Month: October 2009

I started translating Firmicus Maternus some months ago, in what feels like a different world. But it has sat on my desktop since, looking at me, and yesterday I did some more.  It was painless, so I will probably carry on.

There is already a perfectly good English translation of this curious anti-pagan work from AD 350-ish.  But of course it is not online.  Is it worth my while translating stuff that already exists?  We all know that offline publishing is doomed.  One day it will come online.  Is it worth me using up my life in a piece of work that will be futile?

But Firmicus Maternus is important, because of how he is used online.  In the online wars, hate-filled atheists routinely sneer at the unwary “Jesus is merely Mithras repackaged” — or Attis, or Osiris, or Hercules, or whoever.  Not that they know anything about pagan mythology; they just like the psychological cosh of producing a long list of supposed deities, which it would take a lot of effort to research.  Indeed yesterday I saw listed, as a deity who lived, died and was resurrected, “pistis sophia”!  Yes, really I did — that relatively well-known gnostic text being proclaimed with the utmost confidence as a pagan deity.

People need access to Firmicus.  So… I’ll probably persist.

I’ve spent much of the afternoon working on the Wikipedia Mithras article again.  It may all be labour lost, if some stroppy so-and-so comes and reverts it all.  The challenge is to edit in such a manner that they won’t feel able to!

Two days ago I posted on a strong expression attributed to John Chrysostom:

The road to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.

Commenters united to say that the ‘quote’ is bogus, and has long been known as such.  T.J. Buckton in Notes & Queries ser.1.V.117 (1852) p.92 (online here) writes as follows:

Hell paved with the Skulls of Priests (Vol. iv., p. 484.). — The French priest referred to in this Query had most probably quoted, at second or third hand, and with rhetorical embellishment — certainly not from the original direct — an expression of St. Chrysostom, m his third homily on the Acts of the Apostles :

“οὐκ οῖμαι εῖναι πόλλους ἐν τοῖς ἰερευσι τοὺς σωζομένους, ἀλλὰ πολλῳ πλείους τοὺς ἀπολλυμένους”

I know not if there be many in the priesthood, who are saved, but I know that many more perish.”

Gibbon has also quoted this passage at second hand (v. 399. note z.), for he says :

“Chrysostom declares his free opinion (tom. ix. hom. iii. in Act. Apostol. p. 29.) that the number of bishops who might be saved, bore a very small proportion to those who would be damned.”

It may be safely asserted that the above expression of Chrysostom is the strongest against the priesthood to be found in any of the Christian Fathers of authority in the Church.

T. J. Buckton.

Lichfield.

Well!  A fairly definite opinion, that.  Can anyone find “vol. 4, p.484” in Google books?  I’d like to see the context, as this must be a reply.

On to Chrysostom’s Sermon III on Acts.  In the NPNF translation we find this:

I do not think there are many among Bishops that will be saved, but many more that perish;

Which is undoubtedly the same sentence.  I would tend to call that a mistranslation, except that Chrysostom is definitely talking about bishops, in context, and trying to deter men from corruptly obtaining high ecclesiastical office.

A copy of Paley’s Greek wit: a collection of smart sayings and anecdotes (second series) has reached me.  Most of the sayings are from Diogenes Laertius Lives of the Philosophers, with a leavening of Plutarch’s Lives.  But on pp.64-66 are three anecdotes from a work listed as Anonymi Oeconomica.  These are all about money.

So what is this work?  I don’t really know my way around the works of Aristotle, yet a google search reveals remarkably little.  The work seems to have been falsely attributed to Aristotle in transmission.  A Tuebner edition of the text from 1887 is here.  Perhaps it is better known under some other title.  Hmm…. what could it be?  Perhaps Economics?

I find here a Bohn translation of Aristotle’s Politics and Economics.  The Economics is p.289f.  There are two books.  The work is not extant in Greek throughout; in parts only a Latin translation of the Middle Ages has survived.

I find this account in 1832:

Of the two books composing the Œconomics attributed to Aristotle, the second had by universal consent, and on the most convincing evidence been rejected as spurious, and considered as the production of a writer, later in date and very inferior in capacity to that great philosopher. ‘But there was no internal evidence to discredit the genuineness of the first book of these Œconomics : which, though somewhat meagre and unsatisfactory, might pass for a fragment or summary of a genuine Aristotelian treatise. The late publication of a treatise of Philodemus from a Herculanean manuscript has however thrown the onus probandi on those who maintain this treatise to be the work of Aristotle: as Philodemus criticizes in detail the first part of this very treatise, in the precise form in which we now have it; but ascribes it constantly to Theophrastus.

Then this work (1839) tells us:

Of Aristotle’s work bearing this name Diogenes Laertius only mentions one book ; and of these it seems quite evident that both are not by the same author. Erasmus held the first to be Aristotle’s but to be only a fragment, but Niebuhr considers that lately discovered authorities incontestably prove it to be by Theophrastus.

If the second book is Aristotle’s, it is probably a collection made by him when collecting materials for his historical and philosophical writings on government. It is chiefly a string of instances of oppression exercised by one people upon another, or by tyrants upon their subjects.

A 1902 encyclopedia tells us there are THREE books.  I find in this source, a festschrift for Paul Oskar Kristeller, p.129,  rather better information from Josef Soudek.  This tells us of an anonymous Latin translation made about 1280 of “all three books”.  A revision of two books (I and III) was made in 1295.  In the renaissance these were replaced by Leonardo Bruni’s translation (1420-1), which was extant in at least 223 manuscripts.  The article talks of a further 8 copies.

It is remarkable, tho, how difficult it is to find hard information about this work, attributed to one of the greatest minds of western civilisation.  Am I making the wrong searches?  Or is the information just not there?