* This work was supported by Shota Rustaveli National Science Foundation of Georgia (SRNSFG) [FR-21-2001 – “The Relationship Between the Georgian and Greek Versions of "The History of Barlaam and Joasaph"]

Elguja Khintibidze

Great nеws about the translation work of Euthymius the Athonite 

In the present issue of the Journal The Kartvelologist, we publish an article by Danish Byzantine studies scholar, Christian Høgel, “Euthymios the Athonite Greek-Georgian and Georgian-Greek translator and metaphrast?” [17]^[1]. C. Høgel is a well-known author of Byzantine studies. His monograph on Symeon Metaphrastes – Symeon Metaphrastes: Rewriting and Canonization [16]^[2], should be specially noted. The article published in this issue is based on the latest research concerning the study of the History of Barlaam and Ioasaph (Barlaam-romance), an ex­tremely popular work among the European peoples in the Middle Ages. Therefore, the article is significant for Georgian studies. The work by Euthymius the Athonite, a great Georgian translator, is evaluated from the standpoint of Byzantine studies and details/nuances unknown in the History of Georgian literature are revealed. The author relies on the highly productive works of the last decades of the German school of Byzantine studies in relation to Barlaam-romance sources, literary style, Greek manuscripts and the author’s identity. From these works, the following should be noted: Robert Volk's fundamental two-volume – The Edifying Story of Barlaam and Ioasaph, published in two parts of volume VI of Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos by the Byzantine Institute of Scheyern Abbey [28; 29]. Volk adds the Latin word Spuria (falsehood) to the title of the volumes, indicating that it is false to attribute these writings to John of Damascus. The second work on which Høgel's article is based is Ioannis Grossmann's study of Barlaam's relation to Symeon Metaphrast’s Menologion [14]. Grossman rejects Volk's view regarding the fact that the Symeon Metaphrast’s Collection of Saints' Lives (Menologion) uses the Balavari translated by Euthymius, and believes that the relationship of the texts to each other suggests the opposite.

C. Høgel's article clearly indicates the achievements and contribution of the Georgian theological and literary school of Athos to Byzantine writing and the Greek Church. The contribution of the Athonite Georgians, first of all, of Euthymius, was revealed not only by the fact that, based on the Georgian material, he created an extremely popular work among the peoples of Europe of the period preceding the Renaissance^[3]. It was revealed that the merit of Georgian Athonites was reproducing and saving  Barlaam-romance and with it the most precious collection of the Greek Church, Menologion of Symeon Logothetes. In the 80s of the 10th century, during the reign of the Byzantine emperor Basil II, Symeon was no longer favoured by the Royal court and his Menologion also shared the fate of its creator. Including the first quarter of the XI century, Iviron was the only church which kept and reproduced his manuscripts [17, p. 359]. The monastic corporation of Athos was the centre where the manuscripts of these two works (Menologion and Barlaam) were intensively reproduced. The spiritual leaders of this corporation, Epitroph, were Georgians: since 1001 Iovane (John) the Athonite, for several years, and then Euthymius, until he died in 1028. According to Høgel, "Euthymius’ literary im­portance comes with the influence of Georgians not only on the life of Mount Athos but on the intellectual life in Byzantium” [17, p. 364]. According to the observation of the Danish researcher, Euthymius’ contribution to Byzantine literature is not only that the theological centre of Athos, under his leadership, saved and multiplied metaprasic writings, but also that he opened the way for these writings to the non-Greek, in particular, Georgian Divine service. Euthymius translated several dozen works of Symeon's Menologion into Georgian. Moreover, his creative-artistic style as a writer is metaphrastic. At the same time, it is peculiarly metaphrastic, different from the style of Symeon Metaphrastes. Euthymius, bringing together fragments of metaphrastic and Christological writings of the holy fathers, creates a whole mosaic and lays the foundation for a peculiar literary style, which was also revealed in other hagiographic works written in the Greek language in the 12^th century [17, p. 364].

An important innovation in Georgian studies is the discovery of the artistic style of Euthymius the Athonite as a Byzantine hagiographic writer and reference to his merits as an organizer in front of Byzantine church literature. This novelty is mainly based on the facts revealed in a comparison of Greek Barlaam with the Menologion of Symeon Metaphrastes. R.Volk publishes an academic edition of the Barlaam-romance text in the two-volume set mentioned above, along with accurate electronic par between Euthymius Barlaam and the Menologion of Symeon Logothetes. Based on this, he formulates his point of view on the conceptual issue of the creation of Barlaam: the work was created by Euthymius the Athonite through the translation and reworking of the Georgian Balavari in the early 980s. The translation by Euthymius is used by Symeon Metaphrastes in his work on the Menologion. Barlaam's initial redaction was later revised by Euthymius himself.

As I mentioned above, I. Grossman comes to a different conclusion by examining some parallel passages from Barlaam and from the Lives of Saints from earlier and Symeon's metaphrastic redactions, published by Volk: Symeon's Menologion is the source of Barlaam of Euthymius the Athonite. Euthymius' translation was later reworked by another unknown author. Based of these works Høgel also explores the views spread in modern European literature regarding the creation of the Barlaam. Some of these points of view are discussed in this paper.

Høgel considers the activities of the Byzantine Institute of the Scheyern Abbey, specifically, Robert Volk, whose works and edition put an end to the centuries-old doubts of European Byzantine scholars regarding the authorship of Euthymius the Athos, to be a great contribution. Follow­ing the author of the article, Volk refuted the opposing opinions of the European Byzantinists “some of them cherished along with surprising reluctance to accept quite obviously reliable information coming especially from Georgian sources” [17, p. 354]. I would extend Høgel's interesting remark regarding the relation of the works of Byzantinists of the last period to the important essays of Georgian scholars on this issue. I mean that the innovative conclusions revealed in the significant studies of the latest period of Byzantinists on the problems of Barlaam and Ioasaph are, in many cases, both directly and by the method of processing a specific problem in coincidence with the investigation of Georgian studies. These studies have been published not only in Georgia but also in Europe and have been delivered at international Byzantine forums. Moreover, some dubious or controversial theses of the significant studies of Byzantinists are related to, or may even originate from, assumptions hypothetically expressed by Georgian scholars. I will stop at only one case.

The point of view of R. Volk that Simeon Metaphrast used Euthymius’ Greek translation of Georgian Balavari was expressed in the form of an assumption as early as the 19th century. [25, p. 253-293], athough there existed an opposite viewpoint even then. I. Grossman's position regarding the assumption that Euthymius’ Balavari might have been revised by someone else was already known as an assumption. However, I think that the main support for these points of view of the German Byzantineists should be the assumptions expressed by Georgian studies scholars.

