MODERN PATROLOGIES

Angelo Di Berardino

I). Terminological Questions.

The term patrology is derived from the Latin pater(father) and from the Greek logos (discourse, speech).In common language, it has two meanings today whichare generally accepted: a) the study of the Fathersof the Church b) a manual or introduction to thestudy of the ancient Christian writers. A thirdmeaning, that nowadays is obsolete, is a collectionof the writings of these authors, for example theimmense series by Migne, or the other collections indifferent languages, i.e. besides Latin and Greek(Patrologia Orientalis, ecc.). I used the expression“Fathers of the Church”; an expression which issimilar to this is that of “ancient Christianwriters”. The concept of “Father of the Church” isvery ancient and makes reference to the teacher, whoinstructs and generates in the faith by means of theword. Irenaeus had already said that the teacher is afather, while the student is a son (Adv. haer. 4.41,2;Clement Al., Strom. I,1,2,1 e I,1,1,3).

The bishop in particular is he who teaches andbaptizes; in this way he generates new children forthe Church, and in such a manner he is a father.Polycarp of Smyrna (circa †165) is called the“doctor/teacher of Asia, father of the Christians”(Martyrdom of Polycarp 12,24); Cyprian, the bishop ofCarthage, was called pope (papa), a diminutive

appellation for pater (Ep. 33; 31; 36). Such a usageis followed by Ambrose and Augustine (Wiest, 530-534).

The bishops who participated in the councilscame to be called Fathers, even if they were notwriters; thus they were called, those whoparticipated in the council of Nicaea (325), the “318Fathers” (cf. Basil, Ep., 140,2; Gregory Naz., Or.35,15). In our context, on the other hand, one iscalled a Father only if he was an ancient author wholeft something written, even if he was not a bishop.The Fathers, in as much as they caused the Christiancommunities to grow, are to be considered orthodox intheir faith. One must not judge their orthodoxy bythe criteria of theology which came later. Inpractice, however, the patrologies do not includeonly orthodox writers, but also all those who wereconsidered Christians. In other words, even theheretics, such as Arius or Nestorius. According to asolidified tradition, ‘patrologia’ studies the “lifeand the works of the Fathers”, but it is added thatit also treats their theological thought and theprincipal themes of each author. And as for theliterary aspects? These, too, are not normallyignored.

In fact, the first so-called patrology waswritten by Jerome (†420) in order to demonstrate thateven among the Christians there were men, illustriousfor the quality of their style and for theirteaching. He begins with the Apostle Peter and hefinishes with himself, which is notice number 135. As

regards the title by which he indicates his work, hewrites to Augustine that it can be called by thetitle De viris illustribus vel proprie de scriptoribus ecclesiasticis (Onillustrious men or, more precisely, on ecclesiastical writers: Ep.112,3). There is an apologetic scope so to show tothe pagans that the Church too has enjoyed herphilosophers and teachers who have grounded, built,edified, and adorned her (Praef 7). The adjective‘ecclesiastical’ is a reference to the church and,inter alia during this period, it indicated acatholic or orthodox Christian, and in this sense itis used by Jerome himself (Ep. 62,1) (cf. Du Cange p.227,8). Here, however, he understands all those whohave written “regarding the Sacred Scriptures” (Praef.1), therefore also the schismatics and the heretics,who certainly did not edify and adorn the Church. Ina letter to Jerome, Augustine had pointed out that hehad also included the heretics, somethingunbefitting, but at least he should have noted, too,their errors (Ep. 40,6,9). Some modern authors havefollowed Jerome, since they include the writings ofthe New Testament and everyone today includes theheretical writers. As it was for him, there is aninterest for the ‘literary’ aspects in the works ofthe Fathers. In the Divinae Institutiones (at the beginningof Book V) Lactantius expresses judgments of aliterary character regarding his Latin predecessors(Tertullian, Minucius Felix, Cyprian). In his Dedoctrina christiana Augustine analyzes the style of Paul,of Cyprian, and of Ambrose (IV,7,11ff.; IV,21,45ff).

In any case, Jerome’s verbal phrasing of‘ecclesiastical writers’ (syntagma) has enjoyed

success. His work was continued in the west by otherauthors: Gennadius of Marseille (467-480), by a workwith the same title, added another 135 briefbiographies, Isidore of Seville (560-636) another 47and Ildephonsus of Toledo (607 - 667) 14 names ofIberian writers. For Vincent of Lérins (circa †450)the Fathers are those “who, after a holy life, a wiseteaching, a constant attachment to the faith and tothe catholic communion, have merited to die in Christaccording to the faith, or to die for Christaccording to a blessed lot. Nevertheless, one oughtto believe them on the basis of this normative rule:all that which every one of them or the greatmajority clearly, frequently, and with perseverance –with one and the same accord – as in a council ofteachers perfectly unanimous, has affirmed, received,preserved, and passed down, that same is to be heldas undoubted, certain, definitive” (Comm. 28).Following this line of thought, the Decretum Gelasianum,compiled around the year 550, composed a list “of theHoly Fathers who are to be received in the CatholicChurch” and of the works which were not accepted (DiBerardino A., ed., pp. 224-246.). Hence it was thedoctrinal interest which determined the concept ofFather. In the Greek East there were the shorterhistorical works of the patriarch Nicephoros (758-829) and the Myriobiblion (or Bibliotheca) of thepatriarch Photius from 858, an exposition and reviewof 279 works, also those written by pagans. All ofthese authors ignore the authors in other orientallanguages after the fifth century.

The work by Jerome, who made use of Eusebius ofCesarea, constitutes the premise of that sort oftreatise and of studies which, from the seventeenthcentury, from the impulse by the Lutheran JohannesGerhard (1582-1637), would come to be called‘patrology’. The terminological question has itsimportance, in so much as the modern manuals havedifferent titles: Patrology, (History of) Ancient ChristianLiterature, Ancient Ecclesiastical Literature, and sometimes evenPatristic Literature or also Patristics.

II. The recourse to the Fathers

Gerhard was the author of a Patrologia sive deprimitivae Ecclesiae christianae doctorum vita ac lucubrationibusopusculum posthumum (Ienae 1653, reprinted in 1668 and1773), which begins with the second century (Hermas)and goes to Bellarmine (†1621), his contemporary. He,by means of this title, created the term ‘patrology’,which – to him – embraced “the life and the thoughtof the doctors of the primitive (early) ChristianChurch”. The concept of “early church” was too vast,in as much as it extended all the way to his own day.In the dedicatory preface he wrote that the Fathersare a divine blessing: Patrum scripta fidei esse regulam accredendi vel Scripturam exponendi unicam vel primariam normam,on the condition that the word of God which is foundin the Holy Scriptures be the unicum credendi principiumesse et articulorum fidei normam (p. a2). He cites thesources for every author, he describes the content ofthe work and he makes numerous critical observations.He very often cited the opinions of Baronius (Annalesecclesiastici) and of Bellarmine. Among the first

Christian writers he also counts Dionisius theAreopagite and the Pseudo-clementine works, which hecriticized for a lack of accuracy. Bellarmine, withhis De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis, which included thebiblical books and some Jewish authors (JosephusFlavius), wrote an introductory compendium – veryschematic – for the reading of the writers up to histime, spread out according to their century. A fewyears prior to that Simon de Voyon has published hisCatalogue des Docteurs de l'église de dieu, La Rochelle 1607.Now the work by Bellarmine has had an enormoussuccess, because not only was it reprinted dozens oftimes in the sixteenth century, but it was continuedby various authors (Ph. Labbe, Casimir Oudin, A. deSaussy) and many have drawn and gleaned from him.

