Five Anastasiae and two Febroniae: a guided tour in the maze of Anastasia legends. Part one. The oriental dossier

Автор: Louri Basil

Журнал: Вестник ВолГУ. Серия: История. Регионоведение. Международные отношения @hfrir-jvolsu

Статья в выпуске: 6 т.26, 2021 года.

Бесплатный доступ

The recent data related to the legend of St Anastasia in Byzantium require a fresh analysis of the mutually connected cults of Anastasia and Febronia in both the Christian East and West. Part One of the present study is focused on the East, whereas Part Two will be focused on the Latin West. In Part One, the cult of Anastasia is discussed especially in Constantinople from the mid-fifth to the fourteenth centuries, with special attention to the epoch when the Imperial Church was Monothelite (seventh century). In this epoch, a new avatar of St Anastasia was created, the Roman Virgin, whose Passio was written on the basis of Syriac hagiographic documents. The cult of this second Anastasia was backed by Monothelite Syrians, whereas the fifth-century cult of Anastasia in Constantinople was backed by the Goths. Transformations of Anastasia cults in the era of state Monothelitism were interwoven with a new Syriac cult of Febronia of Nisibis that appeared in the capital shortly after its creation in Syria in a Severian “Monophysite” milieu.

Еще

St anastasia, st febronia, monothelitism, constantinople, hagiography

Короткий адрес: https://sciup.org/149139518

IDR: 149139518 | DOI: 10.15688/jvolsu4.2021.6.20

Список литературы Five Anastasiae and two Febroniae: a guided tour in the maze of Anastasia legends. Part one. The oriental dossier

Thus [44, p. 156], not to say of earlier less critical studies. For Lapidge, the very raison d'être of the legend was "curiosity about who were these martyrs", Anastasia and Chrysogonus who gave their names to the respective tituli-churches, whereas, in reality, they were not martyrs at all [80, pp. 56-57].
This fact is known from Theodore's colophon at the end of BHG 81 (catalogued separately as BHG 81a): critical edition by F. Halkin [70, p. 131]; he was identified by J. Gouillard with one of the leaders of the second Iconoclasm (anathematised by the 869 Council of Constantinople, where he was present in person; cf. [66, pp. 398-401] and a discussionby Halkin [70, pp. 86-87]).
As counted Lapidge [80, p. 63]. The modern critical edition by Paola Moretti [97] takes into account fifty-five; its translation with a commentary, including some textological notes, is provided by Michael Lapidge [80, pp. 54-87]. The previous scholarly edition by Hippolyte Delehaye was based on two manuscripts [44, pp. 221-249].
Preserved in the unique manuscript of the complete Arabic Melkite Menologion (under December 22) compiled in the very beginning of the eleventh century: Sinaiticus arabicus Nr 398, ff. 215r-222v. See Habib Ibrahim's description of this unpublished manuscript [72, pp. 73-74]; for the date of this Menologion, see Alexander Treiger's study [121, pp. 327-332]. The text, together with my notice on the mutual relations between this Arabic recension and the Georgian Martyrdom of Anastasia and Theodota, is under preparation by Habib Ibrahim.
Cf., however, the last paragraph of this Martyrdom in its earliest manuscript, where the title is repeated as following: gbg ¿ftb ^(8o)^obi ¿BibOTiboiQbo bb^()OT5 8OT ^(8O^5)OT5Q 85OT 0)56533 o^863b "This is the Martyrdom of saint Anastasia and Theodota and other saints who were martyrized together with them"; this title is published only in Gérard Garitte's description of the manuscript [60, p. 32].
In Stem 1, the Arabic recension is still marked with the asterisk, because the preserved Arabic text is not identical to the lost original of the Georgian version. However, it is so close to it that the asterisk could be omitted.
Cf. a short discussion, with the most relevant references, by Jane Baun [18, pp. 114-115].
BHG 79 and 80; edited (unsatisfactorily) by Léon Clugnet [36, pp. 51-56; reprint 1901: vol. I, pp. 2-7] ; see an evaluation of this edition by M. Bonnet [23]; a Synaxarium entry on March 10, BHG 80e: [42, cols. 523-528] ([36, pp. 57-59; reprint 1901: vol. I, pp. 8-10]). The Byzantine recension is also represented with Slavonic and Georgian versions, which are of no self-standing interest for us.
BHS 1019. Ed. by François Nau in [36, pp. 391-401; reprint 1901: pp. 68-78]; see translation by S. P. Brook and S. A. Harvey: [25, pp. 142-149].
Preserved only as a Synaxarium entry on January 21 (Jubeh 26): ed. by R. Basset [17, pp. 669-670] ; as it seems to me, this entry is not a translation of a Byzantine Greek text - as it occurs with some entries of the Coptic Synaxarium in Arabic (cf. a discussion by R.-J. Coquin [41, p. 2172]), - but its history remains unknown. Most probably, this legend goes back to a legend written in Greek but by "Monophysites".
