Письмо Либания к Иоанну Златоусту из рукописи Исидора Пелусиота

В статье анализируется вопрос о подлинности письма Либания к Иоанну из рукописи Исидора Пелусиота. В эпи- столярном корпусе Исидора Пелусиота есть письмо к грам- матику Офелию, в котором как аргумент в пользу ораторских достоинств Иоанна Златоуста приведено письмо Либания к нему. Издатели переписки Исидора не ставят под сомнение подлинность этого письма. Сомнения возникли у издателя сочинений Либания Рихарда Форстера. Он указывает на невоз- можность тех обстоятельств, о которых сообщается в письме, и на этом основании считает его подложным. В статье проана- лизирована аргументация Форстера против подлинности пись- ма и доказана ее неубедительность. Статья завершается выводом о необходимости признания подлинности письма Либания к Иоанну Златоусту из рукописи Исидора Пелусиота.

The article deals with the question of authenticity of the letter of Libanius to John Chrysostom from the manuscript of Isidor Pelusiot. In the correspondence of Isidor there is a letter to the grammarian Ophelios, in which as an argument for rhetorical dignities of John Chrysostom is quoted a letter of Libanios, addressed to John. Editors of Isidors correspondence did not doubt the authenticity of this letter. It is the editor of Libanioss oeuvres Richard Foerster, who called into question the authenticity of this letter. He pointed at the impossibility of the circumstances reported by the letter and for this reason considers it spurious. According to Forster, John could not deliver a laudatory speech in honor of the emperors in 393 A.D.; Libanios, being sick, could not read it; some expressions of letters are not peculiar to the discourse of Libanios; at last Isidor Pelusiot, well acquainted with John Chrysostom and circumstances of his life, could see the incongruities of the letter, but ignored them. The article demonstrates that nothing hinders the assumption that John in reality delivered a laudatory speech in honor of the emperors in 393 A.D.; that Libanios was not so sick, that he could not engage in general conversation (see letter 1100), and consequently he could read the speech, which was sent to him; that the data of mutuae inter Basilium et Libanium epistulae are contradictory and these letters being recognized as non-genuine can not serve to prove the authenticity of another letter; that one excerpt from the treatise of John Chrysostom Ad viduam juniorem, where by the similar expressions is described the discourse of Libanios, shows that these expressions of letter under investigation were peculiar to his discourse. And lastly that the fact of Isidors exploitation of Johns letter is a weighty argument in favor of the authenticity of this letter. The article concludes that the letter of Libanios to John Chrysostom from the manuscript of Isidor Pelusiot should be recognized as authentic.