c o r v i n a

F o n t e sS t u d i e s P re s e n t e d t o

R ó b e r t S i m o n o n t h e O c c a s i o n o f h i s

75th B i r t h d a y

ed. by Monika Pesthy-simon

Ta n u l m á n y o k a 75 é v e s S i m o n R ó b e r t

t i s z t e l e t é re

FONTES 1_228.indd 3 2014.05.16. 17:04

this book is printed inone hundred numbered copies.

this is copy

Published in 2014 by corvina Books Ltd.

1086 Budapest, Dankó utca 4–8.e-mail: corvina lira.huwww.corvinakiado.hu

isBn 978 963 13 6224 4

not for sale.

Printed in Hungary

edited by Monika Pesthy-simoncopyright © authors

all rights reserved.

on the cover:Athena, Pegasus and BellerophonFresco, Pompeii, casa dei Dioscuri

F

FONTES 1_228.indd 4 2014.05.16. 17:04

contents

PrefaceLászLó Kúnos ................................................................... 7

a case of imprisonment?AndreA HAsznos .............................................................. 9

La capture de Pégase Judit HorvátH – árpád M. nAgy .................................... 15

onésime : un esclave à affranchir ? La réception antique et moderne de l’épître de Paul à Philémon AttiLA JAKAb .................................................................... 29

anthropolgy, Law and ritual Horror in sasanian Jurisprudence JAnos JAny ........................................................................ 49

imprisoned evil Forces in the textual and visual remains of Manichaeism gábor KósA ...................................................................... 64

ich habe ein Haus gebaut... Miklós kőszeghy ............................................................. 88

szent ephrem: exodus-kommentár (i-iv.) (s. ephrem’s Commentary on Exodus [i-iv.]) Kövér András .................................................................. 106

slavonic translations of Greek iconophile texts: the Problem of reception of Byzantine theology in Medieval rus’ ágnes KrizA ..................................................................... 134

FONTES 1_228.indd 5 2014.05.16. 17:04

Isaac, Iphigeneia and Ignatius: Martyrdom as Human SacrificeMoniKA pestHy-siMon ...................................................... 144

ingovány (swamp)süMegi istván ................................................................... 169

Kerubok tánca. Megjegyzések a kabbala alapkönyvéhez, a Zo hár ­hoz (the Dance of the cherubim. remarks to the Zohar, the Fundamental Book of the cabbalah) tAtár györgy .................................................................. 186

the vision of christ in the Garden of Gethsemane. Pseudo-apocryphal Dialogue as Conveyor of Theologypeter tótH ...................................................................... 199

selected Bibliography of róbert simon ................................. 225

FONTES 1_228.indd 6 2014.05.16. 17:04

134

slavonic translations of Greek iconophile texts: the Problem of reception

of Byzantine theology in Medieval rus’*

Ágnes Kriza(newnham college, cambridge)

old russian icon theology one of the favourite themes of the past few decades, is much discussed amongst scholars as well as in popular and religious literature. Paradoxically, however, neither a systematic collection of texts by old russian writers, nor a survey of their sources, that is of the slavonic translations of Byzantine texts in defence of the images, has ever been pro-duced. so there has long been a need for extensive research into Old Russian iconophile literature. The first step of this work is exploration of all available literature translated from Greek into slavonic iconodule texts.1 a listing of translations in such a spe-cific area as the theology of the image, together with an analysis of the arguments of these iconophile texts, is a research which relates, in a wider context, to the problem of the slavonic and russian reception of the Byzantine theological heritage – and in this connection amongst scholars there arises the problem of the phenomenon of the so-called old russian ‘intellectual silence’.2

The term ‘intellectual silence’ was first used by George Flo-rovsky in his famous book Ways of Russian Theology, written in 1937.3 Here Florovsky contrasted the achievements of old russian

1 Ágnes Kriza, A középkori orosz képvédő irodalom I, Bizánci források, (Древ не-русские тексты в защиту икон, часть 1, Византийское наследие) Budapest: russica Pannonicana, 2011.

