Category: Ancient world

Byzantine automata – the emperor is on the throne!

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Hero of Alexandria devised various water-powered machines in antiquity.  But one of the ways in which the Byzantine emperor impressed the barbarians was the presence of automata at his court.  Mechanical marvels were part of their arsenal of influence.

One account records that the emperor had a throne which could whisk him up towards the ceiling.  It doesn’t sound all that safe, actually.  Byzantine robes could be voluminous, and I wonder whether any emperor ever fell off!  Did the imperial throne have a seat-belt, I ask?

I thought I would see what I could find on these by a google search.  I found few primary sources.  One page told me that one of the artificers was Leo the Mathematician (790-870), although I could find no details.

Another book was more detailed.  Constantine Porphyrogenitus (913-54) in his Book of ceremonies apparently mentions three automata related to the “throne of Solomon”.  These include trees with singing birds, roaring lions, and moving beasts.  Liudprand of Cremona in his memoirs of his trip to Constantinople in 949 tells us [1]:

In front of the emperor’s throne was set up a tree of gilded bronze, its branches filled with birds, likewise made of bronze gilded over, and these emitted cries appropriate to their species.  Now the emperor’s throne was made in such a cunning manner that at one moment it was down on the ground, while at another it rose higher and was to be seen up in the air.  This throne was of immense size and was, as it were, guarded by lions, made either of bronze or wood covered with gold, which struck the ground with their tails and roared with open mouth and quivering tongue.  Leaning on the shoulders of two eunuchs, I was brought into the emperor’s presence.  As I came up the lions began to roar and the birds to twitter, each according to its kind, but I was moved neither by fear nor astonishment … After I had done obeisance to the Emperor by prostrating myself three times, I lifted my head, and behold! the man whom I had just seen sitting at a moderate height from the ground had now changed his vestments and was sitting as high as the ceiling of the hall.  I could not think how this was done, unless perhaps he was lifted up by some such machine as is used for raising the timbers of a wine press.[2]

Theophanes Continuatus tells us in the Vita Michaelis 21 (Bonn ed., 1838, p.173, ll.6-10), that the emperor Theophilus (829-842) had automata, which his successor Michael III (842-867) destroyed.  Other chroniclers also mention these, apparently.[3]

[1] G. Brett, The automata in the Byzantine ‘Throne of Solomon’, Speculum 29 (1954), 477-87, via this link.
[2] J.Becker, Antapodosis (Hannover-Leipzig, 1915), 6,5, tr. Mango, Art of the Byzantine Empire, 209-10.
[3] Bibliography in Littlewood, Gardens of the palaces, p.32, n.139.

Share

New Mithras frescoes in Syria

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Mike Aquilina sends me word of an exciting find in Syria:

Syrian Archaeologists: Rare 3rd Century Frescos Undergoing Restoration at Hama Museum 
By H. Sabbagh     

Syria (Hama) – A group of experts from Poland are currently working to restore a number of rare frescos dating back to the 3rd century AD at the Hama Museum laboratory.

According to Director of the Hama Archaeology Directorate Abdelkader Ferzat, the frescos are murals that came from the temple of Mithras in the site of Horta hill in Apamea.

Ferzat said that the frescos were found in previous excavation seasons and were transported to Hama Museum along with their fragments and broken pieces where they were preserved for the purpose of studying and restoring them later.

He said that the Polish experts are currently using special techniques to repait and restore the frescos, which will be displayed later in the museum.

And look at these gorgeous colour images!

Syria fresco image of Mithras in a tauroctony

The main figure to the left is Cautes, the torchbearer.  The figure with the radiate crown must be Sol.  Mithras himself is holding a golden arrow — a sun-beam.  Damage has obliterated the bull.

I hope there are more images of this.  The vibrant colours make such a change from those cold white sculptures that we all know.

Share

Did the Romans believe their myths?

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Blogger N.S.Gill is apparently asked some version of this interesting question often enough that she has compiled an FAQ on it.  She writes:

Almost every week I simplify a welter of contradictory stories for the Myth Monday.  … Some readers ask how the ancients reconciled seemingly unrelated versions of the same event.

Historian Charles King (The Organization of Roman Religious Beliefs, by Charles King; Classical Antiquity, (Oct. 2003), pp. 275-312.) provides insights into how the ancient Roman polytheistic, pagan religion worked that make sense to me, so I’ve extracted ideas from his 39-page article into an FAQ – Did the Romans Believe Their Myths?

I imagine the question arises from people used to the Christian approach to life, where beliefs determine behaviour and worship. 

But I have read that the reverse was the case in paganism.  It didn’t matter what you thought personally — who cared? So long as the right rituals were carried out, the sun would come up in the morning.  Temples didn’t gather congregations; they were more about doing things like sacrifices.

