Polémiques, traditions et identités : réflexions autour des Discours contre les juifs et les judaïsants de Jean Chrysostome

International audienceIn his History of Antisemitism, Léon Poliakov describes John Chrysostom's Discourses against Judaizing Christians as « invectives of unbelievable violence » showing the « theological antisemitism » of the Fathers of the Church. However, Poliakov seems to ignore the literary traditions which influenced Chrysostom's Discourses. So, while they paid a tribute to the anti-Judaic polemical tradition which had characterized Christian literature since its beginning, the Discourses also depended on the pagan rhetorical tradition, which was conveyed in the teaching received by 4th-century Christian writers. This literary tradition, emphasizing the importance of clarity and reasonable use of passions, was to Chrysostom a powerful way to promote his point of view in the turbulent and violent religious context of Antioch. Thanks to the reconsideration of both of these traditions, we can bring to light what the real meaning of Chrysostom’s discourses is: they were an Antiochean priest’s contribution to the construction of a Christian identity. Therefore, if we study the context of the Discourses' elaboration and place them in the uninterrupted chain of the tradition, we can demonstrate these texts do not attest to « theological antisemitism », as Poliakov said, but are an intensive and vivid reflexion about Christian identity in Late Antiquity.Dans son Histoire de l'antisémitisme, Léon Poliakov qualifie les Discours contre les juifs de Jean Chrysostome (vers 347-407) de « diatribes d'une violence inimaginable » censées illustrer l'« antisémitisme théologique » des Pères de l'Église. Cette analyse prend cependant insuffisamment en compte la tradition, ou plutôt les traditions qui irriguent ces textes du Père antiochien. Ainsi, s'ils sont d'abord imprégnés par la tradition de la polémique antijudaïque, qui marque la littérature chrétienne depuis ses débuts, les textes de Jean Chrysostome se placent aussi dans la tradition de la rhétorique païenne véhiculée dans l'enseignement qu'ont reçu les auteurs chrétiens du IVe siècle. Cette tradition littéraire et son exigence de clarté et d'usage raisonné des sentiments ont été pour notre auteur des outils précieux pour faire valoir son point de vue au sein de la cité d'Antioche, alors marquée par une vie religieuse intense et troublée. Reconsidérer et réévaluer ces deux traditions au sein de l'œuvre de Jean Chrysostome, c'est redonner à ces textes leur signification réelle : la contribution d'un prêtre antiochien à la construction d'une identité chrétienne. Replacer les Discours contre les juifs dans le contexte de leur élaboration et dans la chaîne ininterrompue des traditions dont ils sont tributaires permet donc d'en faire non pas la preuve d'un « antisémitisme théologique », comme le disait Poliakov, mais un témoignage d'une réflexion intense et vivante sur l'identité chrétienne à la fin de l'Antiquité

The Quod Christus sit Deus attributed to John Chrysostom : edition, traduction and commentary

Nous proposons dans cette étude une nouvelle édition du texte grec du Quod Christus sit Deus, monographie écrite par Jean Chrysostome à la fin des années 380. Cette édition est accompagnée d'une traduction française inédite et précédée d'une introduction qui étudie le texte sous trois aspects majeurs. D'abord, nous avons tenté de confirmer la paternité chrysostomienne de l'ouvrage par des études stylistiques et lexicales précises et de le situer dans son contexte probable de rédaction, celui de la vie à Antioche à la fin du IVe siècle. Nous nous sommes ensuite intéressés au Quod Christus sit Deus en tant que représentant de l'activité polémique des auteurs chrétiens de l'Antiquité et l'avons inscrit dans cette tradition littéraire. Enfin, nous avons pu étudier le texte d'un point de vue philologique. Si l'étude précise des manuscrits a permis de relever de nombreux phénomènes concernant la transmission des textes de Jean Chrysostome, celle des éditions du texte et des auteurs qui empruntent au Quod Christus sit Deus (Nicétas d'Héraclée, Thomas d'Aquin) nous permet d'en mieux appréhender la réception éditoriale et littéraire.I propose in this study a new edition of the Greek text of the Quod Christus sit Deus, a monography written by John Chrysostom around 386. It is published with an unedited French translation and preceeded by an introduction which studies the text through three main aspects. First, I attempted to clearly demonstrate the genuineness of the attribution to John Chrysostom through a lexical and stylistic survey and to put it in its probable context : the life in Antioch at the end of the 4th century. Afterwards, I considered it as a preview of the polemic activities the Christian writers could have in Late Antiquity and inscribe it in this literary tradition of polemics. Lastly, I dealt with the work in a philological point of view. The precise analysis of handwritten witnesses showed us many phaenomena related to the transmission of Chrysostomical works, while studying modern editions and works by authors who were largely inspired by the Quod Christus sit Deus (Niketas of Herakleias, Thomas Aquinas) was a good way to seize its editorial and literary reception

