, followed by secon­dary learning with grammaticus, and finally with rhetor. For more information see Ricucci, Storia della Glottodidattica, 17–44. 5 Cavallera, Saint Jérôme: Sa vie et son oeuvre, 17–19. 6 For Jerome’s biography and writings, see Cavallera, Saint Jérôme; Kelly, Jerome; Rebenich, Jerome, 3–59. 7 Ep. 84.3 (CSEL 55, 122–123). 8 Translated by Fremantle, Lewis, and Martley; their translation for Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers is available online. Jerome was influenced by the words of Apollinaris of Laodicea and Didymus the Blind, and, more significantly, Gregory of Nazianzus, who resided in Constantinople in 380–381. Later, in Bethlehem, Je­rome learned Hebrew under the guidance of learned Jewish rabbis, occasionally turning to them while seeking convincing scholarly answers to biblical questions. The Roman rhetoric studies of the academic iter, the teachings of Greek and Jewish masters whom Jerome met extra Urbem, and his vast reading experience contributed to his immense knowledge of the culture of his era. Norden himself praised his intellectual niveau, calling him the most learned amongst all the Christian Latin writers in a long time.9 INFLUENCES ON JEROME’S LATIN Jerome himself confirmed that, until his “literary” conversion, he kept returning to the works of classical Latin writers in his perso­nal readings. His famous Epistula 22 addressed to Paula’s daughter Eustochium is a case in point. In this letter, Jerome, who was by that time already a Christian and a monk, admitted that he was excessively indulgent with pagan literature in his past. He made this revelation by reporting the well-known accusation of the Supreme Judge in his dream: Ciceronianus es, non Christianus! 10 Yet who were those pagan writers that Jerome was accused of reading? Some hints can be found in his own confession: [B]ibliotheca, quam mihi Romae summo studio ac labore confeceram, carere non poteram. itaque miser ego lecturus Tullium ieiunabam. post noctium crebras uigilias, post lacrimas, quas mihi praeteri­torum recordatio peccatorum ex imis uisceribus eruebat, Plautus sumebatur in manibus.11 I could not bring myself to forget the library which with great care and labour I had got together at Rome. And so, miserable man that I was, I would fast, only to read Cicero afterwards. I would spend 9 Norden, La prosa d’arte antica, 655. 10 Ep. 22.30 (CSEL 54, 190). For further information on the influence of the classical culture on different Christian writers see Cochrane, Christianity and Classical Culture. 11 Ep. 22.30 (CSEL 54, 189). long nights in vigil, I would shed bitter tears called from my inmost heart by the remembrance of my past sins; and then I would take up Plautus again.12 Besides Cicero and Plautus, the two authors cited in this passage, Jerome read other luminaries during his Roman education. Some of these writers, such as Virgil, Sallust, Terence, and Horace, are mentioned in his Apologia against Rufinus: Puto quod puer legeris Aspri in Vergilium ac Sallustium commen­tarios, Vulcatii in orationes Ciceronis, Victorini in dialogos eius, et in Terentii comoedias praeceptoris mei Donati, aeque in Vergilium, et aliorum in alios, Plautum uidelicet, Lucretium, Flaccum, Persium atque Lucanum.13 I believe that, as a boy, you read Asper’s commentaries on Virgil and Sallust, Vulcatius’ on Ciceronian Orations, Victorinus’ on his own Dialogues and on the comedies of Terence, and Donatus’, my master’s, on Virgil and on other writers such as Plautus, Lucretius, Flaccus, Persius, and Lucan. This extended list of Latin writers could be much longer, if one consi­ders the names of those auctores usually mentioned in the context of the grammaticus. These included Virgil, Sallust, Terence, Lucretius, Horace, Persius, Lucan, and several others.14 In addition to classical texts, the Stridonian studied both Greek and Latin Christian writers.15 He mentions the scriptores ecclesiastici,16 such as Tertullian, Cyprian, Lactantius, Hilary, and Ambrose.17 Christians commonly read their works, and Jerome was no exception. When he was in Trier (after 366), he copied the codex of Hilary of Poitiers for 12 Translated by F. A. Wright, Select Letters of St. Jerome (LCL 262, 125). 13 Apologia adversus libros Rufini 1.16 (SC 303, 46). 14 Pugliarello, “A lezione dal grammaticus,” 592–610. 15 Apart from Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, Brown thinks Jerome must have had only a minimal knowledge of Syriac and Aramaic: Brown, “Vir Trilinguis,” 82–85. On the other hand, Canellis points out that in addition to biblical Hebrew, Jerome had knowledge of biblical Aramaic, which he called “Syriac” or “Chaldean,” as well as some rudiments of Syriac proper (the Aramaic spoken in Edessa) and Arabic: Canellis, Saint Jerome, 77–88. 16 De viris illustribus, praefatio 1. 17 For example, in Letter 22 of Jerome one finds direct and indirect quotes of Ter­tullian, Cyprian, Ambrose (22.15; 22.22). his friend Rufinus.18 The codex contained an exegetical commentary of the Psalms and through this experience, Jerome familiarized himself with Hilary’s Latin. In De viris illustribus, Jerome commented on the Latin and the style of each included author. Jerome’s knowledge of Latin literature, which thus included both pagan and Christian writers, consequently impacted his Latin proficiency.19 By his time, sermo Christianorum Latinus was already maturing through the effort of writers such as Tertullian, Cyprian, and Lactantius.20 The particular stylistic contribution of Jerome can be found by examining the biblical and monastic Latin, two of the newly formed genres within the vast domain of Christian Latin. Monastic Latin emerged in the fourth century,21 interwoven by different literary genres – the lives of saints,22 letters, monastic sermons, including those preached by Jerome to his fellow brothers in Bethlehem, and monastic rules (regula). Jerome himself coined a specific usage for numerous Latin words like monachus, fratres, cella, cellula, or eremus. Biblical Latin, in the form of Vetus Latina, emerged in the second century, as can be seen in the biblical quotations of Cyprian and Tertullian. Jerome as an exegete and a Bible translator has decisively contributed to its development. On the mandate of Pope Damasus, Jerome was entrusted with the task of updating the translation of Vetus Latina,23 and his new biblical translation was based on the veritas Hebraica and the veritas Graeca.24 Through this mission, the Stridonian influenced vocabulary and syntax while creating a literary and faithful Latin translation of Greek and Hebrew texts. Further illustration will be given in the following section. 18 Cavallera, Saint Jérôme, 19. 19 Hagendhal, “Jerome and the Latin Classics.” 20 On the development of Latin theological terminology from Tertullian onwards see Simonetti, “Alcuni aspetti del linguaggio teologica da Tertulliano ad Agos­ tino.” 21 On the formation of monastic Latin and ascetic vocabulary see Pricco, “Alcune considerazioni sul linguaggio monastico”; and “Alle origini del latino mona­ stico.” 22 Jerome wrote biographies of three monks, Paulus, Malchus, and Hilarion. 23 Vetus Latina (“Old Latin,” sc. Bible) was an umbrella term used to describe the many Latin translations of the Bible before Jerome’s revision; see Burton, The Old Latin Gospels, specifically the book’s third part, The Old Latin Gospels as Linguistic Documents. 24 Mazini, Storia della lingua latina e del suo contesto 2 (dealing with Lingue social- mente marcate), 125–127. JEROME’S WIDE-RANGING LATIN STYLE In general, the Latin of Jerome can be defined as Ciceronian, with inevitable variations,25 which are due to the natural development of Latin in the imperial era and the influence of innovations within the Christian community. Later scholars sometimes referred to them as Christian Latin, Latinitas Christianorum.26 Jerome’s Latin and his Translations Jerome’s Latin was versatile, indeed, almost chameleonic; and this diversity was carefully crafted to serve different purposes. The principal aim was translating different texts into Latin. By the time of Jerome, Greek illiteracy was an almost expected standard in the West.27 Furthermore, there was the ecclesiastic necessity of translating Hebrew texts, particularly the Holy Scriptures. It is noteworthy that Jerome followed two different principles when he translated: Ego enim non solum fateor, sed libera uoce profiteor me in interpre­tatione Graecorum absque scripturis sanctis, ubi et uerborum ordo mysterium est, non uerbum e uerbo, sed sensum exprimere de sensu. Habeoque huius rei magistrum Tullium, qui Protagoram Platonis et Oeconomicum Xenofontis et Aeschini et Demosthenis duas contra se orationes pulcherrimas transtulit. Quanta in illis praetermiserit, quanta addiderit, quanta mutauerit, ut proprietates alterius linguae suis proprietatibus explicaret, non est huius temporis dicere.28 For I myself not only admit but freely proclaim that in translating from the Greek (except in the case of the holy scriptures where even the order of the words is a mystery) I render sense for sense and not word for word. For this course I have the authority of Tully who has so translated the Protagoras of Plato, the Oeconomicus of Xenophon, and the two beautiful orations which Aeschines and Demosthenes delivered one against the other. What omissions, additions, and al­terations he has made substituting the idioms of his own for those of 25 Visocnik, “Latinski klasiki v Hieronimovih pismih,” 150. 26 The interest in the study of Christian Latin was aroused by Schrijnen, Charak­teristik des altchristlichen Latein; for Nachleben of the term and the discipline, however, see also Denecker, “Among Latinists.” 27 Simonetti, Storia della letteratura cristiana antica, 497–498. 28 Ep. 57.5 (CSEL 54, 508), italics added. another tongue, this is not the time to say. I am satisfied to quote the authority of the translator who has spoken as follows in a prologue prefixed to the orations.29 For the biblical texts, he employed the principle of ad verbum transla­tion (or verbum e verbo, word-by-word, i.e., literal translation), which forbade him to pose with his linguistic talents. For the non-biblical texts, Jerome’s Latin style changed drastically. He employed the principle of ad sensum (sensum exprimere de sensu, sense-by-sense). This can be seen in his translating of the works of Origen, where the style of his language was clearly modeled after Cicero. To further illustrate Jerome’s philosophy in translating texts from Greek to Latin, one can have a look at the biblical verse taken from Revelation 6:4 in order to show how faithful he was in rendering Greek into Latin and in his application of the translation ad verbum: .a. t. .a..µ... .p› a.t.. .d... a.t. .aße.. t.. e...... […] .a. .d... a.t. µ..a..a µe.... et qui sedebat super illum datum est ei ut sumeret pacem […] et […] datus est illi gladius magnus An altogether different kind of Latin was used in his non-biblical translations, for the works of Origen, Didymus the Blind, or Eusebius of Caesarea.30 As seen above, Jerome allowed himself more freedom, since he followed the ad sensum translation principle. His model was Cicero. In short, Jerome stated that he did not care for rendering word for word like a fidus interpres, and added that the approach which his malignant denigrators called “translation accuracy” (veritas interpre­tationis) was actually considered as kakozelia, “misdirected imitation,” by the docti, the erudite class of Jerome’s contemporaries. He quoted different classical writers as supporting evidence in the preface of his Latin translation of Eusebius’ Chronicon, written in Constantinople, where he was influenced by Gregory of Nazianzus (380–381): Terentius Menandrum, Plautus et Cecilius veteres comicos inter-pretati sunt. Numquid haerent in verbis: ac non decorem magis et elegantiam in translatione conservant? Quam vos veritatem 29 Translated by Fremantle, Lewis, and Martley. 30 For a concise overview of his translations, see Gribomont, “Girolamo”; Rebe-nich, Jerome, 10–14. interpretationis, hanc eruditi .a......a. nuncupant. Unde et ego doctus a talibus ante annos circiter viginti, et simili tunc quoque errore deceptus, certe hoc mihi a vobis obiiciendum nesciens, cum Eusebii Caesariensis ........ in Latinum verterem, tali inter caetera usus sum Praefatione: “Difficile est alienas lineas insequentem, non alicubi excidere: et arduum, ut quae in alia lingua bene dicta sunt, eumdem decorem in translatione conser-vent. Significatum est aliquid unius verbi proprietate: non habeo meum quo id efferam: et dum quaero implere sententiam longo ambitu, vix brevis vitae spatia consummo. Accedunt hyperbatorum anfractus, dissimilitudines casuum, varietates figurarum: ipsum postremo suum, et, ut ita dicam, vernaculum linguae genus. Si ad verbum interpretor, absurde resonant: si ob necessitatem aliquid in ordine, vel in sermone mutavero, ab interpretis videbor officio recessisse.”31 Terence has translated Menander; Plautus and Caecilius the old comic poets. Do they ever stick at words? Do they not rather in their versions think first of preserving the beauty and charm of their originals? What men like you call fidelity in transcription, the learned term pestilent minuteness. Such were my teachers about twenty years ago; and even then I was the victim of a similar error to that which is now imputed to me, though indeed I never imagined that you would charge me with it. In translating the Chronicle of Eusebius of Caesarea into Latin, I made among others the following prefatory observations: It is difficult in following lines laid down by others not sometimes to diverge from them, and it is hard to preserve in a translation the charm of expressions which in another language are most felicitous. Each particular word conveys a meaning of its own, and possibly I have no equivalent by which to render it, and I make a circuit to reach my goal, I have to go many miles to cover a short distance. To these difficulties must be added the windings of hyperbata, differences in the use of cases, divergencies of metaphor; and last of all the peculiar and if I may so call it, inbred character of the language. If I render word for word, the result will sound uncouth, and if compelled by necessity I alter anything in the order or wording, I shall seem to have departed from the function of a translator.32 31 Ep. 57.5 (CSEL 54, 508). 32 Translated by Fremantle, Lewis, and Martley. Jerome’s Scholarly Latin Jerome also worked at creating reference texts and dictionaries, helping the scholars of his time to better grasp both the Scriptures and their historical background. Among his memorable titles were Onomasticon, Liber interpretationum Hebraicorum nominum (in which one can find the etymology of the proper names mentioned in the Bible), the Liber locorum, “Book of Places,” or De locis Hebraicis, “Book of Interpretation of Hebrew Names,” which is a reference book of biblical topography, and Hebraicae quaestiones in libro Geneseos, “Book of Hebrew Questions on Genesis,” covering topics from philo­logy and geography to the historicity of the First Book of Moses.33 In these works, Jerome dressed his Latin in a different garb, a scholarly outfit – a somewhat plainer, sober Latin, without traces of pomposity. To offer a better idea, a passage of his Hebraicae quaestiones in libro Geneseos follows below. This work, which Jerome wrote as a studium,34 has a fairly straightforward objective: to clarify certain erudite doubts regarding the Book of Genesis. In principio fecit deus caelum et terram. plerique aestimant, sicut in altercatione quoque Iasonis et Papisci scriptum est et Tertullianus in libro contra Praxeam disputat nec non Hilarius in expositione cuiusdam psalmi affirmat, in hebraeo haberi in filio fecit deus caelum et terram: quod falsum esse rei ipsius ueritas comprobat. nam et lxxinterpretes et Symmachus et Theodotion in principio transtulerunt et in hebraeo scriptum est bresith, quod Aquila interpretatur in capitulo, et non baben, quod appellatur in filio. magis itaque se­cundum sensum quam secundum uerbi translationem de Christo accipi potest: qui tam in ipsa fronte Geneseos, quae caput librorum omnium est, quam etiam in principio Iohannis euangelistae caeli et terrae conditor approbatur. unde et in psalterio de se ipso ait in 33 Piras, Storia della Letteratura patristica, 317. 34 Cf. Hebraicae quaestiones in libro Geneseos (CCSL 72, 1–2): “Studii ergo nostri erit uel eorum, qui de libris hebraicis uaria suspicantur, errores refellere uel ea, quae in latinis et graecis codicibus scatere uidentur, auctoritati suae reddere, etymologias quoque rerum, nominum atque regionum, quae in nostro sermone non resonant, uernaculae linguae explanare ratione.” (“The task of our study will therefore be either to reject the errors of those who suspect various things about Jewish books or, to restore proper authority to those things, which seem to abound in the Latin and Greek codices, and to explain through the reason of the vernacular language the etymologies of things, names and even regions, which do not resonate in our language.”) capitulo libri scriptum est de me, id est in principio Geneseos, et in euangelio omnia per ipsum facta sunt, et sine ipso factum est nihil. sed et hoc sciendum quod apud Hebraeos liber hic bresith uocatur, hanc habentes consuetudinem, ut uoluminibus ex principiis eorum nomina inponant.35 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Many believe as it is also written in the debate between Jason and Papiscus and discussed by Tertullian in the book Against Praxeas; Hilary also confirms in his psalmodic exposition, which in the Hebrew language says: in the son God created heaven and earth: that it is false confirms the truth of the thing itself. In fact, even the LXX translators and Symmachus and Theodotion have translated in the beginning and in Hebrew one finds bresith, which Aquila translates into chapter (head of a structure), and not baben, which means in the son. Therefore one could rather accept the translation according to the sense than according to the word about Christ, who is thus at the forehead of the book of Genesis, which is the head of all books, since even in the beginning of John the Evangelist he is stated to be the creator of heaven and earth. Therefore he also says this about himself in the Psalter: In the headline chapter of the book it is written about me, that is, in the beginning of Genesis and in the Gospel: Everything was done through him and without him nothing was done. But one must also know that among the Jews this book is called bresith, having this habit that they put the titles to the volumes from their beginnings. It thus seems that the varietas of Jerome’s language depended on specific necessity of the moment. The cases stated above are merely a handful of examples, illustrating his translation principle, be it ad verbum or ad sensum, his various literary genres, and his target readers.36 Jerome’s Creative Latin Jerome’s Latin earned its particular admiration and its high acclaim by his astonishing mastery of the three literary genres – epistula, vita, and apologia. He revealed the true color of his Latin style in his numerous letters, in the three ascetic biographies, in several of the entries in De viris illustribus, and in his apologetical writings, com­posed to defend himself from the accusations of being an Origenist. 35 Hebraicae quaestiones in libro Geneseos 1.1 (CCSL 72, 3). 