Traditionally attributed to Didymus the Blind, this anonymous work on the Trinity found in the Cod. Rom. Angel. gr. 116, has no certain authorship. The article throws light on the numerous parallels among the so-called De Trinitate and passages from Basil, the two Gregorys, Athanasius, the pseudo-Basilian books IV and V of the Adversus Eunomium, as well as from some writings of Cyril of Alexandria. Even though the question of the paternity of De Trinitate is still destined to remain clouded, (...) the parallels pointed out by the Author tend definitely to exclude Didymus as the author of this anonymous theological tract. (shrink)

The intention here is to propose a new critical edition of the so-called Epistula synodalis a text traditionally attributed to Amphilochius of Iconium, but which the Author considers to be spurious. Alongside the Italian translation of the letter, based on a comparative commentary with the writings of Basil, a strong dependence of this text on Cappadocian Fathers’ Trinitarian theology and pneumatology is brought to light. However, its origin is probably an anonymous work, only subsequently associated with Amphilochius.

The intention here is to propose a new critical edition of the so-called Epistula synodalis a text traditionally attributed to Amphilochius of Iconium, but which the Author considers to be spurious. Alongside the Italian translation of the letter, based on a comparative commentary with the writings of Basil, a strong dependence of this text on Cappadocian Fathers’ Trinitarian theology and pneumatology is brought to light. However, its origin is probably an anonymous work, only subsequently associated with Amphilochius.

Among Basil’s homiliae morales, a prominent place is occupied by the 15 sermons on the Psalter that have been preserved. The present study, as part of the editorial project of these homilies on behalf of the Sources Chrétiennes, seeks to shed light on a phenomenon that may have affected the texts of the Cappadocian, similar to what happened with some of Augustine’s Enarrationes. In fact, the collation of some ancient witnesses of the Basilian homilies, ignored by Garnier and thus by (...) the vulgata edition reprinted in PG 29, seems to suggest an early oral circulation of the discourse, identifiable through some textual traces, such as anacolutes, omissions of articles or explanatory parts, stylistically inelegant sentence structures, scriptural quotations not standardized according to the most widely used textual form, etc. The considerable contamination of the manuscript tradition makes it impossible to sketch a stemma that would allow the precise positioning of the individual codices reviewed. Nevertheless, the textual data collected by Bas., hom. in ps. 32, 33, 44 and 48, and presented here only in small part, have revealed the existence of two recensions: Ω1 and Ω2, where Ω2 represents the revised and corrected text after the death of Cappadoce, while the few surviving testimonies of Ω1, which represent a textus rudior, without stylistic revision and circulated without the author’s control, somehow hint at an echo, perhaps distant but in our opinion undeniable, of the oral language, i.e., of the original character of the works of this genre. (shrink)