Antonius Bongiovanni, Praefatio ad Theophylacti in V prophetas minores Commentaria

PREFACE OF ANTONIO BONGIOVANNI TO THE COMMENTARIES OF THEOPHYLACT ON FIVE MINOR PROPHETS.

Those who are eager to make public the works of ancient authors not yet published certainly do the greatest service to letters, and bind learned men, devoted to antiquity, to themselves by an undying benefit. Since this is so, the greatest thanks are owed to that excellent man and distinguished senator Francesco Foscari, who, born no less for the good of the republic of letters than of the civil republic, took the utmost pains to have these splendid Commentaries of Theophylact published. For when he learned that they lay hidden in a manuscript codex of the Bavarian library, he made use of the services of the most distinguished Felix Oefele and asked the Most Serene Duke to allow them to be copied and communicated to him. That most gracious prince agreed, and with his greatness of soul sent to him at Venice not a copy but the codex itself. Now that the task of transcribing the codex and rendering it into Latin has been entrusted to us, it seems good to say a few things by way of preface about the whole matter.

The codex, as it seems to me at least, was written about the thirteenth century, and bears the title: "Of Theophylact, archbishop of Bulgaria, exposition of the Twelve Prophets." "Of Theophylact, archbishop of Bulgaria, Commentaries on the XII prophets." This title, which occurs in two other codices, the one at Augsburg, the other at Strasbourg, led learned men into error, among them Johann Albert Fabricius, who supposed that these Commentaries on the XII prophets were all Theophylact's. "Do you really say so? Are they not in fact Theophylact's?" Those on Hosea, Habakkuk, Jonah, Nahum and Micah are indeed Theophylact's, as is plain from his style; those on the remaining seven are not, as we afterwards ascertained. For when I had rendered into Latin those on Micah, and had begun likewise to render into Latin those on Zephaniah, and had detected some difference between the one and the other as regards style, I began to doubt whether they were truly Theophylact's or another writer's. At once I consulted the writings of those from whom I had noticed that Theophylact drew a number of things, and saw with my own eyes that the commentaries on Zephaniah and the rest which had been ascribed to him all corresponded to the commentaries of Theodoret. It was therefore necessary to consult other codices as well, namely the Augsburg and the Strasbourg, in which also Theophylact's commentaries on the XII prophets were said to be extant. Of these, then, the one was sent to us at Venice by that excellent man Gonfridius Hekingius, leave having been obtained from the most courteous governors of the Augsburg library; the other was carefully collated with Theodoret's commentaries by the most distinguished Schererius; and we found that both agree with the Bavarian manuscript, so that one seems to have been copied from another. In all these codices not a little of the commentaries on Hosea is missing, such as the prologue and a good deal else. The prologue was transcribed with the greatest care from a Venetian codex by that distinguished man Antonio Zanetti, by permission of Marco Foscarini, a most eminent man, knight and procurator of St Mark, prefect of the library, and he gave it to us to render into Latin. Further, since through the injury of time some lines were missing in that prologue, we searched the more notable libraries of all Europe, so that, if it could be done, they might be restored with the help of manuscript codices. In this matter not even the East escaped our diligence. For the above-mentioned Francesco Foscari, a man both of great counsel and of outstanding virtue, having gone as ambassador to the emperor of the Turks, seized the occasion and had all the libraries there most zealously searched, above all the most celebrated of them all, which is on Mount Athos. But all the labour came to nothing. And so, since we may not give it as we would wish, we give it as we can. That, therefore, Theophylact's commentaries come forth entire, a few lines excepted, on

these five prophets, and that they come forth more correct than any others: this you owe to one most choice Greek codex of the library of St Mark, which appears to have been written either in Theophylact's own time or not long after. In this codex commentaries are extant on the five above-mentioned prophets only, the rest being omitted; from which one may conjecture that Theophylact, either snatched away by death or distracted by other cares, was unable to complete the Commentaries on the remaining seven.

"What prevents us," you say, "relying on the authority of three codices, from saying that these commentaries on the remaining seven prophets are Theophylact's?" You ask what should prevent it? The style prevents it, plainly different from Theophylact's style; the Venetian codex prevents it, easily contemporary with Theophylact himself; other very ancient codices prevent it, far older than Theophylact himself, among them Nani XXXI, in which codices these commentaries are attributed to Theodoret. What more do you want? Yet I will say more. Theophylact himself, finally, prevents it. How does he prevent it? Listen. At the beginning of the prologue he expressly testifies that by the empress's command he sets down these commentaries "threefold", that is, expounds them in three ways, and that he pursues in them for the most part a "threefold reception", a threefold interpretation which unfolds a threefold sense of the Scriptures: namely the literal, as they call it, the moral and the tropological. This method which he set himself is seen in the five above-mentioned prophets, but not in the rest. For in these the author pursues the literal sense only, which the learned know Theodoret was accustomed to do. Do you want something more? I will say more. Theophylact, namely, is accustomed at the end of each commentary to discourse somewhat on the life and deeds of each prophet, which Theodoret does not do. This is plain both from the Venetian codex, far the most excellent of all, and from Lonicer's translation. In the Bavarian codex, moreover, this is to be seen in the five aforesaid only, not in the rest. We must therefore admit that they are Theodoret's, not Theophylact's. But what shall we say of the three codices mentioned above? This, namely, which is the fact: that they are by far the most recent, and that they ought to be counted as one, since it is clear that one was copied from another. For the same defect appears in each, exactly the same lacunae, the same gaps. It is likely, moreover, that the scribe, in order to sell his codex for more, added Theodoret's commentaries where Theophylact's interpretation failed.

So much for that. As regards the text of the prophets, we have preferred to keep the translation which is set opposite the Seventy in the Polyglots rather than add some new one, lest, if by chance some fault should seem to have been committed in a matter of such moment, it be counted a great offence on our part. As for our own translation, we have laboured above all that it should be Latin, that it should correspond to the Greek text, and that it should be clear. If we have not achieved this, though we strove to achieve it with all our strength, the kindly reader will at least take our effort in good part. I wish you to be advised of this: that these commentaries now appear in Greek for the first time, if you except those on the first chapter of Hosea and the beginning of the second. In Latin, however, they have appeared on the first four, but with exactly the same lacunae which we were just saying are in the three codices mentioned above. This Latin translation, which is Lonicer's, we have placed opposite the Greek text; and wherever Lonicer seemed to stray from Theophylact's meaning, we have preferred to add another, new one at the foot of each page rather than to emend his translation. For we think the labours of learned men should be spared. Likewise, if any discrepancy occurs between the Bavarian and the Venetian manuscripts, we note it from time to time in its place, always keeping the better reading where we could. Where we could, I say: for we were often compelled to set the worse, in order to serve Lonicer's translation. The rest we are the first to give, both in Greek and in Latin. But so much for that.

You have, then, learned Reader, a most splendid edition of Theophylact's Works, which I think indeed necessary to libraries, both because of the excellence of the interpreter himself and for completing the series of interpreters of the sacred Scriptures. For although this interpreter of ours is not among the most ancient, yet from those very ancients, Theodoret above all, he has, like a bee, culled all the best things, and so blended them with his own that he seems not only to equal their industry but in places even to surpass it. He limps, indeed, in some opinions; but

Origen limps too, and Irenaeus, and not a few others; yet this in no way prevents their being reckoned among the best writers and being commonly read by the orthodox. Receive, then, with a glad heart this illustrious interpreter of the sacred Letters, in whom you will find many things most wisely written; and if you were to seek them in others, you would seek in vain.