دانلود کتاب Prosper of Aquitaine: De Providentia Dei

At the beginning of the fifth century Gaul had greatly suffered first from
a catastrophic flood, second from the equally devastating raids first of the
Vandals, then of the Visigoths, lasting ten full years (ca. A.D. 406-
415).1 Finally, at the beginning of 415 king Ataulf left Gaul for Spain
(Tarraconensis). Accordingly, the most suitable date for the poem De
providentia Dei is A.D. 416.
The immediate occasion for the composition of the poem was the sufferings
of the innocent people (38, ultima pertulimus), specifically, the complaints
of the unbelievers, "Why did God allow this to happen? Does He
care for the mankind at all?" Consequently, the author's main objective
is to prove God's lasting and watchful providence over the universe and
mankind (87 -94). And after covering much theological ground in his
wide-ranging and learned poem, the author returns to the plight of Gaul
in his passionate peroration (897 -972).2
Ca. 860, Hincmar of Rheims (806 - 882) quoted nine passages from our
poem (total, 60 lines) in his treatise De praedestinatione dissertatio posterior,
while naming Prosper of Aquitaine as their author. 3 Prosper (died after
A.D. 455) appears as the author also in the only extant manuscript of the
poem-cod. Mazarinensis 3896 (copied ca. 1535)-and in the editio princeps
of the Works of Prosper (Lyons, 1539).
But already in 1565, Jean Soteaux and Jean Hassels denied the poem
to Prosper on the grounds that it contained Pelagian (or rather Semipelagian)
elements, absent in Prosper's works Epistola ad Rufinum, De
ingratis, etc. 4 And this seems to be the predominant opinion even today.

However, following L. Tillemont (1712),6 Max Manitius (1888-
1891),7 especially L. Valentin (1900),8 and R. Helm (1957),9 I have elsewhere
argued for the authorship of Prosper. 10 It suffices here to adduce
these two arguments. First, the alleged Semipelagianism cannot serve as
an argument against the authorship of Prosper, since we must allow for
a personal theological development of the au thor between 416 (De providentia
Del) and 426 - 430 (Epistola ad Rufinum and the poem De ingratis). The
same argument applies to the theological evolution of Augustine, who in
428 wrote:
Quid autem habes quod non accepisti? Si autem et accepisti, quid gloriaris
quasi non acceperis? [1 Cor. 4:7]. Quo praecipue testimonio etiam
ipse convict us sum, cum similiter errarem, putans fidem, qua in Deum credimus,
non esse donum Dei, sed a nobis esse in nobis, et per illam nos
impetrare Dei dona, quibus temperanter et iuste et pie vivamus in hoc
saeculo. 11
Second, as the Commentary demonstrates, the coincidences in doctrine,
imagery, diction and lexicon between De providentia Dei and Prosper's
De ingratis and Epigrams are of such a magnitude that they undoubtedly
suggest one single poet for all three works. In addition, as U. Moricca
(1932)Y especially M.P. McHugh (1964),13 G.E. Duckworth (1968),14
and A. Longpre (1978)15 have shown, virtually there is no difference in
the metrics of De providentia Dei and De ingratis. 16
Prosper's elaborate and remarkable poem is poorly transmitted. The
only extant manuscript is cod. Mazarinensis 3896 (604), paper, 14 x
9.5 cm (writing field, 10.5 x 7 cm), fo1.264, 28-29 lines per page, copied
soon after 27 August 1535 (cf. f.68V)y Out of the 972 extant lines of the
poem, the Mazarine manuscript contains only 340-over six full folios
(162r -167v ): vv.105-120; 146-155; 175-190; 212-266; 277-520.
Fols. 168-170 are blank, and since line 520 of the poem, at the bottom
of f.167 v , breaks in the middle of a sentence, it seems likely that the
scribe intended to continue copying passages from the poem, but was
prevented from doing so. The five passages from our poem belong to the
general heading, Poematia variorum super Jhesum Christum, Mariam, Sanctos,
Sanctasque. The anthology of the Mazarine manuscript displays a text close
to that of the Lyons edition of 1539 (except for 333 longa M : larga L, and
the correct 506 tuus M, for cuius L).
The editio princeps of the poem appeared at Lyons in 1539, as prepared
by Sebastien Gryphe. 18 This edition is our main source for establishing
the text of the poem, and I have relied on it wherever possible. In 1711,
the Maurists J . B. Le Brun des Marettes and Luc U rbain Mangeant prepared
their Paris edition of the Works of Prosper, occasionally improving
the text of our poem. 19 I very doubt, however, that they had used a textual
tradition different from the Lyons edition. Their text is printed in J. P.
Migne (1846).20
Two doctoral dissertations must be mentioned. In 1900, L. Valentin
offered several convincing emendations. And in 1964, M.P. McHugh
prepared a revised text of the poem, accompanied by a facing English
translation, an exhaustive Introduction and Commentary. 21 Although
McHugh's Latin text is not critical enough, and his translation displays
occasional misunderstanding of the original, his study of the poetical and
other sources of Prosper is an excellent scholarly work, and I have greatly
benefited from it in my Commentary.
The main objective of the present book is to offer a first critical edition
of the poem. 22 Since Prosper's train of thought is not always easy to follow,
a facing English translation has been added showing how the editor
had understood his original. In the brief Commentary, I have tried to increase
the amount of Parallelbelege pointed out by Manitius, Valentin, and
McHugh. I have paid special attention to two kinds of coincidences:
(1) between De providentia Dei and Prosper's Epigrams and De ingratis-in
an attempt to prove common authorship of all three poetic works; (2) between
our poem and Greek and Latin Stoic sources-in an attempt to
demonstrate that Prosper's important and peculiar poem is a gem of the
"Christianized Stoicism.' '23
Finally, there are points of contact between Prosper's poem and John
Chrysostom's De providentia Dei (composed in A.D. 407), notably in chapters
7 -8; 12; 19 and 21 ed. A.-M. Malingrey (Sources Chretiennes,
Vol. 79, Paris, 1961). These encounters are best explained by the assumption
that both authors were using common sources.