2 on the historiography of the ‘intellectual silence’ problem see Francis J. thomson, “the intellectual silence of early russia: some introductory remarks”, in The reception of Byzantine culture in medieval Russia, Aldershot – Brookfield: Ashgate, 1999, ix-xxii. see also the recension of thomson’s book: С. Франклин, “По поводу ‘интеллектуального молчания’ Древней Руси”, in Russia mediaevalis 10 (2001), 262-70.

3 Георгий Флоровский, Пути русского богословия, Париж, 1937. See also Flo-rovsky, “the Problem of old russian culture”, in Slavic Review 21 (1962/1), 1-16; “reply”, in Slavic Review 21 (1962/1), 35-42.

* i’m grateful for the support of the Mobility fellowship (MB08a 84747).

FONTES 1_228.indd 134 2014.05.16. 17:04

135

art to the absence of intellectual learning in Medieval rus, or to use his own words, a lack of ‘creative literary and intellectual ex-pression’;4 that is, the fact that, from the period between the 10th and 17th centuries, a surprisingly small number of original russian theological texts has been preserved:

the historian is amazed when he passes from the dyna-mic and often loquacious Byzantium to placid, silent rus’. such a development is perplexing. Was russia silent, lost in thought, and wrapped in contemplation of God? or was it mired in spiritual stagnation and idleness? Was it lost in dreams, or in a semidormant existence? ...And the Russian icon irrefutably testifies to the complexity and profundity, as well as to the genuine beauty, of old russia’s religious life and of the creative power of the russian spirit. With justice, russian iconography has been described as a ‘theology in colors’.5 Discussing this phenomenon, Florovsky raised one of the

main questions of old russian culture: “Where was rooted the bias toward an aesthetic rather than a philosophical cul-ture – in the Byzantine heritage itself, or in the attitude of the russians?”6

theologians, historians and art historians who investigate the theoretical basis of old russian icon painting usually refer to the works of the most famous defenders of icons of the era of Byzantine iconoclasm (726-843), John of Damascus (†749) and theodore the studite (†846),7 whereas the question of wheth-er all these texts were known in russia has generally not been raised. this question is even more important, because up to the end of the 15th century no original russian work on this sub-ject has come down to us. The first known Old Russian trea-tise written in defence of icons is preserved in the Enlightener (Просветитель) of Joseph of Volokolamsk (†1515). The fifth,

4 Florovsky, Ways of Russian Theology, Part i, Belmont, Ma: norland, 1979, 3.5 ibid.6 Florovsky, “reply”, 41.7 e.g. А. И. Алексеев, Сочинения Иосифа Волоцкого в контексте полемики

1480-1510-х гг, Санкт-Петербург: Российская национальная библиотека, 2010, 46-47; aleksandra Sulikowska-Gąska, Spory o ikony na Rusi w XV i XVI w, Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 2007, 56-57; etc.

FONTES 1_228.indd 135 2014.05.16. 17:04

136

sixth and seventh sermons of this book discuss the question of the veneration of icons.8

so, in investigating the theoretical basis of old russian icon-painting, we have to face the question of the reception of Byzantine theology. From a methodological point of view it is necessary to emphasize that the traditional approach to exploring the slavonic translations, using the title or sometimes the incipit as a starting point for the identification of the texts may, in many ways, be mis-leading. on the one hand, due to the compilatory nature of the texts, some of the work may be different from what it seems to be at first glance: a text which seems to be identical to a Greek original may differ significantly from it; or an anonymous (or falsely attributed) text can hide a work from which it was believed that it had not been translated into slavonic.9 Moreover, the slavonic translations often preserve texts of which the Greek originals have been lost. the situation is even more complicated, because most of the slavonic translations are still unexplored and unidentified,10 not to mention the sometimes insoluble problems of dating and localizing these translations.11 on the other hand, examination of the texts without considering their context in manuscript miscellanies gives histori-ans much less information about the texts themselves than if they are investigated in the context of the miscellany (sbornik) where they were often deliberately placed or copied by a scribe.

