THE GEORGIAN LIFE OF THE VIRGIN ATTRIBUTED TO MAXIMUS THE CONFESSOR: ITS AUTHENTICITY (?) AND IMPORTANCE
暂无分享,去创建一个
In 1986, Michel van Esbroeck published a new Life of the Virgin Mary that is not only among the most profound and eloquent Mariological writings of early Byzantium but is also of the utmost significance for understanding the historical development of Marian traditions in the early middle ages. This invaluable text survives only in the Georgian language, where it is attested by eleven different manuscripts, although only three of these preserve the complete text.1 Perhaps the most remarkable feature of this Life is its attribution to Maximus the Confessor in the manuscript tradition, which, if accurate, makes the text even more valuable as an historical source. If Maximus is determined to be the author, not only would we be able to identify a relatively precise historical context for the composition of this Life of the Virgin, but our knowledge of Maximus’ life and thought would be considerably enriched by the addition of this new text to his corpus. In the introduction to his translation of the Life, van Esbroeck presents a convincing set of arguments in support of Maximus’ authorship. Nevertheless, it is still somewhat difficult to be entirely certain of the attribution. While van Esbroeck makes an excellent case for the Life of the Virgin’s authenticity, and several features of the text strongly favor this view, it is unfortunately difficult to exclude other possibilities completely. But in the end, regardless of whether Maximus authored this Life or not, it is a thoughtful and often moving meditation on the life of Mary, which almost certainly represents the earliest extant narrative of her complete life. For these reasons alone, this Life of the Virgin deserves to be more widely read and studied than it has been so far.2 The reaction of scholarship to this remarkable new text has been rather peculiar to say the least. After seventeen years, almost no one has engaged van Esbroeck on the question of authorship, and no clear consensus on the