In my last few posts, I’ve tracked down and translated the obscure “Letter to Eucarpius” by Philo of Carpasia. All well and good, except… it’s not. While googling yesterday, I discovered that it’s actually found among the Letters of Basil of Caesarea / Basil the Great, where it is letter 42, and directed to a certain Chilo! Oh no!
The attribution to Philo comes to us only from the two manuscripts. Yet the same letter is found attributed to Basil in other manuscripts. In fact one of these manuscripts has a note in the margin, saying that it isn’t by Basil either, but by St Nilus.
Well, mea culpa, mea maxime culpa. What I should have done, clearly, was to search the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae for the opening words of the letter.
Having said this, I don’t feel too bad that I forgot to do so. Because I have just done that search, and each time it failed. Yet I knew that they were the same! In the end I just browsed to Basil Letter 42, and then I found out why the searches failed. Here’s the start of the Greek of Philo:
And here is the beginning of the TLG text of Basil, Letter 42:
ΠΡΟΣ ΧΙΛΩΝΑ ΤΟΝ ΑΥΤΟΥ ΜΑΘΗΤΗΝ
Σωτηρίου πράγματος αἴτιος γενήσομαί σοι <missing word>, ὦ γνήσιε ἀδελφέ, εἰ ἡδέως συμβουλευθείης παρ’ ἡμῶν τὰ πρακτέα, μάλιστα περὶ ὧν ἡμᾶς αὐτὸς παρεκάλεσας συμβουλεῦσαί σοι. Τὸ μὲν γὰρ κατάρξασθαι τοῦ μονήρους βίου πολλοῖς ἴσως τετόλμηται, τὸ δὲ ἀξίως ἐπιτελέσαι ὀλίγοις τάχα που πεπόνηται. Καὶ πάντως οὐκ ἐν προθέσει μόνον τὸ τέλος ὑπάρχει, ἀλλ’ ἐν τῷ τέλει τὸ κέρδος τῶν πεπονημένων. Οὐκοῦν οὐδὲν ὄφελος τοῖς μὴ πρὸς τὸ τοῦ σκοποῦ τέλος ἐπειγομένοις, ἄχρι δὲ τῆς ἀρχῆς μόνης ἱστῶσι τὸν τῶν μοναχῶν βίον· οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ καταγέλαστον καταλιμπάνουσι τὴν ἑαυτῶν πρόθεσιν, ἀνανδρίας καὶ ἀβουλίας παρὰ τῶν ἔξωθεν ἐγκαλούμενοι. Φησὶ γὰρ καὶ ὁ Κύριος περὶ τῶν τοιούτων. «Τίς, βουλόμενος πύργον οἰκοδομῆσαι, οὐχὶ πρῶτον καθίσας ψηφίζει τὴν δαπάνην, εἰ ἔχει τὰ πρὸς ἀπαρτισμόν; μή ποτε, θέντος αὐτοῦ θεμέλιον καὶ μὴ
I’ve highlighted the differences in the first sentence: quite enough to frustrate my search!
The actual author of the letter is unclear. From googling, I find that there is a general feeling that letters 42-46 are a group that belong together, which, if by Basil, must precede his ordination as bishop. I am told that letter 42 is not found in any “ancient manuscripts” of Basil’s letters, but first in Paris 967 of 1377 AD; and that MS “Paris Regius 2895” – whatever that now is – has a note “Some attribute this to the holy Nilus”. It also appears in several manuscripts of the homilies.[1] I don’t think that this is the place to go into the arguments for Nilus or Basil.
Oh well! It was fun to do anyway!
3 thoughts on “Oh no! – Philo of Carpasia and his “Letter to Eucarpius” – Part 4”