Florus of Lyon

[FR] Le manuscrit Montpellier, BU Fac. Médecine, 157 contient une lettre d'évêque orientale tardo-antique, en traduction latine, dont le texte original grec ne semble pas conservé, et qui est étrangement restée inédite jusqu'à ce jour. Elle y apparaît en tête d'un manuel sur le comput pascal élaboré vers 840 par Florus de Lyon, la « collection De pascha », dont Montpellier 157, copié en 848 par un fidèle de Florus, Mannon de Saint-Oyen, est l'unique témoin conservé. Ainsi, ce recueil carolingien lyonnais serait la seule trace de l'existence de cette lettre — si saint Augustin n'avait pas lu, de manière certaine, ce Liber Timothei episcopi de pascha. En attendant l'édition et l'étude du texte, que je prépare actuellement avec Camille Gerzaguet, ce premier article entend donner des éléments de contexte : description et analyse du manuel de Florus, description matérielle et bio-bibliographie du témoin. On éclaire ainsi à la fois les raisons pour lesquelles Florus a sauvé ce texte rarissime d'une disparition complète, et les raisons pour lesquelles ce texte a échappé jusqu'ici à la vigilance des érudits modernes et des chercheurs contemporains.

[EN] MS. Montpellier, BU Fac. Médecine, 157 contains the Latin translation of an eastern late Antique bishop's letter, whose original Greek text appears to be lost; strangely enough, this text has remained totally unpublished to this day. It is the opening text of a handbook on Easter computus that was compiled around 840 by Florus of Lyons; Montpellier 157, which was copied in 848 by someone we know close to Florus, Manno of Saint-Oyen, is the only extant witness of this " De pascha collection ". This Carolingian Lyonnais miscellany would be the only trace of this letter's very existence — had not Saint Augustine himself drawn upon this Liber Timothei episcopi de pascha. In anticipation of the edition and analysis of this text that I am currently preparing with Camille Gerzaguet, this article explores its general context: a description and analysis of Florus' handbook, as well as a material description and a bio-bibliography of the unique witness. These elements shed light on the reasons why Florus saved this most rare text from oblivion, as well as the reasons why the text escaped, until now, the vigilance of modern and contemporary scholars.

The article summarizes the state of the art as regards the late-antique and early medieval direct tradition of Augustine’s De ciuitate Dei, with some new critical insights. It aims to provide a solid basis for future research on the topic and to fill a gap in the existing literature, by critically sifting through the information scattered in the bibliography and bringing it together into a coherent and up-to-date picture. The first part deals with a general overview of the earliest dissemination of De ciuitate Dei and its textual history in the early Middle Ages. In the second part, the complete and partial witnesses dated up to the 9th century that may be used to establish the text of De ciuitate Dei are listed. After an outline of the history of Bernhard Dombart’s edition and its revision by Alphonse Kalb, the last part deals with the little information available so far regarding the genealogical relations between the earliest copies, with a focus on Florus of Lyon’s role in the transmission of the work. Paratexts, readers’ annotations, and variant readings are discussed and mutually integrated, also in light of the recently published articles by Emanuela Colombi (2013 and 2019) and Jesse Keskiaho (2019).

The so-called Codex Seguierianus, Paris, BNF, lat. 10592, a collection of Cyprian of Carthage written in the 5th–6th century, has been described as “the” Cyprian’s manuscript of Florus of Lyon (flor. ca. 825–855). But when cross-referencing every use of Cyprian in Florus’ works and every trace left by Florus within the Seguierianus, these series overlap in one occasion only. In his works, then, Florus nearly always used other manuscripts rather than the Seguierianus — and conversely the traces he left in the Seguierianus are imprints of other Florus’ studies that are not preserved or not yed identified. In particular, Florus used the Seguierianus for editorial purposes, whose impact in Cyprian’s tradition is yet to be assessed.

La collection de douze compilations de Florus sur l'Apôtre est présentée, jusque dans son édition récente, comme une œuvre que Florus aurait composée telle quelle. Pourtant, beaucoup d'éléments invitent à reconsidérer l'unité supposée de l'ensemble, en même temps que l'histoire de ce corpus à l'époque moderne explique pourquoi et comment s'est forgée l'image moderne qu'on s'est faite de cette documentation.