In a sense an ancient temple was more like a nuclear power plant than a church.  It doesn’t matter whether you believe in physics in the former; only what you do.

I wonder if any ancient source actually says this?

Share

A new harvest of myths

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Christmas is coming, and with it comes the annual flood of stale old stories cynically designed to cast doubt on whether Christmas is a Christian festival, and eagerly believed by those who feel that way inclined. 

The favourite “authority” for these folk is Wikipedia — once one of their friends has suitably amended it, of course. 

I discovered this morning that one of these gentry had rewritten the summary of the article on Sol Invictus to tell various falsehoods about Sol Invictus being derived from Mithras.  Charmingly, the fraudster had tried to put some substance into his claims by pasting verbatim chunks of text and scholarly references from the Mithras article — material written by me, and of no conceivable relevance to Sol Invictus. 

Needless to say I deleted all this twaddle, but for how long?

While hunting around for some vaguely scholarly sources on the origins of Christmas, I came across Susan K. Roll, Towards the origins of Christmas.   There is a preview on Google books, here.  From this I formed a good opinion of the book and its referencing.  With luck I will find a PDF, and be able to use it as a source for correcting Wikipedia.

UPDATE: I found this Dilbert cartoon which somehow indicates the problem.

Share

A second connection between al-Qifti and Bar Hebraeus

Posted on by Roger Pearse

We all know that Bar Hebraeus described the destruction of the library of Alexandria by the Moslems, and we have seen a very similar story at somewhat greater length given by the Moslem writer al-Qifti translated for us yesterday.

Quite by accident I have come across a mention of an example where Bar Hebraeus displays knowledge of al-Qifti’s book On Learned Men.  It’s in Shlomo Pines An Arabic version of the Testimonium Flavianum (1971), which I came across while scanning and throwing out old articles and sat down to read a few minutes ago.  I had, in truth, forgotten how mind-numbingly dull that paper was, interesting tho the subject is.  But then I reached the appendix on p.73, Galen on Christians, according to Agapius.  This reads as follows (bits in [] are me):

In a portion of a book bearing the title Galen On Jews and Christians [Oxford, 1949, p.15-6, 57f., 87-98], Professor Walzer treats of a text attributed to Galen by some Oriental, Moslem, and Christian authors, which refers very favourably to the Christian way of life. All these authors but one state that the text occurred in Galen’s summary of Plato’s Republic. The single exception is Bar Hebraeus, who both in a Syriac and in an Arabic work tells us that the text is extracted from Galen’s summary of the Phaedo. …

[Walzer:] “… it is almost certain that the substitution of the Phaedo for the Republic is due to Bar Hebraeus’ notorious carelessness in such matters and of no significance whatever. In addition, Bar Hebraeus is by no means an ‘independent witness’, since his discussion of Galen’s life is nothing but an abridged copy taken from the History of Learned Men by Ibn al-Qifti (published after 1227 C.E.), who, again, attributes the statement to Galen’s summary of the Republic. Bar Hebraeus can therefore be eliminated from future discussions of this statement.”

If we know that Bar Hebraeus was excerpting material from al-Qifti, then we may reasonably suppose that the passage about the library of Alexandria has a similar provenance, surely? 

Share

The risks of snobbery in the classics

Posted on by Roger Pearse

A few days ago I was reading the 17th century John Aubrey’s Brief lives when I came across the following statement in the life of Sir Henry Billingsley (d. 1606), who translated Euclid into English.

Memorandum. P. Ramus in his Scholia’s sayes that the reason why mathematiques did most flourish in Germanie was that the best authors were rendred into their mother tongue, and that publique lectures of it were also read in their owne tongue – quod nota bene. 

There are other statements of the same kind, that people had real difficulty accessing technical works written in Latin, but that translations were the exception rather than the rule.

This evening I was reading Martial in the old Loeb edition.  This contains a  list of translations, ending with the following paragraph (vol. 1, p.xxi).

If a “bad eminence” confer any title to fame, James Elphinston (1721-1809) deserves special notice. He was the son of an Episcopalian clergyman, and was educated at the High School and at the University of Edinburgh. In 1750 he superintended the issue of a Scotch edition of Johnson’s Rambler, supplying English translations of the mottoes, for which he was thanked by Johnson. From 1752 to 1776 he was successively a schoolmaster at Brompton and at Kensington. He published in 1778 a Specimen of the Translations of Epigrams of Martial, with a preface informing the public that he awaited subscriptions to enable him to publish a version of Martial’s works complete. With regard to this work, it is recorded by Boswell under date of April 9, 1778 that Garrick, being consulted, told Elphinston frankly that he was no epigrammatist, and advised him against publishing; that Johnson’s advice was not asked, and was not forced upon the translator; and that Elphinston’s own brother-in-law, Strahan, the printer, in sending him a subscription of fifty pounds, promised him fifty more if he would abandon his project.

The offer was not accepted, and in 1782 the whole work appeared in a handsome quarto. It was received with derision, the poet Beattie saying, “It is truly an unique: the specimens formerly published did very well to laugh at, but a whole quarto of nonsense and gibberish is too much.” And Mrs. Piozzi records that “of a modern Martial, when it came out, Dr. Johnson said ‘there are in these verses too much folly for madness, I think, and too much madness for folly.'” And the unhappy author was gibbeted in the following epigram by Robert Burns:

“O thou whom Poesy abhors,
Whom Prose has turned out of doors !
Heardst thou that groan? Proceed no further:
‘Twas laurell’d Martial roaring ‘Murther!'”

Criticism indeed.  The comment of Garrick to Elphinstone is recorded in Boswell’s Life of Johnson, where it is given verbatim (‘…you don’t seem to have that turn’).  It is certainly true that Elphinstone’s versions lack literary charm, being frankly dull.

But … the fact is that Elphinstone’s translation was the first attempt at a complete Martial.  Selections had been made before.  There is quite a list in the Loeb.  An unpublished Elizabethan manuscript by an unknown author contains many vivid versions in verse, included in the Bohn Classical Library.  So too are many by William Hay MP, also in verse and of much charm.

However such selections did not make Martial accessible to ordinary people.  We have already seen that, when medical textbooks were in Latin, this was enough to stifle knowledge. The criticisms above of Elphinstone achieved nothing, however well reasoned they were.

So we owe Elphinstone thanks for his charmless efforts.  He started the process of creating an English Martial.  The versions in the Loeb are indeed themselves greatly to my own taste, and some have real poetic power.

An obstacle stands in the way of completing such a task.  This is the problem of the obscene epigrams. 

Each edition edges closer to a full version, as the years of our age pass by, and moral standards fall.  We live in a coarse age, and it is extremely easy for one of a coarsed nature to render common verbs like futuere by English obscenities.  A complete version that would be unfit for any decent man’s bookshelf would be possible to print and sell today. 

Such “choices” do not advance the process of creating an English Martial that is faithful, poetic, and non-pornographic.  Perhaps it is impossible to achieve this end, I do not know.  But we should certainly try.

Yet Martial is fortunate.  How many texts do not possess any English translation?  How many of us have been deterred from making one, for fear of criticism such as that which greeted the luckless Elphinstone?

Translations are essential.  Even bad translations make an author more accessible than he was.  Whatever you do with ancient literature, translate!

Share

Bar Hebraeus on the destruction of the library of Alexandria

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Dioscorus Boles has kindly translated the passage describing the destruction in Bar Hebraeus, Historia Compendiosa Dynastiarum. He made it directly from the Arabic of Pococke’s edition — the only edition — p.180-1, and made it as literal as possible.  Here it is.

And in this time Yahya (1) who is known to us by the name Grammaticus (2), which means al Nahawi (the Grammarian), became famous with the Muslims. He was Alexandrian and used to believe in the faith of the Jacobite (3) Nazarenes (4) , and confess the beliefs of Saweres (5) . He then recanted what the Nazarenes used to believe in the Trinity, and the bishops met up with him in Misr (6) and requested him to return back from what he was at, and he did not return back to their faith, and he lived until Amr ibn al-Ass (7) conquered the city of Alexandria. Amr entered Alexandria and got to know about Yahya’s position in sciences, and Amr was generous to him; and he heard his philosophical sayings which the Arabs were not familiar with, and he became fond of him. And Amr was sensible, a good listener and thinker; so Yahya accompanied Amr and did not depart from him. Then one day Yahya said to Amr, “You have control of everything in Alexandria, and seized all sorts of things in it. Anything which is of use to you I will not object to it, but anything which is not useful to you we deserve it more.” Amr said, “What things you are in need of?” He replied, “The books of wisdom that are in the royal stores.” Amr said to him, “I cannot issue orders about them until the Amir of the Believers, Omar ibn al-Khattab (8), gives his permission.” And Amr wrote to Omar and told him of what Yahya had said. Omar wrote to him saying, “About the books you have mentioned, if there is something in them that goes along with what is in the Book of Allah (9), the Book of Allah suffices; and if in them there is something that contradicts the Book of Allah, then there is no need for them.” And he ordered that they get destroyed; and so Amr ibn al-As started distributing them to the baths of Alexandria to be burned in their furnaces, and so the books heated the baths for a period of six month. Listen to what had happened, and marvel at it!

