OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Nov 11 2014, NEWGEN chapter 2 a new dat e - l i st of t h e works of max i mu s the c on fe s s or marek jankowiak and phil booth AQ: here are details of NeilAllen 2003 in FM, so should it be NeilAllen here rather than Allen-Neil? And does it need adding to Refs? If it is not the same as in FM, please give details The works of Maximus the Confessor were arranged chronologically by Polycarp Sherwood in 1952. This masterly work, based on an intimate knowledge of Maximus’ oeuvre, would have stood the test of time if the chronological framework on which it was based had not been significantly modified in the course of the last forty years. Sherwood based a significant part of his reasoning—in particular for the earlier works of Maximus—on a narrative of Maximus’ Constantinopolitan origins derived from his Greek hagiographic corpus, but this narrative has been progressively undermined, and instead the seventh-century Syriac Life has gradually come to be accepted as a crucial, and often strikingly accurate, source for the origins and life of Maximus, despite its polemical purpose and content (see Allen 2015). As a result of this revisionism, Sherwood’s chronological framework, as constructed on the basis of the Greek hagiographic corpus, has become obsolete, as too has the attempt to fit certain prosopographical and topographical details contained within Maximus’ own corpus (in particular in the Letters) into that same framework. At the same time, our understanding of the monoenergist and monothelite crises has been transformed by the publication of new editions, especially in the CCSG, and translations (e.g. Allen-Neil 1999; Allen-Neil 2003; Neil 2006; Allen 2009). These have allowed for a reconsideration of the chronology and context of crucial events (Jankowiak 2009), of the theological origins of monoenergist and monothelite doctrines (Uthemann 1997; Lange 2012), and of the wider ideological and political imperatives and contexts (esp. Brandes 1998; Ohme 2008; Booth 2013). There are, therefore, more than ample grounds for reconsidering the chronology of Maximus’ entire corpus. oxfordhb-9780199673834-part-1.indd 19 11/11/2014 4:37:11 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Nov 11 2014, NEWGEN 20 Marek Jankowiak and Phil Booth The Chronological Framework Our chronology of Maximus’ life is based upon the Syriac Life and on information that can be gleaned from his works or other contemporary sources describing his opposition to the imperial church. Maximus was born in 579/80 (RM, ed. Allen–Neil 1999: 47. 450) in Ḥeṣin in the Golan Heights (Syriac Life 1). he Syriac Life describes in detail his Palestinian background and childhood, until his entrance as a novice to the Palaia Laura—also known as the monastery of Chariton or Souka—in the Judean Desert at the age of 10 (Syriac Life 1–5). It is, however, silent about the next four decades of his life. When the narrative recommences (Syriac Life 6–7), Maximus has become the disciple of Sophronius, patriarch of Jerusalem from late 634 (cf. Epp. 8 and 13, where the relationship seems well established in 632–3). Sophronius was a Damascene and a Palestinian monk who, along with his spiritual master John Moschus, is known to have retreated at some point before 610 to Alexandria in the face of the advancing Persian troops, and there to have become active at the side of the Chalcedonian patriarch John the Almsgiver (Prologue to the Spiritual Meadow, with Booth 2013: 49–53). Maximus’ later correspondence reveals his acquaintance with several Alexandrians, and we might suppose that he too was there in this same period (Boudignon 2004: 15–22; see now also Add. 34). In 617/8, he met an African, Anastasius, who became his disciple and closest collaborator (RM 47. 453; Syriac Life 19). Anastasius was once the notarios of the grandmother of the emperor Constans II (DB, ed. Allen–Neil 1999: 141. 746–7), that is, either Fabia Eudocia, the wife of Emperor Heraclius until her death in 612, herself also of African origin, or perhaps the wife of Heraclius’ cousin Nicetas (Boudignon 2004: 31–4). Where the pair met we do not know—one can think of Africa or Alexandria—but at this stage Maximus was eminent enough an ascetic to acquire a former imperial notarios as his disciple. he itinerary of Maximus during the Persian war is uncertain. he letters that he wrote to several eastern correspondents in the summer of 632 speak of a barbarian threat that he had led, no doubt the Persian conquest of Palestine (614) and Egypt (619), accompanied by unrest among Arab tribes (see below on Epp. 8, 28, 30). By 632, however, he was certainly in North Africa, which had become the rallying point for refugees leeing the Persians, such as John Moschus, who is attested there around 630 (Spiritual Meadow 196, with Booth 2013: 110) and died in Rome in 634 or a little before (Prologue to the Spiritual Meadow, with Louth 1998), and Sophronius (Opusc. 12, 142A). If Maximus had earlier been in Alexandria, then he may have followed a similar westward route to Moschus and Sophronius, who are said to have visited ‘various islands’ in their light from the beleaguered eastern provinces.1 Indeed, Maximus counts amongst his later correspondents persons on Cyprus (Ep. 20, Opusc. 1, 7, 10, 19–20) and Crete (Ep. 21; cf. 1 Prologue to the Spiritual Meadow, with Epitome of the Life of John the Almsgiver 16 (Cyprus) and John Moschus, Spiritual Meadow 30 (Cyprus), 108 (Samos). oxfordhb-9780199673834-part-1.indd 20 11/11/2014 4:37:11 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Nov 11 2014, NEWGEN a new date-list of the works of maximus the confessor 21 Opusc. 3, 49C), and it is tempting to suppose that he encountered such persons as he travelled westward in this period. he Syriac Life (7–10) places Maximus back in Palestine around 634, counselling Sophronius, now patriarch of Jerusalem, in the early days of the controversy over the Chalcedonian union with the miaphysites of Egypt in June 633 (see Jankowiak 2009: 84–96; Booth 2013: 205–8). Condemned for his doctrine at the Council of Cyprus, which probably took place in 636 (Jankowiak 2009: 146–9), Maximus spent several years in relative isolation in the East (in Palestine?) before retreating again to North Africa (Syriac Life 11–18). From Maximus’ own corpus, we can place him in that province in November 641 (Ep. 12; and cf. Computus). Here he renewed the association of his circle with the prefect George (Epp. 1, 11–12, 18, 44–5, B). Ater George’s recall to Constantinople, in which Maximus seems to have played a role, the latter became associated with the patrician and general Gregory (DP [288A] and RM 17. 53–62). Having defeated the former patriarch of Constantinople, Pyrrhus, at a public debate in Carthage in July 645 (DP [288A]), Maximus then travelled to Rome (Syriac Life 19; cf. DP [353A], RM 21.105–16, Opusc. 9), where he co-organized the Lateran Council of October 649 and no doubt authored a signiicant part of its Acts (Riedinger 1982, 1985). He probably stayed in Rome at least until the arrest of Pope Martin in June 653; the precise circumstances of his own arrest are unknown, although it perhaps occurred at the same time (so heophanes, Chron. AM 6121). He was then put on trial in Constantinople in 655 and exiled to Bizya in hrace (RM). He resisted imperial overtures to secure his doctrinal approval in 656 and 658 (DB; Ep. ad Anast.), and perhaps became associated with the revolt of heodosius, the brother of the emperor Constans II, in 659/60 (Jankowiak 2009: 341–7). Condemned at a general council in 661 or 662,2 he was logged, mutilated and exiled to Lazica, where he died on 13 August 662. Dating the Corpus he majority of precise chronological indications have been edited out of Maximus’ corpus—apparently before it reached Photius in the ninth century (editing of Maximus’ letters is mentioned in the Bibl., ed. Henry 1959–77: 157b30–31)—with the following few exceptions: • Letter 7: 2 August, indiction 1 (628 or 643), place unknown. • Letter 8: Easter or Pentecost of the current indiction 5 (632), from Carthage. • Computus: between 5 October 640 (thirty-irst year of Heraclius) and c.mid-February 641 (when news of Heraclius’ death on 11 January 641 is supposed to have reached Carthage: Grierson 1962), probably in Africa. 2 On which see DB 149–51; Acts of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, ed. Riedinger 1990–2: 228–30; Michael the Syrian, Chronicle 11.9, Chabot 1899: 423–7 (text); 1910: 433–7 (trans.); Anonymous Chronicle to 1234, Chabot 1916: 130; and also Jankowiak 2013c. oxfordhb-9780199673834-part-1.indd 21 11/11/2014 4:37:11 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Nov 11 2014, NEWGEN 22 Marek Jankowiak and Phil Booth • Letter 12: November of the current indiction 15 (641), from Africa. • Dispute with Pyrrhus: July, indiction 3 (645), in Carthage. hese dates allow us to ascertain that Maximus was in Africa in 632 and that, ater his return to the East, noted in the Syriac Life 18, he returned there in 641 at the latest. But with the exception of these ive works, the remainder of Maximus’ production can only be dated by internal criteria. We will establish the dates of the individual works in the irst instance through mentions of, or allusions to, events that can otherwise be dated or to people that are known to have engaged with Maximus at speciic points of time. In the second instance, we will ofer an approximate chronological range on the basis of the intellectual context of the work at hand. In certain instances, the latter approach can distinguish earlier from later texts: thus it is evident that Maximus, over the course of his career, changed his mind on such doctrinal issues as, for example, the use of ‘one will’ or ‘one operation’ in anthropological contexts, the application of γνώμη to Christ, or the authenticity of certain patristic texts. In contrast to the approach of Sherwood, however, we will wherever possible avoid ofering chronological certainties on the basis of the supposed evolution of Maximus’ thought. Although this evolution of course occurred, this criterion remains problematic for two reasons: irst, it leads to circular reasoning, with individual works being assigned to the assumed periods in Maximus’ theological development, and in turn corroborating the chronological framework; and second, it presupposes an explicit, linear development of Maximus’ doctrine, so that, for example, monoenergism is always acknowledged ater 633, or certain words (e.g. ἐνεργητικός, θελητικός) can be used to distinguish earlier from later works (see Sherwood 1952). hus we discover, for example, that although in the period c.640–2 Maximus had voiced his public opposition to monoenergism and monothelitism, both doctrines are a conspicuous absence from a signiicant group of letters written to the capital in the same period, in connection with the afair of the Alexandrian nuns. Our objective is therefore threefold: irst, to undo some of the chronological and contextual precision of Sherwood, whose date-list depended on the now discredited Constantinopolitan tradition of Maximus’ origins and its various modern embellishments; second, to establish as many ixed chronological points as possible for Maximus’ various works, or to suggest reasonable contexts or chronological ranges within which each might be interpreted; and third, to provide a more secure basis from which to understand the evolving concerns of Maximus over the course of his career. The Letters, Opuscula and Additamenta: Problems of Transmission and Edition he vast majority of Maximus’ works that can be assigned a more or less tentative date belong to his Letters and the so-called Opuscula. Research on these texts is, however, oxfordhb-9780199673834-part-1.indd 22 11/11/2014 4:37:11 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Nov 11 2014, NEWGEN a new date-list of the works of maximus the confessor 23 marred by the lack of a modern edition. We regret that the long-announced and much-anticipated edition in the CCSG is still not available. Our conclusions remain therefore provisional and will have to be modiied when the edition has been published. In the meantime, we have used the edition published by François Combeis in 1675 and reprinted in PG 91. 9–285 and 364–649. Although Combeis’ work is a product of outstanding scholarship by the standards of the time, it is based on a limited number of manuscripts and does not always establish the best available text (see, for example, Epp. 8 and 14). It is particularly treacherous in designating the names of the recipients, which is sometimes contradicted in the manuscripts and in many cases can be improved. he edition of Combeis imposed the division of the corpus of Maximus’ short works into Letters and Opuscula, and established a provisional (but now canonical) order of works within each of these two groups. Neither of these corresponds to the shape in which these texts have been transmitted in the manuscripts. Many of the Opuscula are in reality letters, and they are not transmitted as a distinct body of texts; they seem, however, as a rule to be later than the Letters, which end c.641/2. he sequence of the Letters and Opuscula in the manuscripts (see, e.g. Van Deun 1991: lii–lv and cviii–cxi) does not suggest any original arrangement of Maximus’ short works; the future edition will no doubt address this question. It seems, however, improbable that there was ever a single canonical collection of Maximus’ Letters. A precious early witness to the transmission of Maximus’ works, in particular the Letters, is the ninth-century summary compiled by Photius in codices 192A–195 of his Bibliotheca. All the works which the patriarch lists can be identiied, more or less conidently, with extant texts, with the exception of a second letter to ‘the monk Sophronius surnamed Eucratas’ (codex 192B, ed. Henry 1959–77: 157b11–12; cf. Ep. 8). he text of Photius also allows us to name the anonymous abbess to whom Maximus addressed Letter 11 as Iania, no doubt identical with the ‘Ioannia’ whom Letter 12 identiies as the abbess of one of two Alexandrian monasteries mentioned therein. Photius’ ignorance of many of Maximus’ works shows that they have never circulated as a single corpus; his Roman contemporary, Anastasius the Librarian, knew some writings of Maximus, which now survive only in his Latin translation (see Ep. ad halassium and Opusc. 12). In 1917, Sergei Leont’evich Epifanovich published in Kiev thirty-three texts attributed to Maximus in the manuscripts, even though he doubted Maximus’ authorship of many of the texts he edited (see CPG 7707). he First World War, the Russian revolution, and the death of Epifanovich in the following year made this edition notoriously diicult to obtain. Eighteen of these texts have now been re-edited in the magisterial doctoral thesis of Bram Roosen (2001), the conclusions of which we have endeavoured to integrate. hose texts which Roosen identiies as genuine texts of Maximus we include under the title Additamenta, preserving the numbering of Epifanovich and CPG. However, we have excluded the composite Opusculum 23 attributed by Combeis to Maximus but which Roosen regards as spurious (Roosen 2001/3: 697–701, 715–6, 825–9). oxfordhb-9780199673834-part-1.indd 23 11/11/2014 4:37:11 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Nov 11 2014, NEWGEN 24 Marek Jankowiak and Phil Booth Some Prosopographical Notes Before moving to the date-list itself, it is expedient to deal with some recurrent prosopographical problems related to some of the more prominent recipients of Maximus’ correspondence. hese persons are: 1. John Cubicularius: John is the recipient of Maximus’ Letters 2, 3, 4, 10, 12, 27, 44–45, and what we have called Letter D; as discussed below, he does not appear to be the recipient of Letter 24/43. Of these, Letter 12 alone has a irm date—soon ater November 641—although at least Letters 44–45 belong in the same general context. It seems certain that the other letters precede these, and that John’s association with Maximus was at this stage well established; indeed, it is now evident from Letter D that Maximus knew John before his election to the rank of the cubicularius. he origins of that acquaintance are nevertheless obscure. John’s attachment to the imperial court in Constantinople, and Maximus’ association with him, cannot be used, however, to support the notion that Maximus was from Constantinople. John Cubicularius is the only certain contact of Maximus at the imperial court, and the precise nature and origins of their apparent friendship must remain unclear. Some of Maximus’ letters to John can be read as attempts to ingratiate himself with a powerful contact at the court, rather than evidence of an abiding closeness. 2. Constantine Sacellarius, or rather ἀπὸ σακελλαρίων (see the full title to Letter 5 preserved in Laurent. Plut. 57.7 f. 17v: τοῦ αὐτοῦ Κωνσταντίνῳ ἰλλουστρίῳ καὶ ἀπὸ σακελλαρίων, conirmed in Photius, Bibl., codex 192B, ed. Henry 1959–77: 157b21–2): Constantine is the recipient of Letters 5 and 24/43, the latter dated with some conidence to 628/9. he universal assumption of modern scholarship is that Constantine’s oicial position places him in the capital, so that his association with Maximus is again cited to support the latter’s supposed Constantinopolitan origins. But the title sacellarius does not demand that Constantine was the imperial sacellarius, a top-ranking dignitary and a predecessor of the sacellarius who led the trials against Pope Martin in 653 and against Maximus in 655 (Brandes 1998: 160–2). Provincial sacellarii are attested in Italy and North Africa (Brandes 2002: 442–9)—see, for example, the sacellarius of Peter, general of Numidia, c.633 (RM 15. 28–9). he rank illustris attributed to Constantine also points to the same provinces, since by the seventh century it had virtually disappeared from the East, but was still used in the West (Koch 1903: 43–5). 3. Peter the Illustris: Peter the Illustris is the recipient of Letters 13 and 14, and Opusculum 12, the last dated to c.645. Some scholars have suggested an identiication of this Peter the Illustris with the patrician Peter, whose career can be followed in a variety of sources, provided that they all, as seems probable, refer to oxfordhb-9780199673834-part-1.indd 24 11/11/2014 4:37:11 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Nov 11 2014, NEWGEN a new date-list of the works of maximus the confessor 25 the same person (Duval 1971, Zuckerman 2002: 173–4). He appears in the Relatio motionis as the general of Numidia and is said to have corresponded with Maximus in c.633 (above); on an African seal as ἀπὸ ὑπατῶν, patrician and dux (Laurent 1962: 85–7 nr 92, an African connection is suggested by the image of Augustine on the obverse); in an African inscription from Telergma in Numidia dated to 636 as Pe[t]ro patriciho (h)ac Africana probincia (referring to Numidia or perhaps to the entire Byzantine Africa; see Duval and Février 1969: 259 and 317–20); and in his epitaph at Sbeïtla (Duval 1956: 284–6: Petrus em(i)n(en)t(issimu)s) where he was buried at the age of 65 and in indiction 10 (probably 651/2 rather than 636/7); he is also identiied with the Peter patricius to whom Maximus dedicated his Computus in 641/2 (below). he identiication of this Peter with Maximus’ correspondent Peter the Illustris is, however, uncertain, although it has important implications for the dating and understanding of Maximus’ texts, as indicated below. On the one hand—as Zuckerman (2002: 173–4) points out in a brief aside—if the Peter of the Letters and Opusculum 12 was the general and patricius who appears elsewhere, he should have been too eminent to bear the more humble title illustris, in particular in Opusculum 12, by which time Maximus had already dedicated the Computus to him using the title patricius. On the other hand, however—and assuming that our texts preserve the addressees’ proper titles—Opusculum 12, in which Maximus begs Peter ‘to command to all’ (praecipere omnibus [144A]) that the ex-patriarch Pyrrhus not be addressed with certain honoriic titles, suggests that Peter the Illustris, despite his rank, commands some position of power, as we might expect of our patricius. he identiication of the two, therefore, must remain tentative but is not impossible. At the least, Peter the Illustris appears as a person of some considerable standing. Once again his title, illustris, suggests a western career. 4. halassius: halassius is the recipient of the Questions Addressed to halassius, Letters 9, 26, 41–2, A, and of the partly extant treatise On the operations and the wills (witnessed in Opusc. 2 and 3). He appears to be that ‘halassius the Libyan’ or ‘halassius the African’ who authored the Greek Centuries on heology (PG 91. 1428A–1469C), and who is presented in an extant spiritual tale as the leader of the monks at Carthage during the reign of Heraclius (Nau 1902: 84; cf. also BHG 1318a). Like Maximus’ disciple Anastasius, he seems to have been a bilingual North African, but whether he had resided there all his life is far from clear, in particular if he is also to be identiied with that halassius who later led the Armenian monks of Renatus at Rome in 649. hese monks seem to have been recent immigrants from the East via North Africa (Acts of the Lateran Council, Riedinger 1984: 50, 57, with Boudignon 2007: 298). It is therefore possible that Maximus was acquainted with halassius for a considerable time. 5. John of Cyzicus: he identiication of John is perhaps the most tortuous of those questions which relate to Maximus’ known correspondents. Maximus’ Ambigua to John, of which the Greek is extant, but to which the earliest witness is Eriugena’s ninth-century Latin translation, is addressed ‘To the most sacred and blessed oxfordhb-9780199673834-part-1.indd 25 11/11/2014 4:37:11 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Nov 11 2014, NEWGEN 26 Marek Jankowiak and Phil Booth John, Archbishop of Cyzicus’ (πρὸς Ἰωάννην ἀρχιεπίσκοπον Κυζίκου, PG 91. 1061A, or sanctissimo ac beatissimo archiepiscopo Kyzi Iohanni in the Latin), and within the preface Maximus states that he had once been in John’s presence (Jeauneau 1988: 17. 21–5). he precise place and time of his meeting with John being unknown, it remains problematic to assume on this basis that Maximus had once been in Cyzicus. Even more problematic is the modern identiication of ‘John Archbishop of Cyzicus’ with the ‘bishop Curisicius’ (Κυρισίκιος) to whom are addressed Letters 28 and 29. his addressee was known also to Photius (Bibl., codex 192B, 157b16), but the name Curisicius is not otherwise attested. Combeis, followed by most scholars (e.g. Sherwood 1952: 16–20), proposed to emend the addressee from πρὸς Κυρισίκιον ἐπίσκοπον to πρὸς Κυζικηνὸν ἐπίσκοπον (PG 91. 619–20 n.[m]) and thence to identify him with the dedicatee of the Ambigua to John. But a bishop of Cyzicus would be called ἐπίσκοπος Κυζίκου or ἐπίσκοπος τῆς Κυζικηνῶν μητροπόλεως, and not Κυζικηνὸς ἐπίσκοπος (see e.g. the subscriptions in the Acts of the Sixth Ecumenical Council). Combeis’ emended Κυζικινός can, therefore, only be understood as an ethnonym, which makes one think of the Ἰωάννης ὁ Κυζικηνός who appears in John Moschus’ Spiritual Meadow (3064D–3065A) but who, however, is not otherwise known to have been a bishop, and who is there located in Palestine. his conundrum does not seem possible to solve, and it is sounder to avoid collapsing the evidence so as to support Maximus’ long association with an ‘archbishop of Cyzicus’, and even his presence in the same city. 6. Marinus: To one Marinus are addressed a series of works: (in chronological order) Letter 20, Opuscula 7, 20, 10, 1, 2(?), 19. Within these, we can trace the progression of Marinus through the clerical hierarchy, for in Letter 20 he is a monk; in Opusculum 7 a deacon; and in Opusculum 20 and the remaining texts a priest. Sherwood (1952: 34) hesitated over the identiication as one person, since he placed Opusculum 20 before Opusculum 7, which is in fact improbable. herefore no impediment remains to thinking that Maximus had a single correspondent Marinus. he title of Opusculum 7 states that it was sent to Cyprus; that of Opusculum 10 puts Marinus ‘in Cyprus’; and that of Opusculum 1 calls him ‘most holy priest and oikonomos of the most holy metropolis of Constantia of the island of Cyprus’.3 Assuming that Marinus had always been on Cyprus, it is possible that Maximus met him there during his irst westward retreat during the Persian invasion; but his irst extant correspondence with him nevertheless dates to c.636 (Ep. 20). It seems that Marinus might be a close associate of the inluential archbishop Arcadius of Cyprus (on whom Jankowiak 2009: 139–49, and Booth 2013: 261 n.138); see esp. Opusc. 20 (PG 91. 245B–D), with Jankowiak 2009: 197–9. 3 Ferrarensis 144, f. 100v, in Martini 1896: 344: πρὸς Μαρ͂νον τὸν ὁσιώτατον πρεσβ́τερον καὶ οἰκονόμον τῆς ̔γιωτάτης μητροπόλεως Κωνσταντίας τῆς Κυπρίων ν́σου. oxfordhb-9780199673834-part-1.indd 26 11/11/2014 4:37:12 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Nov 11 2014, NEWGEN a new date-list of the works of maximus the confessor 27 7. heocharistus: he addressee of the Mystagogy. He seems to be the same as that ‘most holy priest heocharistus, brother of the [Italian] exarch’, probably Plato (645–9), who appears in RM (21. 108–9), in the context of Maximus’ presence in Rome; cf. also Acts of the Lateran Council (Riedinger 1984: 57), perhaps listing our heocharistus amongst the signatories to the petition of eastern monks therein submitted. If this is also the ‘most magniicent illustris lord heocharistus’ who appears in Letter 44 (644D) as the bearer of a missive from North Africa to the capital, probably in 642, then Maximus must also have known him in North Africa. he rank of illustris points, again, to western origins. (See also Boudignon 2004: 38–41). 8. heodosius of Gangra: Addressee of a single Maximian work excerpted in Opusculum 26a, Additamentum 20, and Additamentum 38. He is also the recipient of a letter of Anastasius Apocrisiarius written in 665/6, where he is said to reside at that time in sancta Christi nostri civitate, that is, in Jerusalem (Allen– Neil 1999: 173). Together with his brother heodore Spudaeus, with whom he authored the Hypomnesticum (ed. Allen–Neil 1999: 196–227), he was instrumental in documenting the exiles of Maximus and other members of his circle. Both, it seems, were Palestinian monks (see Noret 2000 and Booth 2013: 302 n.111). hey irst appear in Rome during the pontiicate of Martin, but heodore then moved to Constantinople, where he witnessed Martin’s trial and visited him in his prison in winter 653/4. heodosius and heodore also witnessed the trial of Maximus, Anastasius the Monk, and Anastasius Apocrisiarius in Constantinople in 662, visited a dyothelite exile in Crimea perhaps in 666/7, and inally visited Lazica again c.668/9. heodosius’ acquaintance with Maximus thus belongs to the latter part of Maximus’ career. See references in Lilie et al. (1998–2002: nos. 7439 and 7816). A Note on the Arrangement of the Texts Readers should note that, rather than replicating the strict chronological arrangement of Sherwood, we have attempted to arrange our texts into loose groups within an overarching biographical framework, since certain texts (such as those which chronicle the development of Maximus’ position on the wills, or those which relate to the afair of the prefect George) are best discussed together. For ease of reference we include a inal table which sets out the approximate chronological placement of each text in the corpus, and which readers can consult to discover the position of a particular text. Individual entries contain the conventional title of the work in English, the editions (starting from the newest, but always including a reference to PG), the CPG number, the date proposed oxfordhb-9780199673834-part-1.indd 27 11/11/2014 4:37:12 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Nov 11 2014, NEWGEN 28 Marek Jankowiak and Phil Booth by Sherwood, and other secondary literature directly relevant for the dating, followed by our discussion. The Date-List 1. Major Texts of the Earlier Period 1. Liber Asceticus Ed. Van Deun 2000a; PG 90. 912–956. CPG 7692. Sherwood 1952: 26 nr 10 = ‘By 626’. Early (before c.633/4). A dialogue between a novice and an elder on the ascetic life, progressing to an extended tirade on the need for compunction in the face of moral decline, perhaps prompted by the Persian occupation of the East. Closely connected with the Centuries on Love, which it precedes (see below) and with which it oten appears in the manuscripts; similarly written at the request of Father Elpidius. he consensus on an early date (Sherwood 1952, von Balthasar 1941: 155) has been disputed by Dalmais (e.g. 1952, 1953), who preferred a date during Maximus’ exile (655–62). his is unlikely for several reasons: (1) the simple nature of the prose, in contrast to the wider corpus (see Van Deun 2000a: xvi); (2) its survival, which would make it one of only three texts indisputably authored by Maximus himself to have survived from this period of exile and imprisonment (cf. Ep. ad Anast. and Responses to heodosius of Gangra, see section 75); (3) the apparent ease with which Maximus is able to dispatch it to a correspondent, without reference to his present predicament; (4) Dalmais’ view that our text represents the pinnacle of Maximus’ ascetic vision is improbable, given the failure to integrate that vision within a wider christological and sacramental context, as in other prominent works (see e.g. Or.dom., Myst.); (5) most importantly, the absence of christological polemic and the text’s indiference to monothelitism, in contrast to the demonstrable output of Maximus’ circle in this period (RM, DB, perhaps DP, etc.). 2. Centuries on Love Ed. Ceresa-Gastaldo 1963; PG 90. 960–1073. CPG 7693. Sherwood 1952: 26 nr 11 = ‘By 626’. Early (before c.633/4). Four hundred aphorisms on the spiritual life. It seems to have been produced in tandem with the Book on the Ascetic Life, as established in the declaration: ‘I have sent to your holiness, Father Elpidius, in addition to the treatise on the ascetic life also the treatise on love, in lots of one hundred chapters in equal number to the four gospels’ (Ceresa-Gastaldo 1963: 48; PG 90. 960A, corr. Van Deun 2000a: xviii). 3. Ambigua to John Ed. PG 91. 1061–1417; improved text in Constas 2014 vol. 1: 62–451, vol. 2: 2–330; Jeauneau 1988 (Eriugena’s Latin translation). CPG 7705.2. Sherwood 1952: 31–2 nr 26 = ‘628–30’. oxfordhb-9780199673834-part-1.indd 28 11/11/2014 4:37:12 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Nov 11 2014, NEWGEN a new date-list of the works of maximus the confessor 29 Cf. Larchet 1998a: 29–30 (628–34) and 41 (628–30). he Greek text is in preparation for CCSG. Early (before c.633/4), perhaps c.628? he text deals with certain diiculties in Gregory of Nazianzus. he addressee is ‘John archbishop of Cyzicus’, on whom see the prosopographical section. he text probably precedes the monoenergist crisis, not least because, as Larchet had noted, ‘certains passages . . . se prêtent à une interprétation monoénergiste’ (1998a: 29–30), for example at Ambigua 3, where Maximus refers to ‘the one and unique operation in all of God and those worthy of God’ (PG 91. 1076C = Jeauneau 1988: 26), a phrase he later retracted (Opusc. 1, 33A–B). One prominent and ot-commented theme of the text is the refutation of Origenism (esp. Amb.Io. 7, 15, 42), a particular concern of Palestinian authors in the preceding century, and perhaps relecting Maximus’ Palestinian origins. Parallels between the anti-Origenism of our text and that of Letters 6–7 (Benevich 2009) suggest a date close to 628 (see section 13). For Maximus’ refutation of Origenism see also e.g. Sherwood 1955b; Cooper 2005: 65–95. 4. Questions to halassius Ed. Laga–Steel 1980/1990; PG 90. 244–785. CPG 7688. Sherwood 1952: 34–5 nr 36 = ‘between 630 and 633–4’; Larchet 1998a: 49 = 630–4. Early (before c.633/4), but ater the Ambigua to John. A huge work of scriptural interpretation, which should be called Answers to halassius; its addressee can perhaps be associated with ‘halassius the Libyan and African’ who wrote his own Centuries on Love; see the prosopographical section. Post-dates the Ambigua to John since Maximus refers to Amb.Io. 67 (Laga–Steel 1980: 39.59–61); also, Question 48 develops thoughts irst present in Amb.Io. 41 (Laga–Steel 1980: ix). he terminus ante quem is perhaps indicated in the absence of discussion on the operation. Note also that the position on the wills of Christ is noticeably under-developed: see the application to him of προαίρεσις at Questions to halassius 42 (Laga–Steel 1980: 7.285–9), later retracted in Opusculum 1 (29D–32A). For detailed discussion of the text, see Blowers (1991). 5. Questions and Doubts Ed. Declerck 1982; PG 90. 785–856. CPG 7689. Sherwood 1952: 26 nr 13 = ‘By 626’. Early (before c.633/4). he text comprises a series of questions and responses on scriptural and theological diiculties. Sherwood’s dating follows von Balthasar’s classiication of our text among the earlier works (1941: 149–56), based upon the absence of charged observations on the operations and wills (see e.g. Question 21, Declerck 1982: 19); but his terminus ante quem relies on the discredited narrative of Maximus’ Constantinopolitan origins. Question 162 (Declerck 1982: 113), discussing the raising of a house’s roof at Luke 5:19, airms that ‘those who have seen these places for themselves say that the roofs of the houses are made of the lightest pumice stone’, in a possible allusion to Maximus’ own Palestinian experience. 6. Exposition on Psalm 59 Ed. Van Deun 1991; PG 90. 856–872. CPG 7690. Sherwood 1952: 26 nr 12 = ‘By 626’. oxfordhb-9780199673834-part-1.indd 29 11/11/2014 4:37:12 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Nov 11 2014, NEWGEN 30 Marek Jankowiak and Phil Booth Early. Sherwood’s terminus ante quem is based on the obsolete narrative of Maximus’ stay in Cyzicus. Van Deun agrees that the text is early, but suspends judgement until a precise linguistic study has been completed (1991: xx–xxi). he association of Psalm 59, in which the psalmist desires to be liberated from war, with the Avar siege of Constantinople in 626 (e.g. Cantarella 1931: 58) ignores the continuous warfare which had characterized the period from 603. 7. Exposition on the Lord’s Prayer Ed. Van Deun 1991; PG 90. 872–909. CPG 7691. Sherwood 1952: 31 nr 25 = ‘628–30’. Early (before c.636). Sherwood’s dating of the text to the African period is unwarranted (Van Deun 1991: xxi), but that the text predates the christological controversies is established in Maximus’ understanding and language of the will. He predicts his later commitment to ‘two natural wills’ in Christ (see e.g. Berthold 2011), but still applies to Christ the concept of γνώμη (Van Deun 1991: 34. 135–9), in contrast to his later thought, and qualiies the will as ‘single’ or ‘one’ when discussing the union of man and God (Van Deun 1991: 33. 111–15, 37. 181–2), unthinkable ater the publication of the Ekthesis in 636 (see Booth 2013: 265–6, and cf. Myst., Ep. 2, Opusc. 14, 18). Sherwood notes intellectual ainities with other early works: the Mystagogy, the Ambigua to John, and the Questions to halassius. 8. heological and Economical Chapters Ed. PG 90. 1084–1173. CPG 7694. Sherwood 1952: 35 nr 37 = ‘630–4’. Early (but ater the Ambigua to John). Sherwood’s dating appears to be based on von Balthasar’s observation (1941: 155) of dependence upon the Questions to halassius and the Ambigua to John; the latter dependence is conirmed in Sherwood 1955b: 106–9. 9. Mystagogy Ed. Boudignon 2011; Sotiropoulos 2001; PG 91. 657–717. CPG 7704. Sherwood 1952: 32 nr 27 = ‘628–30’; Boudignon 2002: 317 = 630s. Early (ater the irst retreat to the West, before c.636). An ascetical commentary on the eucharistic liturgy, dedicated to ‘lord heocharistus’, on whom see the prosopographical section. he text has few chronological pointers, but based on the absence of pregnant christological references most critics have dated the text to Maximus’ irst African retreat. An early date is also suggested in the perhaps unguarded reference to the union of Christians according to a ‘single identity of γνώμη’ (Boudignon 2011: 60. 957), which echoes similarly unguarded phrases in other early works (see e.g. Or.dom., Ep. 2, Opusc. 14, 18). 10. Scholia on Pseudo-Dionysius Cf. PG 4, 16–432, 528–576; Epifanovich 1917: 111–208 (Add. 37). CPG 7708. Not in Sherwood. oxfordhb-9780199673834-part-1.indd 30 11/11/2014 4:37:12 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Nov 11 2014, NEWGEN a new date-list of the works of maximus the confessor 31 Date indeterminable. Maximus’ scholia on Ps-Dionysius are mixed in with those of other authors (e.g. in PG 4) and are diicult to distinguish; see the comments of Suchla (1980). It is reasonable to assume that the Scholia were produced in the same period as the Mystagogy, the latter explicitly being conceived as a supplement to Ps-Dionysius’ Ecclesiastical Hierarchy (Boudignon 2011: 6. 54–8). he lack of a full modern edition is an impediment to further precision. 11. Fiteen Chapters Ed. PG 90. 1177–1392. CPG 7695. Sherwood 1952: 35–6 nr 37a = ‘630–34’. Date indeterminable; but perhaps early. he 500 chapters, as edited in the PG, are a late compilation, perhaps composed in the early twelth century by Nicetas of Heraclea (Van Deun 1995: 19–24), of various works of Maximus, mainly the Questions to halassius. Only chapters 1–15 (PG 90. 1177A–1185C) and 16–25 (PG 90. 1185C–1189A) have independent traditions.4 Sherwood sees ‘no criterion for date’ and joins them ‘for time, as do the manuscripts in contiguity’, to the heological and Economical Chapters. 12. Questions to heopemptus Scholasticus Ed. Roosen and Van Deun 2003; PG 90. 1393–1400; Gitlbauer 1878: 85–9. CPG 7696. Sherwood 1952: 37 nr 41 = ‘630–33?’ Date indeterminable; but perhaps early. Maximus answers three scriptural diiculties put to him by heopemptus scholasticus, who is probably to be identiied with the heopemptus mentioned in 641 in Letter 18 as an agent of the African prefect George (Roosen and Van Deun 2003: 68), which might point towards the date of the text. But the probable connection of heopemptus with the circle of Alexandrian lawyers (Boudignon 2004: 15) does not exclude an earlier date. here are few chronological indicators within the text. As with the Questions to halassius—in the tradition of which our text also belongs—the traditional title of our text is a misnomer for Answers to heopemptus. 2. Minor Early Texts 13. Letter 6—To Jordanes (or John the Sophist, or Archbishop John?), on ‘he Soul is Incorporeal’ Ed. PG 91. 424C–433A. CPG 7699.6. Sherwood 1952: 25 nr 5 = ‘Before 624–5?’; Larchet 1998a: 41–2 = 628–30. Probably c.628. he addressee is given by Combeis as ‘the most holy and most blessed archbishop John’, but most manuscripts name Jordanes, with the exception of the Laurent. Plut. 57.7, which has ‘John the sophist’ (f. 2r: τοῦ αὐτοῦ πρὸς Ἰωάννην σοφιστ́ν, noticed by Epifanovich [1917: xiii]; Photius also knew a letter to such an addressee: Bibl., codex 192B, ed. Henry 1959–77: 157b12–13). In response to a request from the recipient, 4 See Laga–Steel 1980: lxxvi–lxxxii; Laga–Steel 1990: xlv–xlviii; De Vocht 1987: 415–20. oxfordhb-9780199673834-part-1.indd 31 11/11/2014 4:37:12 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Nov 11 2014, NEWGEN 32 Marek Jankowiak and Phil Booth Maximus writes a treatise against those who claim that the resurrection body will be corporeal ater the manner of the terrestrial body (with its composite humours). he topic—which recalls the clash of the Constantinopolitan patriarch Eutychius with Gregory the Great in the late sixth century—is close to that of Letter 7, also dedicated to the fate of the soul ater death and almost certainly addressed to Jordanes, which suggests that the addressee is the same. his would place our letter c.628 (below). Sherwood (1952), Larchet (1998a), and Benevich (2009) draw attention to the close theological ainities with the Ambigua to John, which support this early date, as do references to the soul’s ‘natural operations’ and ‘operations according to nature’ (432B) in a context which does not suggest that the terms are pregnant or controversial. he letter thus belongs to a period when the association of nature and operation is made, but before the outbreak of the monoenergist crisis in 633/4. Benevich (2009) claims that Maximus’ opponents are extreme anti-Origenists, which might make us think of Palestine as a context. But those opponents’ views recall the position of the Latin Fathers (including Gregory the Great), that the resurrection body would be composed of the same materials as the terrestrial (see e.g. Bynum 1995). Is Maximus refuting the opinion of Latin theologians whom he encountered in the West? 14. Letter 7—To Jordanes the Priest, that ater Death the Soul Retains its Intellectual Activity and is Separated from None of its Natural Powers Ed. PG 91. 433A–440B. CPG 7699.7. Sherwood 1952: 31 nr 24 = ‘628 (643?)’. August 628. Clearly linked to Letter 6. Maximus’ correspondent has questioned him about a widespread doctrine put about by some prominent monks ‘there’, that ‘the soul has obtained the ability to think and to reason from the body and, so they say, it cannot do these things without the body’ (PG 91. 437A), and furthermore that ater the resurrection the humours will continue to animate the body (PG 91. 433C). Benevich (2009) again argues that these doctrines represent an extreme form of anti-Origenism which Maximus then tempers, and he associates the text with speciic doctrines contained within the Ambigua to John. Although it is tempting to think of a Palestinian context for such discussions, the debate on the fate of the posthumous soul was widespread and does not provide a means for placing the recipient (Dal Santo 2012). Pace Combeis, who has a priest John as the addressee, the manuscripts name Jordanes (Sherwood 1952), who is known only as the potential recipient of Letters 6–8. Maximus received the letter ‘on the second day of the current month of August of the present irst indiction’ and was informed ‘that you, my masters, who are the cause of all good things for me, are in good health’ (PG 91. 433A). he irst indiction corresponds to 628 or 643; the former date is preferable for a number of reasons: (1) Maximus plays on the theme of presence and absence, and of perception of the recipient with the eyes of faith, familiar from e.g. Letters 2, 4, 5, 8, 13, 23, 24, and 27, none of which is sure to belong to Maximus’ second retreat to the West, and some of which certainly belong to the irst period; (2) Maximus dwells on the natural properties and natural operation of the soul (PG 91. 436C–D), in terms reminiscent of Letter 6, and with little indication of the imminent controversies surrounding such terms; (3) Maximus refers to the controversy as a sign of the coming oxfordhb-9780199673834-part-1.indd 32 11/11/2014 4:37:12 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Nov 11 2014, NEWGEN a new date-list of the works of maximus the confessor 33 of the Antichrist, a theme more frequent in his early writings;5 (4) ainities with the Ambigua to John, identiied by Sherwood 1952. Maximus’ complaint that there is no one to defend the true faith διὰ τὴν ἐπικρατοῦσαν τοῦ καιροῦ πονηρίαν (PG 91. 440B9–10) also its the date of 628, before the Persian war was over. 15. Letter 13—To Peter the Illustris, Short Exposé of the Dogmas of Severus Ed. PG 91. 509B–533A. CPG 7699.13. Sherwood 1952: 39–40 nr 44 = ‘633–4’; Larchet 1998a: 52 n.1 = ‘troisième trimestre 633’; Boudignon 2004: 16 = 633. Between 629 and 633? A lengthy refutation of the Severan doctrine of one composite nature, occasioned by some recent converts who ‘returned . . . as a dog to its vomit’ (PG 91. 512B). Maximus thanks God for Peter’s safe completion of a sea voyage (PG 91. 509C6); Peter has let the place where Maximus is residing, and sailed to somewhere where ‘blessed father Sophronius’ is also (PG 91. 533A). He complains of a lack of books (PG 91. 532D) and encourages Peter to resist the triple (why ‘triple’?) wave of the heresy. he modern consensus on the dating is based upon the identiication of our Peter Illustris with the Peter, general of Numidia, who according to the Relatio motionis was dispatched in 633 to Alexandria. It is then tempting to associate (as did Sherwood 1952; Larchet 1998a: 51) the miaphysite converts/apostates with the Alexandrian union of June 633 (Maximus seems to have ignored the union of 629 with the Syrian Jacobites), and to place both Peter and Sophronius in Alexandria, where Sophronius is known to have protested soon ater the union’s realization in June 633 (see e.g. Opusc. 12). But apart from prosopographical problems pointed out above, there are several impediments to placing our letter in this context: (1) A rather imprecise statement of the Logos’ assumption of the human operations (‘he Word of God, neither in respect of logos nor tropos, has the powers which correspond to the natural operations of the nature assumed by him’ [i.e. the human nature] [PG 91. 532B7–10]), which seems unguarded, and must place our text before the outbreak of the monenergist crisis in 633; (2) Maximus’ statement of agreement with ‘those that currently govern the church’ (PG 91. 532C5–7) cannot be reconciled with the conlict between Sophronius and Cyrus of Alexandria; (3) the return of the Severans to their former confession implies that some time has passed. Our letter must, however, pre-date the elevation of Sophronius, called ‘abba’, to the patriarchate of Jerusalem late in 634; (4) given Sophronius’ and Maximus’ resistance to the union, one must wonder if Maximus would have here inveighed against Severan dissent from it. hese doubts encourage us to place Letter 13 before the union of Alexandria, but ater the policy of reuniication of the imperial church had started to be implemented in 628. We are not informed about the events in Alexandria between the evacuation of the Persians in 629 and the union of June 633, but we can presume that the union was preceded by earlier attempts and negotiations between the churches. We may therefore be dealing here with one of the earliest responses of Maximus to Heraclius’ policy of 5 e.g. in Epp. 8 and 14 (540B); Car. 2.31; Amb.Io. (1132A); but also in Ep. 12 (497D), and DB 93. 211. oxfordhb-9780199673834-part-1.indd 33 11/11/2014 4:37:12 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Nov 11 2014, NEWGEN 34 Marek Jankowiak and Phil Booth ecclesiastical unions. As elsewhere he plays on the theme of presence and absence, a theme which appears in other letters which seem without doubt to belong to the irst period of exile in North Africa; cf. Letters 2, 4, 5, 8, 23, 24, 27. 16. Opusculum 13—On the Two Natures of Christ Ed. PG 91. 145A–149A; cf. the fragment in Epifanovich 1917: 61–2 (Add. 16), which might be a lost fragment of our text (thus CPG). CPG 7697.13 and 7707.16. Sherwood 1952: 27 nr 15 = ‘Date uncertain. Perhaps Crete 626/7?’ So also Larchet 1998b: 19. Date indeterminable, but perhaps before 633/4. he text is a short, anti-miaphysite, anti-Nestorian doctrinal statement across ten chapters, in which the absence of references to the operations perhaps encourages preference for a date before 633/4. Maximus insists on the distinction of the two natures only ‘by the eyes of the intellect’ (148B–C), which is a standard neo-Chalcedonian expression, but does not seem to have been used by him ater the union of Alexandria. he attempt in Sherwood, and thence Larchet, to link this text to the Cretan sojourn reported in Opusculum 3 (in which operations and wills are said to have been debated), and then to date this sojourn to 626/7, is pure speculation; cf. the discussion of Opusculum 3. We know little of the purpose and even less of the context. 17. Opusculum 14/Additamentum 21—Various Deinitions Ed. PG 91. 149B–153B; a longer version in Epifanovich 1917: 68–70 (Add. 21, see also Roosen 2001/1: 5). CPG 7697.14 and 7707.21. Sherwood 1952: 42–3 nr 50 = ‘By 640’. So also Larchet 1998b: 33. Probably before 633/4. A short treatise defining central theological and christological terms. Towards the end (but not in all manuscripts) it includes a brief definition of δ́ναμις with reference to ἐνέργεια, and then θέλημα, distinguishing natural and gnomic wills (153A–B). But the fact that ἐνέργεια is not the lead term in the definition, and the rather vague definitions of the will and (in particular) the operation, encourage a date before 633/4. (For similar language cf. Or.dom., Ep. 2, Opusc. 18, Myst.). An earlier date—at least before the Ekthesis (636)—is also encouraged in the definition of ‘relational union’ as that ‘which brings different γνῶμαι together into one will’ (152C), on which see also Opusculum 18. Epifanovich (1917: ix–x) points out parallels with other works of Maximus, mainly Letter 15 and, to a lesser degree, Letter 12. 18. Opusculum 18—Deinitions of Unions Ed. Van Deun 2000b, seeming to suggest a date ater 633/4; PG 91. 213A–216A. CPG 7697.18. Sherwood 1952: 30 nr 22 = ‘626–33’; so also Larchet 1998b: 20. Early, perhaps c.634/5. Maximus ofers deinitions of twelve diferent types of union. he third of these—‘union in respect of relation, concerns the γνῶμαι [and results] in one will’—is paralleled in Sophronius’ Synodical Letter (Acts of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, Riedinger 1990-2: 438) written in 634/5. Maximus uses a similar language concerning ‘one will’ in Letter 2, the Exposition on the Lord’s Prayer, and in particular oxfordhb-9780199673834-part-1.indd 34 11/11/2014 4:37:12 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Nov 11 2014, NEWGEN a new date-list of the works of maximus the confessor 35 Opusculum 14. All this suggests a date before the Ekthesis, and probably around the time of Sophronius’ Synodical Letter. 19. Letter 23—To Stephen the Priest and Abbot Ed. PG 91. 605D–608B. CPG 7699.23. Sherwood 1952: 33 nr 30 = ‘628/9?’; so also Larchet 1998a: 46. c.632 or 642. A short note on the themes of separation and spiritual love. Some manuscripts give a fuller title than Combeis (Vat. gr. 504: κυρίῳ ἀββᾷ Στεφάνῳ πρεσβυτέρῳ; Vat. gr. 507, f. 113v: κυρίῳ ἀββᾷ Στεφάνῳ πρεσβυτέρῳ; Laurent. Plut. 57.7: πρὸς Στέφανον πρεσβ́τερον καὶ ἡγόμενον), thus undermining the attempt of Larchet (1998a: 47) to establish a chronological order for correspondence with Stephen on the basis of the absent title of hegoumen. Stephen was also the recipient of Letters 22, 40, and B, and from the irst and last of these appears to have been a person of some standing. Maximus seems to address an entire community rather an individual, since he refers to ‘venerable Fathers’ and ‘disciples and teachers of love’, and asks them not to forget him, ‘your child and disciple’ (608A), but it is unclear whether this indicates Maximus’ former placement in that community, or constitutes a simple confessio humilitatis. he connection of the aforementioned ‘Fathers’ with Chrysopolis (Sherwood 1952; Larchet 1998a) is once again based upon the discredited Greek Life; we cannot know where Stephen and his community were. he theme of estrangement is reminiscent of Letter 8 to Sophronius (summer of 632) and of other letters composed during his irst presence in North Africa (Epp. 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 24, and 27). We should note, however, that in Letter B Maximus contacted Stephen in connection with the afair of the prefect George (641–2), to which Letter 22 may also be related (see section 53). he similarity of tone in Letters 22 and 23 perhaps suggests the same connection also for the latter. 20. Letter 40—To the Same [Stephen, priest and hegoumen] Ed. PG 91. 633C–636A; partly re-edited by B. Markesinis in Janssens 2002: xxiv. CPG 7699.40. Sherwood 1952: 34 nr 34 = ‘630–34’. Larchet 1998a: 47 = 634. c.634? Extant only in Laurent. Plut. 57.7, f. 2r (τοῦ άτοῦ πρὸς τὸν αὐτόν), where it is preceded by Letter B (τοῦ αὐτοῦ πρὸς Στέφανον θεοφιλέστατον πρεσβ́τερον καὶ ἡγόμενον). he addressee is thus Stephen, the recipient of Letters 22, 23, and B, and not halassius as in the fragmentary edition of Combeis (PG 91. 633C).6 he improved text by Markesinis shows Maximus hesitant to accept a command from Stephen, for which Abba homas would apparently be a more suitable executor. he command in question is thought to have been eventually passed by homas over to Maximus, who then wrote the Ambigua to homas, which implies a date c.634 (Janssens 2002: xxv). 6 See also Epifanovich 1917: xiii, and Canart 1964: 426 n.1. oxfordhb-9780199673834-part-1.indd 35 11/11/2014 4:37:12 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Nov 11 2014, NEWGEN 36 Marek Jankowiak and Phil Booth 3. Maximus and the Oicials 21. Letter 5—To Constantine, the Illustris and (former?) Sacellarius, on Ethics Ed. PG 91. 420C–424C. CPG 7699.5. Sherwood 1952: 24 nr 1 = ‘date uncertain’. Perhaps c.628. Full title in Laurent. Plut. 57.7, f. 17v (τοῦ αὐτοῦ Κωνσταντίνῳ ἰλλουστρίῳ καὶ ἀπὸ σακελλαρίων); ἀπὸ σακελλαρίων is conirmed by Photius (Bibl., codex 192B, ed. Henry 1959–77: 157b21–22). Vat. gr. 504, f. 153v, adds ‘on ethics’ (ἐπιστολὴ πρὸς Κωνσταντ͂νον σακελλάριον ἠθικ́). For Constantine, see the prosopographical section above. Praise of ascetic virtue and warning of judgement. Maximus addresses the recipient in similar terms as in Letter 4 to John Cubicularius (‘my master’, 420C; cf. 413A), but the theme of presence and absence (420C) is less strongly phrased. he appearance of that theme also encourages an earlier date (cf. Letters 2, 4, 8, 13, 23, 24, 27). he other letter to Constantine the sacellarius is Letter 24/43, dated to c.628; Larchet 1998a: 40 (if we read ‘628’ for ‘638’) suggests that the two letters are close to each other. 22. Letter 24 = Letter 43—To Constantine (the former?) Sacellarius or to John Cubicularius Ed. PG 91. 608B–613A and 637B–641C. CPG 7699.24 and 43. Sherwood 1952: 32 nr 28 = ‘628–9’; Larchet 1998a: 40 = 638 (appears to be a misprint for ‘628’). Probably 628–9. Response to recipient’s letter announcing universal peace to Maximus (608C=637C: εἰρήνης κοσμικῆς εὐαγγέλια τὸ γράμμα κομίσαν). Maximus does not share the triumphalist mood of his correspondent; he rather encourages him to make peace with God, and expresses the remarkable opinion that peace on earth and subsequent admiration for the emperor should not detract from the greater war against the passions (Booth 2013: 162–3). Letters 24 (to Constantine) and 43 (to John) are virtually identical, save for the addressee. Combeis (PG 91. 607–8 n.[i]) thought it unlikely that two identical letters should have been addressed to two diferent addressees. he absence of Letter 24 from the only manuscript that transmitted Letter 43 (Laurent. Plut. 57.7) supports this view. he letter was thus probably dispatched to Constantine the Sacellarius, as indicated by the majority of manuscripts, the recipient also of Letter 5. Maximus is far away from his correspondent (608C=637C), and that he needs to be informed of the peace suggests that he is at some remove from the East, perhaps in North Africa. he peace is in all likelihood that realized in Heraclius’ accord with Kavadh Shiroe in April 628, or perhaps that agreed with the general Shahrbaraz in July 629, but it is not impossible to think of other periods of cessation of warfare, for instance the two treaties which Cyrus of Alexandria concluded with the Arabs in c.636 and in 641(Hoyland 1997: 574–90). 23. Letter D—To John Unpublished, extant in Cantabrig. Colleg. S. Trinit. O.3.48, s. XII, f. 64v–65v. CPG 7703. Not in Sherwood. See Canart 1964: 419–20. oxfordhb-9780199673834-part-1.indd 36 11/11/2014 4:37:12 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Nov 11 2014, NEWGEN a new date-list of the works of maximus the confessor 37 Before Letter 2. Maximus congratulates his ‘blessed master’ John for his progression ‘into the rank to which he has now been appointed’ in the secular administration. We can perhaps presume, therefore, that ‘John’ is John Cubicularius, and that this is Maximus’ earliest extant letter to him, upon his election to that rank; see the prosopographical section above for the implications. He then recommends to John the bearer of the letter, ‘the most wise ἀπὸ ἐπάρχων and sophist lord Zacharias’, who is otherwise unknown. 24. Letter 27—To John Cubicularius Ed. PG 91. 617B–620C. CPG 7699.27. Sherwood 1952: 32–3 nr 29 = ‘628/9?’; so also Larchet 1998a: 37. Date unclear, but perhaps c.630 (irst African retreat). A letter of recommendation for the bearer (PG 91. 620A), who is unnamed. Maximus is at some distance from the recipient (PG 91. 620A4–6) and plays on the themes of physical separation and of spiritual love and presence (PG 91. 617B–620A). he tone and language are reminiscent of Letters 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 13, 23, 24, 28, and 30, most of which seem to belong to the irst period in North Africa (so also Sherwood, who places it before Letter 24, thinking the separation here more fresh). Nevertheless, it is not impossible that it belongs to a later period of Maximus’ correspondence with John, which lasted until 641/2. 25. Letter 2—To John Cubicularius, on Love Ed. PG 91. 392D–408B. CPG 7699.2. Sherwood 1952: 25 nr 6 = pre-626, followed by Larchet 1998a: 35 with n.2; Winkelmann 2001: 56 nr 16. Before 640 and probably before or around 633. On the addressee and his association with Maximus, see the prosopographical section. Sherwood’s dating is based on the discredited tradition of Maximus’ Constantinopolitan origins.he letter is on the theme of love, and reads as a sophisticated introduction to the actual object of the letter, which is not preserved, not unlike Maximus’ comments on God’s love in Letter 44 to John, which serve to introduce the delicate subject matter of the letter. Maximus has at some stage been in John’s presence, but is now absent at considerable distance (PG 91. 393A). he temptation is to place Maximus in North Africa, perhaps during his irst retreat, as suggested by the theme of presence and absence which appears in other letters of the irst period of exile (cf. Epp. 4, 5, 8, 13, 23, 24, 27), but other contexts can be imagined (such as his return to the East, cf. Ep. 3). he beginning refers to signiicant largesse sent by John (PG 91. 393A), suggesting proximity with Letter 3. Maximus distinguishes between the gnomic and natural wills of mankind (as in Ep. 1; cf. Or.dom., Q.hal.) and ties this to Christ’s renewal of human nature (e.g. PG 91. 404B–D), but subsequent references to the single γνώμη and κατὰ τὸ θέλημα βόλησίς τε καὶ κίνησις of man and the saints with God (PG 91. 396C, 401B), and the loose discussion of ἐνέργεια (PG 91. 401B–D), encourage us to situate the letter before Maximus’ open opposition to monothelitism (640), and in all likelihood before or during the outbreak of the monoenergist crisis in 633. (For this loose language around ‘will’, cf. Or.dom., Opusc. 14, 18, and Myst.). oxfordhb-9780199673834-part-1.indd 37 11/11/2014 4:37:12 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Nov 11 2014, NEWGEN 38 Marek Jankowiak and Phil Booth 26. Letter 3—To the Same (sc. John Cubicularius) Ed. PG 91. 408C–412C. CPG 7699.3. Sherwood 1952: 25 nr 7 = pre-626; followed by Larchet 1998a: 38 with n.1. Before 640, and probably before 636. Maximus thanks John for the reception of letters, along with a ‘blessing’ sent to ‘the most pious monks of the holy monastery of the saint and glorious martyr George’ (408C). Sherwood’s biographical reasoning is similar to that for Letter 2. here is no indication within the letter that this monastery should be located in Cyzicus or elsewhere, or that Maximus himself was a member of it. he same monastery may be referred to in Letter 31 (625C), where it appears (in c.632) as an eastern community returning from a westward light from barbarian invasion. It is clear that Maximus had a signiicant association with the community's monks, and it is tempting again to place our letter during Maximus’ irst North African retreat, with John dispatching largesse to expatriated eastern ascetics in the West; or ater his return to the East, when he had perhaps reunited with the same monks (ater Ep. 31). he theme of the letter is again the power of Christian love, and Maximus distinguishes the natural and gnomic wills in humankind (409B–C) as in other early works (cf. Ep. 2 above), but here without reference to Christ. We can perhaps presume this to exclude a date ater the Ekthesis in 636, or at least ater Maximus’ public opposition to monothelitism from 640. For similar letters of thanks for material help for his community, see Letters 37–39. 27. Letter 4—To John Cubicularius, on Godly Sorrow Ed. PG 91. 413A–420C. CPG 7699.4. Sherwood 1952: 25 nr 8 = pre-626. Before 642, but it is impossible to be more precise. Maximus praises his correspondent’s godly sorrow, warns of an impending judgement, and extols the virtue of humility. he tone suggests a long-standing personal acquaintance. Although the address in Combeis says πρὸς τὸν αὐτόν, the name of the addressee is spelled out in the manuscripts (e.g. Vat. gr. 507, f. 168: πρὸς Ἰωάννην κουβικουλλάριον). Sherwood’s chronological reasoning again departs from the narrative established through the Greek hagiographic corpus. he concluding section (420B) repeats the theme of presence and absence of which Maximus is so fond elsewhere, and in texts which seem for the most part to belong to the irst period of exile in North Africa (cf. Letters 2, 5, 8, 13, 23, 24, 27) but it is diicult to place the letter in a particular period. On intellectual grounds most scholars (e.g. Sherwood) consider it to belong to the same period as Letters 2 and 3—see also Letter 5 below—but in no manuscript known to us does Letter 4 follow upon them. 28. Letter 10—To John Cubicularius Ed. PG 91. 449A–453A. CPG 7699.10. Sherwood 1952: 26 nr 9 = ‘By 626 or 630–4’. Before 642, but precise date is indeterminable. he text is a remarkable treatise on the legitimacy of political power. In response to the question, ‘How is it that God has judged it right that men be ruled by other men?’ (PG 91. 449A), Maximus asserts that terrestrial rule exists to counter the disorder introduced in the Fall, and that whichever ruler maintains the rule of law is God’s pious lieutenant on earth; but he also suggests that the ruler oxfordhb-9780199673834-part-1.indd 38 11/11/2014 4:37:12 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Nov 11 2014, NEWGEN a new date-list of the works of maximus the confessor 39 who departs from the same principle will gather around him the wicked, and drag his domain to ruin. he ending—‘may God allow us to be willingly ruled by him through the fulilment of his life-giving commandments, and duly to respect those who rule on the earth according to him, as guardians of his divine ordinances’ (PG 91. 453A)— sounds as a warning: the kings are legitimate only as long as they act as guardians of divine ordinances. his suggests a period in which the emperor’s rule had come under criticism. One possible context is the Persian occupation of the East, or its dissolution in 628–9: ambivalence towards Heraclius is also conspicuous in Maximus’ Letter 24 from that period, and Sherwood observes certain theological parallels with the Questions to halassius and other early texts. But the kind of criticism implicit here is conceivable at various points within the troubled reign of Heraclius and his successors, and the emphasis on ‘divine ordinances’ perhaps points towards the theological controversies of their reigns. he emperors appear in plural (PG 91. 453A8), and if this refers to the actual political situation, the letter would date before 642. Indeed, all the letters dispatched to John seem to precede this date. 29. Computus Ecclesiasticus Ed. PG 19. 1217–1280. CPG 7706. Sherwood 1952: 45 nr 65a = October 640–Early 641. Cf. Lempire 2007. October 640–February 641. A defence of the Alexandrian computus, with the beginning of the world ixed to 5492 bc, structured in three sections: (1) date of Yom Kippur, the beginning of Lent and Easter; (2) polemic against an alternative computational system of those ‘who multiply by ive and by six’ (see Grumel 1958: 117–22); (3) eternal calendar for the determination of the day of the week and of the day of the lunar cycle, and chronological lists. Internal cross-references guarantee that this is a single coherent work. It is possible that Maximus reacts against the innovative treatise of the monk and priest George, composed in 638/9 and one of the irst attestations of the Byzantine world era (but Lempire 2007 is prudent). he Computus is addressed ‘to the all-praised patricius Lord Peter’ (PG 19. 1217B), who is in all likelihood the ‘patrician’, that is, the general, of Africa; for the problems of identiication see the prosopographical introduction. he date of the work is given as 14th indiction, thirty-irst year of Heraclius, 357th year of Diocletian (PG 19. 1270D–1271A), which together indicate a date ater the beginning of Heraclius’ thirty-irst year on 5 October 640, but before the news of his death on 11 January 641 reached North Africa, whither we can presume Maximus now to have returned. he text therefore constitutes our irst dateable witness to his return to North Africa. 4. Returning from the West (c.632) From around 632 date a group of inter-related letters in which Maximus, from North Africa, asks his recipients to receive back from exile either himself (Ep. 8) or other refugees (Epp. 28–31), and enquires whether the barbarian threat from which he and others oxfordhb-9780199673834-part-1.indd 39 11/11/2014 4:37:13 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Nov 11 2014, NEWGEN 40 Marek Jankowiak and Phil Booth had led has in fact passed (Epp. 8, 28, and 30). he letters bear some striking similarities of language, theme, and content, but there is no sound reason to question the simple evidence of the manuscripts that they were sent to three diferent recipients rather than to one, archbishop John of Cyzicus (pace Sherwood 1952: 29; Larchet 1998a: 41–5), or two, Sophronius and John Moschus (unconvincingly identiied with John of Cyzicus by Rozemond 1977, 1984). See the prosopographical section. Letters 28/30 and 29/31 form two pairs of letters that are not exact duplicates, although they raise the same themes. he diferent wording, lengths, and levels of detail suggest that the two addresses were of diferent clerical status, with ‘Curisicius’ (Κυρισίκιος) enjoying a higher status, perhaps that of archbishop, than John, apparently an ordinary bishop of the province of ‘Curisicius’. 30. Letter 8—To the Priest Jordanes or (and?) to the Monk Sophronius Called Eucratas Ed. PG 91. 440C–445B; there are two versions of the ending: long (ed. Devreesse 1937: 34–5) and short (ed. Devreesse 1937: 34 n.3; Epifanovich 1917: 84 [Add. 29, a more complete version]; extant also in Laurent. Plut. 57.7 [unrecognized by Van Deun 1991: xxxviii]). CPG 7699.8 and 7707.29. Sherwood 1952: 28–30 nr 19 = ‘632’; so also Larchet 1998a: 43. Between June and August 632. he addressee is uncertain: the manuscripts name the priest Jordanes, the ‘monk Sophronius called Eucratas’, or the priest John. Sherwood preferred the least attested priest John, sometimes identiied with ‘John of Cyzicus’ (Larchet 1998a: 43–5; Winkelmann 2001: 58–9). Most critics, however, prefer Sophronius, whose surname ‘Eucratas’ is attested also in the Life of John the Almsgiver 23, and conirmed in Photius (ed. Henry 1959–77: 157b11–12) (e.g. Epifanovich 1917: xiii; Devreesse 1937: 32–3). he arguments against the authenticity of our letter in Speck 1997: 441–67 do not convince; cf. Stoyanov 2011: 69 n.191 (with literature). he letter seems to have been written a little ater the separation of Maximus from his addressee. He expresses his longing to be reunited, playing once again on the theme of presence and absence (440D–441A), which appears in other letters, some of them certainly of this same period; cf. Letters 2, 4, 5, 7, 23, 24, 27, 28, 30. He compares himself to a sheep torn by ‘the wolves of Arabia, that is to say, of the West’ (444A: τῶν λ́κων τῆς Ἀραβίας τουτέστι τῶν Δυσμῶν), an association possible only through the Hebrew or Syriac text of the Bible (cf. Hab. 1: 8, and Songs 3: 3). his may allude to the irst Arab raids.7 In the conclusion Maximus summons his correspondent to ‘call me to yourself, and shelter me under your wings, if indeed there is no more fear of the actual barbarians, on account of whom I went through such expanses of the sea, as I loved life’ (445A4–7), and asks with insistence for more information. In 632 these barbarians cannot be the Avars, as is sometimes suggested, but must be either the Persians or rather—given that the Persian threat had disappeared in 628–9—Arab tribes who had pillaged the 7 See e.g. Kaegi 2003: 218; Boudignon 2004: 18–20; contra Hoyland 1997: 77 n.75; Booth 2013: 231. oxfordhb-9780199673834-part-1.indd 40 11/11/2014 4:37:13 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Nov 11 2014, NEWGEN a new date-list of the works of maximus the confessor 41 Judaean deserts in 614 and of whose galvanization under the banner of Islam, Maximus might now have become aware (see also Boudginon 2004: 17–18). It is thus probable that Sophronius and/or Jordanes were back in the East, perhaps in Palestine (pace e.g. Follieri 1988: 32–3, placing Sophronius in Constantinople). he famous ending edited by Devreesse describes the forced baptism of Jews in Carthage in 632 (on which see Dagron and Déroche 1991: 28–32). Maximus relates an imperial order, brought by an unnamed eparch from Constantinople to the province of Africa, to baptize the Jews and Samaritans, which was carried out on the Pentecost of the current indiction 5—the letter was therefore written between 31 May and 31 August 632, no doubt in Carthage. Manuscripts preserve two versions of the ending, which difer signiicantly as to their assessment of the events in Carthage. he short ending, which seems to correspond in the manuscripts to Jordanes as the addressee, is more positive, while the longer and more pessimistic ending, possibly written slightly later, was apparently destined for Sophronius. he long ending expresses Maximus’ consternation at the imperial manoeuvre, which he fears will pollute the church, and which announces the end of times (for the anti-Jewish polemic cf. Ep. 14). Maximus perhaps ‘customized’ his letter for two diferent recipients, not unlike in the case of two other pairs of similar letters which Maximus sent to two distinct addressees (Epp. 28–9, 30–1). his hypothesis can be supported with the unparalleled fact that some manuscripts have two copies of Letter 8, one addressed to Jordanes, and the other to Sophronius (e.g. Vat gr. 504 and 507). 31. Letter 28—To Bishop Curisicius Ed. PG 91. 620C–621B. CPG 7699.28. Sherwood 1952: 27–8 nr 16 = 626–32 (so also Larchet 1998a: 42). c.632. Due to similarities of theme, content and tone we can presume that Letters 28–31 were composed at the same time as Letter 8, dated to 632. On the addressee and its manuscript tradition, see the prosopographical section (‘John of Cyzicus’). Maximus congratulates the recipient on his recent election to the ‘high-priesthood’, probably to be interpreted as consecration as archbishop. He alludes to a danger to the unity of the church (621A4–8, an allusion to the negotiations with the miaphysites or to the schism within the church of Jerusalem; for the latter see Jankowiak 2009: 112–21), and urges the recipient to fulil his clerical vocation and gather back in his scattered sheep (622A), on the condition that the ‘expectation of enemies’ at which those sheep led their homeland has passed (622A). hese enemies must either be the Persians (but they had withdrawn from the East already in 629), or the Arab tribesmen who had raided the Judaean deserts in 614 (see Letter 8). If the latter is correct then Curisicius would appear to be in Palestine, but then it is unclear which archbishropic he could have occupied. 32. Letter 29—To the Same (sc. Curisicius) Ed. PG 91. 621C–624A. CPG 7699.29. Sherwood 1952: 27–8 nr 18 = 626–32. c.632. he letter is a clear sequel to Letter 28. Curisicius has now fulilled the task which Maximus enjoined in Letter 28, since he is said to have gathered in the lock which had led against its will from its homeland, but now returned across the vast expanse oxfordhb-9780199673834-part-1.indd 41 11/11/2014 4:37:13 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Nov 11 2014, NEWGEN 42 Marek Jankowiak and Phil Booth of sea (621C). We can presume that the letter was dispatched soon ater its predecessor, before the expansion of the Muslims into the Near East (c.633) once again plunged the empire into crisis. Amongst the returned exiles Maximus places one ‘sanctiied Lord Abba George the Priest’ (624A), on whom see Letter 31. Curisicius was thus overseeing the same monastic communities as John, who is perhaps the former’s sufragan. he reference to the wolves (621D1) and the rare expression ‘rod of teaching’ (621C5–6, cf. 441D) suggest the close proximity of Letter 29 to Letter 8. 33. Letter 30—To Bishop John Ed. PG 91. 624A–D. CPG 7699.30. Sherwood 1952: 27–8 nr 17 = 626–32 (so also Larchet 1998a: 42). c.632. As in Letter 28, Maximus summons his correspondent to gather in his scattered sheep, ‘if the foul expectation of enemies has completely passed, on account of which they endured so great a light’ (624C). 34. Letter 31—To the Same (sc. Bishop John) Ed. PG 91. 624D–625D. CPG 7699.31. Sherwood 1952: 27–8 nr 20 = 632. c.632. As with Letter 29, this is a clear sequel to its predecessor. Once again Maximus refers to the return of some members of the recipient’s lock, and names two individuals: Eudocia ἡ ἐγκλειστ́, who appears to be an abbess (625B); and ‘our lord the sanctiied George the priest’, who must be identical with that George referred to in Letter 29. Maximus calls him ‘the truly divine ield [γεώργιον] and the most esteemed cultivator [γεωργόν] of the divine and great George’ (625C), suggesting that he served a community dedicated to St. George, perhaps the same as that referred to in Letter 3. his same George is perhaps the recipient of Maximus’ Opusculum 4 (with Booth 2013: 266–7). We do not know where the recipient was, but the common reference to George shows that he was overseeing the same communities as Curisicius, who was perhaps his superior. On the possible connection with Palestine, see Letter 28. 5. Against the Ecclesiastical Unions and Monoenergism (633–636) 35. Letter 19—To Pyrrhus, the Most Holy Priest and Hegoumen Ed. PG 91. 589C–597B. CPG 7699.19. Sherwood 1952: 37–8 nr 42 = ‘End 633, early 634’; Larchet 1998a: 26–30 = end of the year 633. Late 633 or early 634. In the conclusion to the letter Maximus refers to the ‘sea travel’ of the letter’s bearers, suggesting he is in North Africa. But as the recipient was in Constantinople, it is not impossible that he had returned to the East. Maximus begins with efusive praise for the recipient, and lauds a recent document which ‘the new Moses’, Sergius of Constantinople, has issued (592B–C). his Maximus calls Psephos, oxfordhb-9780199673834-part-1.indd 42 11/11/2014 4:37:13 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Nov 11 2014, NEWGEN a new date-list of the works of maximus the confessor 43 identiied in later texts as that which banned the statement of Christ’s ‘one’ or ‘two’ operations (see e.g. Sergius, First Letter to Honorius, Riedinger 1990–2: 542–4) issued ater Sophronius’ confrontation with Sergius of Constantinople in the second half of 633. Here Maximus seems to accept the document, and sets out a clear position on the communion of the operations and the singularity of the acting subject in the Incarnation (592D–593A). Nevertheless, and although he does not commit to a statement on the ‘two operations’, he demonstrates an evident suspicion of the ‘one operation’ formula, calling the Alexandrian accord an ‘innovation in the faith’ (592C), speaking of the ‘natural operation’ of the lesh (593A), and asking Pyrrhus to elucidate certain questions: what is ἐνέργεια, what are its kinds, what is ἐνέργημα, what is the diference between ἔργον and πρᾶξις, etc. (596B). He concludes, ‘I have not yet been able to understand precisely why and how it is necessary to accept speaking and thinking of ‘the one operation’’ (596B7–9). From Opusculum 9—in which Maximus defended his position in this letter—we know that Maximus had also received ‘a huge tome’ from Pyrrhus, no doubt the same as was excerpted in the Acts of the Lateran Council (Riedinger 1984: 152), which refers to Sophronius in respectful terms and thus seems to belong to the earliest stages of the conlict (Jankowiak 2009: 182–3). Pyrrhus, we should note, had previously been a Palestinian monk (Pertusi 1958: 14–21), but at the time of writing was, according to Nicephorus, archon and hegoumen of the monasteries of Chrysopolis, and a friend to the patriarch Sergius (Chronography, de Boor 1880: 118; Short History, Mango 1990: 74). We thus have a remarkable situation in which the two disciples of the protagonists in the Psephos recognize the accord but nevertheless continue the discussion, defending the positions of their masters, Sergius and Sophronius. 36. Letter 15—To Cosmas, the Most God-Beloved Deacon in Alexandria, on the Common and Particular, that is, on the Essence and the Hypostasis Ed. PG 91. 543C–576D; additional fragments in Epifanovich 1917: 71–2 (Add. 23) and 85 (Add. 31, see also Roosen 2001/1: 7). CPG 7699.15, 7707.23 and 7707.31. Sherwood 1952: 40 nr 46 = ‘Ater 634. (634–40)’; Larchet 1998a: 52 = 634–9. c.633, before Letter 14. Pace Larchet (1998a: 54), there seems little reason to doubt that this letter is the ‘concise written response on the dogmatic chapters’ composed by Maximus in response to the wish of the Alexandrian deacon Cosmas, referred to in Letter 14 (537C), even if it is far from concise. If so, this dates it to c.633. A long doctrinal treatise on the diference between essence and hypostasis, with evident access to a considerable range of books (contrast with Ep. 13), the letter is a sophisticated but somewhat confused anti-Severan tract in which Maximus reacts to a polemical attack of the Severans against himself: ‘I do not think one thing in my soul, as some of those who celebrate Severus claim, and speak diferently to those I chance upon. Do not believe this. Rather I think, believe and speak as I was taught and as I received from the Fathers, and, to say it more precisely, I bring forth my thoughts embodied in words’ (576A). It is unclear to what this charge of insincerity refers, but it demonstrates the engagement of Maximus in the debates accompanying the conclusion of the Union with the heodosians in 633. oxfordhb-9780199673834-part-1.indd 43 11/11/2014 4:37:13 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Nov 11 2014, NEWGEN 44 Marek Jankowiak and Phil Booth It is notable also that our letter includes a statement on the operations of Christ which is not explicitly dyenergist or anti-monoenergist (pace Sherwood, who calls it ‘strikingly antimonenergistic’): ‘We speak of both the miracles and the suferings as being of the same, that is Christ, since he is clearly one, who operates (ἐνεργῶν) the divine and the human. For [he operated] divine things bodily (σαρκικῶς), because he projected the power of miracles through the lesh, which is not without a share of the natural operation (φυσικὴ ἐνέργεια); and [he operated] human things divinely, because he freely and willingly accepted the experience of human suferings, without natural compulsion’ (573B). Although the reference to the natural operation of the lesh implies a preference for ‘two operations’, Maximus’ position is similar to that of Sergius’ Psephos, as well as Maximus’ Letters 14 and 19, encouraging us to place them all in the short time ater the publication of the Psephos late in 633 or 634, and before Maximus’ explicit resistance to monoenergism. For Cosmas, cf. also Letter 16. 37. Letter 14—Dogmatic Letter to Peter the Illustris Ed. PG 91. 533B–543C; the ending ed. Boudignon 2011: xxxi and xlii. CPG 7699.14. Sherwood 1952: 40–1 nr 47 = 634–40; Larchet 1998a: 52 = 634–9. c.633. he name of the addressee, absent from Combeis’ edition, is spelled out in Vat. gr. 504 as Peter Illustris (ἐπιστολὴ δογματικὴ πρὸς Πέτρον Ἰλλόστριον). On Peter, see the prosopographical section. Within the conclusion to the letter Maximus bemoans the Muslim conquests (540AB, 541B)―the invaders’ description as a ‘desert people’ excludes the Persians―which he perceives as a manifestation of Christian collective sin, and indicative of the imminent reign of the Antichrist. He also states that the Jews support the invasion, and launches into a violent anti-Jewish invective. All this dates our letter to c.633, although the devastation seems to be recent. he description is vivid—might it be that Maximus has returned to the East and is close to events? he letter bearer is Cosmas the Deacon, apparently a recent convert from miaphysitism, whom Maximus wishes Peter to receive and, if necessary, to present to ‘the venerable pope’ (536A) so that Cosmas might resume his position as deacon. In the title to Letter 15 Cosmas is described as deacon at Alexandria, so the ‘pope’ can only be Cyrus (thus already Sherwood). Cyrus was not elected patriarch of Alexandria until ater the Pact of Union in June 633—see Jankowiak (2009: 89–90)—and this again encourages us to place our letter ater the Pact of Union, although it is not impossible that Maximus writes during the discussions which must have preceded it. Maximus presents dyophysite teaching as Cosmas’ new creed, and asks the addressee to explain it to him in more detail (surprising if, indeed, Peter the illustris is also the general Peter). Was Cosmas converted to Chalcedon through Cyrus’ reconciliation with the Egyptian Severans? Maximus states that the greatest good is the reuniting of those who were separated by faith (533B–C), and the letter appears to be a positive response to the same unionist initiative. his is supported in the rather loose christological statement, wherein Maximus describes the Logos as ‘the same operating (ἐνεργῶν) the miracles, the same willingly (κατὰ θέλησιν) accepting the experience of human suferings’ (537A), emphasizing the Logos as the subject of Christ’s actions but remaining silent on oxfordhb-9780199673834-part-1.indd 44 11/11/2014 4:37:13 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Nov 11 2014, NEWGEN a new date-list of the works of maximus the confessor 45 the relation of operation to nature. his statement is close to that of the Psephos of late 633 or 634. All the indications, therefore, suggest a date late in 633 or 634, although we cannot exclude a date in the irst months of 633, when discussions with the miaphysites were ongoing and Cyrus had yet to endorse monoenergism. In the last lines—‘un post-scriptum’ edited by Boudignon—Maximus greets one more time Peter and ‘the blessed child sir Nonnos’, no doubt Peter’s son. 38. Ambigua to homas (On Various Diiculties in St Dionysius and St Gregory, to homas the Sanctiied) Ed. Janssens 2002: 1–34; PG 91. 1032–1060. CPG 7705.1. Sherwood 1952: 39 nr 43 = ‘634 or shortly ater’ (following von Balthasar 1941: 150–2). 634 or 635. homas is the addressee also of the Second Letter to homas and is usually identiied with the κ́ριος ἀββᾶς homas mentioned in Letter 40, where he receives a command from Abbot Stephen, thought to have been passed by homas to Maximus who responded with the Ambigua to homas. homas was a monk, but there is nothing to substantiate his, or Abbot Stephen’s, connection with the Philippicus monastery near Constantinople (pace Janssens 2002: xxiii–xxiv). It is tempting to identify him also with ὁ μακάριος ἀββᾶς homas whom Pope heodore sent, according to the Relatio motionis, to the patrician Gregory in Africa in 646/7; on whom see Brandes (1998: 185). As with the earlier Ambigua to John (with which it appears to have been combined by Maximus himself, see Janssens 2003), this short text deals with ive diiculties, four in Gregory of Nazianzus and one in Ps-Dionysius the Areopagite. Ambiguum 4 comments on Oration 30 of Gregory of Nazianzus (30.6.5–20), but not on the passage that will become contentious at the beginning of the monothelite controversy (30.12). Ambiguum 5 deals with the phrase ‘new theandric operation’, and shows clear knowledge of the Pact of Union in June 633, in which this same phrase had igured in the form ‘one theandric operation’ (V.237–8, see Acts of the Lateran Council, Riedinger 1984: 512). Maximus’ position here diverges from Letters 14, 15 and 19 in ofering a repeated, explicit airmation of the natural operations, stating that one cannot speak of one operation (V.249–50), but avoiding the expression ‘two operations’ (although he says at V.219–220: κλ́σει τοῦ διττοῦ τὴν φ́σιν Χριστοῦ τὴν διττὴν παραδηλοῦντος ἐνέργειαν). But he also diverges from Sophronius’ Synodical Letter in insisting that all Christ’s actions belong to a single subject and are both divine and human at the same time (e.g. V.192–212) rather than dividing them into human, divine, and theandric. Our text seems therefore to belong to the period ater Letters 14, 15, and 19, and perhaps also ater Sophronius’ Synodical Letter (although this is diicult to establish, as pointed out by Bellini 1982: 42), but before an outright commitment to an explicit ‘two operations’ formula and before the focus on the question of the christological will(s). Some scholars wish to read quasi-monothelite sentiments into the text—e.g. V.93–4, speaking of the Word moving the humanity of its own initiative (αὐτουργικῶς) (Parente 1953)—and while most scholars reject such a reading (e.g. Larchet 1996: 312–14), it is evident that contemporaries also questioned it; see Second Letter to homas below. Nevertheless, the absence of discussion on the will(s) is striking. oxfordhb-9780199673834-part-1.indd 45 11/11/2014 4:37:13 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Nov 11 2014, NEWGEN 46 Marek Jankowiak and Phil Booth 39. Second Letter to homas Ed. Janssens 2002: 35–49. CPG 7700. Not included in Sherwood 1952. Larchet 1996: 17 = ‘Spring 640’, but see 289 n.55 = ‘several months ater the Ambigua to homas’. Janssens prefers the latter solution (2002: xxii–xxiii). 635 or 636. A follow-up to the Ambigua to homas, in which Maximus, having no doubt received a response from his correspondent, resumes his comments on the same passages of Gregory of Nazianzus and explains the aforementioned passage within the Ambigua to homas V.93–8 in which he referred to the Word moving the humanity of its own initiative, as the soul moves the body (Second Letter 3). Maximus’ retractation shows an early stage of the relection on the wills and his increasing disafection with the compromise deined by the Psephos. 6. Letters to Marinus 40. Letter 20—To Marinus the Monk Ed. PG 91. 597B–604B. CPG 7699.20. Sherwood 1952: 34 nr 33 = ‘Early African stay (628–30)’; repeated in Larchet 1998a: 46. 636? On the addressee, see the prosopographical section. Here he is a monk, making this Maximus’ earliest correspondence with him. Maximus acknowledges his many faults that will bring upon him eternal damnation and makes a vow of silence, promising to withdraw from theology, lest he sufers a bigger and more just punishment: ‘I resolved to take silence as my associate, and to refrain totally from using divine words that, as it seems to me, are much above me, so that I am not condemned to a bigger degree and more justly, as the one who brings forth the words of God corrupted with my idleness in good deeds, which for this reason are unable to provide the life in grace to those who listen’ (597B10–C3). Although he had earned some praise, he will keep silence to avoid leading others astray by the bad example of his life. But he breaks his vow at the encouragement of ‘my most holy hegoumen, rich in wisdom’ (597D1–5), who forced him to write to Marinus in order to make known his virtues (this hegoumen, we should note, cannot be Sophronius since he never held such a rank). Maximus writes on fear of God, insisting that it need be authentic and not simulated, and inveighs against ‘Sadducees’, ‘scribes’, and ‘pharisees’, who show divine knowledge in words only, not in deeds, and who preach a theology of the demons. Maximus concludes by comforting Marinus and encouraging him to bear current events with patience (604A). he tone of the letter is polemical, the sting of which seems directed against the institutional church. Maximus is disenchanted and takes a vow of silence, apparently ater some of his theological declarations have been condemned; he has accepted this condemnation and promised to cease from writing. What is the context? Given that Marinus appears elsewhere as the representative of Arcadius, archbishop of Cyprus (see esp. Opusculum 20), it is tempting to connect the letter with the conlict between Arcadius and Sophronius and the Council of Cyprus in c.636. he source which describes that council, the Syriac Life (8–15), states oxfordhb-9780199673834-part-1.indd 46 11/11/2014 4:37:13 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Nov 11 2014, NEWGEN a new date-list of the works of maximus the confessor 47 that Maximus’ doctrine (of dyenergism) was there condemned—although he himself did not attend—and that in its atermath Maximus withdrew from the doctrinal scene. In this case, Letter 20 appears as the auto-critique of Maximus ater his condemnation, in which he nevertheless makes obvious to his correspondent his opinions on those who have silenced him. 41. Opusculum 7—Dogmatic Tome Sent to Cyprus, to the Deacon Marinus Ed. PG 91. 69B–89B. CPG 7697.7. Sherwood 1952: 51 nr 73 = c.642; so also Larchet 1999b: 50. c.640–1? On the correspondent see the prosopographical section. He is now a deacon but not yet a priest. A long anti-monothelite, anti-monoenergist ‘dogmatic tome’, composed with explicit knowledge of the Ekthesis (77A), but for the most part concerned with the question of the operations, as in the Letter A to halassius. It seems to date from ater Opusculum 6 but before Opusculum 20, since Maximus develops his interpretation of Gethsemane from the former (80C–81A), but his citation of patristic authorities is less developed than in the latter, where Marinus is a priest. Maximus thanks Marinus for his zeal and chastizes the ‘treason’ (προδοσία: 72C3, 73A7, and 12) of those who deprive Christ of his human nature. He refers to the ‘new ekthesis’ and appears to comment ironically on the recent appearance of the issue of the will (77A). Maximus’ refutation of monothelitism focusses on Gregory Nazianzen’s interpretation of Matthew 26: 39 (80C–84B) and the use in Ps-Dionysius of ‘theandric operation’ (emphasizing that the Areopagite did not use a number) and in Cyril of ‘one συγγεν́ς operation’ (84D–88A; the passage comes from Comm. in Ioh. iv.2, ed. Pusey 1872/1: 530.18–19: μίαν τε καὶ συγγενῆ δι’ ἀμφο͂ν ἐπιδείκνυσι τὴν ἐνέργειαν). he interpretation of this last passage brings Maximus to speak of two operations that are, however, ‘completely united by their mutual ainity (συμφυΐα) and interpenetration (περιχώρησις), so that he [Christ] makes them known as one operation through the union of the Logos itself and of his all holy body, which is not physical or hypostatical . . . but cognate (συγγενῆ) to the members through which he made himself manifest’ (88A2–8). Maximus then argues that monadic expressions within the Fathers, though not supporting monoenergism, should be embraced for their opposition to division in Christ, acknowledging the contradictions contained within the tradition (88B–89D), but also coming close to advocating the ‘one and two’ approach later adopted at Constantinople, which Maximus ended up refusing (see Bathrellos 2004: 195–201). Maximus’ defence of a dyenergist reading of the citation from Cyril is somewhat desperate, and his discomfort perhaps explains why, except for the roughly contemporary Opusculum 8 and, later, the defensive Opusculum 9, dyothelite authors only adduce it when referring to the position of their opponents, as in the Disputation with Pyrrhus (344A–B), in the Doctrina Patrum (ed. Diekamp 1981: 131–2, in the chapter listing ‘the teachings of the Fathers put forward by the opponents’), and in Acts of the Sixth Ecumenical Council (Riedinger 1990–2: 372 and 510–12). he failure of the dyothelite attempts to interpret this passage is emphasized in the Dispute at Bizya (DB, Allen–Neil 1999: 101, 299–301), where Maximus contests its oxfordhb-9780199673834-part-1.indd 47 11/11/2014 4:37:13 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Nov 11 2014, NEWGEN 48 Marek Jankowiak and Phil Booth authenticity and even attributes it to Timothy Aelurus. For the theological content of our Opusculum in more depth, see Larchet 1998b: 50–8. 42. Opusculum 20—Dogmatic Tome to the Priest Marinus Ed. PG 91. 228B–245D. CPG 7697.20. Sherwood 1952: 41–2 nr 49 = ‘by 640’; Larchet 1998b: 27 = ‘environ 640’. 641, but ater Opusculum 7. On the addressee, see the prosopographical section. Pace Sherwood and Larchet, our text must post-date Opusculum 7: the latter is addressed to Marinus as deacon, whereas here he is a priest; and in Opusculum 7 Maximus shows no awareness of the problematic passages of Anastasius of Antioch dealt with here (see also Léthel 1979: 74–7; Bathrellos 2004: 198 n.114). Marinus asked Maximus to comment on three texts which the monoenergists and monothelites were citing in support of their position: (1) Against Diaitetes (sc. John Philoponus) of Anastasius of Antioch, where he attempts to apologize for monoenergist phrasing therein (229B–233B) in a manner reminiscent of Opusculum 7 (for this defence, see Uthemann 1997: 400–4, and for the possible problems to which it gave rise, cf. Opusc. 9); (2) a passage of Gregory of Nazianzus’ Oration 30 (233B–237C), treated also in less detail in Opusculum 4 (so also Larchet 1998b: 30–1); (3) the irst Letter of Honorius to Sergius (237C–245A). he defence of Pope Honorius’ monothelite formula is tortuous: Maximus irst argues that Honorius’ ‘one will’ referred to the divine will and did not preclude the human (237C–244B), but then implies that Honorius has never spoken of ‘one’ will: on a recent trip to Rome his disciple Anastasius cornered the entourage of Honorius into projecting the responsibility of the formula onto the Greek translator of the letter (244CD). For more details see Booth (2013: 267–8) and Jankowiak (2013a). In the conclusion Maximus requests that Marinus ‘make known these things to him who presides as hierarch (ἱεραρχικῶς) over our blameless and orthodox faith’. his must be Marinus’ bishop, whom we can presume to be Arcadius archbishop of Cyprus, who acted as an arbiter in the early stages of the controversy over the operation(s) and will(s) of Christ,8 rather than his successor Sergius who by May 643 committed himself to the dyothelite cause (Acts of the Lateran Council, Riedinger 1984: 60–4). Maximus’ entire correspondence with Marinus can be read as part of a wider diplomatic efort to win over the archbishops of Cyprus to the dyothelite cause (Jankowiak 2009: 198–9). As Arcadius died a little before the death of Cyrus of Alexandria on 21 March 642 (John of Nikiu, Chronicle 120, ed. Zotenberg 1883: 64–7), our Opusculum was probably written in 641, a date supported by (1) the fact that the defence of Honorius’ letter to Sergius is paralleled in early dyothelite writings only in the letter sent by Pope John IV to the sons of Heraclius in spring 641 (ed. Schacht 1936: 235–46; fragments in PL 129. 561C–566D), possibly in response to an encyclical letter of the patriarch of Constantinople Pyrrhus (Marinus’ demand for Maximus’ comments is perhaps also in reaction to the encyclical letter of Pyrrhus: see Jankowiak 2009: 183–91 and 2013a); (2) the fact-inding mission of Anastasius to Rome makes sense 8 Booth 2013: 261 n.138; Jankowiak 2009: 139–49 and 197–9. oxfordhb-9780199673834-part-1.indd 48 11/11/2014 4:37:13 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Nov 11 2014, NEWGEN a new date-list of the works of maximus the confessor 49 only at a very early stage of the controversy over Honorius’ monothelite formula, and very soon ater Maximus’ arrival in Africa. he theological content of the letter is discussed in some detail in Larchet 1998b: 27–33. 43. Opusculum 10—To Lord Marinus Priest in Cyprus Ed. PG 91. 133A–137C; fragment translated in Latin by Anastasius the Librarian, PL 129. 577A–578B. CPG 7697.10. Sherwood 1952: 53–5 nr 79 = ‘645–46’; so too Larchet 1998b: 76. c.643–46, perhaps June–July 643. Now extant in excerpts. On the addressee, see the prosopographical section. Marinus is now a priest, placing our text ater Letter 20 and Opusculum 7. From Carthage (PG 91. 137B), and thus before his departure for Rome in 645/6, Maximus defends ‘the present pope’ in the face of theological detractors from Constantinople, who have contested the pope’s doctrine of the Filioque and of the freedom of Christ from original sin, both contained in his synodical letter (PG 91. 133D–136A). Given the later importance of the Filioque in East–West relations, some have doubted the authenticity of these excerpts; but see Siecienski (2007) and Booth (2013: 270 n.177). he inal excerpt from our text is a critique of the concept of hypostatical operation that Maximus found in heodore of Pharan (136C–137B), from which we ascertain that he is in fact identical with the author of the famous Preparation, heodore of Raithou; see Elert (1951: 71–6). Maximus’ ‘gallant but embarrassed’ (Chadwick 1991: 632) defence of the pope and a warm word he has for heodore of Pharan (136C12–13), later elevated to the rank of the founder of the monothelite heresy, suggest an earlier date than that proposed by Sherwood. Who is ‘the present pope’? he text post-dates the Ekthesis (136D), and with Sherwood and Larchet we concur that the pope is heodore, consecrated on 24 November 642. His synodical letter, sent to Constantinople probably in early 643 (Jankowiak 2009: 208–15), survives in fragments but these do not refer to the Filioque or to Christ’s sinlessness (PL 129. 577C–582B). Sergius archbishop of Cyprus reacted to it in a letter sent to Pope heodore already on 29 May 643 (Acts of the Lateran Synod, Riedinger 1984: 60–4). he request for clariications on the part of Marinus, a member of Sergius’ church who was concerned about Pope heodore’s unconventional theology, belongs to the same time as the letter of Sergius elicited by heodore’s synodical letter. We may thus assume that both letters were carried by the same envoys who stopped at Carthage on their way to Rome; this would also explain their reported haste (PG 91. 137B–C). In this case Maximus’ letter would date from June–July 643. For detailed discussion of the theological content, see Larchet 1998b: 76–86. 44. Opusculum 1—To Marinus the Most Holy Priest and Oikonomos of the Most Holy Metropolis of Constantia of the Island of Cyprus Ed. PG 91. 9A–37A. CPG 7697.1. Sherwood 1952: 53–5, nr 80 = ‘645–46’; so also Larchet 1998b: 86. Probably c.643–46. he fullest title is given by Ferrarensis 144, f. 100v: πρὸς Μαρ͂νον τὸν ὁσιώτατον πρεσβ́τερον καὶ οἰκονόμον τῆς ̔γιωτάτης μητροπόλεως Κωνσταντίας τῆς Κυπρίων νῆσου (Martini 1896: 344). For the addressee, see the prosopographical section. Both Sherwood and Larchet suggest that Opuscula 1–3, along with Opusculum oxfordhb-9780199673834-part-1.indd 49 11/11/2014 4:37:13 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Nov 11 2014, NEWGEN 50 Marek Jankowiak and Phil Booth 10, are excerpts from a single text sent to Marinus, but the reference to Maximus’ hasty answer makes it unlikely (137B). Opusculum 1 is a developed anti-monothelite text, placing it post-c.643; cf. Opusculum 16. Maximus praises Marinus for his discernment that allows him to recognize ‘what some proposed in an inexact way on the matter of the wills’ (12A). he text then seeks to diferentiate numerous Greek terms concerning the will (12C–21C); it refutes the monothelite opinion of a single will of the saints with each other and with God ater the resurrection (21D–28A), an opinion which Maximus himself once expressed (cf. Ep. 2 above), and on the single will in Christ (28B–33A). In the inal section Maximus defends his earlier use, in Ambiguum to John 3, of the phrase ‘one and single operation of God and the saints’ (33A–37A). He also ofers an explicit retreat from his earlier application of προαίρεσις to Christ in Questions to halassius 42 (29D–31A). It is evident that some of Maximus’ inconsistencies have been pointed out, and that Marinus needs the arguments set out here in some ongoing discussions (see Larchet 1998b: 86–92). 45. Opusculum 19—To Marinus the Priest, Solution to the Diiculties Put Forward by heodore, Deacon and Rhetor Ed. PG 91. 216B–228A. CPG 7697.19. Sherwood 1952: 51–2 nr 75 = ‘642 or ater’; so also Larchet 1998b: 68. Post-c.643, and perhaps 645. On the addressee, see the prosopographical section. Marinus is here a priest, placing the text ater Opusculum 7. Maximus responds to two aporiae ‘of heodore of Byzantium, deacon, rhetor and synodicarius of the Constantinopolitan archbishop Paul’ (216B), but it is unclear why the Opusculum is addressed to Marinus. he rare title συνοδικάριος is used in connection with envoys circulating between the patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople (Acts of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, Riedinger 1990–2: 856.12 and 894.19), suggesting that heodore posed his questions on a mission to Rome. Two embassies of Patriarch Paul to Rome are known, occasioned by his synodical letter in 642, but its bearers do not include a deacon heodore (PL 129. 577C1–2), and by his dogmatic letter of May 645 (Acts of the Lateran Council, Riedinger 1984: 205), the bearer of which might have been the deacon heodore. he text indeed points to a developed stage of the crisis, when dyothelitism had been recognized and contemplated in Constantinople, and some signiicant theological problems raised. he irst of heodore’s diiculties equates the attribution to Christ of a natural human will and of a (heretical) natural human ignorance, suggesting that both should be attributed to Christ through appropriation (216B–C); the second states that if all departure from the Fathers is innovation, one must either demonstrate their statement of ‘natural wills’, or else recognize that one is supporting one’s own innovative teaching with the name of the Fathers (216C–217A). In response to the irst aporia, Maximus distinguishes natural and relational appropriation in Christ—as in Opusculum 20 (237A–B)—but then proves somewhat inconsistent in his placement of ignorance amongst Christ’s natural human passions, before stating that it could not have existed (220B–221C). In response to heodore’s second aporia, Maximus cites unidentiied patristic passages in support of the natural will, and states that this is the position of numerous Fathers (PG 91. 224B–D). He then accuses the monothelites of being the true innovators, recapitulating his critique oxfordhb-9780199673834-part-1.indd 50 11/11/2014 4:37:13 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Nov 11 2014, NEWGEN a new date-list of the works of maximus the confessor 51 of the diferent monoenergist/monothelite positions (PG 91. 224D–228A). here is a detailed discussion of the theological content in Larchet 1998b: 68–73. 7. Back to Africa: he Afair of the Nuns (c.640–c.642) he afair of the nuns of Alexandria is described in circumstantial detail in Letter 12 to John Cubicularius, which summarizes events so far, and which we can situate with precision due to the stated date therein of the arrival of an order from the Patrikia, no doubt Martina, to George the prefect (ἔπαρχος) of Africa in November indiction 15, that is, 641. Numerous other letters relate to the same afair, but their chronology presents signiicant problems. In all such letters Maximus is, however, in North Africa, meaning that the date is ater c.636–8 when, according to the Syriac Life, the Muslim conquest of Syria forced him westward once more. his terminus post quem is also supported in the very presence of the Alexandrian nuns in North Africa, improbable before c.636 at the earliest, when some raiding into Egypt began (Hoyland 1997: 574– 90) and the Alexandrians might have feared imminent invasion (cf. the presence of refugees from Libya in Letter 12). More probable, however, is their light westward c.640, when the conquest proper had begun in earnest. he sequence of events and the chronology of Maximus’ letters can be reconstructed as follows: • Nuns from two miaphysite monasteries, of Sakerdos and of Amma Ioannia, led from Alexandria to the province of Africa at some point in the period c.636–c.640, more probably towards the end of that chronological range. • Both communities entered into communion with the Chalcedonian church ater their arrival to Africa; the good news was communicated by the prefect George to the emperors and the patriarchs (Ep. 18, 588C). To reward the nuns for their conversion, the eparch presented them with an expensive building (Ep. 12, 464B6–7; also referred to in Ep. 18, 589B3–4). • he two monasteries then broke communion with the Chalcedonians. • he prefect George warned them through the pen of Maximus of the consequences of breaking communion, and exhorted them to return to the Chalcedonian fold, or else return to him the ‘gits’ he had granted them—this is Letter 18. At the same time he announced an imminent audience with the emperors and patriarchs in Constantinople, to whom he had written about their case (589A). • George, together with the archbishop of Carthage and the local leaders, reported the matter to the emperor (in singular) and to the patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople by means of letters (δι’ ἀναφορᾶς) (Ep. 12, 464C–D). George’s trip to Constantinople is not explicitly mentioned, but he received letter(s?) from the emperor (singular) and from the patriarchs, ordering him to remove all the heretics from the province; as for the nuns, those who remained in communion with the imperial church could conserve their monasteries, while the unrepentant ones oxfordhb-9780199673834-part-1.indd 51 11/11/2014 4:37:13 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Nov 11 2014, NEWGEN 52 Marek Jankowiak and Phil Booth were to be divided among orthodox monasteries and their goods coniscated for the public treasury (Ep. 12, 464D–465A). • George executed the order and persuaded ‘all the heretics from Syria, Egypt, Alexandria, and Libya’ to join the church. he nuns from the monastery of Sakerdos were irst divided among orthodox monasteries, but eventually returned to the Chalcedonian church; those supervized by Amma Ioannia converted quickly enough to keep their monastery (Ep. 12, 465A–B). Letter 11 probably belongs in this context. • In November 641 George received the order of the Patrikia Martina to liberate the imprisoned nuns (Ep. 12, 460A–B). • George refused to execute the no-doubt authentic (pace Sherwood 1952: 48) imperial order; Maximus then tried to explain his insubordination in Letter 12 to his contact at court, John the Cubicularius. his much of the narrative is clear. he question is where we should place within it Letters 1, 16, 44–45, and the so-called Letter B, all of which relate to an absence of the prefect George in Constantinople: in Letter 1 Maximus wishes him well upon his departure for the capital; in Letter 16 he refers to the calumnies piled upon George; in Letters 44–45 he writes to John Cubicularius in praise of George’s virtues (the irst delivered through the μεγαλοπρεπέστατος heocharistus); and in Letter B he asks one Stephen to check that a copy of Letter 44 is identical with the original. (Epp. 22–3, to Stephen, may also be related to this request.) here are two possible solutions, but each has its problems. he irst is to suppose that the impending imperial audience which George announces in Letter 18 was in fact a summons, but that he survived this interview to return to the province so as to be there again in November 641 (so that Letter 12 is the inal letter in the corpus). his solution is favoured by Booth (2013: 255–6), noting others who place the letters before Letter 12. Since Maximus in Letter 12 reports George’s letter to the Pope, this perhaps encourages us to place the whole afair in the second half of 640 or 641, given that the Roman see was vacant from October 638 to May 640. In this case George’s fate would mirror that of the patriarch-cum-administrator Cyrus of Alexandria, deposed late in the reign of Heraclius (Nicephorus, Short History 26) but restored soon ater by Heraclius Constantine or Heraclonas (John of Nikiu, Chronicle 116, 119). he second solution, which Sherwood 1952: 49–51 favoured, is to suppose that George’s refusal of the κέλευσις from Martina prompted her to dismiss him, arrest him, and summon him to the capital, so that the letters relating to his absence date instead from ater Letter 12. his reading is supported by the mention in Letter 45 of two previous letters to John (sc. Epp. 12 and 44), the title of ‘ex-prefect’ attributed to George for Letter 1 in the Laurent. Plut. 57.7, Maximus’ attempt to bolster George’s spirits in Letter 1, and the increasingly nervous tone of Letters 44–5. here is, however, a chronological diiculty (seen by Sherwood 1952: 50). he consistent reference throughout the contested group to ‘emperors’ rather than ‘emperor’ (Ep. 44, 645C2–4, 648C6–9; Ep. 45, 649B7–8) implies a date before news of the fall of Martina and her sons Heraclonas and David-Tiberius, and of the subsequent sole reign of Constans II, reached Africa (unless, that is, we consider the general Valentine to have been, or to have been perceived to be, Constans’ co-emperor; see John of Nikiu, oxfordhb-9780199673834-part-1.indd 52 11/11/2014 4:37:13 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Nov 11 2014, NEWGEN a new date-list of the works of maximus the confessor 53 Chronicle 120; heodore Spudaeus, Narrationes 17). Ater Treadgold (1990), it has been supposed that Martina fell in November 641—that is, simultaneously with George’s receipt of the κέλευσις—which would leave no time for a subsequent series of letters to the capital referring to the ‘emperors’. But in fact the date of November 641 rests upon an ingenious but far from unassailable reattribution of the notice on Constans II in Chronicon Altinate to Heraclonas (see Jankowiak 2013b: 308 arguing for the original arrangement). It is true that the narrative of Nicephorus’ Short History, which breaks of at the consecration of Paul as the patriarch of Constantinople on 1 October 641, leaves the reader with the impression of the imminent fall of Martina. But the Chronicle of John of Nikiu describes a protracted power struggle ater these events, and perhaps even ater the death of Cyrus of Alexandria on 21 March 642, which is reported and placed immediately before that description (see Zotenberg 1883: 215, 458, but note that in the same source at 219, 462–3 the text again reports Cyrus’ death, but instead places it ater the culmination of events in Constantinople); the precise date of Martina’s fall is, therefore, far from clear. In this case, we must then imagine a tight but not impossible schedule over the winter of 641/2 and early 642: • he composition (in or soon ater November 641) of Letter 12, and its receipt in Constantinople. • he execution of the order to arrest George and his deportation to the capital. Maximus consoles him with Letter 1, and tries to muster support for him in Constantinople with Letters 44 and B. • Subsequent, and much cooler letters, to John and perhaps Abbot Stephen (Epp. 45 and 22), ater waiting for and failing to receive a response. • he afair, and Maximus’ part in it, must have been widely known, as suggested by the consolation letter sent by the Alexandrian deacon Cosmas (Ep. 16). • he arrival of the news of Martina’s fall and the accession of Constans as sole emperor, possibly delayed by the troubled circumstances of these same months in Egypt hampering communications with the West. he afair of the prefect George may have been more than an episode in Maximus’ career. Even if it is unclear why the vicissitudes of a group of Alexandrian nuns engaged the emperors and the patriarchs and led to the fall of the eparch of Africa, the afair appears to have played a key role in the estrangement of Maximus from the Constantinopolitan court. he absence of any reference to the operations and the wills is remarkable— although there is also no allusion to the ongoing Muslim conquest of Egypt—and perhaps suggests that Maximus radicalized his doctrinal position ater he had lost inluence in the entourage of the emperors. 46. Letter 18—In the Name (ἐκ προσώπου) of George, the Most Famous Prefect of Africa, to the Nuns Who Defected from the Catholic Church in Alexandria Ed. PG 91. 584D–589B. CPG 7699.18. Sherwood 1952: 48–9 nr 67 = ‘Dec. 641, Jan. 642’, repeated at Larchet 1998a: 57. 640/1. Pace Sherwood, it is evident that Letter 18 precedes Letter 12, where the further development of the afair is described. Maximus appears as the oicial theological oxfordhb-9780199673834-part-1.indd 53 11/11/2014 4:37:14 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Nov 11 2014, NEWGEN 54 Marek Jankowiak and Phil Booth porte-parole of George. ‘George’ rebukes the addressees for their re-conversion to miaphysitism (588C), and expounds dyophysite doctrine. He reminds the nuns that he had written to everyone—patriarchs, bishops, governors, and even the emperors themselves—to make known their conversion, not suspecting that they would return to heresy so quickly. He orders them to ‘give the gits from me to you to my man heopemptus’, who carries the relevant written authorization (probably to be identiied with the addressee of Q.heop.), and threatens that he will inform the emperors and the patriarchs of their apostasy when he goes to visit them (589A5–11). he nuns, it appears, are the same refugees referred to in the later Letters 12, rather than residents of Alexandria itself (so also Sherwood 1952; pace Boudignon 2004: 15). 47. Letter 11—To the Hegoumene [I(o)annia?], on a Nun Who Let the Monastery and Who Repented Ed. PG 91. 453A–457D. CPG 7699.11. Sherwood 1952: 43 nr 59 = ‘African stay’; so also Larchet 1998a: 56, suggesting with more precision 641–2. 640/1. Ater Combeis, Sherwood (1952) and thence Larchet (1998a: 55) suggest that the addressee is the ‘Iania’ who appears amidst a list of Maximus’ correspondents in Photius (Bibl. codex 192B, ed. Henry 1959–77: 157b13: πρὸς Ἰανίαν ἡγουμένην). A nun has quit her community and then repented, and Maximus asks her abbess to receive her back, even though she is reluctant. Larchet suggests a connection with the Alexandrian nuns of Letter 18, in which case Photius’ ‘Iania’ could be identiied with the ‘Ioannia’ referred to as abbess of some of those same nuns in Letter 12 (460B, 465B). If the addressee is indeed Ioannia, then the contents suggest a date ater their forced reconciliation with the eparch (as described in Ep. 12). A mention of the divine ‘wills and suferings’ (457B10–11: θελ́ματα καὶ παθ́ματα), in plural, does not seem to have theological implications. 48. Letter 12—To John Cubicularius, on the Correct Dogmas of the Church of God and against Severus the Heretic Ed. PG 91. 460A–509B. CPG 7699.12. Sherwood 1952: 45–8 nr 66 = ‘Nov–Dec 641’. November 641 or soon ater. An unsolicited letter to John—with whom relations have now soured—to inform him that in November of the present iteenth indiction [641] heodore the καγκελλάριος brought a letter from the Patrikia, that is Martina, to the eparch here (in Africa), ordering him to set free the Severan nuns of the Monastery of Amma Ioannia of Alexandria, and of the Monastery of Sacerdos. Maximus is surprised that John did not inform him of this matter, which caused much grumbling and ‘diminished a little the reverence of the catholic church of God for our lady the all-praiseworthy Patrikia’ (460C), and would have caused the revolt of Africa if the eparch had not declared the letter to be false. He reports that upon the reception of the letter some heretics from Alexandria and Syria, among them their bishop homas who belonged to the entourage of the empress, claimed that Martina followed their doctrine, and George punished them with imprisonment or a whipping. Maximus claims that he and other orthodox monks, in particular the Eukratades (on whom see Booth 2013: 149), opposed these calumnies against Martina and her late husband Heraclius, and the eparch oxfordhb-9780199673834-part-1.indd 54 11/11/2014 4:37:14 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Nov 11 2014, NEWGEN a new date-list of the works of maximus the confessor 55 himself defended as he could the reputation of the Patrikia (461A–B). Maximus proclaims himself perplexed and doubts the authenticity of the letter, which was, however, conirmed under oath by the καγκελλάριος. But he will be honest: if indeed John has suggested that Martina write a letter about the heretical women, this would be a serious charge against him. Maximus hopes that she sent it under the inluence of others, forgetting that she should not meddle in church afairs, in particular as she is a woman (461B–464A). Maximus now ofers a potted account of the nuns’ experience in North Africa (see the introduction to this section). He then warns his correspondent against fraternizing with heretics (465C–D), before launching into a long refutation of miaphysitism (without explicit reference to operations or wills) (465D–509B). he letter testiies to the ecumenical approach of the imperial court as late as 641, and even ater the death of Heraclius (for whom Maximus apologizes, as later in Opusc. 12, 142D–143A; cf. RM 41. 366–80). his fresh conciliation was perhaps connected with the consecration of a new patriarch of Constantinople, Paul, datable to 1 October 641. George opposed this policy by falsely declaring Martina’s letter to be inauthentic, as acknowledged by Maximus. he ‘autobiographical’ passage cited since Combeis to support the claim for Maximus’ Constantinopolitan origins and role at Heraclius’ court (505B7–10) is nothing of the sort: it refers to the addressee, John. 49. Letter 1—To the Servant of God Lord George, the Most Famous Prefect of Africa Ed. PG 91. 364A–392B. CPG 7699.1. Sherwood 1952: 49 nr 69 = ‘Ater ep. 18, therefore early 642’. c.640–42, perhaps early 642. Some manuscripts give a fuller title: ‘to the prefect George, when he had sailed to Constantinople’ (PG 91. 361–62 and Vat. gr. 1502: πρὸς Γεώργιον ἔπαρχον πλέσαντα ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει). Laurent. Plut. 57.7 calls him ‘former prefect’ and correctly describes the letter: ‘exhortation in the form of a letter to the servant of God lord George, former prefect of Africa’ (λόγος παραινετικὸς ἐν εἴδει ἐπιστολῆς πρὸς τὸν δόλον τοῦ θεοῦ κ́ριον Γεώργιον γενόμενον ἔπαρχον Ἀφρικῆς). Written soon ater George had been dismissed and summoned to Constantinople to which he is en route (392A–B). his is also the context for Letters 44–45 and B; on the possible dates, see the introduction. Maximus pours praise upon the recipient, who has been removed from his presence (364A). An allusion to the ‘threats of men’ (365B) suggests that George has fallen under some suspicion, and there is even an allusion to bodily sufering (373D). In the conclusion Maximus exhorts the recipient to take courage and wishes, with all the ascetics ‘who live, because of you, in this province’, for his safe return. Maximus refers to the distinction between gnomic and natural will in humankind (e.g. 368C), but there is no explicit link between such thoughts and dyothelite Christology, which is a striking omission. 50. Letter 44—To John Cubicularius, Letter of Commendation (περὶ θετικῆς) Ed. PG 91. 641D–648C. CPG 7699.44. Sherwood 1952: 49–50 nr 70 = ‘Winter 642’, i.e. 641/2. oxfordhb-9780199673834-part-1.indd 55 11/11/2014 4:37:14 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Nov 11 2014, NEWGEN 56 Marek Jankowiak and Phil Booth c.640–42, perhaps early 642, possibly sent to Constantinople together with or soon ater Letter 1. he meaning of περὶ θετικῆς in the title is not certain (PG 91. 641–42 note [n]; Sophocles 1914: 581). Maximus writes to John in order to praise the prefect George, who has been recalled to Constantinople. He recommends ‘the most magniicent illustris lord heocharistus’ (τὸν μεγαλοπρεπέστατον ἰλλούστριον κύριον Θεοχάριστον) who carries the letter, and asks him to assist heocharistus in the afair that Maximus entrusted to him. Maximus calls heocharistus a good man who helped him and others a lot during his stay [in Africa], and asks John to use all his power to protect him from injustice (645A). See also the prosopographical section. Maximus asks that God ‘preserve our most pious and all holy emperors [in plural, as also at 648C6–9], and empower the authority of their pious kingdom’, but also that he forgive them ‘for allowing the all-praised prefect of this province . . . to be recalled, even if for a moment’ (645C). He then details George’s manifold virtues, and informs John that, if he can see to the prefect’s safe return, he will give to the emperors ‘a safe and unbreakable bulwark, for no-one is a more trusted servant of their pious empire’ (648C). his suggests that George’s recall had occurred under some suspicion of dissent; cf. Letter 45. On the date, see the introduction to this section. 51. Letter B—To Stephen the Most God-Loving Priest and Hegoumen Ed. Epifanovich 1917: 84–5 (Add. 30); not in PG. CPG 7707.30. Sherwood 1952: 50 nr 71 = ‘as ep. 44, winter 642’. c.640–42, perhaps early 642, possibly sent to Constantinople together with or soon ater Letter 1; simultaneous with Letter 44. Preserved only in Laurent. Plut. 57.7, f. 1v–2r, where it follows Letter 8 and precedes Letter 40. Epifanovich (1917: xiii) associated it for this reason with Letter 40, also addressed to Stephen, and thought that the text given to heocharistus mentioned in the letter was the Mystagogy. he text precludes such an interpretation, however. Ater a laudatory introduction, Maximus states: ‘I summon you, my blessed master and also teacher, since you are in Constantinople, concerning the copy given to lord heocharistus and what was sent to lord John Cubicularius, to compare it carefully, lest some mistake introduced through hasty writing alters the entire purpose of the subject.’ he letter to John Cubicularius, the copy of which was given to heocharistus, is no doubt Letter 44. heocharistus is probably the addressee of the Mystagogy (see the prosopographical section), while Stephen appears to be the recipient of Letters 22, 23, and 40. he haste of the composition of the Letter 44 suggests that heocharistus, certainly the bearer of the letter, may have boarded the same ship to Constantinople as the summoned prefect George, in whose defence Maximus tried to muster his rare contacts in Constantinople. 52. Letter 45—To the Same (sc. John Cubicularius) Ed. PG 91. 648D–649C. CPG 7699.45. Sherwood 1952: 50 nr 72 = ‘Early 642’. c.640–42, perhaps 642, ater Letter 44. he letter was written some time ater Letter 44, to which we can presume John had not responded. he tone is cooler, but Maximus again writes in defence of ‘George the Christ-loving prefect’, and recommends him in oxfordhb-9780199673834-part-1.indd 56 11/11/2014 4:37:14 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Nov 11 2014, NEWGEN a new date-list of the works of maximus the confessor 57 the strongest terms. Here, however, he adds to his catalogue of virtues the fact that he was ‘a lover of the church, and more honourable than all, a most ardent zealot of pious doctrine in accordance with the orthodox faith’. Maximus claims to have to set these out to persuade the ‘all holy emperors’ (again in the plural) ‘not to listen to the unjust tongues of lawless men, who use cunning as if it were a sharpened razor, and love evil over goodness’ (648D–649B). It is evident, therefore, that George’s recall had occurred under some suspicion—political, doctrinal, or both. For these accusations, see also the allusion in the opening of Letter 16 (below). For the dating, see the introduction to this section. Note also that Maximus recommends the anonymous young bearer of the letter (649C8–9). 53. Letter 22—To Auxentius or to the Priest and Abbot Stephen Ed. PG 91. 605B–C. CPG 7699.22. Sherwood 1952: 25 nr 2 = ‘indeterminable’ (so also Larchet 1998a: 41). 640–42, perhaps 642, sent ater Letter B and together with Letter 45? he recipient is uncertain: Auxentius in Combeis, Abbot Stephen in some manuscripts (e.g. Vat. gr. 507, f. 113v: κυρίῳ ἀββᾷ Στεφάνῳ πρεσβυτέρῳ). Maximus rebukes the recipient for not maintaining their correspondence: he cannot respect a friend merely because of his importance in the world (605C). Maximus has perhaps not received a response to an important letter, and one thinks of Letter B above. he high position of the recipient— who is perhaps identical with the recipient of Letters 23 and 40—supports this suggestion. he relation between our letter and Letter B would then be not dissimilar to that between Letters 44 and 45. In this case the date would be c.640–42; see the introduction to this section. 54. Letter 16—To the Same (sc. Cosmas the Deacon) Ed. PG 91. 576D–580B. CPG 7699.16. Sherwood 1952: 49 nr 68 = ‘Early 642’. Probably c.640–42, perhaps 642. Maximus thanks the deacon Cosmas for the consolation he ofered upon learning of the afair of the prefect George, who has fallen under some accusation (576D–577A). he name of George suggests a connection with the afair of the prefect of Africa, in which case the letter would date to the period of Letters 44–5, B, and perhaps 22. Maximus praises the steadfastness in faith, despite persecution, of Cosmas, whom we can presume to be the same addressee as in Letters 14–15, where, however, he was a recent convert. his places our letter at some distance from the earlier correspondence. If we assume that Cosmas remained in Alexandria, it is remarkable that the afair was known there, and moreover that Cosmas felt compelled to send a letter of consolation to Maximus. his suggests that Maximus was associated with George’s disobedience and once again conirms our impression that Maximus and the prefect George were perceived as close allies. 55. Letter 17—To Julian, Scholasticus of Alexandria, on the Ecclesiastical Dogma of the Incarnation of the Lord Ed. PG 91. 580C–584D. CPG 7699.17. Sherwood 1952: 36 nr 38 = ‘By 633’ (repeated in Larchet 1998a: 58). oxfordhb-9780199673834-part-1.indd 57 11/11/2014 4:37:14 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Nov 11 2014, NEWGEN 58 Marek Jankowiak and Phil Booth After c.627, and perhaps c.640–1. An exposé of the theology of two natures in Christ after the Incarnation against those who claim the opposite (included here because of an apparent reference to the prefect George). Maximus congratulates Julian and another scholastic, Christopemptus, for their steadfastness in persevering in the correct faith—cf. Letter 16 above—suggesting their conversion from miaphysitism. He then offers a brief refutation of that doctrine. Sherwood’s contention that the correspondents are refugees in North Africa is not cogent; see the counter-arguments in Larchet 1998a: 55, who places them in Alexandria (so also Boudignon 2004: 15). At the end of the letter Maximus reports that he has passed on the pair’s letters to ‘the all-blessed eparch’, who we can perhaps assume to be George, prefect of Africa, who has undertaken to fulfil their command, reassuring them that the answer will be positive. We should therefore place Maximus in Africa. George’s eparchate appears to have lasted from c.627 to c.642 (see Booth 2013: 110 n.95, 258), hence the date-range offered here. Since Maximus is evidently on good terms with George, and seems to act as his representative, it is tempting to place our letter during Maximus’ second retreat, when comparable relations appear in, for example, Letters 12 and 18. The fact that Maximus here focusses on miaphysitism and not monoenergism or monothelitism does not necessitate a date before the Pact of Union in 633 (pace Sherwood and Larchet). 8. From Monoenergism to Monothelitism (c.636–c.642) 56. Letters 32–39—to Abbot Polychronius Ed. PG 91. 625D–633B. CPG 7699.32–39. Sherwood 1952: 43 nos 51–8 = ‘Uncertain date’; so also Larchet 1998a: 50–1. c.636–640? hese letters appear in the manuscripts in two groups: Letters 32–35 (e.g. Vat. gr. 504, 507, Laurent. Plut. 57.7, Batopediou 475) and Letters 36–39 (e.g. Batopediou 475, where they do not follow immediately on Letters 32–35). Nothing is known of the recipient. here seems to be a crescendo of misfortunes in Letters 32–35, in which Maximus’ position seems desperate; the second group of letters, 36–39, has a more elated tone and thanks Polychronius for various food provisions. Assuming that the sequence of the letters is original, they were written at a time both of oppression, perhaps by some ἀλλόφυλοι (629A), and of the ensuing exile of Maximus. he Persian invasion is improbable, given that Maximus probably followed Sophronius into exile before the Persians occupied Egypt. he Syriac Life claims that Maximus let the East ater the Arab invasion of Syria had begun (17), which is therefore a tempting context for this group of letters. It is diicult to see where Polychronius could have resided: he seems to be a victim of the misfortunes to which Letters 32–35 allude, but, at the same time, able to succour Maximus ater his departure. Letter 32 was written a little before Easter; it insists on παρρησία as the sign of spiritual renewal—this suggests a period of time when Maximus was in conlict with the imperial church (628A). his impression oxfordhb-9780199673834-part-1.indd 58 11/11/2014 4:37:14 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Nov 11 2014, NEWGEN a new date-list of the works of maximus the confessor 59 is conirmed by the frequent mention of alictions in Letter 33, where Maximus also speaks of a combat against men and demons, and asks God for patience (ὑπομον́). In Letter 34 Maximus encourages Polychronius to ‘bear the hostile time with impassibility’, even if there is no hope for improvement. ‘Let us master anger and desire, and we will overturn the house of the foreigners (ἀλλοφ́λων) with those who are in it’ (629Α). Is this an allusion to the Muslim conquerors? Letter 35 again insists on the exceptional tribulations of the time. All this tempts us again to think of the period ater the Council of Cyprus in c.636, when the Muslim conquest was ongoing and Maximus’ position in his eastern bolthole insecure. Letters 36–39 would then be the earliest documents of Maximus’ second retreat to the West. 57. Opusculum 4—To George the Most Holy Priest and Hegoumen, who Asked by Letter about the Mystery of Christ Ed. PG 91. 56D–61D. CPG 7697.4. Sherwood 1952: 41 nr 48 = 634–40; Larchet 1998b: 25–27 nr 8 = 640 (‘première position de Maxime contre le monothélisme’). c.636–640, and probably c.640. he recipient is perhaps that ‘George the Priest’ referred to in Letters 29 and 31; otherwise he might be the hegoumen George who was archimandrite of St heodosius in Palestine in this same period (in which case Maximus was no longer there); see Booth 2013: 267 n.164. Ater an exposition on the ascetic life (56D–57C) Maximus writes, perhaps for the irst time but somewhat en passant, on the speciic subject of the christological will(s). Maximus contests the interpretation by ‘some [people]’ of key passages of Gregory of Nazianzus’ Oration 30, which played a signiicant role in the early stage of the debate (61A–C). he calm tone, and the lack of emphasis on the wills—the exposition of which Larchet 1998b calls ‘assez confus’— suggest an earlier stage of the crisis, that is, c.640, or perhaps before. Nevertheless, although Maximus’ position is here, in comparison to, for example, Opusculum 1, somewhat undeveloped (and does not commit to an outright statement of ‘two wills’), his exposition on the natural human will in Christ (60A–C) seems more like a challenge to the Ekthesis (636) than a complement to Psephos’ disavowal of two opposed wills (pace Sherwood). Comparison between Maximus’ treatment of the same contested passage from Gregory here and in Opusculum 20 (233B–237C) also suggests that our text predates the latter. 58. Letter A—To halassius Ed. PL 129. 583D–586B. CPG 7702. Sherwood 1952: 43 nr 60 = 640. 640. Our text survives in a Latin excerpt in the Collectanea of Anastasius Bibliothecarius under the title ‘Commemoration of what the Roman envoys did in Constantinople’. On the recipient, see the prosopographical section. Maximus reports the account he has heard of the mission of a new pope’s apocrisiarii to the capital, which coincided with a ‘great and lengthy commotion’ which appears to be linked to the legates’ arrival. In the course of their long stay, an attempt was made to make them subscribe to a doctrinal charta (585A). They refused, stating that that was outside their prerogatives, and promised instead to show it to the pope, which oxfordhb-9780199673834-part-1.indd 59 11/11/2014 4:37:14 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Nov 11 2014, NEWGEN 60 Marek Jankowiak and Phil Booth the Constantinopolitans then accepted. Maximus reports, however, that he has been sent a copy of said charta, which bans discussion on the operations (586B). The pope is not named, but the circumstances described seem to match those of Severinus, whose election took more than eighteen months from the death of Honorius in December 638, suggestive of the withholding of imperial approval for some time. Our text appears to date from a period soon after approval was granted, and thus to the period of Severinus’ accession in May 640 (LP 74). Thus, the charta is the Ekthesis. We note that, here, the principal sin which Maximus associates with the Ekthesis is that of banning discussion on the operations, although we cannot discount the possibility that our fragment then developed into a refutation of monothelitism. It nevertheless seems to be Maximus’ first direct statement against the Ekthesis. 59. Opusculum 6—On ‘Father, if it be Possible, Let his Cup Pass from Me’ Ed. PG 91. 65A–68D. CPG 7697.6. Sherwood 1952: 44–5 nr 64 = ‘640–42’; Larchet 1998b: 43–9 = 641 (citing Léthel 1979: 86). c.640–1? Addressed to an anonymous monothelite.he title refers to Matthew 26: 39, which continues ‘Not as I will, but as you will’. It became an important point of contention in the monothelite crisis, and occurs also in Opuscula 3, 7, 16, 23, 24, and especially 15. Oten it appears in connection with the famous passage of Gregory Nazianzen’s Oration 30, the monothelite interpretation of which Maximus here refutes (65B). He indicates ‘two operations’ and ‘two wills’ without hesitation (68A), which seems to separate it from Opusculum 4. It appears, however, to pre-date Opusculum 7 where the same arguments are more developed. For the theological content, see Larchet 1998b: 43–9. 60. Opusculum 8—Copy of the Letter Sent to the Most Holy Bishop Lord Nicander by Maximus of Holy Memory, on the Two Operations in Christ Ed. PG 91. 89C–112B. CPG 7697.8. Sherwood 1952: 43–4 nr 61 = ‘c.640’; so also Larchet 1998b: 33. c.640–1? Nothing is known of the recipient outside the title. Maximus refers to the ‘oppression’ (θλ͂ψις) now alicting the world, the like of which it has never seen nor will see again, and the ‘invasion of enemies’ (92C–D). his, no doubt, intends the Muslim conquests. Is Maximus, therefore, still in the East at this point? Nicander, whom Maximus addresses with great respect, has requested the tract (112A), which appears as a polemical weapon against (Chalcedonian) monoenergist opponents rather than miaphysites. It constitutes an extended refutation of the ‘one operation’, although there are references throughout to the natural wills (e.g. 96AB, 100A), and a penultimate paragraph to the efect that ‘the same can also be said about the will’ (109C–112A). It must date to the same period as Opusculum 7, when the argument on the operations was dominant but nevertheless moving on to that on the wills, and an explicit connection being oxfordhb-9780199673834-part-1.indd 60 11/11/2014 4:37:14 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Nov 11 2014, NEWGEN a new date-list of the works of maximus the confessor 61 made between the two doctrines. As there, Maximus here focusses on Ps-Dionysius’ use of ‘theandric operation’ and Cyril’s use of ‘one συγγεν́ς operation’ (100B–109B), struggling again with the latter, but still defending the patristic use of monadic phrases as a guard against division in Christ (105A). For the theological content, see Larchet 1998b: 33–40. 61. On the Operations and the Wills, to the Priest halassius. Fragments extant in Opuscula 2–3, PG 91. 40A–56D and in Opusculum 26b/ Additamentum 24, ed. Roosen 2001/3: 784–6. CPG 7697.2–3. Sherwood 1952: 53–5, nos 81–2 = ‘645–46’; so also Larchet 1998b: 86. Ater c.640 and before June–July 643. Apparently a major treatise of Maximus, three fragments of which are currently known: a passage from chapter 8 ‘that there is absolutely no opposition of the will nor two willing subjects in the one God-Word incarnate, but rather an essential diference, as for the natures thus also for the natural wills, if he has obtained divine will as God, and a human [will] as a man’ (Add. 24, Roosen 2001/3: 785–6); chapter 50 on the Severan assimilation of the nature to the hypostasis (Opusc. 2); and chapter 51 ‘that the Fathers who speak of two wills in Christ indicate the natural laws, not the γνῶμαι’ (Opusc. 3, also quoted in Opusc. 26b/ Add. 24). Opusculum 2 appears in Combeis’ edition under the heading ‘to the same Marinus’, suggesting a connection with the preceding Opusculum 1, but this reading is not certain (see CPG Suppl. 7697.2–3). Pace Sherwood (1952: 54), several chapters edited by Epifanovich 1917: 62–3 as Additamentum 17 do not belong to this treatise (see Epifanovich 1917: viii nr 17). he dedicatee of the treatise, priest halassius—on whom see the prosopographical section—can be identiied thanks to the title of one of the extracts quoted in Additamentum 24 (Roosen 2001/3: 785; Epifanovich 1917: 75). Chapter 50 (Opusc. 2) argues against the christological errors of Severus and Nestorius, and the consequences of those errors for their views of operation(s) and will(s). In chapter 51 (Opusc. 3) Maximus expounds dyothelite doctrine with particular attention to Gethsemane (48B–49A), before turning to a long refutation of Severan monothelitism (49B–56D). herein he refers to a debate on the operations and wills which he had with some ‘pseudo-bishops’ on Crete (49C), who claimed that the Tome of Leo implies two operations, two wills, and two persons; instead, they professed ‘one will and every divine and human operation proceeding from one and the same God the Word incarnate, in accordance with Severus’ (49C–52A). his, however, might well be a simple monoenergist profession of one operating Christ rather than a Severan statement. he stay of Maximus on Crete cannot be precisely dated—the ot-quoted date of 626/7 (e.g. Larchet 1998a: 11 n.3) is based on the obsolete chronology of Maximus’ life. Maximus develops the distinction between natural and gnomic will(s), but does not clearly exclude the latter from Christ, unlike in Opusculum 16 (192B–193B). For detailed discussion of the theological content of this text, see Larchet 1998b: 93–7. It must post-date Maximus’ public opposition to monothelitism c.640, but is likely to be earlier than Opusculum 1—whether or not it was appended to it—the developed perspective of which it seems to lack. Later works might have superseded it. oxfordhb-9780199673834-part-1.indd 61 11/11/2014 4:37:14 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Nov 11 2014, NEWGEN 62 Marek Jankowiak and Phil Booth 9. Mature Anti-Monothelite Texts (c.643 Onward) 62. Opusculum 25—Ten Chapters on the Two Wills of the Lord our God and Saviour Jesus Christ, Written to the Orthodox Ed. Van Deun 2008; PG 91. 269D–273D. CPG 7697.25. Sherwood 1952: 44 nr 63 = c.640, followed by Larchet 1998b: 43 and Van Deun 2008: 195–7. Ater c.643. he text consists of ten chapters defending the logic of a ‘two wills’ formula and critiquing monothelitism. It concludes with some brief observations on the oten deceptive and misleading nature of words, and the need to understand them from a shared basis (273B–D). he audience, whom Maximus calls ‘blessed ones’, seems allied to him, as the title in most manuscripts also suggests. Sherwood places it alongside Opusculum 24, which, however, seems to belong to a more developed stage of the crisis. 63. Additamentum 18—hirteen Chapters on Wills Ed. Roosen 2001/3: 681–2 (Text VIII); Epifanovich 1917: 64–5. CPG 7707.18. Not in Sherwood. Ater c.643. A series of developed aporiae against the ‘one will’ formula, close to Opusculum 25 and Additamentum 19. Roosen regards the attribution to Maximus, on which the manuscripts are unanimous, as correct (2001/3: 673–8); for parallels between the text and Maximus’ wider anti-monothelite corpus, see Roosen 2001/4: 925–6. Like Opusculum 25 and Additamentum 19, it seems to belong to a developed stage of the crisis. 64. Additamentum 19—Ten Chapters on Wills and Operations Ed. Roosen 2001/3: 689–91 (Text IX); Epifanovich 1917: 66–7. CPG 7707.19. Not in Sherwood. Ater c.643. Close to Opusculum 25 and Additamentum 18. Ten aporiae against monoenergism and monothelitism, focussing on the integrity of the divine and human natures. he attribution is unanimous in the manuscripts, and Roosen (2001/3: 684–5 and 2001/4: 930) identiies various parallels in Maximus’ anti-monothelite output, especially the phrase κατ’ ἄμφω τὰς αὐτοῦ φ́σεις ὁ αὐτὸς καὶ εἷς Χριστός, θελητικὸς καὶ ἐνεργητικὸς τῆς ἡμῶν τυγχάνει σωτηρίας, which also occurs in Acts of the Lateran Council (Riedinger 1984: 374). Although Maximus twice refers to his opponents’ position as ‘new’, this is a rhetorical device, and the text seems to belong to an advanced stage of his refutation. 65. Opusculum 16—On the Two Wills of the One Christ our God, to heodore the Deacon Ed. PG 91. 184C–212A. CPG 7697.16. Sherwood 1952: 51 nr 74 = ‘Ater 643?’; Larchet 1998b: 58 = ‘un peu après 643’. Ater 641. he addressee is identiied in the excerpt from this work contained in Opusculum 26b/Additamentum 24 as heodore the deacon (Roosen 2001/3: 777). He is addressed by Maximus, who claims to be his servant and disciple (185C), as πάτερ oxfordhb-9780199673834-part-1.indd 62 11/11/2014 4:37:14 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Nov 11 2014, NEWGEN a new date-list of the works of maximus the confessor 63 ἡγιασμένε (184D), which excludes the monothelite deacon heodore, the addressee of Opusculum 19. his is Maximus’ longest treatise on the two wills and operations. His complex diferentiation of the various cognates of ‘will’ (185C–188D), which mirrors the position of Opuscula 1 (above), and of the natural and gnomic will (192B–193B) suggested to him by an unidentiied monk, as well as his long defence of the two natural wills (190A–197C)—including an extended treatment of Gethsemane and Matthew 26: 39 (196C–197A)—and operations (197C–208C) in Christ points to an advanced stage of the crisis, and predicts much contained within the Disputation with Pyrrhus. he date will therefore be ater 641, but the terminus ante quem cannot be determined. Sherwood notes Maximus’ failure to use the terms ‘ἐνεργητικός’ and ‘θελητικός’, although used in Opuscula 6, 7, 19, and 27, but it appears doubtful that our text precedes all of these, and we are reminded of the pitfalls of dating through theological criteria. For the theological content in detail, see Larchet 1998b: 58–67. 66. Opusculum 12—Excerpt from the Letter of Maximus Sent to Peter Illustris Ed. PG 91. 141A–146A; PL 129. 573B–576D (fragments in Latin). CPG 7697.12. Sherwood 1952: 52 nr 76 = 643/4; so also Larchet 1998b: 73; Winkelmann 2001: 110–11 nr 88. c.645. Preserved in several excerpts translated in Latin in the ninth century by Anastasius Bibliothecarius; cf. Letter A to Thalassius. On the recipient, see the prosopographical section. Peter has written to Maximus about ‘Abba Pyrrhus’ (141A), the deposed patriarch of Constantinople, and in particular about whether the title sanctissimus or almificus should be applied to him (144A). Maximus declares himself ready to come up to Peter to refute Pyrrhus and all those who follow ‘the impious novelty’, suggesting that Peter and Pyrrhus are not far removed from him. Maximus fulminates against the attempts of the new heretics to impute responsibility for the quarrel to the innocent, such as Sophronius. He denounces the Ekthesis, perhaps alludes to the Council of Cyprus, and claims that Heraclius retracted it in a letter to the late Pope John IV (142B–143A, and cf. also RM 9, but see Rizou-Couroupos 1987 and Alexakis 1995–96). As in Opusculum 20 and the Disputation with Pyrrhus (PG 91. 328B–329C), Maximus here alludes to the orthodox credentials of Arcadius of Cyprus and Popes Honorius, Severinus, and John IV, all now deceased (143A–B). As the Roman church has anathematized Pyrrhus, Maximus states that the latter should not be greeted with honorific titles until such time as the church receives him. Hence he should now hasten there: ‘for he simply speaks in vain if he thinks that men like me need to be persuaded, and he does not satisfy and implore the most blessed pope of the most sacred church of the Romans’ (144C). The letter dates from the pontificate of Theodore (143B14–15), and belongvs to the same context as Maximus’ disputation with Pyrrhus in Carthage in July 645, whether it precedes it (Sherwood 1952: 52) or is subsequent to it (Boudignon 2007: 256–7). We note also the strong statement of Roman preeminence contained within the text (144C), because of which some have doubted its authenticity; but it forms part of a wider pattern (Booth 2013: 269–76). oxfordhb-9780199673834-part-1.indd 63 11/11/2014 4:37:14 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Nov 11 2014, NEWGEN 64 Marek Jankowiak and Phil Booth 67. Opusculum 5—hree Answers to hose Who Profess One Operation in Christ Ed. PG 91. 64A–65A. CPG 7697.5. Sherwood 1952: 37 nr 40 = ‘by 633’; Larchet 1998b: 24 = 633. Probably post-645. he text is divided into three sections, all of which are antimonoenergist (64A–65A). hese are against those who (1) argue for one operation in Christ on the grounds that ‘the divine [operation], being more eicacious, dominates the human’, (2) ‘profess one operation of the divine and human natures, similarly to the single operation of the organ and of what moves it’, and (3) ‘profess one composite operation of Christ’. hese three positions all strive to accommodate two natural operations—which they all implicitly posit, as recognized by Maximus (64A)—with a single operation of the person of Christ. Ater the ban on discussion of the operations in the Psephos and Ekthesis, which was respected in the patriarchs’ oicial statements, we know little about the evolution of the position of the church of Constantinople on Christ’s operation(s). Such oicial statements as the dogmatic letter of Patriarch Paul of 645 (Acts of the Lateran Council, Riedinger 1984: 196–204) and the profession of faith of Macarius of Antioch (Acts of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, Riedinger 1990–2: 218–230) continue to emphasize the unity of one operating Christ. But we discover a position similar to the one opposed here by Maximus in some later texts from 656–58 (DB, Ep. ad Anast.). It is irst evidenced in Opusculum 9 (645/6), where Maximus has been accused of once professing this himself, and where he refutes a patristic passage (from Heraclianus of Chalcedon) used to legitimize it. Our text therefore seems to date from well ater the beginnings of the crisis, when Maximus’ opponents were seeking accommodation with their critics by acknowledging not ‘one’ but ‘one and two’ operations. A later date is also suggested in the appearance of similar ‘monoenergist’ doctrines in the Disputation with Pyrrhus (296A–B, 333B–344A), which dates at the earliest to 645. It is, however, noteworthy that the concept of one composite operation was refuted at the Lateran Council on a diferent basis: not because it implied one composite nature of the Son (64D–65A), but because it led to the Son being ‘alien to the Father, his operation and his essence being diferent, since the Father’s own operation is not composite’ (Acts of the Lateran Council, Riedinger 1984: 148). Maximus’ silence on the wills does not exclude a late date. We see no reason to accept the modern consensus which places this text before the Psephos in 633/4, which would make it Maximus’ earliest exposition on the operations. For discussion of the theological content, see Larchet 1998b: 24–5. 68. Opusculum 9—To the Holy Fathers, Hegoumens, Monks, and Orthodox People who Live Here on the Christ-Loving Isle of Sicily Ed. PG 91. 112C–132D. CPG 7697.9. Sherwood 1952: 55 nr 86 = 646–8; the same in Larchet 1998b: 97. Late 645 or 646. he title implies that Maximus wrote this treatise on Sicily, ater a debate with its monks which apparently did not go well, judging from the apologetic oxfordhb-9780199673834-part-1.indd 64 11/11/2014 4:37:14 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Nov 11 2014, NEWGEN a new date-list of the works of maximus the confessor 65 tone of Maximus and the necessity of providing a written conirmation of what had earlier been said in person (113A; note also the absence of Sicilian bishops from the Lateran Council in 649). Faced with a wide-ranging critique of his earlier works, which were therefore broadly circulating already by that time, Maximus attempts to explain away some contentious statements. He rebuts the accusation that he had once advocated ‘three operations’ and ‘three wills’—that is, one at the level of the union and two at the level of the natures (125C–128B). His detractors claimed that he had done so in a letter to Marinus, which Maximus claims never to have written (129B) but which might in fact refer to Opusculum 7 or, less probably, Opusculum 20, where he had defended monadic phrases in the Fathers. his is further suggested in the shared elucidation both here and there of Cyril’s ‘one operation’ (124C–125C). Maximus also defends his earlier stance in Letter 19, in which he had lauded Sergius and, in particular, Pyrrhus, the monothelite patriarch of Constantinople. Maximus excuses his earlier tone with the claim that he was attempting to appease his correspondent through praise, and thus to bring him to a confession of ‘two operations’ (132A–B); in fact, he did not use such a formula. he context for the text is Maximus’ travel from North Africa to Rome, where he apparently accompanied Pyrrhus ater the disputation of July 645 (DP, PG 91. 353A); their joint presence on Sicily en route to Rome would make the questions over their earlier correspondence even more poignant. Sherwood’s terminus ante quem is too late—Maximus was in Rome on the eve of, or during, the North African exarch Gregory’s rebellion from Constantinople (RM 17. 54–62), which occurred in 647. 10. Towards the Lateran Council (c.647–649) 69. Opusculum 15—Spiritual and Dogmatic Tome . . . Written from Rome to Stephen the Most Holy Bishop of Dora, Who Belongs to the Holy and Apostolic hrone of the Holy City of Christ our God Ed. PG 91. 153C–184C. CPG 7697.15. Sherwood 1952: 55 nr 87 = 646–7 (citing Pierres’ 1940 doctoral thesis); Larchet (1998b: 26) gives the same date. c.647. An anti-monoenergist and anti-monothelite lorilegium, citing and interpreting various passages from scripture (157C–160C), the Fathers (160C–169A; 173C–176D), and from the heresiarchs (169A–173C; 177A–180B). here is an extended conclusion inveighing against innovation upon the faith of the Fathers and ive councils (180B–184C). his lorilegium was used for that of the Lateran Council (649) and must precede it; see Pierres (1940; non vidimus). From the title we ascertain that Maximus was in Rome, having arrived there in late 645 or 646. Stephen bishop of Dora (a coastal city of Palestine 15 km. north of Caesarea) is the erstwhile disciple and agent of Sophronius, who gives an account of his activities in the second session of the Acts of the Lateran Council. Pope heodore had elected him as papal vicarius in the East, charged with the deposition of irregular bishops in the East (Booth 2013: 295–6). We can presume that oxfordhb-9780199673834-part-1.indd 65 11/11/2014 4:37:14 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Nov 11 2014, NEWGEN 66 Marek Jankowiak and Phil Booth our text was intended to aid his mission, as Maximus did not need to convince Stephen of his doctrine, and thus place that mission, and our text, c.647 (Jankowiak 2009: 235–7). 70. Opusculum 24—hat One Cannot Say ‘One Will’ in Christ Ed. Roosen 2001/3: 731–2 (Text XII; ‘between 638 and August 657’); PG 91. 268A–269D. CPG 7697.24. Sherwood 1952: 44 nr 62 = ‘c.640’; Ceresa-Gastaldo (cited in Larchet 1998b: 40) prefers 646–7, around the time of Opusculum 15. Ater c.640, perhaps a little before 649. he text consists of two distinct parts (268A– C, 268C–269D), which Roosen regards as ‘the composition of two excerpts from a longer and genuinely Maximian text which dealt with the refutation of the monothelite position and was written between 638 and August 657’ (2001/3: 727 with n.20). he irst defends the preservation of the properties of the natures in Christ, citing a sermon of Chrysostom which is also used in Opusuclum 15 and Acts of the Lateran Council (Riedinger 1984: 288); the second is addressed to an anonymous monothelite. Here, as elsewhere (e.g. Opusc. 6), Maximus mounts a brief challenge to the monothelite interpretation of Matthew 26: 39 (‘not as I will, but as you’) (268B) and commits to an outright statement of ‘two wills’ (268C), associating monothelitism with Severanism (269A), and challenging the recipient to ofer patristic support for his position (269C). Sherwood suggests that the text belongs to the earliest stages of Maximus’ public opposition to monothelitism c.640, when the arguments and proof texts were still developing on both sides. Alternatively, close parallels with the Acts of the Lateran Council (listed in Roosen 2001/4: 948–9 and 1030; see Riedeinger 1984: 148 and 288) may suggest a date a little before the council. he text is later cited in Dispute at Bizya (Roosen 2001/2: 503). See Roosen 2001/3: 721–7. 71. Opusculum 26b/Additamentum 24—Deinitions of the Will Ed. Roosen 2001/3: 781–6 (Text XIV); Epifanovich 1917: 72–5 (Add. 24); PG 91. 276B–280B (Opusc. 26b). CPG 7697.26 and 7707.24. Not a separate item in Sherwood. A little before 649? See Opusculum 26a on the composite nature of this work. A lorilegium of twenty patristic passages deining the will, destined to provide a patristic pedigree to Maximus’ position on the wills. Most of the patristic quotations, in particular from the early Fathers such as Irenaeus of Lyon and Clement of Alexandria, are very probably dyothelite forgeries; others are rewritten passages of the original works (Roosen 2001/3: 751 n.15 and 757–71). Roosen (2001/3: 748–56) rejects Maximus’ authorship on the basis of the quotation from Nemesius of Emesa’s De natura hominis (277C), whose deinition of προαίρεσις and βόλησις is applied in the lorilegium to θέλησις, in contradiction with Maximus’ punctilious diferentiation of these terms in Opusculum 1. here is also no explicit attribution to Maximus in the manuscripts, and the lorilegium contains passages from Maximus himself. But the irst argument is not cogent in the case of a lorilegium composed of forged patristic testimonies, and the same quotations appear elsewhere in Maximus’ works (Roosen 2001/3: 753). We are thus inclined to include this lorilegium, as well as a similar lorilegium on the operations (Opusc. 27/Add. 25), in our date-list, even if its attribution to Maximus remains tentative. Roosen oxfordhb-9780199673834-part-1.indd 66 11/11/2014 4:37:14 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Nov 11 2014, NEWGEN a new date-list of the works of maximus the confessor 67 (2001/3: 755) suggests, among other possibilities, that it was composed in the period of a ‘massive search for patristic material which must have taken place in preparing the acts of the Lateran synod’; see the section on Opusculum 27/Additamentum 25 for arguments supporting this date. 72. Opusculum 27/Additamentum 25—Deinitions of the Operation Ed. Roosen 2001/3: 819–23 (Text XV); Epifanovich 76–7 (Add. 25); PG 91. 280B–285B (Opusc. 27). CPG 7697.27 and 7707.25. Sherwood 1952: 52–3 nr 77 = ‘Between 640–6’. So also Larchet 1998b: 75. A little before 649, but ater Opusculum 15? he text is a lorilegium similar in structure to Opusculum 26b/Additamentum 24 and probably composed by the same author (Roosen 2001/3: 790), but devoted to the notion of the operation. It similarly cites pseudepigraphical writings of the early Fathers (Justin Martyr, Alexander of Alexandria) and unidentiied quotations from Gregory of Nyssa and John Chrysostom, also likely to be forgeries (Roosen 2001/3: 791–805). One of the extracts comes from an otherwise unknown work sent by Sophronius to Pope Honorius (Roosen 2001/3: 801–4). he second part of the Opusculum is closely related to the lorilegium on the operations in the Acts of the Lateran Council (Riedinger 1984: 258–69), but the direction of the inluence is unclear: while Roosen 2001/3: 806–11 thinks that our Opusculum depends on the Lateran lorilegium, one can also interpret it—and the twin lorilegium in Opusculum 26b/Additamentum 24—as a blueprint for the more carefully edited version included in the Acts of the Lateran Council. Roosen (2001/3: 811–14) highlighted a quotation from Ambrose (De ide 2.8.70), two Greek translations of which are found in the works of Maximus and his circle: a more correct one in Opusculum 15 (165C–168A) and Doctrina Patrum (ed. Diekamp 1981: 75 and 92), and a rewritten version here in Opusculum 27/Additamentum 25, in the Greek translation of the letter sent in 646 by bishops of Africa Proconsularis to Patriarch Paul of Constantinople that was included in the Acts of the Lateran Council (Riedinger 1984: 84), and in the lorilegium on the operations in the same Acts (Riedinger 1984: 258). his suggests that our Opusculum is close in time to the Lateran Council (pace Roosen, it is not necessary to suppose that the African letter has been translated into Greek much before the council), and is possibly later than Opusculum 15 where the rendering of Ambrose is more literal, but less explicit. Our date of a little before 649 remains, however, tentative—as is Maximus’ authorship—until a more thorough investigation of the dyothelite lorilegia. 73. Opusculum 11—From a Letter Written in Rome Ed. PG 91. 137C–140B. CPG 7697.11. Sherwood 1952: 56 nr 88 = 649; Larchet 1998b: 106 ‘peu après le synode du Latran (649)’. After October 649 but before June 653. A short excerpt celebrating Roman preeminence within the church, manifested in its unwavering orthodox confession and guaranteed in the promise of Christ to St. Peter (137C–140B). The excerpt refers to the ‘six councils’, thus claiming the status of ecumenical council for the Lateran Council of October 649. According to the title, it was written before Maximus’ oxfordhb-9780199673834-part-1.indd 67 11/11/2014 4:37:15 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Nov 11 2014, NEWGEN 68 Marek Jankowiak and Phil Booth arrest at Rome and deportation to Constantinople in 653. Some have doubted the authenticity of the text, but the celebration of Roman preeminence forms part of a wider pattern in Maximus’ writings and those of his circle in this period; see Booth 2013: 269–76. 11. Maximus in Exile (655–662) 74. Letter C—To Anastasius the Monk, his [sc. Maximus’] Disciple Ed. Allen–Neil 1999: 160–3; PG 90. 132A–133A. CPG 7701. Sherwood 1952: 56 nr 90 = ‘May 655’; date corrected by Allen–Neil (1999: xvi–xvii) to 19 April 658. 19 April 658. Maximus reports to his disciple Anastasius the Monk the visit of the envoys of the patriarch that he received ‘yesterday, the eighteenth of the month, which was the holy Mid-Pentecost (μεσοπεντηκοστ́)’. his can only correspond to the year 658. Earlier editors read πεντηκοστ́, but the correct reading has been restored by Allen and Neil. he patriarch, no doubt Peter of Constantinople, announced to Maximus the restoration of communion between all the ive patriarchs based on the expression of ‘one and two’ operations during the visit of papal legates to Constantinople. For the conciliatory policy of Pope Vitalian, bishop of Rome from 30 July 657, see Anastasius the Monk, Letter to the Monks of Cagliari; LP 78; Jankowiak 2009: 327–31. 75. Opusculum 26a, Additamentum 20, and Additamentum 38—Two Fragments from the Questions Put to Maximus the Confessor by heodosius of Gangra Ed. Roosen 2001/3: 743–4 (Text XIII); Epifanovich 1917: 67–8 (Add. 20); PG 91. 276A–B (Opusc. 26a). CPG 7697.26, 7707.20, and 7707.38. Sherwood 1952: 45 nr 65 = ‘640?’; Larchet 1998b: 50 also places it with Opusculum 25, c.640. A little before 656/7? Opusculum 26 consists of two parts: (a) two questions from ‘heodosius the monk, orthodox priest of Gangra’, the irst of which has been already edited by Combeis (276A–B, where he misreads the addressee as ‘heodore’) and in an expanded form by Epifanovich (1917: 67–8, Add. 20), while the second has been irst edited by Roosen, Additamentum 38; (b) a lorilegium of patristic passages on the wills (276B–280B, see separate entry above). Maximus comments on two questions asked by heodosius of Gangra: on the deinitions of some central terms (nature, essence, individual, hypostasis), and on the diference between πρόγνωσις and προορισμός. It seems evident that the excerpts belong to a single work, composed in the question-and-answer genre evident in other Maximian works (Amb.Io., Q.hal.); see also Roosen (2001/3: 733–9). he addressee is identiied in the title of the second answer as ‘heodosius the monk, orthodox priest of Gangra’, whose association with Maximus is best attested during the period of his exile (655–62); see the prosopographical section. Additamentum 38 (like Opusc. 24) was used in the Dispute at Bizya (Roosen 2001: 735), providing a terminus ante quem of 656/7. he work belongs, at any rate, to a developed stage of the monothelite crisis. oxfordhb-9780199673834-part-1.indd 68 11/11/2014 4:37:15 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Nov 11 2014, NEWGEN a new date-list of the works of maximus the confessor 69 12. Miscellanea 76. Letter 9—To halassius, Priest and Hegoumen Ed. PG 91. 446C–449A. CPG 7699.9. Sherwood 1952: 33 nr 31 = ‘628/30?’; Larchet 1998a: 50 = between 628 and 630. Date indeterminable. On the recipient, see the prosopographical section. Given the potential length of Maximus’ association with halassius, the chronological precision of Sherwood and Larchet seems unwarranted. he letter dwells on free will, presenting human beings as positioned between God, nature, and the world, and with the potential to be carnal, physical, or spiritual. Maximus encourages halassius to take courage in the face of his persecution (448B–C), the context of which is unclear: if the context is Africa, one can perhaps think of some conlict with the pro-monothelite bishop of Carthage, Fortunius, in the irst half of the 640s (see Acts of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, Riedinger 1990–2: 652). 77. Letter 21—To the Most Holy Bishop of Cydonia Ed. PG 91. 604B–605B. CPG 7699.21. Sherwood 1952: 30 nr 21 = ‘627–33?’; Larchet 1998a: 45 = 626/7. Date indeterminable, but perhaps early. A short christological statement in response to letters from the bishop, whom Maximus calls ‘my master’ (605A). Cydonia is a bishopric in western Crete; Maximus mentions a stay on the island in Opusculum 3, but at a time which is not clear. We can perhaps presume that he met the addressee on this occasion, although our letter need not be close to that meeting in time. In Maximus’ play on the theme of initude and ininitude in the Incarnation (604C–D), Larchet detects theological similarities with the Ambigua, encouraging an earlier date. We should also note that Maximus here refers to the priest as the image of Christ (604D), a theme which also appears in Letters 28 and 30, dated with some certainty to the period c.632. 78. Letter 25—To Conon, Priest and Superior Ed. PG 91. 613A–D. CPG 7699.25. Sherwood 1952: 40 nr 45 = ‘633 or ater’; cf. Larchet 1998a: 48. Date indeterminable. Maximus apologizes for declining a summons (613B). Sherwood regards Conon as Maximus’ superior ater the departure of Sophronius from North Africa (hence his date), but there is in fact no basis for dating this to a particular period of Maximus’ life. he expressions of submission to a hegoumen do not necessitate an earlier date. 79. Letter 26—To the Priest halassius, Who Asked Why Some of the Pagan Kings, Because of Divine Anger Assailing heir Subjects, Sacriiced heir Children and Relatives, and the Anger Subsided, as Many Ancients Report Ed. PG 91. 616A–617B. CPG 7699.26. Sherwood 1952: 34 nr 32 = ‘Ater 628’ (so also Larchet 1998a: 50). oxfordhb-9780199673834-part-1.indd 69 11/11/2014 4:37:15 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Nov 11 2014, NEWGEN 70 Marek Jankowiak and Phil Booth Date indeterminable (close to the Q.hal.?). On the recipient, see the prosopographical section. Again, the potential length of Maximus’ association with halassius, with whom he here expects to talk soon (617B), precludes a deinite date. he letter concerns pagan kings sacriicing parents and children to appease God, and appears to belong to the tradition of the Questions to halassius rather than the Letters. It is tempting to read this text in the context of pregnant discussions concerning the role of the emperor in the appeasement of divine anger. 80. Letter 41—To halassius, Priest and Hegoumen Ed. PG 91. 636B–C. CPG 7699.41. Sherwood 1952: 34 nr 35 = ‘630–34’. Date indeterminable. he name of the addressee is spelled out in the Laurent. Plut. 57.7: τοῦ αὐτοῦ πρὸς τὸν αὐτὸν Θαλάσσιον πρεσβ́τερον καὶ ἡγόμενον; it follows upon Letter 9 to halassius. Maximus apologizes for refusing an invitation, but promises to come next time. He refers to the wife (?) of Bestitor (τῆς τοῦ Βεστίτορος), who is apparently taken care of by halassius. Bestitor (= Latin vestitor), if not a personal name, is a rank at the imperial court attested in seventh-century seals (see the index of Lilie et al. 1998–2002). But the precise import of this is unclear, and there are no irm chronological indicators. 81. Letter 42—To the Same (halassius) Ed. PG 91. 636C–637B. CPG 7699.42. Sherwood 1952: 25 nr 3 = ‘When?’; so also Larchet 1998a: 50. Date indeterminable. On the recipient, see the prosopographical section. Larchet suggests that the ‘letter’, which is a fragmentary interpretation of sections from the Old Testament, belongs to the tradition of the Questions to halassius (cf. Ep. 26). However, the conclusion, in which Maximus encourages his ‘honourable father’ to ‘pray for your slave . . . who is constrained by many sins’ (637A–B) suggests instead an independent letter. he date cannot be determined, except that it appears as a time of stress. he text appears to be better preserved in Laurent. Plut. 57.7 than suggested by the fragmentary edition of Combeis. 82. Opusculum 17—Deinitions of Distinction Ed. PG 91. 212C–D. CPG 7697.17. Sherwood 1952: 26–7 nr 14 = ‘Of unascertainable date but probably early. By 626.’ Larchet 1998b: 19 = 624–6. Date indeterminable. A short paragraph on the deinition of four forms of distinction. 83. Opusculum 21—On Quality, Property and Life and Times of Maximus the Confessor Diference, to heodore, Priest in Mazara Ed. PG 91. 245D–257A. CPG 7697.21. Sherwood 1952: 36–7 nr 39 = ‘633? 646?’ Larchet 1998b: 22–3 prefers the latter date. Date unclear, but perhaps c.633 or 645/6. heodore has requested an exposition on ‘quality, property, and diference’ (248B) which Maximus then provides (248B–249C), appending a critique of the Severan application of the same terms to the Incarnation oxfordhb-9780199673834-part-1.indd 70 11/11/2014 4:37:15 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Nov 11 2014, NEWGEN a new date-list of the works of maximus the confessor 71 (249D–256D). heodore’s church, Mazara, lies in south-west Sicily, which suggests a date during one of the two stays of Maximus in the West. Which one? he statement of diferent christological operations corresponding to the diference of natures (253B, overlooked by Sherwood) is somewhat leeting and—together with theological resonances with other early works and a parallel in Letter 13, where quality and diference are also discussed (513B–516C)—suggests an early date, when the issue was in the air but still somewhat nebulous. But this would mean this is the earliest opusculum of Maximus, which troubled Sherwood who, consequently, wondered if there might be a connection with Maximus’ presence on Sicily in 645 en route to Rome (so also Larchet 1998b: 22). In either case it is surprising to ind a Sicilian priest preoccupied with miaphysitism. Although an earlier date seems more probable, the later date cannot be discounted. 84. Opusculum 22 Ed. PG 91. 257A–260D. CPG 7697.22. Sherwood 1952: 25 nr 4 = ‘Date?’ Larchet 1998b: 18–19 does not commit to a date but implies it belongs to ‘les premiers temps de sa vie monastique’. Date indeterminable, perhaps early. he text consists of two excerpts of a longer work: in both, Maximus defends the accusation that Chalcedon has added to and contravened the Nicene Creed. here is no means of dating the text, but the content suggests a period in which Maximus was engaged in conversations with miaphysites, favouring an earlier date. 85. Additamentum 9—On the Divine Incarnation Ed. Roosen 2001/3: 627; Epifanovich 1917: 28–9. CPG 7707.9. Date indeterminable. A short fragment on the Incarnation, possibly rewritten by Euthymius Zigabenos (Roosen 2001/3: 621–3). 86. Additamentum 14—On Truth and Piety Ed. Roosen 2001/3: 665; cf. Epifanovich 1917: 60–1. CPG 7707.14. Date indeterminable. A short treatise on the threefold division of the soul and the four cardinal virtues. he manuscripts are unanimous in the attribution to Maximus, but the subject is a common one and the attribution is possible but uncertain (see Roosen 2001/3: 659–62). 87. Additamentum 26—heorema Ed. Roosen 2001/3: 843–45 (Text XVII); Epifanovich 1917: 78–80. CPG 7707.26. Date indeterminable. A diagram with commentary (such as those which accompany the Computus) representing the Trinity. he texts are taken from or inspired by heological and Economical Chapters. Maximus’ authorship has been contested, and it is not impossible that the diagram is the work of the sixteenth-century copyist Constantinus Paleocappas (Roosen 2001/3: 837–39). oxfordhb-9780199673834-part-1.indd 71 11/11/2014 4:37:15 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Nov 11 2014, NEWGEN 72 Marek Jankowiak and Phil Booth 88. Additamentum 34—On the Isagoge of Porphry and Aristotle’s Categories Ed. Roosen 2001/3: 901–2; Roueché 1974: 70–1; Epifanovich 1917: 91–3. CPG 7707.34. Date indeterminable. he text is a collection of excerpts from lectures on the Isagoge of Porphyry and Aristotle’s Categories by David, a neo-Platonist philosopher active in Alexandria in the late sixth century. It is paralleled by a philosophical appendix to the still unedited Letter to the Monks of Ascalon by Anastasius Apocrisiarius (CPG 7734). Roosen (2001/3: 879–98) thinks that both texts share a common source, a work of philosophical deinitions based on David’s lectures that he is ready to attribute to Maximus. he same work is perhaps also relected in the Deinitions (Ὅροι σὺν θεῷ εἰς τὴν εἰσαγωγὴν Πορφυρίου καὶ εἰς τὰς κατηγορίας Ἀριστοτέλους) also attributed to Maximus (Roueché 1980). he text contains no elements for dating. Similarly, the Letter to the Monks of Ascalon can date from any time between 647/8, when we irst hear of Anastasius Apocrisiarius, and his death in 666. he Additamentum 34—or its source used also by Anastasius Apocrisiarius—strongly supports the connection between Maximus and the philosophical school of Alexandria already postulated by Boudignon (2004: 15–17). 89. Letter E—To an Unknown Recipient Ed. Gitlbauer 1878: 84 (Text VIII). CPG 7709.1. Date indeterminable. Fragment of a letter to an unknown recipient edited from the tachygraphic manuscript Vat. gr. 1809. 13. A Final Note on Some Further Texts Associated with Maximus 90. Trial Literature Although not considered here, it is possible that Maximus is the author of the various texts contained within the so-called ‘trial literature’: the DP (CPG 7698), the RM (CPG 7736), and the DB (CPG 7735).9 91. Life of the Virgin In a series of recent articles Stephen Shoemaker (esp. Shoemaker 2012), following Michel van Esbroeck, has argued in favour of Maximus’ authorship of the Greek model for a Georgian Life of the Virgin. his is improbable for various reasons both historical and theological. In short: irst, the argument depends on the notion that Maximus spent some time in Constantinople in the period c.620–6, which lacks direct attestation; second, none of Maximus’ characteristic preoccupations appear in the Life, and in 9 For the irst, see the discussion in Noret 1999; for the second, Brandes 1998: 155 n.90, and Allen–Neil 2002: 35–6; and for the third, Brandes 1998: 156 and 205, and Allen–Neil 2002: 36–7. oxfordhb-9780199673834-part-1.indd 72 11/11/2014 4:37:15 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Nov 11 2014, NEWGEN a new date-list of the works of maximus the confessor 73 turn none of the Life’s central themes appear in the leeting Marian relections contained within his genuine corpus; third, there is no extant Greek manuscript which witnesses the text, in whole or in part; fourth, both admirers of Maximus (e.g. Sophronius, John of Damascus) and those who describe his works (e.g. Photius, Anastasius Bibliothecarius) show no knowledge of the Life; and ith, there is no witness to the existence of the entire Life before the second half of the tenth century. For the arguments in more detail see Booth (forthcoming). References Primary Sources AQ: We are not sure how to proceed here, as Van Deun 2000b is likely to be in FM. Should we simply say ‘Van Deun 2000b’, without the bibliographical details? Acts of the Lateran Council Riedinger, R. (ed.) (1984), Concilium Lateranense anno 649 celebratum, ACO ii. i. (Berlin: W. de Gruyter). Acts of the Sixth Ecumenical Council Riedinger, R. (ed.) (1990–92), Concilium universale Constantinopolitanum tertium, ACO ii. ii. 2 vols. (Berlin: W. de Gruyter). Anonymous Chronicle to 1234 Chabot, J.-B. (ed.) (1916–20), Chronicon anonymum ad annum Christi 1234 pertinens, CSCO 81–2 = Scr. Syr. 36–7, 2 vols. (Leuven: Typographeo Reipublicae). Cyril of Alexandria, Comm. in Ioh. Pusey, P. E. (ed.) (1872), Sancti patris nostri Cyrilli archiepiscopi Alexandrini in D. Joannis Evangelium, 3 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Doctrina Patrum Diekamp, F. (ed.) (1981), Doctrina Patrum de Incarnatione Verbi: Ein griechisches Florilegium aus der Wende des 7. und 8. Jahrhunderts, rev. edn. by B. Phanourgakis and E. Chrysos (Münster: Aschendorf). Epifanovich, S. L. (ed.) (1917), Materiialy k izucheniiu︡ zhizni i tvorenii prep. Maksima Ispovednika [Materials for the Study of Maximus the Confessor’s Life and Works] (Kiev: Tipograiia Universiteta Sv. Vladimira). George or Gregory of Resh‘aina, Life of Maximus Confessor Brock 1973. Gitlbauer, M. (ed.) (1878), ‘Die Ueberreste griechischer Tachygraphie im Codex Vaticanus graecus 1809’, Denkschriten der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaten, Philosophisch-historische Classe 28 (Vienna: Kaiserlich-K̈nigliche Hof- und Staatsdruckerei), 1–110. John Moschus, Spiritual Meadow PG 87/3. 2852–3112. John Moschus and Sophronius, Epitome of the Life of John the Almsgiver Lappa-Zizicas, E. (ed.) (1970), ‘Un Épitomé de la Vie de S. Jean l’Aumônier par Jean et Sophronius’, Analecta Bollandiana 88: 265–78. John of Nikiu, Chronicle Zotenberg, H. (ed.) (1883), Chronique de Jean, évêque de Nikiou (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale). Leontius of Neapolis, Life of John the Almsgiver Festugière, A.-J. (ed.) (1974), in A.-J. Festugière and L. Rydén, Vie de Syméon le Fou et Vie de Jean de Chypre (Paris: P. Geuthner), 343–409. LP Duchesne, L. (ed.) (1886–92), Le Liber Pontiicalis, 2 vols. (Paris: de Boccard). Maximus, Opera (See abbreviations at the front of this volume, he Oxford Handbook to Maximus the Confessor). Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica (Small theological and polemical works) 18 Deun, P. Van (ed.) (2000b), ‘L’Unionem deinitiones (CPG 7697, 18) attribué à Maxime le Confesseur: étude et édition du traité’, Revue des Études Byzantines 58: 123–47. oxfordhb-9780199673834-part-1.indd 73 11/11/2014 4:37:15 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Nov 11 2014, NEWGEN 74 Marek Jankowiak and Phil Booth Maximus (?), Deinitions (Ὅροι σὺν θεῷ εἰς τὴν εἰσαγωγὴν Πορφυρίου καὶ εἰς τὰς κατηγορίας Ἀριστοτέλους) Roueché, M. (ed.) (1980), ‘A Middle Byzantine Handbook of Logic Terminology’, JÖB 29: 71–98. Ps-Maximus (?), Life of the Virgin Shoemaker, S. J. (trans.) (2012), Maximus the Confessor: he Life of the Virgin (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press). Michael the Syrian, Chronicle Chabot, J.-B. (ed.) (1899–1910), Chronique de Michel le Syrien, 4 vols. (Paris: Typographeo Reipublicae). Nicephorus, Chronography Boor, C. de (ed.) (1880), Nicephori Archepiscopi Constantinopolitani Opuscula Historica (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner), 81–135. Nicephorus, Short History Mango, C. (trans.) (1990), Nikephoros Patriarch of Constantinople: Short History (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks). Photius, Bibliotheca Henry, R. (ed.) (1959–77), Photius: Bibliothèque, 8 vols. (Paris: Société d’Édition les Belles Lettres). Prologue to the Spiritual Meadow Usener, H. (ed.) (1907), Der Heilige Tychon (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner), 91–3. heodore Spoudaeus, Narrationes Neil 2006: 166-233. heophanes, Chronicle Boor, C. de (ed.) (1883), heophanis Chronographia (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner). Van Deun, P. (ed.) (2000a), Liber asceticus, CCSG 40 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2000 Secondary Sources AQ: Please add pg nos at proof AQ: Please update the reference if possible. Alexakis, A. (1995–96), ‘Before the Lateran Council of 649: he Last Days of Herakleios the Emperor and Monotheletism’, in R. Bäumer et al. (eds.), Synodus: Beiträge zur Konzilien- und allgemeinen Kirchengeschichte—Festschrit für Walter Brandmüller, Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum 27–8: 93–101. Allen, P. (2015). ‘Life and Times of Maximus the Confessor’, in P. Allen and B. Neil (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Maximus the Confessor (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Balthasar, H. U. von (1941), Die ‘Gnostischen Centurien’ des Maximus Confessor (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder). Bathrellos, D. (2004), he Byzantine Christ: Person, Nature, and Will in the Christology of Saint Maximus the Confessor, OECS (Oxford–New York: Oxford University Press). Bellini, E. (1982), ‘Maxime interprète de Pseudo-Denys l’Aréopagite’, in Heinzer–Scḧnborn, 37–49. Benevich, G. (2009), ‘Maximus the Confessor’s Polemics against Anti-Origenism: Epistulae 6 and 7 as a Context for the Ambigua ad Iohannem’, Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 104: 5–15. Berthold, G. C. (2011), ‘Free Will as a Partner of Nature: Maximus the Confessor on the Our Father’, StP 51: 173–9. Blowers, P. (1991), Exegesis and Spiritual Pedagogy in Maximus the Confessor: An Investigation of the Quaestiones ad halassium (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press). Booth, P. (2013), Crisis of Empire. Doctrine and Dissent at the End of Late Antiquity (Berkeley: University of California Press). Booth, P. (2015), ‘On the Life of the Virgin Attributed to Maximus Confessor’, Journal of heological Studies (forthcoming). Boudignon, C. (2004), ‘Maxime le Confesseur était-il constantinopolitain?’, in B. Janssens, B. Roosen, and P. Van Deun (eds.), Philomathestatos: Studies in Greek Patristic and Byzantine Texts Presented to Jacques Noret, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 137 (Leuven: Peeters), 11–43. oxfordhb-9780199673834-part-1.indd 74 11/11/2014 4:37:15 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Nov 11 2014, NEWGEN a new date-list of the works of maximus the confessor 75 Boudignon, C (2007), ‘Le pouvoir de l’anathème ou Maxime le Confesseur et les moines palestiniens du VIIe siècle’, in A. Camplani and G. Filoramo (eds.), Foundations of Power and Conlicts of Authority in Late-Antique Monasticism, Orientalia Lovanensia Analecta 157 (Leuven: Peeters), 245–74. Brandes, W. (1998), ‘“Juristische” Krisenbewältigung im 7. Jahrhundert? Die Prozesse gegen Martin I. und Maximos Homologetes’, in L. Burgmann (ed.), Fontes Minores 10, Forschungen zur Byzantinischen Rechtsgeschichte, ed. D. Simon, Band 22 (Frankfurt am Main: L̈wenklau), 141–212. Brandes, W. (2002), Finanzverwaltung in Krisenzeiten: Untersuchungen zur byzantinischen Administration im 6.–9. Jahrhundert, Forschungen zur byzantinischen Rechtsgeschichte 25 (Frankfurt am Main: L̈wenklau). Brilliantov, A. (1917), ‘O meste konchiny i pogrebeniia sv. Maksima Ispovednika’[‘Concerning the Site of St Maximus the Confessor’s Death and Burial’], Christianskii Vostok 6: 1–62. Brock, S. (1973), ‘An Early Syriac Life of Maximus the Confessor’, Analecta Bollandiana 91: 299–346. Bynum, C. W. (1995), he Resurrection of the Body in Western Christianity, 200–1336, Lectures on the History of Religions 15 (New York, NY: Columbia University Press). Canart, P. (1964), ‘La deuxième Lettre à homas de S. Maxime le Confesseur’, Byzantion 34: 415–45. Cantarella, R. (1931), S. Massimo Confessore: La mistagogia ed altri scritti, Testi cristiani 4 (Florence: Libreria Editrice Fiorentina). Chadwick, H. (1991), ‘[Review of] Concilium Universale Constantinopolitanum. Concilii Actiones I–XI, ed. R. Riedinger [and of] Der Codex Vindobonensis 418. Seine Vorlage und seine Schreiber, by R. Riedinger’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History 42: 630–5. Constas, N. (2014), Maximos the Confessor. On Diiculties in the Church Fathers: he Ambigua, Dumbarton Oaks Medieval Library, 2 vols (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press). Cooper, A. G. (2005), he Body in St Maximus the Confessor: Holy Flesh, Wholly Deiied, OECS (Oxford–New York: Oxford University Press). Dagron, G. and Déroche, V. (1991), ‘Juifs et Chrétiens dans l’Orient du VIIe siècle’, Travaux et Mémoires 11: 17–274. Dalmais, I.-H. (1952), ‘L’oeuvre spirituelle de saint Maxime le Confesseur. Notes sur son développement et sa signiication’, La vie spirituelle. Supplément 21: 216–26. Dalmais, I.-H. (1953), ‘La doctrine ascétique de S. Maxime le Confesseur, d'après le Liber asceticus’, Irénikon 26: 17–39. Devreesse, R. (1937), ‘La in inédite d’une lettre de saint Maxime: Un baptême forcé de Juifs et de Samaritans à Carthage en 632’, Revue des sciences religieuses 17: 25–35. Deun, P. Van (1995), ‘Les Diversa capita du Pseudo-Maxime (CPG 7715) et la chaîne de Nicétas d’Héraclée sur l’évangile de Matthieu (CPG C 113)’, JÖB 45: 19–36. Duval, N. (1956), ‘Nouvelles recherches d’archéologie et d’épigraphie chrétiennes à Sufetula (Byzacène)’, Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire 68: 247–98. Duval, Y. (1971), ‘Le Patrice Pierre, exarque d’Afrique?’ Antiquités africaines 5: 209–14. Duval, Y. and Février, P.-A. (1969), ‘Procès-verbal de déposition de reliques de la région de Telergma (VIIe siècle)’, Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire 81: 257–320. Elert, W. (1951), ‘heodor von Pharan und heodor von Raithu’, heologische Literaturzeitung 76: 67–76. Follieri, E. (1988), ‘Dove e quando morì Giovanni Mosco?’, Rivista di studi bizantini e neollenici ns 25: 3–39. oxfordhb-9780199673834-part-1.indd 75 11/11/2014 4:37:15 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Nov 11 2014, NEWGEN 76 Marek Jankowiak and Phil Booth Grierson, P. (1962), ‘he Tombs and Obits of the Byzantine Emperors (337–1042)’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 16: 3–60. Grumel, V. (1958), Traité d’Études Byzantines, Tome 1: La chronologie (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France). Hoyland, R. G. (1997), Seeing Islam as Others Saw It: A Survey and Evaluation of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam, Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam 13 (Princeton: Darwin Press). Jankowiak, M. (2009), ‘Essai d’histoire politique du monothélisme à partir de la correspondance entre les empereurs byzantins, les patriarches de Constantinople et les papes de Rome’, PhD diss. (Paris and Warsaw). Jankowiak, M. (2013a), ‘he Invention of Dyotheletism’, StP 63: 335–42. Jankowiak, M. (2013b), ‘he First Arab Siege of Constantinople’, Travaux et Mémoires 17: 237–320. Jankowiak, M. (2013c), ‘he Notitia 1 and the Impact of Arab Invasions on Asia Minor’, Millennium 10: 435–61. Janssens, B. (2003), ‘Does the Combination of Maximus’ Ambigua ad homam and Ambigua ad Iohannem Go Back to the Confessor Himself?’, Sacris Erudiri 42: 281–6. Kaegi, W. E. (2003), Heraclius: Emperor of Byzantium (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Koch, P. (1903), Die byzantinischen Beamtentitel von 400 bis 700 (Jena: Universitäts– Buchdruckerei G. Neuenhahn). Lange, C. (2012), Mia Energeia: Untersuchungen zur Einigungspolitik des Kaisers Heraclius und des Patriarchen Sergius von Constantinopel (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck). Larchet, J.-C. (1996), La divinisation de l’homme selon Maxime le Confesseur (Paris: Cerf). Larchet, J.-C. (1998a), ‘Introduction’, in J.-C. Larchet and E. Ponsoye, Saint Maxime le Confesseur: Lettres (Paris: Cerf), 7–62. Larchet, J.-C. (1998b), ‘Introduction’, in J.-C. Larchet and E. Ponsoye, Saint Maxime le Confesseur: Opuscules théologiques et polémiques (Paris: Cerf), 7–108. Laurent, V. (1962), Les sceaux byzantins du Médallier Vatican (Vatican). Lempire, J. (2007), ‘Le calcul de la date de Pâques dans les traités de S. Maxime le Confesseur et de Georges, moine et prêtre’, Byzantion 77: 267–304. Léthel, F.-M. (1979), héologie de l’agonie du Christ: La liberté humaine du ils de Dieu et son importance sotériologique mises en lumière par saint Maxime le Confesseur, héologie historique 52 (Paris: Beauchesne). Lilie, R.-J. et al. (eds.) (1998–2002), Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit: Erste Abteilung 641–867, Prolegomena and 6 vols. (Berlin: W. de Gruyter). Martini, E. (1896), Catalogo di manoscritti greci esistenti nelle biblioteche italiane, vol. 1, 2 parts (Milan: U. Hoepli). Nau, F. (1902), ‘Le texte grec des récits utiles à l’âme du moine Anastase sur les saints pères du Sinai’, Oriens Christianus 2: 58–89. Noret, J. (1999), ‘La rédaction de la Disputatio cum Pyrrho (CPG 7698) de saint Maxime le Confesseur serait-elle postérieure à 655?’, Analecta Bollandiana 117: 291–6. Noret, J. (2000), ‘À qui était destinée la lettre BHG 1233d d’Anastase l’Apocrisiaire?’, Analecta Bollandiana 118: 37–42. Ohme, H. (2008), ‘Oikonomia im monenergetisch-monotheletischen Streit’, Zeitschrit für Antikes Christentum 12: 308–43. Parente, P. (1953), ‘Uso e signiicato del termine θεοκίνητος nella controversia monotelistica’, Revue des Études byzantines 11: 245–8. Pertusi, A. (1958), ‘L’Encomio di S. Anastasio martire Persiano’, Analecta Bollandiana 76: 5–63. oxfordhb-9780199673834-part-1.indd 76 11/11/2014 4:37:15 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Nov 11 2014, NEWGEN a new date-list of the works of maximus the confessor 77 Pierres, J. (1940), ‘Sanctus Maximus Confessor princeps apologetarum Synodi Lateranensis anni 649 (Pars historica)’, PhD diss. (Rome). Riedinger, R. (1982), ‘Die Lateransynode von 649 und Maximos der Bekenner’, in F. Heinzer and C. Scḧnborn (eds), Maximus Confessor: Actes du Symposium sur Maxime le Confesseur (Fribourg, 2–5 Sept. 1980) (Fribourg: Presses universitaires), 111–21. Riedinger, R. (1985), ‘Die Lateransynode von 649: Ein Werk der Byzantiner um Maximos Homologetes’, Byzantion 13: 519–34. Rizou-Couroupos, S. (1987), ‘Un nouveau fragment de la keleusis d’Héraclius au pape Jean IV’, in J. Dummer (ed.), Texte und Textkritik. Eine Aufsatzsammlung, Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 133 (Berlin: W. de Gruyter), 531–2. Roosen, B. (2001), ‘Epifanovitch Revisited. (Pseudo-) Maximi Confessoris Opuscula varia: A Critical Edition with Extensive Notes on Manuscript Tradition and Authenticity’, PhD diss. (Leuven). Roueché, M. (1974), ‘Byzantine Philosophical Texts of the Seventh Century’, JÖB 23: 61–76. Rozemond, K. (1977), ‘Jean Mosch, patriarche de Jérusalem en exil (610–634)’, VC 31: 60–7. Rozemond, K. (1984), ‘La lettre De hymno trisagio du Damascène, ou Jean Mosch, patriarche de Jérusalem’, StP 15: 108–11. Santo, M. Dal (2012), Debating the Saints’ Cult in the Age of Gregory the Great (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Schacht, J. (1936), ‘Der Briefwechsel zwischen Kaiser und Papst von 641/2 in arabischer Überlieferung’, Orientalia ns 5: 229–68. Sherwood, P. (1952), An Annotated Date-List of the Works of Maximus the Confessor, Studia Anselmiana 30 (Rome: Herder). Sherwood, P. (1955b), he Earlier Ambigua of St Maximus the Confessor (Rome: Herder). Shoemaker, S. J. (2012), he Life of the Virgin (New Haven: Yale University Press). Siecienski, A. E. (2007), ‘he Authenticity of Maximus the Confessor’s Letter to Marinus: he Argument from heological Consistency’, VC 61: 189–227. Sophocles, E. A. (1914), Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods (from B.C. 146 to A.D. 1100) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Speck, P. (1997), ‘Maximos der Bekenner und die Zwangstaufe durch Kaiser Herakleios’, in Varia VI. Beiträge zum hema byzantinische Feindseligkeiten gegen die Juden im frühen siebten Jahrhundert (Bonn: R. Habelt), 441–68. Stoyanov, Y. (2011), Defenders and Enemies of the True Cross: he Sasanian Conquest of Jerusalem in 614 and Byzantine Ideology of Anti-Persian Warfare (Vienna: David Brown Book Company). Suchla, B. R. (1980), ‘Die sogenannten Maximus-Scholien des Corpus Dionysiacum Areopagiticum’, Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaten in Göttingen: 31–66. Treadgold, W. (1990), ‘A Note on Byzantium’s Year of the Four Emperors’, Byzantinische Zeitschrit 83: 431–3. Uthemann, K.-H. (1997), ‘Der Neuchalkedonismus als Vorbereitung des Monotheletismus: Ein Beitrag zum eigentlichen Anliegen des Neuchalkendonismus’, StP 29: 373–413. Vocht, C. De (1987), ‘Un nouvel opuscule de Maxime le Confesseur, source des chapitres non encore identiiés des cinq centuries théologiques (CPG 7715)’, Byzantion 57: 415–20. Winkelmann, F. (2001), Der monenergetisch-monotheletische Streit, Berliner byzantinische Studien 6 (Frankfurt am Main–New York: Lang). Zuckerman, C. (2002), ‘La haute hiérarchie militaire en Afrique byzantine’, Antiquité Tardive 10: 169–75. oxfordhb-9780199673834-part-1.indd 77 11/11/2014 4:37:15 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Nov 11 2014, NEWGEN APPENDIX Concordances Table 2.1 List of Maximus’ Works by their Latin Title, in Alphabetical Order Latin title Edition Nr Suggested date Add. 9 Roosen 627 85 date indeterminable Add. 14 Roosen 665 86 date indeterminable Add. 18 Roosen 681–82 63 after c.643 Add. 19 Roosen 689–91 64 after c.643 Add. 20 Roosen 743 75 little before 656/7? Add. 21 Epifanovich 68–70 17 before 633/4? Add. 22 Roosen 711–13 Add. 24 Roosen 781–86 71 little before 649? Add. 25 Roosen 819–21 72 little before 649? Add. 26 Roosen 843–45 87 date indeterminable Add. 34 Roosen 901–2 88 date indeterminable Add. 38 Roosen 744 75 little before 656/7? spurious Ambigua ad Iohannem PG 91. 1061–1417; CCSG 18 Ambigua ad Thomam PG 91. 1032–1060; CCSG 48: 3–34 3 Capita de caritate PG 90. 960–1073 2 early (before c.633/4) Capita theologica et oeconomica PG 90. 1084–1173 8 early Capita XV PG 90. 1177–1392 11 date indeterminable Computus ecclesiasticus PG 19. 1217–1280 29 Oct 640-Feb 641 De operationibus et uoluntatibus (Opusc. 2–3) PG 91. 40A–56D 61 640–3 Ep. 1 PG 91. 364A–392B 49 c.640–2, perhaps early 642 Ep. 2 PG 91. 392D–408B 25 before 640, and before or c.633? Ep. 3 PG 91. 408C–412C 26 before 640, and before 636? Ep. 4 PG 91. 413A–420C 27 before 642 Ep. 5 PG 91. 420C–424C 21 c.628 Ep. 6 PG 91. 424C–433A 13 c.628 Ep. 7 PG 91. 433A–440B 14 Aug 628 Ep. 8 PG 91. 440C–445B 30 June-Aug 632 Ep. 9 PG 91. 446C–449A 76 date indeterminable 38 early (before c.633/4) 634 or 635 (Continued) oxfordhb-9780199673834-part-1.indd 78 11/11/2014 4:37:16 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Nov 11 2014, NEWGEN Table 2.1 (Continued) Latin title Edition Nr Suggested date Ep. 10 PG 91. 449A–453A 28 before 642 Ep. 11 PG 91. 453A–457D 47 640/1 Ep. 12 PG 91. 460A–509B 48 Nov 641 or soon after Ep. 13 PG 91. 509B–533A 15 629–33? Ep. 14 PG 91. 533B–543C 37 c.633 Ep. 15 PG 91. 543C–576D 36 c.633 Ep. 16 PG 91. 576D–580B 54 c.640–2, perhaps 642 Ep. 17 PG 91. 580C–584D 55 640-1? Ep. 18 PG 91. 584D–589B 46 640/1 Ep. 19 PG 91. 589C–597B 35 late 633 or early 634 Ep. 20 PG 91. 597B–604B 40 636? Ep. 21 PG 91. 604B–605B 77 date indeterminable Ep. 22 PG 91. 605B–C 53 c.640–2, perhaps 642 Ep. 23 PG 91. 605D–608B 19 c.632 or 642 Ep. 24 = Ep. 43 PG 91. 608B–613A 22 628–9 Ep. 25 PG 91. 613A–D 78 date indeterminable Ep. 26 PG 91. 616A–617B 79 date indeterminable Ep. 27 PG 91. 617B–620C 24 c.630? Ep. 28 PG 91. 620C–621B 31 c.632 Ep. 29 PG 91. 621C–624A 32 c.632 Ep. 30 PG 91. 624A–D 33 c.632 Ep. 31 PG 91. 624D–625D 34 c.632 Ep. 40 PG 91. 633C–636A 20 c.634? Ep. 41 PG 91. 636B–C 80 date indeterminable Ep. 42 PG 91. 636C–637B 81 date indeterminable Ep. 43 = Ep. 24 PG 91. 637B–641C 22 628–9 Ep. 44 PG 91. 641D–648C 50 c.640–2, perhaps early 642 Ep. 45 PG 91. 648D–649C 52 c.640–2, perhaps 642 Ep. A PL 129, 583D–586B 58 640 Ep. B Epifanovich 84–85 51 c.640–2, perhaps early 642 Ep. C CCSG 39: 160–63 74 19 Apr 658 Ep. D Inedita 23 before 633? Ep. E Gitlbauer (1878) 84 89 date indeterminable Ep. secunda ad Thomam CCSG 48, 37–49 39 635 or 636 Epp. 32–39 PG 91. 625D–633B 56 c.636–40 (Continued) oxfordhb-9780199673834-part-1.indd 79 11/11/2014 4:37:16 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Nov 11 2014, NEWGEN Table 2.1 (Continued) Latin title Edition Expositio in Psalmum lix PG 90. 856–872; CCSG 23: 3–22 Nr 6 Suggested date early Liber Asceticus PG 90. 912–956; CCSG 40 1 early (before c.633/4) Mystagogia PG 91. 657–717; CCSG 69 9 early (before c.636) Opusc. 1 PG 91. 9A–37A 44 643–6 Opusc. 2 PG 91. 40A–45B 61 640–3 Opusc. 3 PG 91. 45B–56D 61 640–3 Opusc. 4 PG 91. 56D–61D 57 640? Opusc. 5 PG 91. 64A–65A 67 after c.645? Opusc. 6 PG 91. 65A–68D 59 c.640–1? Opusc. 7 PG 91. 69B–89B 41 640–1? Opusc. 8 PG 91. 89C–112B 60 c.640–1? Opusc. 9 PG 91. 112C–132D 68 late 645 or 646 Opusc. 10 PG 91. 133A–137C; PL 129, 577A–578B 43 Jun-Jul 643? Opusc. 11 PG 91. 137C–140B 73 649–53 Opusc. 12 PG 91. 141A–146A 66 c.645 Opusc. 13 PG 91. 145A–149A 16 before 633/4? Opusc. 14/Add. 21 PG 91. 149B–153B 17 before 633/4? Opusc. 15 PG 91. 153C–184C 69 c.647 Opusc. 16 PG 91. 184C–212A 65 after 641 Opusc. 17 PG 91. 212C–D 82 date indeterminable Opusc. 18 PG 91. 213A–216A; Van Deun (2000b) 18 perhaps c.634/5 Opusc. 19 PG 91. 216B–228A 45 perhaps 645 Opusc. 20 PG 91. 228B–245D 42 641 Opusc. 21 PG 91. 245D–257A 83 c.633 or 645/6? Opusc. 22 PG 91. 257A–260D 84 date indeterminable Opusc. 23a–c, Add. 22 PG 91. 260D–268A; Roosen 711–13, 719, 833–35 Opusc. 24 PG 91. 268A–269D; Roosen 731–2 spurious 70 little before 649? Opusc. 25 PG 91. 269D–273D 62 after c.643 Opusc. 26a, Add. 20 and 38 PG 91. 276A-B; Roosen 743–44 75 little before 656/7? Opusc. 26b/Add. 24 PG 91. 276B–280B; Roosen 781–86 71 little before 649? Opusc. 27/Add. 25 PG 91. 280B–285B; Roosen 819–23 72 little before 649? Orationis dominicae exposition PG 90. 872–909; CCSG 23: 27–73 7 early (before c.636) Quaestiones ad Thalassium PG 90. 244–785; CCSG 7 and 22 4 early (before c.633/4) (Continued) oxfordhb-9780199673834-part-1.indd 80 11/11/2014 4:37:16 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Nov 11 2014, NEWGEN Table 2.1 (Continued) Latin title Edition Nr Suggested date Quaestiones ad Theopemptum PG 90. 1393–1400; Roosen and Van Deun (2003) 12 date indeterminable Quaestiones et dubia PG 90. 785–856; CCSG 10 5 early (before c.633/4) Scholia in corpus Areopagiticum PG 4. 16–432 and 528–76 10 date indeterminable Table 2.2 List of Maximus’ Works by the Number in Sherwood’s Date-List Sherwood nr Latin title Number 1 Ep. 5 21 2 Ep. 22 53 3 Ep. 42 81 4 Opusc. 22 84 5 Ep. 6 13 6 Ep. 2 25 7 Ep. 3 26 8 Ep. 4 27 Ep. 10 28 9 10 Liber Asceticus 1 11 Capita de caritate 2 12 Expositio in Psalmum lix 6 13 Quaestiones et dubia 14 Opusc. 17 82 15 Opusc. 13 16 16 Ep. 28 31 5 17 Ep. 30 33 18 Ep. 29 32 19 Ep. 8 30 20 Ep. 31 34 21 Ep. 21 77 22 Opusc. 18 18 23 Opusc. 23a–c Spurious 24 Ep. 7 14 25 Orationis dominicae expositio 7 (Continued) oxfordhb-9780199673834-part-1.indd 81 11/11/2014 4:37:16 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Nov 11 2014, NEWGEN Table 2.2 (Continued) Sherwood nr Latin title Number 26 Ambigua ad Iohannem 3 27 Mystagogia 9 28 Ep. 24 = Ep. 43 22 29 Ep. 27 24 30 Ep. 23 19 31 Ep. 9 76 32 Ep. 26 79 33 Ep. 20 40 34 Ep. 40 20 35 Ep. 41 80 36 Quaestiones ad Thalassium 4 37 Capita theologica et oeconomica 8 37a Capita XV 11 38 Ep. 17 55 39 Opusc. 21 83 40 Opusc. 5 67 41 Quaestiones ad Theopemptum 12 42 Ep. 19 35 43 Ambigua ad Thomam 38 44 Ep. 13 15 45 Ep. 25 78 46 Ep. 15 36 47 Ep. 14 37 48 Opusc. 4 57 49 Opusc. 20 42 50 Opusc. 14/Add. 21 17 51–58 Epp. 32–9 56 59 Ep. 11 47 60 Ep. A 58 61 Opusc. 8 60 62 Opusc. 24 70 63 Opusc. 25 62 64 Opusc. 6 59 65 Opusc. 26a, Add. 20 and 38 75 65 Opusc. 26b/Add. 24 71 65a Computus ecclesiasticus 29 (Continued) oxfordhb-9780199673834-part-1.indd 82 11/11/2014 4:37:16 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Nov 11 2014, NEWGEN Table 2.2 (Continued) Sherwood nr Latin title Number 66 Ep. 12 48 67 Ep. 18 46 68 Ep. 16 54 69 Ep. 1 49 70 Ep. 44 50 71 Ep. B 51 72 Ep. 45 52 73 Opusc. 7 41 74 Opusc. 16 65 75 Opusc. 19 45 76 Opusc. 12 66 77 Opusc. 27/Add. 25 72 78 Disputatio cum Pyrrho See section 13 79 Opusc. 10 43 80 Opusc. 1 44 81 Opusc. 2 61 82 Opusc. 3 61 83-85 Opusc. 3a–c See nr 61 86 Opusc. 9 68 87 Opusc. 15 69 88 Opusc. 11 73 89 Relatio motionis See section 13 90 Ep. C 74 91 Disputatio Bizyae See section 13 oxfordhb-9780199673834-part-1.indd 83 11/11/2014 4:37:16 PM