The appeal to the Father was common in thepolemics between Protestants and Catholics. No lessthan the study of Christian archaeology served forboth a theological and an apologetical interest.Christian antiquities in a broad sense served toconstruct a confessional identity (Catholics,Lutherans, and Calvinists) ( Irena Backus). TheCatholics utilized with great abundance the writingsof the Fathers, with the goal of converting the‘errant’, for they gave great importance to theTradition. The patristic writings enjoyed anauthority in a dogmatic matter together with theconciliar canons. The ascetical writings also servedfor the renewal of Christian spirituality. The use ofthe writings of the Fathers created, too, contrarianpolemics. In this polemic context there was used thesyntagm theologia patristica, which was a collection of

the Fathers’ writings in relation to Christiandoctrine.

During the very years of Bellarmine and ofGerhard, the French Huguenot Jean Daillé (1594–1670)wrote a work with a radical critique of the authorityof the Father and on their “true use”. At thebeginning he thus gives a summary of his intentions:“The Fathers cannot be the judges of today’scontroversies which exploded into such as thosebetween Roman Church and the Protestants, because, ifnot impossible, it is at least very difficult to knowexactly and precisely what their thoughts were”(Daillé, p. 1). Now, even if we were to know theirthoughts quite well, their teaching is notinfallible, neither is it immune from errors, nor canit have sufficient authority for its comprehension,especially in matters of religion. The LutheranJohann Hülsemann (†1661) had given the title ofPatrologia (Lipsiae, 1670) to his little known work,thereby contributing to the diffusion of the term.

Among the Protestants there was a difference inthe use of the Fathers. The German reformers weremore “biblical”, for they defended the idea of theprogressive obscuring of the comprehension of theScriptures and therefore of the decrease of thepurity of the faith; the other reformers(Switzerland, Holand, France) gave a greaterimportance to history and to the patristic argumentin their polemics with the Catholics (M. Turchetti,pp.73s.)

In the XVIII century very great and large workswere written, which studied and analyzed the works ofthe Christian authors. These were not manuals, butrather immense works, starting with that of L. E.Dupin (or Du Pin) (†1719), who had tendencies towardsGallicanism. Various parts of this vast work (itextends all the way to the seventeenth century) havebeen published with diverse titles and on account ofsome of his opinions he was included in the Index offorbidden books in 1757. He explained the title(Nouvelle bibliothèque) as a collection of authors whowrote about religious matters, according to theancient tradition and following the model of Baroniusand of the Centuriatores, but he wanted his work to be“broader and more complete than those which hadhitherto been published” (vol. I, p. 6). The work,the first attempt to compose a critical treatise, wasapproved by the University of Paris, but it wasstrongly criticized by the Catholics (M. Petit-Didier, Bossuet; R. Simon, Critique de la bibliothèque) andgreatly esteemed by the Protestants; in fact, it wastranslated into English by the Anglicans. He broughttogether the biography of the authors, an analysisand critiques on the style of the patristic works,the theological thought, as he wrote in the subtitle:A History of their lives, a catalogue, critical analysis, and the chronologyof their works. The summary of that which they contain; a judgment oftheir style and of their teaching. L. S. le Nain de Tillemont,in his ample work on ecclesiastical history, in 16volumes, treats the Fathers at length (Mémoires pourservir à l’histoire ecclésiastique). He dedicated the firstvolume to an introduction and to the personalities or

people of the New Testament, with many useful notes.This work reaches unto the sixth century; it is ofgreat worth and it is still consulted today.

Other authors who have written much concerningthe Fathers are: from the Congregation of Saint Maur,N. le Nourry (†1724), two volumes; Rémi Ceillier(†1761) 23 volumes until 1248; the Benedictines D.Schramm (†1797), Analysis operum SS. Patrum et scriptorumecclesiasticorum, 18 tomes, Augsburg 1780-1796 (untilEpiphanius), and G. Lumper, Historia theologico-critica de vita,scriptis atque doctrina SS. Patrum, 13 tomes, Augsburg 1783-1799 (until the fourth century), a work very valuedeven by the protestants for its rich content and forits critical sense. J. A. Bosius, a classicist,published a work with the title Schediasma de comparandanotitia Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum, Jenae 1673. After hisdeath, it was updated and enlarged by I. G. Walch,and it was then published with the title Introductio innotitiam scriptorum ecclesiasticorum (ex. ed. Jenae 1723). Itis not of the genre of the scholastic manuals;rather, it is a collection of biblical and patristicentries (ex. critical bibliographies). The JesuitCarolus Sardagna wrote an Indiculus patrum ac veterumscriptorum ecclesiasticorum, Regensburg 1772, wherein theauthors are listed alphabetical order with 270entries.

Many of the authors from these centuries, whoused the verbal phrase “ecclesiastical authors”, givelong annotations and treatments, they even includethe Old and New Testament and extend their work untilthe thirteenth century, and sometimes even beyond

that. Moreover, they preface this with broadintroductions in order to explain their method andthe works they used. These introductions are quiteinstructive for understanding the methodology, thetheological configuration and their apologetic andcounter-controversy ends.

The Protestants, too, of various denominationsbecame interested in the Fathers so as to defendtheir own teachings. Some of the greatest of theAnglican scholars merit mention, the very same whomade use of the doctrinal positions of the Fathersagainst the Catholics: James Usher (†1656), JohnPearson (†1686), Johann E. Grabe (Grabius; †1711)(Spicilegium Sanctorum Patrum, Oxonii 1700), HenryDodwell. Of a more general character was the treatiseby William Cave (†1713), who wrote a work in twovolumes, the content of which was set out accordingto century; it reaches to the fourteenth century. In1743 a much enlarged second edition was publishedwith a new introduction, along with additions byHenry Wharton and it was published posthumously in1740 at Oxford. Cave published numerous works onChristian antiquities. Casimir Oudin, a catholic whobecame a protestant (†1 717 ), wrote a work in threevolumes, the scope of which was carried to thefifteenth century, and which was publishedposthumously. In 1668 he had published another workas a supplement to that by Bellarmine and those byother authors, in three volumes (Supplementum descriptoribus vel scriptis ecclesiasticis a Bellarmino omissis). Thelutheran Johann G. Olearius published Abacus patrologicus(Jenae 1673), in alphabetic form (a sort of

dictionary until the death of Luther, in one volume)and as the completion to that of Gerhard. For him theFathers are not numina, but only lumina. He rewrotethe work in another way and in a more ample manner,with the title Bibliotheca scriptorum ecclesiastiorum (Jenae,1710-17, two volumes).

Johann Albert Fabricius (†1736) publishedBibliotheca latina, in three volumes (1697) and Bibliothecagraeca, 14 volumi (1705-1728), and it also includespagan authors. The two works report a list of thewritings and the editions of the ancient authors. Acompletion of Fabricius’ work, although only for theChristian part, was that by C. Tr. G. Schoenemann,Bibliotheca historico-literaria Patrum latinorum (2 tomes,Lipsiae, 1792-1794). The two volumes reached thefifth century; he followed this treatment of theFathers who were cited by adding an index of theirworks, along with a rich bibliography of theeditions, which still today is very useful. Theindications which regarded the editions were laid outchronologically, while discussing and describingtheir content. A third volume was announced but wasnever published. I think that the work is useful eventoday in order to track down the editions from the XVcentury and later, and in order to know what wasthought of them at that time.

