Printer Friendly

Problems of the Historia Monachorum.

THE Historia Monachorum (HM) is one of the earliest sources for fourth-century Egyptian monasticism. The anonymous author or compiler of the Greek text writes about monks of various lifestyles whom he visited on a journey to Egypt and reports on other monks whom he heard about there. The stops on the journey run from south to north, between Lycopolis in the Thebais, where a group of seven pilgrims visited the monk John in autumn 394, to Diolcos on the Delta. The work is dedicated to the brothers in a monastery on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem, presumably the monastery which Rufinus was in charge of until his return to Italy in 397. According to Jerome, Rufinus is the author--in fact Rufinus' characteristic style is apparent in the Latin version, which improves the more primitive Greek version with respect both to its style and its contents.

The Greek text has been edited by E. Preuschen (1) and A. J. Festugiere. (2) There has been no critical edition of the Latin since that of H. Rosweyde in the early seventeenth century. (3) Eva Schulz-Flugel has now produced a major new critical edition. (4) The main part of the introduction gives a full and detailed discussion of the manuscript transmission. The work is of great importance for the history of Western monasticism. The perusal of vitae patrum ... heremitarum or vitae patrum (presumably the HM) is recommended by the Decretum Gelasianum, in Benedict's Rule, and in the Regula Magistri. In the second half of the seventh century it was incorporated by Valerius of Bierzo in his hagiographical collection. Early manuscripts transmit the work anonymously under the title vita patrum or with the additions sanctorum, eremitarum, or Aegypti monachorum. The Decretum Gelasianum attributes it to Jerome, as do certain manuscripts of the ninth and tenth centuries, and this attribution became common from the eleventh century on. A puzzling notice by Gennadius gives Petronius of Bologna as the author. An eleventh-century Monte Cassino manuscript names Rufinus in the title and also includes a relevant excerpt from his Church History.

Schulz-Flugel lists 372 surviving manuscripts and conjectures that many more exist. The earliest are from the eighth century onwards and give evidence of knowledge of the text in north France, south Germany, and Fulda. It was available in Bobbio at least by the ninth century. In order to classify the text Schulz-Flugel collated fifty-six selected manuscripts and by means of the variant readings and features of presentation (chapter headings, which she calls lemmata, and transmission together with other works) was able to ascertain that between the eighth and tenth centuries the HM was transmitted in eight clearly differentiated manuscript families. These eight families are characterized less by corruptions than by revisions of greater or lesser extent. Contamination took place between the families (only four are completely independent). This resulted in new forms of text, which arose in the tenth and eleventh centuries, became popular each in its own region, and gave rise to further contaminated forms. Interesting is the fact that the E form of text, which first appears in a Fulda manuscript, was particularly influential (both on later families and also on the printed editions). Schulz-Flugel describes her classification of the later manuscripts, but does not give details--she promises a later publication (p. 91 n. 9, P. 105; cf. the stemma on p. 108).

For the constitution of the text Schulz-Flugel uses twenty-five manuscripts (8 s.viii-s.ix/x, 10 s.x, 6 s.x/xi-xii/xiii, and 1 s.xv) from all eight families. She describes these in detail. It may be worth mentioning the most important. The earliest representative of family [alpha] (north French) is an eighth-century Saint Denis manuscript at Chartres, which unfortunately suffered damage in the last war. It contains a collection of monastic literature including such interesting items as Fastidius, De uita christiana, and Constantius, Vita Germani. The two leading members of family [beta] (north Italian) are closely related manuscripts from Bobbio (s.x) and Tours (s.ix). Their collection includes Eugippius, Vita Severini (lost in the Tours manuscript), and the Lausiac History, as well as HM. This family has the fewest individual errors. It is characterized by a set of chapter headings inserted between the prologue and the text. The two representatives of family [gamma] (region of Rouen under Anglo-Saxon influence according to p. 106) are manuscripts from Novara (s.x?) and Paris (s.xi), which also include other monastic literature. Family [delta] (south German) is represented by manuscripts from Freising (s.viii/ix), Sankt Florian near Linz (s.ix), and Salzburg (s.x). The leading manuscript of family [epsilon] was written at Fulda (s.ix) and gives a text with characteristic chapter headings, rearrangement of the chapters, omissions, and revision (cf. p. 176). Apart from this, the manuscript is reliable with few errors. Family [zeta] (south France) is represented by two manuscripts from Limoges (s.ix/x and s.xii), one from Jumieges (s.ix), one from Worcester (s.xi), and one from Assisi (s.xi/xi). This family is characterized by the fact that its common ancestor was difficult to read. It lacks titles and lemmata (p. 197). It transmits the HM together with the Life of Pachomius. Family [nu] consists of Spanish manuscripts (the earliest of 902 from the region of Leon/Toledo) and contains the hagiographical collection of Valerius of Bierzo. The only direct witness to family [kappa] is a south German manuscript of s.viii/ix, which may have been copied from a north Italian exemplar in majuscules without word division.