8 these three sermons are preserved as an independent work under the title Letter to the icon painter (Послание иконописцу). For an edition of the Letter, see Н. А. Казакова, Я. С. Лурье, Антифеодальные еретические движения на Руси XIV – начала XVI века, Москва–Ленинград: Академия, 1955, 320-73. For further bibliography about Joseph of volokolamsk and the Enlightener, see: Ágnes Kriza, “Древнерусские тексты в защиту икон, часть 1, Византий-ское наследие”, in A középkori orosz képvédő irodalom (2011), 209-302 at 278; М. В. Басова – Э. В. Шевченко, “Иосиф”, in Православная энциклопедия 25, Москва: Церковно-научный центр РПЦ “Православная энциклопедия”, 2011, 559-85.

9 О.В. Творогов, “Древнерусская переводная гомилетика как предмет иссле-до ва ния”, in Труды Отдела древнерусской литературы 50 (1997), 186-88.

10 T. V. Čertorickaja, Vorläufiger Katalog Kirchenslavischer Homilien des beweg-lichen Jahreszyklus. aus Handschriften des 11-16. Jahrhunderts vorwiegend ostslavischer Provenienz, opladen: Westdeutscher verlag, 1994, 33.

11 Н. А. Мещерский, Источники и состав древней славяно-русской переводной письменности IX–XV вв.: Учебное пособие, Ленинград: Издательство Ленин-градского университета, 1978, 21-29.

FONTES 1_228.indd 136 2014.05.16. 17:04

137

Moreover, when investigating the reception of Byzantine icon theology in addition to translations of writings by Byzantine icono-phile theologians, it is also important to look at other texts containing arguments in defence of icons. in order to understand the transmis-sion process, an overview of the whole spectrum of old russian lit-erature is necessary. Most fruitful for this complex task are the meth-ods and tools of the so-called “miscellanology”, a discipline devel-oped to classify, organize and study miscellanies “as the basic form of existence of written documents of the Middle ages”.12

thus, using the results of tatiana certorickaja’s work to clas-sify the old russian miscellanies,13 we can obtain an overview of the slavonic miscellanies containing iconophile texts (see table 1):14

a) LitUrGicaL MisceLLaniesOctoechos (Октоих)Menaion (Минея)Triodion, Pentecostarion (Постная, Цветная Триодь)Euchologion (Требник)Synodicon of the Triumph of Orthodoxy (Вселенский Синодик) B) READING MISCELLANIES (ЧЕТЬИ СБОРНИКИ) i. Reading Miscellanies regulated by the TypicaReading Miscellanies of the Menaion (Минейные четьи сборники)Reading Miscellanies of the Triodion (Триодные четьи сборники)non-calendar miscellanies Miscellanies of one authorii. Thematical miscellaniesLegal miscellaniesHistorical miscellaniesicon painting manuals

Polemic-dogmatical miscellanies

Table 1: slavonic miscellanies containing iconophile texts

12 Čertorickaja, Vorläufiger Katalog, 38.13 Čertorickaja, Vorläufiger Katalog, 33-57.14 Kriza, A középkori orosz képvédő irodalom, 2011. 27-49; Агнеш Криза, “Визан-

тийские источники древнерусского богословия иконы – четьи тексты Тор-жества Православия”, in Studia Slavica Hung. 51 (2006/3-4). ), 373-386 (at 373-378).

FONTES 1_228.indd 137 2014.05.16. 17:04

138

the two main groups of these miscellanies are the liturgical mis-cellanies and the various reading miscellanies (четьи сборники). In the latter group there are miscellanies, readings of which are regulat-ed by the Typica (сборники уставных чтений), and there is another type, the thematic miscellanies, where the readings are independent from the typica. the most important of all these are the miscellanies relating to Great Lent, because the first Sunday of Great Lent is the triumph of orthodoxy celebrating the restoration of the veneration of icons at the end of the Byzantine iconoclasm (843). the readings for the triumph of orthodoxy in the reading miscellanies of the triodion, that is in the different types of the Torzestvennik, and also the Zlatoust and the Raj, are among the most important slavonic translations of Byzantine texts in defence of icons.

after a meticulous review of the miscellanies, a list of Byzan-tine iconophile texts available in slavonic translations can be drawn up (see table 2).

the most conspicuous feature of this list is that the best-known, most popular and widely quoted texts, those which scho-lars usually rely on (for example, the three Apologies of John of Damascus in defence of images), were very likely not trans-lated into slavonic. of the famous Byzantine iconophile texts, only a few were translated: the chapter on images from the en-cyclopaedic work of John of Damascus’s Expositio fidei (An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith),15 two letters from Pope Gregory to the emperor Leo,16 and the Treatise on Images against Constantine Caballinus falsely attributed to John of Damascus;

15 Небеса (Expositio accurata fidei orthodoxae, cPG [Clavis Patrum Graecorum] 8043). editions of slavonic translations (selected): Kriza, Древнерусские тексты, 265-66 (with bibliography); Linda sadnik, trans., Des hl. Johannes von Damaskus [ekthesis akribes tes orthodoksu pisteos] in der Übersetzung des Exarchen Johannes III, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1983, 52-59; ВМЧ [Великие Минеи Четии, собранные всероссийским митрополитом Макарием], Де-кабрь, дни 1-5 (1901), 247-50; Книга (1642), 124v-133r.

16 Две епистолии к Леону царю о честных иконах (Gregorii papae II epistulae ad Leonem Isaurum imp., BHG [Bibliotheca hagiographica graeca] 1387d). editions of slavonic translations: Kriza, Древнерусские тексты, 252-54 (fragments with bibliography); Книга глаголемая Соборник, юже о Бозе починаем от недели мытаря и фарисея до недели всех святых, Москва, 1647, 301r-313v; Книга слова избранныя святых отец о поклонении и о чести святых икон, Москва, 1642, 52v-67r.

FONTES 1_228.indd 138 2014.05.16. 17:04

139

while the other slavonic texts are unique and less-known docu-ments of the Byzantine iconophile literature. especially interest-ing is the slavonic version of the Letter of the three patriarchs,17

17 Многосложный Свиток (Epistula synodica ad Theophilum imperatorem, BHG 1386 and Epistula ad Theophilum, BHG 1387). editions of slavonic translations: Kriza, Древнерусские тексты, 252-54 (fragments with bib liography); Книга глаголемая Соборник (1647), 360v-392r; Книга (1642), 156r-231r.

1 Synaxarion for the first sunday of the Great Lent

Синаксарь в неделю первую Великого поста

2 Liturgical poetry 3 synodicon of the triumph

of orthodoxy Чин Торжества Православия

4 nomocanon Кормчая книга 5 Didactic Gospel Евангелие Учительное 6 Legend of the icon