The study of the Fathers, as we have notedabove, was used with an eye towards the controversiesin theological discussions. The authority of theFathers was always in discussion. Some authorstreated the argument in a detailed manner, as had

previously done the Calvinist whom we already cited,Dallaeus (Jean Daillé; †1670). Following authors wereconstrained into taking a position in favor of orcontrary to that of Daillé. I will mention them herein a schematic way: Philippe Labbe (Labbaeus; †1667),Dissertatio de scriptoribus ecclesiasticis, Paris 1660 (in twovolumes); Honoratus a Sancta Maria (1651–1729),Animadversiones in regulas et usum critices spectantes ad historiamecclesiae, Venetiis 1751, a generic type of work, but itregarded especially the Fathers and the History ofthe Church; Matthæi Scriveneri, Apologia pro S. EcclesiæPatribus, adversus Joh. Dallæum de usu patrum, Lugduni 1972;Antonius Boucat, Dissertatio ultima de sanctis patribus etdoctoribus, nella sua Theologia Patrum, Venetiis 1776,vol. V,165-215; Josef W. Eberl, Leitfaden zu denVorlesungen und zum Studium der Patrologie, Augsburg 1854; theAnglican J. J. Blunt (†1855), The Right Use of the EarlyFathers, London 1857, published posthumously. The workby Blunt is composed of two series of ‘lectures’ (24in all). He admired the Fathers in so much as theywere favorable to the English Reformed Church,especially in opposition to the Catholics, to theSocinians and to the Calvinists. The work was a densecritique of the assertions made by Daillé, but alsoof the work by the Huguenot jurist Jean Barbeyrac(Traité de la morale des pères de l'église, Amsterdam 1728), whomhe accused of knowing little of the Fathers, and ofthe insinuations of E. Gibbon. Bonaventura Argonensis(Noël d’Argonne; †1704), published the Petit traité de lalecture des Pères de l’Église, Paris 1688. P. Pelhestre deRouen updated and completed the work in an abundantway, and it was then translated into Latin and into

Italian (De optima legendorum Ecclesiae Patrum methodo, 1697Augusta Taurinorum 1742; Venezia 1745). It was a workof a methodological character.

III The patrologies.

The introductions of the large works cited –they were normally quite vast – explained the method,the sources, and the problematics. With the passingof time there were always fewer which were apologeticin nature and more that were critical and scientific.The authors knew the texts very well for a directreading, for they knew Latin and Greek well. Normallythey did not mention the ancient Christian authorswho had written in other languages. When the Assemanipublished the translations of Syriac works in Latin,then some Syrian authors were also taken intoconsideration.

Before the nineteenth century, whoever wished tobegin study with some knowledge of the Fathers of theChurch did not possess smaller manuals; those thatexisted were very old and inadequate. The progress ofthe study, a greater attention to philology, thediscovery of numerous patristic texts, the interestfor Syriac, Armenian and Coptic authors, monographicresearch on authors and themes rendered those manualsvery insufficient. The Protestants too were moreinterested in Christian antiquity than before. Thecatholic clergy did not read the Fathers. They wereconstrained to study the calendar and how tocalculate the date of Easter (an obligatory course)and not to mine the riches of ancient Christiantradition.

Let us begin with the oldest manuals, followingchronological order, whenever possible. All of themanuals were written in Latin: this was a greatadvantage for their diffusion in as much as it wasnot necessary to have translations made. WilhelmWilhemus, Patrologia ad usus academicos, FriburgiBrisgoviae 1775 (up to the fifth century). The longforeword is the history of the publications on theFathers of the Church, beginning with Eusebius andJerome, until his own time. I consider this excursususeful for reconstructing the history of the manualsof patrology until the eighteenth century. The authorjudges the teaching of patrology in theologicalfaculties of great use, in as much as it is abuttress and pillar of theology, for which reason ittreats of the authority of the Fathers in theologicalmatters and of the tradition of the church. This is atypical catholic manual – which treats the authority– of the writings and of the use of the Fathers inthe various theological subject matters. DanielTobenz (†1819), Institutiones usus et doctrina Patrum, Wien1777–1779 ; Idem, Patrologiae et historiae literar. Theolog.Conspectus, Wien 1776; Macarius (a Sancto Elia.),Institutiones patrologiae, Graz 1781, a work which wentthrough numerous editions and translations.

Of the Cistercian Stephan Wiest (†1797),Institutiones Patrologiae in usum academicum (Ingolstadii,1795). In the introduction he explains the concept ofFather, their importance and their characteristics:doctrina eminens, vitae sanctitas, declaratio ecclesiae, antiquitas (p.7). The Antiquitas is a praerogativa insignis. The Fathers –in a strict sense – are those who are most ancient;

in a broad sense they are all the writers until thethirteenth century, as Migne would then do in hisgreat collection. Even the later authors are Fathers,except that they lack the note of antiquity (iunioresdoctores). Wiest discussed the concept of antiquitas:does it last until Augustine? Until Gregory theGreat? and so forth. The work was not a manual ofpatrology in the strict sense; rather it was anhistorical, critical, and bibliographicalintroduction to the principal Christian writers,especially in relation to the various theologicalsubjects. Wiest abounds in citations of patristictexts even in his massive work, the Institutionestheologicae, in six volumes.

A.B. Caillau (†1850), Introductio ad sanctorum patrumlectionem, Parisiis 1825 (two volumes); it is part of avast work called the Thesaurus Patrum floresque doctorum (inthe first edition this was the eighth volume; in thesecond it comprises volumes 8 and 9). FranzWenceslaus Goldwitzer (†1840), Patrologie Verbunden mitPatristik bearbeitet für Theologen, two volumes, Nürnberg1833-1834, the author reaches the ninth century. Heuses two terms in the title to indicate that‘patrology’ refers to their life and to their writtenworks, while ‘patristic’ refers to their theologicalthought. Nirschl and Rézbányay would do similarlylater. Goldwitzer published another very useful work:Bibliographie der kirchenväter und kirchenlehrer vom ersten bis zumdreyzehnten jahrhunderte, Landshut 1828.

From around the middle of the nineteenth centurythe manual of patrology for the use of theologians

and of students flourished; not only works made forthe library, which are truly introductions to thestudy of the Fathers. By then in the manuals biblicaltexts were excluded, since they were not consideredecclesiastical. Today we are not accustomed toplacing and situating the manuals close to theirauthors’ confessional adherence; at that time it wasa normal fact in order to indicate the theologicalpositions of the authors, as did E. C. Richardson inhis bibliographical supplement to the collection ofthe Ante-Nicene Fathers (Ann Arbor 1887, pp. 119-123).The greater part of these manuals were written byGerman language scholars and then they weretranslated into other languages (Italian, French,English). It would not be possible for me to indicateall the translations and the successive editions,too, for the manuals which enjoyed the greatestsuccess. Some manuals were still written in Latin,which permitted a greater circulation, without thenecessity of a translation. Then, Latin was stillvery much used and known. Many authors – instead ofthe terms patrology or patristics – preferred that of“Christian (or ecclesiastical) literature”, beginningwith Möhler, who considered patrology a “superfluousscience” (p. 14). In this way, the historical andphilological aspects were more clearly evidenced, andone could include all of the ancient Christianwriters. The Protestants, for the most part,preferred to speak of Christian literature ingeneral.

J. N. Locherer Lehrbuch der Patrologie: für academischeVorlesungen bestimmt, Mainz 1837 (with its very useful

initial bibliography). It was a small manual, whichsubstantially stops at the fifth century, even if ittreats some authors who came later, until PeterLombard. Franz Michael Permaneder, Bibliotheca patristica.I: Patrologia generalis; II: Patrologia specialis, Landishuti,1841-1844. The first volume is of a methodologicalnature (the concept of the Fathers, bibliography andeditions, auctoritas, various theological themes). J.P.Charpentier, Études sur les Pères de l'Église, Paris 1853, intwo volumes, the first of which was for the Latins,the second for the Greeks, up to the fifth century.The author only treats some authors, those mostimportant, and without notes or bibliographicalreferences. The Anglican J. Donaldson, A Critical History ofChristian Literature and Doctrine from the Death of the Apostles to theNicene Council, London, 1864-1866 (three volumes; ithandles only the second century). The author insistsupon the concept that his work is a critical work onthe authors and their thought. J. B. J. Busse,Grundriss Der Christlichen Literatur von Ihrem Ursprung an bis zurErfindung der Buchdruckerei, Münster 1828-1829 (twovolumes) (the subtitle says that it is fortheologians).