The eight families can be divided into two groups, of which [alpha], [beta], [zeta] and [kappa] are scarcely contaminated, whereas [gamma], [delta], [epsilon], and [nu] show contamination from other families and more or less extensive revision (p. 144). Because the work was frequently read and revised, the variants which characterize the families are mainly not obvious errors, but 'corrected' readings--something which can give rise to uncertainties of interpretation, since such readings can be inherited from a common ancestor, taken over by contamination, or indeed have taken the form of corrections, additions, or alternatives in an earlier copy. These difficulties are mentioned by Schulz-Flugel on pp. 110, 207, and 224 top. On p. 207 she argues that the families existed already earlier than the surviving manuscripts. Family [gamma] is only represented by later manuscripts, but the ninth-century manuscript from Jumieges of family [zeta] is already contaminated from a y manuscript. Family [nu], which must have originated in the seventh century, presupposes the [gamma] text. The Freising manuscript of s.viii/ix (family [delta]) is corrected in a contemporary hand from an E manuscript.

In tracing the history of transmission back behind the eight manuscript families Schulz-Flugel makes use of the form of presentation (titles, chapter headings) and shared variant readings (the latter a more reliable method). She distinguishes four earlier text forms or hypothetical lost ancestors, [phi], [sigma], [xi], and [psi] ('Variantentrager der ersten Schicht', pp. 224 ft.), whose relationship to the eight families is illustrated by a stemma on p. 229. She posits three 'hyparchetypes', [[omega].sup.1], [[omega].sup.2], and [[omega].sup.3] and an archetype, [omega]). Of these [omega], [[omega].sup.1], and [[omega].sup.3] possessed a title and chapter headings (preserved in the families [alpha], [kappa], and [delta]) as described on pp. 208 and 227 f., and [[omega].sup.2] transmitted the work without lemmata, perhaps without title (as reflected most faithfully in family [zeta]); cf. also p. 109 n. 18 on doubts about [[omega].sup.3].

Schulz-Flugel's discussion of the text displays enormous industry and occasional lack of clarity. A few examples may be selected for comment. The most dubious feature in the stemma, in my impression, is the position of family [gamma], represented as it is only by late manuscripts. The evidence that family [nu] already presupposes the existence of family [gamma] in the seventh century (pp. 161, 207, 214, 217, 219, 222) seems inadequate. The inclusion of certain common works in the collections of both does not prove this. Puzzling also is the description of family [gamma] as coming from the region of Rouen under Anglo-Saxon influence (p. 106). The reason for this is that the Jumieges manuscript from family [zeta] is contaminated with [gamma] readings (pp. 134 n. 66, 160, 195, 207, 219), but the question remains whether this evidence is sufficient to presuppose the existence of the [gamma] text as such, rather than just the readings in question.

The treatment of outer forms of presentation as a means of classification causes the reader some minor confusion, since it is used in three different ways. On p. 105 three main types are distinguished (those of family [epsilon], those of the other seven families, and a mixed type). On pp. 208 ft. four main types are described for the eight families. These however can better be reduced to two types, one with and one without lemmata. Type II differs from Type I only by the addition of sancto to De NN of the lemmata; Type IV from Type III by the addition of a title. The assignment of the eight families to these types is complicated by contamination and the addition of further individual features in certain families. Thirdly the author posits three different types corresponding to her three 'hyparchetypes' (see above).

