Determinación de Actividad antioxidante por el método DPPH 45

English readers interested in the theological scholarship of Sedulius Scottus, emanating from both a Carolingian and Hibernian setting, may locate the value of Sedulius‟ Prologue and his commentaries of Galatians and Ephesians in their reception of older formative religious writers like Jerome, Augustine, Pelagius, et al. A study of Sedulius Scottus‟ Collectaneum is essentially a study in reception. The selection, the reframing of arguments, the editing, and the occasional original comment are all features which one can highlight as the achievements of both Sedulius and the libraries with which he worked, but, without the sources the Collectaneum by definition does not exist. Therefore, a reception study of Jerome, Augustine, and Pelagius – Sedulius‟ three main sources for the Prologue, Galatians, and Ephesians – proves to be an integral component of an overall understanding of Sedulius‟ work. Before examining the reception of Jerome, Augustine, and Pelagius, I will 1) offer some preliminary remarks about Sedulius‟ range of sources, 2) suggest improvements upon Frede‟s apparatus fontium, and 3) explain Sedulius‟ method of citation.

Frede notes ten different authors that Sedulius draws from for the Galatians and Ephesians commentaries and three more in the Prologue who are not used in those

commentaries.234 The authors range from Origen (185–ca. 254; via Rufinus) to Isidore (ca. 560– 636). Some authors, like Isidore, Eusebius, and Boethius are rarely used, while others such as Jerome, Augustine, and Pelagius are employed quite frequently. It is the latter three authors whose reception will be studied more closely in the following sections. Also, in the following reception study, it must be remembered that Sedulius‟ Collectaneum is of a particular type, and

234 _{I tabulated these numbers from the footnotes in Frede‟s critical text (1997) of the Prologue and commentaries on}

109

his reception practices should not be confused with other theological collectanea235 or even

sententia (such as Isidore‟s or even Peter Lombard‟s, to name two prominent medieval examples).236 Similar to theological collectanea or sententia, Sedulius uses a wide range of sources, which is a testament to the Carolingian libraries of Rhineland and Sedulius‟ reputation and mobility as a scholar;237 however, Sedulius draws mostly from commentarial works for his exegetical Collectaneum. As tables 1 and 2 demonstrate,238 Sedulius does draw from other genres of work, but again, the majority of content derives from commentaries. For this reason, the nature of exegetical collectanea is different from collectanea on certain theological issues. The latter have an agenda of specific theological purpose, whereas Sedulius‟ agenda is to draw out the best exegesis (from the sources he has available) for each verse. Thus Sedulius‟

Collectaneum mirrors early Latin commentators in that they lacked a systematic theological approach and instead sought to explain words or phrases of the biblical text, verse by verse. On this matter, it is helpful to note Jerome‟s defense against allegations of being an Origenist. Jerome claimed to admire Origen‟s exegesis, but maintained that his admiration did not extend to Origen‟s doctrines.239

Implicit in this defense is an important distinction in early biblical commentators between biblical exegesis and theological doctrines. Only occasionally with the early biblical commentators, and subsequently Sedulius, are larger theological issues drawn out within their exegesis. Nonetheless, one can, through Sedulius‟ editing of certain key passages (which I will demonstrate below), detect his theological tendencies on certain issues.

235 _{See # above for the general overview and development of collectanea.} 236 _{Rosemann, 17-19.}

237

See pp. # above where I discuss Sedulius‟ reputation among his peers and what Traube and later scholars call “The circle of Sedulius.”

238 _{See p. # above.}

110

i) Frede’s ApparatusFontium

Frede‟s apparatus fontium is both thorough and accurate; however, occasionally I have revised or amended his work. Nowhere have I found Frede‟s attribution to be wrong; however, newer editions of some of the sources have become available since the publication of his text (1997): e.g., he sites the PL version of Jerome‟s commentary on Galatians, but in 2006 the CC published a critical edition of that work (vol. 77A edited by Giacomo Raspanti). Therefore, my source citations throughout these reception studies refer to the standard critical text (in the case of Jerome – the CC text) and not the PL. For all of the citations of Pelagius‟ commentaries on Galatians and Ephesians I have followed Frede‟s practice of referring to Souter‟s critical text by giving the page number then the line.

Regarding the unattributed lines in Frede‟s edition, I entered the text into the PL, TLL and CLCLT databases. This practice did not reveal any new findings; however, I did on

occasion, independent of the databases, find sources for some of the unattributed lines. I accept the remaining unattributed lines as Sedulius‟ own, since it is customary for biblical collectanea

of this time to contain some original exegesis.

I have three improvements to offer upon Frede‟s apparatus fontium: 1) Gal 1:1-2 (I.18-21) deriving from Augustine‟s exp. Gal. 2.6:

(Aug.) ideo enim cum dixisset: et deum patrem, addidit: qui suscitauit illum a mortuis, ut etiam ex hoc modo breuiter iam a clarificato missum se esse commemoraret. Gratia vobis et pax a deo patre et domino Iesu Christo. Gratia dei est, qua nobis donantur peccata…. (Sed.) QVI SVSCITAVIT EVM A MORTVIS. Ideo commemorat Deum Patrem qui suscitauit eum a mortuis, ut per hunc uirtutem sui apostolatus commendet, dum ab ipso Patre missus est. GRATIA VOBIS. Qua gratis nobis donantur peccata.

Lines 18-20 may be more aptly described as an influence, but the key words and ideas in

111

Augustine in the subsequent verse and line (Gal 1:2, I.21). It is possible that Frede overlooked these verses in Augustine‟s commentary as a source for Sedulius, but it is more likely that he deemed the lexical links as too loose a connection based upon the pattern of Sedulius‟ reception elsewhere. If lines 18-20 are an instance of Sedulius receiving Augustine and not merely a case of Augustine broadly influencing Sedulius, then it serves as one of the more highly edited selections of Augustine by Sedulius; but line 21 assuredly derives from Augustine and is near verbatim per usual.

2) Gal 3:23 (VI.7-8) deriving from Augustine‟s exp. Gal. 26.8: (Aug.) conclusio enim eorum erat timor unius dei. (Sed.) CONCLUSI. Id est, timore unius Dei.

3) Gal 6:14 (XI.34-36) deriving from Augustine‟s exp. Gal. 62.8:

(Aug.) Mundus mihi crucifixus est, ait, ut me non teneat et: ego mundo, ut eum non teneam, id est ut neque mundus mihi nocere possit neque ego de mundo aliquid cupiam. (Sed.) MVNDVS CRVCIFIXVS EST. Id est, ut me non teneat. ET EGO MVNDO. Vt eum quasi mortuus non teneam neque concupiscam.

Regarding example three, Sedulius‟ line 34 seems to be a clear borrowing as does the beginning of line 35. Sedulius‟ rendering of Augustine‟s final phrase, id est ut neque mundus mihi nocere possit neque ego de mundo aliquid cupiam into neque concupiscam is a typical maneuver by Sedulius for the purposes of abbreviating and simplifying the content within his Collectaneum.

ii) Method of Citation

Sedulius intratextually cites seven names of biblical scholars and commentators within the Prologue and commentaries on Galatians and Ephesians, but he never mentions Pelagius,

112

whom he copies most.240 Sedulius may refrain from mentioning Pelagius, despite summarily using him as a source, because Pelagius was not in good standing with the Church and mentioning his name could have devalued Sedulius‟ work. This reason is not completely satisfactory, however, since Sedulius mentions Origen three times within the text of the Prologue.241 Rather, the reason is likely connected to Sedulius‟ method in composing his

Collectaneum. The nature of an exegetical collectaneum on the Pauline epistles dictates that Sedulius will likely draw from many exegetical works on the Pauline epistles, as he does. Thus, the citations of authors or works are actually the exceptions. All of the explicitly cited authors or works within Sedulius‟ commentaries on Galatians and Ephesians fit into two categories: either the cited material is merely retained in Sedulius‟ borrowing of another source as occurs with his citation of Eusebius and Origen via Rufinus and Aquila via Jerome; or, the author or work employed is exceptional. For example, Sedulius‟ entry for Eph 2:15 is expected to derive from some other commentary on Ephesians 2:15. However, for that verse Sedulius unexpectedly draws from Jerome‟s commentary on Habakkuk, so he alerts the reader by writing, “[l]ikewise in the exposition of Habakkuk”. Similarly, for Eph 4:13, Sedulius draws from Augustine‟s civ., and therefore cites that work before quoting from it. Therefore, since all of Sedulius‟ borrowings of Pelagius within Galatians or Ephesians come from Pelagius‟ commentaries on Galatians or Ephesians, then the use of Pelagius is never exceptional and does not warrant an explicit citation.

240

The authors mentioned by name are Jerome (Prologue 19, 35, 45; Gal 2:15), Ambrose (Prologue 57; Gal 4:25), Origen (Prologue 152), Augustine (Prologue 200; Gal 2:15; Eph 4:13), Clement “the disciple of Peter” (Prologue 85), Eusebius (Gal 1:19), and Aquila (Eph 4:28).

113