J. A. Möhler (†1838), Patrologie oder christlicheLiterärgeschichte, printed posthumously, with additionsand corrections by F.S. Reithmayr, Regensburg 1840.It treats only the first three centuries; asubstantial and much appreciated work that wasimmediately translated both into Italian and intoFrench. The author extensively analyzed the works ofeach author. This patrology was followed by that ofJ. Fessler, Institutiones Patrologiae, Oeniponte, 1850-1851

(in two volumes; later re-edited and re-worked by B.Jungmann, 1890-1896); after the death of Jungmann,the work was then under the care of A. Hebbelynk. Forhim: «Patrology is the science which illustrateseverything that can serve for the right use of theHoly Fathers in theology» (p. 1.). He brings histreatment up to the time of Gregory the Great. C.Magon, Handbuch der Patrologie und der kirchlichenLitteraturgeschichte, two volumes, Regensburg 1864. J.Alzog (†1878), Patrologie oder der ältern christlichenLiterärgeschichte, Freiburg 1866, a text that wasrepublished many times, an indication of itspractical usability; the last edition was updated in1888.

Bernard Schmid, Grundlinien der Patrologie, Freiburg1879 (many editions; an English Translation, SaintLouis, Mo 1917). The introduction and the first partare of great interest so that one may understand thereason for which one should have studied the Fathersof the Church, and to help one understand theenvironment that reigned in the theological schoolsof that time. For him, patrology was the preliminaryscience used in order to acquire a precise knowledgeof and familiarity with the Fathers’ writings so asto use them well in theology. On the other hand,“patristics as a science” has the aim of a systematiccollection from the works of the Fathers, accordingto quite precise principles, all that which canrelated to the faith, morality, and ecclesiasticaldiscipline. Patrology is different from ancientChristian literature, is so much as the latter dealsnot only with the works of the Fathers but also with

the ancient ecclesiastical writers and it is limitedto the literary development. He adds that it laysdown the rules and principles whereby one determinesthe authority of the Fathers, their authenticity,their correct use, and the way in which to gather themost fruit in theology from the works of the Fathers.Schmid does not totally exclude those authors whowere influential, although they were not Fathersthemselves, in Christian life. The ecclesiasticalwriters (ex. Clement of Alexandria, Origen,Tertullian, Eusebius, et al.) are distinct from thosewho were “inspired”. The elements which are necessaryin order for one to be included among the Fathersare: Antiquity, ecclesiastical teaching, orthodoxdoctrine, holiness of life, their approbation by theChurch, explicitly (ex. in a council) or in animplicit or tacit manner. For example, Saint Irenaeus– not withstanding his Millenarianism, and SaintGregory of Nyssa, despite his Origenist ideas – areenumerated among the Fathers. Between the manuals ofpatrology, Schmid was the author who dedicated amplespace to the definition of the authority of theFathers of the Church: ‘The authority, which wasascribed to those writers, came to be understood astheir power and right to claim and requireintellectual assent (auctoritas movens et obligans). It wasa moral power that regarded the mind of the reader,by determining his judgment and by compelling hisassent to the words or to the claims of the writer.This authority has a variation of degrees” (Schmid,Manual, pp. 30ff). The concept of authority wastreated for each one of the Fathers – in dogmatic,

moral, and exegetical matters, in pastoral theologyand even in the natural sciences.

I have spent some time on these aspects, becauseall of the authors treat them, even if it is in amore or less concise manner, and they belonged to thetraditional way in which treatises handled suchissues. In the modern manuals these topics areconsidered obsolete arguments and no scholars speakof them.

J. Nirschl, Lehrbuch der Patrologie und Patristik, threevolumes, Mainz 1881-1885. It is interesting that evenin the title we see the words ‘patrology’ and‘patristics’ used on the part of a Catholic author;this last term was considered to be a protestantusage even until recent times. J. Rézbányay,Compendium patrologiae et patristicae, Quinqueecclesiis [=Fünfkirchen], 1894. This compendium relates, too,some excerpts taken from the Fathers, at the serviceof theology. A. Retke, Patrologiae compendium, Varsaviae1889.

IV The patrologies of the twentieth century

In the second half of the nineteenth century andin the first half of the twentieth century increasenew findings of other patristic texts; some of themcame from papyrus discoveries; translations of Greektexts into the Oriental languages were recovered. Thephilological method permitted better criticaleditions; the authors of some anonymous texts wereidentified; this enhanced the study of their language

and of their style. Not only did this help toinvestigate the theological thought of the Fathers,but also the other aspects of their reflections; thisput aside apologetic aims and goals that were tooaccentuated, and this set apart the lines ofdemarcation among scholars. Patristics, which hadbeen exclusively at the service of theology, became ascience in itself. Theology always kept patristicsbefore its proverbial eyes, but the latter alsoacquired its own autonomy: one studied the Fathers intheir capacity as writers and thinkers, for theirworks and for their personalities, their sources andtheir influence. The treatises were focused on thefirst centuries; the medieval period dropped out ofthe picture, especially for those who were first.Many scholars would make it to the eighth century,but after the fifth they limited themselves only tonaming the great and famous ones.

Before proceeding on to the manuals, truly andproperly so called, it is necessary to mention someof the most important works. Ch. Th. Cruttwell, Aliterary history of early Christianity, London 1893, 2 volumesreaching Victorinus of Poetovio (today Ptuj.Slovenia). The author acknowledged he is writing anAnglican work, that, as he say, defends, against theLutherans, the progressive interpretation of Scripturein relation to its fecundity. Therefore, the Fathersare important for the interpretation of Scripture andfor its more comprehensive understanding. In thoseyears A. Harnack was writing his great work on Pre-Nicene Christian literature: Geschichte der altchristlichenLiteratur bis auf Eusebius, I. Part: Die Uberlieferung und der

Bestand, Leipzig 1893. II. Part: Die Chronologie, I.vol.: Die Chronologie der altchristlichen Literatur bis Irenäus,Leipzig 1897; 2. vol.: Die Chronologie der Literatur vonIrenäus bis Eusebius, ib., 1904. The same period was alsostudied by G. Krüger, Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur inden ersten drei Jahrhunderten, Freiburg, 1895, with asupplement in 1897. The manual was conceived as aguide for students in order to bring out the literaryrather than the theological aspects. That is, itintended to place the Christian authors within theconfines of the pagan world of their age and toproperly esteem the texts written by the Christiansas literary productions and not for their theologicalor ecclesiological content. H. Jordan, Geschichte deraltchristlichen Literatur, Leipzig 1911: the chapter aresubdivided according to literary genre, because theauthor did not intend to treat the sources but ratherthe sort of Christian literature, according to itsliterary genres (ex. the chapters treated theepistolary genre, apocalypses, discourses, homilies,sermons, apologias, dialogues, etc.). A. Gudeman,Geschichte der altchristlichen lateinisch Literatur vom 2. bis 6.Jahrhundert, Berlin 1925 (an enlarged Spanishtranslation was edited by P. Galindo Romeo, Historia dela antigua literatura latino-cristiana, Barcelona 1928). A verysmall manual.

Many authors who studied the literature of theGreek and Latin languages dedicated a part to theChristian authors, e.g. A. Ehrhard - M. Schanz -G.Hosius, Geschichte der römischen Literatur bis zumGesetzgebungswerk des Kaisers Justinian, 4 volumes, München1905-1920. The same Harnack made himself the champion

of «ancient Christian literature», as a means for thehistorical understanding and knowledge of theevolution of the ancient Church and not as a supportfor the study of theology.