With regard to the archetype and 'hyparchetypes' Schulz-Flugel suggests that Rufinus may possibly have left his translation unpublished and that the archetype [omega] (with chapter headings) may have been the copy left to his friends at his death, [[omega].sup.2] (without chapter headings) a private copy of this intended for working on ('reine Arbeitsunterlage', p. 230). It is perhaps more likely that [[omega].sup.2] was either an earlier copy to which the headings had not yet been added or a later one in which they were lost by accident (e.g. left for a rubricator, who failed to do his work).

A feature of particular interest, to which Schulz-Flugel pays some attention, is the contents of the various collections of monastic literature in which the HM appears (Uberlieferungs-gemeinschaft'). In a number of families the HM is combined with the lives of Paul, Antony, and Hilarion, as recommended in the Decretum Gelasianum. In view of the connection of the transmission of other translations by Rufinus with Campania and the library of Eugippius at Castellum Lucullanum, (5) the inclusion of Eugippius, Life of Severinus, in the collections of families [beta] and [gamma] would seem to be of particular significance (against what the author writes on p. 226). The Bobbio manuscript of family [beta] agrees in its title with that used by Benedict and the Regula Magistri (cf. pp. 34 and 117). Also of interest are the inclusion of the Life of Paulinus in the collection of family [nu], and the collection of the St Denis manuscript (family [alpha]), which includes a Pelagian work and the lives of various Gallic ascetics. In family [kappa] the HM is transmitted with the Life of Martin and a work of Gennadius. It will be possible to use the evidence of these collections to throw further light on the textual history once more of the other writings have received critical editions.

The aim of the study of the transmission is to establish the text and select the best readings. To assist with this Schultz-Flugel includes one chapter and two indices on peculiarities of Rufinus' language and a chapter on problems of the Latin text. In the latter she discusses cases where there may have been corruptions in the archetype (nothing very serious, but including the problem of the uncertainty about the title and one or perhaps two cases where a chapter heading has been misunderstood), passages where a textual decision needs to be made, and peculiarities of language retained in the text of the edition. At VII 13,4 (PP. 74-75) I would disagree with the suggestion of correcting the Latin according to the Greek. A further short chapter on the biblical citations in HM describes Rufinus' addition of many quotations and allusions and the problem of alterations to them in the manuscript transmission, and gives a list of Old Latin readings. The text itself is accompanied by a full critical apparatus and brief notes, which give references to the sources and influence of the HM in other monastic literature, cross-references, parallels in other works of Rufinus, and a few classical allusions, as well as biblical references.

Three particular points of interest arise in connection with Schulz-Flugel's discussion of Rufinus' Latin text. One is the suggestion that Rufinus used a simple Latin version made by someone else on which to base his own revision (pp. 48; cf. pp. 70-71, 234). The reason for this is that the style is not uniform, sometimes being a simple translation of the Greek, sometimes showing thorough revision (pp. 45 and 47-48). This is not developed in any detail. In my view it raises the possibility that Rufinus may have started work on the HM in Jerusalem (otherwise, as far as we know, all his translations were made after his return to the West).

A second conjecture made by the author is that certain additions, in particular the reference to Rufinus' Church History at XXIX 5,5, were made to the HM subsequently by Rufinus' friends (PP. 47, 66; cf. also p. 79). I consider this unlikely.

An interesting phenomenon occurs at IX 4,5, where the same addition (ad eius fidem solem stetisse) occurs in two manuscript families only ([delta] and [epsilon]) and also in the Syriac (pp. 26, 48, 76, 225). Schulz-Flugel thinks that this may be a coincidence, but it is possible to conjecture that the words were added as a correction both in the Greek copy used by Rufinus and in Rufinus' own version, and that they were copied only into the common ancestor of [delta] and [epsilon], but dropped out in the rest of the Latin tradition.


Major problems arise in connection with the Greek text and its relationship to the Latin. Views of earlier scholars have differed widely on this. Although she provides a bibliography, Schulz-Flugel does not give a detailed account of earlier research. Some reference to earlier views will be made in what follows. Basically the author's own approach is to treat the printed Greek text as the original (though admitting it may be corrupt) and the differences of the Latin as resulting from Rufinus' own revision. In detail the situation is much more complicated.

Firstly Schulz-Flugel devotes a chapter to showing that the Greek HM is a composite work using various written and/or oral sources and by no means a homogeneous composition. She points to the inclusion of various different types of report, to the alternation between [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] and [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] as introductory formulae (but might this not be a deliberate artifice?), to variation in whether or not biblical citations are included, and to misunderstandings, doublets, contradictions, and inconsistencies. She thinks in terms of a compiler, who did not always understand his sources, and she regards the journey as a fiction (pp. 7-8; cf. pp. 10-12), though she does allow that the compiler did write for the brothers on the Mount of Olives (p. 17) and that a journey did take place (p. 23). She is perhaps a bit over-sceptical here--the inclusion of different types of material need not be surprising, and some of the inconsistencies may be simply caused by the incompetence of the author (or textual problems). Other writers have claimed to make sense of the route of the expedition. (6)

Many of the differences between the Greek and Latin versions of the HM can be ascribed to Rufinus' revision and improvements, but this is not the full story. It is clear that we do not possess the Greek version which Rufinus had before him. New editions of different branches of the Greek transmission and of the Syriac translations would bring us closer, but still not provide us with the exemplar used by Rufinus.

Schulz-Flugel has one chapter on the oriental translations, in particular the Syriac, and one chapter on the Greek transmission, but discusses both elsewhere too (cf. pp. 4, 5 ff., 23 ff., 27 ff.). The Greek manuscripts go back to s.ix/x and present the text under various titles, authors (including Jerome), and with the chapters in various orders. The form of Greek text edited by Festugiere is not the closest to the Latin version. A number of manuscripts described by him as 'Aberrantes' often agree with the Latin against the printed Greek text (families x and y). Schulz-Flugel states that she is preparing an edition of the text of certain of these manuscripts (p. 26 n. 17) and has already collated the Oxford manuscript, Bodl. Libr. Cromwell 18 (p. 30). The manuscripts of the Syriac versions derive from the sixth century onwards and, according to Preuschen, represent at least four different translations. There is no satisfactory edition. That of Budge (7) used manuscripts which include the HM within the ascetic collection of Anan-lesus (s.vii, p. 24 n. 5). Making use of Budge, Schulz-Flugel lists agreement between the Syriac and Latin, also the Syriac, Latin, and individual Greek manuscripts belonging to the group of 'Aberrantes' on pp. 26-27 and again pp. 48 ff.; cf. also p. 87. Further readings are quoted in the course of pp. 54-67. Unfortunately the Greek manuscripts of this group and also the second Syriac version, whose chapter arrangement agrees with the Latin (p. 25), are incomplete and do not include a number of the later chapters (pp. 30-31; cf. also p. 17 n. 42 and p. 63). How are these somewhat sporadic agreements with the Latin to be interpreted? One possibility is that a Greek text based on the Greek 'Aberrantes' manuscripts and the Syriac would be closer to the original (p. 27), another is that some revision took place to the more primitive Greek text before the Latin translation was made. Schulz-Flugel accepts this possibility on pp. 49 ft., in particular with regard to the chapters I, VII, VIII, and XVI (Latin), where the Greek manuscripts [C.sup.2]O agree with the Latin in a number of improvements. She illustrates this by means of the version of chapter IX in the Oxford manuscript, in which the order of episodes agrees with the Latin. How much closer such a revised Greek version would have been to the Latin is a matter for conjecture. Rather surprisingly Schulz-Flugel takes a different line with regard to the agreements with the Latin of the Greek manuscript family [nu]. In this case she suggests that the Greek text may have been corrected according to the Latin (pp. 28, 52 f., 61-62, and 78); it seems, however, to be an unnecessary complication to treat this family differently from the other 'Aberrantes'.