Discussions of Georgian scientists on the issue of authorship of Barlaam and Ioasaphbecame more active after the publication of Dölger's famous monograph. In the studies of European Byzantinists, the distrust of Georgian primary sources was obvious (here I mean Giorgi the Athonite’s  reference to Euthymius' translation ofBalavarifrom  Georgian into Greek) and Euthymius' suitability as a non-Greek writer as the author of the Greek Barlaam. If we don't dwell on Zotenberg's ignorance of the history of Georgian literature and, in particular, Euthymius' work, it is enough to recall the words of Dölger: We dare say deci­sively that from 650 to 1085 (the time that is the extreme limits of the author of Barlaam) there could be no other Greek theologian than John of Damascus, whom we could consider the author of Barlaam and Ioasaph [13, p. 64]. This doubt is further specified later by the second great German Byzantine studies scholar H. Becky. In his opinion, based on the author's level of education, only John of Damascus can be considered the creator of Barlaam and Ioasaph [11, p. 37]. Naturally, the effort of Georgian scholars in this polemic would be to dispel distrust of Georgian sources (in particular, Giorgi the Athonite) and prove the truth of Euthymius’ translation from Georgian to Greek. This was accompanied by the rather superficial ideas of the European and Russian Byzantine studies schol­ars of the time about the circulation of the narrative of this story in the East (assumptions about the old Syriac and Arabic Christian versions). That is why all opinions on the creation of the Greek Barlaam in Georgian studies of that period should not be accepted with the same confidence without critical discussion.

Korneli Kekelidze, a prominent researcher of Euthymius' translation work and in general, metaphrastic trend, was one of the first to respond to this actual problem of Byzantine studies in the 50s of the last century. His essay ‘’Balavarian's novel in Christian literature“ was published soon (1956), and later it was included in volume VI of his Etudes [4, pp. 41-71], and the main conclusions were moved in the first volume of ‘’History of Georgian Literature“ [5, pp. 189-190]. ‘’It is an indisputable fact that Euthymius the Athonite translated Balavari from Georgian into Greek... He translated not Version A of the Georgian novel (Wisdom of Balavari - E. Kh.) but Version  B (The Life of St. Iodasaf - E. Kh.). Version B derives from an Arabic-Christian version which seems to have been composed based on a non-Christian Arabic redaction, translated from Pahlavi“. ‘’The Greek version was not written by John of Damascus, nor does it belong to Euthymius the Athonite“. ‘’The Greek version is the so-called metaphrastic redaction. It was compiled on the basis of the translation made by Euthymius, using other sources as well. The author of this metaphrastic redaction must be Symeon Metaphrastes himself, a contemporary of Euthymius the Athonite”.

D. Lang, based on these conclusions assumed that the Greek translation of the Georgian Balavari, which may have been made for the needs of Symeon Metaphrastes, must have been later metaphrasted by one of Symeon Met­aphrastes’ disciples [22, p. XXXII].

Thus both controversial points of view expressed by the German Byzantinists (Symeon Metaphrastes used Balavari translated by Euthymius; Euthymius' translation was later metaphrasted by someone else) were expressed in different ways in the hypothetical assumptions of Georgian scholars. Such assumptions of Georgian scholars are rarely based on strict arguments but represent theoretical possibilities made up for a specific purpose. In the studies of Byzantinists, the authors seem to rely on them. This situation seems to be reflected in Høgel's article. I will try to comment on a couple of cases.

Colophon (Testament) ofIovane the Athonite. Colophon (Testament) of Iovane the Athonite. In connection with the problem of Barlaam, Byzantine studies scholars frequently mention Iovane's (Euthymius Father's) Colophon about Euthymius translations. Balavari is not mentioned in the version of Colophon considered reliable in earlier studies of Georgian scholars. Because of this, some scholars thought that Euthymius did not translate Balavari until the 11th century. However, as this Colophon was published taking into account all of the manuscripts (9), from my point of view, the relationship between the redactions requires a special study. The Colophon is attached to the Euthymius translation of John Chrysostom’s Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. The Colophon came down to us in 9 manuscripts, they show differences. In one passage of the Colophon Iovane lists the books translated by his son. According to one manuscript (N20 of the Kutaisi Historical Museum), this list includes "თარგმანებაი ბალავარისი" (“Transla­tion//Commentary of Balavari”). In the rest of the manuscripts, this title does not appear. In this context, Iovane speaks about Euthymius' achievements concerning translating theological books from Greek into Georgian: he writes that he was worried about the lack of sacred books in Georgian and encourage  his son to learn Greek, and instructed him to translate books  from Greek into Georgian [12, p. 339] Based on this context, it is natural to assume that Iovane lists the books translated from Greek into Georgian by Euthymius, which caused a difference of opinion regarding the version in which “Translation//Commentary of Balavari” is named (Kutaisi N20). Dölger relied on this version and referred to it to strengthen his assumption concerning Euthymius translating Balavari from Greek into Georgian [13, p. 37]. Other researchers of Barlaam-romance (K. Kekelidze [5, p. 188], P. Peeters [24, p. 286] and others) prefer and consider reliable the version of the Colophon that is read in the other manuscripts. Therefore, it was considered that the reference to Euthymius translation of Balavari from Georgian to Greek was not confirmed in Georgian sources until the 11^th century. More modern explorers of European Byzantine studies who support the point of view that Barlaam was translated by Euthymius in the 10th century, explain that it was not mentioned in Iovane's Colophon by the fact that Euthymius’ works translated from Georgian into Greek could not be included in this list [17, p. 357]. I assumed that the list of Iovane's Colophon should not be understood in such a way that it contains only the books translated from Greek into Georgian. This opinion is not categorically expressed in the Colophon. Thus, I would consider that the mention of Balavari in this list comes from Iovane [20, p. 281]. Now I would like to present the argumentation of this assumption.

The version of the Colophon by Iovane, which mentions Balavari in fifth place in the list of Euphemius' writings, as mentioned above, survives in only one manuscript (N20 of Kutaisi). The manuscript, which used to belong to Gelati Monastery, is dated and copied in 1048 in Manglisi. [7, p. 95]. Another edition of this Colophon, which does not men­tion Balavari, is preserved in 8 manuscripts some of which are from the 11^th century. Two were copied on Athos during the lifetime of Euthymius; in particular, the dated one - Ath. 13 (1008), and Ath. 10 dated 1002 [8, p. 97]. The conclusion that was drawn from these facts seems natural: the version that does not mention Balavari is from Iovane. It has reached us through many older manuscripts, and according to the context, the work translated from Georgian into Greek would not have been included in this list.

I base my opinion that Iovane’s original version is the one that mentions Balavari, on the following circumstances.

1. It is not categorically stated in the Colophon that Iovane lists only the books translated from Greek into Georgian by Euthymius. As I have seen above, Iovane writes that he was worried about the lack of books in Georgian, and tried to encourage his son to learn Greek and make him translate books from Greek into Georgian; he continues that they wrote books as much as they could write [12, p. 340]^[4]. This notice is followed by the list in which Balavari is read in fifth place. Iovane's words about ‘’they wrote the books” rather indicate that the following books were written by them (Euthymius and Iovane), and not that Euthymius translated these books from Greek to the Georgian lan­guage.

2. Iovane wrote this Colophon when he was very old and weak, which he repeatedly points out. The text is not in order either, the theological and common life passages are interwoven in such an unorganized way that some researchers consider the text to be an incoherent combination of the Colophon of Euthymius and Iovane. Nevertheless, the very section of the Colophon, which is the subject of our interest at this time, shows that Iovane tells us about his own merits (his service to the country) and points to them himself. In the country of Kartli, there was a considerable lack of books and he made a big effort and listed his merits: he made his son learn Greek; forced him to translate books from Greek into Georgian. And they together wrote books as much as they could write. So, according to the Colophon, there are different facts: Iovane's employment of his son to translate books from Greek into Georgian, and on the other hand, Euthymius and Iovane's writing of books.

3. The widely-spread point of view which considers the version of the Colophon presented in the Kutaisi N20 manuscript to have been written later, is based on the assumption that some copyists of the Colophon knew that Euthymius translated Balavari and therefore added the work to the list. I think this assumption is highly questionable. First, it is hard to believe that a copyist would have been aware that Barlaam was written in Greek by Euthymius, did not pay attention to the fact that it was not expected to be mentioned among the books listed by Iovane, and added it to the list. This is when the books translated by Euthymius from Greek into Georgian, which appear in other versions, are not mentioned in this Colo­phon. If Balavari's translation were an addition to this list, it would have been added at the bottom, and not in the fifth place. Attention should also be paid to the fact that Balavari named in this list does not refer to the translation of Balavari, but to the writing of "თარგმანებაჲ ბალავარისი" (“Translation//Commentaries of Balavari”). It is the same type of title as the one mentioned beside it – “თარგმანებაჲ (commentaries) of John's Holy Gospel” by John Crysostom. Iovane says that the Commentary of Balavari was written by Euthymius and himself. We can also propose that Iovane is vaguely hinting at a new literary style at that time, i.e. rewriting (metaphrasing) of Balavari [20, pp. 277-78]. Secondly, in another version of the Colophon, which is preserved in earlier Athonite manuscripts (namely, Ath. 10, Ath. 136), in addition to the first version, 6 other works translated by Euthymius are named. In these versions, the list of translated works of Euthymius is complete, and Balavari is removed because it was mistakenly considered among the works translated from Greek into Georgian. Based on the above, I think that the version preserved in the above-mentioned Athonite manuscripts of Iovane's Colophon were later reworked while the version preserved in the Kutaisi manuscript must be the original.

This kind of revision of this Colophon could probably take place in the theological circle of the Georgians in Athos, and maybe under the supervision of Euthymius. Only there was it possible to understand that on Iovane's list there was no place for the work created by Euthymius by reworking the Georgian Balavari, into Greek. That's why along with the removal of the Balavari from this list, other works were added to it, translated by Euthymius from Georgian, which Euthymius either translated after writing the Colophon, or Iovane missed (he did not name) them. This Colophon appears in such, reworked version in the Athos N10 manuscript, which is dated 1002. At this time, Euthymius is already the main authority in the theo­logical-literary circle of Iviron. It is clear that he was interested in the reworking of the Colophon. A manuscript of John Chrysostom’s Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, copied in 1008 during the lifetime of Euthymius and ordered by him, has been preserved – Ath. 13. From the Colophon included in this manuscript, “Part II, the section where Iovane speaks about the merits of Euthymius and names the books translated by Euthymius is removed” [9, p. 97]. The version referred to Balavari is earlier than the other versions. This is indicated by the preserved date in this manuscript (Kutaisi N20) – 1002, which indicates either the completion of the translation Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew by Euthymius or the time of the writing of the manuscript from which the MS preserved in the Kutaisi originates. In Ath. 10, which is considered to be the earliest extant manuscript containing these works, this note is no longer being read.^[5] Therefore, we can conclude that at the beginning of the 11^th century, it is indicated in the old Georgian sources that Euthymius the Athonite was already working on the creation of the Barlaam-romance [20, p. 221].

About the creation of Barlaam-romance. The findings from the discussion of this issue are not sufficient to date the creation of Greek Barlaam by Euthymius. Nor can we support the assumption that Euthymius’ Balavari had already been translated by the beginning of the 980s, and Symeon Logothetes used it in his Menologion, as R. Volk believed. We should not solve the issue so easily that Eu­thymius somehow came across metaphrastic texts and decided to translate Balavari with their help [17, p. 6]. My view regarding the creation of Greek Barlaam for European scientific circles was known at the end of the previous century. It was published as an abstract in the Materials of the XIX International Congress of Byzantine studies in Copenhagen in 1996 [19]; and as an article in Rome, in the magazine Orientalia Cristiana Periodica, in 1997 [18]. In 2000 it was delivered at the International Conference in St. Petersburg and published in its Materials [32]. This point of view was also presented in 2011 at the 22nd International Congress of Byzantine studies in Sofia [21].

The creation of the Greek Story of the Barlaam and Ioasaph cannot be considered a random circumstance, a creative act of the author's personal interest. It seems that the idea of popularizing the work has a lot of support from the very beginning. The work created approximately during the last decades of the 10th century have been preserved in dozens of manuscripts since the beginning of the 11^th and later in the same century. In the same century, it was translated into Latin twice, probably into Russian and Arabic too. While Barlaam andIoasaph were not Saints of the Greek Church at this time. Their canonization appears in the Calendar of the Byzantine Church a whole century later. I think that there must have been a need and a reason for the emergence of such hagiographical works in the socio-political and religious life of Byzantium during the period of creation of the works. In my opinion, the thematic and ideological framework and outline of the Barlaam novel indicate this reason and need. This is not only a presentation of the merits and spiritual exaltation of two believers but also the conversion to Christianity of a pagan country that surpasses it, the condemnation of pa­ganism, the apology of Christianity and the demonstration of the progress of a Christianized country. [18, p. 499].

Propagation of this ideology was on the agenda for the Byzantine state and church throughout the tenth century, and it became a vital interest in the last two decades of the same century. It was a matter of Christianization of the pagan Russ and all the northern Slavs – Bulgarians, Serbs. From the second half of the 9^th century, one of the main directions of the foreign policy of the Byzantine Empire was the conversion of the pagan peoples living in the north to Christianity. Historical sources about Byzantine emperors clearly state this [18, pp. 500-501]: Nikephoros I (802-811), Basil I (867-886), Constantine Porphy­rogenet (913-959), Romanos I (920-944), Nikephoros II (963-969), John I - Tzimisces (969-976), Basil II (976-1025) [27, pp. 322-325]. The last wrathful emperor of these lists Basil II finished the conversion of the Bulgarians to Christianity and unified the empire with fire and sword. Previously, the diplomacy of the Royal court and the Patriarchate made Russia a long-term friend of Byzantium, through the conversion of the Russian chief Vladimir. In 986, the great commander of the Empire rebelled against the Royal court, and a large army of the Southern provinces marched against the Capital. The Emperor asked Vladimir, the young chief of Kyiev Russ, for help. The diplomatic plan was such: Vladimir was to send an army of 6,000 to help Emperor Basil, and then, if Vladimir converted his people to Christianity and baptized them, He would be allowed to marry the emperor's young sister, Anna. The negotiations were performed after some contradictions and complications. Princess Anne was sent to Russia as a queen, with a large body of priests to baptize the Royal court and the people. It was in 988 or 989. This is the time when the Byzantine Royal court and the Patriarchate of Constantinople needed a condemnation of paganism, an apologue for the new religion, a simple and attractive in­terpretation of the main postulates of the faith, and the narration of an attractive story of the young king's establishment of happiness through the Christianization of the country. This mission is served by the brilliant theological novel by Euthymius the Athonite in Greek – Edifying History of Barlaam and Iosaph.

The main ideological centre supporting the Royal court of Byzantium was the monastic corporation of Athos and its spiritual leader, Athanasius the Great. The main intellectual support of Athanasius was the educated group of Athonite Georgians (according to the will of Athanasius, after him the spiritual leader of the entire monastic corporation of Mount Athos was the head of the Georgian brotherhood Iovane, and after his death, his son Euthymius). The Georgians of Iviron were also directly connected with the interests of the Royal court (in order to defeat the rebelling Byzantine chieftain in 976, the Royal court sent Georgian monk Iovane-Tornike from Athos to seek help from the Georgian Kingdom). Therefore, it is not surprising that the Georgian intellectuals of Iviron were interested in the problems that were very relevant for the Byzantine Royal court and the Church.

The material facts that have reached us seem to indicate that the chronology of the creation and distribution of the Greek Barlaam is related to the era of the Christianization of the Kyiev Russ. These are Greek manuscripts of that work, some of which date back to the end of the 10^th century or the beginning of the 11^th century. This probably indicates the creation of the work at the end of the last two decades of the 10^th century. This period can also be as­sumed as the date of the writing of the ‘’Translation of Balavari” by Euthymius, discussed above, in the Colophon of Iovane of Athonite. In the Iovane's Colophon a kind of chronological sequence can be seen in the list of Euthymius's translations. The first three works named here were already translated by Euthymius in the early 980s [5, pp. 198-204]. And the Balavari is named in the fifth place in this list. It is very important that the very old trace of the Story of Barlaam and Ioasaph appears in Russian literature. The old Russian translation of the excerpts and parables of this work is included in the ancient Russian Christological collection – Prologue [31, pp. 70-89]. It is believed that the Russian translation of Barlaam is made directly from the Greek language into Russian in Kyiv no later than the first half of the 12^th century. The Serbian and Bulgarian translations of the work made in the XIII-XIV centuries comes from Athos [31, p. 107]. Russian manuscripts of Barlaam and Ioasaph’s, in full or fragmented, reach 1000 copies [30, p. 246]. An oldest Greek dated manuscript of Barlaam, written in 1021, during the life of Euthymius, is still kept in the Kiev Museum.

In conclusion, according to my point of view the creation of Greek Barlaam-romance, should be dated to about the last two decades of the X century and must be inspired by the idea of the Christianisation of the North Gentile neighbours, Russians and Slavs in general, by Byzantine Royal court and the Byzantine Church. This view is committed from the end of the first decade of the 21^st century in European Byzantinist works. In 2013, a dissertation of A. Ribas about Barlaam-romance was published in Portugal. One of the main theses of this dissertation is that the creation of this work should be related to the Christianisation of North Gentile Slavs by the Byzantine Empire. In 2011, at the 22^nd Congress of Byzantinists, after sending the thesis of my report, I re­ceived a letter from the well-known Barlaam researcher I. Grossmann, accompanied by his research published in 2009 (referred to above) on the interrelation of the texts of Barlaam and Menologion. I would like to bring this short letter to the full form:

Jannis Grossmann <jannis.grossmann@gmx.at>

To:khintibidze@yahoo.com Fri, May 13, 2011 at 1:16 PM

“Dear Prof. Khintibidze, I saw today that you will have a communication in Sofia on the story of Barlaam and Ioasaph. If you do not mind, I would like to send you my article on the Barlaam story published last year in Vienna. I hope this might be useful for you. Unfortunately, I came across your article published in OCP (Orientalia Cristiana Periodica – E.Kh.) after I finished my article for publication, so I could not cite it any more. However, I am glad that you agree with my dating at the end of the 10th c. for the creation of the Barlaam, though I have a different approach. In my article I try to show that the Barlaam is citing the Metaphrastes Menologion and not vice verca as Volk believed. What is not clear in my article and I plan to publish it in another, is that I believe that Euthymios the Athonite made the translation of the Balavariani, and that this translation was used by another writer who produced the Barlaam story. Since I do not know Georgian and I do not think that I will learn it once, I think a study of the Georgian Balavariani and the parallel Greek passages of the Barlaam could reveal new aspects of the composition of the latter. Sincerely, Ioannis Grossmann”

I. Grossman's study convincingly proves that R. Volk's point of view on the relationship between Barlaam and Me­nologion is not credible. Grossman cites extracts from Volk's study, confirming the similarity of some passages from Barlaam, Menologion and the pre-metaprastic Lives of some Saints. According to Grossmann’s conclusion, contrary to Volk's view, Barlaam derives from Menologion. And the latter – from the previous metaphrastic Lives. Grossman's opinion that theEuthymius translation of Balavari was later reworked by an unknown author into Barlaam is a repetition of the previously expressed assumption, which is not based on any argument and is also probably incorrect at the level of facts known today. Neither the Georgian nor the Greek sources show any reference to the reworking of Euthymius's translated Balavari by someone. On the other hand, it is unlikely that Euthymius, who, during this period was the spiritual leader of the entire monastic corporation of Athos, and was mainly engaged in literary activities in the last decade of his life, would have commissioned his Barlaam-romance to be edited by someone else. 

About Ioane (John) from the Lemma of Barlaam. The solution to the problematic issues of the Greek Barlaam with “light” assumptions was characteristic mainly of the research of the first half of the previous century. One of them was to clarify the question of the authorship of the Story by establishing the identity of the monk of the monastery of Saint Sabba Ioane (διὰ Ἰωάννου μοναχοῦ), who brought this story to the Holy City, outlined in the so-called Barlaam's Lemma. As is known, the ancient Greek manuscripts of Barlaam-romance begin with a long title or the so-called Lemma. One of the versions of this Lemma, which, in my opinion, according to Zotenberg's and Dölger's point of view, must be the original one, reads as follows: "An edifying story from the inner land of the Ethi­opians, called the land of the Indians, thence brought to the Holy City by John the monk (an honorable man and a virtuous, of the monastery of Saint Sabas)" (English Translation by G. R. Woodward and H. Mattingly). It is this Ioane (John) from the lavra of St. Sabba whose identity is specified in ancient manuscripts as John of Sinai, John of Tabennisi, or mainly John of Damascus. Based on the same Ioane from Lemma, some research has suggested the anonymous Ioane of the 6^th century (H. Zotenberg), or Ioane the Ethiopian traveller of the 9^th century (A. Kazdan), as the author of Barlaam. Such assumptions are certainly non-scientific, and the already passed stage of the issue of research. Subsequent studies were based on the discovery of facts hinting at Barlaam in Byzantine sources (P. Peeters); the search for sources of theological passages that take place in the Eastern narrative of Balavari (F. Dölger, R. Volk); connection of the plot of the Greek Barlaam with earlier oriental (Arabic and Georgian) works of the same plot (D. Gimaret, E. Khintibidze). By itself, the identity of Ioane, who brought the story (or book) to the Holy City, as mentioned in the Lemma, is certainly interesting (another thing is that it is unscientific to identify the author of the narrative by such assumptions). The reference to the narrator or the “bearer” of some books or stories is characteristic of medieval writing, which does not indicate real facts in any case. For example, the same kind of reference is the most popular version of the Georgian Balavari – The Wisdom of Balavari [1, p. 4]. This basis may be found in Peeters’ assumption that Ioane from Lemma is fictional, not a real person. This assumption is shared by R. Volk [28, p. 85]. Høgel considers the assumption to be a solution to the issue [17, p. 354]. For the last decades of the previous century, the view of considering Euthymius as the author of Barlaam became relevant. It is therefore natural that the search for the identity of the monk Ioane, who brought the Indian narra­tive to the Holy City, must have begun in the Iviron documents. That’s why I mentioned the three Iovane, active figures in the cultural-literary centre of Iviron: Iovane the Athonite, Iovane-Tornike, and Iovane of Golgotha [10, p. 7]. I paid special attention to Iovane-Tornike [20, pp. 219-220]. My assumption, as a specific view on this matter, is referred to in European Byzantine studies [28, p. 85]. I modestly referred to this assumption. I justified the authorship of Euthymius and thought that it would be unscientific to name an opinion based on assumptions as an argument. Today, when the fact that Euthymius translated Balavari into Greek is no longer in doubt, I will try to present my assumption in a clearer and more precise way.

Let's start by saying that when studying the problems of Barlaam's Lemma, in my opinion, we should pay special attention to the beginning of the Story ("Prologue" and "Introduction"), where the author talks about himself and also, about the details of the creation of the works too. These details lead us to the monastic corporation of Athos and specifically to the lavra of Iviron. The name of the person who brought the Story is specified in the Lemma as Ioane. The author introduces to the Greek reader India of the narrative brought to him as Ethiopia. In my opinion, this confusion also leads to Euthymius. In the translations of the Eastern languages of the Holy Scriptures (Syrian, Armenian, Georgian), the ‘’Ethiopian Queen” in the Apostles was transferred to the “Queen of India”. Euthymius translated Greek proper names and terms into Georgian on the basis of Biblical texts. Euthymius is the translator of these texts [18, pp. 493-496]. The connection between Barlaam's lemma (title) and “Prologue” is evident in specific details: “an edifying story”, "the inner country of Ethiopia, so-called Indians”, and the reference to the bearer of the story (in one case to the Holy City, in the other – to the author). The title (lemma) says that this is an edifying story coming from India brought to the Holy City by the monk John (Ioane) of the monastery of Saint Saba. And in the “Prologue” the author mentions that he cannot ignore the story which was brought to him by devout men.

More importantly, according to the Lemma, the bearer of a Story in the Holy City seems to be decorated with the epithets of a secular man: “honourable and virtuous (val­iant, famous) man” (ἀνδρὸς τιμίου καὶ ἐναρέτου)^[6]. From the point of view of medieval monastic life, such a presentation of a monk is unexpected (let's remember medieval Georgian monks: Ephrem Mtsire, Iovane Minchkhi, Mikael Modrekili, Tsodvili Iordane). On Mount Athos, the bearer of books, news, and other great wealth from the East is Iovane-Tornike. He was decorated by his contemporaries with all such secular honours and he did not forget him as a monk for a long time. This is especially pointed out by the narrator of his life St. Giorgi the Athonite. He refers to Iovane-Tornike with the same epithets: “განთქმულმან და საჩინომან კაცმან“ – ‘’honorable and famous man“ [2. p. 50]. In his Colophon attached to the book Samotkhe (Ivir. Geo. 9), Iovane-Tornike, in his prayer to God honorable, mentions his secular titles given to him by the Kings [3, p. 47]. These are the words of the Athonite monk, the former famous Georgian general, who had the great title of Patrick from the Royal court of Byzantium, and after the defeat of the rebel Bardas Skleros, the Kings also gave him the honour of Synkellos. Iovane-Tornike was always men­tioned with secular honours not only on Mount Athos but also in Georgian monastic circles. He ordered and acquired the greatest treasure of Georgian monastic culture – the Athos Bible, copied under his leadership in Oshki. This huge book has several scribes who make notes at the end of each book of the Bible, blessing Iovane-Tornike by noting his secular honorary titles (Ivir. Geo. 1, 117v, 148r, 220v, 271v, 397r). 

Lemma’s Ioane (John) – monk of St. Sabbas monastery. The Greek Barlaam's lemma hides another mysterious fact. Iovane, the “honorable and virtuous” man who brought the “edifying story” to the Holy City, is presented as “the monk of the Saint Sabba Monastery”. There is no indication in Georgian sources whether Iovane-Tornike ever visited Jerusalem and the famous Saint Sabba monastery.

Today, almost all Byzantine studies scholars consider that Euthymius translated the Balavari from Georgian into Greek. As I stated above, monk Ioane who brought this Story to the Holy City was Iovane-Tornike. Based on these postulates, I would like to present one modest assumption. The Athos monk Iovane, the former famous commander of the Georgian kingdom of Tao-Klarjeti, left the Holy Mount in 976 to help the young Greek kings and went to the East to battle against the rebellious Barda Skleros. He returned to Athos in 979, after Skleros’ defeat. Throughout this time, he remains a monk in the name of Iovane-Tornike and has close contact with the Tao-Klarjeti great Georgian monastery complex. During this period, Georgian sources show the connection of Iovane-Tornike mainly with the great Georgian monastic cultural centre of Oshki. The two-volume Georgian Bible transcribed in Oshki in 978 by or­der of Iovane-Tornike is currently kept in the Georgian library of Iviron. This was the period when Iovane-Tornike was in the East, from where he brought to Athos a large amount of wealth and also many monks [2, p. 2 99]. The Samotkhe mentioned above, in which the Iovane-Tornike’s Colophon is included, was also ordered and copied in Oshki and purchased by him. In the Colophon he speaks about himself (Ivir. Geo. 9, 377v): “I, Iovane former Tornike, and my brother, Iovane Varazvache... purchased and wrote this Holy book...”. Thus ends the Colophon of Iovane-Tornike: “This holy book was written in the Great Oshki, in the place of the Holy Baptist, when Saba was the Head (Abbot) of the monastery, Christ blessed him!” [3, p. 47]. The Athos Bible was also written in the same Lavra, which is indicated by one of the scribes in exactly the same words: “This holy book was written in the Lavra Great Oshki, in the dwelling of the Holy Baptist” (Ivir. Geo 1, 213v). The Bible and Samotkhe were copied in 978 and 977in the Oshki monastery during the leadership of Saba (Saba was the Abbot of the monastery). A year later (979-980), in the same place, on the orders of Ivane Tornike, another theological book was rewritten ("Sermon de Cosmas le Skeuophylax sur la translation des reliques de saint Jean Chrysostome..." – Ivir. Geo. 3). The scribe begins his Colophon by mentioning the names of the persons who ordered the copy of the book and ends by referring to the place where the book was copied (6, p. 29): “This holy book was written in the Great Lavra Oshki, in the place of the Holy and Great Baptist, when the Saint Father Saba was the Head (Abbot), may God be glorified...” (Ivir. Geo. 3,141v). Apparently, in his native monastery, the Abbot of Oshki was called “Saint Father Saba”. In 979, Iovane-Tornike returns to Athos with books, including his own Colophons, and copied by his order in Oshki, when Saba was the Abbot. And it is natural that on Athos he was called “monk of the Saint Saba Monastery”. It is expected that the book brought to the Georgian Lavra of Athos by Iovane-Tornike, a monk from Oshki monastery during the time of the hierarchy of Saint Saba, would probably be named by the translator and the author (Euthymius) himself as the book brought by “the honorable and virtuous man, the monk of the Saint Sabba Monastery“. This is how it is men­tioned in the lemma (title) of almost all the ancient manuscripts of the Greek Barlaam: μονῆς τοῦ ἁγίου Σάββα (8, გვ. 224-6). Later on, naturally, in the minds of Greek and Latin scribes, "the monk of St. Sabba Monastery" was perceived as a monk of the Great Laura of Saint Sabbas (Mar Saba) due to the great popularity of this famous monastery. The scribes and commentators of the Middle Ages also changed the Georgian monk of Iviron Iovane to John (Ioane) of Damascus or John (Ioane) of Sinai, also because of the great popularity of the latter.

We also need to focus on one fact. As I mentioned above, according to Barlaam-romance's  lemma, the bearer of the Story in the Holy City was “the monk of the Saint Sabba Monastery” (Ἰωάννου μοναχοῦ .... μονῆς τοῦ ἁγίου Σάββα). Are these words a typical reference to the famous monastery complex of St. Sabbas near Jerusalem? Of course, Greek and Latin scribes of the Middle Ages, as well as Byzantine studies scholars, could take these words as a reference to the famous monastery of St. Sabbas near Jerusalem. But it is unlikely that the author of Barlaam if he considered the bearer of the Story a monk of the great and famous Sabba Lavra, would call him that. The fact is that the great Palestinian ascetic of the 5th-6th centuries, Sabba, inherited the name “Sanctified” (ἁγιασμένος) and was called that way both in the Middle Ages and later. "Blessed" (ὅσιος) is established as an epithet of his spiritual height in most cases, both in medieval sources and in later ones. This is how he is named in the Georgian translation of the 8th century of the ancient version of his Life by Cyril of Scythopolis; and in the late metaphrastic Greek version of the same work: Βίος καὶ πολιτεία τοῦ ὁσίου πατρὸς ἡμῶν Σάββα. Both in this ancient source of his Life, and in the established tradition, the ascetic abode of Sabba (like oth­ers under his care) is called a "laura" (Λαῦρα), and not a monastery. While in the old Georgian translation of his Life other houses of ascetics are more often referred to as "monasteries". That is why the largest monastery complex of St. Sabba (Mar Saba) is mentioned in both old Greek and modern Greek sources as The Laura of Blessed Sabba the Sanctified – ἡ Λαύρα τοῦ ὁσίου Σάββα ἁγιασμένου (Ἱερὰ Λαύρα τοῦ Ὁσίου Σάββα τοῦ Ἡγιασμένου). So, the “honourable and famous man" of the lemma of the Barlaam-romance, monk Ioane (John) , is not a monk of the Laura of the Blessed Sabba the Sanctified, but a monk of some monastery, the abbot of which is Saint Saba (Ἰωάννου μοναχοῦ .... μονῆς τοῦ ἁγίου Σάββα).

Let's return to the creative activity of Eutymius. A long process of research of Greek Barlaam, predominantly the relations revealed by Falk's editorship with the Symeon Logothets’ Menologion and I. Grossman's clarification of this relationship (Barlaam's text is based on the Menologion and not the other way around) revealed Euthymius' creative style as a writer and translator and the importance of his work not only in the process of Georgian but also in Byzantine literature. According to Høgel, “Euthymius, by admitting that he metaphrasted countless Greek-Georgian translations and the great Georgian-Greek translation, Barlaam, can really be called a metaphrast” ... “Euthymius’ literary importance comes with the influence of Georgians not only on the life of Mount Athos but on the intellectual life in Byzantium. Not only did the story of Barlaam and loasaph become a widely read text, but the Georgian influence on bringing the Metaphrastic text to success seems to have been extensive” [17, p. 364]. It is not new for the studies of Georgian scholars to reveal that the Story of Barlaam and Ioasaph is a metaphrastic work. This provision also originates from Kekelidze's research. As I mentioned above, he thought that Euthymius trans­lated Balavari from Georgian into Greek, and then this translation was probably metaphrased by Symeon Logothetes; according to European researchers – by one of Symeon's disciples. My study “The Greek romance of Barlaam and Ioasaph: a metaphrastic hagiographic work” was first published in the 70s of the last century and was subsequently included in my Georgian, Russian and English monographs under the same title [20, pp. 269-279]. It is an important innovation to discover that Euthymius in the Greek Barlaam makes very extensive use of individual phrases or passages from Symeon's Metaphrastic Menologion to supplement narrative or statements that came from Balavari and biblical or patristic literature. Høgel notes that this is similar to Symeon's metaphrastic style. In addition to the primary source (which he sometimes reworked), Symeon also used other secondary literature to fill the text with additional information. And Euthymius uses sections of metaphrastic texts not for the purpose of additional information, but directly, ready and useful phrases which serve to present the opinion or statement more clearly. Along with this, attention is also paid to the fact that Euthymius translates a number of metaphrastic-hagiographic texts from Symeon's Menologion into Georgian. Høgel concludes that Euthymius’ literary style is metaphrastic, but different from the style of Symeon Metaphrastes. That's why he asks the question: can Euthymius be called a metaphrast, which was written like this by adding a question mark in the title of the essay: “Euthymios the Athonite Greek – Georgian and Georgian – Greek translator and metaprast?” Yes! As it turns out, Euthymius’ literary style emerged from the lit­erary work of Symeon Metaphrastes. In my opinion, we can also assume that Euthymius is one of Symeon's disciples and not just a follower. It is also possible that he (as a good connoisseur of the Greek language and Royal etiquette) was in Constantinople not for a short time in the early 80s of the 10^th century and had a relationship with the great official of the Royal court, Symeon Logothetes. At that time, it was necessary to have a close contact with the Royal court of the Georgian brotherhood of Athos in order to sign the proper deeds of the great Royal donation to Iovane-Tornike and to agree on the permission for the construction of Iviron. This assumption can be confirmed by the research of the historical documents of the Byzantine Royal court at that time. This is indicated by the amazing loyalty and efforts to save the Menologion of Symeon Metaphrastes, which the Athonite scribes showed during the epitrophate of Euthymius.

At the same time, I think it would not be correct to refer to Euthymius the Athonite, like Symeon Logothetes, by the name of Metaphrast. The fact is that the term metaphrast has been established in the scholarly literature as the name of one direction of the hagiographic genre (Cymenian, Metaphrastical, Svinaksar). With his style (omission-addition style) Euthymius translates not only hagiographic works from Greek, but also almost all other – dogmatic, canonical, exegetical... texts. He not only adds facts or passages from other works, but also shortens them and, moreover, often explains individual details for the Georgian readers. That's why we have to take into account Eprem Mtsire's assessment: our Holy Father Euthymius omits and adds while translated Greek texts.

The other thing is that Euthymius the Athonite was a continuator of the metaprastic activity and, as it turned out, he was also a defender and survivor of the great literary heritage of Symeon Logothetes. Symeon Logothetes' metaphrastic activity probably ceased by 984, during the reign of Basil II, and he left the Royal court. His Menologion was not fully tolerated in the spiritual circles. A new study indicates that it was through the efforts of Mount Athos and, in particular, the monastic circle of Iviron that Menologion was rewritten in many ways in the first decades of the 11^th century. And these are the years when the spiritual leader of the entire monastic corporation of Athos was Euthymius the Athonite. I think this circumstance also indicates Euthymius’ personal loyalty and respect for the person of Symeon Logothet. “It seems that the Georgian influence on bringing the Meta­phrastic text to success seems to have been extensive, even if it is difficult to assess the exact nature of the Iviron ̓s dedication to the Metaphrastic enterprise through production of Greek manuscripts containing Metaphrastic texts, translations of these into Georgian, and recirculation of the same in the form of text bits in the Barlaam. But Euthymios and others at the Iviron certainly cherished these texts” [17, p. 364].

Bibliography

1. Balavariani. The Georgian versions of the Story of Barlaam and Ioasaph. (Ed. By I. Abuladze),Tbilisi 1957. [ბალავარიანის ქართული რედაქციები (ილ. აბულაძის გამოცემა). თბ. 1957]
2. 2.    Giorgi the Athonite, “The life of Iovane and Euthymius”: Monuments of old Georgian Hagiographic Lirerature, Tbilisi 1967, pp.38-100 [გიორგი მთაწმიდელი, “ცხოვრება იოვანესი და ეფთჳმესი“: ძველი ქართული აგიოგრაფიული ლიტერატურის ძეგლები, II, თბ. 1967].
3. Iovane-Tornike, Colophon on the book Samotkhe: De­scription of the Georgian manuscripts. Athonite collection, I. “Metsniereba” Tb. 1986 [იოვანე-თორნიკეს ანდერძი წიგნზე “სამოთხე“: ქართულ ხელნაწერთა აღწერილობა, ათონური კოლექცია I, “მეცნიერება“, თბ. 1986].
4. Kekelidze, K., The Romans of “Barlaam and Ioasaph” In Cristian literature. In: Etudes in the History of old Georgian literature, VI, pp. 41-71, Tb. 1960. [კეკელიძე კ., „ბალავარიანის რომანი ქრისტიანულ მწერლობაში“: ეტიუდები ძველი ქართული ლიტერატურის ისტორიიდან, VI, თბ. 1960]
5. Kekelidze, K., History of Georgian literature, vol. I, Tb. 1960. [კეკელიძე კ., ქართული ლიტერატურის ისტორია, ტ. I, თბ. 1960].
6. 6. Description of Georgian manuscripts (Athonian collecti on, I). Edited by E. Metreveli. Tb., "Metcniereba" 1986. [ქართულ ხელნაწერთა აღწერილობა (ათონური კოლექცია, I), ელ. მეტრეველის რედაქციით. თბ., „მეცნიერება“ 1986]
7. Description of the manuscripts of the Kutaisi State Historical Museum, (Ed. E. Nikoladze) Tb., 1953 [ქუთაისის სახელმწიფო ისტორიული მუზეუმის ხელნაწერთა აღწერილობა, ტ. I, (შემდგენელი ე. ნიკოლაძე).  თბ. 1953]
8. 8.    Qaukhchishvili, S., History of Greek literature, vol. III, Tb. 1973 [ყაუხჩიშვილი ს., ბერძნული ლიტერატურის ისტორია, ტ. III, თბ. 1973].
9. Tskitishvili T., Tvaltvadze D., ‘’On the observation of the text attached to the Commentares of John's Holy Gospel by John Crysostom”: Studies of Tbilisi State University’s chair of the old Georgian language, vol. 30. Tb., 2001, pp. 95-114. [ცქიტიშვილი თ., თვალთვაძე დ., “იოანე ოქროპირის მათეს სახარების განმარტების ექვთიმე მთაწიდლისეულ ქართულ თარგმანზე დართული ტექსტისთვის“: თსუ ძველი ქართული ენის კათედრის შრომები, ტ. 30. თბ. 2001, გვ. 95-114]
10. Khintibidze E., “One more new assumption about the authorship of Barlaam and Ioasaph, mastership of me­dieval literature”: Matsne (language and Literature), Tb. 2003. [ხინთიბიძე ე., “კიდევ ერთი ახლებური თვალსაზრისი შუასაუკუნეების ევროპული ლიტერატურის შედევრის – ვარლაამ და იოასაფის ავტორობის საკითხზე“: მაცნე (ენისა და ლიტერატურის სერია), თბ. 2003]
11. 11.     Beck H. G., Geschichte der byzantinischen Volksliteratur, München 1971.
12. Blake R., Catalogue des manuscrits géorgiens de la Bibliothèque de la Laure d'Iviron au Mont Athos. Revue de l'Orient Chrétien, XXVIII, 3-4, 1931-32, pp. 289-361.
13. Dölger F, Der griechische Barlaam-Roman ein Werk des H. Johannes von Damaskos, Ettal, 1953.
14. Grossmann J. K., “Die Abhängigkeit der Vita des Barlaam und Ioasaph von Menologion des Symeon Meraphrastes”: Jahrbuch Österreichischen Byzantinistik. 59, 2009, pp.87-94.
15. Høgel C, “The Redaction of Symeon Metaphrastes: Literary aspects of the Metaphrastic martyria”: C. Høgel (ed.) Metaphrasis: Redactions and Audiences in Middle Byzantine Hagiography. Oslo: Research Covncil of Norway, 1996, pp.7-22.
16. Høgel C, Symeon Metaphrastes: Rewriting and Canonization. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 2002
17. Høgel C., “Euthymios the Athonite, Greek-Georgian and Georgian-Greek Translator - and Metaphrast?”: Mélanges Bernard Flusinéd. par A. Binggeli &V. Dé­roche (travaux et mémoires 23/1), Paris 2019, 353-364.
18. Khintibidze E., “New Materials on the Origin of Barlaam and Ioasaph”: Orientalia Christiana Periodica, V, 63, II, Roma 1997, pp. 491-501.
19. Khintibidze E., “The Creation of the Byzantine Version of Barlaam and Ioasaph and Christianisation of the Rus”: XIX International Congress of Byzantine Studies. Copenhagen 1996. (Theses).
20. 20.     Khintibidze E., Georgian-Byzantine Literary Contacts, Amsterdam 1996.
21. Khintibidze E., Mount Athos: the origin of the Edifying Story of Barlaam and Ioasaph and its connection with the Slavonic World: 22nd International Congress of Byzantine Studies, 2011 Sofia. (Theses).
22. 22.     Lang D. M., “Introduction”, [St. John Damascene],Barlaam and Ioasaph Romance (with an English Translation by the Rev. G. R. Woodward and H. Mattingly. Introduction by D. M. Lang). London, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Harvard University Press, 1967.
23. Lunde, Ingunn, [Review of Høgel's monograph]: Rhetorical Review 1,2; October 2003 (http://www.nnrh.dk/RR/index.html).
24. Peeters P., “La première traduction latine de Barlaam et Joasaph et son original grec”: Analecta Bollandiana, t. XLIX, Fasc. III et IV, Bruxelles, Paris 1931, pp.276-312.
25. Rabbow P.,“Die Legende des Martinian”, WST, 17, 1895.
26. Ribas A. A., A construção da lenda de Barlaão e Josafá: Um estudo do processo de elaboração Hagiográfica em Bizâncio (séculos X-XI). Dissertation, Federal Univer­sity of Paraná, 2013.
27. Vasilev A. A., History of the Byzantine Empire, v. I. Madison 1958.
28. Volk R., Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos. 6/1, Historia animae utilis de Barlaam et loasaph (Spuria). Berlin, New York, 2009.
29. Volk R., Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos. 6/2, Historia animae utilis de Barlaam et loasaph (Spuria). Text und zehn Appendices.  Berlin, New York, 2006.
30. Лебедева И. Н., «О древнерусском переводе Повести о Варлааме и Иоасафе»: ДревнерусскиеЛитературныепамятники, Л. 1979
31. Лебедева И. Н., «Предисловие»: ПовестьоВарлаамеиИоасафе (Издание И. Н. Лебедевой). Л. 1985.
32. Хинтибидзе Э. Г., «Крещение Руси и шедевр Грузинскo-Византийского Литературного Сотрудни­чества»: Verbum, выпуск 3, Санкт-Петербург 2000, стр. 142-147.