The list of the new manuals must begin with thework of O. Bardenhewer (†1935), Patrologie, Freiburg1894. This was perhaps the first Patrology of ascientific standard in a large volume, whichimmediately obtained a great prestige among theCatholics and the Protestants and was translated intoFrench. The author, after a few years, edited asecond edition of the same work, which was thentranslated into English and Italian (which wasprepared by the great Angelo Mercati). In thisedition he radically redid the first part, which wason the subject of the Pre-Nicene authors. Given thatthe author – in the meantime – had been working onhis opus magnum (Geschichte der altkirchlichen), he tookaccount and considered his studies and his research,in order to compose a text in the most concise mannerpossible in his manual. In 1910 a third editionappeared which would be the last. Bardenhewer hadcomplete control of the bibliography, which he knewhow to choose, with the conviction that it was notthe quantity which counted for quality, but theshrewd choice of that which truly had worth. Today,alas, are published so many studies and articles, andfor this reason it is not easy to carry out a choicein the copious bibliographical flux. Sometimesessential titles are left to the side andpublications of little value and worth are introduced

in their place. We are looking more at the quantitythan at the quality.

We must keep before us some other distinctionsand affinities in the titles of the manuals whichwere occupied with the ancient Christian authors. Themanual of Bardenhewer in English carried with it anexplicative subtitle: The Lives and work of the Fathers of theChurch. Bardenhewer successively composed a greatwork in more volumes Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur,1902-1932. The author echoes Jerome by using the term‘ecclesiastical’ and he wished to differentiatehimself from the protestants. However both theCatholics (ex. Funk ) as well as the protestants (ex.Harnack, Krüger) did not accept this terminology, forhe included those who were not ecclesiasticalauthors, such as the Gnostics and the heretics.Bardenhewer considered the term ‘Christian’ ambiguousor neutral; in reality patrology (or ecclesiasticalliterature) understand that the ancient church wasconscious of its possession of a depositum fidei. Histerminology he used was not taken up by others, in somuch as the later publications unto our day stillcarry the title of ‘patrology’, ‘Christianliterature’ or simply ‘Fathers of the Church’.

In those very years the great Harnack (1851-1830), among his other numerous works, wrote the workwhich we have already cited, Geschichte der altchristlichenLiteratur bis Eusebius. He, against the traditional use ofthe Fathers in theology, preferred the phrase‘Christian literature’, in order to accentuate thehistorical aspects of the ancient writings for an

understanding of the history of the Christiancommunities. Both of these authors used the term“literature”. Bardenhewer qualified this with theadjective ‘ecclesiastical’, while Harnack used theadjective ‘Christian’. The specification indicatedthe difference of approach. The Catholics Möhler andAlzog had already used the adjective ‘Christian’. Theintention was that of accentuating the historicalaspect and including all of the authors of Christianinspiration, and not only those who were recognizedas Fathers, thus even those who were part ofdifferent Christian groups, schismatic and even theGnostics.

The term ‘literature’ had always had a greaterdiffusion in titles through the influence ofhistorians of literature and philology (J. DeGhellinck, Patristique et Moyen Age, II, p. 150). Theprotestant historian of dogma, Friedrich Nitzsch,discussed this problem in favor of the use of theterm ‘ancient Christian literature’ (Geschichtliches undMethodologisches). Here we touch upon a delicate andmuch discussed problem. If for the authors of thePatrolgies the literary aspects were not interesting,then even the stories of ancient literature neglectedthem, because, as Altaner wrote, the Christianauthors “absolutely did not want to compose literaryworks in the strict sense. It was their intention tooffer and to represent a new conception of life”(Altaner, 1976: 6.). The very same Altaneracknowledge that some of the Fathers had arrived athigh literary pinnacles. Among the scholars ofclassical literature there was a prejudice against

Christian texts, which for that reason were not takeninto consideration. During the previous century – thetwentieth – we have slowly overcome this conception,by always manifesting an ever greater interest inChristian literary texts. This is also born of theawareness that there had never existed a truefracture between the Greco-Roman world and theChristian world.

I will also recall here some useful manuals,starting with Jakob Marx, Abriss der Patrologie, Trier1901; Paderborn 1919, translated into Spanish andmuch used in Spain. A good manual, which did notenjoy much success, is that by H. Kihn, Patrologie, intwo volumes, Paderborn 1904-1908. The first volumegoes until 313, the second reaches to 754. B.Steidle, Patrologia seu historia antiquae litteraturae ecclesiasticae,Freiburg im Br. 1937 (later published in Germanedition, Die Kirchenväter: eine Einführung in ihr Leben und Werk,Regensburg 1939). The manual which had a long historyand was used by various generations of students ofdifferent nationalities was that written by Rauschenand published for the first time in 1903, Grundriss derPatrologie, with the scope of “offering in the firstplace a book of foundations to serve as a text forthe schools, as an aid for those who study bythemselves, and as a commonitorium for those who havealready studied” (from the introduction). Theintention was to substitute – in the German-speakingworld – the volume by B. Schmid, which had also beentranslated into American English and into Italian.The complete title explains well the tendencies of

the author: “A Manual of patrology and of itsrelation to the history of dogma”.

A small manual was really needed, but onethat was precise and scientifically reliable, such asthe one by Rauschen, for which it immediately hadtranslations into different languages (Spanish 1909;French 1906; Italian 1905; Polish 1904; it was nottranslated into English. Only the final edition byAltaner was translated into English). Everysuccessive edition, keeping present the suggestionsfrom various parts of the world, involved animprovement and an expansion. After the death ofRauschen †(1917), Josef Wittig took to editing theeditions of 1921 and of 1926, without any substantialchanges. The edition from 1931 was edited by BertholdAltaner, and it was published under the names of G.Rauschen and B. Altaner: there was no longer thetitle of Grundriss (compendium) but that of Patrologie(Patrology). In 1938, Altaner oversaw a complete anddetailed re-elaboration according to the outline andmodel of the life, works, and thought – with a richand precise bibliography – for which reason thevolume was published under his name alone. At firstit was commonly called: Rauschen-Altaner. A briefpresentation of the thought of each author introducedone only to dogmatic theology. On account of thisradical makeover the manual carried only the name ofAltaner. Of the Oriental authors (Coptic, Syriac,Armenian) not many are mentioned, but there was anever greater interest in them. The last edition thatwas personally edited by Altaner was that of 1958, atestimony to the continuity of the great

patrologists. Every time that Altaner added someother Christian writers, he corrected the text, hereported another bibliography. The Patrologia ofAltaner was a true manual which had for its objectthe life, the writings, and the thought of theFathers with precise bibliographical references. Thetreatment of authors extends to Gregory the Great.The work enjoyed great success and was translatedinto many languages, even into Hungarian. Yet, as ascholastic text it was not an easy read because itwas quite rich of information and concise, and ratherfor consultation for its precision and wealth ofinformation.

J. Barbel (†1973), Geschichte der frühchristlichen,griechischen und lateinischen Literatur, Aschanffenburg 1969,two deft small volumes (256 + 212). The second ofthese was dedicated to the great figures Ambrose,Jerome, Augustine, et al. H. Kraft, Einführung in diePatrologie Darmstadt 1991. A small manual that broughttogether the treatment of the Fathers and theevolution of theology without notes and without abibliography, however it was the fruit of a longacquaintance with the texts. The manual was alsostrongly criticized (JEH 46,1995,127.128). H. Kraft,Die Kirchenväter bis zum Konzil von Nicäa, Bremen 1966. S.Hausammann, Alte Kirche: zur Geschichte und Theologie in den erstenvier Jahrhunderten, Neukirchen-Vluyn 2001-2005 in fivevolumes. As the title indicates, the work treats thehistory and theology of Christian authors until theninth century; an ample work that was both personaland well documented, written by one person alone,something which is not easy today.

On account of his health problems which kept himfrom proceeding with the updates, Altaner (†1964), in1960, had his work edited by Alfred Stuiber; the lastedition was in 1978. New arguments were morethoroughly investigated (Gnosticism, the Apocrypha).The last Italian edition had a bibliographical updateby A. Di Berardino. The information – brief, packed,informative, and precise concerning every author oranonymous text – makes Altaner (-Stuiber) a text forconsultation, in as much as all authors are included,the minor authors. The editing house Herder, wantingto the follow the tradition, asked three patrologists(S. Döpp, W. Geerlings, P. Bruns) to help with theupdating; they, however, decided to forego thetradition and to proceed to the composition of apatrology text in the form of a dictionary, Lexikon derantiken christlichen Literatur, with the collaboration ofnumerous scholars. Since it was perceived the needfor a manual for students, at that time the sameHerder Editors published Lehrbuch der Patrologie, underthe care of Hubertus R. Drobner, in 1994. The authorproceeds with the continual updating, be it with inthe original German language or in the translationsinto many modern languages, even in Korean.

