Month: February 2011

Galen on a 300-year old papyrus roll

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Another interesting statement from Reynolds and Wilson, Scribes and Scholars (3rd ed) appears on p.34:

Although papyrus is tougher than most people think, and a roll might last as long as 300 years (Galen 18(2),630), the average life would be shorter, and parchment was a much more durable material; in time its toughness was to prove a vital factor in the survival of classical literature.

The reference, to the Roman medical writer Galen, would be inscrutable to most of us.  Fortunately on this blog we wear our underpants over our trousers, metaphorically, and so readers may know that this is a reference to the 20-volume edition of the works of Galen by Kuhn, published in the series Medicorum Graecorum between 1821-6.  Such brief references are an unnecessary pain to the beginner, however.

Several volumes of this series are online.  Vol. 18, part 2 is on Google books here, and page 630 is here.   On p.629 we find that this is Hippocratis de medici officina liber et Galeni in eum commentarius I — 1 book by Hippocrates on the workshop of a doctor and Galen’s commentary on it.  The work begins with a preface from Galen, of which this is a part. I might see if I can get the preface as a whole translated.

Meanwhile, here’s the sentence.  Galen is talking about the work of Hippocrates which he is reproducing:

τινὲς μὲν γὰρ καὶ πάνυ παλαιῶν βιβλίων ἀνευρεῖν ἐσπούδασαν πρὸ τριακοσίων ἐτῶν γεγγραμμένα, τὰ μὲν ἔχονιες ἐν τοῖς βιβλίοις, τὰ δὲ ἐν τοῖς χάρτοις, τὰ δὲ ἐν διαφόροις φιλύραις, ὥσπερ τὰ παρ̕ ἡμῖν ἐν Περγάμῳ.

Quidam enim etiam vetustissima volumina ante trecentos annos scripta invenire studuerant, quae partim quidem in libris, partim vero in chartis, partim demum in tiliaceis membranis, quemadmodum apud nos Pergami conservabant.

For some also had desired to find very old volumes, written three hundred years ago, which I had at Pergamum, of which part were preserved in rolls, part on papyrus (χάρτοις), and part on excellent lime-tree bark (διαφόροις φιλύραις).

The διαφόροις φιλύραις I thought was parchment — that’s what membranis usually means in the sort of books I read! — but LSJ suggests that  φιλύραις is the “the bass underneath [the lime-tree’s] bark, used for writing on, Gal. 18(2).630,” — this very passage! — “Hdn. 1.17.1, D.C. 72.8 ; for garlands, φιλύρας . . ἄφυλλος στέφανος Xenarch. 13 .”

Galen at least did indeed believe a roll could be 300 years old.  The fact that some of the material wasn’t even on papyrus, but on bark, suggests that this is real testimony.

UPDATE: A translation of the whole preface from the Greek is here.

Share

Translations of ancient Greek literature into Middle Persian

Posted on by Roger Pearse

In 529 AD the emperor Justinian closed the Academy in Athens.  The remaining heirs of Plato chose to travel to the court of the Sassanid Persian King of Kings in order to continue  their studies there.  Finding conditions among the barbarians uncongenial, in time they returned. 

But it raises the question of why we never hear of translations of Greek literature into Persian.  The Persian empire was a potent adjacent power throughout the Greek classical period, and revived in the 3rd century and continued down to the Moslem conquest in the 7th century. 

I never read L. D. Reynolds and N. G. Wilson, Scribes and Scholars (3rd) without learning something.  On page 256 I learn that a few texts are indeed extant in translations into Pehlevi. 

Wilson lists four texts: the novel about Alexander the Great known as ps.Callisthenes; the Geoponica; and two astrological texts, the handbook of Vettius Valens which we have discussed before, plus Teucer of Babylon’s Paranatellonta, which is a new text to me.

Wilson references “Studies presented to E. G. Browne, 1922” (in his usual casual fashion), which turns out to be A Volume of Oriental Studies Presented to Edward G. Browne on his 60th birthday (7 February 1922), and thankfully online at Archive.org.  The specific article is that by C. A. Nallino, which turns out to be on p.345-363 and entitled Tracce di opere greche giunte agli Arabi per trafila Pehlevica.  Unless my eyes deceive me, this is about texts which ended up in Arabic via Persian, rather than about Greek texts in general.  The article merely discusses these four texts, and the evidence for them.

It would seem, therefore, that there might be more, were one to look.

Share

Masses of scholia online at Archive.org

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Searching for “scholia” in Google or Google books is disappointing.  But try searching at Archive.org!  This search, http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=scholia, gives a huge list!

Did anyone know there were scholia on Suetonius, Vitae Caesarum?  I certainly didn’t!

UPDATE: Oh bother.  The “scholia” on Suetonius is merely a modern set of comments in Latin, not ancient scholia!

Share

A new nadir in atheist behaviour

Posted on by Roger Pearse

I find that the Wikipedia Mithras article is currently being vandalised by an anonymous atheist who has read one article (by Marvin Meyer) in one non-scholarly book on the subject, and is determined that all articles in Wikipedia shall reflect what he believes is the truth — that Christianity and Mithras are somehow connected. 

With such people it is not possible to reason, so, after a couple of hours of vain and polite attempt at reason, I have withdrawn and left him to it.  Such people come along from time to time.  Over time, his changes will get reverted, and I have other things to do than explain the obvious to the dishonest and obtuse.

But it is a reminder that no learning and scholarship and objectivity is proof against the determination of a scumbag.  In Wikipedia the scholar and the troll meet on equal terms; and thus most Wikipedia articles on controversial subjects are of no real value, for the same reason.  

But I was amused that this troll proceeded, in order to advance his goal, to object to my suggestion that only professional Mithras scholars should be quoted; to complain that the footnotes quoted the sources verbatim; to demand that I translate Renan’s book for him — he did not see reading it as a necessary prelude to editing the remarks in the article about it — ; to launch personal accusations against me; and finally — the new nadir — to complain about me because, when referring to the (untranslated) commentary of Servius, I ventured to provide a link to a post on this blog with a translation of it.  Usually people are grateful, when I do such things.

Of course none of this was honest; it was merely an attempt by someone who knew he was in the wrong to “win” by any means over someone he knew to be better informed than himself.  Such is the moral standard of rather too many atheists.

It is hard not to despise atheism, when you encounter this kind of atheist.  It seems to produce such selfish, dishonest and hateful people.  Whatever happened to the atheism of J. S. Mill, the sort of atheism which was based on reason and logic rather than violence and dishonesty?  That valued freedom of conscience, and abhorred the inquisition?  It seems to have been a casualty of the last century.  

If so, we live in poorer times.   Superstition is rampant in our society, thanks to the New Age movement, and the power of priests and mullahs over uneducated people in the Third World has not attentuated conspicuously.  A rational, intelligent, gentle atheism would be a valuable contribution at such a time.  But where is the atheist who will put it forward?

Share

Latin scholia

Posted on by Roger Pearse

I was writing yesterday about scholia, mainly with reference to Greek scholia.  But then it occurred to me to wonder what there was by way of Latin scholia.

A search online quickly revealed that, as with ancient Greek literature, the scholia is mainly attached to poetry and drama.  Two exceptions I came across were Lucan’s Bellum civile and the Bobbio orations of Cicero.  But otherwise it was poets and dramatists all the way.

I found myself reading an interesting article on the scholia of Juvenal.  The author argued that the scholia cannot belong to the period immediately after Juvenal, since they make crashing mistakes, such as not recognising Corbulo as the famous general of Nero, but instead supposing it is a noun referring to fat people!  The logic is good, and the inference, therefore, is that they belong to the period in the 4th century when interest revived in the literature of the early empire.

This has important consequences.  We know very little about Juvenal himself.  Old biographies are attached to the scholia.  But it must be questioned whether these have any real historical value, and whether they are older than the scholia, or merely compilations of hearsay from the Constantinian period or later.

It is interesting that few of the scholia have been translated.  Many scholia are text-critical, and to understand them it is necessary to know Latin, or Greek, as the  case may be.  Naturally there seems little need to translate, what only those equipped with the language can follow.  But others are historical, and have no such need.  We could usefully have more translations, I think.

All the same, the expansion of Google books makes it possible, for anyone with a little Latin, to explore a field that few could access.  One of my favourite books is the old Loeb edition of Juvenal.  This discusses the scholia in the introduction, but I never dreamed that people like me might have access to these.  As of today, I know better.

Share