The Author of the Opus Imperfectum in Matthaeum

Fredric W. Schlatter

Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 42, No. 4. (Dec., 1988), pp. 364-375.

Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0042-6032%28198812%2942%3A4%3C364%3ATAOTOI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-2

Vigiliae Christianae is currently published by BRILL.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained
prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in
the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/journals/bap.html.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic
journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers,
and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take
advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

http://www.jstor.org
Sat Nov 3 11:29:43 2007
 Vigiliae Christianae 42 (1988), 364-375, E . J . Brill, Leiden

THE AUTHOR OF THE OPUS IMPERFECTUM IN MATTHAEUM

FREDRIC W. SCHLATTER. S.J.

The identity of the author of the Opus irnperfectum in Matthaeum

remains a vexing problem central to a problematic text. This work in the
view of some textual critics unites comments on Matthew collected from
manuscripts dating to three separate periods: the eighth and ninth, the
twelfth, and the fourteenth centuries.' Such an editorial process of
uniting groups of texts with no known author does not guarantee the
unity of authorship for all three groups. However, if arguments
presented elsewherez validly conclude to the essential unity of the work,
as presently edited,-' and to a Latin author, perhaps the question of
authorship can be appropriately raised.
The internal evidence of the text yields several important clues about
the Latin author: his ecclesiastical rank, his other literary works, his
position in a time of theological controversy, his chronological setting,
and his knowledge of Constantinople. An examination of each of these
characteristics will provide a profile of the author and the basis for sug-
gesting his identity.
Perhaps the clearest statement the author makes about his status in
the Church is contained in 677A, where he identifies himself as one of
those who are uniuscujusque regionispastores. In the context the notion
of an individual region contrasts with the whole of Galilee, an item in
Mt. 4. 23 on which he is commenting. The term pastores has led M.
, ~ P. Nautin has insisted
Meslin to identify the author as a b i ~ h o p but
on the implications of the term regio, which he points out does not mean
a diocese but rather a district within a city. On the supposition that
pastor regionis refers to a parish, he identifies the author as "le pr@tre
charge d'une paroisse. "*
Both terms, pastor and regio, require separate examination. First of
all, the transition in P . Nautin's argument from pastor to presbyter is
invalid. The function of the word pastor in this passage yields ultimately
to the role of doctor. Such a transition is implicit in the author else-
 THE AUTHOR OF THE OPUS IMPERFECTUM IN MATTHAEUM 365

where, e.g. in 738D where doctores haeretici are termed devoratores,

and anyone taught by them is non pastus. The juxtaposition of pastores
et doctores in Eph. 4. 11 could easily suggest the transition which
Pelagius had indicated in his commentary on the passage: Pastores sunt
sacerdotes, doctores uero omnes qui sunt idonei ad alios instruendos.
omnis ergo pastor doctor, non omnis [qui] doctor et p a ~ t o r .The
~ first
task is to identify who in the terminology of the author is a doctor.
In a general sense of the term all Christians are doctores Ecclesiarum
inasmuch as they are prophets who proclaim the reality of Christ
intimated by the prophet of the Old Testament who spoke de Christo
venturo:
Sed et omnes Christiani prophetae dicuntur, qui in regnum et in sacer-
dotium et in prophefiam unguntur. Nec enim pofest quis propheticos inter-
pretari sensus, nisi habeat spiritum prophetiae. Haec autem diximus, ut
ostendamus, quia prophetae, de quibus loquitur Christus, doctores dicun-
fur (738A).

But in the case of laymen this role of teaching is not literally fulfilled
in the present life: Laicus enim in die judicii stolam sacerdotalem
accipiet, et a Deo chrismate ungetur in sacerdotium (852B). Hence the
doctor must be a sacerdos, but the office also includes anyone who is
a clericus:
sic sacerdos, et omnis clericus, etsi specialiter non promittat, tamen per hoc
ipsum quod doctor constituitur aliorum, tacite promittere Deo videtur, in
omnibus obauditurum se Deo (852B).

In one passage he seems to include the office of lector under the opus
clericale (624C). Beside the sacerdos or clericus and laicus is the
ecclesiasticus vir (686C) who is in the general category of spiritualesper-
sonae among whom are included aut continens vidua, aut monachus,
aut virgo, id est, qui se Deo tradidit (858C). The author further specifies
who have the honor sacerdotalis by distinguishing them from the
diaconi, ecclesiastici, and laici: et ejicit omnes vendentes gratiam Dei de
Ecclesia, episcopos, presbyteros, diaconos, omnesque ecclesiasticos,
necnon et laicos (841C). Finally, the generic term doctores is further
specified through the function of those who are praedicatores (677D-
678B) and by the reason of that function must be members of the
presbyterium (934D). Hence when the author speaks of sacerdotes
caeterique doctores (686A), he implicitly denies the lay status of our
author, who is among the doctores. But his specific status must be
366 FREDRIC W . SCHLATTER, S . J

investigated among episcopi, presbyteri, diaconi, and other ecclesiastici

viri.
To specify which of these roles the author had, the term regio requires
examination. P. Nautin's claim that it designates a parish is somewhat
anachronistic. To judge by the usage of the Roman Church in the third
century, regio is linked to the office of deacon: Hic [Fabianus] regiones
dividit diaconibus,' and the Ordines Romania and the Epistola ad
Senarium9 show the persistence of this usage at least into the fifth cen-
tury and perhaps into the sixth. The universality of this usage cannot
be concluded, but at least it shows the possibility that our author as a
regionis pastor and doctor is a diaconus.
Throughout the entire text of the Opus imperfectum, the author in
matter of ecclesiastical rank appears preoccupied with the presbyterate
and the diaconate. He nowhere indicates that he is a bishop,'hnd the
implication of being a regionis pastor seems to rule out the larger func-
tion of a bishop. The question, then, seems restricted to his identity as
priest or deacon.
There are few instances in which the author speaks separately of the
presbyter and deacon because of his preference for the inclusive term
sacerdos. However, in at least four passages he separates the offices in
a manner that may reveal something of his own position. In treating the
parable of the talents in Mt. 25. 14-18 (934D), he describes the man who
received five talents, one of which was depresbyterio and was increased
sollicite praesidendo Ecclesiae, and another who increased one of his
two talents: sinceriter ministrando, quam tiustitiam] fecit ex ministerio
diaconatus. Clearly, in his mind, the deacon does not share in the
ministry of presiding. In a second passage he describes this function of
the presbyter as being among theprincipes Ecclesiae, a position he views
with apprehension:
Quis enim sapiens ultro se subjicere festinat servituti, labori, dolori, et
quod majus est, periculo tali, ut det rationem pro omni Ecclesia apud
justum Judicem, nisi forte qui nec credit judicium Dei, nec timet uti
abutens primatu suo ecclesiastico saeculariter, convertat eum in saecularem
(830C)?

A third passage records high praise for the priesthood and a low esteem
for the diaconate in the contrast he finds between an apostolus, a term
which for him includes here the presbyter," and the deacon: apostoli
apostolatus putatur a nobis honor esse ipsius apostoli ... Similiter et
diaconatus diaconi contemptibilitas videtur a nobis (831B-C). He states
 THE AUTHOR OF THE OPUS IMPERFECTUM IN MATTHAEUM 367

a similarly harsh attitude when he refers to multi diaconi inutiles

(934D). Finally, in the ecclesiastical order he seems to be acutely aware
that the deacon is the lowest-only the lector is beneath him in dignity
(884B-C). The cumulative impression created by these passages and the
evaluation of the diaconate found in them would seem out of place
unless expressed by a deacon.
Besides writing the Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum, the author
composed other commentaries on Mark and Luke.Iz He wrote these
commentaries in Latin, but demonstrated a sophisticated knowledge of
Greek and a decided preference for the exegetical method of Origen,
whose works he knows and uses.I3 In the Opus imperfectum he reflects
the interest and attitudes of the Pelagian movement in its later stages to
such a degree that Pelagianism is theologically more a leitmotif1*than
the Arianism which occasionally appears in the text." The minimum
conclusion about the author in these matters is that he is heterodox.
The context of the Pelagian movement reinforces the evidence in the
text that the author was writing in the fifth century. It is a time when
the author's theological party is out of favor, at some unspecified time
after the reign of Theodosius I (379-395).16Another element in dating
the work is the reference to the presence of philosophical studies in a
Capitolium which points to an awareness of teaching faculties intra
Capitolii auditorium, i.e. in lecture rooms within the civic center of
Constantinople (758D), as established by a law of February 27, 425.l'
He also knows of the ascetical practices of monasticism as well as the
eccentricities of a stylites, a circumstance that yields a date after 421 . I 8
In view of all these references, 425-430 as the general period of composi-
tion seems likely.
A number of remarks by the author can be taken to show that he was
in Constantinople at the time of writing his commentary on Matthew or
at least that he had been deeply impressed by a stay in the capital. P .
Nautin has read 667B as proof that the author wrote from Constantino-
ple.I9 The passage in question, while commenting on Mt. 4. 8, remarks
that Satan's action in showing to Christ all the kingdoms of the world
involved no more than a gesture in the direction of those kingdoms and
not an actual vision of them. Similarly, the author, in his own person,
remarks: ut puta si ascendas super excelsurn locum, digito extenso
dicam tibi, Ecce ibi est Roma, aut ibi est Alexandria, non sic ostendo
tibi, ut ipsas videas civitates, sed partes terrae in quibus positae sunt.
Clearly the context of this statement could be Constantinople, but it
368 FREDRIC W . SCHLATTER, S.J

does not rule out the setting in a western locale, e.g. in Sicily or Africa.
The possibility of Constantinople as the locale of the author is similarly
present in remarks on the academic institutions on the Capitolium of
Constantinople, but again the presence of the remark may reflect no
more than acquired knowledge or the memory of a stay in that city. So
also, for the other citations which may show an awareness of imperial
practice in C o n ~ t a n t i n o p l e . ~ the
~ u tpresence of an imperial court in
the west with Valentinian 111, who was installed at Rome in 425, should
be a reminder that imperial protocol, besides being a matter of general
knowledge, could also be experienced in the western part of the empire.
It would be attractive if the words beginning the oldest manuscripts
of the text (798D-799A) were shown to be authentic since they would
substantiate the author's presence in a place not his usual habitat:
Legite, inquam, fidelissimi, horror, fratres, legite vobiscum, crescite in
fide, ut vobiscum corpore absens, efficiar in Christo vobiscum praesens
in fide. The reminiscence of 1 Cor. 5.3 further emphasizes the point.
However, the analysis of P . Nautin underscores the internal problems
of this text and proposes an imaginative explanation for its presence
which suggests caution in accepting the reliability of the p a s ~ a g e . ~ '
This part of our study has concluded that the author is a Latin cleric,
possibly a deacon, writing the Opus irnperfectum early in the second
quarter of the fifth century after producing other exegetical works. He
has, in this analysis, a good knowledge of Greek, a thorough acquaint-
ance with the works of Origen, heterodox theology with a specially
strong connection with Pelagianism, and an awareness of contemporary
Constantinople that could indicate a stay there but not necessarily that
he wrote this work while in the capital.
Other critics, perceiving the work as characteristically Arian have
sought to find the author within an Arian community. In such an iden-
tification what divides the critics is their judgment whether or not the
Opus imperfectum is an original Latin composition by a western writer
or a Latin translation of a Greek work. In the first hypothesis the
favored candidate is Maximinus, the Arian bishop against whom St.
Augustine wrote.22.In the second hypothesis Timotheos, a priest of
Constantinople, has been strongly s u p p ~ r t e dThe . ~ ~validity of the pres-
ent study particularly hinges on its own hypothesis that the Latin
author, who may be a deacon, must be sought in Pelagian circles. On
this basis Annianus2Qf Celeda is the nominee with the most suitable
credentials.
370 FREDRIC W . SCHLATTER, S.J

A u g u ~ t i n e .In~ ~Thonnard's view the adoption of Chrysostom by the

Pelagians dates to the period 419-420 when Pelagian bishops had
withdrawn from the west, among them Julian of Eclanum who was at
Mopsuestia with its bishop Theodore. It is to this time Thonnard dates
the translation of Chrysostom's homilies by Annianus and their
prefaces which so strongly denounce Augustine. The Contra Julianum
shortly after this time reflects this debate over Chrysostom's position.
However, G. Martinetto puts the crisis over Chrysostom and tradition
in regard to Augustine's view prior to 397, when Pelagius was shocked
at what he considered Augustine's novelties and began to cite his
authorities, and to support this campaign Annianus began his transla-
tion of Chrysostom's homilies.36J.-P. Bouhot's analysis of the Arsenal
manuscript of the Latin translation of Chrysostom's Ad neophytos
would lend some support to Martinetto's earlier chronology since
Bouhot shows that Augustine in the Contra Julianum, 1.6.22, was using
a translation in 420 which corrected an earlier version that was
favorable to Pelagiani~m.~' This earlier translation may well have been
by Annianus.
The solution to the chronological problem is not crucial for the
implications of Pelagian motivation in Annianus' translations of
Chrysostom. His reason for undertaking these translations remains the
same in either sequence.
This intimate acquaintance with Chrysostom's text seems to be at
variance with Origen's influence, at least in the exegetical area, where
Chrysostom's Antiochene approach to interpretation would seem to
preclude in Annianus a connection with Origen's allegorical approach.
The limited scope of the two prefaces written by Annianus under-
standably yields no evidence of Origen's influence. It should be
remembered, however, that Chrysostom had an apologetic interest for
Pelagianism after its theological viewpoint had already been formed,
and the reasons for forging links with Chrysostom were pragmatic and
prompted by an interest in his moral applications which could support
the position of Pelagianism. Before that tactic became appropriate,
Origen was a major interest for Pelagius and his followers. Although
Pelagius explictly rejected some positions of Origen, T. Bohlin has
demonstrated that Pelagius' thought, at least genetically, has its roots
in Origen's statements about free will as a gift of God and about the
freedom of man's A. Souter had already noted a philological
inheritance between Pelagius and Origen,'hnd with Rufinus' transla-
 THE AUTHOR OF THE OPUS IMPERFECTUM IN MATTHAEUM 37 1

tion of Origen's commentary on Romans available to Pelagius, the link

becomes possible.
Origen was, in this explanation, Pelagius' door to Greek theology,
not Theodore of Mopsuestia, as Marius Mercator stated when
attributing to Rufinus quondam natione Syrus the mission of bringing
to the west the doctrines of Theodore to serve as the origin of
Pelagianism.*' H. I. Marrou concludes that Theodore and Rufinus sup-
plied no more than a theological tradition favorable to the moral views
of Pelagius, who had already by the time of Rufinus' visit to Rome
formed his theological position. The eastern church, on the other hand,
showed no interest in Pelagianism except in terms of N e s t o r i a n i ~ m . ~ ~
There was, then, in the circle of Pelagius a doctrinal affinity with
Origen, and as a member of that circle Annianus would share that
interest. There is, however, no particular instance of Annianus' interest
in Origen, as this could be verified in his only undisputed works, the
prefaces to this translations of Chrysostom where such an interest
would scarcely be suitable or expected.
That Annianus had a direct experience of Constantinople is again a
matter not to be deduced from the internal evidence of his two prefaces
but from the external evidence about the Pelagian circle with which he
was connected. According to his preface to the translation of
Chrysostom's homilies on Matthew (PG 48. 626B-C), that circle was
undergoing a stormy time of trial which had left Annianus saddened
and stunned. Bishop Orontius, his patron, shares in these sufferings for
the faith. The whole context of the preface suggests a time when the
opponents of Pelagianism are in the ascendancy and Pelagians are
invoking the name of Chrysostom to show the weight of tradition on
their side. As Thonnard has shown," this is the climate of 419-420 after
the emperor Honorius had condemned the Pelagians.
This is the time at which we loose all trace of Pelagius. Whatever
previous connection Annianus may have had with him, Bishop Orontius
is now his mentor, as the dedication of the preface to his translation of
Chrysostom's homilies on Matthew declares. This Orontius is men-
tioned by Nestorius in two letters to Pope Celestine as one of the
bishops who were filling Constantinople with tearful accounts of their
persecution for the cause of Pelagianism while appealing their case to
the emperor.'* Furthermore, Julian cum complicibus suis is pictured as
present in a church in Constantinople while Nestorius delivers an anti-
Pelagian sermon defending marriage as a diuinae munus bonitatis,
372 FREDRIC W . SCHLATTER, S.J.

ubertas naturae, machina repugnans contra mortem omnia con-

sumestem, castitas contra libidinem freni, inculpabilis uoluptatis
pote~tas.~* The data of this stay in the capital appears to be somewhat
after Nestorius' installation as bishop before his theological views put
him in danger of the removal that took place in 43 1 . Therefore, a date
of 429 is likely for the Pelagian episode in which Annianus, now
attached to Bishop Orontius, can be placed in Constantinople for the
period of time presupposed by the two letters of Nestorius.
Another chronology for Pelagian presence in Constantinople can be
dated to 424 or 425 under Bishop Atticus. In this sequence the Pelagian
stay in his city would be within the period of 420-425. According to
Marius Mercator, Atticus had previous experience with Pelagianism in
the person of Celestius whom he had expelled from the city at some time
between 411 and 418.46The second encounter was a quite different
action by Atticus which this time involved not an individual but legatos
haereti~orum.~' Their conduct can be deduced from Pope Celestine's
remark: Hos quoque haereticos ... sedibus suis injusta dicentes expulit
justa damnatio." This action, as J. Garnier has meticulously argued,49
must date to 424 or the beginning of 425 and involved an official process
on the part of Atticus and one duly communicated to Pope Celestine,
unlike the earlier expulsion of Celestius which Atticus had com-
municated to bishops in Asia and the bishops of Thessalonica and Car-
thage. This second intervention by Atticus took place, Celestine says,
after Pelagius and Celestius had been condemned, when eastern and
western churches in a unified position had attacked the followers of this
condemned position: cum suae opinionis ~equacibus.'~ Celestine does
not disguise his irritation with Nestorius over his ignorance of a matter
settled not under his immediate predecessor, Sisinnius, but before that
time under Atticus.
There are, then, two periods during which the Pelagian party was in
Constantinople when Annianus may well have had a first-hand
awareness of the city and its institutions, a knowledge of which is
characteristic of the author of the Opus irnperfectum.
What is known with certainty about Annianus matches in many
details the profile that has been established for the author of the Opus
irnperfectum: a fifth century Latin deacon with considerable knowledge
of Greek and a strong connection with the Pelagian movement, who was
well versed in Origen's writings, had an acquaintance with Constantino-
ple, and produced several works of exegesis. Perhaps, if we knew more
 THE AUTHOR OF THE OPUS IMPERFECTUM IN MATTHAEUM 373

of the career of Annianus after 430, we might be able to understand

other characteristics of the author of the Opus imperfectum that remain
untouched in the account.
The most troublesome element is, of course, the presence of passages
supporting Arianism. Are these passages, occasional in nature and
peripheral in context, evidence of the later milieu of the author, or are
they evidence of interpolation? This problem, partly textual and partly
historical, awaits careful analysis, but it is not so central to the Opus
irnperfectum as to undermine confidence in proposing that Annianus is
the same as the author of that work. The nature of the present evidence
precludes certainty, but the investigation involved in arguing the case
for a candidate has the advantage of sharpening our awareness and
knowledge of a quite remarkable and complex text.

' See the analysis of J.-P. Bouhot, Remarques sur l'histoire du texte de l'Opus imperfec-
tum in Matthaeum, Vigiliae Christianae 24 (1970) 197-209; and J. Lemarie, Les
homiliaires de Bobbio et la tradition textuelle de 1' "Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum,"
Revue benedictine 85 (1975) 358-362.
M. Simonetti, Per una retta valutazione dell' Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum, Vetera
Christianorum 8 (1971) 87-97; R. ~ t a i x Fragments
, inedits de 1' "Opus imperfectum in
Matthaeum," Revue benedictine," 84 (1974) 274-276; F. W. Schlatter, The Opus
Imperfectum in Matthaeum and the Fragmenta in Lucam, Vigiliae Christianae 39 (1985)
384-392.
P G 56, 611-946, with the six fragments recovered by R. ~ t a i x Fragments
, inedits de
1' "Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum," Revue benidictine 84 (1974) 271-300. According
to F. Glorie, in W. J. Burghardt, Literature of Christian Antiquity: 1979-1983,
Theological Studies 45 (1984) 282, a new edition is to appear in Corpus Christianorum.
' Les Ariens d'occident, 335-430 (Paris 1967) 172.
' L' "Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum" et les Ariens de Constantinople, Revue
d'histoire ecclesiastique 67 (1972) 747.
In epistolam ad Ephesios, 364-365, P L Supplement 1. 1298.
' L. Duchesne, Le Liber Pontificalis, I' (Paris 1955) 148.

Ordines Romani, especially I . 1 (PL 78, 937).

' Joannes Diaconus, Epistola ad Senarium, 11 (PL 59, 405).

lo
Nautin, op. cit., 747-749, notes the strange quality of the author's references to
bishops.
" Ibid., 750.
" See the references to a commentary on Mark in 920D, and to one on Luke in 680B-C,
726B, 808D.
'I Note the conclusion that the author of the Opus imperfectum is the Latin abbreviator
of Origen's exegetical works on Matthew: G . Morin, Quelques apercus nouveaux sur
I'Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum, Revue benedictine 37 (1925) 239-262. See also my
374 FREDRIC W . SCHLATTER. S.1

remarks in The Opus Imperfectum in Matthaeum and the Fragmenta in Lucam, Vigiliae
Christianae 39 (1985) 391, note 16.
' * See my article: The Pelagianism of the Opus Imperfectum in Matthaeum, Vigiliae
Christianae 41 (1987) 267-284.
The presence of Arianism in a movement influenced by Pelagius is unexpected in view
of his orthodoxy and explicit rejection of Arianism. See G . de Plinval, Pelage: ses ecrits,
sa vie et sa reforme (Paris 1943) 124-127, and T. Bohlin, Die Theologie des Pelagius und
ihre Genesis (Uppsala 1957) 10-12. This problem deserves a separate treatment.
" 901C, 907A.
" Codex Theodosii, 14.9.3. See P. Lemerle, Le premier humanisme byzantin (Paris
1971) 63-66.
905C. Meslin, op.cit., 169, on the basis of H. Delehaye, Les saints stylites (Bruxelles
1923) xv-xvii, deduces a date "apres les annees 416-417," while Nautin, op.cit., 747 has
arrived at 429. A. Vbobus, History of Asceticism in the Syrian Orient, 2 (Louvain 1960)
213, note 30, and 218, note 54, shows that the pillar years of Simon Stylites extend from
421-459 although his stay on the highest pillar was from 439. However, a letter of
Theodosius I1 in September 432, ed. E. Schwartz, ACO, I. 1. 4 (p. 5-6) shows Simon's
fame well established by that date and presumably as a stylites.
" Op. cit., 756, following J. Stiglmayr, Das Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum, in
Zeitschrift fur katholische Theologie 34 (1910) 477-478.
641D-642A, 920A-B, 941B, 943A. See Nautin, op. cit., 756-758.
" Ibid., 764-766.
l2
Collatio cum Maximino and Contra Maximinum, P L 42. 709-742, 742-814. Meslin,
op. cit., 174-180, has presented this position.
' Nautin, op. cit., 760-764, has revived this identification as proposed earlier by Josef
Stiglmayr, op. cit., 483-495.
'' For the form Annianus rather than Anianus, see the references in H. Musurillo, John
Chrysostom's Homilies in Matthew and the Version of Annianus, Kyriakon. Festschriff
Joannes Quasten 1 (Miinster/Westf. 1970) 453, note 6.
"
Ep. 143. 2, CSEL 56, p. 293.
l6
J . Garnier, Dissertatio I, De primis auctoribus et praecipuis defensoribus haeresis
Pelagianae, PL 48. 303D, would have the word refer not to the place of his ministry but
rather to the place of his birth, which he conjectures is Celenna and would be located in
Campania. H. Rahner, LThK (ed. 2) 1. 56, s.v. Anianus, accepts the reading Ceneda,
which C. Baur had recorded in ed. 1, and repeats the identification with the modern Vit-
torio, near Treviso.
'' For the text of the prefaces, see P L 48. 626B-630C. For the number of translated
homilies on Matthew, see B. Altaner, Altlateinische Ubersetzungen von

Chrysostomusschriften, Kleine patristische Schriften (Berlin 1967) 421-423, who shows

from the evidence of the preface that Annianus translated the entire collection of

Chrysostom's homilies on Matthew, of which twenty-five have survived, not merely the

eight which B. de Montfaucon printed in his edition of Chrysostom. In Annianus' trans-

lation of the homilies on Paul, A. Piedagnel, Jean Chrysostome : Panegyriques de s. Paul

(Paris 1982) 98-99, note 5, has called attention to omissions, paraphrases, and inap-

propriateness, as well as distortions in two places in favor of a semi-Pelagian viewpoint.

'' O p . cit., P L 48. 304A-C.

'' Liber apologeticus, 2, CSEL. 5, p. 605.

 THE AUTHOR OF THE OPUS IMPERFECTUM IN MATTHAEUM

;"bid., note on 1. 17-19.

" Op. cit., 305A.
" A. Wilmart, La collection des 38 homelies latines de saint Jean Chrysostome, JTS 19
(1917-18) 309-327; Altaner, op. cit., 418-419. Altaner's suggestion has been attempted in
the case of Quod nemo laeditur (Wilmart, 39) by A.-M. Malingrey, La tradition latine
d'un texte de Jean Chrysostome (Quod nemo laeditur) in Studia Patristica 7. 1 (Berlin
1966) 248-254.
J3 Ibid., 430-431.
34 Ep. 143. 2, CSEL 56, p. 293.
I' Saint Jean Chrysostome et saint Augustin dans la controverse pelagienne, Revue des
Ptudes byzantines 25 (1967) 194-198.
Les premieres reactions anti-augustiniennes de Pelage, Revue des Ptudes augus-
tiniennes 18 (1971) 83-117.
" Version inedite du sermon "Ad neophytos" de s. Jean Chrysostome, utilisee par s.
Augustin, Revue des Ptudes augustiniennes 18 (1971) 41.
It is one of the thirty-eight homilies in Wilmart's collection, op. cit., 323. A. Wenger,
Jean Chrysostome: Huit catich&ses baptismales inPdites (Paris 1957) 30-33 summarizes
the attribution to Annianus.
39 Op. cit., 87-103, and the summary on 108. See also P . Brown, The Patrons of
Pelagius: the Roman Aristocracy between East and West, in Religion and Society in the
Age of Saint Augustine (London 1972) 219.
40 Pelagius's Exposition of Thirteen Epistles of St. Paul, in Texts and Studies 9. 1 (1922)
191.

4t
Commonitorium, 3 , ed. E. Schwartz, ACO I. 5 (p. 5).

" H. I. Marrou, Les attaches orientales du Pelagianisme, Comptes rendus de I'academie

des inscriptions (Ju1.-Oct. 1968) 459-472, especially 468 and 472.
43 Op. cit., 194-196.
The letters are extant in a Latin translation, ed. E. Schwartz, ACO, I. 2. 3-4 (p. 12-15).
For the list of bishops, see Epistula 1: Iulianus quidam et Florus et Orontius et Fabius;
and Epistula 2: propter Iulianum Orontium et ceteros, qui sibi usurpant episcopalem
dignitatem.
4'
Zbid., I. 5. 30-31 (p. 60-62).
46
Marius Mercator, Commonitorium, ed. E. Schwartz, ACO, I. 5. 36. 24-28 (p. 66).
4'
Prosper of Aquitaine, Carmen de ingratis, PL 51. 98-99.
For the letter of Celestine to Nestorius, see ed. E. Schwartz, ACO, I. 2. 2 (p. 7-12).
The passage in question is I. 2. 2. 16 (p. 11).
" Dissertatio 11, De synodis habitis in causa Pelagianorum vivente Sancto Augustino:
XVIII synodus, PL 48. 361C-362C.
E. Schwartz, op. cit., I. 2. 2 . 1 (p. 7).

Gonzaga University, Spokane, Washington 99258