Yet another reason needs to be considered for the differences between the printed Greek text and the Latin version--the likelihood that the Greek is corrupt. I would like to put forward the hypothesis that the Greek has undergone a clumsy and incompetent revision as a result of the fear of Origenism caused by Theophilus of Alexandria's expulsion of the Nitrian monks in 399/400. Jerome provides a starting point. He states of Rufinus that he wrote a book about monks and lists many in it who never existed; the ones whom he describes were without doubt Origenists and condemned by the bishops. Jerome then lists Ammonius, Eusebius, Euthymius, Evagrius, Or, and Isidore. (8)

The first three names given by Jerome are those of three of the four famous Tall Brothers, the leaders of the Origenist monks of Nitria persecuted by Theophilus. An account of them is given in chapter XXIII of the Latin version as part of the description of the settlements of Nitria and Cellia (XXI ft.). Firstly it is worth noting that the account of Nitria is much briefer in the Greek (XX.5 Festugiere, XXIII Preuschen) than in the Latin, confining itself to the record of the visit. The Greek includes a reference to the rivalry of the monks in their ascetic practices omitted in the Latin, but it omits the enthusiastic praise contained in Latin XXI at lines 4-5 (sins abolished there), 9 (their faith and charity), 19-20 (mystical reasons for foot-washing), and paragraphs 1,5 and 1,6 exclaiming on their virtues, agreement in teaching, works of mercy, and biblical study. Instead of all this the Greek merely summarizes with the words, 'Who would speak of all their virtues, being unable to say anything worthily?' The beginning of the account of Cellia which follows has clearly suffered corruption in the Greek. Whereas the Latin gives the position of this settlement in the inner desert and states that Cellia is its name, the Greek does not recognize Cellia as a proper name (XX.7 Festugiere, XXIII.3 Preuschen). Another difference is that the Greek refers to brothers being found dead in their cells, whereas the Latin states that if brothers fail to appear in church they are visited by the other monks.

There follows the account of Ammonius and the other three Tall Brothers (XXIII). The Latin starts with three paragraphs praising Ammonius' virtues, which are omitted in the Greek (XX.9 Festugiere, XXIV Preuschen). There then follows a paragraph on his two brothers, Eusebius and Euthymius, together with a mention of the fourth brother, Dioscorus, who was made bishop against his will. The brothers are praised as teachers and comforters of all the monks in that area. This paragraph is omitted in the Greek and the names of Ammonius' three brothers are not mentioned, but instead there appears at a slightly later point (XX. 14 Festugiere, XXVI.2 Preuschen) a garbled paragraph about three brothers who cut off their ears in order to avoid being made bishops (cf. Schulz-Flugel p. 10 on this anecdote).

After two short sections on Didymus and Cronius in both versions, the Latin has a short section on the monk Origenes (XXVI). This is completely omitted in the Greek. Why? For the simple reason that the name was regarded with alarm, something which gives an indication of the intellectual level of the reviser who made this excision. The following section on Evagrius is much shorter in the Greek than the Latin and omits some of the praises included in the Latin version. (9) The sections on the other two monks named by Jerome occur at different points and are not connected with Nitria (II and XVII Latin). Jerome will be incorrect in regarding them as Origenists. He has presumably confused the Or of the HM with Or of Nitria, and Isidore with the Isidore of Alexandria persecuted by Theophilus. The Greek version emphasizes the orthodoxy of Or's faith (II.7 Festugiere, II.7 Preuschen).

It is likely that some of the differences just listed between the Greek and Latin versions of the Nitrian sections of the HM are caused by Rufinus' improvements, but others are the result of alterations to the Greek text. (10) The theory of an anti-Origenist revision need cause no surprise. The text of Palladius, Lausiac History, has undergone the same fate. The names of Origen, the monk Origenes, Dioscorus, Ammonius, Eusebius and Euthymius, Evagrius and others have been excised or altered in various Greek manuscripts and versions, (11) and other alterations have also been made. Recently this anti-Origenist revision in the transmission of Palladius has been discussed by Bunge, who also quotes Coptic evidence for it. (12) He dates it to the sixth century (p. 125), but perhaps the possibility of an earlier date should also be considered.

That our Greek text of the HM has undergone alterations is the view taken by Butler and Festugiere. (13) Butler (pp. 274-75; cf. stemma, p. 268) concluded that the original Greek version was the one used by Rufinus and that a revision of the Greek text took place from which the Greek manuscripts and Syriac versions descend. Festugiere, in examining the relationship of the Latin to the Greek, distinguished between Rufinus' own revision and material based on a different Greek recension (pp. 267, 270 ft.), and argued that Rufinus used a recension of the Greek text very different from ours (p. 279). He thought in terms of a fluid tradition in which copyists did not hesitate to make alterations and additions, resulting in many different recensions. 'Soyons assures que, si nous avions vecu au debut du Ve siecle, nous eussions rencontre d'autres recensions encore' (p. 281).

If we follow the suggestions of Schulz-Flugel and my own proposal of an anti-Origenist revision we may think therefore in terms of a number of versions: (a) an original more primitive Greek version; (14) (b) a revised Greek version closer to the Latin, some of whose readings are preserved in the Greek 'Aberrantes' manuscripts and the Syriac; (c) Rufinus' revision; (d) a Greek version affected by an incompetent anti-Origenist revision. Even this will be an over-simplification, however, as will no doubt be made clear by further work on the Greek and Syriac texts. In writing of the 'Aberrantes' manuscripts Festugiere (ed. cit. p. lxix) speaks in terms of five different free redactions.

Whether or not they go back in part to a revised Greek version, the differences between Rufinus' Latin and the Greek are of considerable interest. Schulz-Flugel has one chapter examining parallels with Rufinus' other works in the contents, use of biblical citations and Latin style (pp. 39 ff.), (15) and arguing for Rufinus as the author of the translation, and another chapter in which she goes through the text examining the relationship between Latin and Greek. Points of interest include emphasis in the Latin on the spiritual vision of God (p. 46, excision of an 'anthropomorphist' agraphon at VII 15, 1, pp. 56, 58), criticism of boastfulness (P. 55), and removal of references to competition (pp. 59, 63), more emphasis on spiritual virtues, removal of crude or primitive features, smoothing of transitions. As has already been mentioned the degree of revision varies greatly, some shorter chapters agreeing closely, other chapters being completely remodelled. (16)

There remains to be mentioned one further source of evidence for the Greek text. Sozomen, in his accounts of Egyptian monks in his Ecclesiastical History I. 13-14, III. 14, and VI.28-31, makes use of the HM and Palladius' Lausiac History. His text has been analysed by Preuschen (pp. 180 ff.), Butler (pp. 53 ft., 270 ff.), Festugiere (pp. 279 ff.), Reitzenstein, Schoo, (17) and Hansen. (18) Preuschen gives the most detailed linguistic analysis. Sozomen's wording is sometimes closer to the Greek, more often closer to Rufinus' Latin. This shows in my view that Sozomen used a version of the Greek closer in wording to Rufinus' Latin than our Greek text (for alternation between Greek and Latin wording cf. Preuschen, p. 186, on Helles). Preuschen's conclusion is as follows: 'Die genaue Prufung der Regeste des Sozomenus ergiebt also das uberraschende Resultat, dass Sozomenus an einer Anzahl von Stellen ebenso entschieden den Wortlaut der griechischen historia monachorum vorauszusetzen scheint, wie er sich an anderen Stellen davon entfernt, um sich Rufin zu nahern' (p. 189). In terms of the contents, too, Sozomen sometimes agrees with the Greek (cf. e.g. Butler, p. 274, on John of Diolcus), more often with the Latin. Particularly striking is the fact that he agrees closely with Rufinus against the Greek in the accounts of Nitria and Cellia and in including the section on the monk Origenes, which has been omitted in the Greek (cf. Butler, pp. 271-74, Preuschen, pp. 188 ff.). His accounts of the Tall Brothers and Evagrius (VI.30) are longer than those of the HM and use the Lausiac History.

There remain two puzzles. The first is that Sozomen gives two accounts of the monk who appears as Apollonius in the Latin and Apollos in the Greek, one under each name (111.14 and VI.29). The first is closer to the Latin, the second closer to the Greek HM (on this cf. Butler, p. 57 n. 1, Preuschen, p. 184, Reitzenstein, P. 75). Immediately after his description of Apollos he refers for more detail to an account of the lives of Apollos and other monks by [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]. What are we to make of this? Earlier scholars have proposed different solutions. In Butler's view Sozomen used a form of Greek text of the HM which was superior to ours and closer to the Latin. He suggested that the author may have been the Timothy who was archdeacon of Alexandria in 412 (and could earlier have been a monk at Jerusalem). Sozomen may have had a second copy at least of the life of Apollos (p. 57 n. 1, pp. 275-77). The solution offered by Preuschen was that Sozomen used a writing by an obscure church historian, Timotheus, who himself had used Rufinus' version of the HM. Sozomen may also have used the Greek HM (op. cir. pp. 189-91). Reitzenstein, whose chief interest was in the character of the sources (stories about monks) used both by Rufinus and by the reviser of the Greek version of the HM, conjectured that at III.14 Sozomen used the same source as Rufinus, and that at VI.29 he refers for his source on Apollos to a collection of Lives of Monks by Timothy, bishop of Alexandria (died 385). He regarded it as not unlikely that the reviser of the Greek HM used this work (pp. 75-77). At pp. 30-31 too (on Amun) Reitzenstein posits a common source of Rufinus, the Lausiac History, and Sozomen. Festugiere did not go into detail on these questions, but thought in terms of Sozomen having used a Greek version of the HM closer to Rufinus than to our Greek HM (art. cit. pp. 279-80). My own inclination would be to accept the evidence that Sozomen did indeed use as his main source a Greek version of the HM such as is posited by Butler and Festugiere (the idea of his alternating mid-sentence between the Greek and Latin versions of the HM seems implausible). As regards the work of Timotheus of Alexandria it seems to me that we can have no knowledge of it, nor can we tell whether Sozomen used it for his account of Apollos at VI.29, or indeed not at all. The possibility of other common sources shared by the HM with Sozomen also has to be taken into account.

A different line is taken by Schoo and Hansen. Schoo, who followed Preuschen in regarding the Latin HM as the original, thought that Sozomen used both the Latin and the Greek HM (p. 57). For the account of Apollonius in III.14 he used HM, for the account of Apollos in VI.29 the Lausiae History (pp. 44-45). The reference to the work of Timotheus only tells us that Sozomen knew the book, not that he used it (pp. 51-52). On pp. 41-49 Schoo shows how Sozomen makes alternate use of the HM and the Lausiac History (making it clear that the use of these two sources has to be examined together). Unfortunately, however, he uses the Migne text of the Lausiac History. On pp. 55-56 he explains the order followed by Sozomen in his accounts of Egyptian monks. According to Hansen, Sozomen used the HM both in Latin and in Greek. The way he refers to the work of Timothy of Alexandria shows that he did not use it. Hansen gives references to the HM and the Lausiac History in the footnotes to his edition. Schulz-Flugel agrees with Schoo and Hansen in supposing that Sozomen used both Rufinus' Latin and the Greek HM, but also thinks in terms of other sources which both Sozomen and the HM drew on. In particular she conjectures that Sozomen followed the work of Timothy of Alexandria for his account of monks in VI.28, and that he supplemented this with details from the two versions of the HM (rather than simply having made a selection from the HM). She therefore conjectures that Timotheus' work was already in the form of a travel account and was one of the sources of the HM. She also posits two main sources on Apollos/Apollonius, a travel account on the monks of Nitria and Cellia, various stories about the two Macarii, anecdotes about Paul the Simple and Amun, and further narratives about other monks (pp. 4, 13, and 20-23). She promises a publication on the sources of Sozomen (p. 4, n. 10).

