VII. Схолии анонима к аскетическому слову бл. Диадоха.

“As a supplement to the ascetic creation of Bl. Diadoche, writes Prof. Popov, the anonymous scholia found in the Oxford manuscript (Codex landianus 84 ol. 737 saec. XII ineuntis.) were printed. The unknown author of this interpretation wanted to explain the entire creation of the blessed Diadochos, but ended his scholia at chapter 41. Introduction to the scholia, treating the name of Blessed. Diadoche, about the nickname Mark, ten ὅροι and their relationship to the chapters is important for some (what?) scientific conclusions; the explanation of the most ascetic chapters is nothing more than an unimportant paraphrase of them, sometimes, however, quite successfully reproducing the thought of the bl. Diadoche" (p. XXXI). This whole tirade causes, in itself, some bewilderment and objections. In fact, if the anonymous author of these scholia doubts the existence of the blessed Diadochos, as a historically known and specific person, “and even questions his very name” (pp. IV and 529–530), then it is unlikely that Prof. Popov should have given these scholia a place among the “works of the blessed Diadochos.” To note the existence of anonymous scholia in the section, for example, testimonia externa, in the form of at least a complete review of sources for studying the personality of a given writer and the opposing views on him existing in the literature, is a natural thing and even, perhaps, not superfluous, but the publisher hardly had any solid reasons for assigning them an independent place in the book. Prof. Popov gives these scholia a completely correct assessment when he says that they are “nothing more than an unimportant paraphrase” of the ascetic chapters of Bl. Diadoche and only “sometimes quite successfully reproduce the thought” of the author. But since these scholia of little scientific value by Prof. Popov decided to devote space in his already impressive book; he had a moral duty to provide the most detailed and reliable information about them. To our deep regret, this is the debt to science that the publisher of the works of Blessed. Diadoche did not fulfill it and, in our deep conviction, was not even able to do so, since he obtained information about these scholia from catalogs and second-hand, and not directly from manuscripts, which for some reason he did not even consider it his duty to declare to his readers. This statement would, to some extent, excuse the admissions made by Prof. Popov made oversights on the issue of the anonymous scholia, but now, thanks to this omission, all these oversights have been taken entirely upon himself. Copyist of the Lawdian Codex at Oxford, sent by Prof. Popov, on his order, the anonymous list of scholia obviously did not provide the customer with a detailed description of the collection containing these scholia, and thereby put him in great difficulty. Only this should explain the strangeness of his statements, on the one hand, that “the unknown author of this interpretation wanted to explain the entire creation of the blessed one. Diadoche, but finished his scholia on the 41st chapter” (p. XXXI), and on the other hand, that this author, by some incomprehensible miracle, managed to “make writings indicating the content of each chapter over all 100 chapters” (p. 531, note 2), i.e., even over chapters 42–100 that do not exist in the Laudian Codex. All these oddities are easily eliminated if we turn directly to the manuscripts containing the scholia of the anonymous author, and get acquainted with the detailed arrangement of articles in them that in one way or another relate to the works of the bl. Diadoche and in particular to his ascetic word. For us in this regard, an invaluable service was provided, although later in time of writing, but excellent in composition by the manuscript of the Athos-Dionysiata Library No. 278, a brief description of which has been known in science for more than ten years, according to the catalog of Athos manuscripts by Prof. University of Athens Spyridon Lambros: “Catalogue of the Greek manuscripts on mount Athos. Cambridge. 1892 vol. I, pag. 399". A detailed description of this remarkable manuscript in the present case is, in our opinion, an urgent necessity and makes significant amendments to the solution of many issues related to the scholia of the anonymous author. Manuscript of the Athos-Dionysiata Library No. 278, 24 lobes, 227 sheets, written in clear, beautiful handwriting of the 17th century. The first 69 sheets contain works by other authors, while sheets from 70 to 211 are occupied exclusively by the ascetic word bl. Diadoche in the following composition: 1) inscription: “Τοῦ ὁσίου πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ σοφωτάτου Διαδόχου, ἐπισκόπου Φωτικῆς τῆς Ἠπείρου τοῦ Ἰλλυρικοῦ, περὶ ὅρων, 2) Σχόλιον καὶ προοίριιον περὶ τοῦ ὀνόριατος τοῦ ὁσίου πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ σοφωτάτου Διαδόχου· ὁμοίως καὶ περὶ τῆς τοῦ Μάρκου προσηγορίας, 3) inscription to the stoglav: Διὰ ποίας δεῖ γνώσεως κ. τ. λ. (usual), 4) πίναξ τῶν κεφαλαίων with a conclusion at the end: Τέλος τοῦ πίνακος τῶν κεφαλαίων τοῦ ἁγίου Διαδόχου and 5) all completely one hundred chapters. The text ὅροι with the inscription “περὶ ὅρων” and “Διὰ ποίας δεῖ γνώσεως” 495) in front of the hundred chapter do not differ in any way from their text in the best ancient manuscripts. Σχόλιον καὶ προοίμιον περὶ τοῦ ὀνόματος τοῦ ὁσίου πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ σοφωτάτου Διαδόχου· ὁμοίως καὶ περὶ τῆς τοῦ Μάρκου προσηγορίας. The text was printed by Prof. Popova pp. 529–531. Πίναξ τῶν κεφαλαίων, i.e. table of contents of chapters, and not inscriptions, as Prof. incorrectly expresses. Popov (p. 531, note 2), constitutes an independent part in the work of the anonymous scholiast, located in front of the text of the chapters themselves, which he actually presented in its entirety in the amount of one hundred, but without any inscriptions. The text of the table of contents is the same as desired by Prof. Popov should be divided throughout the entire chapter as inscriptions for each of its chapters separately. However, in the Athos-Dionysiata manuscript No. 278 we also found an interesting feature relating to the table of contents of chapter 85. This table of contents omits (lines 12–17, pages 459) thoughts that are later repeated with minor differences in the table of contents of chapter 87, thanks to which the table of contents of chapter 85 itself has acquired brevity, a direct relation to the text of the chapter and has lost unnecessary repetition. To see the difference in both tables of contents in the presentation, according to the text printed by prof. Popov, we will make their comparisons in parallel columns: The table of contents of chapter 85 in the Athos-Dionysiata manuscript No. 278 begins exactly like this: ὁμοῦ δὲ τοῦτο ὑπολαμβάνων οὐδέπω ᾔδει, οὔτε μὴν ἐγεύσατο, ὅτι Χριστὸς (from Popov: χρηστὸς) ὁ Κύριος.” The ascetic word of Blessed Diadochos in the Athos-Dionysiata manuscript No. 278 is contained in its entirety of one hundred chapters, with the first forty-one chapters in a paraphrastic presentation, as they are printed in the book of Prof. Popov pp. 529–554, and the rest from 42–100, with the exception of chapter 47 and partly chapters 51, 52 and 53, in the usual presentation, as can be seen in most of the best ancient lists of λόγος ἀσκητικός. To indicate the differences in the presentation of chapters 47 and 52 by the anonymous scholiast, we will compare them (in some parts) with the usual text of these chapters, published in the book of Prof. Popova: The features of the text of chapters 51 and 53 were noted by us above (Chapter IV) in the section variationses, where all the other variations found their place, according to the Athos-Dionysiates manuscript No. 278. Regarding these features of the described Athos-Dionysiates codex, it is difficult to say anything positive yet - do they belong exclusively to the anonymous scholiast, or did they come here from the usual ancient lists of the ascetic word of the blessed Diadoche. Most of the variations, however, as can be seen now from the section of variationses and the interlinear indications to them, owe their origin to the variety of ancient lists of the ascetic word. Chapters 65 and 66 were rearranged one in place of the other, which was also reflected in the book. This is a circumstance not noted by Prof. Popov, leads us to assume that in the Lavdian Code No. 84 there is no such rearrangement in the chapters. Who is the compiler of the scholia that occupy us, and most importantly, when did they come into being - these are far from idle questions in the study of the blessed Diadochos - for prof. Popov do not exist, or were postponed by him again until the publication of the promising second volume of the book. Having checked the text of the scholia, taken from the Oxford manuscript, with their text in the Athos-Dionysiata manuscript No. 278, we noticed the following discrepancies, not without interest, and in some cases even outright errors: The anonymous author did not touch upon the inscription to the stoglav, and about it, contrary to the assurances of prof. Popov (p. 21), he did not need to interpret it, since he took it entirely from existing manuscripts. You might be interested in: