Elguja Khintibidze

Recent News on the Creation of the Greek History of Barlaam and Ioasaph

The Spiritual History of Barlaam and Joasaph, which was translated multiple times from Greek during the late Middle Ages, became extremely popular among all European peoples until the Renaissance. However, this popularity created numerous challenges for Greek and Latin copyists starting from the 12th century, as well as Byzantine scholars up to the 19th century. The issues of the origin and authorship of the works turned out to be particularly interesting. By now, almost all European researchers believe that the author is Saint Euthimius the Athonite and the Barlaam-romance was reworked from the Georgian Balavarian.

In favor of this conclusion, the final point in the argumentation of Georgian studies scholars was put by the two-volume Historia animae utilis de Barlaam et Ioasaph, published by the Byzantine Institute of the Abbey of Scheyern, in the first decade of the 21^st century [28;29].

Despite great progress in studying the problems of the Byzantine Barlaam-romance, many questions are still posed and interpreted differently, sometimes in unqualified ways. One of the reasons for this situation is the insufficient study of Georgian primary sources. In the present paper,   I will consider several issues that, in my opinion, were important innovations both from the point of view of studying these works and from the point of view of my many years of research in this direction.

Colophon (Testament) of Iovanne the Athonite.  In connection with the problem of Barlaam, Byzantine studies scholars frequently mention Iovanne's (Euthymius Father's) Colophon about Euthymius translations. 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 [9]. In one passage of the Colophon Iovanne 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 fifth place. In the rest of the manuscripts (some of which are from the 11^th century), this title does not appear. In this context, Iovanne 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]. This context was understood in such a way that Iovanne 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). [ 13; 5; 24 ]. ]. I assumed that the list of Iovanne'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 Iovanne [20, p. 281].

1. It is not categorically stated in the Colophon that Iovanne lists only the books translated from Greek into Georgian by Euthymius. Iovanne 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]. Iovanne's words about ‘’they wrote the books” rather indicate that the following books were written by them (Euthymius and Iovanne), and not that Euthymius translated these books from Greek to the Georgian language.

2. Iovanne wrote this Colophon when he was very old and weak, which he repeatedly points out. Nevertheless, the very section of the Colophon, which is the subject of our interest, shows that Iovanne 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; they together wrote books as much as they could write. So, there are different facts: Iovanne's employment of his son to translate books from Greek into Georgian, and on the other hand, Euthymius and Iovanne's writing of books.

3. The 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 added the name  Balavari  to the list of the translation of Euthymius . I think this assumption is highly questionable. If Balavari's translation were an addition to this list, it would have been added at the bottom, and not in the fifth place.

4. In another version of the Colophon, which is preserved in Athonite manuscripts (Ath. 10, Ath. 136), in addition to the first version 6 other works translated by Euthymius are named and Balavari is removed. These manuscripts were copied during the period when Saint Euthymius was the abbot of the Georgian monastery on Athos. This fact suggests that the reworked version of this Colophon is the one in which the list of entries is filled in, and the Balavari is removed. Therefore, the version preserved in the Kutaisi manuscript must be the original.  

5. The version of Iovane's Colophon that mentions Balavari (Qt. 20) is earlier than other versions. This is indicated by the fact that the text of the Colophon preserved in this manuscript is accompanied by the date (1002) [7, p. 98]. In Ath.10, which is considered to be the earliest manuscript containing this work,  this Colophon is no longer read in its entirety. Moreover,  The copyist stopped copying the last sentence without finishing, [12, p.344]). It appears that the date from the manuscript was intentionally omitted.

About the creation of Barlaam-romance.  My view regarding the creation of Greek Barlaam for European scientific circles was known at the end of the previous century [19;18;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. 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 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 dangerous and unprognozable northern neighbor,  pagan Rus and all the northern Slavs – Bulgarians, Serbs [27, pp.322-325]. The wrathful emperor  Basil II (976-1025) finished the conversion of the Bulgarians to Christianity with fire and sword. Previously, the diplomacy of the Byzantine 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. The Emperor asked Vladimir, the young chief of Kyiev Russ, for help. Vladimir was to send an army of 6,000 to help Emperor Basil,  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 - the time when the Byzantine Royal court and the Patriarchate of Constantinople needed a condemnation of paganism, an apology for Christianity,  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 Greek theological novel The Edifying History of Barlaam and Iosaph.

The fact that Barlaam-Roman was created for missionary purposes is evidenced not only by the narrative part of the work (i.e., the attractive story of the Christianization of the country by the young king) but also by the author's reworking of the Georgian Balavariani. This is evident in the incorporation of quoted passages, sentences from the Bible, writings of the Saints, and hagiographic texts, particularly from the Monologion of Simeon Logothetes. This aspect was fully revealed in the critical edition of the Greek text of Barlaam-Roman [28;29]. This is the established style in the Byzantine theological literature: Christological wisdom should be expressed by the biblical word and by what was said by the holy fathers, not by the speaker himself.

The chronology of the creation and distribution of the Greek Barlaam-romance appears to be related to the era of the Christianization of Russia, as indicated by the material facts that have reached us. These include Greek manuscripts of the work, some of which date back to the beginning of the 11th century, if not the end of the 10th century. This period is considered the likely date of the writing of this story. The old trace of the Story of Barlaam appears in Russian literature. The 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 was made from the Greek language no later than the first half of the 12th century [31, p. 107]. Russian manuscripts of the Story, in full or fragmented, reach 1000 copies [30, p. 246]. The oldest Greek-dated manuscript of Barlaam, written in 1021, during the life of Euthymius, is still kept in the Kyiv Museum.

This perspective on the creation of Barlaam emerged in the essays of European Byzantine studies scholars from the end of the first decade of the 21st century. In 2013, an electronic version of A. Ribas's thesis was published in Portugal, wherein one of the main points of view is that the creation of the Greek Barlaam should be linked to the Christianization of the Slavs by the Byzantine Empire.      

About Ioann (John) from the Lemma of Barlaam. The solution to the problematic issue regarding the authorship of the Greek Barlaam was initially pursued by copyists and scholars in the first half of the previous century. They aimed to clarify the story by identifying the monk from the Monastery of Saint Sabba, Ioann (διὰ Ἰωάννου μοναχοῦ),, who conveyed this narrative to the Holy City, as detailed in what is known as Barlaam's 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 Ioann (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 Ioann from Lemma, some research has suggested the anonymous Ioann of the 6^th century (H. Zotenberg), or Ioann 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. By itself, the identity of Ioann, who brought the story (or book) to the Holy City, as mentioned in the Lemma, is certainly interesting. 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. But in this case, we have a different situation altogether. The Lemma provides us with numerous details about the bearer of the Story in the Holy City.

From my point of view, this Lemma and prologue of the story point us to the Iviron Monastery of Athos, especially to St. Euthymius. 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 Ioann, who brought the Indian narrative to the Holy City, must have begun in the Iviron documents. That’s why I mentioned the three Iovanne, active figures in the cultural-literary centre of Iviron: Iovanne the Athonite, Iovanne-Tornike, and Iovanne of Golgotha I paid special attention to Iovanne-Tornike [20, pp. 219-220]. I’ll 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 also  to the beginning of the Story (Prologue and Introduction), where the author talks about himself and, about the details of the creation of the works too.  The Prologue informs us that the story delivered to the author was in translated form: "Delivered unto me, translated from trustworthy records” ( ἐξ ὑπομνὴμάτων ταύτην ἀψευδῶν μεταφράσαντες).  More importantly, that 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). From the point of view of medieval monastic life, such a presentation of a monk is unexpected. On Mount Athos, the bearer of books ( Holly books translated in Georgian) and other great wealth from the East was Iovanne-Tornike. He was decorated by his contemporaries with all such secular honours. This is especially pointed out by the narrator of his life St. Giorgi the Athonite. He refers to Iovanne-Tornike with the same epithet as the monk Ioanne mentioned in the Lemma: ,,განთქმულმან და საჩინომან კაცმან“ – ‘’honorable and famous man“ [2. p. 50]. The Athonite monk Iovanne, the former famous Georgian general Tornike, did not forget his secular honars: he had the great title of Patrick from the Royal court of Byzantium, and after the defeat of the rebel Bardas Skleros, the Kings  gave him the honour of Synkellos. In his Colophon attached to the book Samotkhe ordered for coppy by him (Ivir. Geo. 9), Iovanne-Tornike, in his prayer to God, mentions his secular titles given to him by the Kings [3, p. 47]. Iovanne-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 Iovanne-Tornike by noting his secular honorary titles (Ivir. Geo. 1, 117v,148r, 220v,271v,397r).

Lemma’s Ioann (John) – monk of St. Sabbas monastery. The Greek Barlaam's lemma hides another mysterious fact. Iovanne, 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 Iovanne-Tornike ever visited Jerusalem and the famous Saint Sabba monastery.

Iovanne-Tornike, 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 Iovanne-Tornike and as Georgian sources show, has close contact with the Tao-Klarjeti great Georgian monastery complex of Oshki. He ordered very valuable sacred books to be copied, purchased and brought them to Athos. Iovanne-Tornike’s Colophon included in the Samotkhe (also ordered by him and copied in Oshki) ends as follows: “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  Samotkhe was copied in 977. A bit later in 979,  on the orders of Ivane Tornike, another theological book was rewritten in the same place ("Sermon de Cosmas le Skeuophylax sur la translation des reliques de saint Jean Chrysostome..." – Ivir. Geo. 3).  The scribe  ends his Colophon 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). It is natural that on Athos, where Iovanne-Tornike returned with books, including his own Colophons, and copied by his order in Oshki, when  “ Saint Father Saba” was the Abbot he was called “monk of the Saint Saba Monastery”.

“The monk of the Saint Sabba Monastery“- this is how the unknoun monk is mentioned in the Lemma 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 Saint 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.  

We also need to focus on one fact. 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). 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. 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. 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 Ioann, 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 Sabba (Ἰωάννου μοναχοῦ .... μονῆς τοῦ ἁγίου Σάββα). Such a monastery was the Georgian monastery of Oshki, famous for its literary activities, which was located in the homeland of Iovanne-Tornike - in the Tao-Klardzhet principality. In this monastery, theological books were copied under the leadership of Iovanne -Tornike, and from there they were brought to the holy Mount Athos by him - “the honorable man and a virtuous, monk of the monastery of Saint Sabba.”

Bibliography:

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. (G.)

5. Kekelidze, K., History of Georgian literature, vol. I, Tb. 1960. (G.)

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.

13.  Dölger F, Der griechische Barlaam-Roman ein Werk des H. Johannes von Damaskos, Ettal, 1953.

20.  Khintibidze E., Georgian-Byzantine Literary Contacts, Amsterdam 1996.

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.

7.  Description of the manuscripts of the Kutaisi State Historical Museum, (Ed. E. Nikoladze) Tb., 1953 (G.)

30. Лебедева И. Н., «О древнерусском переводе Повести о Варлааме и Иоасафе»: Древнерусские  Литературныепамятники, Л. 1979.

 31. Лебедева И. Н., «Предисловие»: ПовестьоВарлаамеиИоасафе (Издание И. Н. Лебедевой). Л. 1985.

27. Vasilev A. A., History of the Byzantine Empire, v. I. Madison 1958.

19. Khintibidze E., “New Materials on the Origin of Barlaam and Ioasaph”: Orientalia Christiana Periodica, V, 63, II, Roma 1997, pp. 491-501.

18. 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).

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).

2. Giorgi the Athonite, “The life of Iovanne and Euthymius”: Monuments of old Georgian Hagiographic Lirerature, Tbilisi 1967, pp.38-100. ( G.)

3. Iovanne-Tornike, Colophon on the book Samotkhe: Description of the Georgian manuscripts. Athonite collection, I. “Metsniereba” Tb. 1986 (G.).

6. Description of Georgian manuscripts (Athonian collecti on, I). Edited by E. Metreveli. Tb., "Metcniereba" 1986.

8. Qaukhchishvili, S., History of Greek literature, vol. III, Tb. 1973 (G.)

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.