GREGORIO NAZIANZENO Eij" ejpiskovpou" [carm. II,1,13. II,1,10] Introduzione, testo critico, commento e appendici

Gregory of Nazianzus shelved his desire to dedicate himself to a contemplative life, so he went to Neja ÔRwvmh, after receiving an invitation from a Nicene delegation that requested the intervention on support of the local Orthodox Community: obviously, he could not imagine that during those years he spent in the capital (from the beginning of 379 to July 381), he would have known the high point and the failure of his political and ecclesiastical activity, in a short space of time. Leading a small group of believers, gathered in a private courtroom called Anastasia, Gregory practiced his pastoral duties with commitment, spending work in his doctrinal struggle against Aryan heresy. His election as Bishop of the city, thanks to Emperor Teodoro’s will, represented the recognition of Cappadoce’s merits in the process of the restoration and consolidation of the Nycene Orthodoxy; but at the same time, it opened the way to a completely difficult period, which left bitter reminder in the author’s heart. Gregory of Nazianzus experienced firsthand to what the internal conflicts and the power play had reduced the episcopate, when he was asked to charing the Episcopal council in 381, called with the purpose of solving the Antiochia’s schism and of condemning the heresies of that period. His disease debilitated the author’s body and also it hindered his participation to some public activities. Also the hostility of his colleagues came on to add to the disease, especially of some Egyptian bishops who contested the lawfulness of his election on the throne of Costantinople, because he was a bishop in Siasima too. Tired and sick, embittered by the persistent conflicts and yet another enemy attacks, Gregorio decided to step aside, and once resigned from the Episcopal throne, he left Costantinople without waiting for the synod’s conclusion. In the native Cappadocia, Gregory of Nazianzus vented his delusions in the poetical writing, physically far from turbulent environment and from the displeasure of the Capital, but also disturbed by the calumnies and the injustices suffered from those who he considered friends. The poem which are the subject of this PHD thesis refer to the Costantinople experience and the context of his resignation from the Episcopal throne: II, 1,10 (to the Ministers of Costantinople and to the City itself) and II, 1,13 (to the Bishops), respectively consisting of 18 elegiac couplet and 217 hexameters. Many suggestions intertwine in them: the meditation and the inner echo of those events which have involved the author, the defence of his work, but above all the violent rant against Bishops prompted not only by the resentment for his personal life, but also by the author’s disdain for the moral corruption and the ecclesiastical hierarchy’s lack of preparation. My Phd thesis starts with a rich and revised bibliography about the studies on the “Cappadoce”; it points out the number of contributions which my work refers to. Then there is a extensive introduction of the poem presented from multiple perspectives. Considering that the rant against the Bishops is the main subject of both poems. Above all, I examined this aspect, retracing the attestation along his biographical experience and in his literary work: it is understood that the rant against the ecclesiastical hierarchy reaches the climax in the events in Costantinople, but it should not be confined to that, because it is possible to find also in Gregorian works. In fact this can be traceable to the first years of his priesthood and to the period after his return to Nazianzio. Then, I tried to establish the date of the carmina compositions which I analysed according to the contents, surely they were written by the author during the period of his returning home, phase in which the scholars place the huge part of his poetic production. More specifically, I identified the terminus post quem in July 381, month in which Nettario filled the Nazianzen’s Costantinople throne: in fact both text refers to this character even if he is not clearly mentioned. It follows a detailed analysis of the compositional structure and the themes of the carmina in which it is shown and, despite their diversity, the 2 poems present many consonances and parallelism in its structural level. Its initial part shares the initial verse and the conclusive section. Also in the introduction I studied the tradition of the manuscript and the relationship among the codex: the solemn poems under consideration are attested in 34 manuscripts, (17 are essential for the setting up of the text), they date back from the XI to the XVI centuries and attributable to the Σ and Δ ancient collection; in which they are revealed one after the other. Specifically, the II,1,13 immediately preceding the II,1,10. The central part of my thesis consists of a critical text of each poem, followed by a translation and comment. My thesis is the first work in this field for the carm. II,1,13; the II, 1,10 was studied in two latest editions: the first one is about the first 11 poemata de seipso of Gregory of Nazianzus and edited by Tulier‒Badi‒Bernardi for LESbl published in 2004; the second one is a commented edition by Simelidis, published in 2009. These works were not an obstacle to the project. In fact none of them included the simultaneous study of both poetical texts, which, according to me, cannot be really understood if they are not bounded one another. They are not immune from error from textual critique’s point of view; the comment is missing in the French edition; on the other hand in Sinelidis’edition the comment is bare and it is not possible be in agreement with it always. Finally, my thesis is aided by three Appendices which permit to follow the fortune of the poems. The first one is dedicated to commentary of Cosma from Jerusalem to Nazianzen’s poems, placed between the end of VII and the beginning of the VIII centuries. The commentary, betrayed by an unique manuscript, the Vaticanus Graecus 1260 of the XII century, presents its editio princeps in 1839 thanks to Cardinal Angelo Mai in the second book of his Spicilegium Romanum, reprinted with some modification in the Volume 38 of Patologia Graeca. A recent edition has edited by Lozza in 2000. In Cosma’s work 34 verses of the II,1, 13 and two of II, 1,10 are analysed; the abundance of quotes is between one verse and 5 verses. Then there is an Appendix which is dedicated to the byzantine paraphrase which goes with the poem in some manuscript containing the poetic text. These explications, which are not possible to situate in Gregorian work tradition, were composed in prose and in an anonymous form, present a various literary level and they can be considered as a constantly evolving text, subject to modification by every copier. In this case, three are the paraphrases which were preserve, called Paraphr.1, Paraphr.2, Paraphr.3 according to earlier studies and this work gives the editio princeps. The last Appendix is constituted by the latin translation of the Carme by Giacomo Oliva da Cremona, edited in the second half of the XVI century on the Cardenal Guglielmo Sirleto’s behalf and thanks to the great interest for the Cappadoce during this historical period. Oliva’s work, which remained unpublished for the purchaser’s death and probably also for its low literary value, is preserved by two autograph manuscripts, the Vaticanus Barberinianus lat. 636 (B) and the Vaticanus lat. 6170 (V) and it finds in my PHD thesis its editio princeps.