Book Series Clavis Patristica Pseudepigraphorum Medii Aevi , vol. 2A

Opera theologica, exegetica, ascetica, monastica

Pars A. Praefatio. Theologica. Exegetica

J. Machielsen

  • Pages: 682 p.
  • Size:155 x 245 mm
  • Language(s):Latin
  • Publication Year:1994


Not Available
  • € 136,50 EXCL. VAT RETAIL PRICE
  • ISBN: 978-2-503-50013-3
  • Paperback
  • Not Available


Summary

For years after Tome I (Homelitica) the second tome of CPPM is published on schedule. It contains pseudepigraphs in the areas of theology (390 pp.), exegesis (329 pp.), asceticism (137 pp.) and monasticism (71 pp.). The eighteen indices are a means of unifying the four disparate areas; they also facilitate the access to the many and divergent data gathered. The method followed in tome II is similar to the one explained in tome I (Preliminary Remarks). In the discussion of the four areas entered, particular emphasis is placed on their place in florilegia (fontes, usus)(the first 30 pages offer a summary of the florilegia mentioned) and on the abbrevationes and epitomes of many genuine patristic writings (operum genuinorum retractationes maiores). In the monastic section Augustine, Benedict and the Regula magistri are dealt with extensively and in great detail, among many other pseudepigraphic writings. Of the eighteen indices, I would like to mention in particular the Initia, Codices, the Index generalis omnium operum recensitorum and the index statisticus. Indeed the index statisticus enables me to draw interesting conclusions from the material entered, as CPPM is a contribution to classifying and studying the broad field of medieval pseudepigraphic literature in the field of patristics. a) In the four areas studied, the number of intentional forgeries made during the middle ages quite possibly surpasses similar cases encountered in the homiletic literature (tome I). However, the distinction between forgeries and erroneous (intentional or not) attributions is not always very clear. b) Honesty compells us to confess that the number of erroneous or widely divergent attributions made by publishers or scholars, from the fifteenth century on, equals or even may exceed the number of erroneous attributions made by the medieval scribes or authors. c) even a cursory glance at the many paragraphs of fontes, fontes-usus and usus clearly shows that me