The manuals cited were all written by Germanlanguage scholars; these were then translated intodifferent languages. There were also other manuals,written in different languages. Let’s begin withFrench. The first that we must cite is from thehistorian of dogmas, J. Tixeront, Précis de patrologie,Paris 1918, a succinct manual for students; it passesover the secondary authors, and it concentrates on

the essentials; it was complementary to the Histoire desdogmes. It was very suitble for the schools. A workthat was more extensive and better organized is thework by Fulbert Cayré, Précis de Patrologie. Histoire et doctrinedes Pères et Docteurs de l’Église, Paris 1927-1930, 2 volumes(until the 13th century). Cayré brought forth thenovelty of speaking of the moral, ascetical, andmystical doctrines of the Father too. Spiritualitywas overlooked, in as much as in the traditionalmanuals the dogmatic portion was far and away moreprevalent. The distinction of the Fathers and theDoctors is unusual for a title of a book. In Francenumerous work were published under the name ofliterature. I shall cite the principal works, becausesome of them were very important. P. Batiffol, Lalittérature grecque, Paris, 1897; Aimé Puech, Histoire de lalittérature grecque chrétienne depuis les origines jusqu'à la findu IVe siècle, 3 volumes, Paris 1928-1930; A. Jeanory –A. Puech, Littérature latine chrétienne, Paris 1899; G.Bardy, Littérature grecque chrétienne, Paris 1928; Id.,Littérature latine chrétienne, Paris 1929; P. Monceaux,Histoire littéraire de L’Afrique chrétienne depuis les origines jusqu’àl’invasion arabe, Paris 1901-1923, 7 volumes; Idem,Histoire de la littérature latine chrétienne, Paris 1924; P. deLabriolle, Histoire de la littérature latine chrétienne, Paris1920 (transl. Into English: History and Literature ofChristianity from Tertullian to Boethius, London 1924, reprinted1968; J. Fontaine, La littérature latine chrétienne, Paris1970. In more recent times Jacques Liebaert andMichel Spanneut published Les pères de l'Église, Paris,Desclée, 1986-1990 (two volumes, until the eighthcentury). These scholars treat only the principal

authors and they added passages from patristic texts.J. Laporte, Pères de l'Église, Paris 2001. In addition,the great Histoire de la littérature grecque chrétienne is in thecourse of being published – envisioned to be in sixvolumes – under the direction of B. Pouderon, vol. I,Paris 2008; vol. 2, Paris 2013 (De Paul apôtre à l'Irénée deLyon). The plan is to reach the council of Chalcedon(451). The first volume was an introduction andconfronted questions connected with the study of theFathers; the chapter by Norelli that discusses theproblematic of Christian literature is very useful.

In English have been published translations ofGerman and French patrology texts. Of the worksoriginally written in English, I would like tomention: Fr. W. Farrar, Lives of the Fathers. Sketches of ChurchHistory in Biographies, London - N. York 1889. His scopewas to speak “about the principal Fathers andteachers” of the first four centuries, until thedeath of Augustine. In 1942 the biblicist E. J.Goodspeed published, A History of Early Christian Literature,Chicago 1942 (II ed.. 1966). He carries the treatmentup to Lactantius and Eusebius of Cesarea. JohannesQuasten (†1987), Patrology, 3 volumes, Utrecht 1950-1960. Four volumes were foreseen, making it to thecouncil of Chalcedon in 451; for health reasons hedid not publish the fourth volume, that is, thevolume regarding the Latin Fathers. Quasten became aprofessor at the Catholic University of Washington,where he worked on his famous patrology, which wasreceived with great praise and translated intovarious languages. The work is characterized by itswealth of information and its bibliographical

precision, for its ample and precise treatment, whichis also simple and legible, for its exposition of thethought of the Fathers – illustrated by means oftranslated texts, because it includes subjects thatwere normally excluded (ex. inscriptions). Theelegant presentation and the facility with which onecould consult the work contributed to its successamong scholars and students, because it is also awork of consultation. Each writing of every author islisted, along with their editions, the translationsand the recent studies – not those of the previouscenturies. M. Wiles, The Christian Fathers, Lippincott1966, a brief narration of how the Fathers developedthe principal Christian doctrines in the firstcenturies.

The patrologies written in Latin, in the German-speaking world, were very widespread in Italy, whichwas an open field of translations. However, therewere also numerous manuals written originally inItalian; a group by the name of ‘literature’ andanother group with the title of ‘patrology’. From thefirst group I will only name the most important. U.Moricca, Storia della letteratura latina cristiana, Torino 1925-1934, 3 voll.; A. G. Amatucci, Storia della letteratura latinacristiana, Bari 1929; L. Salvatorelli, Storia dellaletteratura cristiana dalle origini alla metà del VI secolo, Milano1936; M. Pellegrino, Letteratura greca cristiana, Roma 1956;Id., Letteratura latina cristiana, Roma 1957; M. Simonetti,La letteratura cristiana antica greca e latina, Firenze-Milano1969; S. d’Elia, Letteratura latina cristiana, Roma 1982; C.Moreschini – E. Norelli, Storia della letteratura cristianaantica greca e latina, Brescia 1995, 3 tomes. The work

offered detailed and complete information of theChristian writers who were placed in an historicalcontext. M. Simonetti – E. Prinzivalli, Storia dellaletteratura cristiana antica, Casale Monferrato 1999. The twomanuals are now the avant-garde for the presentationof the ancient Christian literary production. Both ofthese two were accompanied by large anthologies oftexts from the Fathers: the one by Norelli-Moreschiniin two volumes; another by Simonetti - Prinzivalli inthree volumes of nearly one thousand pages in eachvolume (original texts and Italian translationsfacing) in a rigorously historical configuration. Thework by Moreschini – Norelli enjoyed a great success,because it was translated into numerous languages(Spanish, Greek, French, English); they also wrote anabridged edition, Manuale di letteratura cristiana antica greca elatina, Brescia 2006.

For the patrologies, those which deserve to berecalled here are the following: E. Ruggeri, Storia deisanti Padri e dell’antica letteratura della Chiesa, Roma 1875-1877;a manual much used in Italy in the last decades ofthe 19th century. U. Mannucci, Istituzioni di patrologia,Roma 1914-1915. The fifth (1935) and then the sixthedition were under the care of Antonio Casamassa,Roma, 1948-1950, therefore it became U. Mannucci- A.Casamassa. This last one mentioned was an excellentmanual, which presented a detailed analysis of theworks; it leaves aside the secondary authors and allof those documents which were not directly connectedto patrology (the Symbols of the Faith or Creeds,epigraphical literature, canon law, the Acts of themartyrs). It does not mention the apocryphal texts.

P. G. Franceschini, Manuale di Patrologia, Milano 1919, 2volumes. G.P. Sinopoli Di Giunta, Storia letteraria dellaChiesa, I, Epoca antenicena Torino – Roma 1920-1922, twovolumes. Guido Bosio, Iniziazione ai Padri, Torino 1963-1967 (with brief introductions and an anthology oftexts); the work was redone under the name ofIntroduzione ai Padri della Chiesa, edited by E. dal Covoloand M. Maritano, Turin 1990-1999.

The great manual by Quasten, with hispermission, has been taken up and continued by AngeloDi Berardino, in three large volumes. The fourthvolume (III in Italian; Casale Monferrato 1978)treats the Latin Fathers from the time of the councilof Nicaea until the council of Chalcedon; thisedition also has various translations. The IV inItalian comprehends the entirety of Latin languageliterature until the death of Isidore of Seville(Genoa 1996); the V volume confronts the orientalwriters, and not only those who wrote in Greek, butalso those of other languages (Coptic, Syriac,Armenian) (Genoa 2000). The volumes that were notedited by Quasten continued to report all thewriters, even those who are little known, and eventhe anonymous texts; the presentation was changed: itdid not include translated passages from patristictexts and there is a greater sensibility for othersets of problems, beyond those treating dogma. Sincedozen of authors contributed in the work, one cancome across divergences of opinion and of judgment.They preserved the fundamental schema: all the worksof each author are listed by their editions, their

translations into modern languages, and the mostrecent studies – not those of past centuries.

The German-language manuals were also translatedinto Spanish. However some manuals were published bySpanish scholars, not of great size, but well writtenand suitable for teaching in the seminaries. We willcite here the following manuals: Miguel Yus, Patrologíaó sea introducción histórica y crítica al estudio de los Santos Padres,Madrid 1872; Julián Adrián Onrubia, Patrología ó estudiode la vida y de las obras de los padres de la Iglesia, Palencia1911. E. Monegal y Nogues, Compendio de patrologíapatrística. Para uso de los seminarios, Barcelona 1922. E.Contreras, R. Peña, Introducción al estudio de los Padres:período pre-niceno, Azul (Argentina) 1991; II vol.,Introducción al estudio de los Padres latinos: de Nicea a Calcedonia,siglos IV y V, Azul 1994. R. Trevijano Etcheverría,Patrología, Madrid 1994; Alberto Viciano, Patrología,Valencia 2001; Juan María de la Torre, Literaturacristiana antigua, entornos y contenidos, Zamora 2003-2009, sexvolumes. This is not a traditional manual, but anarration of the historical, theological, andbiographical context of the writers. (sex volumes,two with texts and two with anthologies). B. SánchezGarcía, Manual de patrología, Terrassa 2005. D. Ramos-Lissón, Patrología, Pamplona 2005, mature fruit of hislong teaching.

V The oriental patrologies.

As I mentioned previously, in the old manuals,the oriental writers who did not write in Greek werecompletely overlooked. In the more recent patrologiessometimes only the principal personalities find a

place. Today the patrology most widespread is that byH. Drobner. In the first German edition the authorpassed completely over the oriental writers, some ofwhom have been added to the successive editions. Theonly ‘patrology’ that has a specific and thoroughtreatment of these authors is the fifth volume of thePatrology (Genoa 2000), edited by A. Di Berardino,which volume has also been translated into English(Cambridge 2006), with in-depth chapters on Syriac,Coptic, and Armenian literature, with a copiousbibliography. We may refer readers to those chapters.Nevertheless, for commodity’s sake, I shall add somemore bibliographical indications. For the wealth ofthe bibliographies, one might begin with two veryimportant works. The first is: M. Albert et al.,Christianismes orientaux: introduction à l’étude des langues et deslittératures, Paris 1993; the second – more recent –presents chapters on the different orientalliteratures: Patrology: The Eastern Fathers from the Council ofChalcedon to John of Damascus, ed. A. Di Berardino,Cambridge 2006. For each of the languages, here issome information:

a). The Syriac language is still used in theliturgies of some of the Oriental Churches, in the‘Assyrian’ Church of the East (also known as the“Nestorian” Church) and the Syrian Orthodox Church(known as the ‘Jacobite’ or ‘Monophysite’ Church),and sometimes by the Maronite Church. For Syriacliterature one must begin with the old work by J.S.Assemani, Bibliotheca Orientalis, Romae 1719-1728, in threelarge volumes: one was dedicated to the ‘orthodox’writers, another to the ‘monophysites’ and the third

to the ‘Nestorians’. The volumes are filled withpassages from the writers themselves, translated intoLatin. For more recent times we recall here some ofthe manuals: R. Duval, La littérature syriaque, Paris 1911.The manual of reference is by A. Baumstark, Geschichteder syrischen Literatur, Bonn 1922, an indispensable workstill; the author even lists the the manuscripts ofthe work he cites. J.B. Chabot, Littérature syriaque Paris1934, a useful manual. I. Ortiz De Urbina, PatrologiaSyriaca, Roma 1958, a manual, composed in Latin, thatis precise, systematic, and complete – until themiddle of the eighth century; a text forconsultation. In any case, the best synthetictreatment is that made by P. Bettiolo, Syriac Literature,in Patrology: The Eastern Fathers from the Council of Chalcedon toJohn of Damascus, ed. A. Di Berardino, Cambridge 2006,pp. 407-490. It is worth mentioning here three‘patrologies’ that were published by orientalauthors: Ignatios Afram (Barsaum) (†1957), The Book ofUnstrung Pearls in the History of Syriac Literature and Sciences, 1956(II ed.) originally in Arabic; then translated intoSyriac (Qamishli, Syria, 1967; and later into Englishby Matti Moosa, The Scattered Pearls : a history of Syriac literatureand sciences, Piscataway, NJ 2003. Albert Abuna, Adab al-lugha al-aramiyya (= Aramean literature; Beirut 1970). P.Sarmas, Tash‘ita d-siprayuta atoreta (= History of Assyrianliterature), Teheran 1969–70, this work is written inmodern Syriac.

b). For Armenian Christian literature, the bestmanuals are: H. Thorossian, Histoire de la littératurearménienne, Paris 1951; V. Inglisian, Die armenischeLiteratur, in Handbuch der Orientalistik, I, 7, Leiden-Köln

1963, 157-250; K. Sarkissian, A Brief Introduction toArmenian Christian Literature, London 1960; Ch. Renoux, Lalittérature arménienne, in M. Albert et al., Christianismesorientaux, o.c., pp. 107-166. S. Voicu has written agood synthesis, in Patrology: The Eastern Fathers, pp. 571-604. Some patristic texts written in Greek were notpreserved in the original language, rather they wereconserved in Armenian, such as Demonstratio apostolica ofIrenaeus for example.

c) Coptic literature begins with the secondcentury AD and it is subdivided into differentdialects. In antiquity the literary language that wasmost prevalent was Sahidic. Those who began to writein Coptic were the monks of inland Egypt. The firstCoptic Christian literature had a monastic temper.Here are some of the manuals: J. Leipoldt, Geschichteder koptischen Literatur, in Gesch. der christl. Lit. des Orients, ed.C. Brockelmann, II ed., Leipzig 1909, VII,2,131-183;S. Morenz, Die koptische Literatur, in Handbuch der OrientalistikI,2, Leiden - Köln 1970, 239-250; T. Orlandi, Elementidi lingua e letteratura copta, Milano 1970. T. Orlandi,Patristic texts in Coptic, in Patrology: The Eastern Fathers, ed. A.Di Berardino, pp. 491-470. A. Boud'hors, The CopticTradition, in The Oxford handbook of Late Antiquity, ed. S.Fitzgerald Johnson, New York 2012, 224-246. This is abrief but well-done treatment.

Orthodox theologians of Greek tradition from thebeginning of the 20th century perceived andunderstood that it was insufficient to cite passagesfrom the Fathers, but that a return to theirwritings, their thought, and their manner doingtheology was necessary (A. Marinescu, Patrology and

related studies). Moreover, ecumenical dialogue, whichwas then in development, encouraged recourse to theFathers, which would be favorable to an encounterfrom among the different Christian confessions. Theorthodox tradition had always been very tied to theFathers, but now – under the Western influence, therewas felt the need make a deeper and more profoundstudy of their texts, their thought, and theirspirituality. The first ‘patrology’ (An historicaleducation from the Fathers of the Church, Saint Petersburg1859, reprinted 1882) was the one written by Philaretof Chernigov (Chernihiv, Ukraine) (1805-1866), inthree volumes, published in Russian and translatedinto Greek and Romanian (Thessaloniki 1878-1894).Philaret had a great influence in the orthodox world,creating a school of translators. One last manual inRussian was that by Archimandrite Cyprian (Kern),Patrologiia (in Russian), Paris 1963, Moscow 1996. Thesame author wrote another volume: The Golden Age of theWriting of the Church Fathers (in Russian), Paris 1967.