Beside the entry in the Ethiopian Synaxarium on January 21 (Terr 26), which is the fourteenth-century translation of the Arabic entry (ed. by G Colin [39, pp. 188/189-190/191 (txt/tr.)]), there is a longer recension within the Ethiopic version of the Stories of Daniel of Scete: ed. by L. Goldschmidt and F.M. Esteves Pereira [65, pp. 3-6/30-34 (txt/tr.)], which has been translated from a lost Arabic original.
BHS 703. See the new edition and translation by Ch. Müller-Kessler and M. Sokoloff [99, p. 97-98].
See Garitte's entry [62] for the main bibliography and the unresolved problems (even in our days, whereas the relevant fascicule has been published in 1957). The story of Anastasia is lacking from the preserved Coptic version; it is unknown in Armenian either. The Slavonic and Georgian versions represent the Byzantine tradition and therefore are of no particular interest.
Cf., for bibliography, Lourié [83].
Edited by Delehaye [44, pp. 250-258]; Halkin denoted recension 76z "the vulgate" and published other recensions: a similar recension BHG 76x called "hagioritique", taking into account the "epitome" recension BHG 78e known from a single manuscript with a great lacuna [70, pp. 159-170], and an interesting "remaniement de Vénise" BHG 76zd (from a unique 16th-cent. manuscript), where the relics of Anastasia were deposed at the St Anastasia church in Rome dedicated to the Widow, and the two Anastasiae are therefore reunited within a common cult [70, pp. 170-178]. The so-called Passio longior BHG 76y known from a single eleventh-century manuscript remains unpublished.
There is a vast bibliography on the evolution of the cult of St Artemius from the fourth to the seventh century and later. Among the most important studies, I would mention those by S.N.C. Lieu [82] (on the early development of the cult), A. Busine [28] (on the Constantinopolitan late sixth- and seventh-century context), and V. Déroche [47] (decline of the cult in the iconoclastic epoch).
See, for the medicine aspect, A.P. Alwis's study [11].
In his postscript to Miracle 24: [32, pp. 142/143144/145 (txt/tr.)]. In this edition, the editio princeps by A. Papadopulos-Kerameus (1909) is reprinted with an English translation (by V. S. Chrisafulli) en regard.
This aspect of historical value even of the most legendary hagiographical documents is often neglected, evenby such great specialists as, e.g., François Halkin [69].
See [32, p. 158/159 (txt/tr.)]. Cf. [32, p. 8], John W. Nesbitt's topographical observations.
Cf. a notice by J.-M. Fiey [58, pp. 79-80], for earlier scholarship, partly outdated.
The date according to Fiey [56, pp. 14-15].
Ed. and transl. by E.A. Wallis Budge [26, vol. 1, p. 136; English tr.: vol. 2, pt. 1, p. 203], the translation is slightly edited by myself. Fiey located the monastery on the route to Marga [55, pp. 278-279].
Kaplan [78, pp. 38, 40, 44], as many others before him, refers to this witness uncritically, without mentioning its late date.
The Syriac text edited by Paul Bedjan [19, pp. 573-615]; English translation by Brock and Harvey [25, pp. 150-176].
Critical edition, together with two early Latin versions (BHL 2843 and 2844), by Paolo Chiesa [31, pp. 333-395].
Kaplan focused his discussion of the bilingualism of local Christians on the moving of the "Nestorian" famous theological school from Edessa to Nisibis in the late fifth century [78, pp. 37, 45]. However, as David Taylor pointed out, the Christian population of Mesopotamia practiced Syriac-Greek bilingualism and diglossia quite widely, regardless of the school of Edessa / Nisibis [119].
See [31, p. 354]. Of these three cases, two are related to the spectrum of meaning of Greek words: Chiesa argues, against Simon, that the respective words could have had, in the Byzantine Greek, the same meanings as their correspondents in the Syriac. The third case is a possible confusion between two words that look similar in Syriac spelling; this confusion, however, results anyway in acceptable readings. Chiesa is justified in noticing that such an error could be interpreted, with an equal likelihood, as committed by a Syriac scribe and not necessarily by the Greek translator.
Chiesa [31, p. 355]: "Ma decisivo e il fatto, mi pare, che anche nel testo siriaco l'invocazione sia introdotta dalle parole 'comincio a parlare in lingua siriaca', frase che, all'interno di un testo scritto interamente in lingua siriaca, non ha alcun senso se non in quanto traduzione di una corrispondente espressione in una lingua diversa".
One kind of Semitisms in syntax is pointed out by Kaplan, who, however, prefers to explain it through the hypothesis of an educated author who wrote in Greek while his / her mother tongue was Syriac [78, p. 41].
See [113, pp. 72-75]. I do not quote Simon's arguments because I agree with them and have nothing to add.
The word "office" is lacking here, and, therefore, "Vespers" could be understood as either "office of Vespers" or simply "evening". In both cases, the general meaning is the same because the office of Vespers in the evening must have been implied.
Syriac: ed. Bedjan [19, p. 576]; Greek: ed. Chiesa [31, p. 370]; English tr. by Brock, Harvey [25, p. 154].
Syriac: [19, p. 577]; Greek: [31, p. 371]; English tr.: [25, p. 155].
Syriac: [19, p. 610]; Greek: [31, p. 392]; English tr.: [25, p. 174].
The Syriac Story of the Holy Friday (not in BHS) has been recently published by Sergey Minov [96], who is, however, hesitant concerning its date, but is certain that it belongs to the "monophysite" community and was written, most probably (while not for sure), in Syriac. The main character of this story, bishop John who had disguised himself as a slave of a pagan master, was consecrated in Alexandria but for an unnamed city (Minov translates correctly : ".. .bishop who was hiding from his city for twenty-seven years already (and) who was ordained (i.e. consecrated. - B. L.) in Alexandria" [96, p. 211]), not for Alexandria itself, as Minov understands ([96, p. 217]). I have once attributed this story, then known to me from the 1910 paraphrase by F. Nau, to the sixth-century Syriac "monophysite" hagiographical traditions: [84, pp. 163-165, 196-204]. The closest parallel in Syriac hagiography discussed there escaped Minov's attention. This is another story about a hidden bishop who venerated Friday, the Life of Bishop Paul and Priest John, BHS 960 (fragmentary Greek version: BHG 1476) published by H. Arneson, E. Fiano, C. Luckritz Marquis, and K. Smith [13]. In this text, any work on Friday is not forbidden explicitly, but such a prohibition is implied: Paul dedicated Fridays to almsgiving to the people dwelling in remote places, which would have not left time for any other work; cf. my observations [87, p. 202]. Minov managed, however, to indicate two important texts written against the prohibition of working on Friday: one Syriac, a canon of Jacob of Edessa (ca 633-708, "monophysite"), and one Greek, an otherwise unknown and undated text ascribed to Basil the Great that is quoted (twice!) by Nikon of the Black Mountain near Antioch (ca 1025-1100, Melkite but West Syrian, not Byzantine) in his Taktikon.
This is the first of the two Pseudo-Basilian homilies published by Michel van Esbroeck [54]. The editor did not discuss the original language of this piece but such an early date is hardly compatible with Arabic. It is most likely that the original language is Syriac.
Two unpublished Arabic Pseudo-Basilian homilies dedicated to Friday veneration have been recently indicated to me by Alexander Treiger in a personal communication.
Van Esbroeck [54, p. 62] : "Frères, observez et gardez le Dimanche, loin du travail, et le jeûne signe saint...". If this sentence deals with Sunday, why any fast is mentioned? In fact, the sentence demands to abstain from work on both Sunday and this fast, which are of course two different days. Moreover, "signe" in van Esbroeck translation implies a restoration of to ^y. The manuscript (a digital copy of which was pointed to my attention by Alexander Treiger) contains here an abnormal spelling of ^b-lj^Jlj "and fasts" with the mm in the final form instead of the medial (fig. 3). Thus, van Esbroeck read this as two different words mistakenly written without space between them, Alexander Treiger provided me with a much more natural explanation: the scribe wrote fU^Jl "fasting" (in singular) but then added the ending of plural (thus producing ci^U^Jlj "and fasts" with the mm written incorrectly). However, the following adjective "saint" remained in the singular. Therefore, we have to restore the reading of "fasting" in the singular and understand this word as referring to Friday.
Parisinus arabicus 281, f. 304r; cf. van Esbroeck [54, p. 57]. As van Esbroeck, I preserve the spelling instead of j^lj, which is normal for many Christian Arabic manuscripts.
The conclusion about the "monophysite" origin of Febronia's cult, without any further precision, has been already drawn by Brock and Harvey [25, p. 150, note 2] (against Simon's opinion that the cult was "Nestorian") but based exclusively on the early date of the earliest manuscript that belongs to the "monophysite" tradition.
Syriac: [19, p. 610] (with a variant reading of a late manuscript "twenty-five" ^w.-); English tr.: [25, p. 174]; cf. Greek: [31, p. 393] (p^vi îouviœ ks').
Syriac: [19, p. 614]; Greek: [31, p. 395]; English tr.: [25, p. 176].
The following counting method is implied: March 25 becomes the first day of the sixth month of Elizabeth's gestation, according to Luke 1:24, 26; therefore, the last day of the ninth month must be June 24. For the documents containing such calculation, the earliest of them being a homily by John Chrysostom delivered in 386 in Antioch, see esp. the references by Bernard Botte [24]; cf. a discussion in Daniel Stokl Ben Ezra [116, pp. 250-255].
Edited by F. Nau [101, p. 33]; cf. [101, p. 29] for the date.
Kaplan [78, p. 34]: "Nul doute que, par cette proximité, qui fournit d'ailleurs peut-être une raison pour l'installation d'une chapelle de Fébronie dans l'église de l'Oxeia, Fébronie récolte, le jour de sa fête, dont la vigile est une fête particulièrement illustre, le bénéfice de ce rapprochement".
Underthe Persianrule, there was no "monophysite" bishop of Nisibis. There was only a "Nestorian" bishop of the city, whereas the local "Monophysites" formed a minority. For the details, see J.-M. Fiey [57, pp. 63-65].
Syriac: [19, p. 581]; Greek: [31, p. 373]; English tr.: [25, p. 157] (with a minor change).
This date that remains within the chronological limits of the Byzantine Rome would explain appearance of a reference to this legend in a Latin translation (BHL 404); see H. Delehaye [46].
Its standard edition by Juan Mateos [94] is to be completed with the previously unpublished data from the manuscript Dresden A 104 (early 11th cent.) preserved in the archive of the great liturgiologist Alexey Afanansievich Dmitrievsky (1856-1929), while the manuscript itself (severely damaged during WWII) remains unreadable; see a new partial publication of the texts copied by Dmitrievsky, with a commentary, by Constantine Akentiev [1].
As it is now dated by Andrea Luzzi [88].
See, on him and his work the study by N. Akinean, which is not recent but not outdated either: [129].
Ed. by Marianna Apresyan [130, vol. 10, pp. 316-317]. The same entry is repeated in two more recensions, always under the same date.
Cyril Mango pointed out that this Febronia "is unknown to historical sources", being mentioned exclusively in hagiography [91, p. 12, note 17].
On her, see esp. van Esbroeck [51].
Her hagiographical dossier is reach but understudied. Cf., most recently, a monograph by M. Conti and V. Burrus [40].
On the cult of Heraclius as a holy emperor among the Monotheletes, see my study [5].
Strictly speaking, I mean the hagiographic substrate in the sense defined in van Esbroeck [52] and developed in [7].
These legends are traceable, for instance, through the Synaxaria of Constantinople and of the Coptic Church (in Arabic). Most of these legends remain unstudied.
On November 6 = Hatur / Hadar 10: see the Arabic edited by Basset [16, pp. 197-198] and the Ethiopic edited by Colin [38, p. 48/49 (txt/tr.)]. The source of the Arabic epitome in the Coptic Synaxarium is unknown.
Cf. M.E. Heldman's study [71, pp. 26-27]. For untenability of Heldman's opinion that the Arabic epitome is a translation of the entry of the Ethiopic Synaxarium and not vice versa, see B. Lourie [87, esp. pp. 183-184].
As we have seen, for instance, in the history of the legend of Anastasia Patricia.
Cf. edition with a study by F.C. Burkitt [27, pp. 48-56] and a study by Aza Paykova [8]; see, for the further details, Lourie [6].
On September 28 equivalent to Babah / Tsqamt 1: for the Arabic, ed. Basset [15, pp. 97-98]; for its Ethiopic translation, ed. Colin [37, pp. 6/7-8/9 (txt/tr.)]. In this text, the martyrdom is dated to the reign of Decius, whereas, in the Greek recensions, the pagan emperor is the same as in the Martyrdom of Anastasia the Widow, Diocletian. However, the Synaxarium of Constantinople, which might go back to the same archetype as the Arabic entry, preserved the same dating to Decius [42, col. 133]. Some other differences would deserve a separate study. The same date, September 28, is preserved by one Syriac "monophysite" calendar: [101, p. 86] (" [September,] 28. Of the victorious martyr Anastasia, the monastic"). This calendar is preserved in a unique 17th-century manuscript. Its date is unknown.
Ed. by Halkin [70, p. 170]. This date must correspond to October 9, "[m]ais l'hagiographe se figurait sans doute que les mois coptes équivalaient aux mois byzantins", thus having rendered in this way the date October 12: Halkin [70, p. 170, fn. 2], which is one of the two dates of Anastasia the Virgin in the Synaxarium of Constantinople [42, cols. 133-134]; cf. almost the same Synaxarium entry on October 29 [42, col. 171-173]. In the Coptic synaxarium, the date is Phaophi (Babah in Arabic) 1 (see above) = September 28.
Commenting on the Egyptian dating of BHG 76x, Halkin wrote: "Le P. Devos me suggère que cette datation surprenante pourrait indiquer que la légende provient de la colonie égyptienne de Constantinople" [70, p. 160].
BHS 727. For editions and translations of the Syriac text, see two independent editions based on different manuscripts: Burkitt [27, pp. 44-74 / 129-153 (txt/tr.)] and Nau [100, pp. 66-72, 173-181 / 182-191 (txt/tr.)]. Aza V. Paykova's important study of the legend contains a Russian translation [8, pp. 95-100]. There is an unpublished recension BHS 1559. There is a number of Greek recensions of the Miracle, the most important being the pre-Metaphrastic one BHG 739, edited within the study of the Greek dossier of the Edessian confessors by Oscar von Gebhardt and Ernst Dobschutz [63, S. 148-198].
See my earlier study [6]. There I take into account some observations and conclusions by Paikova, which are still little known to Western scholarship; cf. [8, pp. 66-77].
These relics were preserved in Edessa, but this fact does not preclude some parts of them from having been translated (?) to Constantinople.
The precise location is unknown; see Janin [75, p. 80].
These commemorations are preserved by the Synaxarium of Constantinople [42, cols. 338, 340], and the stational liturgies are described in the Typikon of the Great Church [94, vol. 1, pp. 144-147]; Dmitrievsky copied the relevant part of the Dresden manuscript [1, pp. 112-115]; cf. [1, c. 155-156], for Akentiev's liturgical analysis.
Translation by C. Mango, R. Scott, with the assistance of G. Greatrex [92, p. 316]; cf. translators' notes.
Devos [49, pp. 45-47], where he quoted Delehaye [44, pp. 169-170]; cf. Delehaye [44, pp. 166-170]; see also Delehaye [46, pp. 395-396].
On this word, corrupted in different ways in the manuscripts, see Delehaye [44, p. 257, fn. 19]. Anastasia is said to be buried év xorcœ Ko&ou^évœ ¥opœ (§ 9); Delehaye wrote in the footnote to his edition of BHG 76z: "legendum videtur qôpoo. Versio latina in locum qui vocabatur Proforo". BHG 76x has the same readings with the initial ¥ (ed. Halkin [70, pp. 169-170, fn. 2]), but BHG 76zd actually contains the reading ®opœ [70, p. 178, fn. 4] restored by Delehaye. This place is localised in some Mecorcoxa^ia 'Pœ^nÇ "Mesopotamia of Rome": Halkin [70, p. 178]. "Cette Mésopotamie de Rome, Halkin added, pourrait aussi, comme me le suggère le P. Devos, être une vague réminiscence de la patrie du Ste Fébronie, martyre à Nisibe à Mésopotamie" [70, p. 171, fn. 2].
"Il s'agit apparement de l'église Sainte-Anastasie au pied du Palatin, en face du Forum Boarium et entre les deux «vallées» qui séparent le Palatin du Capitole et de l'Aventin" [70, p. 171].
See Devos [49, p. 47], where he wrote, in particular: "Il serait toutefois légitime de se demander si, dès avant 825, en plus du nom et de la renommée d'Anastasie, quelque chose de son histoire, telle que se le contaient les Romains, n'avait pas atteint les rives de Bosphore".
See Janin [75, p. 26] for a commentary to this location. Janin pointed out that, for the monastery dedicated to the commemorated saint, the Synaxarium uses the phrase év xfi ^ovfi aùxrçç It is very possible that "the monastery of Anastasia" was an alternative name of the monastery of Anastasis (Resurrection) that existed in the unique complex of buildings with the church of St Anastasia near the colonnades of Domninos; cf. Janin [75, p. 23], and Magdalino [89, p. 62].
The tenth-century recension of the Synaxarium of Constantinople is available through its Armenian translation. For October 12, we read here: fci. nürnurnrnu^rn uppnthm] ^ntu^û: "And the commemoration of Anastasia, the saint virgin" [130, vol. 10, p. 130; cf. pp. 130-131] for three more Armenian recensions of this entry, without any epitome of her Passio either). The title of this entry is an exact rendering of the preserved Greek original that, in turn, goes back to the Typikon of the Great Church: âBXnciç xrçç âyiaç Avacxaciaç xrçç napBévou "the contest of saint Anastasia the virgin" ([42, col. 133; 94, vol. 1, p. 68]). For December 22, there is here (in all Armenian recensions) a relatively long epitome of LLA [130, vol. 12, pp. 268-273]. This is the text preserved in the Synaxarium of Constantinople in Greek [42, cols. 333-338] but with a different title (without a mention of Oap^aKoArnpia "Deliverer from Potions", a later Byzantine epithet of Anastasia the Widow, which is present in the title of the Synaxarium entry in some of its recensions [42, cols. 333-334]:
t uppnthm. ^nm^ü UUmummu^ "It is the commemoration of the saint virgin Anastasia" [130, vol. 12, p. 268]. This title is closer to that in the Typikon of the Great Church: ä0Xnai; x^^ äyia^ Avaaxaaia^ Kai auv atixfi äyirav yuvaiKwv [94, vol. 1, p. 142] "the contest of saint Anastasia and with her saint women", but perhaps, for the Armenians, only a unique Anastasia existed, and, therefore, both Anastasiae, those commemorated on October 12 and December 22, are called "Virgin".
I tried to investigate this matter in [85, esp. pp. 284-287].
See discussion of this variant by L. Ryden [108, p. 200]. Cf. Ryden's commentary to the critical text [109, vol. 2, p. 306, note 5].
Cf. [20, S. 514]: "Die Andreas-Salos-Vita ... lokalisiert sie z. B. en toisMakellou [sic!], also in die Nähe des Leomakellon". In the footnote to this place (Anm. 27), Berger refers to Ryden 1974 noticing that Ryden "nevertheless" (trotz) identifies this church with that of the earlier sources (near to the colonnades of Domninos) but does not mention the error in the printed text that he repeated. In a later study, Berger provided an approximate map of the part of Constantinople where he located the respective Anastasia church: A. Berger [21, S. 44, 47-48], once again with a reference to Ryden [108] but quoting, once again, the erroneous reading ta Makellu [21, S. 47].
Ryden [108, pp. 200-201]; Berger [20, S. 514]. See also two next footnotes.
Ed. and tr. by J.O. Rosenqvist [107, p. 68]; cf. [107, p. 69, note 3], identification of this church with the church of Anastasia in the Life of St Andrew.
See new edition and translation by D.F. Sullivan, A.-M. Talbot, S. McGrath [117, pp. 326/327-328/329 (txt/tr.)]. The editors follow in identification of this church with that of St Andrew the Fool and, in turn, with that near the colonnades of Domninos [117, p. 323, notes 90, 91]. There is also an ancient Slavonic version of the Life of Basil the Younger, now published critically and studied [9].
Ed. by Delehaye [42, cols. 333-334] (in Synaxaria selecta). This is an addition to the genuine recension, unknown to the Armenian and other ancient (11th-cent.) translations of the Synaxarium; the epithet is, of course, absent in the Typikon of the Great Church. Arne Effenberger, taking Berger's identification of the Pharmakolytria with the saint deposed in another church (that Berger located at Leomakellon), goes so far as saying that the Synaxarium of Constantinople made an error: "Nur das Synaxar zum 22. Dezember bezeichnet die in den Emboloi des Domninos verehrte Anastasia irrtümlich als Pharmakolytria" [50, esp. S. 49, Anm. 81]. The Synaxarium, unlike a pelerine account, could not contain "errors": it consists of a written fixation of an actual liturgical practice; therefore, the alleged error must be attributed not to the editor(s) of the Synaxarium but to the cult itself. If Effenberger is right, this would mean that the people who venerated St Anastasia in her church near the colonnades of Domninos on December 22 were wrong thinking that they venerated the Pharmakolytria. It is more likely that were wrong those who read дакеНои instead of цакеНои^ in the Life of St Andrew and Anthony of Novgorod whose testimony we will discuss below.
As noticed by Ryden [108, p. 201]. For Nicephorus, see his Historia ecclesiastica, 14.10 [102, col. 1089 CD] (та Xeiyova ayia^ Avacxaoia^ фардакоАш^а; апо Eip^iou ^vex9n).
В 22 целовах мощи святыа Анастасиа; ed. G.P. Majeska [90, p. 101]; cf. his English tr., [90, p. 100]. Before this, Ignatius mentioned his visit to St Sophia "on the Sunday before Christmas". These episodes are unconnected: in 1389, December 22 fell on Wednesday, and the Sunday before Christmas was on December 19.
Two other Russian fourteenth-century documents mention unique relics of Anastasia in Blachernae: Stephen of Novgorod (1348 or 1349) (ed. Majeska [90, p. 45]) and the Russian Anonymous (1390/1391) (ed. Majeska [90, p. 151]), whose indications are identical; cf. commentary by G.P. Majeska [90, p. 337]. Klaus-Dieter Seemann [112, pp. 333-336] and George Majeska [90, pp. 119-120] argue that the text of the Russian Anonymous is an adaptation of a Greek fourteenth-century guide. For the high importance of the Blachernae church in Constantinople since the 1070s, see, in particular, Ciggaar's commentary in [34, p. 130].
Critical edition by T. Preger [106, pp. 233234]; bilingual popular edition with an English tr. by A. Berger [22, p. 164].
As it is was called by R. Snee [114, esp. p. 169, note 83]. Cf. Berger [20, S. 445-447].
Preger [106, p. 250]; Berger [22, p. 186]; English tr.: Berger [22, p. 187] (slightly modified).
Ryden [108, p. 200]; cf. Berger [20, S. 514-515].
Janin [75, p. 26]; Berger [20, S. 514-515]. Berger's localisation of this church is valid, but Berger is hardly right in identification of this locality with Leomakellos. For the localisation of Leomakellos, in the light of recent data, see esp. the study by Victoria Gerhold [64, esp. pp. 77-90].
See, in his edition, esp. [95, p. 485].
Ed. by K.N. Ciggaar [33, p. 258] (the second sentence is lacking from the manuscript published by Mercati). Cf. [35, esp. p. 148].
See the critical edition by Anna Jouravel [76, S. 318, 320]. Here and below, I simplify the Slavonic spelling. Jouravel follows Berger's identification of this church as that of the Pharmakolytria [76, S. 319, Anm. 264; S. 321, Anm. 265, and passim].
See, for localisation, Jouravel's commentary [76, S. 218-220].
Jouravel [76, S. 331, Anm. 329; cf. S. 219, Anm. 747]; Savvaitov [10, col. 161, note 257].
Cf. Majeska [90, pp. 315-316, 384-385]; and Lourié [85, pp. 285-286, note 136]. I consider this question unresolved.
Jouravel quoting Savvaitov: [76, S. 308]. Jouravel's reference to Savvaitov's opinion [76, S. 309, Anm. 217] is here misleading: Savvaitov, who, in turn, referred to J.S. Assemani [14, pp. 489-494] (Savvaitov [10, col. 127, note 167]; Jouravel's reference contains a typo: "137" instead of "127"), did not mean that this saint is the Pharmakolytria, but he indicated the whole range of possibilities pointing to the considerations ("соображения") of Assemani concerning identity or diversity between various Anastasiae venerated in Constantinople.
See Sergey A. Ivanov's study [3]. Ivanov also disagrees with an identification of one of the Anastasiae of Anthony with the Patricia.
The fourth (with Petronilla) and the fifth (with Basilissa) Anastasiae will be discussed in Part Two.
Ed. and transl. by Rosenqvist [107, p. 58/59 (txt/tr.)].
Rosenqvist recognised the second as Anastasia the Virgin nun [107, p. 59, note 10].
Ed. and tr. by Rosenqvist [107, p. 58/59 (txt/tr.)].
The concluding paragraph containing this date is omitted in the publication by Ivane Imnaishvili [131, p. 31], but published in the description of the manuscript by Gérard Garitte [60, p. 32]. Obviously, Imnaishvili omitted this paragraph as a later addition, because the text of the Martyrdom proprie was concluded before it with the word "Amen". Before the text, there is a subtitle also published by Garitte: ЪбзоотЬбзо от(^зЪ)б гозфгоб&зАЪб зот ("Lecture for the month October, 29"), who noticed that the number "29" is written by a later hand over the erased part of the text; Imnaishvili published this subtitle but omitted the number at all [131, p. 20].
The tenth-century Georgian calendar of John Zosimas preserved both dates, October 22 and 23. See Garitte's edition and commentary [61, pp. 98-99, 364-366]).
Compare the biblical model, the Second Passover on 14.II (Numb 9: 10-11). The documented cases of deliberate shifting of commemoration dates are, however, rare. In the 11th century, the commemoration day of Symeon the New Theologian was appointed on the 13th day of October instead of the 13th of March (because his death fell on the Lenten time unsuitable for high celebrations). This scanty evidence is, nevertheless, corroborated with the second law of Baumstark (the more important liturgical elements are, the less they are subject to change), which makes, for any feast, a shift of the month together with a shift of the day of the month far less likely than a shift of the month alone.
This additional and unnecessary commemoration day of Anastasia the Widow could have gradually fallen into oblivion but not deliberately transferred from one Anastasia to another. This situation was regulated by the first law of Baumstark (the law of organic development). The seventh-century situation, when Anastasia the Virgin was artificially created for replacing Anastasia the Widow, was not a situation of natural and organic development, thus allowing the replacement of the saint martyr commemorated on December 22.
Thus R. Janin [75, p. 27]. For a discussion of this dating among the scholars, see Snee's outline [114, esp. pp. 161-162, 185-186].
See esp. H. Gracanin's and J. Skrgulja's study [67, p. 174]; cf. H. Wolfram [126, p. 321 et passim]. This circumstance remained unnoticed by Janin who collected the historical documents related to the translation [75, pp. 22-26].
Cf. esp. the study by G. Kampers [77]. Cf. also considerations by Ivana Popovic [104, pp. 11-13] and Popovic and Ferjancic [105] related to Sirmium during the period when it has been regained by the Ostrogoths, 504-536; however, I am not sure that findings of Ostrogothic coins near the fundaments of ecclesiastical buildings (never identified with confidence) would testify to any specific devotion to St Anastasia by the Ostrogoths.
He is a somewhat understudied figure. Cf. Janin [74]; the year of his death is unknown, probably after 471. On September 1 and 2, 465, during the great fire of Constantinople (commemorated even in the Synaxarium on September 1), Marcian, according to all his biographies, saved with his prayer the newly rebuilt church of Anastasia; cf., for the sources and chronology, A. M. Schneider [111, S. 383-384].
Published byAthanasios Papadopulos-Kerameus [128, vol. 4, pp. 258-270; vol. 5, pp. 402-404].
Not used by Janin [75]; published by Manuil Gedeon [127, pp. 271-277]. The dossier contains still unpublished elements: three recensions BHG 1033a, b, c (presumably, similar to BHG 1033) and another Metaphrastic recension BHG 1034b.
This pre-history of the Marcian's building has been recently studied by Rachelle Snee; cf. esp. [114, p. 169].
BHG 1032, ch. 6 [128, vol. 4, p. 263]; not in BHG 1033.
Ed. Gedeon [127, p. 277]; cf. the corresponding account in the Metaphrastic recension BHG 1034 [118, col. 456 A].
See, for Aspar and Ardabur living near the church to the north, Snee's observations [114, p. 176].
P. Amory mistakenly called the church of Anastasia "the center of an Arian cult in Constantinople" [12, p. 272, cf. p. 359].
See, for the history of the church and its location, Janin [75, pp. 106-107] and Berger [20, S. 447-449].
BHG 1032, ch. 12 [128, vol. 4, p. 269]; BHG 1033, ch. 11 [127, p. 276]. The words in the brackets are proper to BHG 1033.
The critical edition by A. Wirth [125, S. 116148]. For the critical analysis and dating, see van Esbroeck [51, pp. 138-139].
Mateos [94, vol. 1, p. 206/207 (txt/tr.)], repeated - sometimes verbatim - in the Synaxarium [42, cols. 409, 412]. This commemoration, however, is absent from the Patmos manuscript of the Typikon of the Great Church, even though the connected (see below) commemoration of Apostle Timotheus on January 22 is present [2, pp. 44-45].
BHG 1032, ch. 12 [128, vol. 4, p. 269]; BHG 1033, ch. 11 [127, p. 276]; BHG 1034, ch. 16 [118, col. 448 D].
See Garitte's commentary to the Georgian Jerusalem calendar of John Zosimos [61, pp. 137-138]; cf., on January 22, the Typikon of the Great Church: ed. Mateos [94, vol. 1, p. 206/207 (txt/tr.)], ed. Dmitrievsky [2, p. 45], repeated by the synaxaria [42, cols. 411-412].
Strictly speaking, in the Martyrdom of Anastasia and Theodota, there appeared not Irene herself but several traces of her martyrdom, such as her persecutor Dulcitius (in this recension, the plot line related to the martyrdom of Irene, Agape, and Chionia is erased by the editor); see Lourié [86].
Published by Franchi de' Cavalieri [59] according to the unique manuscript so far known; this text is reprinted in: Musurillo [98, pp. 280-293; cf. pp. xlii-xliii]. For the modern evaluation of the historical value, cf. Maraval [93, pp. 277-285].
On the cult of St Demetrius in Thessalonica since the sixth century, see especially the studies by Janin [73] and Lemerle [81].
Cf. an outline of the century-long discussion by Peter Toth [122, S. 149-154].
This date has been proposed by Jean-Michel Spieser [115, pp. 165-214]. It seems to me especially attractive, because it implies the most plausible identification of the prefect Leontius who was pointed out (in the hagiographic sources) as the person who constructed the church [115, p. 214, note 315]; the mentions of Leontius by hagiographers could be of historical value, because it is pertinent to a relatively recent time and not to the "epic" antiquity of the Passions épiques.
Delehaye [43, pp. 107-108]. For further substantiation of his view in the modern scholarship, see especially Vickers [123] and Toth [122, S. 151 et passim].
For a brief history of St. Demetrius's cult, see Ch. Walter [124, pp. 67-93]; for a discussion of the date when the saint became a myrrh-gusher, see esp. [124, p. 93, note 54].
Published, together with an ancient Latin version, by Delehaye [45, pp. 220-225].
See Lapidge [80, pp. 633-636], with further bibliography.
Cf. especially François Chausson's studies: [29, esp. p. 151; 30, p. 167 et passim]. However, Chausson does not take into account the funeral inscription in the Catacombs of Priscilla ICUR 23082 (on the marble plate, now lost) Anastasia / vivas in / aeternitatem ("Anastasia, let you live in eternity") dated to the period from 275 to 325.

Еще

Статья научная