of “Maria romaia”Сказание о чудесах иконы Богоматери Римляныни

7 Letter of the three Patriarchs Многосложный Свиток 8 Pope Gregory ii: two letters

to the emperor LeoДве епистолии к Леону царю о честных иконах

9 treatise on images against constantine caballinus

Слово сказующе о святых и честных иконах к царю Константину Ковалину

10 Patriarch Germanus of constantinople: apology on the cross and on the Holy icons

Слово о кресте и святых пречистых иконах и на еретики

11 John of Damascus: an exact exposition of the orthodox Faith

Небеса

12 chronicle of George Hamartolos

Временник Георгия Амартола

13 encomium on st Luke the evangelist

Похваление словес вкратце всехвалному апостолу и евангелисту Луке

14 Gregory Palamas: Disputations with the turks and the chiones

Беседования солуньскаго аръхиерея Григориа, еже сътвори с хионы и турки

15 Jerusalem Disputation Стязание бывшее вкратце во Иерусалиме

(16) Life of constantine Пространное житие Константина-Кирилла

Table 2: Byzantine iconophile texts translated into slavonic

FONTES 1_228.indd 139 2014.05.16. 17:04

140

which is a uniquely contaminated version of two Greek texts, the Epistula synodica ad Theophilum and the Epistula ad Theophilum containing lengthy interpolations from the slavonic translation of another popular hagiographic text, the Legend of the icon of Maria Romaia.18 another unique piece in this Lenten corpus is the slavonic version of a Greek treatise, the Apology on the Cross and on the Holy Icons preserved under the name of Patriarch Germanus of constantinople,19 the Greek original of which has been lost; except for this slavonic version, it is known only in a Georgian translation.

For the question of reception it is immensely important to note that those Byzantine iconophile texts which were available in Slavonic translation mostly belong to the first period of icon-oclasm, when the arguments in defence of icons were as yet not fully developed. this does not mean that the whole apparatus of the iconophile arguments was unavailable to Medieval rus.20 However, the full apparatus of these arguments is preserved not in the writings reflecting the actual icon controversy, but in the litur-gical, hagiographic and legal texts which were all composed after the iconoclasm. this fact became of especial importance due to the theological controversy emerging from the end of 15th cen-

18 Сказание о чудесах иконы Богоматери Римляныни (Commenatio de ima­gine Deiparae Romana, BHG 1067). editions of slavonic translations: Kri-za, Древнерусские тексты, 244-48 (fragments with bibliography); ser giusz Kułakowski, Legenda o obrazie Matki Boskiej Rzymskiej w literaturze staro rus­kiej, Warszawa, 1926, 47-86; Книга глаголемая Соборник (1647), 338v-359r; Книга (1642), 232r-280v.

19 Слово о кресте и святых пречистых иконах и на еретики (Homilia de cruce et imaginibus contra haereticos, cPG 8033). editions of slavonic translations: Kriza, Древнерусские тексты, 252-54 (fragments with bibliography); vladimir Baranov, “Unedited slavonic version of the apology on the cross and on the Holy icons attributed to Patriarch Germanus of constantinople (cPG 8033)”, in Scrinum 2 (2006), 7-40; В. А. Баранов, Л. Л. Гигинейшвили, “«Слово о кресте и святых иконах» патриарха Германа I Константинопольского. Текст и комментарий”, in История и теория культуры в вузовском образовании iii, ред. Е. М. Тазиева, Новосибирск: Издательство Новосибирского госу дарст-вен ного университета, 2006, 167-88; Книга глаголемая Соборник (1647), 313v-321v; Книга (1642), 67v-86r.

20 see the comparative table showing the presence of the different iconophile argu-ments in the slavonic texts: Kriza, Древнерусские тексты, 294-301.

FONTES 1_228.indd 140 2014.05.16. 17:04

141

tury, when old russian theologians were forced to argue against modern iconoclasts on the basis of the available iconophile texts. Knowledge of the original polemical context would certainly have helped them to appropriate and apply the different arguments, but the fact that this context was sometimes missing left its mark on the old russian iconophile texts.

applying the methods of miscellanology therefore makes it clear that in the first five centuries after the Christianization of Rus the Byzantine iconophile texts were not used as tools of theological controversy, but served liturgical purposes. the faithful listened to them as readings for the feasts of the churches and monasteries. this liturgical function is best manifested in the most popular read-ing for the triumph of orthodoxy, in the Legend of the icon of Maria Romaia, which contains a very interesting instruction to the lector to interrupt the reading and to make three prostrations while reciting the following anathema three times: “if anyone does not worship the image of the Holy virgin, painted on icon, let him be anathema”.21

the liturgical function of the iconophile texts is clearly proved by the fact that these texts are all missing from the so called ‘dog-matic-polemical’ miscellanies that contain mostly anti-Latin and anti-Judaic and sometimes anti-heretical works.22 in general, old russian polemical miscellanies begin to appear only from the 15th century, and only from the 16th century do they start to be-come widespread. this clearly shows that the selection of texts

