John of Damascus, De fide orthodoxa: Translations by Burgundio (1153/54), Grosseteste(1235/40) and Lefèvre d'Etaples (1507)Author(s): Irena BackusSource: Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, Vol. 49 (1986), pp. 211-217Published by: The Warburg InstituteStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/751297 .

Accessed: 03/08/2014 18:23

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

The Warburg Institute is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of theWarburg and Courtauld Institutes.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 86.163.193.9 on Sun, 3 Aug 2014 18:23:08 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

NOTES AND DOCUMENTS

JOHN OF DAMASCUS, DEFIDE ORTHODOXA: TRANSLATIONS BY

BURGUNDIO ( 153/54), GROSSETESTE (1235/40) AND LEFEVRE D'ETAPLES (1507)

HE FIRST Latin translation of the complete text of De fide orthodoxa was produced

c. 1153/54 by Burgundio of Pisa (1Iio-3)1 at the request of Pope Eugenius II. At least one hundred and twenty manuscript witnesses of this version are still extant, dating mainly from the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.2 There are no manuscripts that can definitely be attributed to the twelfth century and only one dating from as late as 15o00 (Munich clm 397). It appears that Burgundio's translation was not copied after that date. In his version the Pisan followed the Greek division of the text into one hundred chapters without the intervening subdivision into four books.3 The latter was introduced some time before 1224, probably by Philip the Chancellor, in an attempt to present Defide in translation as an 'Eastern' equivalent to the Sentences of Peter Lombard. Most post- thirteenth-century manuscripts of Burgundio's version are divided into four books, each containing between fourteen and thirty chap- ters;4 and some, notably MS Cremona, Biblio- teca Governativa 159, adopt the double sys- tem.s There are no Greek manuscripts with the book-chapter subdivision.

It was Robert Grosseteste who between 1235 and 1240 revised Burgundio's version.6 Although cited by thinkers such as Roger Bacon and Duns Scotus,7 Grosseteste's version never approached the popularity of the 'uncorrected Burgundio'. Only eleven manuscript witnesses are still extant, the latest dating from c. 1300.8

As well as the Burgundio and Grosseteste translations of the full text of De fide, there existed, up until 1507, two incomplete versions: the Cerbanus fragment dated by Buytaert as pre- I 144/459 and the translation by the Carme- lite, Johannes Baptista Panetius, which dates from mid-fifteenth century.'0 It is extant in only one manuscript"l and contains chapters 1-39 (40) i.e. Book I, chapter I - Book 2, chapter 25. It is highly improbable that either the Cerbanus or the Panetius fragments would have been known to Jacques Lefivre d'Etaples,'2 whose own translation of De fide was first printed in Paris in 1507 by the elder Henri Estienne.'3 The work is subdivided into four books which shows that Lefivre possessed a late manuscript of either the Burgundio or the Grosseteste version or, most likely, of both. The preface, dated Bourges, February 1506 is

1 Modern critical edition: Saint John Damascene, Defide orthodoxa. Versions of Burgundio and Cerbanus, ed. Eligius M. Buytaert, OFM, St. Bonaventure N.Y. 1955. The Cerbanus version in fact precedes Burgundio's but contains only a fragment of the treatise (see Buytaert, XLVIII ff.) On Burgundio himself see.further Peter Classen, Burgundio von Pisa: Richter-Gesandter-Ubersetzer, Heidelberg

1974. 2 Cf. Buytaert, xx ff. 3 Cf. Die Schriflen des Johannes von Damaskos, Ii, Expositio

fidei, ed. Bonifatius Kotter OSB, Berlin 1973, xxIv. 4 Cf. Kotter, ibid. s There are often some differences of detail due to scribal

practices. MS Cremona 159 (x4th century) in fact contains ioi chapters.

6 S. H. Thomson, The Writings of Robert Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln, Cambridge 1940, pp. 48-50. J. McEvoy in his recent publication, The Philosophy of Robert Grosseteste, Oxford 1982, makes no mention of Grosseteste's revision of Burgundio's version.

7 J. De Ghellinck, Le mouvement thiologique du z2e siecle, Bruges 1948, pp. 403-12.

8 Cf. Thomson, n. 6 above, pp. 48-50. There is no critical edition of Grosseteste's version. The manuscript I use here is Paris BN MS lat. 2155 (late I3th century), fols I27Ir _38v (beginning to ch. 62 / i.e. Bk. 3, ch. i8). The same MS contains the uncorrected Burgundio version, fols 197'-219v.

9 Cf. Buytaert, n. I above, LI fif. 10 Its author (d. I497) taught theology at Ferrara and also

translated, among other things, [Ps.-] Basil of Caesarea's De baptismo. Cf. A. Bargellesi-Severi, 'Due Carmelitani a Ferrara nel Rinascimento: Battista Panetti e Giovanni M. Verrati' in Carmelus, vIII, 1961, pp. 63-131. 1' Ferrara, Bibl. civ., MS 432 (I5th century). 12 He may have come across the odd sentence from the

Cerbanus fragment in the Sentences of Peter Lombard (cf. Buytaert, n.I above, LIV). The Panetius version, however, remained completely unknown. 13 Contenta: Theologia Damasceni. I. De ineffabili diuinitate. II.

De creaturarum genesi ordine Moseos. III. De iis que ab incarnatione vsque ad resurrectionem. IIII. De iis que post resurrectionem vsque ad vniuersalem Resurrectionem, Paris, 1507.

211

Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, Volume 49, 1986

This content downloaded from 86.163.193.9 on Sun, 3 Aug 2014 18:23:08 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

212 NOTES AND DOCUMENTS

addressed to Gilles of Delft who had just returned to Paris.'4 Lefivre, unable to greet him personally, says that he is sending his translation of De fide instead. He makes no mention of other Latin translations already in existence, nor does he say which Greek manuscript(s) he used. Furthermore, he says that the work was done rather quickly in what would appear to be unfavourable circum- stances ('inter aulicos tumultus') but that, in spite of this, he strove to translate Damascene as accurately as possible.s5

Josse Clichtove who prefaced and com- mented on the second edition of Lefevre's translation, which appeared in Paris in 1512,16 was quite unequivocal about its merits. He affirms in his preface that it is not only more precise but also more elegant than the 'versio antiquior', the latter being considered by him as

plerisque in locis mutilata...' and '. . abstrusa et intellectu difficilis'.'7

There is no doubt that Clichtove is criticizing a medieval translation, but it is impossible to tell which one. It could be the 'uncorrected Burgundio', Burgundio in Grosseteste's revi- sion, or both. Elsewhere in the preface, Clichtove does mention the medieval title of De fide ('Enimuero prasentem aeditionem hi Damasceni Theologiam, illi Librum senten- tiarum eius et vtrique recte quidem appel- larunt').'s However, this title figures in the manuscripts of both versionsl9 and so gives no clue as to the real object of Clichtove's strictures.

Yet the two prefaces taken together suggest (a) that one or both the medieval versions were known to Lefivre and Clichtove, (b) that

Lefivre's translation was the fruit of a con- scious effort to replace the existing versions, (c) that this effort was somewhat hasty.

I shall now examine passages from chapters 25, 27 and 30 of the second book of De fide orthodoxa20 in all three versions, Burgundio's, Grosseteste's and Lefivre's, and attempt to answer the following questions: (I) what type of Greek text was used by the three translators? (2) To what extent does the style of Lefivre's version depart from that of his medieval predecessors? (3) Does his translation reflect a particular interpretation of Damascene's theology?

The sample passages which treat of free will have been chosen on grounds of (a) linguistic and stylistic difficulty, (b) theological content.

GREEK TEXT

Nothing is known of the Greek manuscript or manuscripts used by Burgundio, Grosseteste and Lefkvre. It is, however, possible to describe in general terms the type of text used. It did not contain the two 'late' additions at chapters 12 (I, 12) and 23 (2, 9)21 as both thesep assages are missing from all three translations. 22At chapter 39 (2, 25) all three follow a text with xac added in xaL yhg [xai] a~trql rifg &vAyxrg hori.23 At chapter 41 (2,27) all three have the more common reading fl y&q o0x OTaL EloyLX6v.24 At chapter 44 (2,30) the three translations are all based on the minority insertion of xatcr goLv ['iyouv ~x tig ~veTilg Eig 6] raQh ~olv25 and an omission oflvi9 Y&Q ailcgaotog &66xtltog 6 6& 66xL6og o6eYvbg X6you a•Log.26 One significant departure from the Burgundio and Grosseteste versions points to a variant in Lefivre's Greek manuscript. It occurs in Chapter 41 (2,27), Kotter 98 (n. 3 above), Migne PG xcIv, 960: ei 6b toi~to, • &vdyxrg; JTa~u foraTaL Ti hoyLx,• T6 atrEoo•L~ov. [fi

14 Reprinted in The Prefatory Epistles of Jacques Lefivre d'Etaples and related texts, ed. Eugene Rice, New York 1972, PP. i6iff.

Rice (above), p. 162. Buytaert (n. above) vii and Rice, p. 163 are quite wrong in attributing to Gravius the Latin version of the Defide orthodoxa which was printed in his 1 546 Cologne edition of the Opera Damasceni. Gravius simply reproduces the Lefivre translation as do the Basle editions of 1539 and 1548 (H. Petri). However, whereas the Basle editions reprint (with very minor changes) the 1512 edition of Lefivre with Clichtove's commentary, Gravius reprints the same edition but with an abridged and modified version of Clichtove's commentary which he attributes to Lefavre himself! 16 In hoc opere contenta: Theologia Damasceni quatuor libris

explicata et adiecto ad litteram commentario [I. Clichtovei] elucidata S.. Paris, 1512. " fol. 2v. Cf. Rice, n. I4 above, pp. 281-82. s8 fol. 2r. Cf. Rice,p. 281.

19 Cf. Buytaert, xvii.

20 = Kotter, chs. 39, 41, 44. 21 Kotter lists four late MSS which contain the passage inc.

Tb Oeaov ~xardXtlzrov at ch. 12 and five which contain the passage inc. Ata6EXErt ('AvGXezrLt in MPG xciv, 905) t6 a•ya•ov

at ch. 23. 22 Both passages are restored by Marcus Hopper, editor of the 1548 Opera Damasceni, printed in Basle by H. Petri (cf. n. 14 above). More to the point, both figure in the 153I Greek edition of De fide orthodoxa and De iis qui in fide dormierunt, Verona, 53

•. 23 Kotter 96, 11. 12-13. 24 Kotter 98, 11. 14-15. 2s Kotter 1o4, 11. 17-18. 26 Kotter o5, 1. 57.

This content downloaded from 86.163.193.9 on Sun, 3 Aug 2014 18:23:08 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

JOHN OF DAMASCUS TRANSLATIONS 213

ydQ] oix oratL koyLX6v, ] koyLXby OVy XULov EoTal QL Qd•~Ev XtL aTEOUOLOV..

The addition or suppression of 1 ydQ

radically changes the meaning here. For Burgundio and Grosseteste, who keep the conjunction,John of Damascus is talking about a rational being who chooses one of several possibilities. That being so (E6 6i toito), a rational being necessarily possesses free will. Therefore (understood) either the being is not rational or, if it is rational, it is also in control of its own actions. Burgundio's and Grosseteste's translations admit of no ambiguity here:

Burgundio (Buytaert, 153): Si vero hoc, ex necessitate exsistit rationali liberum

arbitrium: aut enim non erit rationale aut rationale ens, dominus erit actuum et liber arbitrio.

Grosseteste (Paris, BN MS lat. 2155, fol. 134v.): Si autem hoc, ex necessitate subsistit rationali

liberum arbitrium. Vel enim non erit rationale, vel rationale ens dominus erit actionum et arbitrio liber.

Lefivre's translation, however, (Gravius 126)27 makes a completely different point: Si autem hoc ex necessitate adest rationali quod ex seipso et libere potest, non erit rationale. Aut si certe erit quod rationale est, dominans erit suarum actionum et arbitrio liberum.

Damascene, according to Lefivre, is thus saying that what is rational is free and cannot therefore be dependent on necessity. Gravius is quite correct to point out in his marginal note that it is not 4 that Lefevre translates in the phrase beginning i Xoylxbv 6v xUlLov oataL but i yaq[ti] koyLxov ov. In general, however, Lefevre follows the same type of text as Grosseteste and Burgundio.

STYLE: 'DE VERBO AD VERBUM' AND PARAPHRASE

I shall discuss two excerpts which illustrate very well both Lef7evre's indebtedness to medieval translation methods and the nature of his innovations.

Kotter 96, Migne PG xcIv, 957, chapter 39/2,25: Tdiv y7Vwophv W dv t yv 0EO6v ~ctLtv aTOV EL vat i &vdtyxiy

] ELtagQt~v7Y v i •taGLv txvy 4fi t6b au-

t6Ciatov. 'AXXt toi Av 0EO i3gyov o0ao0a XOd

TobvoLt. tfg 6• cvdyxilg tWv 61 )act6TwoG AX6VT(L)vy 1 xLvrlyL t1l ]i EiggLLIcQCLNV tj TO EdlayXTl] ta it' atJTil

EJLTEriaXoti (xoti Y6Qt otri tIjg &vdyxilg i011)" Pi1G 6• ?•ia~o~g ydv~atg, oltif~latg, C8oed,, Cv:th ?odi F•ot' t1lS Tt

•XX1tg ot acdvtct xat dQgoao6xrT1a 6dvZwvY MPG tadd. xac MPG

Burgundio 148/149: Eorum quae fiunt omnium, aut Deum aiunt

causam esse, vel necessitatem, vel imarmenin (id est fortunam), vel naturam vel eventum vel casum. Sed Dei quidem opus, substantia et providentia; neces- sitas vero eorum quae semper similiter habent motus; imarmenis (id est fortunae) vero ex necessi- tate ea quae propter eam sunt perfici: etenim et haec necessitas est; naturae vero generatio, augmentatio, corruptio, plantae et animalia; eventus autem, quae rara et inopinabilia.

Grosseteste fol. 134r: Eorum quae fiunt omnium vel Deum aiunt causam

esse vel necessitatem, vel fatum, vel naturam vel fortunam, vel authomathon. Est Dei quidem opus substantia et prouidentia: necessitatis autem eorum quae semper similiter se habent motus. Fati autem ex necessitate quae per ipsum perfici. Etenim idipsum necessitatis est. Naturae enim: generatio, augmenta- tio, corruptio, plantae et animalia. Fortunae autem quae rara et inexpectata seu inopinata.

Lef vre 124/125: Eorum quae fiunt omnium, aut Deum dicunt

causam esse, aut necessitatem, aut fatum, aut naturam, aut fortunam, aut casum. Atqui Dei opus, substantia et prouidentia. Necessitatis, motus eorum quae semper eodem se habent modo. Fati, ex necessitate perfici, quae per ipsum sunt: nam fatum necessitatis est. Naturae, generatio, augmentatio, corruptio, plantae et animalia. Fortunae, quae rara sunt et inexpectata.

It is at first sight surprising to find that all three authors translate Td~v ywLVoCvWY advTOY literally by 'Eorum quae fiunt omnium' whereas one might have expected to find Lefivre using an expression such as 'Omnium rerum'.2s Yet, unlike Burgundio and Gros- seteste, he distinguishes carefully between aut and vel in translating the exclusive 1 consis- tently by aut. The latter is correct not only grammatically but also logically: they affirm that it is either God who is the cause, or necessity or fortune (but not all three). On the other hand, his translation of aaov as dicunt is a lot less suitable than the medieval aiunt. Dico, as pointed out by Valla in his Elegantiae, v, I029 'proprie est oratorum et eleganter facundeque loquentium', whereas here a bare assertion is meant. As for his translation of atLov . ac 6atavov, Lefivre appears to combine the Burgundio and Grosseteste versions, eliminat- ing all transliterations of Greek terms which are

27 Of. n., 15 above. Gravius reprints verbatim the 1512 editions of Defide with some philological and critical notes.

28 Cf. Panetius, MS Ferrara 432, n.f. ad loc. 'Omnium

cuae fiunt'. SLaurentii Vallae opera, Basle 1540, p. 165.

This content downloaded from 86.163.193.9 on Sun, 3 Aug 2014 18:23:08 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

214 NOTES AND DOCUMENTS

characteristic of the medieval ad verbum transla- tions. He keeps Burgundio's causam and necessi- tatem but replaces imarmenin (id estfortunam) and eventum by Grosseteste'sfatum and fortunam. Not surprisingly he finds Burgundio's casus prefer- able to Grosseteste's transliteration authomathon. Although it is impossible to prove that Lefivre simply combined the two existing versions here, it is interesting to note that he does not use any Latin term that is not already present in either of the translations. (Fortuitus instead of casus would have been a possibility). Moreover, had Lefivre been following only his ownjudgement, it is doubtful that he would have translated eo'i Egiyov oiaoia xaL

tQ6vota as literally as his

two predecessors30 even if we admit that his atqui is a better translation of'Akkhx . . . .iy than Burgundio's Sed.. . quidem and Gros- seteste's quidem.

Lefivre's translation of ti~g 6& &vdyxg . . . dvbyxtlg i~cr seems to be no more than a refashioning of Grosseteste's version. Most likely as result of scribal errors Burgundio's translation of trig 6i & vdyxrg . . x•tvyotg is exceptionally unfortunate, as most manuscripts read necessitas and not, as would be expected, necessitatis,3' so that necessity itself, and not its task, is identified with motus. Moreover,

Toyv &LEi 4bamrrwg

is translated literally without the particle se 32 SO that the Latin phrase makes no sense at all. Grosseteste restores the genitive of &vdyxrg; and adds se to habent, thus making it clear that things governed by necessity are the same as themselves. He keeps, however, Burgundio's weak similiter for

6oa•tog which Lefivre replaces

by the unequivocal eodem modo. As for the following phrase, tig 6b E

LtagCgivpg... &vbyxrtg •Zio, Burgundio -questions of vocabulary apart - mistranslates 6t' abtrig as propter eam, whereas it is quite clear from the context that it is the agency of fatum and not its effects that are meant. Grosseteste, rightly, corrects propter to per and Lefivre takes over the latter version while making some slight improvements in the syntax. The final phrases tfig 6i• 6EoGw ... dUQoo66xrpa as they appear in Lefivre's version amount to no more than a revision of

Grosseteste.33 Indeed at no point in this passage does Lefivre introduce any radical innovation in the ad verbum method of trans- lation.

Kotter 98, MPG 960, chapter 41/2, 27: <Ctp~v tOlVUV

8~oOw;0 to Xoytxp oVEtLOgX/EOatL t6 aTiteooLovL. I&yV yr yEvVWrTbv xCtL TQERiT6v

foTLv. STv ydQ vi dX1i tig jy9 vo EV wg &Ht6 TQonR 1Q~ato, dvdyxn tcwta TCEJI7 EatVL. TQOriI 6& EOTL b6 Ex ti 6vtov E~L TO Z Etvtt tItXOQaX lvtl Xali "r •

iRXOXEtCLYVlg 7l] iE~EQ6v TL

YEvvoaOt. Tit p•t Oi)v PuvXa xai &Xoyca trQ3ovtrat xar dtg 3odtQOELQ1]rVg

ooixttxct; 6LXXoLtWoE, ta 6• XoyLxa xatht xooa(Q•-

Burgundio 152: Inquimus igitur rationali confestim cointrari

liberum arbitrium. Omne enim generabile et verti- bile est. Quorum enim principium generationis a versione incepit, necesse haec vertibilia esse. Versio autem est non entia ad esse deduci, et ex subiecta materia aliud quid generari. Igitur inanimata quidem et irrationalia vertuntur secundum praedic- tas corporales alterationes; rationalia vero secundum electionem.

Grosseteste fol. 134' col. B: Inquimus igitur cum rationali congredi liberum

arbitrium. Omne enim fertile et vertibile est. Quorum enim principium generationis a versione cepit, necesse haec vertibilia esse. Versio autem est ex non entibus in esse adduci et ex subiecta materia aliud quid fingi. Inanimata quidem igitur et irrationalia vertuntur per praedictas corporales alterationes. Rationalia autem secundum elec- tionem.

Lefivre p. 126: Dicimus igitur ilico cum rationali, commeare ac

recurrere seipso potens et arbitrio liberum. Nam omne genitum mutabile est. Quorum enim genera- tionis principium a mutatione coepit, et ipsa quoque mutabilia esse necesse est. Atque mutatio est, ex non ente in ens adduci, et ex subiecta materia quippiam aliud generari. Et inanimata et rationis expertia mutantur secundum praedictas corporales muta- tiones : rationalia vero, secundum voluntatem et electionem.

This excerpt shows that Lefivre can and does on occasion diverge from his predecessors for reasons simply of style. Damascene is talking here about free will as a property of rational beings: it enables them to control the changes they undergo and not be entirely at the mercy of nature. Lefivre's translation here differs from

30 Cf. Panetius ad loc. 'Dei vero opera: essentia et

prouidentia'. 31 Cf. Buytaert 148. 32 For variants with se cf. Buytaert ibid.

33Cf. Panetius ad loc. 'Naturae deinde opera sunt augmentum, generatio, corruptio, plantae, animalia. For- tunae insuper opera sunt quae rara sunt et inexpectata'.

This content downloaded from 86.163.193.9 on Sun, 3 Aug 2014 18:23:08 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

JOHN OF DAMASCUS TRANSLATIONS 215

those of his predecessors in two important respects: (I) all the calques are eliminated, (2) there is a conscious effort to translate into Latin all the nuances of crucial Greek terms. This latter practice, characteristic of native Greek translators of the period (notably Argyropulos), was probably passed on to Leftvre by Ianus Lascaris.34 Thus

ovv•eLoQXEoOat, translated by

a calque cointrari in Burgundio's version and by a literal equivalent congredi in Grosseteste's, becomes commeare ac recurrere- a conscious effort on Lefivre's part to convey the literal meaning without having recourse to Latin terms that can only be applied to living beings. Similarly, not content with liberum arbitrio for aWtYeo1oLov, Lefivre translates the Greek by seipso potens et arbitrio liberum, being obviously aware of the double meaning of the Greek term: capacity to do something and legal autonomy. His rendering of gToaiQEotLv by voluntas et electio instead of electio suggests the same preoccupa- tion with etymology. It could also be argued that the French humanist is here influenced by his own reading of Aristotle. In the Nichomachaean Ethics for example 7EocaElotg (at 2.6.15) means an 'action determined by a moral opinion' and thus an action involving both choice and will.

Stylistically, thus, Lefivre's translation does not constitute a revolutionary departure from its medieval models. He does, however, avoid the worst excesses of the ad verbum method by eliminating transliterations and calques, by varying conjunctions and by striving to bring out the nuances of certain Greek terms even if this means using two or more Latin words for one word of the Greek.

