THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
The value of the Catena; is measured by their judgment in selecting and their skill in combining the material they borrow. The difficulty of choice is increased by the dogmatic limitations, which are sometimes in inevitable conflict with the scholarly interest. Origen, for instance, the first great Christian critic and commentator, was of inestimable value to exegesis; and for the Old Testament Catena? both Pliilo, who had been studied by all learned theologians
4. Value, from Origen down, and Josephus were
invaluable authorities. A compromise was reached in the principle (still followed by Roman Catholic commentators) of Cyril of Alexandria: " We need not avoid or question everything that heretics have said; for they confess many things which we also confess." Another difficulty was found in the occasionally conflicting expositions; their diversity was explained by Drungarius, with reference to the obscurity of the text, as providential. He contents himself with placing side by side the varying renderings and explanations of Isaiah, leaving the reader to form his own judgment.
The simplest method of making a Catena was to follow one principal authority, to whose exposition shorter scholia are added from other sources. Thus Chrysostom is the main source in the Catena of Possinus on Matthew, as well as in the Gospel commentaries of Euthymius and Theophylact,
though all of these differ in the ad-
5. Method, ditions they make to what they take
from him. Other Catena? are indiscriminate anthologies, no one authority being preferred. Of this type are those of Procopius and Nicetas, and most of those on the Epistles.
The external form of the Catenae differed according to their extent. Where they were not too extensive, the text was placed in the middle of the page, surrounded by the exposition, usually in smaller characters, sometimes even in tachygraphy. The names of the authorities are sometimes in the margin, sometimes in the body of the exposition, as a rule abbreviated. Occasionally diacritical marks show the connection between text and commentary. If the Catena is too extensive to allow this arrangement, the sections of the text are followed by the commentary, in separate paragraphs, with the authors' names on the margin, or else written without a break. The manuscripts, of which few date further back than the tenth century, differ much in execution. Some are of admirable workmanship, with illustrations; others 6. Form, are plain copies for students, with the marks of long use upon them, and some seem to have been hastily and carelessly made to supply the demand of the bookselling trade. Besides the commentaries, the Catena? contain a good deal of introductory or illustrative matter. Thus the Gospels are frequently prefaced by the canons of Eusebius and his epistle to Carpianus, as well as by arguments and biographies of the evangelists; the Pauline epistles have a life of Paul, a list of his journeys, and an account of his martyrdom.
Whether the beginnings of the manufacture of Catenae can be traced back to the patristic period
it is impossible to say with certainty, though it seems not improbable. After Eusebius the work of theologians to a great extent took the direction of codifying and criticizing what had been handed down. But Procopius (d. 528) is the first who can be demonstrated to have made Catena?. The value of his work, which rests not only upon the Fathers from the third to the fifth century but upon Josephus and Philo and upon some of the teachers before Origen, gave it an epoch-making position. From the manner in which he speaks of his task in the prefaces to Genesis and Isaiah, we may conjecture that he was not an 7. Catenae imitator of others but an originator in
Previous this line. Other extant Catena? were
to the compiled by Andreas the presbyter
Fourteenth (seventh to tenth century); Johannes
Century. Drungarius (tenth century); Michael Psellus, and Nicetas, bishop of Serra?, later metropolitan of Heraclea in Thrace (eleventh century); Nicolaus Muzalon and Neophytus Eucleistus (twelfth century); and Macarius Chrysocephalus (fourteenth century). To these may be added not only the commentaries arranged more or less in catena style, though without names of authorities: (Ecumenius, of whose date and personality we know nothing certain, though he was probably a contemporary of Arethas of Cappadocia; and the Gospel commentaries of Theophylact and Euthymius, composed under the Comneni. There is, however, a much larger number of anonymous Catena?; and this fact is surprising, since Byzantine theologians were not given to hiding their light under a bushel. It may possibly be explained by the theory that these Catena? were produced not by any one man but by a group of collaborators. Their dates are very hard to determine; the surest way to reach conclusions on this point is by examining their relations to those whose dates we know, which requires a good deal more investigation than has yet been given to them. In fact, what has been done in the way of scientific study of the Catena? in general has only covered certain specific points; and those which have been printed cover only a small part of the extant material, and that not always selected with judgment.
The catena form impressed itself as a model upon medieval exegesis in the West, which also imitated the spirit in which the Eastern compilers went about their work. Here too the aim was to preserve the tradition of the Church in a uniform arrangement of Scriptural exposition, " so that the line of prophetic and apostolic interpretation may follow the norm of the ecclesiastical and catholic sense " (Vincent of Lerins). The principal sources were Ambrose, Hilary, Augustine, and Jerome; less often the Greek Fathers, such as Origen, Chrysostom, and Cyril of Alexandria, are cited. The prototypes of the medieval catena commentaries may be seen in the expositions of Cassiodorus and Isidore of Seville. 8. Medieval On the Carolingian period the numer-
Catena?. ous commentaries of Bede exercised
a decisive influence. He knew Greek,
and shows some feeling for textual criticism; but
he was not an exegetical individuality. He col-