The manuals of patristics in Greece have a longtradition, but focused mainly on the Greek Fathers.The oldest is that of K. Kontogonis (1812 - 1878) intwo volumes, Filologiki kai Kritiki Istoria, which deals withthe Greek and Latin Fathers until the fifth century(Athinai 1851-1853). Up to the fourth century, thethree volumes of G. Dervos (1854 - 1925), Christianikigrammatology (Athinai 1903-1910). The Dervos includesthe Latin Fathers, but not those in other orientallanguages. As manuals of reduced dimensions are thoseof D. Balanos (Patrologia, Athinai 1930), K. Bonis(Christianiki grammateia, Athinai 1977), V. Pseftogas

(Stoicheia Ekklisiastikis Grammatologias me anthologio Paterikonergon, Thessaloniki 1994), D. Tsamis (EkklisiastikiGrammatologia, Thessaloniki 1996), I. Moutsoulas(Eisagogi eis tin Patrology, Athinai 2009). Recently thestudy of patristics was promoted in a particular wayby Panagiotis K. Chrestou (1917-1995), the author ofthe Hellênikê patrologia, in five volumes. It was anextensive work that took the reader to the fall ofConstantinople in 1453 and it was written in anarchaic form of Greek (katharevousa). The Patrology(Πατρολογία) written by the Greek StylianosPapadopoulos, in three volumes, enjoyed great success(Athens 1977-2010). The first two volumes werereprinted several times and translated into Romanian.The author described the life of those authorsstudied, and from whom he included lots of texts inorder to illustrate the most important themes. Thepatrology of Papadopoulos is currently the best onewritten by an Orthodox author. Beside these moresignificant works, there were also manuals ofpatrology with a reduced size and with a scholasticcharacter. In general, the works by the Orthodoxlimited themselves only to the Greek Fathers, such asthe one of Chrestou for example, with the title GreekPatrology (Hellenikè Patrologia); while the one byPapadopoulos reaches the fifth century and it alsoincludes a treatment of the Latin Fathers. TheChristian writers in other languages (Coptic,Armenian, Syriac, etc. ) are excluded.

The Romanians, for linguistical and culturalreasons, have been a bridge between the Byzantinetradition of the East and the Western Latin

tradition. Their scholars published works in Romanianand in French, and today in Romanian and in English.Furthermore, they translated much from otherlanguages. There are patrologies written in Romanian:I. G. Coman, Patrologie, manual, Bucureşti 1956, onlyone volume; the same author published a much morecomprehensive work, Patrologie, Bucurşti 1984-1988, inthree volumes – the fourth volume is hitherto lacking-; the entire work is rather a compilation. I. Bota,Patrologia, Cluj-Napoca 1997. Finally we must mentionC. Voicu, Patrologie, Bucurşti 2009, for students oftheology, in three volumes, which was the fruit ofthe classes he gave at the faculty of Sibiu. Thefirst two carry the treatment until the middle of thefifth century, the third treats the principalauthors, especially the Greeks until the Late MiddleAges. The author completely ignored the Coptic andArmenian writers; he names only Ephraem (first) andAphraates (afterwards).

Altaner Berthold (1976), Patrologia, Casale Monferrato:Marietti (p. 6)

Backus Irena (2003), Historical Method and ConfessionalIdentity in the era of the Reformation, 1378-1615, Leiden:Brill.

Bardenhewer Otto (1894), Patrologie, Freiburg: Herder(Paris (1898-1899; II ed. 1901 – from which AngeloMercati composed an Italian translation-; 1899,reprod. 1917: St. Louis, Mo: B. Herder).

Bardenhewer Otto, Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur, thefirst two volumes of which came out in 1902-1903 atFreiburg; the third volume in 1912; the fourth in1924 and the fifth in 1932

Bellarmino Roberto (1613), De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis liberunus, cum adiunctis indicibus undecim et brevi chronologia ab orbecondito usque ad annum 1612, Romae: Ex TypographiaBartholomaei Zannetti (The work was defined by Dupinas a “traité expres”).

Cave William (1688–98), Scriptorum ecelesiasticorum Historia aChristo nato usque ad saeculum XIV, London : Typis T.H. andImpensis Richardi Chriswell.

Daillé Jean (1632), Traicté de l'employ des Saincts Pères,Genève: Pierre Aubert .

De Ghellinck J. (1947), Patristique et Moyen Age,Gembloux: J. Duculot.

Di Berardino A. (ed.) (2007), I concili della chiesa antica,vol. II, Decretali pontificie e canoni di Serdica, incollaborazione con T. Sardella e C. Dell’Osso, Roma,pp. 224-246.

Döpp Siegmar (1998), Lexikon der antiken christlichen Literatur,herausgegeben von Siegmar Döpp und Wilhelm Geerlingsunter Mitarbeit von Peter Bruns ... [et al.].Publication: Freiburg : Herder.

Dupin L. E. (or Du Pin) (1686 ff.), Nouvelle bibliothèquedes auteurs ecclésiastiques, Paris: André Pralard

Krüger Gustav (1897), English transl. by Ch. R.Gillett, History of Early Christian Literature, New York andLondon: James Westfall Thompson.

Le Nain de Tillemont L. S. (1693-1712), Mémoires pourservir à l’histoire ecclésiastique des six premiers siècles, Paris: C.Robustel (16 tomes, republished often).

Marinescu A. (2011), Patrology and related studies in Orthodoxyin the 20th Century and Early 21th Century, in: Orthodoxy Theology inthe 20th Century and Early 21th Century. A Romanian OrthodoxPerspective, ed. V. Ioniţa, Bucureşti, pp. 327-393.

Moreschini Claudio, Enrico Norelli (1999), Antologiadella letteratura cristiana antica greca e latina, vol. I: Da Paoloall'età costantiniana; II: Dal concilio di Nicea agli inizi delmedioevo. Manlio:Simonetti, EmanuelaPrinzivalli,:Letteratura cristiana antica : antologia di testi,Piemme, Casale Monferrato 1996, tre volumi: Testigreci e latini con trad. italiana a fronte; I,. Dalleorigini al terzo secolo; -- II, Dall'epoca costantiniana alla crisi delmondo antico (quarto secolo); III,. La separazione fraOriente e Occidente (dal quinto al settimo secolo),Brescia: Morcelliana Nitzsch Friedrich, Geschichtliches und Methodologisches zurPatristik: Jahrbucher für deutsche Theologie 10(1865)37-63.

Oudin Casimir (1722), Commentarius de Scriptoribus Antiquis,Lipsiae: Sumptibus Maur. Georg. Weidemanni .

Rauschen Gerhard, Spanish 1909; French 1906; Italian1905; Polish 1904; it was not translated intoEnglish. In English only the final edition by Altanerwas translated.

Schmid Bernard, Grundlinien der Patrologie, Freiburg 1879(English: Manual of Patrology, St. Louis, Mo: B. Herder1899).

Simon Richard (1730), Critique de la bibliothèque des auteursecclésiastiques et des prolégomènes de la bible, publiez par M. Elies Du-Pin. Avec des eclaircissemens & des supplémens aux endroits ou on lesa jugé nécessaires. Avec des Remarques, Parisiis : E. Ganneau(4 volumes).

Turchetti M. (1993), Jean Daillé et son Traicté de l'employ dessaincts Pères (1632), in E. Bury – B. Meunier, eds., LesPères de l'Eglise au XVII s., Paris : Cerf, pp.73s.

Wiest Stephan (1795), Institutiones patrologiae ad usumacademicum, Ingolstadt: Kull.