You are on page 1of 8

John of Damascus, De fide orthodoxa: Translations by Burgundio (1153/54), Grosseteste

(1235/40) and Lefvre d'Etaples (1507)


Author(s): Irena Backus
Source: Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, Vol. 49 (1986), pp. 211-217
Published by: The Warburg Institute
Stable 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 of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of 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 the
Warburg and Courtauld Institutes.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 86.163.193.9 on Sun, 3 Aug 2014 18:23:08 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

NOTES AND DOCUMENTS


It was Robert Grosseteste who between

JOHN OF DAMASCUS, DEFIDE


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

HE FIRST

1235 and 1240 revised Burgundio's version.6

Latin translation of the complete

text of De fide orthodoxawas 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 Sentencesof Peter Lombard. Most postthirteenth-century manuscripts of Burgundio's
version are divided into four books, each
containing between fourteen and thirty chapters;4 and some, notably MS Cremona, Biblioteca Governativa 159, adopt the double system.s There are no Greekmanuscripts with the
book-chapter subdivision.

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 fragmentswould 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

6 S. H. Thomson, The Writingsof RobertGrosseteste,


Bishop
of Lincoln,Cambridge 1940, pp. 48-50. J. McEvoy in his
recent publication, The Philosophyof Robert Grosseteste,
Oxford 1982, makes no mention of Grosseteste's revision of
Burgundio's version.
7J. De Ghellinck, Le mouvementthiologiquedu 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, LIfif.
1 Modern critical edition: Saint
John Damascene, Defide
10 Its author (d. I497) taught theology at Ferrara and also
orthodoxa.Versionsof Burgundioand Cerbanus,ed. Eligius M. translated, among other things, [Ps.-] Basil of Caesarea's
Buytaert, OFM, St. Bonaventure N.Y. 1955. The Cerbanus De baptismo.Cf. A. Bargellesi-Severi, 'Due Carmelitani a
version in fact precedes Burgundio's but contains only a Ferrara nel Rinascimento: Battista Panetti e Giovanni M.
vIII, 1961, pp. 63-131.
fragment of the treatise (see Buytaert, XLVIIIff.) On Verrati' in Carmelus,
Burgundio himself see.further Peter Classen, Burgundiovon 1' Ferrara, Bibl. civ., MS 432 (I5th century).
12He may have come across the odd sentence from the
Pisa: Richter-Gesandter-Ubersetzer,
Heidelberg
1974.
2 Cf. Buytaert, xx ff.
Cerbanus fragment in the Sentencesof Peter Lombard (cf.
3 Cf. Die SchriflendesJohannesvonDamaskos,Ii, Expositio Buytaert, n.I above, LIV).The Panetius version, however,
remained completely unknown.
fidei, ed. Bonifatius Kotter OSB, Berlin 1973, xxIv.
4 Cf. Kotter, ibid.
13 Contenta:TheologiaDamasceni.I. De ineffabilidiuinitate.II.
s There are often some differences of detail due to scribal De creaturarum
genesiordineMoseos.III. De iis queabincarnatione
practices. MS Cremona 159 (x4th century) in fact contains vsquead resurrectionem.
vsquead
IIII. De iis quepostresurrectionem
vniuersalem
Resurrectionem,
Paris, 1507.
ioi chapters.
211
andCourtauld
Institutes,Volume 49, 1986
Journalof theWarburg

This content downloaded from 86.163.193.9 on Sun, 3 Aug 2014 18:23:08 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

NOTES AND DOCUMENTS

212

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 circumstances ('inter aulicos tumultus') but that, in
spite of this, he strove to translate Damascene
as accurately as possible.s5
Josse Clichtove who prefaced and commented on the second edition of Lefevre's

Lefivre's translation was the fruit of a conscious effort to replace the existing versions, (c)
that this effortwas somewhat hasty.
I shall now examine passages from chapters
25, 27 and 30 of the second book of De fide

in all three versions, Burgundio's,


orthodoxa20
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
translation, which appeared in Paris in 1512,16
was quite unequivocal about its merits. He have been chosen on grounds of (a) linguistic
affirms in his preface that it is not only more and stylistic difficulty, (b) theological content.
precise but also more elegant than the 'versio
antiquior', the latter being considered by him as GREEK TEXT
plerisque in locis mutilata...'
'. . abstrusa et intellectu difficilis'.'7

and

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 revision, or both. Elsewhere in the preface,
Clichtove does mention the medieval title of De
fide ('Enimuero prasentem aeditionem hi
Damasceni Theologiam, illi Librum sententiarum eius et vtrique recte quidem appellarunt').'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

14 Reprinted in The PrefatoryEpistles of Jacques Lefivre


d'Etaplesandrelatedtexts,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 Defideorthodoxa
which was printed in his 1546
Cologne edition of the OperaDamasceni.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!
16In hoc operecontenta:TheologiaDamasceniquatuorlibris
elucidata
explicataet adiectoad litteramcommentario
[I. Clichtovei]
S..

Paris,

1512.

" fol.
2v. Cf. Rice, n. I4 above, pp. 281-82.
s8fol. 2r. Cf. Rice,p. 281.
19 Cf. Buytaert, xvii.

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 &vAyxrghori.23At


chapter 41 (2,27) all three have the more
common reading fl y&q o0x EloyLX6v.24
At
OTaL

chapter 44 (2,30) the three translations are all


based on the minority insertion of xatcr goLv
['iyouv ~x tig ~veTilgEig 6] raQh~olv25 and
an omission oflvi9 Y&Qailcgaotog &66xtltog6
6& 66xL6og o6eYvbg X6you aLog.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~uforaTaL Ti
hoyLx, T6 atrEooL~ov. [fi
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)
at ch. 23.
t6
22ayaov
Both
are restored Marcus
editor of

passages
by
Hopper,
the 1548 OperaDamasceni,printed in Basle by H. Petri (cf.
n. 14 above). More to the point, both figure in the 153I
Greek edition of De fide orthodoxaand 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 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

JOHN OF DAMASCUS TRANSLATIONS


oratLkoyLX6v, ] koyLXby OVy
XULov

ydQ] oix
EoTal
QLQd~EvXtLaTEOUOLOV..
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 oataLbut
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


to
very well both Lef7evre's indebtedness
medieval translation methods and the nature of
his innovations.

Burgundio

148/149:

Grosseteste

fol. 134r:

213

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; necessitas vero eorum quae semper similiter habent
motus; imarmenis (id est fortunae) vero ex necessitate 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.
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, augmentatio, 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 ywLVoCvWYadvTOY
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 Grosseteste, he distinguishes carefully between aut
and vel in translating the exclusive
consis1
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 dicuntis a

lot less suitable than the medieval aiunt.Dico, as

Kotter 96, Migne PG xcIv, 957, chapter 39/2,25:


pointed out by Valla in his Elegantiae, v, I029
'proprie est oratorum et eleganter facundeque
W
t
Tdivy7Vwophv dv yv 0EO6v
~ctLtvaTOV
EL
vat i
here a bare assertion is
]
i
loquentium',
txvy 4fit6bau- meant. As forwhereas
taGLv
v
ELtagQt~v7Y
&vdtyxiy
his
translation
of atLov .
t6Ciatov. 'AXXt toi Av 0EOi3gyov
o0ao0a XOd
Lefivre appears to combine the
AX6VT(L)vy
)act6TwoG
61
tWv
cvdyxilg
tfg
6
6atavov,
ac
TobvoLt.
tj TO EdlayXTl]
ta it' atJTil 1
and Grosseteste
eliminatt1l]i
xLvrlyL
EiggLLIcQCLNV

versions,

Burgundio

EJLTEriaXoti
(xoti Y6Qtotri tIjg &vdyxilg
Pi1G ing all transliterations of Greek terms which are
6 ?ia~o~gydv~atg,oltif~latg,C8oed,, Cv:thi011)"
?odiFot'
Tt
t1lS XX1tg otacdvtct xat dQgoao6xrT1a
tadd. xac MPG
6dvZwvY MPG
28 Cf. Panetius,

Of. n., 15 above. Gravius reprints verbatim the 1512


editions of Defide with some philological and critical notes.
27

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 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

214

NOTES

AND DOCUMENTS

characteristic of the medieval ad verbumtranslations. He keeps Burgundio's causam and necessitatem but replaces imarmenin(id estfortunam) and
eventumby Grosseteste'sfatum and fortunam. Not
surprisingly he finds Burgundio's casus preferable 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 Egiyovoiaoia xaL
as literally as his
tQ6vota
two predecessors30 even if we admit that his
atqui is a better translation of'Akkhx . . ..iy
than Burgundio's Sed.. . quidem and Grosseteste'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
& vdyxrg . . xtvyotg is
translation of trig 6i

Grosseteste.33 Indeed at no point in this


passage does Lefivre introduce any radical
innovation in the ad verbummethod of translation.
Kotter 98, MPG 960, chapter 41/2, 27:

<Ctp~v tOlVUV
to Xoytxp
oVEtLOgX/EOatL
8~oOw;0
xCtLTQERiT6v
aTiteooLovL. I&yV yr yEvVWrTbv
ydQ
vi
STv
foTLv.
dX1i tigjy9 EV
vo wg &Ht6TQonR
1Q~ato, dvdyxn tcwta TCEJI7 EatVL.TQOriI6&EOTL
TO
b6Ex ti 6vtov E~L Z
Etvtt
tItXOQaX lvtl Xali "r

t6

7l]

TL
iE~EQ6v

Tit

Oi)v

YEvvoaOt.
pt
iRXOXEtCLYVlg
trQ3ovtrat xar dtg3odtQOELQ1]rVg
PuvXa
xai &Xoyca
ooixttxct; 6LXXoLtWoE,ta 6 XoyLxa xatht xooa(Q-

Burgundio 152:
Inquimus igitur rationali confestim cointrari
liberum arbitrium. Omne enim generabile et vertibile 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 praedictas corporalesalterationes; rationalia vero secundum
electionem.
Grosseteste fol. 134' col. B:

exceptionally unfortunate, as most manuscripts


Inquimus igitur cum rationali congredi liberum
read necessitasand not, as would be expected, arbitrium. Omne enim fertile et vertibile est.
necessitatis,3'so that necessity itself, and not its Quorum enim principium generationis a versione
task, is identified with motus.Moreover,
&LEicepit, necesse haec vertibilia esse. Versio autem est
Toyvthe
ex non entibus in esse adduci et ex subiecta materia
is translated literally without
4bamrrwg
aliud
SO
quid fingi. Inanimata quidem igitur et
32
makes
no
the
Latin
that
se
phrase
particle
sense at all. Grosseteste restores the genitive of irrationalia vertuntur per praedictas corporales

&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
which Lefivre replaces
weak similiterfor
6oatog
by the unequivocal eodemmodo.As for the following
phrase, tig 6b E
&vbyxrtg Zio,
LtagCgivpg...
of vocabulary apart Burgundio -questions
mistranslates 6t' abtrig as propteream, 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

30 Cf. Panetius
ad loc. 'Dei vero opera: essentia et
prouidentia'.
31 Cf. Buytaert 148.
32 For variants with se cf.
Buytaert ibid.

alterationes. Rationalia autem secundum electionem.

Lefivre p. 126:
Dicimus igitur ilico cum rationali, commeare ac
recurrere seipso potens et arbitrio liberum. Nam
omne genitum mutabile est. Quorum enim generationis 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 mutationes : 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

33Cf. Panetius ad loc. 'Naturae deinde opera sunt


augmentum, generatio, corruptio, plantae, animalia. Fortunae insuper opera sunt quae rara sunt et inexpectata'.

This content downloaded from 86.163.193.9 on Sun, 3 Aug 2014 18:23:08 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

JOHN OF DAMASCUS TRANSLATIONS


215
those of his predecessors in two important translation of De fide. In both the Quincuplex
respects: (I) all the calques are eliminated, (2) Psalterium (I1509) and in the Commentariiin Pauli
there is a conscious effort to translate into Latin epistolas (1512) Lefi~vre insists upon the
all the nuances of crucial Greek terms. This ineffable goodness of God who bestowed upon
latter practice, characteristic of native Greek us, through his grace, the immeasurable gift of
translators of the period (notably Argyropulos), his Word, his own Son. By doing this God
was probably passed on to Leftvre by Ianus became at one with man. Accordingly it is
Lascaris.34 Thus
translated by Christ's divine nature which is given the
ovveLoQXEoOat,
a calque cointrariin
Burgundio's version and by dominant role. It is also through his grace that
a literal equivalent congrediin Grosseteste's, God sends the Holy Spirit which enables man to
becomes commeareac recurrere- a conscious see Christ as the key to the understanding of the
a total
effort on Lefivre's part to convey the literal Scriptures and to seek Christiformitas,
meaning without having recourse to Latin assimilation (as opposed to mere imitation) of
terms that can only be applied to living beings. the Son. This grace and (re-)union with God is
Similarly, not content with liberumarbitriofor freely available to all those who have faith and
aWtYeo1oLov, Lefivre translates the Greek by who lead a pious life. Yet man can, by his own
seipsopotenset arbitrioliberum,being obviously efforts, lapse into evil and be damned. Lefivre
aware of the double meaning of the Greek term: distinguishes sharply between the 'one' (God)
capacity to do something and legal autonomy. and 'the many' (incoherence of human
His rendering of gToaiQEotLv by voluntaset electio endeavour, unaided by grace).
instead of electiosuggests the same preoccupaThe following passages of his translation of
tion with etymology. It could also be argued De fide suggest that already in 1507 Lefivre
that the French humanist is here influenced imposed the chief tenets of his theology upon
by his own reading of Aristotle. In the the doctrines ofJohn of Damascus.
NichomachaeanEthics for example 7EocaElotg

(at

2.6.15) means an 'action determined by a moral


opinion' and thus an action involving both Kotter
io5-ro6, MPG 977, 979, chapter 44/2, 30:
choice and will.
TL
Stylistically, thus, Lefivre's translation does Ouydh iv XvoLtE3Xg E
t tvyXd6vovt xai
0tTaoov
not constitute a revolutionary departure from dt56xtglovTzg #6OaQooai
TUXEIV,
iyVaC!ig TS ov
xati xQ'ia tof &ta36kov. 'EXEivog
t6
its medieval models. He does, however, avoid
&a~ro'l irETntflV EX3QOaLQAGECWEXJT GLV&t&
TV
&6aQrov
t'Y
EaE
the worst excesses of the ad verbummethod by taT,0aoxo

Sltxa
t6 t pE
xfirv? noctozctov
g6o EX i (TQtO
?x0otvmlv
a ~ TOV
VEnt
v nty t6t Ita
eliminating transliterations and calques, by 1,t6)xa
xcd
WGnJEQ
Cot
ot
C1Eth
varying conjunctions and by striving to bring nooQaLg9oWg
JtitXLv
til &th
trg xtQ g x0oy~v
T1vVtL txaki
C.yyEXoL
out the nuances of certain Greek terms even if
L
tig XdaqtogdCEaTIVtTYov o6QUGLV.
this means using two or more Latin words for
"E&L tOlvuv 3tQ6tEQOv
5oxtGao
0vta
tiv &vOQOone word of the Greek.
Q
novS xati JTLQL &c
tTS i vtoN
t1]htz lQG
l
TZEtLW03VTa

LEFEVRE'S
DAMASCENE'S

TRANSLATION

AS

AN

EXEGESIS

OF

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 important exegetical works during the period
150936,36

that is, after the publication of his

OfitOwtiV OtaQo(tv &QEt

xopl(oao-

OatExiaOkov"
pICogyhd 0o0 xdi
YEv6pCEvog
Lt6
6i.5xl
CLRv
ZT
(GEOSg T lg NtOX1lg
CLETA
t~l
tilV dnrahayiYv
OEc
trig tQbg dt 5vra
Lotxijg
xOt0'uEv

KtilV nXe

oaXGEowg
AVWOE~Lg
t1

tj

xtabV

&CEoa

T8

aTL, dVEtLY
otyLtatatO
jra8
806o
jrQO

irlaov Cl~thtov
k2Eha81i
'tilVfijrlV
xtvrl0ei, xod,trig otto oltiolS, to
O00o~rlIt, tnoot6doag t6v vOfV tO OQg nTQO-

OOLXELOUGOaL xci

torlt;g

&Vti

avti etavdtov ylveollt

8oi

Xott

OVltig

Xat QEvUoxli Uovv6vaGoOO


Tij g
wfg t()V
Xt
tP yEVV'o;
itL&EGOotL
iEt~GEl
yv i48i5v db; 5i0v tct vt, GVVLGTWhVTWV
avt -

E0tol, JtQ6 bi toi;g toTrwv 3QoorlOovUIvougtilv


1
Lxotlit'V lhvE4GLv
Ex
orQoaQtv
EV)g
ctEEXdvvEGota
&i 0ulbv ix tof tig
34 On Lefbvre's relations with Lascaris cf. further, G.
0O, 3
tiiV
i5rlY,
tbv
Qn6g
et
des
Ecritures,
Bedouelle, Lefivre d'Etaples
l'intelligence
'Uovrl.ag 5vtrg EX00o5CETaIQEY
Geneva 1976, pp. Io- .
hov.
XQ6t t6 6

3 Notably: Bedouelle, Lefkvred'Etaples(cf. n. 34 above);


PsalteriumdeLeflvred'Etaples.Unguidede
idem, Le Quincuplex
lecture, Geneva 1979; Jean-Pierre Massaut, Critique et
traditionala veilledela ReformeenFrance,Paris I974.
36 Bibliography in Bedouelle, Lefkvre, p.
I3q.

add.most MSS:

jxd

dv1 dxgt:taoTog,
&t656xtxiogot56vbg
X6yOU
6.tog.

This content downloaded from 86.163.193.9 on Sun, 3 Aug 2014 18:23:08 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

&56xtliog;6

NOTES AND DOCUMENTS

216

tione, fixionem in malo impoenitentem et inconuertibilem habuit: sicut contra, et angeli post virtutis ex
proposito electionem, immutabilem per gratiam
inprobatum, incorruptione frui, ut non in superbiam
incidat et iudicium diaboli. Ille enim propter habuere stabilitatem.
Par fuit igitur, primum probatum hominem, et
incorruptibile, post eum qui ex electione casum, eam
qui in malo inpoenitibilem habuit et invertibilem experientia per obseruationem mandati perfectum,
fixionem, sicut rursus et angeli, post eam quae ex sic incorruptibilitatem, virtutis praemium, accipere.
optione virtutis electionem, eam quae in bono per Medius enim Dei et materiae factus, per obseruationem mandati, post liberationem naturalis
gratiam intransmutabilem confirmationem.
Oportebat igitur primum probatum hominem et habitudinis ad entia, vnitus Deo, suscepturus erat
experientia per observationem mandati perfectum, immutabilem firmitatem eam, quae secundum habiin bono est. Per transgressionem autem, ad
ita incorruptionem virtutis ferre bravium. Medius tumrn
enim Dei et hyles factus, per observationem quidem materiam magis mobilis, et suae causae (Dei dico)
mandati, post ereptionem eius quae ad entia extrudens intelligentiam, corruptioni traditus est. Et
naturalis habitudinis, unitus Deo secundum habi- passibilis pro impassibili, et mortalis pro immortali
tum, eam quae circa bonum infixionem, suscipere factus, et consortio ad propagationem, et natura
intransmutabilem futurus erat; per transgressionem fluxibili indigens, et desiderio vitae voluptaria (quasi
autem ad hylem magis motus, et eius causae, Dei illam continere sufficiant) amplectens, et intrepide
inquio evellens intellectum, corruptioni familiaris persequens eos odio, qui sibiipsis illa prouiderint, ad
existere, et passibilis pro impassibili et mortalis pro illorum direptionem: et desiderium (derelicto Deo)
immortali fieri, et concubitus et fluxibilis genniseos ad materiam, ex salutis reuera inimico transferensad
(id est geniturae) indigere, et desiderio vitae a genus suum, suos posteros suosque contribules.
voluptuosis quidem quasi hanc constituentibus
One glance at the above excerpt shows that
possideri; ad eos autem qui horum praedicunt
Lefevre's
translation here departs radically
et
privationem intrepide inimicari;
desiderium
quidem ex Deo ad hylem, furorem autem ex salutis from the preceding ones for no apparent
vere inimico transferread id quod eiusdem est tribus stylistic or textual reasons. The Greek Father's
(homofylon).
thought in the first paragraph is not in itself
obscure: God did not want to leave Adam
Grosseteste fol.
col. B:
134j,
'untested' so as not to have to judge him in the
Non enim erat utile inexpertum Adam existentem
et improbatum incorruptione potiri vt non in same way as He had judged the devil. The
superbiam incideret et iudicium diaboli. Ille enim latter, because of his immortality, became
propter incorruptibile, post eum qui ex electione eternally 'fixed' in evil as a result of the Fall
casum, in malo impenicibilem habuit et inuertibilem which he had freely chosen. The angels, on the
fixionem, quemadmodum rursus et angeli post eam other hand, made the opposite choice. Damasquae ex electione, virtutis electionem, eam quae in cene had already explained elsewhere in the
bono per gratiam intransmutabilem confirma- chapter the crucial difference between God's
tionem.
judgement of the devil and God's judgement of
Oportebat igitur prius probatunmhominem et man: unlike the devil, man was to become
experientia per obseruacionem mandati perfectum
sic incorruptionem virtutis ferre brauuium. Medius mortal if he yielded to temptation.
Lefivre's translation suggests that unlike his
enim Dei et materiae factus, per obseruacionem
quidem mandati, post ereptionem eius quae ad encia original and his predecessors he is concerned to
naturalis habitudinis, vnitus Deo secundum habitum emphasize the basic idea of divine goodness. As
eam quae circa bonum fixionem suscipere intrans- a result of this he also stresses the deliberate
mutabilem futurus erat; per transgressionem autem effort that man has to make in order to depart
ad materiam magis motus et ab ipsius causa, Deo from good and, contrary to the intentions of his
inquam, auellens intellectum, corruptionem appro- original, establishes a close link between divine
pinquari et passibilis pro impassibili et mortalis pro
immortali fieri et concubitu et fluxibili generatione goodness and grace.
is translated not simply by
Thus
indigere et desiderio vitae delectabilibus quidem vt
&attQaorov
vitam hanc constituentibus detineri. Ad horum inexpertum but by nullo periculo tentatum. In
autem praedicentes priuationi intrepide inimicari et introducing the notion of dangers Lefivre
desiderium quidem de Deo ad materiam, iram autem closes off the possibility of the passage being
ex salutis vere inimico transferread id quod eiusdem interpreted in the sense of: God tempted Adam
tribus.
by evil. Moreover, unlike Burgundio and
Grosseteste, he translates ndthXv in
Lefevre 131:
o~oo ot
Non enim vtile illi erat, nullo periculo tentatum thltv xa . . . gi6votv not by sicut / quemadmoi4
contra.
dum
rursus
but
appears to
by
'Ev
nec probatum, incorruptibilitatem consequi, ne forte
thus not only
xaCL,
in superbiam incidisset et laqueum diaboli. Nam ille be omitted deliberately. Lefivre
propter incorruptibilitatem, post lapsum ex elec- brings out the contrast between the devil and
Burgundio

I64-165:

Non enim erat utile, inexpertum existentem et

This content downloaded from 86.163.193.9 on Sun, 3 Aug 2014 18:23:08 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

JOHN OF DAMASCUS TRANSLATIONS


217
the angels but also tightens the link between Good in the preceding paragraph, now wants to
divine grace and the choice of good by the make this link quite clear. Thus, unlike
'liberum arbitrium'. According to Lefivre, the Burgundio and Grosseteste, he translates 'vniangels chose the good and are therefore in tus Deo suscepturus erat intransmutabilem
permanent receipt of divine grace which is firmitatem eam quae secundum habitum in
equivalent to the good. However, according to bono est'. It is not, as Damascene intended, the
Damascene and his two medieval translators, union of man with God which is permament.
the angels chose the good and having chosen it, What is permanent for Lefivre is the stability of
were confirmed in it by grace. Grace and the the Good - the stability that would have been
good are therefore not to be assimilated.
acquired by man at the very moment of his
union with God who is the Good.
Lefivre's translation of
by
laqueus
x?taif we discard
reflects the same preoccupation,
However, Lefivre seems (at first glance) to
the unlikely possibility of his simply misunder- go against his own insistence on God as the
standing the phrase. ludicium,which Christian Good, God who cannot tempt, by translating r4i
authors apply very frequently to thejudgement
as corruptioni traditus
>Oo80t ~ooolxElo0IOatl
of God, was obviously felt too important a term est. Burgundio translates gooolxELo0oOatlby
to attribute to the devil. Hence the substitution familiaris existere and Grosseteste by appropinof laqueus. Toi 6Lcp6Xov was then taken as a quari.The latter rendering brings out well the
subjective genitive so as to harmonize this idea of choice that was available to man.
clause with the preceding one: it is not God that Lefivre in his version remains consistent in
tempts (by evil), it is the devil that lays traps. It emphasizing man's passive role but what of his
is thus Lefbvre's own doctrine which is imposed denial of God as author of evil? The balance is
somewhat brutally upon John of Damascus restored in the following sentence. Instead of
who is talking expressly about God'sjudgement following Burgundio and Grosseteste in transagainst the devil.
lating
vtEXEeoatl by the passive possideri or
The idea of all-powerful divine goodness is detineri, Lefivre prefers the active: [vitae volupemphasized even more strongly by Lefivre in taria] amplectens. The present participle here,
the second paragraph where Damascene read together with extrudensintelligentiam, sugexplains that man was created as a being gests to the reader that it is man himself who is
intermediate between God and matter. Had the author of evil. God remains the ultimate
Adam observed the divine commandment, he judge who condemns him to corruption.
would have become united with God and
The feature ofLefivre's translation that most
forever 'fixed' or confirmed in the good.
distinguishes it from its medieval predecessors
The subject here is man. It was entirely up to is his insistence on imposing his own theology
him to observe the commandment and to hold upon the Greek text. Where John of Damascus
(or carry) the reward for this obedience. talks about free choice of good and evil, Lefivre
Translating xopCioaooectt
by accipere(Burgundio emphasizes that the choice of good is to some
and Grosseteste: ferre) Lefivre stresses the extent predetermined by divine grace. When
passive role of man: he is simply to receivethe the Greek Father raises the question of the first
good which comes from God. Similarly, the man's temptation by God, Lefivre stresses that
French humanist's rendering of
by God cannot be the author of evil, as it is only the
AnaXctaytv
liberatiois by no means fortuitous.
In Christian devil who tempts. When man's union with God
Latin37 the term is normally applied to man's is mentioned, a union which would have been
redemption by God in which man himself plays permanent, the emphasis is shifted to the
no active part. Ereptio for ahXcayiyv in the permanence of the good itself which Lefivre,
Burgundio and Grosseteste versions attributes unlike his original, identifies expressly with
to man a much greater degree of autonomy in God.
his separation from the corporeal world. In
IRENA BACKUS
Lefevre's version God who is the Good redeems UNIVERSITY OF GENEVA
man whose role is passive. The following
sentence suggests that Lefivre, having already
established a link between divine grace and the

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

15

This content downloaded from 86.163.193.9 on Sun, 3 Aug 2014 18:23:08 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

You might also like