Twenty-One* Pseudo-Chrysostoms and more: authorship verification in the patristic world

International audienceAs the most prolific of the Church Fathers, John Chrysostom (344-407 CE) has a vast textual mass and theological importance that has led to a significant misattribution of texts, resulting in the existence of a second corpus known as the pseudo-Chrysostomian corpus. Like many Greek-language Church Fathers' works, this corpus comprises anonymous texts, which scholars have attempted to reattribute or group together based on factors such as the person's function, biography, ideology, style, etc. One survey conducted by Voicu in 1981 explored potential groupings of such texts and produced a critical list of 21 Pseudo-Chrysostom works identified by scholars, including Montfaucon (1655-1741), one of the first modern editors of Chrysostom's writings. In this paper, we present a novel approach to addressing pseudonymous work in the context of chrysostomian studies. We propose to employ siamese networks within an authorship verification framework, following the methodology commonly used in recent computational linguistic competitions. Our embedding model is trained using commonly used features in the digital humanities landscape, such as the most frequent words, affixes, and POS trigrams, utilizing a signal-to-noise ratio distance and pair mining. The results of our model show high AUCROC scores (0.855). Furthermore, the article concludes with an analysis of the pseudo-Chrysostoms proposed by Voicu. We validate a significant portion of the hypotheses found in Voicu's survey while also providing counter-arguments for two Pseudo-Chrysostoms. This research contributes to shedding light on the attribution of ancient texts and enriches the field of chrysostomian studies

Twenty-One* Pseudo-Chrysostoms and more: authorship verification in the patristic world

International audienceAs the most prolific of the Church Fathers, John Chrysostom (344-407 CE) has a vast textual mass and theological importance that has led to a significant misattribution of texts, resulting in the existence of a second corpus known as the pseudo-Chrysostomian corpus. Like many Greek-language Church Fathers' works, this corpus comprises anonymous texts, which scholars have attempted to reattribute or group together based on factors such as the person's function, biography, ideology, style, etc. One survey conducted by Voicu in 1981 explored potential groupings of such texts and produced a critical list of 21 Pseudo-Chrysostom works identified by scholars, including Montfaucon (1655-1741), one of the first modern editors of Chrysostom's writings. In this paper, we present a novel approach to addressing pseudonymous work in the context of chrysostomian studies. We propose to employ siamese networks within an authorship verification framework, following the methodology commonly used in recent computational linguistic competitions. Our embedding model is trained using commonly used features in the digital humanities landscape, such as the most frequent words, affixes, and POS trigrams, utilizing a signal-to-noise ratio distance and pair mining. The results of our model show high AUCROC scores (0.855). Furthermore, the article concludes with an analysis of the pseudo-Chrysostoms proposed by Voicu. We validate a significant portion of the hypotheses found in Voicu's survey while also providing counter-arguments for two Pseudo-Chrysostoms. This research contributes to shedding light on the attribution of ancient texts and enriches the field of chrysostomian studies

HTRomance, Medieval Latin corpus of ground-truth for Handwritten Text Recognition and Layout Segmentation

Version 0.0.3 What's Changed Update README.md by @alix-tz in https://github.com/HTRomance-Project/medieval-latin/pull/1 New data: 9768, 16657, 10996. Update of 5657 and 16204 by @PonteIneptique in https://github.com/HTRomance-Project/medieval-latin/pull/2 New Contributors @alix-tz made their first contribution in https://github.com/HTRomance-Project/medieval-latin/pull/1 @PonteIneptique made their first contribution in https://github.com/HTRomance-Project/medieval-latin/pull/2 Full Changelog: https://github.com/HTRomance-Project/medieval-latin/compare/v0.0.2...v0.0.3If you use this dataset, please cite it using the metadata from this file

HTRomance, Medieval Latin corpus of ground-truth for Handwritten Text Recognition and Layout Segmentation

Version 0.0.5 Full Changelog: https://github.com/HTRomance-Project/medieval-latin/compare/v0.0.3...v0.0.5If you use this dataset, please cite it using the metadata from this file

HTRomance, Medieval Latin corpus of ground-truth for Handwritten Text Recognition and Layout Segmentation

Version 0.0.4 Full Changelog: https://github.com/HTRomance-Project/medieval-latin/compare/v0.0.3...v0.0.4If you use this dataset, please cite it using the metadata from this file