The problems of the HM are complex and fascinating. Schulz-Flugel may not have solved them all, but her contribution is much to be welcomed. The study of the Latin transmission is of the greatest importance and we must be most grateful for the results of her industry in the production of the first modern critical edition of the Latin text of this important work.

(1) E. Preuschen (ed.), Palladius und Rufinus (Giessen, 1897).

(2) A. J. Festugiere (ed.), Historia Monachorum in Aegypto, Subsidia Hagiographica, 34 (Brussels, 1961) and 53 (Brussels, 1971, second edition with a French translation).

(3) H. Rosweyde (ed.), Vitae Patrurn (Antwerp, 1614, 1617, and 1628).

(4) Eva Schulz-Flugel, Tyrannius Rufinus. Historia Monachorum sire de Vita Sanctorum Patrum, Patristische Texte und Studien, 34, K. Aland and E. Muhlenberg (eds.), (Berlin, New York: De Gruyter, 1990).

(5) Cf. C. P. Hammond Bammel, 'Products of fifth-century scriptoria preserving conventions used by Rufinus of Aquileia', JTS, NS, 30 (1979), 445 ff.

(6) For example, Benedicta Ward in the introduction to The Lives of the Desert Fathers trans. Norman Russell (London and Oxford, 1980), 3 ff.

(7) A. W. Budge, The Book of Paradise (London, 1904).

(8) Jerome, Epistle 133.3.

(9) On these sections and the differences between the Greek and Latin cf. Preuschen, op. cit. pp. 198-200. Preuschen thought that the Latin is the original and the Greek a translation, so he analyses the Greek as a revision of the Latin (pp. 196 ff.).

(10) The possibility also has to be considered that the loss of whole chapters in certain Greek manuscripts and the second Syriac version (cf. pp. 30-31, p. 17 n. 42, and p. 63) is the result of a more thoroughgoing anti-Origenist (anti-Nitrian) revision.

(11) Dom Cuthbert Butler, The Lausiac History of Palladius (Cambridge, 1989-1904), vol. 2, pp. lxxxvf.

(12) G. Bunge, 'Palladiana', Studia Monastica 32 (1990), especially pp. 81-84; cf. pp. 99-102 for Coptic evidence.

(13) A. J. Festugiere, 'Le probleme litteraire de l'Historia Monachorum', Hermes 83 (1955), 157-84.

(14) Butler and Festugiere do not include this version, since they regard the Greek version used by Rufinus as the original.

(15) In fact there is a difference in style, no doubt because of the influence of the style of the Greek work translated. A. H. Salonius, Vitae Patrum (Lund, 1920), 14 points out that the sentence structure of the HM is simpler and more awkward than that of the Ecclesiastical History.

(16) The chapters where Latin and Greek diverge very substantially are discussed by Richard Reitzenstein, Historia Monachorum und Historia Lausiaca. Eine Studie zur Geschichte des Monchtums und der fruhchristlichen Begriffe Gnostiker und Pneumatiker (Gottingen, 1916). Like Preuschen, Reitzenstein thought that the Greek text is a revision of Rufinus' Latin. He characterizes the difference between the two on pp. 16-17 (with reference to the chapter on Paulus): 'eine moralische Novelle mit stark hervorgehobener Tendenz und einer gewissen Feinheit der Ausfuhrung bietet Rufin...glucklich durchgefuhrt. Der griechische Bearbeiter hat daraus eine tendenzlose Wundergeschichte grobschlachtigster Art gemacht.' He uses his analysis of the chapters in question to illustrate the kind of stories which circulated and were used as source material for both Latin and Greek versions.

(17) G. Schoo, Die Quellen des Kirchenhistorikers Sozomenos (Berlin, 1911).

(18) Sozomenus, Kirchengeschichte, ed. J. Bidez with an introduction by G. C. Hansen (Berlin, 1960), xlix-1.
COPYRIGHT 1996 Oxford University Press
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 1996 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Bammel, C.P.
Publication:The Journal of Theological Studies
Geographic Code:7EGYP
Date:Apr 1, 1996
Previous Article:New sermons of St Augustine.
Next Article:Alloiosis in the Christology of Zwingli.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2021 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters