Наш новый сайт:
Церковное право.
Все каноны с толкованиями.

3. The Text

A. Previous Editions of Palamas» Works

The two foremost editorial efforts in recent years have been John Meyendorff’s edition of the Triads and the three volumes of the Thessalonica edition of Palamas’ works under the general direction of Panagiotes Chrestou.158 While both are laudable enterprises and important contributions to Palamite studies, the reviewers were quick to note certain deficiencies.159 Although these are major works of Palamas, the editors have not produced critical editions by modern standards. Codicological study of the Palamite corpus as a whole was broached very briefly by Meyendorff in his Introduction but not adequately pursued for the indispensable information it provides regarding the relationship of the manuscripts.160 Chrestou reserved such a study for a final volume.161 Selection of manuscripts for collation was somewhat arbitrary. The best manuscripts were chosen, but we are never informed about the factual bases for such judgements. At times, manuscripts early in date and easily accessible were not included in collations. No attempt was ever made to establish stemmatic relationships. The principles for including or excluding variant readings in the apparatus were left for the reader to guess. Finally, the constitution of the text appears to have been based largely upon the subjective judgement of the editor.

B. Manuscripts of The Capita 150

C = Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, Fonds Coislin 100.162 Fifteenth century, paper, i+342 folios, 298x221 mm. This codex was formerly vol. 3 of the official collection of Palamite documents deposited in the κατηχουμενεία of the Great Lavra on Mount Athos, the monastery to which Gregory Palamas was once attached.163

The volume contains, in chronological order, first the works of Palamas prior to 1341 and then those from the later period of his life. The treatises appear in the following order: (Ep Damianus)164

Apodictic Treatises (fols. 13r–63v)

Against Bekkos (fols. 64r–68v)

Ep 1 Akindynos (fols. 69r–75r)

Ep 2 Akindynos (fols. 75v–77r)

Ep 1 Barlaam (fols. 77r–90r)

Ep 2 Barlaam (fols. 90r– 103r)

Triads (fols. 103v–225v)

George Phakrases, Dialogue (fols. 226r– 232r)165

Contra Gregoram 1–4 (fols. 232r–287r)

Reply on Basil (fols. 287v–289v)

Capita 150 (fols. 290r–321r)

Synodal Tome 1351 (fols. 321v–342r)166

P = Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, Ancien fonds grec 2381.167 Fifteenth century, paper, 109 folios, 295x220 mm. The text was transcribed by one copyist throughout except for fols. 3r–12v (Planudes) and a portion of fol. 88v (same hand as 3–12). Several folios bear dated astronomical notices ranging from 1335 to 1392.168 The identifiable watermarks in the manuscript can all be placed in the second half of the fourteenth century: e.g., fols. 3, 4, 8 – Briquet, Cercle 3231 (1371);169 fols. 42, 44, 45 – Briquet, Deux Clefs 3848 (1370–79); fols. 15–84 – Briquet, Fruit 7347 (1341) or Harlfinger, Fruit 11 (1363).170

The general character of the codex is that of a scholar's handbook or manual of scientific treatises, mostly astronomical in content. The primary hand is cramped, idiosyncratic and highly abbreviated. The original owner and primary copyist are probably identical. Among the treatises found in the manuscript are the following: Maximus Planudes, The so-called Great Calculus according to the Indians (fols. 3r–12v), ed. A. Allard, Maxime Planude. Le grand calcul selon les Indiens (Travaux de la faculté de philosophie et lettres de l’université catholique de Louvain 27; Centre d'histoire des sciences et des techniques, Sources et travaux 1; Louvain-la-Neuve, 1981); Barlaam the Calabrian, Logistica (fols. 13r–30r), ed. J. Chambers, Barlaami monachi Logistica (Paris, 1600); idem, Demonstratio arithmetica, excerpt (fols. 30v–32r), ed. J. L. Heiberg, Euclidis Elementa (Leipzig, 1888; repr. 1977) 5:351–362; ibid., Refutation of the three additional chapters (14–16) of Ptolemy's Harmonics, Book 3 (fols. 32r–35r), ed. I. Düring, Die Harmonielehre des Klaudios Ptolemaios (Göteborgs Högskolas Årsskrift 36.1; Göteborg, 1930), pp. 112–121; Cleomedes, De motu circulari corporum caelestium (fols. 37r–62r), ed. H. Ziegler (Leipzig, 1891); the Sphere of Empedocles (fol. 64r–v), ed. E. Maass, Commentariorum in Aratum reliquiae (Berlin, 1898), pp. 154–170; Leontius Mechanicus, De sphaerae Arateae constructione and De zodiaco (fols. 64v–65v), ed. Maass, pp. 561–570 (De zodiaco, new edition by J. Martin, Scholia, pp. 529–532); preface to the Phaenomena of Aratus (fol. 66v), ed. Maass, pp. 102–122; extracts from John Lydus, De ostentis (fols. 70r–71v, 74r–75v), ed. K. Wachsmuth (Leipzig, 1897); Demetrius Triclinius, On Lunar Theory (fols. 78r–79v), ed. A. Wasserstein, «An Unpublished Treatise by Demetrius Triclinius On Lunar Theory,» jöbg 16 (1967) 153–174; Adamantius the Sophist, De ventis (fol. 80v), ed. V. Ross, Anecdota graeca et graecolatina (Berlin, 1864), 1:49–52; John Pediasimus, Epitome de mensura et divisione terrae (fols. 81r–86r), ed. G. Friedlein, Die Geometrie des Pediasmus (Programm der Studienanstalt Ansbach; Ansbach, 1866); Pseudo–Aristotle, De mundo (fols. 86r–88v), ed. W. L. Lorimer, Aristotelis qui fertur libellus De mundo (Paris, 1933); Pseudo-Alexander of Aphrodisias, Problemata physica, selections (fols. 93r–96v), ed. I. L. Ideler, Physici et medici graeci minores (Berlin, 1841) 1:3–80; Philo, De aeternitate mundi (fols. 96v–99r), ed. L. Cohn, P. Wendland, Philonis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt, 6 vols. (Berlin, 1896–1915) 6:72–119; Theophylactus Simokattes, Quaestiones physicae, selections (fols. 99v, 102r–v), ed. Ideler 1:168–177.

The Capita 150 of Gregory Palamas is found on fols. 35v–41r. This work is followed on fols. 41v–46v by another work by Palamas, Triad 1.2–3, ed. J. Meyendorff, Défense, pp. 71–223. As Fr. Meyendorff decided not to collate the entire text of Paris gr. 2381 in his edition, he failed to note that Triad 1.3 in this manuscript carries the florilegium missing from all other known manuscripts of the Triads. Cf. Meyendorff, Défense, pp. xlix and 222 n. 5.

The moral and theological interests of the scholar-owner of the codex are represented elsewhere in the manuscript: Pseudo-Aristotle, De virtutibus et vitiis (fol. 99r–v), ed. F. Susemihl, Aristoteles, Ethica Eudemia (Leipzig, 1884; repr. Amsterdam, 1967), pp. 181–194; several unidentified theological texts on fols. 108v-109v; there are also theological scholia on several of the Capita 150 of Palamas and in one instance there is a series of invocations addressed to the Mother of God (fol. 39v, mg. inf.). Unfortunately, water damage, faded ink and the tight binding of the codex make these scholia almost impossible to decipher in their entirety. Beyond the fact that they indicate that the owner of the codex had Palamite theological interests, these scholia are not especially significant in themselves. The following examples give some idea of their general tenor. My transcription is tentative at best.

Scholion on c. 108 (fol. 39r, mg. inf., partial transcription): ὡς γάρ ὁ μετέχων φωτός αὐτός τε φωτεινός και τοῖς ὁρῶσιν τοιοῦτος ὁρᾶται και μή μόνον ὡς τοσοῦτον, ἀλλά και ἀντιλάμπει προσελαγγίζον () ἐκ τῆς διαυγείας τοῦ κατά μέθεξιν ἐνόντας αὐτῷ φωτός. οὗτος ὁ λόγος πατρικοῖς συζῶν ὁλοσχερῶς.

«For he who participates in light is himself luminous and appears as such to those who can see, not only to this extent, but he also reflects the flash of brilliance of the light inhering in him by participation. This statement is in complete accord with the sayings of the Fathers.»

Scholion on c. 109 (fol. 39v, mg. ext., complete): ὡς τό πῦρ ἄλλο και ἡ αὐτοῦ ὑπόστασις ἄλλη, οὓτως ἄρα και ἡ θεῖα οὑσία ἄλλη πως και ἄλλαι αἱ ὑποστάσεις μακάριαι γίνονται, ἐν αἷς μία οὐσία αὐτή τις και θεότης, μᾶλλον δέ μία ἐστίν αὔτη και οὐκ ἄλλη.

«As fire is one thing and its hypostasis is another, so too therefore the divine substance is somehow one thing and its blessed hypostases are others, in which there is one and the same substance and Godhead; or rather, it is one identical reality and nothing else.»

Invocation #3 (fol. 39v, mg. inf., partial): φεῖσαι μου, Δέσποινα, και ἀπόσμηξαι τούς σπίλους. βλέπω ἀμυδρῶς, τό δ΄ εὐαγές πάλιν και ἀβέβηλον τῆς ἐποπτείας αὐτῇ παράσχου. ὡς οὐρανόν βλέπω ὃλην τήν θεοπρεπῆ σου γαστέρα φωτός καταλάμπουσαν τῆς ἀσπροσίτου θεότητος. ὡς σκηνήν ὁρῶ, βασιλικῶς ἐσταλμένου τοῦ ἐπί πάντων βασιλέως, ἐν αὐτῇ ἐνσκιτῶντος, και οἶον ἐν ἡδονῇ τῷ κάλλει και τῷ πρός αὐτοῦ ὑποδοχόν ἐπιτηδειότητι σου.

«Spare me, O Lady, and wipe away my stains. I see darkly, but restore clarity and purity to my sight. As heaven I see your entire divinely-fitting womb shining forth with the light of the inaccessible Godhead. I see it as a tent with the King of all royally garbed, leaping within it and as though with pleasure at your beauty and fitness as a receptacle for him.»

X = Istanbul, Βιβλιοθήκη τοῦ Οἰκουμενικοῦ Πατριαρχείου: olim Μονή τῆς Ἁγίας Τριάδος Χάλκης, ms 138.171 Fifteenth century, paper, 378 folios,172 290x210 mm, text written in two columns with 36 lines each. On fol. 246r there is a note in a late hand indicating that the manuscript was given to the Monastery τοῦ Δουσίκου, perhaps in 1580.173 In 1936 it was transferred to the Library of The Ecumenical Patriarchate. Today the manuscript is in poor condition. On fols. 206–245 only one column remains intact; from fol. 246 to the end there is increasing deterioration.

The treatises of Palamas appear in the fallowing order:

Apodictic Treatises 1 (fols. 1ra-3rb = last section only, ps 1:72.5–77.end); 2 (fols. 3rb-29rb)

Against Bekkos (fols. 29rb-33ra)

Ep 1 Akindynos (fols. 35ra-40vb)

Ep 2Akindynos (fols. 41ra-42va)

Ep 1 Barlaam (fols. 43ra-54vb)

Ep 2 Barlaam (fols. 54vb-66va)

Triads (fols. 67ra-180va)

Phakrases, Dialogue (fols. 180vb-187ra)

Contra Gregoram 1–4 (fols. 187ra-241vb)

Reply on Basil (fols. 241vb-244ra)

Capita 150 (fols. 244rb-294va)

Hagioretic Tome (fols. 296va-302rb)

13.      Synodal Tome 1341 (fols. 302va-?)

14.      Unidentified text (fols. ?–378)174

G = Mount Athos, Μονή τῶν Ἰβήρων 386 (Athon. 4506).175 Sixteenth century, paper, 274 folios. The text was transcribed by one copyist throughout except for 2 folios in a later hand between 125 and 127. Throughout the manuscript there are frequent marginal quotations, also in a later hand, set out to signal the subjects under discussion.

The Palamite documents in the manuscript appear in the following order:

Apodictic Treatises 1–2 (fols. 7r-31v)

Against Bekkos (fols. 68v-74v)

Capita 150 (fols. 74v-117r)

Hagioretic Tome (fols. 117v- 121r)

Synodal Tome 1341 (fols. 121v-132v)

Ep 1 Akindynos (fols. 135r-145r: note separation from preceding texts)

Ep 2 Akindynos (fols. 145v-149r)

Ep 1 Barlaam (fols. 149r-169v)

9.      Phakrases, Dialogue (fols. 208r-219r: note separation)

10.      Ep 2 Barlaam (fols. 219v-243v)

The manuscript bears also two works by George Gennadios Scholarios, Against Gemistes Plethon (fols. 193v-l96r) and On the Difference between Venial and Mortal Sins (fols. 196v-198r), ed, L. Petit, X A. Siderides, M. Jugie, Œuvres complètes de Georges Scholarios, 8 vols. (Paris, 1928–1936) 4:155–172 and 4:274–284 respectively; selections from the works of Maximus the Confessor and his pseudonym(s) (fols. 169v-174r, 198v-199r, 200r-201r, 244r-274r); anon,. Capita geographica et alia (fols. 132v-134v); gnomic texts (fols. 174v- 193r). Brief and miscellaneous theological texts without apparent significance occupy the remainder of the manuscript.

A table of contents is found on fols. 3v-5v but this bears little relation to the actual contents of the codex. Five Palamite documents are listed: Apodictic Treatises 1–2, Capita 150, Hagioretic Tome; John Cantacuzene, Antirrhetics Against Prochoros Kydones; George Gennadios Scholarios, Reply to John of Trebizond On a Quotation from Theodore Graptos used by the Akindynists and also On their Opinions regarding the Holy Spirit (Œuvres 3:204–288). The remaining works in the list are mostly anti-Latin treatises by Scholarios (2:269–87, 3:1–21), Matthew Monotropos, Manuel the Great Rhetor of St. Sophia (Refutation of Friar Francescus, O.P., of Old Rome), Andronikos Doukas Sgouros, and Niketas of Byzantium.

A = Athens, Εθνική Βιβλιοθήκη 2092 (olim Thessalonica, Γυμνάσιον 23).176 Sixteenth century, paper, i+485 pages. The manuscript is written throughout by a single copyist.

It contains two major sections, namely, a collection of Palamite documents in the first half and a collection of anti-Latin writings in the second half.

I. Palamite section:

Apodictic Treatises (pp. 1–47)177

Against Bekkos (pp. 48–52)

Ep 1 Akindynos (pp. 52–59)

Ep 2 Akindynos (pp. 59–60)

5      Ep 1 Barlaam (pp. 60–73)178

Ep 2 Barlaam (pp. 73–86)

Triads (pp. 86–212)

8.      Phakrases, Dialogue (pp. 213–219)

9.      Contra Gregoram 1–4 (pp. 219–276)

Reply on Basil (pp. 276–279)

Capita 150 (pp. 279–314)

Hagioretic Tome (pp. 314–318)

Synodal Tome 1351 (pp. 323–347)179

II. Anti-Latin section:

Mark Eugenikos of Ephesus, Oratio ad Eugenium papam quartum (pp. 351–353), ed. L. Petit, PO 17:336–341.

Idem, Capita syllogistica contra Latinos (pp. 353 – 370), ed. L. Petit, po 17:368–415.

Ibid., Syllogistic Chapters Against the Heresy of the Akindynists and Against the Latins (pp. 370– 377), ed. W. Gass, Die Mystik des Nikolaus Cabasilas vom Leben in Christo (Greifswald, 1849; repr. Leipzig, 1899), pp. 217–232.

Ibid., Πρός τούς ἐν τῇ συνόδῳ τότε. inc. Τοῦτο τό ἃγιον σύμβολον ἀπαιτοῦμεν ὑμᾶς …; des. … δοξάσωμεν τό πάντιμον και μεγαλοπρεπές ὃνομα τοῦ πατρός και τοῦ υἰοῦ και τοῦ ἀγίου πνεύματος (p. 377), unedited (?).180

Gregory (George) of Cyprus, De processione Spiritus sancti (pp. 378–396), ed. Dositheos, Patriarch of Jerusalem, Τόμος Ἀγάπης (Jassy-Moldavia, 1698), pp. 387ff. = pg 142:269–300.

Barlaam the Calabrian, Antilatin Treatises 1–6 and 20 (pp. 396–443), unedited.181

Scholarios, First Treatise on the Procession of the Holy Spirit, excerpts (pp. 443–451), ed. L. Petit et al., Œuvres 2:5–71.22. (The text breaks off in mid-sentence.182)

Matthew Monotropos, Adversus Latinos (pp. 455–471), unedited.

9.      Nikephoros Blemmydes, Reply to John Doukas (pp. 471–473), ed. A. Heisenberg, Nicephori Blemmydae curriculum vitae et carmina (Leipzig, 1896), pp. 110ff.

10.      Symeon of Thessalonica, Expositio sacri symboli (pp. 473–485), ed. Dositheos, Patriarch of Jerusalem, Κατά Αἱρέσεων... (Jassy-Moldavia, 1683) = PG 155:752–801.183

On folio i/r-v there is a table of contents for the Palamite section, but not the anti-Latin section, thus confirming the originally separate character of the two collections. The table of contents does not accord entirely with the documents actually found in the manuscript. The table lists the Hagioretic Tome before the Capita 150 and gives the title and incipit for the Synodal Tome of 1341, not that of 1351 which is the text in the manuscript.

S = Moscow, Gosudarstvenniy Istoricheskiy Muzey, Sinodalnoe Sobranie 249 (70/LXXI).184 Sixteenth century, paper, i+292 folios, 265 x 185 mm. On fol. 1r there is a note indicating that the codex once belonged to Neophytos of Thessalonica (και τοῦτο σύν τοῖς ἄλλοις κτῆμα ἐστίν Νεοφύτου Θεσσαλονίκης). It travelled to Moscow via Jerusalem and the agency of Patriarch Dositheos in 1692.185

The manuscript is identical in contents with Athens 2092 described above.

I. Palamite section:

Apodictic Treatises (fols. 4r-35v)

Against Bekkos (fols. 36r-38v)

Ep 1 Akindynos (fols. 39r-43r)

Ep 2 Akindynos (fols. 43r-44r)

Ep 1 Barlaam (fols. 44r-52v)

Ep 2 Barlaam (fols. 52v-61r)

Triads (fols. 61r-145v)

Phakrases, Dialogue (fols. l46r-150r)

9.      Contra Gregoram 1–4 (fols. 150r-184v)

10.      Reply on Basil (185r-185bisv)

11.      Capita 150 (fols. 185bisv-204v)

Hagioretic Tome (fols. 204v-206r)

Synodal Tome 1351 (fols. 207r-219v)

II. Anti-Latin section:

Mark of Ephesus, Oratio (fols. 221r-222r)

Idem, Capita contra Latinos (fols. 222r-231v)

Ibid., Chapters Against the Akindynists (fols. 231v-235r)

Ibid., To the Participants at the Council (fol. 235r)

Gregory of Cyprus, De processione (fols. 235v-245v)

Barlaam, Antilatin Treatises (fols. 245v-269r)

Scholarios, On the Procession (fols. 269r-273r)

Matthew, Adversus Latinos (fols. 274r-282v)

9.      Blemmydes, Reply to Doukas (fols. 282v-283v)

10.      Symeon, Expositio (fols. 283v-290v)

Athens 2092 and Moscow 249 have a number of important characteristics in common. The contents are identical, as is their arrangement. In both, the table of contents lists the Hagioretic Tome before the Capita 150, but the order is reversed in the text itself.186 Both list Synodal Tome 1341 in the table but give the text of Synodal Tome 1351 in the main body of the manuscript. In the middle of Apodictic Treatise 1 the same section of the text is missing. In Athens 2092 two and a half pages are left blank at this point (the amount of missing text fits this space exactly). The copyist of Moscow 249 may have thought this a waste of good paper, for he left only half a page blank (fol. 8v). The same brief note is appended to the title of Ep 1 Barlaam in both manuscripts. Just above the title for the Capita 150 there is the note: Τέλος τῶν δογματικῶν λόγων και ἀρχή τῶν κεφαλαίων. This note occurs nowhere else apart from these two manuscripts. Between the Hagioretic Tome and the Synodal Tome Athens leaves three pages blank and Moscow 249 leaves one folio. The text of Scholarios in both breaks off at the same word, with Athens leaving three blank pages and Moscow one and a half pages.

The conclusion should be clear: there is such a codicological similarity between the two manuscripts that one must be a copy of the other. Given the reduction of blank spaces in the Moscow manuscript, it is likely that this is the copy. The collation of the text of the Capita 150 in the two manuscripts removes all doubt: Moscow 249 is a direct copy of Athens 2092.

Manuscripts Not Consulted187

L = Mount Athos, Μονή τῆς Μεγίστης Λαύρας, ms 1907 (Ω 95).188 Eighteenth century, paper, 1464 pages, 200x140 mm. At some point a portion of the manuscript became detached and is now to be found in Urbana, Illinois, University Library, ms 2 (olim 882 C 685). This is a composite manuscript containing 14 folio groupings from independent manuscripts. Fols. 128r-170v belonged originally to Lavra 1907. They bear indications that the manuscript was originally prepared for publication. Fol. 129r gives the title of the publication (a lengthy title indicating in effect, «The Collected Works of St. Gregory Palamas»); fols. 131r-133v provide the preface and fols. 134r-136v, the table of contents. Fols. 137r-153v and 155r-170r bear Palamas» Letter to his Church from Captivity and Phakrases, Dialogue. These two works belong to pp. 1231–1264 and 1465–1495 of the original manuscript.189


Philotheos Kokkinos, Encomium on Palamas

Palamas, Homilies (60)



Capita 3

Life of St. Peter the Athonite

Capita 150

Synodal Tome 1341

Hagioretic Tome

M= Mount Athos, Μονή τῆς Μεγίστης Λαύρας, ms 1945 (Ω 133).191 Eighteenth century (a.d. 1708), paper, 265 folios, 320x210 mm. The colophon at the end of the manuscript reads: μετεγράφη ἀναλώμασι και ἐπιμελείᾳ Μαυροκορδάτου Κωνστανινουπολίτου τοῦ μεγάλου Λογοθέτου τῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ μεγάλης ἐκκλησίας και γενικοῦ ἑρμηνέως τῆς τῶν Ὀθωμανῶν αὐταρχίας κατά τό αψη (1708) ἔτος τό σωτήριον.


t.      Against Bekkos

Ep 1 Akindynos

Ep 2 Akindynos

Ep 1 Barlaam

Ep 2 Barlaam


Phakrases, Dialogue

Contra Gregoram 1–4

Reply on Basil

Capita 150

Hagioretic Tome

Synodal Tome 1341

Synodal Tome 1347 (Darrouzès, Regestes N. 2270)

Synodal Tome Against Matthew of Ephesus (N. 2289)

Synodal Tome 1351

O = Mount Athos, Μονή τῆς Μεγίστης Λαύρας, ms 2150 (M 137).192 Fifteenth century, paper, 72 folios, 200x140 mm. The manuscript is unbound and partially worm-eaten. It may be only a portion of a much larger manuscript.


Mark of Ephesus, Chapters Against the Akindynists193

Phakrases, Dialogue

Palamas, Capita 150

C. Printed Editions

I.      The Philokalia Edition (Ph)

v = ΦΙΛΟΚΑΛΙΑ ΤΩΝ ΙΕΡΩΝ ΝΗΠΤΙΚΩΝ συνερανισθεῖσα παρά τῶν ἁγίων και θεοφόρων πατέρων ἡμῶν ἐν ᾖ διά τῆς κατά τήν πρᾶξιν και θεωρίαν ἡθικῆς φιλοσοφίας ὁ νοῦς καθαίρεται, φωτίζεται, και τελειοῦται ἐμελείᾳ ἐπιμελείᾳ μέν ὃτι πλείστῃ διορθωθεῖσα, νῦν δέ πρῶτον τύποις ἐκδοθεῖσα διά δαπάνης τοῦ τιμιωτάτου, και θεοσεβεστάτου κυρίου Ἰωάννου Μαυρογορδάτου εἰς κοινήν τῶν ὀρθοδόξων ὠφέλειαν (Venice, 1782), pp. 964–1009.

a1 = ΦΙΛΟΚΑΛΙΑ ΤΩΝ ΙΕΡΩΝ ΝΗΠΤΙΚΩΝ ... και εἰς ἣν προσετέθησαν τά ἐκ τῆς ἐν Βενετίᾳ ἐκδόσεως ἐλλείποντα κεφάλαια τοῦ μακαρίου Πατριάρχου Καλλίστου (Athens, 1893).

a = ΦΙΛΟΚΑΛΙΑ ΤΩΝ ΙΕΡΩΝ ΝΗΠΤΙΚΩΝ... 5 vols. (Athens, 1957–1963) 4:134–187.

m = J. P. Migne (ed.), Patrologia graeca 150 (Paris, 1865; repr. Turnhout, 1978), cols. 1117–1226.

II.      The Uspensky Edition

u = Bishop Porfiry Uspensky (ed.), Istoriya Athona, vol. 3: "Athon monashesky», part 2 ‘Opravdaniya’, edited posthumously by P. A. Syrku (St. Petersburg, 1892), pp. 797–806.

The Philokalia is a well-known collection of spiritual writings by authors ranging in date from the patristic age to the Late Byzantine period. The collection was assembled and edited by Makarios Notaras (1731–1805), bishop of Corinth, and the monk Nikodemos (1749–1809) of Mt. Athos.194 The Capita 150 of Palamas may have been taken from Lavra 1907 (Ω 95), a manuscript which was associated with a publication project for the complete works of Gregory Palamas.195 The first edition of the Philokalia was published in Venice, 1782, at the expense of John Maurogordatos of Smyrna. In 1893 a second edition was issued in Athens under the supervision of Panagiotes Tzelates who included in the new edition the Supplementary Chapters by Patriarch Kallistos (or more likely, Kallistos Angelikoudes). Otherwise this was a simple reprint of the Venice edition. More recently a new printing was prepared by Deacon Epiphanios I. Theodoropoulos on the basis of the previous Venice and Athens editions. When Jacques Paul Migne produced his Patrologia graeca he reprinted the Capita 150 of Palamas from the Venice edition of the Philokalia sent to him by the good graces of J. Sgouta. A Latin translation ("quantus labor») was provided by a learned gentleman named J. Lecomte, the curé of Bannay in the diocese of Orléans.196

The Venice edition alone counts as an independent witness to the text of the Capita 150. The others are mere reprints with alterations in the punctuation and with the addition of further errors.

In his study of Mount Athos Bishop Porfiry Uspensky published a number of Palamite documents. Unfortunately for us these are mostly in the form of extracts. Meyendorff has indicated that Uspensky took these texts from the manuscript Lavra 1945, viz.: no. 26.683–688 Hagioretic Tome; nos. 27–28.688–691 Triads; nos. 33–34.710–713 Eps 1 and 2 Akindynos; nos. 41–43.737–741 Contra Gregoram; no. 47.787–806 Capita 150.197 This is quite certain for items 27–28 and 41–43, for Uspensky himself noted that he took them from a manuscript of Mavrogordatos in the Athonite Lavra dated 1708. Items 26 and 33–34 bear no indication of origin. For item 47, the Capita 150, Uspensky noted that it was taken from a manuscript of the Great Lavra which was bound together with a printed book containing saints» lives. Lavra 1945 is not, or at least is no longer, bound with such a printed book. Thus it may be that the Capita 150 is derived from some other manuscript.

D. Indirect Witnesses

Since Palamas quoted extensively from his own works, their text can be used as an indirect or external witness to the Capita 150. These parallel texts must be used with some caution because Palamas frequently made changes in order to adapt these passages to their new context. I have therefore followed the practice of citing the indirect witnesses only when they agree or disagree with an existing set of readings. Because it is quoted in full in c. 113–121, the Reply on Cyril (K) constitutes the most valuable of the indirect witnesses.

D      Dialogue between an Orthodox and a Barlaamite

H      Homily 31

K      Reply on Cyril

T      Theophanes

U      On Union and Distinction

Meyendorff’s survey of the manuscripts of Palamas» works has suggested that there was originally no systematic arrangement of the Palamite corpus apart from the homilies.198 By the early fifteenth century a systematic grouping of the works into three ‘books’ or volumes had emerged. The first two books contained the works of the civil war period, 1341–1347, while the works prior to 1341 and posterior to 1347 were collected together in the third book. The homily collection might be considered as a fourth book, but it was not actually given this title in the manuscripts and it enjoyed a separate and more prolific circulation in its own right.

The Capita 150 appears in Book 3 of the systematic collection, i.e., among those works written before 1341 or after 1347. C, X, A, S and M are full representatives of Book 3. G is a partial representative, probably copied from a Book 3 manuscript: there are several dislocations but the order in which the works appear is basically the same. P is an interesting anomaly but the Capita 150 is associated with an excerpt from the Triads and the collations show that P cannot be separated from the textual tradition of C and X. However, the presence of the missing florilegium attached to Triad 1.3 leaves some doubt about whether P was copied from a Book 3 manuscript. L is another anomalous case in that it is the only instance where the Capita 150 is attached to Palamas’ homily collection.

There are several minor variations that occur in the Book 3 manuscripts. Some of these omit the Capita 150, for example, Oxford, Bodleian, ms Laud. gr. 87. The Hagioretic Tome is missing from C. G, X, L and M all give the text of Synodal Tome 1341. The πíναξ in A and S promises the tome of 1341 but the body of the manuscripts gives that of 1351. C, M and perhaps X give the tome of 1351. X was written in a two column format like that of Coislin 98 and 99 (Book 1 and 2 manuscripts respectively) but there is no similarity in the hands. Although these codicological details may not be directly useful for the purposes of the present edition, they are worth noting because they suggest that there is more to be learned about the early history of the transmission of the Palamite corpus.

E. The Tradition of the Text

In the collation of the mss and editions certain types of variation proved to be of little value. This was particularly true for accentuation and word division: e.g., τ΄ ἄλλα – τἄλλα, οὐ δέ – οὐδέ μία – οὐδεμία, διά τοῦτο – διατοῦτο, ἀπ΄ ἀρχῆς – ἀπαρχῆς, την_αρχήν – την_ἀρχήν – τήν ἀρχήν, ταυτό – ταὐτό.. Such variations therefore were not considered in the study of the text and are not included in the apparatus.

The interrelationships of the mss and printed editions can be illustrated in a stemma as follows:199

Hyparchetypal Variants

The principal variants of the mss can be grouped together neatly in two families which witness to the text of the alpha and beta hyparchetypes. In the alpha family C, P, and X are independent witnesses. In the beta family G, A, and v are distinct but closely related witnesses. The hyparchetypal variants are as follows:200

Alpha Beta
4.3 οὓν CPX γοῦν GASvam
7.5 συμπεπιλημμένον Pm (Ø-X) συμπεπιλημμένον CGASva
7.13 ἢ CP (Ø-X) ἢ GAva; ἡ Sm
11.4 συμπεπιλημμένη CPm (Ø-X) συμπεπιλημμένη GASva
28.7 ἐπιπολύ CP (Ø-X) ἐπί πολύ GASvam
ad 34 sine scholio CPX scholium hab. GASvam
38.13 ἑαυτῷ CP (Ø-X) αὐ τῷ GASvam
38.14 τοσοῦτο CP (Ø-X) τοσοῦτον GASvam
45.6 ᾗ ut uid. P, recte εἷ CGAS; εἴη vam
47.20 κἀν CPXA?m κἂν GA ‘Sva
51.15 προαναγγέλων PXvam/H προαναγγέλων CGAS
53.15–16 κατ» ἐκαίνους CPX κἀκαίνους ASvam (Ø-G)
58.6 κατ’ CPX om. ASvam (Ø-G)
62.24 προκαταγγέλοντος CPXvam προκαταγγέλοντος GAS
64.5 ἐστερῆσθαι CPXm ἐστερῖσθαι GASva
68.14 ἐνενόησεν CPXam ἐνενόησεν GASv
71.9 ταύτα CP (Ø-X) ταῦτα GASvam
72.2 προκαταγγέλοντος CPa (Ø-X) προκαταγγέλοντος GASvm
80.6 οὔτε CPX οὑδέ GASvam
90.8 καί CPU (Ø-X) om. GASvam
90.15 τῷ CPU (Ø-X) τό GASvam
93.17 οὐκέτι CP (Ø-X) οὐκ έτι GASvam
103.4 τῷ CP (Ø-X) τό GASvam
108.8 μετέχει CPT (Ø-X) μετέχῃ GASvam
109.3 ἐποίησε CPST (Ø-X) ἐποίησεν GAvam
116.10 ἐπαγγέλλεται CPXam/K ἐπαγγέλεται GASv
117.2 νοσοῦσιν CP, X supra lin. φοσοῦσιν X in textu, GASvam
122.10 πνεύματος CP (Ø-X) om. GASvam
123.3 λέγεσθαι CP (Ø-X) ἐπί GASvam
128.1 ὄτι CPX ἔτι GASvam
128.12 προσκατασκευάζων CP (Ø-X) προσκατασκευάζων GASvam
133.2 τοῦ CPA pc S (Ø-X) om. GA ac vam
134.21 μηδέ CP (Ø-X) οὐδέ GASvam
135.26 Τήν ante ἐνέργειαν om. CPvam (Ø-X) add. GAS
147.8 περιαγγέλουσιν CPG ac vam (Ø-X) περιαγγέλουσιν G ac AS
149.8 ἐξηγόρευσε CPX ἐξηγόρευσεν GASvam

Out of these 36 sets of variants there are 15 cases where the alpha reading is clearly preferable: 7.13, 11.4, 38.13, 38.14, 45.6, 47.20, 53.15–16, 62.24, 64.5, 68.14, 71.9, 103.4, 116.10, 122.10, 128.1. In the remaining instances there is no way of deciding between the variants. In none of the 36 sets does the beta reading commend itself as preferable to the alpha reading. Thus, the alpha family is a more secure witness to the archetype.

There are 11 cases where members of beta family have drifted into alpha, most probably by chance variation or conjectural emendation: 11.4, 47.20, 62.24, 64.5, 68.14, 72.2, 109.3, 116.10, 133.2, 135.26, 147.8. There are three instances where there appears to have been a chance cross-drift of alpha and beta members: 7.5 (but cf. 11.4), 45.6, and 51.15.

Archetypal Errors

There are 6 readings which reflect errors found in the archetype:201

3.18 μέταλον CPXGAS: μέταλλον vam
17.3 προσειλημένας CPXG: προσειλημμένας ASvam
c. 68 invenitur post c. 69 in CXG
108.5 εἶδος, CPGAS (Ø-X): ὓδωρ vam/T
108.6 μέταλον CPGA (Ø-X)/T3mss: μέταλλον Svam
108.7 ἀπορώξ CPGAS (Ø-X)/T2mss: ἀπορώξ vam

Alpha Family

There is no discernible relationship between the three members of the alpha family.

(i) The C Text

C presents 36 peculiar variations where it stands alone against all other witnesses. These variations fall into three categories, namely, misspellings, errors and possibly genuine alpha family readings.

There are 7 misspellings unique to C: 6.11, 8.2–3, 35.19, 90.1, 96.10, 108.12, 137.14. These are usually easy to detect: e.g., 8.2–3 κινημένους, 35.19 ἀπαραλάκτως, 90.1 συφθεγγέσθω. In the case of 6.11 and 108.12, judgement of a spelling error was based on the grammatical context. In 5 further cases there was a coincidental agreement of C spelling errors with other witnesses: 7.5, 37.21, 51.15, 68.10, 109.10.

Unique C readings turn out to be errors in 11 instances: 32.6, 36.25, 37.14, 69.7, 71.2, 75.10, c.77 before c.76, 87.9, 91.6, 135.3, 135.22. These can easily be detected when C is found in disagreement with PX-GASvam (or at least PX or PG). Examples of this type are 32.6 τήν in PXGASvam, om. C; 36.25 τοῦ in PXGASvam, om. C; 91.6 και in PGASvam/U, om. C. But sometimes it was necessary to resort to the grammatical context in order to determine a C error: e.g., 135.3 μείωσιν PGASvam: ὁμοίωσιν C, 135.22 τις PGASvam: om. C. In 2 further cases C shares errors with other witnesses: 45.6 ᾗ ut uid. P (recte): εἶ CGAS, 149.7 οὐσίᾳ PXGAS: οὐσίᾳν Cvam. As already noted, C reports 6 archetypal errors.

There still remains a residue of 18 peculiar variations in C. In 9 of these, C is supported by some external witness. This suggests that in most of these 18 cases C may be reporting the genuine alpha family readings or a closely related and possibly older tradition.

40.27 τήν ante ζωήν C: deest in PGASvam
47.12 ἠδύνατο C: ἐδύνατο PGASvam
49.16 ταὐτῃ χρῆσθαι C: χρῆσθαι ταύτῃ PGASvam
54.3–4 τῆς ἀθανασίας τήν ἀπαρχήν C: τήν ἀπαρχήν τῆς ἀθανασίας PGASvam
76.12 μετά C (and the Basil text quoted): μετ΄ PGASvam
85.21 οὐ C: οὐχί PGASvam
95.2 θείαν ante ἐνέργειαν add. PGASvam (deest in C)
111.14 τοῦ ante θεοῦ add. PGASvam (deest in C/T)
113.9 ἀσεβεῖς C/K: δυσσεβεῖς PXGASvam
114.7 ἐστι C/K: ἐστιν PGASvam
119.2–3 οὐκοῦν οὐ προσόντα τά προσόντα ἐστίν C/K (deest in PGASvam)
119.5–6 ἡ μία οὐσία ἐκείνη C/K: ἡ μία ἐκείνη PGASvam
120.5 καί εἰ C/K: εἰ καί PGASvam
123.5 τε post ὄντων add. PGASvam (deest in C)
123.10 καί post δέ add. PGASvam (deest in C)
129.7–8 εἶπεν εἶναι C: εἶπε PGASvam
129.9 πενηκοστῷ ἐνάτῳ C: νθ΄ PGASvam (cf. Title 1.2)
149.1–2 κἀν τούτῳ ante μηχανώμενοι et εἶναι ante λέγουσι C (deest in PGASvam)

Most of these variations are very minor indeed. None in fact significantly alters the meaning of the text. Some may ultimately be no more than peculiar variations of C. Others, however, retain a certain plausibility and could conceivably witness to a state of the text prior to final revision by Palamas himself. Fourteenth century manuscripts bearing the autograph revisions of an author provide actual examples of precisely this kind of textual variations.202

(ii) The P Text

In contrast, the P text gives over twice as many peculiar variations as C, 81 in all. The majority of these are minor (e.g., 17 word order inversions). A few are more significant: e.g.,

3.42 θεοποιούντων: ποιούντων P
53.14 Νῶε om. P
58.3 παθῶν: πονηρῶν P
68.6 εἰκόνα: ἀκτῖνα P
124.3 πατρικόν: πνευματικόν P

In two instances only, does the P variation commend itself as the true representative of the alpha family (7.5 and 45.6, see above, p. 71).

(iii) The X Text

Because of its very fragmentary state X is difficult to evaluate, but it appears to show proportionately as many peculiar variations as P. The variations are also similar in character.

In conclusion it can be said that C is the most secure witness to the hyparchetype. The contributions of P and X are helpful for the elimination of C's misspellings and errors.

Beta Family

The beta family splits into two sub-groups, in which the individual members share a large number of common variations. These sub-groups are represented by Gvam and AS.

(i) The Gvam Sub-group

These witnesses share 73 common variations in which they depart from the text of the beta hyparchetype. Here the beta text has suffered serious corruption. There are 10 omissions of half a line to a full line in length: 7.6, 19.4–5, 30.6, 36.6–7, 42.19, 45.15–16, 67.3–4, 110.11–12, 113.11–12, 137.8–9. Eleven inflection changes occur: 7.12, 14.3, 25.12, 29.13, 33.4, 48.1, 62,9, 70.7, 88.16, 94.3, 99.2. Many of the other changes also affect the reading of the text: e.g., 26.5, 28.5, 36.1, 85.11, 91.5, 109.8, 120.20, 125.8, 134.15. There are at least 30 instances in which the understanding of the text is compromised to a greater or lesser degree.

The Philokalia text taken by itself (i.e., vam) introduces a further 213 peculiar variations. The Venice edition has over and above this 45 minor spelling and typographical errors which were recognized and corrected by a and m. Thus, the first edition of the Philokalia departs from the beta text in 340 cases.203 If the 32 beta variants are added in, we have a grand total of 372 instances where the Venice Philokalia differs from the critical text edited below.

A number of the Philokalia variations have a special character. In 36 places ranging from c. 65 to 149 and including the title explicit references to Barlaam and Akindynos were removed from the text and replaced by more general terms such as ἐναντίοι, ἀντικείμενοι, κακοδόξοι, αἱρετικοί, etc. On 4 occasions the Philokalia reverts to the correct reading either by chance or conjecture: 51.15, 62.24, 135.26, 147.8. Five further readings, assuredly conjectures, are noteworthy, since they could go back beyond the archetype:

3.18 μέταλον: μέταλλον vam
108.5 εἶδος: ὔδωρ vam
108.6 μέταλον: μέταλλον Svam
108.7 ἀπορώξ: ἀπορρώξ vam
149.9 Χερουβίμ: Σεραφίμ vam

In the margins v reports 8 more conjectures (introduced by ἴσως): 16.3, 21.13, 33.4, 34.24, 16.7, 25.12, 30.16, 32.8. Only the last 4 guesses proved to be correct. In the margin at 34.10 v appears to give a reading from another ms (σοφία: ἐν ἄλλ(ω/οις) – οὐσία); this variation is shared by no other surviving witness.

Behind the text of v there must presumably have been a printer's ms of the Philokalia (Ph). As was noted above, the Capita 150 text was probably taken from the ms Lavra 1907 (L), and this in turn was derived from a ms closely related to G (cf. the common variations of Gvam). This exemplar cannot be identical with G because the latter shows 49 peculiar variations which are not transmitted in vam.

The texts in a and m do not represent independent witnesses, since a is derived from the Venice Philokalia and the first Athens edition (a1) and the m text comes directly from the Venice edition. The more recent edition from Athens claims certain improvements in the text.204 The punctuation has indeed been altered but not often for the better. In addition to recognizing the 45 spelling and typographical errors in v, a makes a further 7 corrections in the text but also introduces 58 new errors. Migne was rather more successful in improving the text: the punctuation is much more accurate by modern standards and 19 of the 47 changes in the text can be counted as successful emendations.205 Thus, the Migne text is the best of the printed editions which we have had till now.

(ii) The AS Sub-group

Here only A is in fact an independent witness. S is a direct copy of A, for it carries all the significant A readings. A cannot be a copy of S because the latter shows 244 peculiar variations not found in A. There are only a very small number of significant A readings which do not appear in S.

A and S display 66 common variations. These are all noted in the critical apparatus below. After completing his transcription, A appears to have proofread his text and noted any corrections either between the lines or in the margins. There are 23 such instances: e.g.,

β α

24.5 κόσμον ἃπαντα A: ἃπαντα κόσμον S
48.2 σφόδρα in text used διαφερόντως in mg. hab. A: διαφερόντως S

S follows A’s corrections in all but 4 cases:

28.1 φυσιολόγοι τε καί ἀστροθεάμονες: ἀστροθεάμονές τε και φυσιολόγοι Α; ἀς τροφυσιολόγοι τε καί θεάμονες S
65.8 Λέγουσιν in text used λέγωσιν in mg. hab. A: λέγουσιν S
85.1 ὁ Ἀρεοπαγίτης om. in textu sed add. in mg. A: ὁ καί Ἀρεοπαγίτης post ἀποστόλους inseruit S
129.5 αὐτήν: om. in textu, sed add. in mg. A; ταύτην S

The slips made by S at 28.1 and 85.1 argue strongly in favour of S being a direct copy of A.

There are only 12 readings unique to A and not transmitted in S:

3.25 οὐδέ μίαν A: οὐδεμίαν S
5.5 περί κέχυται A: περικέχυται S
20.9 οὐδέ μία A: οὐδέ μίαν S
22.11 διαμένει A: διαμένῃ S
25.8–9 καθυπερβολήν A: ὑπερβολήν S
39.17 ἐξ ἀναστάσεως A: ἐξαναστάσεως S
49.5 τροφί A: τροφή S
72.11 αἴως A: ἓως S
118.3 ἑπιλέξεως A: ἑπί λέξεως S
129.1 ὃτι: οἳ A; οἱ S
139.9 ἀκτίστως: ἀκτίσθ A; ακτόσθ S
143.12 θεοδεῖς A: θεοειδεῖς S

Most of these cases can be easily explained as spontaneous corrections by S. In the A reading at 139.9 the iota is very slightly looped, thus accounting for the omicron in S. Such a reading as this would be unlikely if S were not a direct copy of A.

As a direct copy of A the ms S has no independent value and its peculiar readings are not given in the apparatus. Future editors of Palamas will not need to consult Moscow 249.206

Finally, it should be noted that there are 6 cases where common variations are shared by the witnesses ASvam, which might suggest the existence of another sub-group but for the fact of the small number of occurrences and their minor character. Coincidental variation seems to be the best explanation here.

17.3 προσειλημένας CPXG: προσειλημμένας ASvam recte
53.4 τἀνθρώπῳ CPXG: τ’ ἀνθρώπῳ ASvam
65.8 λέγωσιν CPGA pe: λέγουσιν A ac Svam
95.13 τῷ CPG: τό ASvam
96.10 συντετάξεται CPG: συντάξεται ASvam
119.9 τοσοῦτο CPG: τοσοῦτον ASvam

The Uspensky Edition

Collation of this text yielded only 8 cases of common variation with other witnesses:

30.10 παρἀ θεοῦ σῶμα: σῶμα παρά θεοῦ A ac u
53.7–8 ὑπαλλήλῳ: ὑπ» ἀλλήλων ASu
64.10 δ’: δέ vamu
140.3 τά om. mu
141.10 μηδ’: μηδέ vamu
147.6 φῶς τοῦτο: τοῦτο φῶς ASu
150.8 τοῦ θεοῦ post οὐσία transposuit ASu
150.8 τοῦ θεοῦ: αὐτοῦ ASu

Uspensky unfortunately did not reproduce the entire text he found in the ms with the result that it is impossible to distinguish Uspensky's omissions from the ms omissions. Beyond this, the large number of peculiar variations, the rearrangement of the text in many places and the occasional paraphrases suggest that we may have here a late reworking of the Capita 150. A late date is indicated by two slips into demotic Greek: 91.25 προσείρηκε: ονομάζουν, 141.11 τε ... εἴη: εἶναι (3rd person singular). Thus, because of its problems and idiosyncratic character, the Uspensky edition is not a useful witness to the text of the Capita 150 and is excluded from the apparatus.

Constitution of the Text

The text presented below is that of the hyparchetype of the alpha family. This in turn must be very close to the archetype of both families. All indications suggest that the archetype manuscript was a member of the systematic collection of the works of Palamas. There is, however, some problem in determining the text of the alpha family. P has numerous peculiar variations. X has the same fault and, furthermore, its text is poorly preserved. I have, therefore, chosen to present the text of C as the most reliable witness to the alpha family.

In the title I give in brackets the most common form of the author attribution. The column references to pg 150 are given in the margin. The upper apparatus gives the references to the other works of Palamas quoted directly in the Capita 150. Other testimonia, both direct and indirect, are given as footnotes to the translation in order to allow for brief commentary where necessary.

In the lower apparatus all the textual witnesses (i.e., CPXGASvam) are presumed available, unless otherwise indicated. Because of the fragmentary state of X, its presence or absence is indicated explicitly for every chapter. Textual evidence taken from the testimonia is separated from the evidence of the manuscripts and editions by an oblique slash (/). For the title all the available witnesses are noted. I have departed from the archetypal readings in 4 places in order to correct orthographic errors 3.20, 17.3, 108.7 (twice). Accentuation, punctuation and word division follow the modern norms. In the apparatus I report all readings except the peculiar variations of S. The more significant readings are given in bold type: archetypal errors, hyparchetypal variants and peculiar variations of C.

F. Sigla and Abbreviations

C Coislin 100
P Paris gr. 2381
X Chalki, Trinity 138
G Iveron 386
A Athens 2092
S Moscow 249
L Lavra 1907
M Lavra 1945
O Lavra 2150
(Ph) ms used for v edition
v Philokalia (Venice, 1782)
a1 Philokalia (Athens, 1893)
a Philokalia (Athens, 1961)
m Migne, pg 150
D Dialogue of an Orthodox and a Barlaamite
H Homily 31
K Reply On Cyril
T Theophanes
U Union
ac ante correctionem
add. addidit
c. caput/capita (viz. Capita 150)
fort. fortasse
hab. habet
in mg. in margine
lin./linn. linea/lineae
om. omisit
pc post correctionem
ras. rasura
uid. uidetur
Ø-X (or –G) The manuscript X (or G) is mutilated or illegible

* * *


J. Meyendorff, Grégoire Palamas. Défense des saints hésychastes, 2nd edition (Spicilegium sacrum 1ovaniense, Études et documents, fasc. 30–31; Louvain, 1973); P. K. Chrestou, Γρηγορίου τοῦ Παλαμᾶ Συγγράμματα, 3 vols. (Thessalonica, 1962–1970).


For Meyendorff’s edition see E. Candal, ocp 27 (1961) 173–176; H.-G., Beck, BZ 55 (1962) 115–117; V. Grumel, reb 18 (1960) 250–254. For the Chrestou edition see B. Schultze, ocp 35 (1969) 265–268: E. Candal, ocp 31 (1965) 414–419; J. Darrouzès, reb 23 (1965) 264–265.


Intoduction, pp 331–340.


ps 1:5–6.


The manuscript has been described by R. Devreesse, Bibliothèque nationale. Département des manuscrits. Catalogues des manuscrits grecs II. Le fonds Coislin (Paris, 1945), pp. 87–88. Titles and incipits of the works wert listed by B. de Montfaucon, Bibliotheca Coisliniana, olim Segueriana. (Paris, 1715), pp. 171ff. (=pg 150:833–838). Cf. also Meyendorff, Défense, pp. xlvii-xlviii and Introduction, pp. 332–334.


See below, p. 70.


This work precedes the table of contents and, according to the note of the copyist, was appended here because it was passed over by the copyist of vol. 1 (i.e., the original first volume and not the actual Coislin 98 which does have the letter in its proper place. See Meyendorff, Défense, p. xlviii.


Ed. E. Candal, «Fuentes Palamíticas: Diálogo de Jorge Facrasi sobre el contradictorio de Pálamas con Nicéforo Grégoras,» ocp 16 (1950) 328–356.


Philotheos Kokkinos and Neilos Kabasilas may have been the actual authors of the Tome. Ed. F. Combefis, Bibliothecae graecorum veterum partum auctarium novissimum (Paris, 1672) 2:135–172 (pg 151:717–764).


There is a detailed description of the manuscript in the Catalogus codicum astrologorum graecorum, vol. 8.3, ed. J. Heeg (Brussels, 1912). pp. 43–59; and a summary description in H. Omont, Inventaire sommaire des manuscrits grecs de la Bibliothèque nationale et des autres bibliothèques de Paris et des départements (Paris, 1988) 2:250; J. Martin (ed.), Scholia in Aratum vetera (Stuttgart, 1974), pp. xxxi-xxxii. I give here a fuller description of the manuscript than might otherwise be necessary, because it appears that the association of such scientific treatises as found here with the Capita 150 of Palamas is not entirely fortuitous (see above, pp. 7–8).


P. Schreiner, Die byzantinischen Kleinchroniken (cfhb 12.1: Vienna, 1975), p. 192.


C. M. Briquet, Les filigranes, 2nd edition, 4 vols. (Leipzig, 1923; repr. New York, 1966).


D. and J. Harlfinger, Wasserzeichen aus griechischen Handschriften, 2 vols. (Berlin, 1974/1980).


Description by E. Tsakopoulos, Περιγραφικός κατάλυγος τῶν χειρογράφων τῆς Βιβλιουήκης τοῦ Οἱκουμενικοῦ Πατριαρχείου (Istanbul, 1956) 2:158; A. Glabinas, Ἓν ἄγνωστον ἑν πολλοῖς χειρόγραφον ἔργων Γρηγορίου τοῦ Παλαμᾶ Ὁ κώδιξ 138 τῆς Ἱ. Μονῆς Ἁγίας τριάδος Χάλκης,» eeθσ 21 (Thessalonica, 1976) 296–305.


This appears to be the correct number of surviving folios. Tsakopoulos gives the number as 336 and Glabinas as 312. The microfiche of the manuscript provided to me by the Institut d'Histoire el de Recherches des Textes in Paris indicates that there are 378 folios. Several folios are clearly missing from the beginning of the codex and perhaps also from the end.


Only one column of text survives on this folio. Part of the note appears to have been lost. The first part reads: οὔτω τό παρόν βιβλίον ἐδωρήθη εἰς τόν μωνήν του δουσίκου.. The remainder I cannot decipher except for the date at the end (αφπ = A.D. 1580).


Possibly Synodal Tome 1351.


Description in Sp. P. Lambros, Catalogue of the Greek Manuscripts on Mount Athos (Cambridge, 1900; repr. Amsterdam, 1966), 2:120–122. In the microfilm graciously provided to me by the Patriarchal Institute of Patristic Studies in Thessalonica fols. l-3r and 92v wer-93r were not photographed.


This manuscript has never been fully catalogued or described. See the partial description in D. Serruys, «Catalogue des manuscrits conservés au Gymnase grec de Salonique,» Revue des bibliothèques 13 (1903) 35. It is usually dated in the seventeenth century (e.g., Meyendorff, Introduction, p. 373). On palaeographical grounds I believe that it belongs to the sixteenth century (cf. Meyendorff, Défense, p. xlix, where he gives a sixteenth century date. In any case it cannot be dated later than its apograph. Moscow 249, as in Chrestou, ps 1:356.


Pp. 7–8 are blank and a section of the text is missing (ps 1:42.6 (γεγένηται…)- 1:48.21 (…ὁ τοῦτο)).


A brief note is appended to the title: ὁ μέν ἓπαινος τῷ φιλοσόφῳ πρεπωδέστατος, τά δέ ἑξῆς γεγραμμένα πρός γράμμα κατάλληλος ἀπάντησις.


Pp. 319–322 and 348–350 are blank.


This may be the work published by K. Doukakis in Ἴασπις τοῦ Νοητοῦ Παραδείσου I (1899) 414–415. This rare periodical was not accessible to me Cf. C. N. Tsirpanlis, Mark Eugenicus and the Council of Florence (Βυζάντινα καιμένα και μελέται14; New York, 1979), p. 111, item no. 19.


For titles and incipits/desinits see R. E. Sinkewicz, «The Solutions," Mediaeval Studies 43 (1981) 187–189.


Pp. 452–454 are blank.


The conclusion is different from that in Migne.


The most detailed description of the manuscript is given in Archimandrite Vladimir, Sistematicheskoe opisanie rukopisey moskovskoy sinodal'noy biblioteki. I. Rukopisi grecheskie (Moscow, 1894), pp. 332–335.


B. L. Fonkich, «Ierusalimskiy Patriarkh Dosifey i ego rukopisi v Moskve,» Vizantiyskiy Vremennik 29 (1969) 275–278; idem, Grechesko-Russkie Kul’turnye svyazi v xv-xvii vv. (Moscow, 1977), pp. 205–207.


As in Athens 2092, the table of contents in Moscow 249 covers only the Palamite section.


Unfortunately, microfilms of these three Lavra manuscripts were not available. Since the catalogues give the title of the Capita 150, I have noted the variant readings in the apparatus.


Description in Spyridon Lavriotes and S. Eustratiades, Catalogue of the Greek Manuscripts in the Library of the Laura on Mount Athos, with Notices from other Libraries (Harvard Theological Studies 12; Cambridge, 1925), pp. 348–350.


A. Philippidis-Braat, «La captivité de Palamas chez les Turcs: Dossier et commentaire,» Travaux et mémoires 7 (1979) 119–120.


As it is not possible to verify the pagination or foliation for the three Lavra manuscripts I have omitted it.


Description in Spyridon and Eustratiades, Catalogue, pp. 358–359.


Description in Elder Panteleimon Lavriotes and N. B. Tomadakes, Συμπληρωματικός κατάλογος χειρογράφων κωδίκων ἱερᾶς Μονῆς μεγίστης Λαύρας,» eebσ 28 (1958) 172–173.


Attributed to Palamas in the manuscript. The same work appears also in A and S.


On these early editions see J. Meyendorff, Introduction a l'etude de. Grégoire Palamas (Patristica sorbonensia 3; Paris, 1959), pp. 335–340.


On the Philokalia and its compilers see E. Legrand, L. Petit, H. Pernot, Bibliographie hellénique ou description raisonnée des ouvrages publiés par des Grecs au dix-huitième siècle (Paris, 1928; repr. Brussels, 1963) 2:#1086.391–394; S. Eustratiades, «Νικόδημος ὁ Ἀγιορείτης», Μακεδονικά 1 (1940) 38–57; Th. Stylianopoulos, «The Philokalia: A Review Article,» The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 26 (1981) 252–263; D. Stiernon, arts. «Macaire de Corinthe» and «Nicodème l’Hagiorite,» DSp 10 (1980) 10–11 and 11 (1982) 234–50; K.T. Ware, art «Philocalie,» DSp 12 (1984) 1336–1352.


Meyendorff (Introduction, pp. 336–338) maintained that the Palamite texts in the Philokalia were taken from two manuscripts, Lavra 1907 and 1945. However, since Lavra 1907 was associated with the publication project (presumably that initiated by Makarios and Nikodemos) it is rather more probable that this manuscript served as the basis of the Philokalia text: see A. Philippidis-Braat, «La captivité.» Travaux et mémoires 7 (1979) 119–120.


See the note in pg 150: 1041–1042.


Meyendorff, Introduction, p. 339.


Meyendorff, Introduction, pp. 331–340.


A list of sigla and abbreviations can be found on p. 79.


An indeterminate number of the 18 peculiar C variations listed below (pp. 73–74) may also be hyparchetypal variants.


The spelling of μέταλλον with one -λ- could possibly be considered as a legitimate medieval form.


E.g., Vatican City, bav, ms Vat. Gr. 1110, a manuscript containing Barlaam the Calabrian’s own revisions of his works, on which see C. Giannelli, «Un progetto di Barlaam Calabro per l’unione delle Chiese,» Miscellanea Giovanni Mercati (Studi e testi 123; Vatican City, 1946) 3:180–184; A. Fyrigos, «La produzione letteraria antilatina de Barlaam Calabro.» ocp 45 (1979) 114–144; R. E. Sinkewicz, «Tne Solutions," Mediaeval Studies 43 (1981) 194–198. For a similar situation in a manuscript containing four letters of Gregory Akindynos, see A. C. Hero, Letters of Akindynos, pp. xxxvii-xl, 20–36, 60.


I have added the four cases where v has reverted to the alpha family: 51.15, 62.24, 135.26, 147.8 (see above, pp. 71–72).


On these early editions see J. Meyendorff, Introduction a l'etude de. Grégoire Palamas (Patristica sorbonensia 3; Paris, 1959), pp. 335–340.


See vol. 1, pp. ιζ΄ – ιη΄.


The m text also corrected the 45 peculiar errors in v.


Meyendorff’s suggestion (Introduction, p. 333) that Moscow 249 might be a copy of Coisl. 100 is also ruled out of court.

Источник: The one hundred and fifty chapters / Gregorius Palamas - Toronto : Pontifical inst. of mediaeval studies, 1988. - XI, 288 с. ISBN 0-88844-083-9

Комментарии для сайта Cackle