36 Lagioia, “Alle soglie dei commentarii.” In these works, he unleashed his thoughts, sentiments, spirituality, and erudition.37 The copious content of his epistolarium can be seen as the epitome of all his learning. Even though only 125 of his letters are preserved, they present a dazzling illustration of his artistic talents and literary capability, in frequently incredibly personal writings. As Bardy noted, some present exegesis of obscure biblical passages; others are moral teachings on how to conduct ascetic life; and some are unique manifestations of his personal sentiments.38 The following sections will investigate only some of the aspects of Jerome’s Latin; namely his choice of imagery, attentiveness to detail, use of diminutives, and the positioning of short sentences. Examples from his letters, Vita Malchi, and Chronicon will serve as explanatory instruments, perhaps facili­tating appreciation of Jerome’s stylistic originality. The Use of Imagery The frequent use of images is a quality always present in Jerome’s writings. In his Epistula 16, for example, he introduces his eulogy for the desert life with the imagery of a fragile boat amid tidal waves and the singing of the rowers: Sed quoniam e scopulosis locis enauigauit oratio et inter cauas spumeis fluctibus cautes fragilis in altum cumba processit, expandenda uela sunt uentis et quaestionum scopulis transuadatis laetantium more nautarum epilogi celeuma cantandum est. o desertum Christi flo­ribus uernans! o solitudo, in qua illi nascuntur lapides, de quibus in 37 Del Ton, “De latino scribendi genere sancti Hieronymi.” 38 Bardy, Storia della letteratura cristiana antica latina, 289: “Everything is in his letters. One finds teachings on some of the more obscure passages of the Holy Scripture, aiming to enlighten Pope Damasus, Marcella, Sunnia, Fretela, and many others. One finds asceticism, which is meant to inspire the addressees with love for solitude and the horror of the world. One finds mercy, devotion, joy, sadness, resentment, hatred, and love. Sometimes Jerome surrenders himself to the sweetest intimacy. Sometimes he writes beautiful prose of eloquence for the general public. Such letters include those reporting the death of Nepotianus, of Paula, of Marcella; the consolationes to Paul and to Pammachius; the much­-acclaimed letters to Eliodorus and to Nepotianus, where he discusses what a perfect life is. Jerome’s correspondence is found in all countries; it reached Gaul, Spain, and even the Goths. Everyone wrote to him, and he replied to each of the senders. The approximately 125 letters we have of him sketch out a vivid portrayal of the Christian society between the late fourth and the early fifth century.” (Translated by the author.) Apocalypsi ciuitas magni regis extruitur! o heremus familiari deo gaudens! quid agis, frater, in saeculo, qui maior es mundo? Quam diu te tectorum umbrae premunt? quam diu fumeus harum urbium carcer includit?39 My discourse has now sailed clear of the reefs, and from the midst of hollow crags with foaming waves my frail bark has won her way into deep water. Now I may spread my canvas to the wind, and leaving the rocks of controversy astern, like some merry sailor sing a cheerful epilogue. O wilderness, bright with Christ’s spring flowers! O soli­tude, whence come those stones wherewith in the Apocalypse the city of the mighty king is built! O desert, rejoicing in God’s familiar presence! What are you doing in the world, brother, you who are more than the universe? How long is the shade of a roof going to confine you? How long shall the smoky prison of these cities shut you in?40 In Vita Malchi, Jerome employed the imagery of the maritime battle because a sailor was required to train in preparation for the possi­ble armed confrontation. With this imagery, Jerome presented his excusatio for having composed this short piece as “training,” before commencing his more important work – the Chronica: Qui nauali proelio dimicaturi sunt, ante in portu et in tranquillo mari flectunt gubernacula, remos trahunt, ferreas manus et uncos praeparant, dispositumque per tabulata militem pendente gradu et labente uestigio stare firmiter assuescunt, ut quod in simulacro pugnae didicerint, in uero certamine non pertimescant. Ita et ego, qui diu tacui – silere quippe me fecit cui meus sermo supplicium est – prius exerceri cupio in paruo opere et ueluti quandam rubiginem linguae abstergere, ut uenire possim ad historiam latiorem.41 Those who are about to fight a naval battle, first wield the rudder in the harbor and on a quiet of the sea, pull up the oars, prepare hooks and harpoons, and accustom the marines deployed on deck, upholding firmly their position even in a sliding footing, so that they will not be afraid at the time of the real contest as they have learned during 39 Ep. 14.10 (CSEL 54, 59–60). 40 Translated by F. A. Wright in Select Letters of St. Jerome (LCL 262, 49–51). 41 Vita Malchi 1.1–2 (SC 508, 184). For a detailed account on the ship metaphor, see Janson, Latin Prose Prefaces, 146–147, especially 147, where the author made a comparison of Quintilian and Jerome regarding the same imagery. the mock battle. So I too, who have been silent for long – a certain man, to whom my words are a torture, forced me to be quiet– wish to practice myself first with a small piece of work, and cleanse, if I may put it that way, my tongue of rust, so that I can move on to a historical work of wider scope. Attention to Detail As a writer, Jerome was incredibly attentive and meticulous in descri­bing details. The example of his description of ants in Vita Malchi illustrates this writing trait. Malchus the monk was enslaved and had to become a shepherd, watching his flock. One day, when he was taking a rest, he observed the ants’ labor. These tiny creatures were dragging things that were bigger than they were, including a variety of seemingly small yet comparatively huge objects, such as the seeds of various plants. The ants then dug up the soil and constructed their anthill (agger); they transported corpses of other ants; and so forth. The scrupulous account impressed his readers. It gave the impression that Jerome himself was actually observing the ants through Malchus, even more, that the readers themselves were observing the tiny insect together with the enslaved shepherd: Sicque cogitans, aspicio formicarum gregem angusto calle feruere. Videres onera maiora quam corpora; aliae herbarum quaedam semina forcipe oris trahebant, aliae egerebant humum de foueis et aquarum meatus aggeribus excludebant. Illae uenturae hiemis memores, ne madefacta humus in herbam horrea uerteret, illata semina praeci­debant; hae, luctu celebri, corpora defuncta portabant. Quodque magis mirum esset, in tanto agmine, egredientes non obstabant intranti; quin potius si quam sub fasce uidissent et onere concidisse, suppositis humeris adiuuabant.42 While I am reflecting thus, I see a colony of ants bustling on a nar­row path. You would see how the loads were bigger than the bodies. Some were dragging seeds with the pincers of the mouth; others were carrying soil out from the pits and blocking streams of water with ramparts. Still others, having the coming winter in mind, were cutting off the collected seeds so that the humid soil would not turn their barns into shoots; others were carrying away the corpses of the deceased, in a mournful procession. But the most marvelous thing 42 Vita Malchi 7.2 (SC 508, 200–202). was that, in all that swarming, those exiting were not a hindrance to those entering; indeed, if they saw a companion fall under the load, they would provide assistance by putting the load on their shoulders. The Use of the Diminutive Jerome was particularly partial to diminutives. Perhaps a few examples from Vita Malchi can exemplify this inclination: viculus (2.1. ta eum. sicut Moysen. in rub[r]o. Iesuae. in agro. Iesu Naue. in proelio. Samuelem. crinitum in templo. et illa eum. promissione. sideria[m] ac sapientie tue. rore perfunde. quia beatus Dauid rex in psalterio Solomon[em] filius eius te remunerante. percipit e caelo.15 Visite-le comme Moïse dans le buisson ardent, comme Josué dans le champ, comme Josué fils de Nun dans le combat, comme le chevelu Samuel dans le temple, et inonde-le selon cette promesse de la rosée céleste et de ta sagesse, parce que le bienheureux roi David sur sa cithare, fils de Salomon, l’a reçue du ciel alors que tu la lui accordais. (Sacramentaire gélasien d’Autun) Visita eum interuentu illius sicut Moysen in rubo, Iosue in agro, Iesu Naue in prelio, Samuhel crinitum in templo. Et illa eum promissione siderea hac sapientiae tuae rore perfunde, qua beatus Dauid rex in psalterio, Salomon filius eius te remunerante percepit e caelo. Visite-le par son intercession comme Moïse dans le buisson ardent, comme Josué dans le champ, comme Josué fils de Nun dans le com­bat, comme le chevelu Samuel dans le temple. Et inonde-le selon cette promesse céleste de la rosée de ta sagesse, que le bienheureux roi David sur sa cithare, fils de Salomon, a reçue du ciel alors que tu la lui accordais. (Sacramentaire d’Angoulême, 1858)16 Visita eum sicut Moysen in rubo, Iosue in agro, Iesu Naue in praelio, Samuelem crinitum in templo ; et illa eum promissione siderea ac sapientiae tuae rore perfunde, quo beatus Dauid rex in psalterio, Salomon filius eius te remunerante percepit e caelo. 14 2 Chr 29, 25 associe aussi les termes latins Dauid et psalterium. Le récit du chapitre 25 montre le roi Ezékias ordonnant un holocauste selon les com-mandements de David, ceux-ci incluant une prière au son des instruments. Ce n’est donc pas la figure de David jouant de la cithare qui est mise en scène dans ce verset. Am 6, 5 est donc la seule référence biblique des prières men-tionnées ici. 15 La ponctuation que nous reproduisons est toujours celle des éditions consultées, ici Liber Sacramentorum Augustodunensis, CCSL 159B. 16 Liber Sacramentorum Engolismensis, CCSL 159C. Visite-le comme Moïse dans le buisson ardent, comme Josué dans le champ, comme Josué fils de Nun dans le combat, comme le chevelu Samuel dans le temple. Et inonde-le de cette promesse céleste et de la rosée de ta sagesse, comme le bienheureux roi David sur la cithare, fils de Salomon, l’a reçue du ciel alors que tu la lui accordais. (Sacramentaire d’Angoulême, 2318)17 Visita eum interuentu sanctorum omnium sicut Moysen in rubo, Iosuae in agro, Iesu naue in proelio, Samuel meruit crinitus in templo. Et illa aeum permissione siderea ac sapientiae tuae rore perfunde qua beatus Dauid rex in psalterio psalmorum filius te remunerante percepit a caelo. Visite-le par l’intercession de tous les saints comme Moïse dans le buisson ardent, comme Josué dans le champ, comme Josué fils de Nun dans le combat, comme le chevelu Samuel dans le temple l’ont mérité. Et inonde-le éternellement de cette promesse céleste de la rosée de ta sagesse, que le bienheureux roi David sur la cithare des Psaumes, son fils, a reçue du ciel alors que tu la lui accordais. (Sacramentaire de Gellone, 2092)18 Vocem psalterii est un syntagme davantage hiéronymien que vieux­latin : les manuscrits vieux-latins19 et Tertullien20 transmettent organorum ou organi au lieu de psalterii. Il y a donc tout lieu de penser que la rédaction des oraisons citées s’appuie sur le terme hiéronymien et non sur celui vieux-latin. De même, une prière pour la paix des litaniae canonicae du rituel hispanique de l’abbaye de Silos (Xe–XIe siècle) utilise en réemploi la traduction de Jérôme de Jl 2, 13 : Scindentes corda nostra et non vestimenta, tuam, Deus summe, imploramus clementiam, ut […] (CO, 56462). En déchirant nos cœurs et non nos vêtements, Dieu très-haut, nous implorons ta clémence, afin que […] 17 Ibid. 18 Liber Sacramentorum Gellonesis, CCSL 159. 19 Ms 175, cf. Gryson, Altlateinische Handschriften, 267–269. 20 Adversus Marcionem, CCSL 1, 4.15. et scindite corda vestra et non vestimenta vestra et convertimini ad Dominum Deum vestrum Et déchirez vos cœurs et non vos vêtements, et revenez vers le Seigneur votre Dieu (Jl 2, 13) Scindite est une traduction hiéronymienne. En effet, parmi les témo-ins du texte vieux-latin, le manuscrit Paris Bibliothèque Nationale Lat. 1340921 contient disrumpite et le texte africain cyprianique22 donne discindite. 3. LES CITATIONS PROBLEMATIQUES : REVISION HIERONYMIENNE OU TEXTE VIEUX-LATIN ? 3.1 Malachie 3, 1 Dans le cas d’un verset de l’Ancien Testament repris dans le Nouveau Testament, quel est le livre biblique qu’avaient le plus probablement en tête les rédacteurs de la prière ? Plusieurs lectionnaires montrent que les péricopes de Malachie et des évangiles sont associées lors du temps de l’Avent. Ainsi, deux des textes de l’office du 3e dimanche de l’Avent indiqués dans le Liber Comicus, lectionnaire hispanique du XIIe siècle, sont la péricope de Malachie (3, 1–4) et le début de l’E´vangile de Marc (1, 1–8). Une mention de ce verset se trouve dans l’oraison du temps de l’Avent 2553 : Excita, Domine, quaesumus, corda nostra ad praeparandas unige­niti tui vias, ut per eius adventum purificatis tibi mentibus servire mereamur. Incite nos cœurs, Seigneur, nous t’en prions, à préparer les chemins de ton fils unique, afin que nous méritions de t’adorer dans nos esprits purifiés par ta venue. Or Malachie 3, 1 est cité par les évangiles de Matthieu (11, 10) et Luc (7, 27) : 21 Ms 173, cf. Gryson, Altlateinische Handschriften, 265. 22 Cyprien, De lapsis 29 ; 1.55.22.2. Ecce ego mittam angelum meum et praeparabit uiam ante faciem meam. (Ml 3, 1) Voici que, moi, j’enverrai mon messager et qu’il préparera le chemin devant ma face. Hic enim est de quo scriptum est ecce ego mitto angelum meum ante faciem tuam qui praeparabit viam tuam ante te (Mt 11, 10) C’est en effet de lui qu’il a été écrit : Voici que j’envoie mon messager devant ta face, lui qui préparera le chemin devant toi. Sicut scriptum est in Esaia propheta23 ecce mitto angelum meum ante faciem tuam qui praeparabit viam tuam (Mc 1, 2) Ainsi qu’il est écrit dans le prophète Isaïe : Voici que j’envoie mon messager devant ta face, lui qui préparera ton chemin. Cette oraison est présente dans le Sacramentaire gélasien ancien (du VIIIe siècle). Elle est attestée à la même époque dans le Sacramentaire gélasien grégorianisé conservé à Prague, dans les Missels de Bobbio et le Missel Gallican. Sa formulation est reprise employée comme collecte et reprise dans une préface du temps de l’Avent dans le missel gallican du VIIIe siècle. Quel texte cette pièce cite-t-elle précisément ? Là oùl’oraison utilise un pluriel alors que la Vulgate a recours au singulier, la tradition manuscrite de la traduction hiéronymienne de Mt 11, 10 et de Lc 1, 2 donne la même lecture que les manuscrits vieux-latins de ces deux évangiles : viam y est au singulier, la variante vias, celle de l’oraison, n’est pas attestée. Mais, en ce qui concerne Malachie, si nous pouvons nous appuyer sur des manuscrits transmettant le texte de la Vulgate, les fragments donnant des péricopes vieilles-latines de ce livre ne contiennent pas ce verset. Il nous faut chercher ailleurs des traces du texte vieux-latin. Le verset est cité intégralement sous la forme employée par notre oraison dans la traduction de Rufin des Homélies sur Josué24 d’Origène : Exploratores isti, qui mittuntur ‘ante faciem’ Iesu, possunt et angeli Dei putari, sicut scriptum est : ecce mitto angelum meum ante faciem tuam, qui praeparabit vias tuas. 23 L’évangéliste attribue faussement le verset à Isaïe : celui-ci est bien du livre de Malachie. 24 Origène, Homélies sur Josué 3.3. Ces chercheurs, qui sont envoyés ‘devant la face’ de Jésus, peuvent aussi être considérés comme des messagers de Dieu, ainsi qu’il est écrit : voici que j’envoie mon messager devant ta face, lui qui préparera tes chemins. Raban Maur, au IXe siècle, a recours à la même version dans son Commentaire sur Josué,25 qui cite mot pour mot les Homélies sur Josué : Exploratores isti qui mittuntur ante faciem Iesu possunt et angeli Dei putari, sicut scriptum est : ‘Ecce mitto angelum meum ante faciem tuam, qui praeparat vias tuas ante te’. Les autres attestations patristiques de praeparare vias sont des mentions ou citations de Lc 1, 76 : et tu puer propheta Altissimi vocaberis praeibis enim ante faciem Domini parare vias eius Et toi, petit enfant, tu seras appelé prophète du Très-Haut. En effet, tu prépareras ses chemins devant la face du Seigneur. Tous les autres pères (Tertullien, Ambroise, Gaudence de Brescia, Chromace d’Aquilée, Maxime de Turin, Augustin) qui citent le verset de Malachie ou des évangiles le citent avec viam. La formulation de l’oraison 2553 ne reflète donc en aucun cas une tradition textuelle solide. Soit elle est dépendante de la traduction d’Origène par Rufin, soit elle puise, mais indépendamment, aux mêmes sources que Rufin (un texte vieux-latin perdu ?), soit il s’agit d’une mention libre du rédacteur du Missel. Il n’est pas possible de trancher. 3.2 Joël 2, 11 Une autre prière de notre corpus comprend une mention biblique problématique. Il s’agit d’une oraison post pridie26 de la messe de l’Ascension attestée dans des livres hispaniques pré-grégoriens pour la messe de l’Ascension : 25 Raban Maur, Sur le livre de Josué 1.3. 26 L’équivalent hispanique des prières post mysterium ou post secreta des messes gallicanes. Quod scientes, Domine, ut nobis dies illa terribilis aliquantulum ex tua propitiatione mitior adveniat, haec munera offerimus. Parce que nous savons, Seigneur, que ce jour terrible adviendra un tant soit peu adouci par ta miséricorde, nous t’offrons ces présents. Elle fait mention d’un verset du livre de Joël (2, 11), qui est la seule attestation du syntagme dies terribilis dans l’ensemble des traductions révisées par Jérôme : magnus enim dies Domini et terribilis ualde S’agit-il d’un texte vieux-latin ou du texte de la Vulgate ? L’oraison est uniquement hispanique : elle est attestée dans six manuscrits de la liturgie wisigothique provenant de l’abbaye de Silos de Tolède. Parmi ces manuscrits, seul le Liber misticus est, selon la datation donnée par Anscari Mundó,27 antérieur à la conquête de Tolède en 1085. La question se pose de savoir si ce livre liturgique est tributaire de témoins bibliques vieux-latins. L’oraison qui nous concerne ne peut avoir comme source biblique que le livre de Joël, qui est le seul des livres hébreux révisé par Jérôme à attester le syntagme dies ter­ribilis. La grande majorité des témoins vieux-latins européens dont nous avons connaissance n’emploient pas terribilis dans ce verset. Or dies terribilis est aussi attesté dans un Commentaire sur Job anonyme d’origine arienne,28 dont Kenneth Steinhauser29 date la rédaction en-tre 384 et 387. La majorité des études sur la datation des révisions de Jérôme estime que celle des livres des Douze Prophètes a eu lieu entre 390 et 394.30 Si on suit cette hypothèse et qu’on admet dans le même temps celle de Kenneth Steinhauser, alors dies terribilis est aussi une variante vieille-latine. Mais nous ne pouvons pas en avoir la certitude absolue. Les lectures des litaniae minores31 du Liber Comicus de Tolède, un lectionnaire hispanique du milieu du XIIe siècle dont le texte du Nouveau Testament est vieux-latin,32 comprennent la péricope des deux premiers chapitres du livre de Joël : celles-ci ont comme texte 27 Mundó, « La datación de los códices liturgicos visigóticos toledanos », 1–25. 28 Anonymus in Iob commentarius, CSEL 96. 29 Steinhauser, « Job in Patristic Commentaries and Theological Works », 36. 30 Jérôme, Préfaces aux livres de la Bible, éd. par A. Canellis, 98. 31 Liber Comicus, sive lectionarius missae quo Toletana ecclesia ante annos mille et ducentos utebatur, Analecta Maredsolana 1. 32 Metzger, Early Versions, 304. pour Jl 2, 11 dies terribilis. Les rédacteurs du Liber Comicus se sont-ils appuyés sur des traductions différentes de la Bible pour l’Ancien et le Nouveau Testament ou bien ont-ils cité le livre de Joël dans sa version vieille-latine, à laquelle Jérôme n’aurait pas touché pour le syntagme qui nous intéresse ? Aucun élément n’est décisif. Un autre emploi liturgique de dies terribilis se trouve dans une préface pour les messes dominicales du Missel de Bobbio, qui cite Jl 2, 11 puis So 1, 15–16 (dies irae, dies tribulationis…) : O quam gravis et laboriosa es dies illa! O quam terribilis et hor­ribilis es dies illa, dies irae, dies tribulationis et angustiae, dies calamitatis et miseriae, dies tenebrarum et caliginis, dies nebulae et turbidinis, dies tubae et clangoris (Corpus praefationum, 1490) Ô quel jour pénible et misérable est ce jour ! Ô quel jour terrible et horrible est ce jour, jour de colère, jour de tourment et d’angoisse, jour de détresse et de misère, jour de ténèbres et de brouillard, jour d’obscurité et de tempête, jour de trompette et de grands cris Le texte de Sophonie cité est celui révisé par Jérôme. Cependant, la même préface, 1490, utilise une citation d’un verset qui n’est probable-ment pas issu de l’entreprise de traduction hiéronymienne : Ille venturus manus tenet ad iudicandum, ubi clavi confixae sunt, et ipsa signa permanet in aeternum, sicut scriptum est : ‘videbunt quem transfixerunt’, et : ‘plangent se cunctae tribus terrae’. Cette main qui vient retient pour juger, là où les clous sont fixés, et ces signes demeurent pour l’éternité, ainsi qu’il est écrit : ‘ils verront celui qu’ils ont transpercé’, et ‘toutes les tribus de la terre se lamentent’. Il s’agit d’un verset de l’Apocalypse dont la version ne provient pro-bablement pas des révisions opérées par Jérôme ou ses continuateurs. Mais aucun manuscrit, ni vieux-latin ni hiéronymien, ne transmet la leçon cunctae tribus. Le Missel de Bobbio dépend-il pour cette pièce d’une traduction perdue ? Quoi qu’il en soit, il semble que cette pièce ait recours, pour une même oraison, à plusieurs traditions de tradu­ctions bibliques, ce qui laisse ouverte la possibilité que dies terribilis, en Jl 2, 11, soit également une traduction vieille-latine minoritaire. Une seule et même pièce mélange-t-elle différentes traductions latines ? Rien ne permet de le dire avec certitude. ... ont choisi de traduire l‘hébreu – ..t.. 4. LES CAS OÙ LES VIEILLES LATINES DEVIENNENT LA TRADITION 4.1 Jonas 2, 1 Le corpus étudié comprend enfin deux cas d’usage persistant dans la tradition liturgique des Vieilles Latines, concomitamment ou non avec l’usage de la traduction hiéronymienne. Le premier concerne la mention de Jonas 2, 1 : et erat Iona in uentre piscis tribus diebus et tribus noctibus Et Jonas était dans le ventre du poisson pendant trois jours et trois nuits. Les Vieilles Latines, traduisant sur la Septante – qui emploie le terme (« la baleine »). dag) par cetus (. Dans les textes liturgiques latins faisant mention du séjour de Jonas dans le ventre de la baleine, le syntagme vieux-latin ventris ceti (deux occurrences dans notre corpus) et le syntagme hiéronymien ventris piscis (deux occurrences) sont tous deux attestés. Mais ventris ceti est bien plus employé que ventris piscis chez les auteurs tardo-antiques et médiévaux (plus d’une centaine d’occurrences pour le premier, une trentaine pour le second). Les deux emplois de ventris ceti dans le corpus liturgique sont les suivants : Exaudi me, Deus, te de totis praecordiis invocantem, qui exaudisti Ionam de ventre ceti orantem. (Corpus praefationum, 445, Pontifical du Liber Ordinum de Silos) Exauce-moi, ôDieu, moi qui t’invoque du fond de toutes mes entrailles, toi qui as exaucé Jonas quand il priait du fond du ventre de la baleine. Libera, Domine, anima famuli tui illi, sicut liberasti Israe­litas de monte Iebuei, et Ionam de ventre ceti, et Daniel de lacu leonum. (CP 1465, Fragment d’une messe gallicane inédite conservée par le manuscrit BN lat. 256)33 Libère, Seigneur, l’âme de ton serviteur, comme tu as libéré le peuple d’Israël du mont des Jébuséens, et Jonas du ventre de la baleine, et Daniel de la fosse des lions. 33 De Bruyne, « Une messe gallicane inédite Pro defuncto », 156–158. Ventris piscis est attesté au VIIIe ou au IXe siècle dans le bénédiction­naire de Freising, ainsi qu’au XIIIe siècle dans le Liber mozarabicus sacramentorum, qui pourrait reprendre un fond liturgique antérieur à la conquête arabe de 712 : Liberet vos de omnibus malis et peccatis et omni blasphemia, qui liberavit Ionam de ventre piscis, et liberavit Petrum de mari, et Paulum de vinculis. (Corpus benedictionum, 1468, Bénédictionnaire de Freising) Qu’il vous libère de tous les maux et péchés et de tout blasphème, celui qui a libéré Jonas du ventre du poisson et a libéré Pierre de la mer et Paul de ses chaînes. Secundum quam praefigurationem et Iona ventre piscis tribus diebus detentus egreditur (Liber mozarabicus sacramentorum) Selon cette préfiguration, Jonas aussi est sorti du ventre du poisson après avoir été détenu pendant trois jours. La persistance de ventris ceti, dans la liturgie et chez les auteurs mé­diévaux, s’explique par la traduction de la Vulgate de l’évangile de Matthieu, en 12, 40 : sicut enim fuit Ionas in uentre ceti tribus diebus et tribus nocti-bus sic erit Filius hominis in corde terrae tribus diebus et tribus noctibus De même, en effet, que Jonas fut trois jours et trois nuits dans le ventre de la baleine, ainsi le Fils de l’homme sera trois jours et trois nuits dans le cœur de la terre.  Celle-ci a en effet conservé le ceti vieux-latin. Le texte de l’évangile, sans doute davantage lu, cité et commenté que le livre de Jonas, a contribué à ancrer dans la culture biblique collective la traduction du verset évangélique citant le verset originel et non celle du verset originel. Deux autres citations bibliques dans des textes liturgiques té­moignent du même mécanisme dans lequel la réception d’un verset des livres des Douze Prophètes est contaminée ou supplantée par l’emploi néo-testamentaire de ce verset. 4.2 Zacharie 9, 9 La préface 235 du Corpus praefationum témoigne de la diffusion d’une traduction hiéronymienne qui n’est pas celle donnée dans la Vulgate mais celle effectuée par Jérôme sur la Septante dans un de ses com-mentaires bibliques et transmise par le texte des E´vangiles : Quapropter supplices te, Domine, deprecamur, ut benedicas hos ramos arborum, quos tui famuli in suis suscipientes manibus in occursum tui properare, teque benedicere et glorificare desiderant. Ecce Ierusalem sedens super asinam rex mansuetus advenisti. (CP, 235) C’est pourquoi, en te suppliant, Seigneur, nous te prions de bénir ces rameaux des arbres, que tes serviteurs, en les recevant dans leurs mains, désirent approcher de toi ; ils désirent te bénir et te glorifier. Voici, Jérusalem, que vient ton roi, clément, assis sur une ânesse. Elle est attestée pour la bénédiction des rameaux et des branches d’olivier dans le Sacramentaire léonien au VIe siècle et dans le pon­tifical romano-germanique du Xe siècle. Elle subsiste également dans le Sacramentaire aragonais d’Osca (du XIIe siècle) qui était utilisée pour la messe du dimanche des Rameaux ou pour la bénédiction des rameaux et des branches d’olivier. Dans une version plus courte de bénédiction des rameaux, cette prière est attestée à la fin du VIIIe siècle dans un sacramentaire gélasien grégorianisé originaire de Re-gensburg et passé à Prague, et au IXe siècle dans un sacramentaire originaire d’Essen et dans un fragment de sacramentaire originaire de Padoue et conservé à Salzbourg. Cette pièce cite Zacharie 9, 9, dont la traduction de la Vulgate est la suivante : exulta satis filia Sion iubila filia Hierusalem et saluator ipse pauper et ascendens super asinam Exulte grandement, fille de Sion, jubile, fille de Jérusalem, car ton sauveur vient lui-même, pauvre et assis sur une ânesse La traduction Vulgate de l’évangile de Matthieu (21, 5) porte quant à elle ce texte : dicite filiae Sion ecce rex tuus uenit tibi mansuetus et sedens super asinam Dites à la fille de Sion : voici que vient pour toi ton roi, doux et assis sur une ânesse La préface cite-t-elle le livre de Zacharie ou l’évangile de Matthieu ? La présence dans le texte liturgique du nom Hierusalem tend àfaire penser que le rédacteur avait le livre de Zacharie en tête même s’il connaissait le verset de Matthieu. Mansuetus et super asinam ne sont pas des marqueurs de leçons des Vieilles Latines pour le livre de Za­charie. Ils se trouvent en revanche dans le Commentaire sur Amos de Jérôme, où celui-ci donne une traduction sur la Septante de ce verset précis du livre de Zacharie : In Zacharia quoque legimus, quod Euangelii testimonio comproba­tur, et refertur ad praesentiam saluatoris : Gaude nimis, filia Sion, praedica, filia Hierusalem : ecce rex tuus uenit tibi iustus et saluator, ipse mansuetus, et ascendens super asinam et pullum asinae (3.6, l. 303 SL 76) Nous lisons aussi dans le livre de Zacharie ce qui est démontré par le témoignage de l’E´vangile et qui concerne la présence du Sauveur : Réjouis-toi grandement, fille de Sion ; proclame-le, fille de Jérusalem : voici que vient pour toi ton roi, le juste et le sauveur, lui qui est doux, monté sur une ânesse et le petit d’une ânesse. Dans son Traité sur les Psaumes, Hilaire de Poitiers cite nommément le livre de Zacharie en employant le verset de la traduction du livre de Matthieu dans la Vulgate. Certes, celle-ci diffère de la traduction du verset sur la Septante donné par Jérôme dans son commentaire sur Amos, mais le passage d’Hilaire prouve qu’il était possible de citer le verset de Matthieu en voulant citer Zacharie, et donc que la traduction vieille latine de Zacharie, proche de celle Vulgate de Matthieu, a inspiré des citations ultérieures de Zacharie car elle était ancrée dans les mémoires. 4.3 Habacuc 2, 4 Une bénédiction pour l’office des matines de la fête de saint Saturnin de l’Oracional Visigotico (des VII–VIIIe siècles) emploie également un verset d’un des livres des Douze Prophètes, celui d’Habacuc, en le citant dans la version dans laquelle les traductions des épîtres le citent : Et qui ex fide sua iustum vivere facit, ex pietate peccatores ab omni solvat contagione delicti. Amen. Et toi qui fais vivre le juste en raison de sa foi, par ta miséricorde, délivre les pécheurs de toute souillure du péché. Amen. (Corpus benedictionum, 2044) Les traductions hiéronymiennes auxquelles il est possible que la pré-face ait emprunté sont celles des deux livres néo-testamentaires qui citent ce verset d’Habacuc plutôt que le verset d'Habacuc lui-même : ecce qui incredulus est non erit recta anima eius in semet ipso ius­tus autem in fide sua vivet (Hab 2, 4) Celui qui est incrédule n’aura point l’âme droite en lui-même ; mais le juste vivra de sa foi. quoniam autem in lege nemo iustificatur apud Deum manifestum est quia iustus ex fide vivit (Gal 3, 11) Car il est clair que personne n’est justifié par la loi devant Dieu, puisque ‘Le juste vit de la foi’. iustus autem meus ex fide vivit quod si subtraxerit se non placebit animae meae (He 10, 38) Or mon juste vivra de la foi ; car s’il se retire, il ne sera pas agréable à mon âme. À l’exception d’Augustin, dans le Speculum (15), et de Jérôme, dans son Commentaire sur Habacuc (1, 2), aucun Père latin ne cite l’un de ces versets avec la formule in fide. Cyprien, dans le De mortalitate (3), emploie fide uiuere, mais les Pères de l’E´glise – y compris Augustin dans ses autres œuvres - sont presque unanimes pour citer la forme ex fide uiuere. Bien qu’il provienne du livre d’Habacuc, ce sont probablement plus souvent les formes vieilles-latines des citations du verset dans les épîtres néo-testamentaires, conservées dans la révision de la Vulgate, qu’ont en tête les rédacteurs liturgiques qui le citent, et parmi eux le rédacteur de l’oraison ici étudiée. Si on trouve quelques attestations de in fide uiuere au Moyen-Âge, aucune ne se trouve dans un docu­ment liturgique. La bénédiction de l’Oracional Visigotico est la seule pièce liturgique de notre corpus à citer ce verset, mais elle témoigne, comme les mentions et citations de Jonas 2, 1, d’une persistance de la tradition textuelle vieille-latine par le biais des traductions des livres néotestamentaires la citant. 5. CONCLUSION Si les citations et mentions bibliques tirées des Douze Prophètes ne sont pas un corpus suffisant pour étudier la complexité du rapport aux traductions bibliques des livres liturgiques latins, elles permettent néanmoins de mettre en évidence quelques pistes. Tout d’abord, la pauvreté de la transmission directe de la tradition vieille-latine de ces livres rend nécessaire la comparaison de plusieurs sources et la mise en relation d’hypothèses de datation de ces sources pour établir si un verset est vieux-latin ou non : les Douze Prophètes sont des livres pour lesquels on manque de manuscrits et l’établissement de l’histoire du texte en est fragilisé car nous sommes dépendants de témoins secondaires. Elles témoignent néanmoins de l’interférence fréquente entre texte vieux-latin et texte hiéronymien, pour peu que la révision de la traduction d’un livre du Nouveau Testament reprenne une traduction vieille-latine d’un livre du canon hébraïque. Elles donnent en même temps à lire des exemples de traductions vie-illes-latines ayant survécu au travail de Jérôme parce qu’elles étaient ancrées dans la culture biblique commune. Elles incitent enfin à une étude détaillée des sources bibliques des livres liturgiques, recueil par recueil, puisqu’elles mettent en évidence le fait que les rédacteurs d’un même livre liturgique, comme le Missel de Bobbio, ont puisé en même temps à la traduction hiéronymienne et à des traductions antérieures. BIBLIOGRAPHIE Adriaen, Marc, dir. Jérôme : Commentarii in prophetas minores ; In Ioelem. CCSL 76.2 l.290, 298, 342, 379, 425. Brepols : Turnhout, 1969–1970. Berger, Samuel. Histoire de la Vulgate pendant les premiers siècles du Moyen Âge. Berger-Levrault : Nancy, 1893. Cahill, Marc, dir. Expositio Euangelii secundum Marcum. CCSL 82. Turnhout : Brepols, 1997. Canellis, Aline, dir. Jérôme : Préfaces aux livres de la Bible. Paris : Le Cerf, 2017. De Bruyne, Donatien. « Une messe gallicane inédite Pro defuncto ». Revue Bénédictine 34 (1922) : 156–158. Dekkers, E., J. G. P. Borleffs, R. Willems, R. F. Refoulé, G. F. Diercks et A. Kroymann., dir. Tertullien : Adversus Marcionem. CCSL 1.4.15. Brepols : Turnhout, 1954. Dumas, Antoine, dir. Liber Sacramentorum Gellonesis. CCSL 159. Brepols : Turnhout, 1981. Frede, Hermann Josef, Herbert Stanjek et Uwe Fröhlich. « Reste einer Prophetenhandschrift ». Dans Vetus Latina-Fragmente zum Alten Testament. Herder : Freiburg, 1996. Gryson, Roger. Altlateinische Handschriften : Manuscrits vieux la-tins ; Répertoire descriptif, première partie : Mss 1–275. Freiburg : Herder, 1999. Heiming, Odilo, osb, dir. Liber sacramentorum Augustodunensis. CCSL 159B. Turnhout : Brepols, 1984. Marbach, Carl, dir. Carmina Scripturarum scilicet Antiphonas et Responsoria ex sacro Scripturae fonte in libros liturgicos Sanctae Ecclesiae Romanae derivata. Le Roux : Strasbourg, 1907. Metzger, Bruce. The Early Versions of the New Testament Their Ori­gin, Transmission and Limitations. Oxford : Clarendon Press, 1977. Moeller, Eugène, dir. Corpus benedictionum pontificalium. CCSL 162–162C. Turnhout : Brepols, 1971–1979. ——— , dir. Corpus praefationum. CCSL 161–161D. Turnhout : Bre-pols, 1980–1981. ———, Jean-Marie Clément et Wallant Coppieters’t, dir. Corpus orationum. CCSL 160–160M. Turnhout : Brepols, 1992–2004. Morin, Germain, dir. Liber Comicus, sive lectionarius missae quo Toletana ecclesia ante annos mille et ducentos utebatur. Ana-lecta Maredsolana 1. Maredsous : Monastère Saint-Benoît, 1893. Mundó, Anscari M. « La datación de los códices liturgicos visigóti-cos toledanos ». Hispania Sacra 18.1 (1965) : 1–25. Quentin, Henri. Mémoire sur l’établissement du texte de la Vulgate. Rome : Desclée, 1922. Rose, Els, dir. Missale Gothicum e codice Vaticano Reginensi latino 317 editum. CCSL 159D. Turnhout : Brepols, 1992–2004. Saint-Roch, Patrick, dir. Liber Sacramentorum Engolismensis. CCSL 159C. Brepols : Turnhout, 1987. Salmon, Pierre. « Le texte biblique des lectionnaires mérovin­giens ». Dans La Biblia nell’alto Medioevo. Spolète : Centro italiano di studi sull’alto Medioevo, 1962. Steinhauser, Kenneth. « Job in Patristic Commentaries and Theolo­gical Works ». Dans A companion to the Job in the Middle Ages, sous la direction de Franklin Harkins et Aaron Canty. Leiden : Brill, 2017. ——— . Anonymus in Iob commentarius, sous la diréction de Hil­degund Müller et Dorothéa Weber. CSEL 96. Wien : De Gruyter, 2006. Westra, Liuwe H. The Apostle’s Creed : Origin, History, and Some Early Commentaries. Turnhout : Brepols 2002. RÉSUMÉ La diffusion des révisions hiéronymiennes des Bibles latines s’est faite notamment à travers les textes liturgiques latins. La présente communication s’intéresse à l’utilisation de l’œuvre du moine de Bethléem dans les prières des livres liturgiques (missels, sacramen­taires et bénédictions pontificales). Elle est centrée sur les citations des livres dits “des petits prophètes”. Si l’œuvre de Jérôme s’impose progressivement dans la vie liturgique occidentale à partir de la deuxième moitié du VIIe et du VIIIe siècle, plusieurs missels et sa­cramentaires comportent aussi bien des citations de la révision de Jérôme que de versions des Vieilles latines. C’est notamment le cas de sacramentaires irlandais de la fin du VIIe siècle et du missel gal-lican dit Missale Gothicum, datant des années 700. À cette époque, l’œuvre de Jérôme n’est donc pas encore utilisée par la liturgie comme un ensemble unifié. La citation et l’allusion aux anciennes traductions latines persiste même dans la péninsule ibérique et la liturgie mozarabe jusqu’au XIIe siècle. Une étude détaillée des allusions au livre II de Jonas montre que des morceaux de versets issus des Vieilles latines se sont maintenus pendant tout le Moyen-Âge dans des livres ayant recours àla Vulgate, peut-être parce qu’ils étaient passés dans la culture biblique collective. Cet article souligne donc la nécessité d’une analyse détaillée, livre liturgique par livre liturgique, pour étudier les citations de la Bible dans la liturgie latine, car une même pièce liturgique peut emprunter à plusieurs traductions différentes. MoTS-CLÉS:Bibles latines, Douze Prophètes, livres liturgiques, Vieilles Latines, Jérôme de Stridon THE RECEPTION OF JEROME’S REVISION OF BIBLICAL TRANSLATIONS IN THE LATIN LITURGICAL BOOKS (5TH– 12TH CENTURY): THE CASE OF THE TWELVE PROPHETS ABSTRACT The paper focuses on how the Latin liturgical prayers dealt with the different Latin biblical translations, Old Latin and Jerome’s transla­tions and revisions, from the 5th up to the 12th century. Many studies on the spreading of Jerome’s translations have focused on Latin Bible manuscripts or fragments, the Latin Fathers’ quotations of the Bible, and the Latin lectionaries’ quotations of the Bible. The present study chooses to survey the liturgical books of prayers, specifically the Twelve Prophets’ translations; while the corpus is not a big one, it offers note­worthy results. First presented are quotations or mentions of a Latin verse where translation is identical in the Vetus Latina and the Vulgate. Then cases where Vulgate is used and cases where Old Latin is used are analyzed. It is not always easy to identify the translation used in the liturgical book, and one can sometimes only compare different assumptions on biblical-inspired liturgical texts to know whether its source is Old Latin or Vulgate. Moreover, translations of an Old Testament verse and a New Testament one are sometimes interfering. This happens mainly when the New Testament verse, while quoting the Old Testament one, retains the Old Latin translation, even in the Vulgate version. Samples of verses whose Old Latin survived Jerome’s translation are provided. The paper shows how one liturgical book can draw on both Old Latin and Vulgate, even within the same item, and stresses the need for a detailed analysis, liturgical book by liturgical book, to study the quotations from the Bible in the Latin liturgy. KEYWoRdS:Latin Bibles, Twelve Prophets, liturgical books, Vetus Latina, Jerome of Stridon ŠIRJENJE HIERONIMOVE REVIZIJE PREVODA SVETEGA PISMA V LATINSKIH LITURGICNIH KNJIGAH (5.-12. STOLETJE) NA PRIMERU MALIH PREROKOV IZVLECEK Širjenje Hieronimovega prevoda je pri latinski Bibliji potekalo zlasti prek latinskih liturgicnih besedil. Razprava se posveca rabi besedil betlehemskega meniha pri molitvah v liturgicnih knjigah (misali, zakramentariji in papeški blagoslovi). Osredotoca se na odlomke iz takoimenovanih »malih prerokov«. Ceprav se je Hieronimovo delo v zahodni liturgiji od druge polovice 7. in 8. stoletja dalje vse bolj uvel­javljalo, je vec misalov in zakramentarijev še vedno vkljucevalo tako odlomke iz Hieronimove revizije kot starejše latinske razlicice (Vetus Latina). To še posebej velja za irske zakramentarije s konca 7. stoletja in za galikanski misal, znan kot Missale Gothicum, iz 8. stoletja. Hi-eronimovega dela kot celote v liturgiji takrat torej še niso uporabljali. Citate in aluzije na stare latinske prevode je bilo najti celo na Iberskem polotoku in v mozarabski liturgiji do 12. stoletja. Podrobna analiza aluzij na drugo poglavje preroka Jona pokaže, kako so se deli verzov starejših latinskih prevodov ohranili skozi srednji vek tudi v knjigah, kjer je bila sicer v rabi Vulgata, morda zato, ker so prešli v kolektivno svetopisemsko kulturo. Clanek zato poudarja potrebo po podrobni analizi vseh liturgicnih knjig ter po analizi citatov iz Svetega pisma v latinski liturgiji, saj je pri enem liturgicnem besedilu mogoce najti vec razlicnih prevodov. KLJUCNE BESEdE: latinske Biblije, dvanajst prerokov, liturgicne knjige, Vetus Latina, Hieronim iz Stridona Saint Jerome (Raphaël Sadeler I, after Maerten de Vos, 1570 1593) doI:https://doi.org/10.4312/clotho.3.2.191-221 « Nos…inter nos eruditionis causa disserimus » : Désaccords et conciliations dans les échangesépistolairesaugustino­hieronymiens Mohamed-Arbi Nsiri* L’échange épistolaire, plus qu’un mode de communication, devint un véritable genre littéraire quand des auteurs aussi éloquents et fertiles qu’Augustin et Jérôme s’en emparent.1 Par la variété des sujets qu’elle permet d’aborder elle échappe aux règles d’autres genres d’oeuvres, et parce qu’elle est généralement écrite avec sincérité et spontanéité, elle révèle le caractère des personnes qu’elle met en relation. Pourtant, ses avantages sont limités par la définition même d’une epistula : les discussions des correspondants ne sont qu’indirectes, et, par-là, sujettes à toutes sortes de difficultés.2 * Université Paris-Nanterre ; nsiri_2010@hotmail.com. 1 Nos…inter nos eruditionis causa disserimus : Augustinus, Ep. 202A.1.3 (CSEL 57, 303). 2 Cain, The Letters of Jerome : Asceticism, Biblical Exegesis, and the Construction of Christian Authority, 1–12 ; Canellis, « La lettre selon saint Jérôme, 311–332 ; « Les premières lettres familières de saint Jérôme », 189–208 ; Lançon, « Maladie et médecine dans la correspondance de Jérôme », 355–366; Mohrmann, « Saint Augustin écrivain », 123–146 ; Vessey, « From cursus to ductus », 47–103 ; Wan-kenne, « La langue de la correspondance de Saint Augustin », 102–153. Jérôme et Augustin ne s’étant jamais rencontrés, leurs relations ont eu pour principal support cette méthode épistolaire qui en con-ditionna les étapes marquantes. Leurs lettres permettent de mieux saisir leur personnalité, leurs opinions sur les questions dogmatiques controversées de leur époque. Leurs idées se confrontent de telle manière que les principaux traits de caractère des deux hommes apparaissent au fur et à mesure qu’on suit leurs débats.3 De plus, leurs échanges apportent des informations précieuses sur l’histoire de l’E´glise de la fin du IVème et du début du Vème siècle. Leur correspondance montre également leurs préoccupations, signale la publication et la diffusion de leurs ouvrages, et men-tionne le nom de plusieurs personnes qu’ils connaissent tous les deux. De cette façon, leurs relations ne reposèrent pas seulement sur les lettres échangées entre eux, mais aussi sur celles de leurs amis communs, et sur les témoignages et messages transmis oralement par les porteurs des messages . Un dernier moyen de communiquer leurs idées fut d’échanger leurs divers travaux. D’une part, ils leur offraient la possibilité de poursuivre les entretiens commencés dans leur correspondance, en y développant davantage leurs arguments ; d’autre part, il y apparaît, plus nettement que ne l’indique parfois le ton de leurs lettres, leur estime mutuelle, et quelques fois on peut y découvrir quelles opinions ils adoptèrent à la suite de leurs longues controverses. Le ton employé dans ces échanges varie de la polémique au panégyrique suivant les différentes phases qu’ont connues les rela­tions des deux protagonistes. Celles-ci furent parfois interrompues pendant des périodes plus ou moins longues : de quelque mois àplusieurs années ; mais la perte de certaines pièces de la correspon-dance impose la prudence pour juger de sa continuité. Pourtant, malgré leurs différents initiaux, les deux hommes se sont écrits pendant un quart de siècle. Asslaber, Die persönlichen Beziehungen der drei grossen Kirchenlehrer ; De Bruyne, « La correspondance échangée entre Augustin et Jérôme », 233–248 ; De Plinval, « La technique du dialogue chez saint Augustin et saint Jérôme », 308–311 ; De Vathaire, « Les relations de saint Augustin et de saint Jérôme », 484–499 ; Fry, « La parole contre la langue », 909–920 ; Haitjema, « De briefwisseling tussen Augustinus en Hieronymus », 159–198 ; Hellenga, « The Exchange of Letters Between Saint Augustine and Saint Jérôme », 177– 182 ; Ratti, Le premier saint Augustin, 245–263 ; Rebenich, « Amicus incertus in re certa », 419–435 ; Nsiri, « Between Jerome and Augustine of Hippo », 98–113 ; Tourscher, « The Correspondence of St. Augustine and St. Jerome », 476–492. Leurs relations débutèrent mal. Depuis longtemps Augustin sou-haitait entrer en correspondance avec le moine de Bethléem. Dès 394 ou 395,4 encore simple prêtre, il lui avait écrit pour lui demander, au nom de l’épiscopat africain et au sien, d’activer son travail de tra­duction des exégètes grecs, en particulier Origène.5 Augustin adressa ensuite à Jérôme plusieurs questions, qui concernaient certains de ses travaux. Ses critiques furent ressenties comme des attaques, et placèrent ainsi le Stridonien sur la défensive. En désaccord au sujet de l’opportunité de traduire l’Ancien Te­stament à partir du texte hébreu, ils étaient aussi opposés à propos de l’interprétation à donner d’une controverse entre les apôtres Pierre et Paul, rapportée par ce dernier dans son Épître aux Gala-tes. Leurs discussions n’aboutirent à aucun accord visible dans leur correspondance ; bien au contraire, d’après leurs lettres, ils semblent être restés chacun sur ses positions. Un autre problème, posé par le pélagianisme, fut également abordé par tous deux, mais forma en revanche une sorte de terrain d’entente. En effet, les courriers échangés àce propos présentent les réactions négatives des deux correspondants à l’égard des hérétiques. Toutes ces discussions révèlent des divergences de point de vue d’Augustin et de Jérôme ; le ton des lettres montre qu’il s’agit tantôt de débats vifs, tantôt de dialogues pacifiques. Deux aspects ressortent des courriers envoyés par Jérôme : le désir de défendre ses opinions personnelles, au risque d’aboutir àune polémique, côtoie la volonté de soutenir des valeurs communes avec Augustin.6 4 Augustinus, Ep. 28 (CSEL 34, 1, 103–113). Cette première lettre d’Augustin à Jérôme doit être datée de 394 ou plutôt du début de l’année 395. Le porteur désigné de cette lettre, Profuturus, fut sur ces entrefaites ordonné évêque de Cirta, très peu de temps après Augustin, puis ne tarda pas à mourir, de sorte que la lettre d’Augustin ne fut point alors transmise à son destinataire. Cependant ce dernier, ayant été salué incidemment par Augustin, sans doute, à l’occasion d’une lettre envoyée par un de ses amis, lui écrivit une missive assez courte, actu­ellement perdue, où il le mettait au courant de sa pensée sur Origène, à savoir qu’il fallait utiliser ce qu’il présentait de bon et de conforme à la foi, et attaquer ses erreur. 5 Fürst, Von Origenes und Hieronymus zu Augustinus, 344–358 ; La Bonnardière, « Jérôme «informateur» d’Augustin au sujet d’Origène », 42–54. 6 Fry, Lettres croisées de Jérôme et Augustin, XV–LCV ; Fürst, Augustinus-Hiero­nymus, 7–93 ; White, Correspondance (394–419), 1–15. 1. LA NÉCESSITÉ DE LA « VULGATE » La traduction de la Bible7 par Jérôme a suscité chez l’évêque d’Hippone des réactions diverses : l’admiration ; quand il s’appuyait sur des textes grecs, le désaccord, quand il fait recours à l’original hébreu. En effet, la question qui opposait Jérôme et Augustin dans leurs discussions épistolaires était de savoir si la réalisation d’une traduction de l’An­cien Testament sur l’hébreu était nécessaire ou dangereuse. Revenir àl’hebraica veritas signifiait pour Augustin la ruine de la divina dispen­satio de la Septante, alors que rien ne pouvait, semblait-il, changer l’avis de Jérôme qui la considère comme une traduction éminemment contingente, liée au contexte historique de sa production.8 Une telle conception explique la méfiance du Stridonien envers la Septante. La force de cette approche hieronymienne procède d’un idéal cicéroni­en.9 Il s’agit de rendre au texte son exactitude et sa clarté originale en dépassant l’imperfection de la traduction grecque.10 Fidèle à la tradition africaine fondée sur une Vetus Latina, Augustin pensa qu’il suffisait d’une édition révisée des Septante, en distinguant, par des signes appropriés, comme dans les exemplaires grecs, les passages qu’il fallait omettre ou ajouter. Jérôme avait fait cela pour Job et l’on s’en trouvait bien. Ainsi restait sauvegardées l’integritas et l’auctoritas de Septante auxquelles il ne fallait pas toucher.11 7 Il faut noter que ce n’est pas Jérôme qui a donné à son œuvre le nom Vulgate, au moment où il traduisait les E´critures en latin de l’hébreu et du grec. Il fallut des siècles pour que, à cause de sa grande diffusion au cours du Moyen Âge, la traduction hiéronymienne reçoive, probablement au XVIème siècle, le nom de Vulgate, nom qu’on réservait auparavant à la Septante ou à la version latine de celle-ci. 8 Hieronymus, Praef. in Isaiam (PL 28, 772) : Vnde conicio noluisse tunc temporis Septuaginta interpretes fidei suae sacramenta perspicue ethnis prodere, ne sanc­tum canibus, et margaritas porcis darent. Quae cum hanc editionem legeritis, ab illis animaduertetis abscondita. 9 Hieronymus, Ep. 57.5 (CSEL 54, 504–505) : Ego enim non solum fateor, sed libera uoce profiteor me in interpretatione Graecorum absque scripturis sanctis, ubi et uerborum ordo mysterium est, non uerbum e uerbo sed sensum exprimere de sensu. Habeoque huius rei magistrum Tullium, qui Protagoram Platonis et Oeconomicon Xenophontis et Aeschinis ac Demosthenis duas contra se orationes pulcherrimas transtulit. Quanta in illis praetermiserit, quanta addiderit, quanta mutauerit, ut proprietates alterius linguae suis proprietatibus explicaret, non est huius temporis dicere. 10 Cain, Jerome’s Commentaries on the Pauline Epistles, 75–101. 11 Bogaert, « La Bible d’Augustin », 33–47 ; « Les bibles d’Augustin », 513–531 ; Fürst, « Veritas Latina », 105–126. Critères augustiniens Références dans la correspondance augustino-hieronymienne L’ancienneté Aug.,Ep. 28.2 (Hier., Ep. 56.2) La tradition Aug.,Ep. 71.4 (Hier., Ep. 104.4) L’inspiration divine Aug.,Ep. 82.35 (Hier., Ep. 116.35) Les critères de l’auctoritas de la Septuaginta chez Augustin E´tant donné les trop nombreux défauts des manuscrits latins de la Bible, Augustin et Jérôme s’accordaient sur la nécessité de produire un seul texte présentant toutes les qualités requises pour faire l’una­nimité des chrétiens et servir de base à toute étude approfondie de l’E´criture.12 Néanmoins, leurs opinions s’éloignèrent sur la nature du travail : une révision de la version grecque la plus utilisée, ou une traduction de l’original hébraïque.13 Jérôme traducteur des E´vangiles se réclama du patronage de Damase, évêque de Rome.14 En revanche, nous ne savons pas si ce dernier est àl’initiative du travail de traduction depuis le texte hébreu. Tout en faisant l’éloge de la traduction des E´vangiles en latin,15 Augustin reconnaît lui-même la nécessité d’agir d’une façon similaire pour la version des LXX de l’Ancien Testament.16 Les divergences 12 Augustinus, Ep. 7.6 (CSEL 34, 2, 253–254) : Vnde, si quisquam ueteri falsitati con-tentiosus fauet, prolatis collatisque codicibus uel docetur facillime uel refellitur. Et si quaedam rarissima merito mouent, quis tam durus est qui labori tam utili non facile ignoscat, cui uicem laudis referre non sufficit ? 13 Bouton-Touboulic, « La traduction latine de la Bible selon Saint Jerôme et Saint Augustin », 185–229 ; Jourassard, « Réflexions sur la position de saint Augustin », 93–99. 14 Voir sur ce sujet les renseignements fournis par Jérôme lui-même dans la lettre--préface Novum opus, en tête de sa version des E´vangiles (PL 29, 525–530). Il ne faut pas cependant perdre de vue, comme on le fait parfois, qu’il ne s’agissait nullement d’une entreprise officielle. Le travail se faisait sous l’entière respons­abilité de Jérôme. Il n’y eut ni promulgation ni approbation authentique. 15 Augustinus, Ep. 7.6 (CSEL 34, 2, 253–254) : Proinde non paruas deo gratias agimus de opere tuo, quo euangelium ex Graeco interpretatus es, quia et paene in omnibus nulla offensio est, cum scripturam Graecam contulerimus. 16 Augustinus, Ep. 7.6 (CSEL 34, 2, 254) : Ac per hoc plurium profueris, si eam scripturam Graecam quam septuaginta operati sunt Latinae ueritati reddideris, des traductions latines étaient dues aux corrections, additions et omissions faites par des copistes présomptueux ou négligents. En outre, non seulement les manuscrits comportaient des variantes, mais encore ils se rattachaient à des versions indépendantes, parmi lesquelles l’évêque d’Hippone recommandait l’Itala, pour la clarté de son style, et qui était aussi plus utilisée à Rome. Mais pour ces traductions latines Augustin conseillait de partir des versions grecques, en marquant toutefois sa préférence pour l’autorité de la Septante.17 Sur ce point, l’attitude de l’évêque d’Hippone semble opposée à celle de Jérôme.18 Contrairement à son destinataire, Augustin ne possédait aucune notion d’hébreu, et ne tenta même jamais d’en acquérir les bases. Quant au grec, Augustin, qui ne maîtrisait guère cette langue au sortir de l’école,19 fit ensuite des progrès, même s’il ne fut jamais bilingue comme Tertullien ou Ambroise.20 On remarquera pourtant que si l’évêque d’Hippone ignore l’hébreu, il n’en est pas capable de juger quae in diuresis codicibus ita uaria est, ut tolerari uix possit, et ita suspecta, ne in Graeco aliud inueniatur, ut inde aliquid proferre aut probare dubitetur. 17 Augustinus, De Doctrina Christiana 2.15.22 (BA 11/2, 1997, 168) : In ipsis autem interpretationibus, Itala ceteris praeferatur ; nam est uerborum tenacior cum perspicuitate sententiae. Et latinis quibuslibet emendandis graeci adhibeantur, in quibus Septuaginta interpretum, quod ad uetus testamentum attinet, excellit auctoritas ; qui iam per omnes peritiores ecclesias tanta praesentia sancti Spiri­tus interpretati esse dicuntur, ut os unum tot hominum fuerit. 18 Augustinus, De Civitate Dei 18.43 (BA 36, 1960, 635) : Quamuis non defuerit tem­poribus nostris presbyter Hieronymus, homo doctissimus et omnium trium lin­guarum peritus, qui non ex Graeco, sed ex Hebraeo in Latinum eloquium easdem scripturas conuerterit. Sed eius tam litteratum laborem quamuis Iudaei fateantur esse ueracem, septuaginta uero interpretes in multis errasse contendant : tamen ecclesiae Christi tot hominum auctoritati ab Eleazaro tunc pontifice ad hoc tantum opus electorum neminem iudicant praeferendum. 19 Augustinus, Confessiones 1.14.23 (BA 13, 1962, 312–314) : Cur ergo graecam etiam grammaticam oderam talia cantantem ? Nam et Homerus peritus texere tales fabellas et dulcissime uanus est. Mihi tamen amarus erat puero. Credo etiam graecis pueris Vergilius ita sit, cum eum sic discere coguntur ut ego illum. Vide­licet difficultas, difficultas omnino ediscendae linguae peregrinae, quasi felle aspergebat omnes suauitates graecas fabulosarum narrationum. Nulla enim uerba illa noueram et saeuis terroribus ac poenis, ut nossem, instabatur mihi uehementer. 20 Dal Chiele, « Agostino traduttore dal greco », 200–223 ; Jerphagnon, « Saint Augustin et la diffusion de la pensée grecque », 1–9 ; Pépin, « Attitudes d’Au­gustin devant le vocabulaire », 277–307 ; Salaville, « La connaissance du grec », 387–393. de la référence faite au punique par son correspondant,21 même si ses connaissances en la matière reste limitées.22 Vir trilinguis, Jérôme s’appuie dans sa démarche de traducteur sur les exigences de la science philologique ; il usa donc de signes typographiques, obèles et astérisques, pour noter les additions et les omissions de la Septante.23 Cette méthode répondit tout à fait à l’attente d’Augustin, qui le félicita pour sa version de Job, réalisée « avec un soin admirable qu’en certains endroits nous voyons, à chaque mot, des étoiles signifiant que ce même mot est dans l’hébreu, mais pas dans le grec ».24 L’évêque d’Hippone demanda même à son correspondant de lui faire parvenir une copie de cette traduction de l’Ancien Testament ; malheureusement, au dire de Jérôme, celle-ci fut volée ou perdue.25 En agissant ainsi, Jérôme se plaçait à la suite d’Origène dont il s’était servi de l’édition synoptique pour établir ses traductions.26 Les 21 Jérôme s’attache à examiner de façon assez directe ce que peuvent être les rapports entre l’hébreu et le punique. Cette dernière langue était en effet encore pratiquée àl’époque d’Augustin qui avait nommé en 411 Antoninus àla tête du jeune diocèse de Fussala en raison de sa parfaite connaissance du punique (Aug., Ep. 20.3 ; BA 46B, 95–96). En outre, dans ses Quaestiones Hebraicae in Ge-nesim Jérôme indique également que le terme hébreu maria avait pu signifier les « eaux chaudes », du fait que c’était là la signification qu’il avait aussi en langue punique. Il explique par ailleurs cette proximité (vicinia) linguistique par une origine commune. (Hier., Quaestiones Hebraicae in Genesim 36.24 ; CCSL 72, 44). 22 Bordreuil, « Un nouveau mot punique », 1279–1284 ; Lepelley, « Témoignages de saint Augustin », 117–141 ; « L’usage de la langue punique », 531–541. 23 Allgeier, « Die Hexapla in den Psalmenübersetzungen », 450–463. 24 Augustinus, Ep. 71.3 (CSEL 34, 2, 250–251 ; traduction Mohamed-Arbi Nsiri) : tam mirabili diligentia, ut quibusdam in locis ad uerba singula stellas significantes uideamus eadam uerba esse in Hebraeo, in Graeco autem non esse. 25 Hieronymus, Ep. 134.2, 3 (CSEL 56, 263) : pleraque enim prioris laboris ob fraudem cuiusdam amisimus. 26 Hieronymus, Ep. 112.19 (CSEL 55, 389) : Quod autem in aliis quaeris epistolis, cur prior mea in libris canonicis interpretatio asteriscos habeat et uirgulas praenota­tas, et postea aliam translationem absque his signis ediderim, pace tua dixerim, uideris mihi non intelligere quod quaesisti. Illa enim interpretatio septuaginta interpretum est ; et ubicumque uirgulae id est obeli sunt, significatur quod septu­aginta plus dixerint quam habetur in Hebraeo, ubi autem asterisci id est stellae praelucentes, ex Theodotionis editione ab Origene additum est ; et ibi Graeca tran­stulimus, hic de ipso Hebraico quod intelligebamus expressimus, sensuum potius ueritatem quam uerborum interdum ordinem conseruantes. Et miror quomodo septuaginta interpretum libros legas non puros, ut ab eis editi sunt, sed ab Origene emendatos siue corruptos per obelos et asteriscos, et christiani hominis interpre­tatiunculam non sequaris, praesertim cum ea quae addita sunt ex hominis Iudaei Hexaples regroupaient le texte hébraïque, le même texte en caractères grecs et quatre traductions (des Septante, d’Aquila, de Symmaque, et de Théodotion). Or, Origène avait lui-même corrigé la Septante au moyen d’obèles et d’astérisques, sans toutefois donner une traduction de l’hébreu puisqu’il n’en admettait pas la supériorité. Cependant, n’étant pas totalement satisfait de son travail, Jérôme décida lui-même de revenir directement à cette source hébraïque.27 En prenant pour base de révision le texte hébreu, il met en concurrence sa traduction et celle des Septante.28 Cela émeut Augustin, qui y voit une attaque portée contre la valeur de l’ancienne version grecque.29 Tout en reconnaissant les défectuosités des versions latines faites sur le grec, Augustin s’étonne « qu’on trouve encore dans les origi­naux hébreux quelque chose qui aurait échappé àtant de traducteurs si experts en cette langue »,30 et ajoute ce que Jérôme qualifie de novo uteris syllogismo,31 pour le détourner de son entreprise. Par ce geste, Augustin s’inscrit pleinement dans la tradition africaine qui fait de l’écart qui existe entre le texte hébreu et la version grecque de la Bible un don de l’Esprit, dont l’auctoritas est illimitée. Augu­stin pense à ce propos, après avoir fait mine de rejeter la méthode hiéronymienne d’un revers de main, que soit les textes sont clairs et atque blasphemi post passionem Christi editione transtulerit. Vis amator esse uerus septuaginta interpretum, non legas ea quae sub asteriscis sunt, immo rade de uoluminibus, ut ueterum te fautorem probes ! / Hieronymus, Apologia aduer­sus libros Rufini 2.25 (SC 303, 1983, 172) : Quod ut audeam, Origenis me studium prouocauit, qui editioni antiquae translationem Theodotionis miscuit, asterisco et obelo, id est stella et ueru, opus omne distinguens, dum aut illucescere facit quae minus ante fuerant, aut superflua quaeque iugulat et confodit. 27 Bardy, « Saint Jérôme et ses maîtres hébreux », 145–164 ; Barr, « St. Jerome’s appreciation of Hebrew », 281–302 ; Bell, « Jerome’s Role », 230–233 ; Biasi, « Jérôme traducteur et auctor », 161–171 ; Cameron, « The Rabbinic Vulgate ? » 117–130 ; Jay, « La datation des premières traductions », 208–212 ; Lagrange, « La révision de la Vulgate », 254–257. 28 Hieronymus, Praef. In Job (PL 28, 1082) : Quod si apud Graecos, post Septua­ginta editionem, iam Christi euangelio coruscante, Iudaeus Aquila, Symmachius ac Theodotion, iudaizantes haeretici sunt recepti, qui multa mysteria Saluatoris subdola interpretatione celarunt. 29 Augustinus, Ep. 28.2 (CSEL 34, 1, 105) : De uertendis autem in linguam Latinam sanctis litteris canonicis laborare te nollem nisi eo modo quo Iob interpretatus es. 30 Augustinus, Ep. 28.2 (CSEL 34, 1, 105 ; traduction Mohamed-Arbi Nsiri) : Satis autem nequeo mirari, si alquid adhuc in Hebraeis exemplaribus inuenitur, quod tot interpretes illius linguae peritissimos fugerit. 31 Hieronymus, Ep. 112.20.1 (CSEL 55, 389) : Porro quod dicis non debuisse me interpretari post ueteres, et nouo uteris syllogismo. les traducteurs n’ont pu se tromper, soit ils sont obscurs et Jérôme peut lui aussi faire erreur. Ce dernier lui répond en lui appliquant son propre raisonnement : « s’ils sont obscurs, comment as-tu osé interpréter après eux ce qu’ils n’ont pu expliquer ? »32 puis il cite un nombre important d’interprètes célèbres ayant travaillé sur l’ensem­ble des psaumes dont Origène, Didyme d’Alexandrie, Apollinaire de Laodicée, Eusèbe de Césarée, Théodore d’Héraclée, Astérius de Scythopolis, du côté des grecs ; et Hilaire de Poitiers et Eusèbe de Verceil du côté des Latins.33 Aux sources de Jérôme, Augustin oppose deux Occidentaux : Cyprien de Carthage et Ambroise de Milan, et se réfère à l’auteur même du texte discuté : Paul de Tarse.34 Il met ensuite en cause la compétence de Jérôme àconserver la même fidélité au texte original depuis l’hébreu. En fait, les arguments d’Augustin ont peu de poids parce qu’il reste dans le domaine des généralités et ne cite aucun exemple 32 Hieronymus, Ep. 112.20.2 (CSEL 55, 390 ; traduction Mohamed-Arbi Nsiri) : Si obscura, quomodo tu post eos ausus es disserere, quod illi explanare non potue-runt? 33 Hieronymus, Ep. 112.20.2 (CSEL 55, 390) : Si manifesta, superfluum est te uoluisse disserere, quod illos latere non potuit, maxime in explanatione psalmorum, quos apud Graecos interpretati sunt multis uoluminibus primus Origenes, secundus Eusebius Caesariensis, tertius Theodorus Heracleotes, quartus Asterius Scytho­polita, quintus Apollinaris Laodicenus, sextus Didymus Alexandrinus. Feruntur et diuersorum in paucos psalmos opuscula, sed nunc de integro psalmorum cor-pore dicimus. Apud Latinos autem Hilarius Pictauiensis et Eusebius Vercellensis episcopi. 34 Augustinus, Ep. 82.23–24 (CSEL 34, 2, 375–376) : Sed cum sint ferme sex uel septem, horum quatuor auctoritatem tu quoque infringis. Nam Laodicenum, cuius nomen taces, de ecclesia dicis nuper egressum, Alexandrum autem uete-rem haereticum ; Origenem uero ac Didymum reprehensos abs te lego in recen­tioribus opusculis tuis, et non mediocriter nec de mediocribus quaestionibus, quamuis Origenem mirabiliter ante laudaueris. Cum his ergo errare, puto quia nec te ipse patieris, quamuis hoc perinde dicatur, ac si in hac sententia non errauerint. Nam quis est qui se uelit cum quolibet errare? Tres igitur restant, Eusebius Emisenus, Theodorus Heracleotes etquem paulo post commemoras Ioannes, qui dudum in pontificali gradu Constantinopolitanam rexit eccle­siam. Porro si quaeras uel recolas, quid hinc senserit noster Ambrosius, quid noster itidem Cyprianus, inuenies fortasse nec nobis defuisse, quos in eo quod asserimus sequeremur. Quamquam, sicut paulo ante dixi, tantummodo scrip-turis canonicis hanc ingenuam debeam seruitutem, qua eas solas ita sequar, ut conscriptores earum nihil in eis omnino errasse, nihil fallaciter posuisse non dubitem. précis pour appuyer ses propos.35 Cependant, ce n’est pas l’aspect technique du problème qui heurte l’évêque d’Hippone mais c’est le souci pastoral qui semble, pour lui, le plus important. Par conséquent, ce qui serait primordial dans cette perspective augustinienne, ce serait l’encadrement des fidèles à travers un texte stable, exempt de changement. Or, la traduction effectuée par Jérôme d’après l’hébreu engendre des modifications notables et, de surcroît, les prédicateurs n’ont pas les compétences nécessaires pour consulter l’hébreu en cas de contestation.36 Un exemple concret vient appuyer les craintes d’Augustin ; il s’agit de la mésaventure survenue à l’évêque d’Oea, très probablement Ma-rianus, qui utilisa un passage de la version hiéronymienne, traduite de l’hébreu, du livre de Jonas. À la lecture publique de la récente version, un passage insolite et étrange aux oreilles ne passa pas inaperçu au peuple d’Oea qui en fut scandalisé. Il s’ensuit un tumulte tel que, pour le calmer, il fallut en appeler àl’autorité des juifs de la cité.37 Augustin souligne à propos de cet incident les inconvénients de changer un vocabulaire en usage depuis longtemps. En effet, c’est, semble-t-il, parce que Jérôme avait appelé lierre ce qui était habituellement traduit par citrouille que cette agitation se produisit.38 35 Augustinus, Ep. 71.3 (CSEL 34, 2, 251) : Aliquid inde exempli gratia ponere uolui, sed mihi ad horam codex defuit qui ex Hebraeo est. 36 Augustinus, Ep. 71.4 (CSEL 34, 2, 252) : Quisquis autem in eo quod ex Hebraeo translatum est aliquo insolito permotus fuerit et falsi crimen intenderit, uix aut numquam ad Hebraea testimonia peruenietur, quibus defendatur obiectum. Quod si etiam peruentum fuerit, tot Latinas et Graecas auctoritates damnari quis ferat ? Huc accedit quia etiam consulti Hebraei possunt aliud respondere, ut tu solus necessarius uidearis, qui etiam ipsos possis conuincere, sed tamen quo iudice mirum si potueris inuenire. 37 Augustinus, Ep. 71.5 (CSEL 34, 2, 251) : Nam quidam frater noster episcopus cum lectitari instituisset in ecclesia cui praeest interpretationem tuam, mouit quiddam longe aliter abs te positum apud Ionam prophetam, quam erat omnium sensibus memoriaeque inueteratum, et tot aetatum successionibus decantatum. Factus est tantus tumultus in plebe, maxime Graecis arguentibus et inflammantis calum­niam falsitatis, ut cogeretur episcopus – Oea quippe ciuitas erat Iudaeorum tes­timonium flagitare. Utrum autem illi imperitia an malitia hoc esse in Hebraeis codicibus responderunt, quod et Graeci et Latini habebant atque dicebant ? Quid plura ? Coactus est homo uelut mendositatem corrigere, uolens post magnum peri­culum non remanere sine plebe. Unde etiam nobis uidetur aliquando te quoque in nonnullis falli potuisse. Et uide hoc quale sit in eis litteris quae non possunt collatis usitatarum linguarum testimoniis emendari ! 38 Il s’agit, en fait, du ricin (Jonas 4, 6) mais le mot ricinus était très rarement uti­lisé. Pour Jérôme, lierre correspondait mieux à la définition du mot hébreu Kika­ C’est donc avec beaucoup de difficultés que la Vulgate de Jérôme commence àêtre utilisée. Une conséquence plus importante que celle survenue à Oea, quoique celle-ci soit révélatrice de l’accueil réservé à la traduction de Jérôme, est pressentie par Augustin : un motif supplémentaire de division au sein de l’E´glise.39 En réalité, la valeur de la traduction de Jérôme s’oppose directe­ment à celle de la Septante qu’Augustin tient pour inspirée.40 Pour l’évêque d’Hippone, la version des soixante-douze interprètes fut l’objet d’une révélation ; c’est pourquoi porter atteinte à la valeur de leur traduction signifie la diminution, voire la ruine, de la por­tée dogmatique de cette tradition. De plus, cette remise en cause s’accompagne d’un nouveau problème : à savoir sous quelle autorité placer les deux versions ? En ce qui concerne la traduction grecque la réponse est claire pour Augustin, alors que le travail hiéronymien n’a en sa faveur que la réputation d’orthodoxie de Jérôme. En effet, si le pape Damase l’avait chargé d’une révision du Nouveau Testament, aucune demande officielle n’est responsable de la version sur l’hébreu, d‘autant que la connaissance de cette langue était effectivement rare. Ainsi la vérification d’une traduction latine sur le grec était d’autant plus aisée que l’enseignement de cette langue était fréquent en Occident.À l’opposé, revenir à l’hebraica veritas obligeait celui qui voulait contrôler l’exactitude du texte biblique à recourir au témoignage des Juifs ; or, pour beaucoup, cela ne présentait qu’une garantie aléatoire.41 jon. Cf. Duval, « Saint Augustin et le commentaire sur Jonas », 9–40 ; Fraïsse, « Comment traduire la Bible ? » 145–165. 39 Augustinus, Ep. 71.4 (CSEL 34, 2, 251) : Ego sane mallem Graecas potius canon-icas te nobis interpretari scripturas, quae septuaginta interpretum perhibentur. Perdurum erit enim, si tua interpretatio per multas ecclesias frequentius coeperit lectitari, quod a Graecis ecclesiis Latinae ecclesiae dissonabunt, maxime quia facile contradictor conuincitur Graeco prolato libro, id est linguae notissimae. Quisquis autem in eo quod ex Hebraeo translatum est aliquo insolito permotus fuerit et falsi crimen intenderit, uix aut numquam ad Hebraea testimonia peruen­itur, quibus defendatur obiectum. Quod si etiam peruentum fuerit, tot Latinas et Graecas auctoritates damnari quis ferat ? Huc accedit quia etiam consulti Hebraei possunt aliud respondere, ut tu solus necessarius uidearis, qui etiam ipsos possis conuincere, sed tamen quo iudice mirum si potueris inuenire. 40 Augustinus, Ep. 28.2 (CSEL 34, 1, 106) : Omitto enim septuaginta, de quorum uel consilii uel spiritus maiore concordia, quam si unus homo esset, non audeo in aliquam partem certam ferre sententiam. 41 Hieronymus, Ep. 112.21.1 (CSEL 55, 391) : Dices : « Quid si Hebraei aut respondere noluerint aut mentiri uoluerint ? » À la tradition, Jérôme oppose une innovation de grande envergure. Pourtant, il ne désire pas attaquer la Septante directement, mais plutôt offrir un texte non corrompu.42 Son propos est donc différent des craintes d’Augustin, mais cette entreprise implique toutes sortes de conséquences fâcheuses, qui pourront apparaître au moment de l’utilisation de la nouvelle version. On a vu comment la recherche de l’hebraica veritas ruinait, selon la vision augustinienne, l’autorité de la Septante ; cepen­dant, sa supériorité ne provenait pas seulement de son origine miraculeuse, elle s’appuyait aussi sur son utilisation ancienne et traditionnelle. Augustin, en tant qu’évêque, redoutait les troubles que pouvait provoquer l’introduction d’un texte, quelque peu différent, de la Bible. En effet, l’habitude était un argument en faveur des versions lati­nes réalisées à partir du grec, qui étaient en usage depuis longtemps. L’élément principal du propos d’Augustin venait de l’utilisation et, par conséquent, de l’approbation par les Apôtres de la Septante.43 Jérôme lui-même reprit cette idée pour souligner l’importance et l’urgence de la correction apportée par sa traduction, face àla diffusion des manuscrits corrompus.44 Malgré toutes ses réticences, la position d’Augustin à l’égard de la Vulgate évolua un peu.45 D’une part, il en reconnaît l’utilité, mais il reste attaché à la version grecque. Ce qui fait que l’opinion de l’évêque d’Hippone àl’égard des travaux hiéronymiens demeure mesurée; l’appréciation qu’il leur porte, si favorable soit-elle, ne peut résister à une comparaison avec la Septante. Pourtant, Augustin a utilisé la traduction de Jérôme; mais cettenouvelleattitude fut tardive et n’ap­paraît pas dans leur correspondance. Anne-Marie La Bonnardière a relevé au moins six citations de la Vulgate de Jérôme dans le Civitate dei,46 mais Augustin n’évoque généralement leur auteur que par 42 Hieronymus, Ep. 112.19.2 (CSEL 55, 389) : Vis amator esse uerus septuaginta interpretum,non legas ea quae sub asteriscis sunt, immo rade de uoluminibus, ut ueterum te fautorem probes ! Ac per hoc plurimum profueris, si eam scripturam Graecam quam Septuaginta operati sunt Latinae ueritati reddideris. 43 Augustinus, Ep. 71.6 (CSEL 34, 2, 251) : Neque enim paruum pondus habet illa, quae sic meruit diffamari, et qua usos apostolos non solum res ipsa indicat, sed etiam te adtestatum esse memini. 44 Hieronymus, Ep. 112.19 (CSEL 55, 389) : Quod si feceris, omnes ecclesiarum biblio­ thecas condemnare cogeris ; uix enim unus aut alter inuenietur liber qui ista non habeat. 45 Cavellera, « Les Quaestiones Hebraicae », 359–372. 46 La Bonnardière, « Augustin a-t-il utilisé », 303–312. allusion.47 C’est donc dans ses autres ouvrages qu’on trouve l’issue de leur discussion. Les objections d’Augustin, à la version latine de l’Ancien Testament sur l’hébreu, sont émises dans ses lettres ; elles se concentrent sur les conséquences dangereuses qu’une utilisation fréquente et généralisée pourrait provoquer. La valeur elle-même de cette nouvelle Vulgate n’est prise en considération, dans son argumentation, que pour souligner la supériorité inégalable de l’autorité des Septante. Son point de vue est donc très différent de celui de Jérôme qui fait preuve d’innovation, en cherchant à restituer l’hebraica veritas. 2. LA CONTROVERSE DE L’ÉPÎTRE AUX GALATES  L’exégèse d’un passage de l’Épître aux Galates (Ga 2, 11–14), où Paul reprend Pierre au sujet de l’observance de la loi, est à l’origine d’un désaccord sérieux entre Jérôme et Augustin. Celui-ci commença leur discussion en formulant de telles réserves, à l’égard du commentaire de son correspondant, qu’il exhortait à se rétracter.48 Dans leur échange épistolaire, le moine ne répondit qu’une seule fois aux propos de l’évêque, après quoi Augustin traita une dernière fois de cette question. Leurs opinions s’opposent par le point de vue duquel chacun d’eux se place : le premier s’attache àce qu’ont écrit ses célèbres prédécesseurs, tandis que le second apporte une inter-prétation plus personnelle. Augustin s’oppose au commentaire sur l’Épître aux Galates de Jérôme, en considérant dangereuses les conséquences qu’il implique. Sa façon d’envisager le problème posé est philosophique, alors que son correspondant s’appuie sur le contexte historique, pour justifier son interprétation.49 47 Augustinus, Quaestiones in Heptateuchum 1.25.2 (PL 34, 553): Quamquam et aliter ista quaestio a quibusdam soluatur : ex illo computari annos aetatis Abrae, ex quo liberatus est de igne Chaldaeorum, in quem missus ut arderet, quia eumdem ignem superstitione Chaldaeorum colere noluit, liberatus inde etsi in scripturis non legitur, Iudaica tamen narratione traditur. 48 Auvray, « Saint Jérôme et saint Augustin », 594–610 ; Cole-Turner, « Anti-He­retical Issues », 155–166 ; Davis, « The scriptural Controversy », 103–116 ; Dorsch, « St. Augustinus und Hieronymus », 421–448 et 601–664 ; Hennings, Der Brief-wechsel ; Siat, « La controverse », 259–273 ; Simard, « La querelle de deux saints », 15–38. 49 Hieronymus, Ep. 112.5.2 (CSEL 55, 372) : Ego in paruo tuguriolo cum monachis, id est cum compeccatoribus meis de magnis statuere non audeo, nisi hoc ingenue Ne tenant pas compte de l’historique fait par Jérôme, l’évêque d’Hippone fonde son opinion sur les conséquences qui résulteraient d’une telle démarche. En effet, selon lui, la reconnaissance d’un men-songe dans la Bible équivaut à la ruine de l’autorité des E´critures, et permettrait aux hérétiques d’argumenter contre l’E´glise.50 De plus, si l’on accepte le commentaire hiéronymien qui donne raison àPierre, quand il veut continuer àaccomplir les rites juifs, alors, pour l’évêque d’Hippone, on favorise les hérésies qui mêlent les cérémonies chrétiennes et juives.51 L’interprétation de l’incident d’Antioche, qui affirme que Paul et Pierre simulaient une discorde tout en étant parfaitement d’accord, introduit le problème de la sincérité de l’attitude de Paul. Jérôme cite le passage des Actes des Apôtres, où Paul a sacrifié aux rites juifs, afin de prouver à son correspondant que, puisque les deux hommes ont agi de la même façon, la réprimande publique était feinte.52 confiteri, me maiorum scripta legere et in commentariis omnium secundum con-suetudinem uarias ponere explantiones. 50 Augustinus, Ep. 82.6.2 (CSEL 34, 2, 356) : Itane non intellegit prudentia sancta tua quanta malitiae illorum patescat occasio, si non ab aliis apostolicas litteras esse falsatas sed ipsos apostolos falsa scripsisse dicamus ? 51 Augustinus, Ep. 82.8 (CSEL 34, 2, 357–358) : Ego quidem illud Petrum sic egisse credo, ut gentes cogeret iudaizare. Hoc enim lego scripsisse Paulum, quem mentitum esse non credo. Et ideo non recte agebat hoc Petrus ; erat enim contra euangelii ueritatem, ut putarent qui credebant in Christum sine illis ueteribus sacramentis saluos se esse non posse. Hoc enim contendebant Antiochiae qui ex circumcisione crediderant, contra quos Paulus perseuer­anter acriterque confligit. Ipsum uero Paulum non ad hoc id egisse, quod uel Timotheum circumcidit, uel Cenchreis uotum persoluit, uel Hierosolymis a Iacobo admonitus cum eis qui uouerant legitima illa celebranda suscepit, ut putari uideretur per ea sacramenta etiam christianam salutem dari ; sed ne illa quae prioribus, ut congruebat, temporibus in umbris rerum futurarum deus fieri iusserat, tamquam idololatriam gentilium damnare crederetur. Hoc est enim quod illi Iacobus ait auditum de illo esse, quod discissionem doceat a Moyse, quod utique nefas est, ut credentes in Christum discindantur a propheta Christi, tamquam eius doctrinam detestantes atque damnantes, de quo ipse Christus dicit : “Si crederetis Moysi, crederetis et mihi ; de me enim ille scripsit.” 52 Augustinus, Ep. 82.17.1 (CSEL 34, 2, 368) : Fateor sanein eo quod epistola mea continet, quod ideo sacramenta Iudaeorum Paulus celebranda susceperat, cum iam Christi esset apostolus, ut doceret non esse perniciosa his qui ea uellent sicut a parentibus per legem acceperant custodire, minus me posuisse : “illo dumtaxat tempore quo primum fidei gratia reuelata est” ; tunc enim hoc non erat pernicio-sum. Progressu uero temporis illae obseruationes ab omnibus Christianis dese­ À plusieurs reprises, l’Apôtre des Gentils est amendé à obéir à la loi juive. Pour le moine de Bethléem, le motif de la conduite de Pierre est aussi celui de Paul.53 Leur désaccord permettait alors de montrer aux Juifs que l’observance de la loi mosaïque n’était plus obligatoire. Jérôme explique que Paul n’a pu reprendre chez Pierre ce qu’il avait fait lui-même ; Augustin, au contraire, distingue les attitudes des deux Apôtres. L’évêque accorde également une valeur excepti­onnelle à la conduite de Paul ; celle-ci serait mue par la compassion non simulando… sed conpatiendo.54 En ce qui concerne l’incident d’Antioche lui-même, Augustin estime que Paul s’est comporté fraternellement quand il a repris Pierre : « si Paul lui-même avait déjà fait une telle chose, je penserais plutôt que ayant été lui-même aussi corrigé, il n’a pu manquer de corriger son collègue dans l’apostolat ».55 L’évêque d’Hippone refuse ainsi toute interprétation conduisant à admettre d’un mensonge dans l’E´criture. Les opinions des deux correspondants à l’égard de la simulation paraissent bien divergentes dans leurs courriers. Jérôme en se rappor­tant aux exégètes orientaux, fait une distinction quant aux intentions de celui qui feint.56 Dans l’autre sens, l’attitude tranchée de l’évêque d’Hippone est en faveur de la vérité pure. Aucun mensonge n’est dès lors tolérable.57 En outre, il appuie son opinion sur les textes bibliques où la simulation rerentur, ne si tunc fieret non discerneretur, quod deus populo suo per Moysen praecepit, ab eo quod in templis daemoniorum spiritus immundus instituit. 53 Hieronymus, Ep. 112.11 (CSEL 55, 380) : Didicimus quod propter metum Iudaeo-rum et Petrus et Paulus aequaliter finxerint legis se praecepta seruare. Qua igitur fronte, qua audacia potest id Paulus in altero reprehendere quod ipse commisit ? Ego, imo alii ante me exposuerunt causam quam putauerant, non officiosum men-dacium defendentes, sicut tu scribis, sed docentes honestam dispensationem, ut et apostolorum prudentiam demonstrarent et blasphemantis Porphyrii impuden­tiam coercerent, qui Paulum et Petrum puerili dicit inter se pugnasse certamine, immo exarsisse Paulum in inuidiam uirtutum Petri, et ea scripsisse iactanter uel quae non fecerit, uel si fecit, procaciter fecerit, id in alio reprehendens quod ipse commiserit. Interpretati sunt illi ut potuerunt. Tu quomodo istum locum edis-seres ? Vtique meliora dicturus, qui ueterum sententiam reprobasti. 54 Augustinus, Ep. 82.16 (CSEL 34, 2, 367). 55 Augustinus, Ep. 82.7.3 (CSEL 34, 2, 357 ; traduction Mohamed-Arbi Nsiri) : si tale aliquid Paulus ipse iam fecerat, correctum potius etiam ipsum credam coapostoli sui correctionem non potuisse neglegere. 56 Hieronymus, Ep. 112.11 (CSEL 55, 380) : non officiosum mendacium defendentes, sicut tu scribis, sed docentes honestam dispensationem. 57 Augustinus, Ep. 82.21 (CSEL 34, 2, 373) : An si officiose mentiatur quisque culpan­dus est, si dispensatiue adprobandus ? est réprouvée, alors que Jérôme, dans sa lettre 112, renvoie son cor­respondant aux auteurs dont il s’est fait le porte-parole. On ne possède pas de réponse à la lettre 82 d’Augustin ; néanmoins, son argumentation se référant à certaines réflexions hiéronymiennes, elle montre, ainsi, que leurs opinions se rejoignent parfois. Par exemple, l’évêque écrit au sujet des attitudes de Paul : « Mais tu m’as semblé avoir peu fait attention au fait que j’aie dit que celui-ci avait agi envers les juifs en tant que juif et en tant que gentil envers les gentils non avec la ruse du mensonge, mais avec l’affection d’un compatissant, mieux, moi peut-être, je n’aurais pas pu l’expliquer suffisamment. En effet, je n’ai pas dit cela pour la raison qu’avec miséricorde, il aurait simulé cela, parce qu’il n’a pas simulé ces semblables choses qu’il faisait aux juifs, de même qu’il ne simulait les choses semblables qu’il faisait aux gentils, que toi aussi, tu as rappelées et qu’en cela, tu m’as aidé, ce que je dis non sans gratitude ».58 C’est pourquoi, on peut supposer que Jérôme se rangea à l’avis de son correspondant. Le désaccord, qui eut lieu à Antioche entre Paul et Pierre, avait pour objet la pratique des préceptes de l’Ancien Testament. Paul critique la conduite de Pierre qui tend à forcer les gentils à devenir de vrais juifs pour devenir chrétiens. Cette dernière a été expliquée par la crainte des Juifs.59 Pour Augustin, comme pour Jérôme, les deux Apôtres étaient d’accord sur ce sujet.60 Cependant, leur dialogue épistolaire crée un certain malentendu momentané. Alors qu’ils reconnaissent tous deux la conformité des opinions de Paul et de Pierre, Jérôme réagit contre certains propos d’Augus­tin, relativement à l’observance de la loi.61 Il considère que c’est là un 58 Augustinus, Ep. 82.26 (CSEL 34, 2, 378 ; traduction Mohamed-Arbi Nsiri) : Quod autem dixi eum factum Iudaeis tamquam Iudaeum et tamquam gentilem gen-tilibus, non mentientis astu sed compatientis affectu quemadmodum dixerim, parum mihi uisus es attendisse, immo ego fortasse non satis hoc explanare potuerim. Neque enim hoc ideo dixi quod misericorditer illa simulauerit, sed quia sic ea non simulauit quae faciebat similia Iudaeis, quemadmodum nec illa quae faciebat similia gentibus, quae tu quoque commemorasti atque in eo me, quod non ingrate fateor, adiuuisti. 59 Hieronymus, Ep. 112.9.1 (CSEL 55, 377) : Sicut igitur ostendimus Petrum bene quidem sensisse de abolitione legis Mosaicae, sed ad simulationem obseruandae eius timore conpulsum. 60 Augustinus, Ep. 82.11.2 (CSEL 34, 2, 361) : Neque enim negamus in hac sententia fuisse iam Petrum, in qua et Paulus fuit. 61 D’après sa lettre 67 (CSEL 34, 2, 237–239) Augustin affirmait que la pratique de la loi mosaïque était pour les Gentils, mais il laissait aussi entendre qu’elle était acceptable pour les Juifs convertis. écueil de plus à éviter dans l’exégèse du passage difficile de l’Épître aux Galates.62 Cette méprise, sur les intentions de l’évêque, fut promptement dissipée par la réponse augustinienne à cette lettre 112 du moine. Ainsi, pour Augustin comme pour Jérôme, l’attitude à adopter envers la loi mosaïque est bien la même.63 Il apparaît clairement, dans le dernier courrier envoyé d’Hippone sur ce sujet, que les deux hommes sont du même avis. Bien qu’au début Augustin et Jérôme paraissaient très opposés, il est vraisemblable que ce dernier ait, par la suite, partagé l’opinion de son correspondant, sur l’ensemble des problèmes posés par le récit de l’incident d’Antioche. L’opposition, née de l’interprétation d’un passage de l’Épître aux Galates, montre bien, quand on la rapproche de la précédente, les centres d’intérêt des deux correspondants. Pour Jérôme, auteur d’un livre sur les écrivains ecclésiastique et d’une traduction de l’Histoire ecclésiastique d’Eusèbe, l’important est de rechercher la vérité en remontant aux origines. Cela implique l’étude des exégètes et nécessite d’avoir un esprit ouvert à la démarche historique.64 En revanche, Augustin semble, en tant qu’évêque, plus préoccupé par les conséquences présentes des interprétations de l’E´criture. Ces deux attitudes se retrouvent aussi dans le combat qu’ils ont mené contre le pélagianisme. 3. LA LUTTE ANTI-PÉLAGIENNE Le pélagianisme occupe toute la correspondance qu’Augustin et Jérôme ont développée durant ce qui a été considéré comme la troi­ 62 Hieronymus, Ep. 112.13.1 (CSEL 55, 381) : Si hoc uerum est, in Cerinthi et Hebionis haeresim delabimur, qui credentes in Christo propter hoc solum a patribus anathematizati sunt, quod legis cerimonias Christi euangelio mis-cuerunt. 63 Augustinus, Ep. 82.15.4 (CSEL 34, 2, 366) : Quod Paulus utique non cogebat, ob hoc illa uetera ueraciter ubi opus esset obseruans, ut damnanda non esse monstraret, praedicans tamen instanter non eis sed reuelata gratia fidei fide-les saluos fieri fideles, ne ad ea quemquam uelut necessaria suscipienda com-pelleret. Sic autem credo apostolum Paulum ueraciter cuncta illa gessisse, nec tamen nunc quemquam factum ex Iudaeo Christianum uel cogo uel sino talia ueraciter celebrare, sicut nec tu, cui uidetur Paulus ea simulasse, cogis istum uel sinis talia simulare. 64 Inglebert, Les Romains chrétiens, 213–215 ; Jeanjean, « Saint Jérôme, patron des chronique », 137–178. sième période de leur échange épistolaire.65 Bien qu’ils vivaient dans des régions fort éloignées l’une de l’autre, c’est ensemble qu’ils ont lutté contre les idées pélagiennes qui se propagèrent en Afrique et en Palestine. Le combat mené par les deux correspondants d’Hippone et de Bethléem, fut bien sûr dirigé contre les propos tenus par l’hérési­arque et ses adeptes, mais il visait aussi, dans une certaine mesure, la personne de Pélage. L’ascète breton considérait que la grâce principale qui avait été accordé à l’homme était le libre arbitre ; il enseignait aussi qu’elle lui permettait de pratiquer la vertu, de sorte que l’homme pouvait, s’il le voulait, ne pas connaître l’impeccantia, et atteindre la perfection. Sa pensée, qui s’appuyait surtout sur la volonté humaine, aboutissait àminimiser le péché originel. En face de lui Pélage trouva deux adver­saires dans les personnes d’Augustin et de Jérôme. Les charges qu’ils énoncèrent contre lui sont révélatrices des centres d’intérêt de chacun. Augustin rétorque, aux pélagiens qui niaient le péché originel et, ainsi, rendaient inutile le salut apporté par le Christ, que le baptême des enfants était en usage pratiquement dans toute l’E´glise.66 En ou­tre, la question de l’origine de l’âme mettait en évidence le problème du moment où avait été commis le péché. Plusieurs hypothèses ont été avancées, parmi lesquelles la création individuelle permettait, éventuellement, de réduire l’importance du péché originel. Devant ce danger, Augustin met en garde Jérôme surtout dans sa lettre 166 où il réaffirme la nécessité du baptême.67 Le pélagianisme se rattache, selon Jérôme, à plusieurs courants anciens. Le moine de Bethléem, lorsqu’il le combat dans son épître 133 met en avant cet aspect. Non seulement il le considère comme une nouvelle forme de stoïcisme, mais il le qualifie comme une ramification de l’origénisme (Doctrina tua Origenis ramusculus est),68 hérésie contre laquelle il avait lutté dans les années 400.69 65 Dalmon, « Entre pragmatisme », 239–257 ; Duval, « La correspondance », 363– 384. 66 La découverte de nouvelles sources – notamment la lettre 19* d’Augustin (par Johannes Divjak) et le texte complet du sermon 348A du même (par François Dolbeau) – a permis une reconstruction plus précise du cours des événements, particulièrement de la controverse entre Augustin et Pélage entre 411 et 418 qui aboutit à la condamnation du pélagianisme. 67 Augustinus, Ep. 166.28.2 (CSEL 44, 585) : qua Christi ecclesia nec paruulos homi­nes recentissime natos a damnatione credit nisi per gratiam nominis Christi, quam in suis sacramentis commendauit, posse liberari. 68 Hieronymus, Ep. 133.2 (CSEL 56, 247–248). 69 Malavasi, « Erant autem ambo iusti ante Deum », 247–254. Pélage exaltait la volonté et le libre-arbitre, liberum arbitrium, chez l’homme. Il fait ainsi preuve d’un orgueil démesuré aux yeux de Jérôme.70 De plus, le pélagianisme s’exprime en un combat plus concret ; à l’automne 416 des fanatiques s’attaquèrent aux monastères de Jérôme. Le problème pélagien fait apparaître des différences dans les analyses des deux correspondants ; il révèle aussi les divergences de leur caractère, et de leur attitude à l’égard de l’hérésiarque. Divers auteurs ont montré dans des études récentes que le débat fut une lutte entre Pélage d’une part, et, Augustin et Jérôme d’autre part.71 L’attitude qu’ils ont adoptée est visible dans leur correspondance et leurs autres ouvrages. Il semble que Pélage se soit dès le début opposé à Augustin, mais qu‘il aurait cherché à rencontrer son ennemi lors de son court séjour en Afrique.72 L’accusation qu’il porte contre l’évêque d’Hippone est principalement celle de son attachement passé au manichéisme. Ainsi Giovanni Martinetto estime que « les pélagiens, qui rétorquent constamment à Augustin ses écrits de jeunesse, le confirmeront de plus en plus dans la certitude qu’il a à affronter sa propre pensée de jadis et ses propres erreurs ».73 Si Pélage paraît tout à fait hostile à l’évêque d‘Hippone, néanmo-ins ce dernier a conservé, jusqu’en 419 environ, une attitude presque bienveillante envers lui.74 Dans ses ouvrages, on ne trouve pas chez Augustin d’allusion directe à la personne de Pélage : il veut lui laisser 70 Hieronymus, Ep. 133.1 (CSEL 56, 241) : ut per simulatam humiliate, superbiam discerent. 71 Canellis, « La composition du Dialogue », 247–288 ; Dolbeau, « Le sermon 348A », 37–63 ; Koopmans, « Augustine’s First Contact », 149–153 ; Pietri, « Les difficultés », 453–479. 72 Trace a été gardée de quatre lettres d’Augustin à Pélage, mais seule une lettre de Pélage a été conservée dans le De gestis Pelagli, devenu l’Ep. 146 dans la cor­respondance d’Augustin. Cette dernière lettre a été écrite en 410, et non en 412 ou 413 comme cela est le plus souvent affirmé. La lettre 146 d’Augustin est une réponse à la lettre de courtoisie que lui avait envoyée Pélage lors de son arrivé à Hippone, alors que l’évêque était absent de sa ville. La réponse d’Augustin se comprend sans peine, ainsi qu’il le raconta en 416/417, lorsqu’il dit avoir déjàentendu parler des discussions que le moine breton avait tenues à Rome contre ses Confessions. 73 Martinetto, « Les premières réactions antiaugustiniennes », 83–118, en particu-lier 105. 74 Brown, Augustine of Hippo, 340–352 ; Lancel, Saint Augustin, 457–486 ; Winrich, Pélage et le pélagianisme, 18–62. la possibilité de revenir sur sa doctrine.75 En revanche, l’opinion de Jérôme àl’égard du moine breton est radicalement différente de celle de l’évêque d’Hippone.76 Ainsi, on apprend par Augustin que Pélage proclamait qu’il le jalousait comme un rival.77 Paul Antin remarque àce propos : « ce qu’il lui faut, c’est être aux prises non avec une thèse, mais avec quelqu’un ».78 C’est pourquoi on peut considérer que, pour Jérôme, cette querelle « pélagienne » devient, comme autrefois contre l’origénisme, un conflit personnel.79 L’attitude d’Augustin, vis-à-vis de l’énergie que met Jérôme àcombattre Pélage, apparaît dans ses lettres. Au moment de la querelle origéniste, il l’engageait à ne pas tenir de propos qui l’empêcheraient de revenir à des relations amicales avec Rufin d’Aquilée. En ce qui concerne Pélage, Augustin fait allusion à la possibilité d’un pardon.80 Cette opposition dans leur façon d’envisager la lutte contre le pélagi­anisme ne nuisit pourtant pas au front commun qui s’établit dès 415. L’important était pour Augustin et Jérôme d’unir leurs forces.81 C’est 75 Augustinus, Ep. 19*.3 (BA 46B, 1987, 288–290) : Nunc ergo occasione Lucae serui dei perlatoris inuenta quem sibi optime cognitum Palatinus mihi diaconus inti-mauit eumque ad nos quantocius rediturum esse promisit ac pro illo mihi fidem fecit, quod ei dubitare non deberem portandas quaslibet litteras tradere, misi per eum librum eiusdem Pelagii. Quem mihi dederunt serui dei Timasius et Iacobus, quos per operulam meam dominus ab illo liberauit errore. Erant autem auditores eius multumque carissimi. Misi etiam eum [librum] quo ei respondi – hoc enim me impendio rogauerant et hoc eis utile ac salubre esse praeuideram – ad eos sane scripsi non ad Pelagium, illius tamen operi uerbisque respondens eius adhuc tacito nomine, quoniam sicut amicum corrigi cupiebam, quod fateor adhuc cupio, quod nec tuam Sanctitatem ambigo optare. 76 Jeanjean, Saint Jérôme et l’hérésie, 63–73 et 387–431. 77 Augustinus, Contra Iulianum Pelagianum 2.36 (PL 44, 699–700) : De illo…sancto presbytero…non solet Pelagius iactare, nisi “quod ei tanquam aemulo inuiderit”. 78 Antin, Essai sur saint Jérôme, 214. 79 Moreschini, « Gerolamo tra Pelagio e Origene », 207–216. 80 Augustinus, Ep. 19*, 4 (BA 46B, 1987, 290) : Denique nunc scripsi et ad ipsum quod, nisi fallor, acerbe accepturus est, sed ei postea fortasse proficiet ad salutem. Scripsi etiam de illo prolixam epistolam episcopis Eulogio et Ioanni, et breuiter sancto presbytero Passerioni ; quae ita in mandatis dedi, ut ad tuam sinceritatem omnia perferantur. Quaecumque autem mihi occasio proxima occurrerit omnium earumdem epistolarum exemplaria manu mea subnotata, quam confido tibi esse notissimam, tuae germanitati, adiuuante domino curabo dirigere, ut scias mihique rescribas, utrum ad te non solum cuncta sed etiam integra et uera peruenerint. 81 Hieronymus, Ep. 134.1.1 (CSEL 56, 262) : nos enim inter nos eruditionis causa disserimus. Ceterum aemuli et maxime heretici, si diuersas inter nos sententias d’abord par une meilleure connaissance des événements et des actions de chacun qu’ils peuvent lutter efficacement contre Pélage. Augustin et Jérôme partagent leurs opinions en se communiquant mutuellement leurs ouvrages. L’échange de leurs travaux et de leurs impressions se fait aussi oralement, par l’intermédiaire des porteurs, qui, dès lors, ont un rôle plus important.82 Ainsi Paul Orose fut plus qu’un messager : il a sans doute apporté plusieurs ouvrages d’Augu­stin, quand il se rendit en Palestine, dont le De peccatorum meritis et remissione ; de même, à son retour, il semble qu’il ait apporté le Dialogus adversus Pelagianos.83 Une conjonction de leurs efforts a bien lieu, et des liens s’établissent entre l’Afrique, la Palestine et la Gaule ; en effet, Heros d’Arles et Lazare d’Aix se sont manifestés contre Pélage en Orient, et ont provoqué le synode de Diospolis en 415. L’évêque Lazare porta aussi une lettre de Jérôme à Augustin. La lutte engagée contre le pélagianisme aboutit à une condamnation ratifiée par l‘évêque de Rome. Leur victoire est célébrée par Jérôme dans une épître adressée à Augustin et Alypius de Thagaste.84 La contribution des Africains à l’issue de cette polémique est évidente, et Augustin apparaît comme le principal adversaire africain des pélagiens.85 Les participations de Jérôme est, elle aussi, assez importante. Il s’agit de deux ouvrages qui parurent vers 414/415 : l’épître 133 à Ctésiphon, et son Dialogue contre les Pélagiens, qui eurent un grand retentissement. Quoique le moine n’ait pu intervenir lors des assemblées de Diospolis et de Jérusalem, il a permis, conjointement à l’action d’Orose, de faire connaître le point de vue des évêques africains dans cette affaire, qui, en Orient, paraissait être un problème essentiellement latin. Cette situation favorisait les projets de Pélage, car les Orientaux qui connaissaient parfaitement le latin étaient peu nombreux, et, àJérusalem, les propos d’Orose furent mal traduits. À cette occasion, alors que le prêtre espagnol venait de faire état de l’opinion augus­ uiderint, de animi calumniabuntur rancore descendere. 82 Letourneur, « La circulation des messagers », 127–137 ; Sotinel, « La circulation de l’information », 177–194 ; Paoli-Lafaye, « Messagers et messages », 233–259. 83 Hieronymus, Ep. 134.1 (CSEL 56, 261) : Virum honorabilem, fratrem meum, filium dignationis tuae, Orosium Presbyterum et sui merito et te iubente suscepi. 84 Hieronymus, Ep. 143.1.2 (CSEL 56, 292–293) : quia cooperatoribus et auctoribus uobishaeresis Caelestina iugulata est. 85 Dalmon, « Les lettres échangées », 791–826 ; Salamito, Les Virtuoses et la multi­ tude, 169–205. tinienne et de la condamnation qui avait été prononcée à Carthage, Pélage fit cette réponse : Quid est mihi Augustinus ? Même s’il est vrai que le jugement africain concernait Célestianus, cette parole montre bien de quelle façon on estimait l’autorité d’Augustin et des évêques africains en Orient. La collaboration d’Augustin avec Jérôme a contribué à la lutte contre le pélagianisme, en permettant d’établir une défense commune en Palestine et en Afrique. Plus qu’un simple sujet de conversation, cette hérésie fut l’occasion pour les deux correspondants de s’engager ensemble dans un même combat, et d’échanger lettres et travaux divers, plus fréquemment qu’auparavant. 4.CONCLUSION Les relations entre l’évêque d‘Hippone et le moine de Bethléem leur ont permis d’aborder des questions ecclésiastiques. Quoiqu’ils ne furent pas toujours d’accord, l’intérêt de l’E´glise et le souci de préserver son unité primèrent dans leurs controverses. Les trois sujets, sur lesquels ils dissertèrent, prouvent la diversité des moyens dont ils disposaient pour communiquer, et la richesse de leurs lettres. Néanmoins, malgré ces avantages, leur correspondance fut aussi un obstacle qui les empêcha d’aborder toutes les questions qui y étaient suggérées. BIBLIOGRAPHIE Allgeier, Arthur. « Die Hexapla in den Psalmenübersetzungen des heiligen Hieronymus ». Biblica 8 (1927) : 450–463. Antin, Paul. Essai sur saint Jérôme. Paris : Letouzey et Ané, 1951. Asslaber, Peter. Die persönlichen Beziehungen der drei grossen Kirchenlehrer Ambrosius, Hieronymus und Augustinus. Vienne : Mayer & Comp, 1908. Auvray, Pierre. « Saint Jérôme et saint Augustin : La Controverse au sujet de l’incident d’Antioche ». Recherches de Science Reli­gieuse 29 (1939) : 594–610. Bardy, Gustave. « Saint Jérôme et ses maîtres hébreux ». Revue Bénédictine 46 (1934) : 145–164. Barr, James. « St. Jerome’s appreciation of Hebrew ». Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 49 (1967) : 281–302. Bell, Albert A. « Jerome’s Role in the Translation of the Vulgate New Testament ». New Testament Studies 23 (1977) : 230–233. Biasi, Cécile. « Jérôme traducteur et auctor : la ueritas Hebraica source d’auctoritas dans la Correspondance ». Dans Qu’est-ce qu’un «auctor» ? Auteur et autorité, du latin au français, sous la direction d’E´lisabeth Gavoille, 161–171. Bordeaux : Ausonius E´ditions, 2019. Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice. « La Bible d’Augustin. E´tat des questions et application aux sermons Dolbeau ». Dans Augustin prédica­teur : 395–411, Actes du Colloque International de Chantilly (5–7 septembre 1996), sous la direction de Goulven Madec, 33–47. Paris : Institut d’E´tudes Augustiniennes, 1998. ———. « Les bibles d’Augustin ». Revue théologique de Louvain 37 (2006) : 513–531. Bordreuil, Pierre. « Un nouveau mot punique chez Saint Augustin. À propos d’un débat avec Adéodat sur la grâce divine et les mérites humains ». Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 156/3 (2012) : 1279–1284. Bouton-Touboulic, Anne-Isabelle. « La traduction latine de la Bible selon Saint Jerôme et Saint Augustin ». Augustinianum 45 (2005) : 185–229. Brown, Peter. Augustine of Hippo : A Biography. Berkeley : Uni­versity of California Press, 1967. Cain, Andrew. Jerome’s Commentaries on the Pauline Epistles and the Architecture of Exegetical Authority. Oxford : Oxford Uni­versity Press, 2021. ——— . The Letters of Jerome : Asceticism, Biblical Exegesis, and the Construction of Christian Authority in Late Antiquity. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2009. Cameron, John S. « The Rabbinic Vulgate? » Dans Jerome of Stri-don : His Life, Writings and Legacy, sous la direction d’Andrew Cain et Josef Lössl, 117–130. London : Ashgate Publishing, 2009. Canellis, Aline. « La composition du Dialogue contre les Lucifériens et du Dialogue contre les Pélagiens de saint Jérôme. À la re-cherche d’un canon de l’altercatio ». Revue des Études Augusti­niennes 43 (1997) : 247–288. ———. « La lettre selon saint Jérôme : L’E´pistolaire de la correspon-dance hiéronymienne ». Dans Epistulae antiquae I : Actes du 1er colloque « Le genre épistolaire antique et ses prolongements » (Tours, 18–19 septembre 1998), sous la direction de Léon Nadjo et Elisabeth Gavoille, 311–332. Louvain : Peeters, 2002. ———. « Les premières lettres familières de saint Jérôme ». Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée 52 (2014) : 189–208. Cavellera, Ferdinand. « Les Quaestiones Hebraicae in Genesim de saint Jérôme et les Quaestiones in Genesim de saint Augustin ». Miscellanea Agostiniana 2 (1931) : 359–372. Cole-Turner, Ronald S. « Anti-Heretical Issues and the Debate Over Galatians 2 : 11–14 in the Letters of St. Augustine to St. Jerome ». Augustinian Studies 11 (1980) : 155–166. Dal Chiele, Elisa. « Agostino traduttore dal greco : qualche osser­vazione a partire dalle Enarrationes in Psalmos ». Res Publica Litterarum 43 (2020) : 200–223. Dalmon, Laurence. « Entre pragmatisme et souci d’édification doctrinale : le genre de la lettre ecclésiastique officielle d’après la correspondance anti-pélagienne de l’Afrique avec Rome (printemps 416) ». Dans Epistulae Antiquae 5, l’épistolaire antique et ses prolongements européens (Tours, 6–8 septembre 2006), sous la direction de Patrick Laurence et François Guillaumont, 239–257. Leuven : Peeters, 2008. ———. « Les lettres échangées entre l’Afrique et Rome à l’occasion de la controverse pélagienne : genèse et fortunes d’un dossier de chancellerie ecclésiastique ». Dans Mélanges de l’École française de Rome – Antiquité 117.2 (2005) : 791–826. Davis, Henry G. « The scriptural Controversy between St. Jerome and St. Augustin ». American Classical Review 33 (1956) : 103–116. De Bruyne, Donatien. « La correspondance échangée entre Augu­stin et Jérôme ». Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wis-senschaft und die Kunde der Älteren Kirche 31 (1932) : 233–248. De Plinval, Georges. « La technique du dialogue chez saint Augus­tin et saint Jérôme ». Dans Actes du 1er congrès de la Fédération Internationale des Associations des Études Classiques à Paris (28 août–2 septembre 1950), 308–311. Paris : C. Klincksieck, 1951. De Vathaire, Dom J. « Les relations de saint Augustin et de saint Jérôme ». Dans Miscellanea Augustiana, 484–499. Rotterdam : Brusse, 1930. Dolbeau, François. « Le sermon 348A de saint Augustin contre Pélage : E´dition du texte intégral ». Recherches Augustiniennes 28 (1995) : 37–63. Dorsch, Emil. « St. Augustinus und Hieronymus über die Wahrheit der biblischen Geschichte ». Zeitschrift für Katholische Theolo­gie 35 (1911) : 421–448 ; 601–664. Duval, Yves-Marie. « La correspondance entre Augustin et Pélage ». Revue des Études Augustiniennes 45 (1999) : 363–384. Duval, Yves-Marie. « Saint Augustin et le commentaire sur Jonas de saint Jérôme ». Revue des Études Augustiniennes 12 (1966) : 9–40. Fraïsse, Anne. « Comment traduire la Bible ? Un échange entre Au­gustin et Jérôme au sujet de la citrouille de Jonas 4, 6 ». Études théologiques et religieuses 85 (2010) : 145–165. Fry, Carole. « La parole contre la langue : les vulgarismes dans la correspondance croisée de Jérôme et d’Augustin ». Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée 49 (2012) : 909–920. ——— . Lettres croisées de Jérôme et Augustin. Paris : Les Belles Lettres, 2012. Fürst, Alfons. « Veritas Latina : Augustins Haltung gegenüber Hieronymus’ Bibelübersetzungen ». Revue des Études Augusti­niennes 40 (1994) : 105–126. ——— . Augustinus-Hieronymus : Epistulae Mutuae ; Briefwechsel. Turnhout : Brepols, 2002. ——— . Von Origenes und Hieronymus zu Augustinus : Studien zur antiken Theologiegeschichte. Berlin : De Gruyter, 2011. Haitjema, Theodorus Lambertus . « De briefwisseling tussen Augustinus en Hieronymus ». Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis 36 (1921) : 159–198. Hellenga, Virginia. « The Exchange of Letters Between Saint Augu­stine and Saint Jérôme ». Dans Daidalikon : Studies in Memory of R. V. Schoder, sous la direction de Robert F. Sutton, 177–182. Wauconda : Bolchazy-Carducci, 1989. Hennings, Ralph. Der Briefwechsel zwischen Augustinus und Hie­ronymus und ihr Streit um den Kanon des Alten Testaments und die Auslegung von Gal. 2, 11–14. Leiden : Brill, 1994. Inglebert, Hervé. Les Romains chrétiens face à l’Histoire de Rome : His-toire, christianisme et romanités en Occident dans l’Antiquité tardive (IIIème – Vème siècles). Paris : Institut d’E´tudes Augustiniennes, 1996. Jay, Pierre. « La datation des premières traductions de l’Ancien Testament sur l’hébreu par saint Jérôme ». Revue des Études Augustiniennes 28 (1982) : 208–212. Jeanjean, Benoît. « Saint Jérôme, patron des chronique en langue latine ». Dans Saint Jérôme, Chronique : Continuation de la Chronique d’Eusèbe, années 326–378 ; Suivie de quatre études sur les Chroniques et chronographies dans l’Antiquité tardive (IVème – VIème siècles), sous la direction de Benoît Jeanejan et Bertrand Lançon, 137–178. Rennes : Presses Universitaires de Rennes, 2004. ——— . Saint Jérôme et l’hérésie. Paris : Institut d’E´tudes Augusti­niennes, 1999. Jerphagnon, Lucien. « Saint Augustin et la diffusion de la pensée grecque dans l’Occident médiéval : l’hypothèque de la langue ? » Dans La Grèce antique sous le regard du Moyen Âge occidental : Actes du XVème colloque de la Villa Kérylos à Beaulieu-sur-Mer les 8 & 9 octobre 2004, sous la direction de Jean Leclant et Michel Zink, 1–9. Paris : Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 2005. Jourassard, Georges. « Réflexions sur la position de saint Augustin relativement aux Septante dans sa discussion avec Jérôme ». Revue des Études Augustiniennes 2 (1956) : 93–99. Koopmans, Jacob Hendrik. « Augustine’s First Contact with Pelagius and the Dating of the Condemnation of Caelestius at Carthago ». Vigiliae christianae 8 (1954) : 149–153. La Bonnardière, Anne-Marie. « Augustin a-t-il utilisé la Vulgate de Jérôme? » Dans Saint Augustin et la Bible, sous la direction d’Anne-Marie La Bonnardière, 303–312. Paris : Beauchesne, 1986. ———. « Jérôme «informateur» d’Augustin au sujet d’Origène ». Revue des Études Augustiniennes 20 (1974) : 42–54. Lagrange, Marie-Joseph. « La révision de la Vulgate par S. Jérôme ». Revue biblique NS 15 (1918) : 254–257. Lancel, Serge. Saint Augustin. Paris : Fayard, 1999. Lançon, Bernard. « Maladie et médecine dans la correspondance de Jérôme ». Dans Jérôme entre l’Occident et l’Orient : XVIe centenaire du départ de saint Jérôme de Rome et de son installa­tion à Bethléem, Actes du colloque de Chantilly (septembre 1986), sous la direction d’Yves-Marie Duval, 355–366. Paris : Institut d’E´tudes Augustiniennes, 1988. Lepelley, Claude. « L’usage de la langue punique dans l’Afrique romaine tardive d’après saint Augustin ». Dans Carthage et les autochtones de son empire du temps de Zama : Hommage à M. H.Fantar, sous la direction d’Ahmed Férjaoui, 531–541. Tunis : Institut national du patrimoine, 2010. ———. « Témoignages de saint Augustin sur l’ampleur et les limites de l’usage de la langue punique dans l’Afrique de son temps ». Dans Identités et cultures dans l’Algérie antique, sous la direction de Claude Briand-Ponsart, 117–141. Rouen : Publica­tions des Universités de Rouen et du Havre, 2005. Letourneur, Marie-Joëlle. « La circulation des messagers chez Jérôme ». Dans Routes et Marchés d’esclaves : XXVIème colloque du Groupe de recherche sur l’esclavage dans l’Antiquité (GIREA), sous la direction de Marguerite Garrido-Hory, 127–137. Be-sançon : Presses universitaires franc-comtoises, 2002. Malavasi, Giulio. « Erant autem ambo iusti ante Deum (Lc 1, 6) : Girolamo e l’accusa di origenismo contro Pelagio ». Adamantius 23 (2017) : 247–254. Martinetto, Giovanni. « Les premières réactions antiaugustiniennes de Pélage ». Revue des Études Augustiniennes 17 (1971) : 83–118. Mohrmann, Christine. « Saint Augustin écrivain ». Revue des Études Augustiniennes no. 50 (2004) : 123–146. Moreschini, Claudio. « Gerolamo tra Pelagio e Origene ». Augusti­nianum 26 (1986) : 207–216. Nsiri, Mohamed-Arbi. « Between Jerome and Augustine of Hippo : Some Intellectual Preoccupations of Late Antiquity ». Dans Ge­neses : A Comparative Study of the Historiographies of the Rise of Christianity, Rabbinic Judaism, and Islam, sous la direction de John Tolan, 98–113. London : Routledge, 2019. Paoli-Lafaye, E´lisabeth. « Messagers et messages : La diffusion des nouvelles dans la correspondance d’Augustin ». Dans Messagers et messages : La diffusion des nouvelles de l’Afrique d’Augustin vers le régions d’au-delà des mers, sous la direction de Jean An-dreau et Catherine Virlouvet, 233–259. Rome : E´cole française de Rome, 2002. Pépin, Jean. « Attitudes d’Augustin devant le vocabulaire philoso­phique grec ». Dans La langue latine, langue de la philosophie : Actes du colloque de l’École française de Rome (Rome, 17–19 mai 1990), 277–307. Rome : E´cole française de Rome, 1992. Pietri, Charles. « Les difficultés du nouveau système (395–431) : La première hérésie d’Occident ; Pélage et le refus rigoriste ». Dans His-toire du christianisme 2 : Naissance d’une chrétienté (250–430), sous la direction de Jean-Marie Mayeur et al., 453–479. Paris : Desclée, 1995. Ratti, Stéphane. Le premier Saint Augustin. Paris : Les Belles Lettres, 2016. Rebenich, Stefan. « Amicus incertus in re certa : La correspondance entre saint Jérôme et saint Augustin ». Dans Correspondances : Documents pour l’histoire de l’Antiquité tardive ; Actes du col-loque international (Université Charles-de-Gaulle-Lille 3, 20–22 novembre 2003), sous la direction de Roland Delmaire et al., 419–435. Lyon : Maison de l’Orient, 2009. Salamito, Jean-Marie. Les Virtuoses et la multitude : Aspects soci-aux de la controverse entre Augustin et les pélagiens. Grenoble : Jérôme Millon, 2005. Salaville, Sévérien. « La connaissance du grec chez saint Augus­tin ». Revue des études byzantines 127–128 (1992) : 387–393. Siat, Jeannine. « La controverse Jérôme – Augustin ». Dans Saint Augustin et la Bible : Actes du colloque de l’Université Paul Ver­laine-Metz (7–8 avril 2005), sous la direction de Gérard Nauroy et Marie-Anne Vannier, 259–273. Berne : Peter Lang, 2008. Simard, Georges. « La querelle de deux saints : saint Jérôme et saint Augustin ». Revue de l’Université d’Ottawa 12 (1942) : 15–38. Sotinel, Claire. « La circulation de l’information dans les églises ». Dans La circulation de l’information dans les États antiques, sous la direction de Laurent Capdetrey et Jocelyne Nelis--Clément, 177–194. Bordeaux : Ausonius, 2006. Tourscher, Francis R. « The Correspondence of St. Augustine and St. Jerome ». The American Ecclesiastical Review 57 (1917) : 476–492. Vessey, Mark. « From cursus to ductus : Figures of Writing in Western Late Antiquity (Augustine, Jerome, Cassiodorus, Bede) ». Dans European Literary Careers : The Author from An­tiquity to the Renaissance, sous la direction de Patrick Cheney et Frederick de Armas, 47–103. Toronto : University of Toronto Press, 2002. Wankenne, Ludovic-Jules. « La langue de la correspondance de Saint Augustin ». Revue Bénédictine 94 (1982) : 102–153. White, Carolinne. The Correspondence (394–419) between Jerome and Augustine of Hippo. Queenston : E. Mellen Press, 1990. Winrich, Löhr. Pélage et le pélagianisme. Paris : Le Cerf, 2015. RÉSUMÉ Le présent travail s’inscrit dans une démarche d’archéologie conceptu­elle. Il s’agit de suivre, à travers les épîtres échangées entre Jérôme et Augustin, les grandes thématiques abordées par les deux hommes. Leurs échanges, très orageux parfois, restèrent respectueux à la co­dification de l’épistolographie du temps. En somme chacun gardait ses idées, et Jérôme se refusait à toute discussion ; mais ni l’estime, ni l’affection réciproque ne reçurent d’atteinte et il viendrait un temps où la collaboration intellectuelle si désirée s’établirait d’elle-même pour faire front devant l’ennemi commun, Pélage. MoTS-CLÉS:Augustin d’Hippone, épistolographie, lettre, Jérôme de Stridon, Pélage, hérésie “NOS… INTER NOS ERUDITIONIS CAUSA DISSERIMUS”: DISAGREEMENT AND RECONCILIATION IN THE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN AUGUSTINE AND JEROME ABSTRACT The paper focuses on the history of concepts by studying the key theo­logical themes in the correspondence between Jerome and Augustine. Their otherwise fierce debate remains respectful within the literary genre of epistolography and its confines that were characteristic of the period. Although each of them stood by their beliefs that Jerome frequently refused to even discuss, their respect and mutual affection were not in question, particularly when they were both intellectually focusing on the front against their common adversary, Pelagius. KEYWoRdS:Augustine of Hippo, epistolography, letters, Jerome of Stridon, Pelagius, heresy »NOS … INTER NOS ERUDITIONIS CAUSA DISSERIMUS«: NESOGLASJE IN SPRAVA V KORESPONDENCI MED AVGUŠTINOM IN HIERONIMOM IZVLECEK Prispevek se posveca zgodovini konceptov skozi raziskovanje glavnih teoloških tem v epistolografski korespondenci med Hieronimom in Avguštinom. Njuna mestoma sicer zelo burna razprava ostaja znotraj literarne zvrsti, znacilne za ta cas, in ohranja spoštljivo vljudnost. Ceprav je vsak izmed njiju stal za svojimi prepricanji in je Hieronim ponekod celo zavrnil razpravo, sta ohranila medsebojno spoštovanje in vzajemno naklonjenost, še posebno v casu, ko sta morala na inte­lektualni ravni združiti moci proti skupnemu nasprotniku, Pelagiju. KLJUCNE BESEdE: Avguštin iz Hipona, epistolografija, pismo, Hieronim iz Stridona, Pelagij, herezija SaintJeromeasPenitent(Hieronymus Wierix, after Frans Crabbe van Espleghem, 1563 – before 1586) doI:https://doi.org/10.4312/clotho.3.2.223-227 Reviews Hieronymus’ Witwenbu¨chlein fu¨r Salvina(epist. 79): Text, Übersetzung, Einfu¨hrungund Kommentar. Philip Polcar. Berlin: PeterLang, 2021. 373 pages, 77.10€ Reviewing commentaries is often difficult. As compilations of lore from throughout classical scholarship, they often cross the borders between the disciplines and exceed the meager confines of a single reviewer’s competencies. Nevertheless, reviews are necessary, espe­cially for a late antique text, where a commentary can often remain the only one for the foreseeable future. Serving as the unwary reader’s accessus and companion to an ancient text, it can wield dispropor­tionate influence for generations, rendering quality control all the more important. To start with the conclusion: from a philologist’s perspective, Philip Polcar’s commentary on Jerome’s epistula 79 is a highly competent piece of craftsmanship. It fulfills its core function as a commentary well, answering most questions that a reader could conceivably have about the text in a way that generally enriches the reading experience. Notwithstanding any criticisms in the following, it is a worthy addition to any well-stocked library on patristic authors. In the monograph under review, a revised version of a disser­tation submitted at the University of Konstanz in 2019, Polcar sets out to provide a full-scale commentary on a single letter of Jerome’s correspondence such as will be familiar to those who have read the work of Scourfield, Adkin, and Cain. The letter under investigation, epistula 79, is addressed to the newly widowed Salvina, containing both consolation for the loss of her husband, Nebridius, and exhortation to chaste widowhood. After a brief introduction to Jerome and the letter’s place in the ancient epistolographic tradition (pp. 11–19) and a survey of the edition and the manuscripts consulted (21–24), there follows a Latin text with a facing translation (pp. 24–45). The Latin is – with a few notable exceptions – a reproduction of Hilberg’s CSEL edition (1910–1918), which remains the standard to this day. This is not due to a lack of philological craftsmanship or enterprise – Polcar has consulted Carolingian manuscripts unknown to Hilberg and regularly comments on variant readings – but rather a testament to the solidity of the text as transmitted. The rendering into German is not slavish and often seeks to replicate Jerome’s lively style by eschewing Latinate syntax. It does, however, hew closely to the sentence and clause divisions of the original, making it easy to consult the translation at a glance whenever the Latin should prove intractable. The substance of the monograph is made up of a section written in continuous prose that deals with problems of a broader nature (pp. 47–171), followed by a lemmatized commentary on the problems that can more easily be isolated to a single word or line (pp. 173–326), capped with a conclusion summarizing the most important findings (pp. 327–329). In the introduction, Polcar attempts to situate the letter in its historical and cultural context as well as within Jerome’s oeuvre. A prosopographic chapter delineates the background of Salvina and Nebridius, her deceased husband. Both are shadowy figures that would scarcely have been known if not for Jerome, which inevitably results in several tentative conclusions and inferences. Thus, two pages (pp. 55–56) are devoted to the fraught question of whether Salvina’s famous father Gildo was a Donatist – a hypothesis Polcar rejects as unfounded – which could serve as an indication of the religious persuasion of his off-spring. Polcar recognizes the limitations of the evidence and is careful to distinguish between hypotheses and facts. For example, he suggests that Nebridius might have served as comes rei privatae immediately before his death, which would allow the use of the tenure of the following office holder, Studius, as a terminus ante quem for Nebridius’ death. This, in turn, would allow for more exact dating of the letter (pp. 105–106). The problem is that this edifice hinges on a maximalist interpretation of a single line in the letter (79.5.12) that is perhaps more suggestive than probative. However, the suggestion is never represented as more than a pet hypothesis and is always flagged with a caveat. Overall, Polcar manages to paint a coherent picture of the sort of people Salvina, Nebridius, and their associates must have been, which gives the reader a good sense of the intended audience for Jerome’s letter. The question of the audience naturally segues into the question of the genre of the text. Polcar resolutely declares himself in favor of the widely – if not universally – accepted view that letters do not constitute a genre. Except for a few external characteristics, such as carrying the addressee’s name at the head, they are principally defined by their potential for infinite variability. The seeming tension between the text that is both a libellus intended for public consumption and an epistula directed at an audience of one is not so much resolved as dismissed as only apparent. Like Jerome himself, Polcar will refer to this and other of Jerome’s letters alternatively as a “Traktat,” as a “Brief,” or as a “Büchlein” without much distinction, see, e.g., p. 163 for all three in rapid succession. Accepting that a text can without contradiction be both a letter and a treatise is, to some extent, necessary to Polcar’s further argument. As he demonstrates in the taxonomical chapter (pp. 67–79), epistula 79 is composite, consisting of a consolatory section that addresses the specifics of Salvina’s situation (chapters 1–6) and a protreptic section on the proper behavior of widows that seems to have a wider audience in mind and that at times becomes incongruent with Salvina’s circumstances (chapters 7–11). This is all the more paradoxical considering that the first section talks about Salvina in the third person, while she is addressed in the second from chapter 7 onwards. That fact seemingly caused Polcar sufficient discomfort that he felt compelled to address it in a truly Teutonic two-page footnote, which has been tucked away in a comment on the word sciat (pp. 184–185, n. 52). The term “letter” must consequently be flexible enough to include a text that has not only two similar but separate purposes but also two similar but separate audiences. This leads to the two most ambitious chapters in the introduction. In chapter 5, “How to get a Camel through the Eye of the Needle” (pp. 81–104), Polcar addresses the practical motives behind sending the letter to Salvina, treating the text primarily as private communi­cation. In chapter 7, “Jerome’s Widow Trilogy” (pp. 107–171), epistula 79 is viewed as a part of Jerome’s broader program on widowhood. Chapter 5 delves into the dire state of Jerome’s finances in the years around 400 AD, his need for support, and his reputation as an inhe­ritance chaser or captator. While Polcar is careful to distance himself from Jack Goody’s thesis that the reason that patristic authors favored virginity and widowhood was that they benefitted from childless people leaving everything to the church (p. 81–82), he nonetheless assigns much weight to the practical benefits accruing from the amicitia of a wealthy and influential widow for one in Jerome’s position. In this way, he bolsters the view that the addressee and the letter’s focus on charity as a central theme were chosen out of opportunistic concerns in the short term. Chapter 7 addresses the long-term ideological concerns by consi­dering the letter a “Fachbuch” for public consumption. In this chapter, Polcar compares the three letters on widowhood, Ep. 54, 79, and 123. He discusses the themes covered in each letter and how they supplement each other to complete the subject when viewed together. This results in a thorough overview of the thoughts not merely of Jerome but many patristic authors on various themes related to widowhood, from charity to remarriage. Moreover, it shows how Jerome’s treatment of the topic harmonizes with ideas he expressed much earlier and later, elevating the content over the immediate concerns at the moment of composition. This perspective, however, also introduces one of the more daring hypotheses. The subsequent letters, Polcar contends, were written with the preceding letter(s) in mind in such a way as to avoid redundancy, indicating that Jerome wrote for the audience either familiar with or with easy access to his prior letters (p. 165). This touches on the more delicate subject of how ancient texts and letters were “published” and circulated, which is bound to prove contentious. Polcar is, as always, aware of the limitations of his evidence and concedes that it admits of different interpretations. In this case, Jerome’s choice of themes may have been influenced by the circumstances of his addressee, but the general trend of Polcar’s argument is towards an interpretation of the texts as carefully crafted to be consumed by the general public, to be read within the context of Jerome’s broader oeuvre. It is, however, thoroughly fitting that a text as composite as this written by a character as complex as Jerome is subjected to a treatment that pulls in so many often slightly contradictory directions. The lemmatized commentary is broad in scope, as indeed it must be to evince 150 pages of notes from just over ten pages of text. Polcar comments on stylistics, grammar, linguistics, classical and biblical allusions, philosophy and theology, cultural and church history, and more. This displays an impressive breadth of knowledge and interests that does the author credit. Particularly useful are the notes commenting on Jerome’s tone and rhetorical strategies. Polcar has a keen ear for the coloration of words, for irony and satire, and for the development of the argument. This manifests both in the details and the broader strokes of each chapter. For example, he explains that the word marsuppium is colloquial and is typically used by Jerome in satirical contexts (p. 181), an aspect of coloration that the reader reliant on Lewis and Short would have missed. The explanation of the Biblical allusion behind the “furnace of Babylon,” its use in patristic literature, and the punning on fornix / fornax (p. 227–228) similarly makes it much easier to follow the thread of argument for those read­ers unused to the rhetoric of Christian polemics. Shortly afterwards, Polcar explains how elements of Jerome’s consolation show similarities with the precepts of classical rhetoric for eulogies (p. 233). The mix of classical and Christian culture is a healthy one that will not only help make the text accessible to readers of various backgrounds but is also invaluable to properly understand Jerome. The notes are perhaps, if anything, too copious. They contain all sorts of odds and ends from the antiquarian’s cabinet of curiosities that do not necessarily help the reader better interpret the text, calling to mind the didactic variorum commentaries of the late Renaissance. In 7.18, for example, Jerome lists a series of dishes from which Salvina abstains, starting with the Phasides aves or pheasants. The reader is told that Isidore, drawing on Martial, erroneously derives their name from the Greek island Phasis (p. 262–263). This leaves one with two unanswered questions. Firstly, why is Isidore’s etymology relevant? Secondly, what is the correct etymology? – To spare the curious a trip to their Pauly-Wissowa on the second count: The derivation is etymo­logically sound, the error consists in calling Phasis, a river in Colchis, an island. – Polcar continues: Aristophanes is the first to mention pheasants. Pliny the Elder was fascinated by their “feather ears.” Then follows the pertinent information: Pliny, Seneca, Galen, and Ambrose regarded pheasant as an extravagant delicacy, explaining why it is given pride of place among the luxuries, and some otherwise vegetarian ascetics made an exception for fish and poultry, marking Salvina as morally superior for not resorting to such dubious loopholes. Several similar notes could have benefited from some tightening and a clearer sense of the implicit question(s) to which they provide the answer. If, however, the most grievous fault one can find with a commentary is that it is excessively informative, it is a good commentary indeed. To end on a literary-aesthetic note: as a non-native speaker, I cannot speak with authority about the elegance of Polcar’s prose, but I can say that it is uniformly clear and immediately intelligible. Polcar eschews the labyrinthine periods characteristic of the German academic style in favor of briefer, punchier sentences that seldom exceed three lines and never do so gratuitously. The tone, though suitably scholarly and laden with subjunctives, is unpretentious and at times playful. Thus one chapter heading reads “Poor monk seeks filthy rich widow” (p. 89), parodying an advertisement from a lonely hearts column. The problems that Polcar attempts to solve are mostly concrete and specific to the text. Consequently, his prose is relatively free from abstruse abstractions and technical jargon borrowed from anthropology and literary theory. Whether this is ultimately a strength or a weakness is perhaps a matter for debate, but it does make for an easier read. One never feels the need for a commentary to the commentary. The volume itself is handsomely produced and typeset, and apart from a few minor complaints to be directed at the copy editor – inconsistencies in whether a comma or a dot is used in references to classical texts (7,13 or 7.13), a missing space on p. 237, an aberrant apostrophe in “durch’s” passim, etc. – gives a very professional impression. Willum Westenholz Saint Jerome (Agostino Carracci, 1581) doI:https://doi.org/10.4312/clotho.3.2.229-231 CEU Summer UniversityCall for Applications Interdisciplinary summer university course “Urban governance and civic participation in words and stone: Urbanism in Central Europe 1200–1600” at Central European University (CEU), Budapest and Prague, July 11–19, 2022. “A city (civitas) is a number of men joined by a social bond. It takes its name from the citizens who dwell in it.”1 This is how Isidore of Seville defined the city in the seventh century. As we can glean from this definition, the human element is all-encompassing, and the physical space is of secondary importance. Indeed, cities are cha­racterized by their populations, which are larger, denser and more complex than that of the surrounding countryside. They have been established to fulfill central functions in the production, exchange and consumption of commodities and serve as administrative and religious centers for a given district, region or realm. In order to realize these functions efficiently, cities were granted or gradually acquired a certain degree of autonomy and developed their own governing bodies and institutions, with varying degrees of parti­cipation by inhabitants of different social and legal standing. The system of governance necessitated the use of administrative literacy and the appropriate shaping of the physical environment, including its open spaces, buildings and ornaments. A millennium after Isidore, Rousseau, in a footnote to his Social Contract (1762), complained that people have almost forgotten the real meaning of the word city (cité) in modern times: “They do not know that houses make a town, but citizens a city.”2 How did the notion of civic participation change throughout history, and how were these changes reflected in the foundations of political thought? In what forms of expression did it surface in various written and visual media of the 1 Isidore of Seville, The Etymologies of Isidore of Seville, transl. Stephen A. Barney (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2006), 305. 2 Jean-Jacques Rousseau, “The Social Contract,” in The Social Contract and Dis­ courses, trans. George Douglas Howard Cole (London: Everyman, 1993), 180–341, n. 192. Middle Ages and the Early Modern period? These questions will be the focus of the summer university course.3 Medieval cities and towns present an important object of international historical, archaeological, and architectural in­vestigations and studies on political thought. The results of this research have given ample fodder for academic debates on the creation and growth of towns; the role of seigniorial power, civic initiatives, and external forces in these processes; and the role of migration, colonization, and cultural transfer in the spreading of urbanization – to name only a few. Related topics have formed the core of a lecture series, Urban Governance and Civic Participation in Words and Stone, which served to prepare the grounds for the summer university course and was hosted by the CEU Democracy Institute and the Department of Medieval Studies in the Fall Term of 2021.4 The summer university course will provide the opportunity to investigate the topic of urban governance in further detail and open up new interdisciplinary avenues of research for interested young scholars from the perspectives of art history, social history, pragmatic literacy, and urban planning. The summer university courses will be taught by distinguished scholars in the field. Katalin Szende, a prominent urban historian and professor at the Department of Medieval Studies (CEU), will open the floor with an introductory lecture on the concept of the Central European city in time and space. Felicitas Schmieder (University of Hagen) will then take over to discuss the legal background of urban autonomy and free burghers in German cities. One of the key themes of the course is civic participation, which will be covered by Susanne Rau (University of Erfurt), focusing on governments in pre-modern cities, while Ferenc Hörcher (University of Public Service Budapest) will delve deeper into urban republicanism and the political principles of late medieval cities in general. Last but not least, the course will look at the intersections of the administrative and spatial or architectural realms. Zoë Opacic (Birkbeck, University of London) will focus on the secular sphere and the performative functions of town squares, 3 For the latest news and updates, see summeruniversity.ceu.edu. 4 The lecture series was co-organized with the Department of History of Art at Birkbeck, University of London, and the Faculty of Philosophy at the University of Erfurt. The talks of various speakers focused on the origins of civic participation in political thought and explored its forms of expression in written and visual media from late antiquity to the seventeenth century. The lectures were made available online at democracyinstitute.ceu.edu. while Béla Zsolt Szakács (CEU, Pázmány Péter Catholic University) will give a lecture on sacred architecture in the urban context. The interdisciplinary orientation of the course will be reflected in the various types of activities interlacing theory with practice and combining the input of students with that of the faculty. The faculty members will offer thematic lectures to solidify the theoretical foun­dations, and the participants will be asked to present their research topics and give feedback. In addition, the faculty members will lead different workshops analyzing a specific type of written source (town plans, legal documents) or visual evidence. Finally, under the guidance of József Laszlovszky (CEU), city walks will be organized to provide an immersive experience of the sites and buildings connected to the topics of the lectures and workshops. One of the course’s aims is to foreground the cities and towns of medieval Central Europe (i.e., the medieval kingdoms of Hungary, Poland, and Bohemia) from a comparative perspective. Accordingly, the course will begin with five teaching days in Budapest and conclude with a four-day field trip to Prague, with a stopover in Brno. Besides a few indoor presentations, the main emphasis will be on site visits showcasing some long-term developments in medieval Prague and the post-WWII approach to restoring lost cultural heritage. Through these investigations of the preservation, protection, and value of im­material and material heritage for modern societies, participants will get a better sense of how the elements of contemporary townscapes reveal their histories and how the knowledge of the past lives of cities contributes to political consciousness and policy-making in the present. Interested students and young scholars are invited to submit their applications via the website, summeruniversity.ceu.edu, by February 28, 2022. Anja Božic KAZALO 05 31 55 75 93 115 CLANKI Aleksandar Andelovic and György Geréby Kontrastno jezikovno in kulturno ozadje dveh latinskih prevajalcev Antonovega življenja Sibil Gruntar Vilfan and Cristian-Nicolae Gaspar Quasi nani super humeros gigantum? Ponovna uporaba citatov iz klasicnih in srednjeveških avtorjev v hagiografskem diskurzu na podrocju Lièga v desetem stoletju Matic Kocijancic Objokovati Mnogozdraha: Mit o Antigoni, pokop sovražnikov in ideal sprave v starogrški literaturi Levente Pap Hieronimova recepcija v madžarskem zgodovinopisnem besedilu iz zgodnjega osemnajstega stoletja Miran Sajovic SDB Nekaj izhodišcnih opažanj oHieronimovi latinšcini Filomena Giannotti Posmrtno življenje svetega Hieronima: Vidiki njegove recepcije v dvajsetem stoletju 129 147 167 191 223 229 Jane Schatkin Hettrick Missa Sancti Hieronymi Johanna Michaela Haydna: Nenavaden poklon svetemu Hieronimu iz osemnajstega stoletja Ágnes Korondi Sveti Hieronim kot zgled in avtor za redovnice v zgodnjih madžarskih besedilih Marie Frey Rébeillé-Borgella Širjenje Hieronimove revizije prevoda Svetega pisma v latinskih liturgicnih knjigah (5.–12. stoletje) na primeru malih prerokov Mohamed-Arbi Nsiri »Nos … inter nos eruditionis causa disserimus«: Nesoglasje in sprava v korespondenci med Avguštinom in Hieronimom OCENA Willum Westenholz Philip Polcar, Hieronymus’ Witwenbu¨chlein fu¨r Salvina NOVICE Anja Božic Poletna univerza CEU: Razpis za prijave