21 “From here on stand up and read and say in a loud voice: ‘Get up’. then after the hegumen (abbot) and all the brothers stand up read as loudly as possible the following: ‘if anyone does not worship the image of the Holy virgin, painted on icon, let him be anathema.’ after this the hegumen makes prostration, and all others do similarly, and all the brothers make prostration, and then read the same passage again: ‘if anyone does not worship’, and then we all make prostration again, in the same way, then read aloud for the third time again: ‘if anyone does not worship...’, and we all make a third prostration before the icon of the Mother of God. should be performed in parochial churches, too. and from here go on reading...” Kułakowski, Legenda, 1926.72; Книга глаголемая Соборник (1647), 355v-356r.

22 В. Є. Зема, “Полеміко-догматичні збірки XVI – початку XVII ст.”, in Ук-раїньский історичний журнал (2001/5), 43-74; А. Попов, Историко-лите-ратурный обзор древне-русских полемических сочинений против ла тинян. (XI–XV вв.), Москва, 1875, 154-238.

FONTES 1_228.indd 141 2014.05.16. 17:04

142

later translated into slavonic was made – most probably still in Byzantium – not on a dogmatic-polemical basis, but according to liturgical criteria. this means that recited texts should be under-standable even through listening. this might be the reason why the texts containing more complex theoretical arguments are not included among the readings and only relatively easy comprehen-sible and ‘popular’ iconophile works were translated into slavonic. indeed therefore, the corpus of slavonic translations does not re-flect the completeness of the Byzantine theological tradition, but only a special segment of it.

Due to the major political upheavals of the 15th-16th centuries in Byzantium and Russia, the Union of Florence and the fierce re-ligious disputes in europe in the era of reformation, as well as the ever more intense catholic attempts to bring about the union of the Western and eastern churches, russian theologians had to face entirely new challenges. they suddenly found themselves engaged in a life-and-death religious struggle, and it was this new situa-tion that led to the appearance of theological polemic literature in rus’, a prominent manifestation of which was the compilation of the Enlightener by Joseph of volokolamsk at the turn of 15th-16th centuries.

Joseph of volokolamsk’s Enlightener is of special importance not only because it served as a basic theological manual for the russians, containing answers to the most important questions of this period, but also because the whole work is a compilation of explicit and implicit quotations.23 the aim of these quotations was not only the author’s desire to support his arguments by the autho rity of the church Fathers; the use of citations borrowed from liturgical readings and inserted into a new polemical context meant a deliberate change in the function of slavonic translations of Byzantine iconophile texts. Because of Joseph’s quotations these liturgical texts returned to their original polemical context, serving the defence of the true faith. the peak of this process was the 1642 publication of the Book on the veneration of icons in

23 Kriza, Древнерусские тексты, 278-92; Агнеш Криза, “Византийские исто-чники богословия иконы в «Послании иконописцу»”, in Studia Slavica Hung. 54 (2009), 161-87, 407-27.

FONTES 1_228.indd 142 2014.05.16. 17:04

143

Moscow,24 where the above-mentioned Byzantine texts were col-lected, not for liturgical purposes, to serve ‘silent contemplation’, but overcoming the ‘spiritual stagnation’ as tools for current an-ti-protestant controversy.

24 Книга слова избранныя святых отец о поклонении и о чести святых икон (Москва, 1642). See also О. В. Чумичева, “Киев и Москва в борьбе с протестантским влиянием: две книги в защиту иконного образа (конец XVI – первая половина XVII в)”, in Православие Украины и Московской Руси в XV-XVII веках: общее и различное, ред. М. В. Дмитриев, Москва: Индрик, 2012, 58-69.

FONTES 1_228.indd 143 2014.05.16. 17:04