LEFEVRE'S TRANSLATION AS AN EXEGESIS OF

DAMASCENE'S THEOLOGY

Since Lefi~vre's theology as expounded in his Biblical commentaries has been the subject of recent studies,35 it will suffice to summarize its main points; but first it is worth reminding the reader that Lefivre produced his most impor- tant exegetical works during the period 150936,36 that is, after the publication of his

translation of De fide. In both the Quincuplex Psalterium (I1509) and in the Commentarii in Pauli epistolas (1512) Lefi~vre insists upon the ineffable goodness of God who bestowed upon us, through his grace, the immeasurable gift of his Word, his own Son. By doing this God became at one with man. Accordingly it is Christ's divine nature which is given the dominant role. It is also through his grace that God sends the Holy Spirit which enables man to see Christ as the key to the understanding of the Scriptures and to seek Christiformitas, a total assimilation (as opposed to mere imitation) of the Son. This grace and (re-)union with God is freely available to all those who have faith and who lead a pious life. Yet man can, by his own efforts, lapse into evil and be damned. Lefivre distinguishes sharply between the 'one' (God) and 'the many' (incoherence of human endeavour, unaided by grace).

The following passages of his translation of De fide suggest that already in 1507 Lefivre imposed the chief tenets of his theology upon the doctrines ofJohn of Damascus.

Kotter io5-ro6, MPG 977, 979, chapter 44/2, 30:

Ou ydh iv XvoLtE3Xg E 0tTaoov

TL t tvyXd6vovt xai

dt56xtglov Tzg #6OaQooai TUXEIV, iyVa C! ig TS ov &a~ro'l

xati xQ'ia tof &ta36kov. 'EXEivog &t& t6 & 6aQrov irETn tflV EX 3QOaLQAGECW EXJT GLV t'Y TV taT,0aoxo •Sltxa xfirv EaE ? noctozctov •?x0•otvmlv • 1, t6) xa t 6 t pE a ~ TOV g6 o E X i (TQtO VEnt v nty t6t Ita WGnJEQ Cot

JtitXLv xcd ot

C.yyEXoL C1Eth

til •t nooQaLg9oWg trg xtQ g x0oy~v T1v •V tL xaki &th tig Xdaqtog dCEaTIVtTYov

L o6QUGLV.

"E&L tOlvuv 3tQ6tEQOv 5oxtGao 0vta tiv &vOQO- novS xati JTLQL &c t1]h tz lQG t Q S T i vtoN l TZEtLW03VTa OfitOw tiV ••OtaQo(tv &QEt xopl(oao- Oat ExiaOkov" pICog yhd 0•o0 xdi

6i.5xl YEv6pCEvog Lt6 CLRv t~l ZT (G•EOS g T lg NtOX1lg CLETA tilV dnrahayiYv trig tQbg t dt 5vra Lotxijg oaXGEowg AVWOE~Lg t1 OEc xOt0' uEv KtilV nXe tj xtabV otyLtatatO

aTL, dVEtLY &C Eoa

irlaov k2Eha81i T8 t 8 jra 806o jrQO

'tilV fijrlV Cl~thtov xtvrl0ei, xod, trig otto• oltiolS, to• O00o ~rlIt, tnoot6doag t6v vOfV tO •OQg nTQO- OOLXELOUGOa L xci tor lt;g &Vti 8oi Xott OVl tig avti etavdtov ylveollt xli Uovv6vaGoOO Xat QEvUo- tP yEVV'•o;

itL&EGOotL Xt

t, i•Et~GEl

Tij g wfg t()V

yv i48i5v db; 5i0•v tct v GVVLGTWhVTWV avt - E0tol, JtQ6 bi toi;g toTrwv 3Qoorl OovUIvoug tilv orQoaQtv 1

EV)g ctEEXdvvEGota L xotli t'V lhv E4GLv Ex

0O, 3 Qn6g tiiV i5rlY, tbv &i 0ulbv ix tof tig

ovrl.ag 5vtrg EX00o5 CETaIQE•Y XQ6t t6 6 'U- hov.

34 On Lefbvre's relations with Lascaris cf. further, G. Bedouelle, Lefivre d'Etaples et l'intelligence des Ecritures, Geneva 1976, pp. I o- .

3 Notably: Bedouelle, Lefkvre d'Etaples (cf. n. 34 above); idem, Le Quincuplex Psalterium de Leflvre d'Etaples. Un guide de lecture, Geneva 1979; Jean-Pierre Massaut, Critique et tradition a la veille de la Reforme en France, Paris I974. 36 Bibliography in Bedouelle, Lefkvre, p. I3q.

$ add. most MSS: dv•1 jxd dxgt:taoTog, &56xtliog; 6 &t 656xtxiog ot56vbg X6yOU 6.tog.

This content downloaded from 86.163.193.9 on Sun, 3 Aug 2014 18:23:08 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

216 NOTES AND DOCUMENTS

Burgundio I64-165: Non enim erat utile, inexpertum existentem et

inprobatum, incorruptione frui, ut non in superbiam incidat et iudicium diaboli. Ille enim propter incorruptibile, post eum qui ex electione casum, eam qui in malo inpoenitibilem habuit et invertibilem fixionem, sicut rursus et angeli, post eam quae ex optione virtutis electionem, eam quae in bono per gratiam intransmutabilem confirmationem.

Oportebat igitur primum probatum hominem et experientia per observationem mandati perfectum, ita incorruptionem virtutis ferre bravium. Medius enim Dei et hyles factus, per observationem quidem mandati, post ereptionem eius quae ad entia naturalis habitudinis, unitus Deo secundum habi- tum, eam quae circa bonum infixionem, suscipere intransmutabilem futurus erat; per transgressionem autem ad hylem magis motus, et eius causae, Dei inquio evellens intellectum, corruptioni familiaris existere, et passibilis pro impassibili et mortalis pro immortali fieri, et concubitus et fluxibilis genniseos (id est geniturae) indigere, et desiderio vitae a voluptuosis quidem quasi hanc constituentibus possideri; ad eos autem qui horum praedicunt privationem intrepide inimicari; et desiderium quidem ex Deo ad hylem, furorem autem ex salutis vere inimico transferre ad id quod eiusdem est tribus (homofylon).

Grosseteste fol. 134j,

col. B: Non enim erat utile inexpertum Adam existentem

et improbatum incorruptione potiri vt non in superbiam incideret et iudicium diaboli. Ille enim propter incorruptibile, post eum qui ex electione casum, in malo impenicibilem habuit et inuertibilem fixionem, quemadmodum rursus et angeli post eam quae ex electione, virtutis electionem, eam quae in bono per gratiam intransmutabilem confirma- tionem.

Oportebat igitur prius probatunm hominem et experientia per obseruacionem mandati perfectum sic incorruptionem virtutis ferre brauuium. Medius enim Dei et materiae factus, per obseruacionem quidem mandati, post ereptionem eius quae ad encia naturalis habitudinis, vnitus Deo secundum habitum eam quae circa bonum fixionem suscipere intrans- mutabilem futurus erat; per transgressionem autem ad materiam magis motus et ab ipsius causa, Deo inquam, auellens intellectum, corruptionem appro- pinquari et passibilis pro impassibili et mortalis pro immortali fieri et concubitu et fluxibili generatione indigere et desiderio vitae delectabilibus quidem vt vitam hanc constituentibus detineri. Ad horum autem praedicentes priuationi intrepide inimicari et desiderium quidem de Deo ad materiam, iram autem ex salutis vere inimico transferre ad id quod eiusdem tribus.

Lefevre 131: Non enim vtile illi erat, nullo periculo tentatum

nec probatum, incorruptibilitatem consequi, ne forte in superbiam incidisset et laqueum diaboli. Nam ille propter incorruptibilitatem, post lapsum ex elec-

tione, fixionem in malo impoenitentem et inconuerti- bilem habuit: sicut contra, et angeli post virtutis ex proposito electionem, immutabilem per gratiam habuere stabilitatem.

Par fuit igitur, primum probatum hominem, et experientia per obseruationem mandati perfectum, sic incorruptibilitatem, virtutis praemium, accipere. Medius enim Dei et materiae factus, per obser- uationem mandati, post liberationem naturalis habitudinis ad entia, vnitus Deo, suscepturus erat immutabilem firmitatem eam, quae secundum habi- tumrn in bono est. Per transgressionem autem, ad materiam magis mobilis, et suae causae (Dei dico) extrudens intelligentiam, corruptioni traditus est. Et passibilis pro impassibili, et mortalis pro immortali factus, et consortio ad propagationem, et natura fluxibili indigens, et desiderio vitae voluptaria (quasi illam continere sufficiant) amplectens, et intrepide persequens eos odio, qui sibiipsis illa prouiderint, ad illorum direptionem: et desiderium (derelicto Deo) ad materiam, ex salutis reuera inimico transferens ad genus suum, suos posteros suosque contribules.

One glance at the above excerpt shows that Lefevre's translation here departs radically from the preceding ones for no apparent stylistic or textual reasons. The Greek Father's thought in the first paragraph is not in itself obscure: God did not want to leave Adam 'untested' so as not to have to judge him in the same way as He had judged the devil. The latter, because of his immortality, became eternally 'fixed' in evil as a result of the Fall which he had freely chosen. The angels, on the other hand, made the opposite choice. Damas- cene had already explained elsewhere in the chapter the crucial difference between God's judgement of the devil and God's judgement of man: unlike the devil, man was to become mortal if he yielded to temptation.

Lefivre's translation suggests that unlike his original and his predecessors he is concerned to emphasize the basic idea of divine goodness. As a result of this he also stresses the deliberate effort that man has to make in order to depart from good and, contrary to the intentions of his original, establishes a close link between divine goodness and grace.

Thus &attQaorov

is translated not simply by inexpertum but by nullo periculo tentatum. In introducing the notion of dangers Lefivre closes off the possibility of the passage being interpreted in the sense of: God tempted Adam by evil. Moreover, unlike Burgundio and Grosseteste, he translates ndthXv in

o~oo• ot thltv xa . . . gi6votv not by sicut / quemadmo-

dum rursus but by contra. 'Ev i4 xaCL,

appears to be omitted deliberately. Lefivre thus not only brings out the contrast between the devil and

This content downloaded from 86.163.193.9 on Sun, 3 Aug 2014 18:23:08 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

JOHN OF DAMASCUS TRANSLATIONS 217

the angels but also tightens the link between divine grace and the choice of good by the 'liberum arbitrium'. According to Lefivre, the angels chose the good and are therefore in permanent receipt of divine grace which is equivalent to the good. However, according to Damascene and his two medieval translators, the angels chose the good and having chosen it, were confirmed in it by grace. Grace and the good are therefore not to be assimilated.

Lefivre's translation of x?•ta by laqueus reflects the same preoccupation, if we discard the unlikely possibility of his simply misunder- standing the phrase. ludicium, which Christian authors apply very frequently to thejudgement of God, was obviously felt too important a term to attribute to the devil. Hence the substitution of laqueus. Toi 6Lcp6Xov was then taken as a subjective genitive so as to harmonize this clause with the preceding one: it is not God that tempts (by evil), it is the devil that lays traps. It is thus Lefbvre's own doctrine which is imposed somewhat brutally upon John of Damascus who is talking expressly about God'sjudgement against the devil.

The idea of all-powerful divine goodness is emphasized even more strongly by Lefivre in the second paragraph where Damascene explains that man was created as a being intermediate between God and matter. Had Adam observed the divine commandment, he would have become united with God and forever 'fixed' or confirmed in the good.

The subject here is man. It was entirely up to him to observe the commandment and to hold (or carry) the reward for this obedience. Translating xopCioaooectt by accipere (Burgundio and Grosseteste: ferre) Lefivre stresses the passive role of man: he is simply to receive the good which comes from God. Similarly, the French humanist's rendering of AnaXctaytv by liberatio is by no means fortuitous. In Christian Latin37 the term is normally applied to man's redemption by God in which man himself plays no active part. Ereptio for ahXcayiyv in the Burgundio and Grosseteste versions attributes to man a much greater degree of autonomy in his separation from the corporeal world. In Lefevre's version God who is the Good redeems man whose role is passive. The following sentence suggests that Lefivre, having already established a link between divine grace and the

Good in the preceding paragraph, now wants to make this link quite clear. Thus, unlike Burgundio and Grosseteste, he translates 'vni- tus Deo suscepturus erat intransmutabilem firmitatem eam quae secundum habitum in bono est'. It is not, as Damascene intended, the union of man with God which is permament. What is permanent for Lefivre is the stability of the Good - the stability that would have been acquired by man at the very moment of his union with God who is the Good.

However, Lefivre seems (at first glance) to go against his own insistence on God as the Good, God who cannot tempt, by translating r4i >Oo80t ~ooolxElo0IOatl as corruptioni traditus

est. Burgundio translates gooolxELo0oOatl by familiaris existere and Grosseteste by appropin- quari. The latter rendering brings out well the idea of choice that was available to man. Lefivre in his version remains consistent in emphasizing man's passive role but what of his denial of God as author of evil? The balance is restored in the following sentence. Instead of following Burgundio and Grosseteste in trans- lating vtEXEeoatl by the passive possideri or detineri, Lefivre prefers the active: [vitae volup- taria] amplectens. The present participle here, read together with extrudens intelligentiam, sug- gests to the reader that it is man himself who is the author of evil. God remains the ultimate judge who condemns him to corruption.

The feature ofLefivre's translation that most distinguishes it from its medieval predecessors is his insistence on imposing his own theology upon the Greek text. Where John of Damascus talks about free choice of good and evil, Lefivre emphasizes that the choice of good is to some extent predetermined by divine grace. When the Greek Father raises the question of the first man's temptation by God, Lefivre stresses that God cannot be the author of evil, as it is only the devil who tempts. When man's union with God is mentioned, a union which would have been permanent, the emphasis is shifted to the permanence of the good itself which Lefivre, unlike his original, identifies expressly with God.

IRENA BACKUS

UNIVERSITY OF GENEVA

7 Cf. esp. Tert. Marc. I, 25.

15

This content downloaded from 86.163.193.9 on Sun, 3 Aug 2014 18:23:08 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions