ANTONII BONGIOVANNI PREFACE TO THE COMMENTARIES OF THEOPHYLACT ON THE V MINOR PROPHETS
Those who apply themselves to making the works of ancient authors, not yet published, available to the public, are certainly of great service to the republic of letters and bind learned men who are students of antiquity to themselves with an immortal favor. Since this is so, the greatest thanks must be given to the distinguished man, the excellent senator, Francesco Foscaro, who, born for the good of the republic of letters no less than for the civil state, has ensured with the greatest care that these brilliant Commentaries of Theophylact be published. For when he learned that they were lurking in a manuscript codex of the Bavarian library, he asked the most serene duke, making use of the services of the most illustrious man Felix Oefelius, to allow them to be copied and shared with him. That most humane prince assented, and sent the codex itself to Venice, not merely a copy, for him, out of the greatness of his soul. Now that the task of transcribing and translating the codex into Latin has been entrusted to us, it is fitting to preface a few words regarding the whole matter.
The codex, as it seems to me, was written around the thirteenth century and bears the title: Θεοφυλάκτου ἀρχιεπισκόπου Βουλγαρίας ἐξήγησις εἰς τὸ δωδεκάπροφητον, *Theophylacti, archiepiscopi Bulgaria, Commentaria in XII prophetas*. This title, which occurs in two other codices—one at Augsburg, another at Strasbourg—has led learned men into error, among whom is Johannes Albertus Fabricius, who thought that all these Commentaries on the twelve prophets were by Theophylact. What then? Are they not truly Theophylact’s? On Hosea, Habakkuk, Jonah, Nahum, and Micah, they are indeed Theophylact’s, as is manifest from his style; as for the remaining seven, they are not, as we discovered later. For when I had rendered into Latin what is on Micah, and had begun to render into Latin what is on Zephaniah, and had noticed some difference in style between these and the former, I began to doubt whether they were truly Theophylact’s or those of another writer. A I immediately consulted the writings of those from whom I had observed Theophylact drawing some things, and I saw with my own eyes that the commentaries ascribed to Zephaniah and the others all correspond to the commentaries of Theodoret. It was therefore necessary to consult other codices, namely the Augsburg and the Strasbourg ones, in which it was also said that the commentaries of Theophylact on the twelve prophets existed. Therefore, having obtained permission from the most humane directors of the Augsburg library, the excellent man Gonfridius Hekingius sent one of these to us at Venice: the most illustrious Schererius accurately compared the other with the commentaries of Theodoret, and we discovered that both agree with the Bavarian manuscript, so that one seems to have been copied from the other. In all these codices, not a few things from the commentaries on Hosea are missing, such as the prologue and many other things. The prologue from the Venetian codex, by the permission of Marcus Foscareni, a man of the highest rank, a knight, proctor of St. Mark, and prefect of the library, the celebrated man Antonius Zanetti most accurately transcribed and gave to us to render into Latin. Furthermore, since because of the injuries of time some lines were missing in that prologue, we searched the more distinguished libraries of all Europe, so that, if possible, they might be restored with the help of manuscript codices. In which matter not even the East was devoid of our diligence. For since the aforementioned Francesco Foscaro, a man of great counsel and extraordinary virtue, having set out as ambassador to the Emperor of the Turks, seized this opportunity, he most zealously saw to it that all the libraries there were searched, especially the most celebrated of all which is on Mount Athos. But all the labor went in vain. And so, since it is not permitted to give it as we would like, we give it as we are able. Therefore, that they may come forth complete, with the exception of a few lines, in
A these commentaries of Theophylact on the five prophets; and as to why they appear most emendated, you owe that to one most exquisite Greek manuscript of the library of St. Mark, which appears to have been transcribed either in the time of Theophylact himself, or not long after. In this manuscript, the commentaries on the five prophets mentioned above exist, with the others omitted, from which it is possible to conjecture that Theophylact, either snatched away by death or distracted by other cares, was unable to finish the commentaries on the remaining seven.
What prevents, you ask, why—relying on the authority of those three manuscripts—we should not say that those commentaries on the remaining seven prophets are by Theophylact? What prevents them, you ask? A style clearly different from the style of Theophylact prevents it: the Venetian manuscript, easily as old as Theophylact himself, prevents it: other most ancient manuscripts, far older than Theophylact himself, among which is the Nanius XXXI, in which manuscripts those commentaries are attributed to Theodoret, prevent it. Do you want more? I will say more. Theophylact himself ultimately prevents it. How does he prevent it? Hearken. At the beginning of the prologue, he clearly testifies that he intends to write down his commentaries in accordance with the command of the Empress threefold, to expound them in a triple manner, and that he customarily follows in them a threefold interpretation, which explains the triple sense of the Scriptures—namely, as they call it, the literal, moral, and tropological. Furthermore, this method which he proposes for himself is seen in the five prophets mentioned above, but not so in the remaining ones. For in these, the author pursues only the literal sense, which the learned know Theodoret was accustomed to do. Do you want something more? I will say more. Theophylact, naturally, is accustomed to discuss at the end of each commentary certain things about the life and deeds of each prophet, which Theodoret does not do. This is clear both from the Venetian manuscript, by far the most excellent of all, and from the interpretation of Lonicer. In the Bavarian manuscript, however, this can be seen only in the five aforementioned, not in the remainder. We must, therefore, admit that they belong to Theodoret, not to Theophylact. B What, then, shall we say about the three aforementioned manuscripts? This, indeed, is the case: that they are by far the most recent, and that they ought to be considered as one, since it is evident that one was copied from another. For the same defect appears in each, the very same lacunae, the same gaps. It is, furthermore, likely that the scribe, in order to sell his manuscript for more, added the commentaries of Theodoret where the interpretation of Theophylact was lacking.
So much for that. Regarding the text of the prophets, we preferred to retain the interpretation which is placed in the Polyglots alongside the LXX, rather than to add some new one; lest, if by chance something appeared to be offensive in a matter of such importance, it might be held to us as a great crime. But as far as our own interpretation is concerned, we have labored most especially to ensure that it should be Latin, that it should correspond to the Greek text, and that it should be clear. If we have achieved less than this, since we have striven to perform it to the best of our ability, the kind reader will at least judge our attempt fair and good. C I wish you to be warned of this: that these commentaries in Greek are now appearing for the first time, if you except those that are in the first chapter of Hosea and the beginning of the second. In Latin, they have indeed appeared for the first four, but with the very same lacunae which we were just saying were in the three aforementioned manuscripts. We have placed this Latin interpretation, which is Lonicer’s, alongside the Greek text; and wherever Lonicer appeared to deviate from the mind of Theophylact, we preferred to append a new one at the foot of each page rather than to emend his interpretation. For we think that the labors of learned men should be spared. If also there occurs any discrepancy between the Bavarian and Venetian manuscripts, we note it in its proper place, always retaining the better reading where it was possible. Where it was possible, I say: for we were often forced to set down the worse reading, in order to serve the interpretation of Lonicer. The rest we provide for the first time, both in Greek and Latin. But so much for this.
You have, therefore, learned reader, a most brilliant edition of the Works of Theophylact, which I indeed consider necessary for libraries, both for the excellence of the interpreter himself and for completing the series of interpreters of the sacred Scriptures. For even if our interpreter here is not among the most ancient, he has nevertheless—like a bee—culled all that was best from them, especially from Theodoret, and has so tempered them that he seems not only to equal their industry, but in some places even to surpass it. He indeed falters in some opinions; but even so...
this does not hinder him from being counted among the best writers, and being commonly read by the orthodox. Receive, therefore, with a joyful spirit this illustrious interpreter of the Holy Scriptures, in whom you will find many things most wisely written, which, if you were to seek them in others, you would seek in vain.
OF THE MOST BLESSED ARCHBISHOP OF BULGARIA, LORD THEOPHYLACT, EXPOSITION ON THE PROPHET HOSEA
A 1 Since a pious and literature-loving empress has given me it in charge that I should compose, out of ancient commentaries worked out upon the prophets, some one volume, consulting at once for brevity and for clarity, I beseech those who may chance to read it not to judge rashly regarding the difficulty of the work, nor to be angry with me on the grounds that, in carrying out her commands, I did not hesitate to undertake it. For if there is anything that ought to be considered among the things most difficult by nature, it is precisely this: that the same things be expounded both briefly and lucidly. Wherefore, I would have refused the burden, had I not thought that account must be taken of the saintly empress and of her faith, which faith is truly of such value that it should be compared not to a grain of mustard seed, but to the highest mountains; which, therefore, by virtue of its excellence, can easily perform not only this work but also other things far greater than human strength. If, therefore, anything has been achieved which corresponds to the will of this good woman, whose eyes and mind are those of a dove, it is surely done by the power of the divine Spirit Himself and by her faith; but if, on the other hand, there has been a wandering far from her divine will, I beseech you again, and adjure you, that it not be thought to be attributed to my weakness rather than to the extreme difficulty of the matter. Since, moreover, I was commanded by this pious mistress to expound these oracles of the prophets in a threefold manner, I have, indeed, fulfilled the command, B and indeed I should have been one of those who might rightly be excused, but I ask that those who encounter this work should not deal ungraciously with the difficulty of the task, nor at all resent the undertaking on my part... at another time, and this must be counted among those things by nature difficult to work out: to state the same things both concisely... and clearly. So that I myself would have renounced the work, had I not looked toward the faith of the sanctified empress—not to be compared to a mustard seed, but justified by great mountains—and... this able from what is contained therein, not only to complete such a work, but even things greater than any human power. If, therefore, I have wavered at all regarding the will of this woman who is beautiful among women, whose eyes and intellectual [powers] are... doves, and the Spirit, clearly of this divinely inspired goal, and the achievement of her faith; but if we have wandered far from that holy will [. ἀπ.], let the wandering indeed be [attributed to] my own weakness. Yet let it also be reckoned to the difficulty of the task; and since I was commanded by this pious mistress to write out the [commentaries] of the prophets in a threefold manner, I have, indeed, fulfilled the command...
and where I have failed to fulfill this elsewhere, because I could not do so for the weakness of my own powers, I pray that this not be charged to me as a vice with harsher judgment. For not all things are of such a kind that they can conveniently receive this threefold exposition; rather, there are some which embrace only one sense, and entirely reject the other two or one of them, because they have no conjunction with these, nor any affinity. But what are these matters to the citizens? Would that the work upon which we embark be acceptable to her alone who commanded us. With this one thing we shall be content!
PROŒMIUM OF THE EXPOSITION OF THE HOLY PROPHETS
AThe gift of prophecy is ancient, and coeval with the human race. For Adam had knowledge of the things that were done concerning the woman, and he prophesied, when he said: This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh. And he presently subjoined: For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife. And this very thing was divinely bestowed upon human life for the common utility of souls. For there are altogether two things which constitute a perfect man, who is truly a man, of which one is situated in the knowledge of God, the other in the exercise of virtues. Now prophecy teaches both: the knowledge of God in the first place, in that it turns men away from idols and leads them to the true God, both by revealing other mysteries of His, and—which is greatest of all—the advent of the Son in the flesh. Then it teaches the exercise of the virtues, in that it explodes vice and induces virtue, and by the prediction of good and evil things, it composes the mind and morals of men.
BMoreover, many others existed as prophets after Adam. For some so understand the words of Lamech that they think they must be referred to the future time, and that the power of divine grace worked through him, even though he was not worthy to be gifted with that grace. Noah also, roused from sleep, by a prophetic grace perhaps knew whatever things his younger son had done to him. And indeed Abraham is declared a prophet by God Himself, when He said to Abimelech: Restore the woman to her husband; for he is a prophet. And the most illustrious patriarchs who were descended from him also foresaw the future. It is, however, acknowledged that Moses was the first who... of prophecy.