(1) Yahya is the Arabic form for Yohanna or Yo’annis, which is translated John in the English.  The writer says Yahya is known to us by the name Al-Nahawi. Nahawi in Arabic comes from Nahwu, which means grammar, and nahawi means Grammarian (Grammaticus).
(2) John the Grammarian is also known as John of Alexandria and John Philoponus. He is known to have lived in Alexandria in the sixth century (490 to 570 AD). This makes it impossible for him to meet with Amr ibn al-As, the occupier of Egypt in 640 AD. It is, however, clear that Bar Hebraeus does mean this same person as he talks about his differences with the Church of Alexandria in the doctrine of the Trinity, which John Grammarian is known to have held (see: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philoponus/#4.3). My gut feeling is that Hebraeus is confusing two philosophers here.
(3) The non-Chalcedonians, after the split of 451 AD, were known from the six century as Jacobites, because of the influence of Yacoub al-Barad’i (Jacob Baradaeus), Bishop of Edessa (d. 578 AD), who under the guidance of Saweres al-Antaki (Severus of Antioch), the exiled Patriarch of Antioch (512-518 AD) [See for Jacob Bardaeus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Baradaeus; and for Severus of Antioch: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severus_of_Antioch].
(4) Nazarenes is the name given by Muslims to Christians, though to be derived from Nazareth.
(5) See Note iii.
(6) Misr is the name given by the Arabs to Memphis, which corresponds now to the area of and around Old Cairo.
(7) Amr ibn al-As is the Muslim leader who conquered Egypt in about 640 AD, and ruled it twice (in 639-646 AD and 658-664 AD).
(8) Omar ibn al-Khatab is the second successor of Muhammad (634-644 AD). During his rule Egypt was occupied by the Arabs.
(9) Kitab Allah, Book of Allah, is the Koran.

Thank you very much, Dioscorus for making this!  Would you confirm that you release this into the public domain?  I would like people to be able to circulate it around the web, you see.  (He first uploaded this for us all here, but I wanted to make it a main post).

A French scholar has been telling me about a similar passage in al-Qifti, who therefore seems to be the source used by Bar Hebraeus.  She is translating this from the Lippert edition.  I have the first half, and it really is very similar indeed.  When it is done, I will post it.

UPDATE: Discorus Boles has confirmed that this is public domain – thank you! 

A French scholar advises me that “Amr ibn al Ass” should be Ayn-Alif-Sad, usually transliterated `âs.  So I have revised this to one “s” accordingly.

Share

al-Qifti and the destruction of the library of Alexandria

Posted on by Roger Pearse

My enquiry in NASCAS brought a note from Prof. Samir Khalil, that the Bar Hebraeus reference is actually just a copy of the statement in al-Qifti.  Dr Khalil published on this in «L’utilisation d’al-Qifṭī par la Chronique arabe d’Ibn al-‘Ibrī († 1286)», in : Samir Khalil Samir (Éd.), Actes du IIe symposium syro-arabicum (Sayyidat al-Bīr, septembre 1998). Études arabes chrétiennes, = Parole de l’Orient 28 (2003) 551-598.

If anyone reading this has a PDF copy of this article, please let me know!

Share

Let’s just do Bar Hebraeus on the library of Alexandria!

Posted on by Roger Pearse

I’ve weakened and put out a tender in the NASCAS Christian Arabic group, for a translation from the Arabic of Bar Hebraeus’ words about the library of Alexandria.  I’ve offered $30, which should be ample.  Let’s get a translation made, and have done with it.

In case anyone is interested, a PDF of the pages from Pococke’s edition is here.

We need an accurate translation, made from the Arabic to academic standard.  I’ll just give it away, of course, once it is done.

Share

Butler on Bar Hebraeus and the destruction of the library of Alexandria

Posted on by Roger Pearse

A. J. Butler, The Arab Conquest of Egypt and the Last Thirty Years of the Roman Dominion, Oxford, 1902, Chapter 25, p.401 gives the following version of the story from Bar Hebraeus, or Abu’l Faraj, once again not quite in verbatim quotation:

The story as it stands in Abu’l Faraj [1] is well known, and runs as follows. There was at this time a man, who won high renown among the Muslims, named John the Grammarian. He was an Alexandrian, and apparendy had been a Coptic priest, but was deprived of his office owing to some heresy by a council of bishops held at Babylon. He lived to see the capture of Alexandria by the Arabs, and made the acquaintance of `Amr, whose clear and active mind was no less astonished than delighted with John’s intellectual acuteness and great learning. Emboldened by `Amr’s favour, John one day remarked, ‘You have examined the whole city, and have set your seal on every kind of valuable: I make no claim for aught that is useful to you, but things useless to you may be of service to us: ‘What are you thinking of?’ said `Amr. ‘The books of wisdom,’ said John, ‘which are in the imperial treasuries: ‘That,’ replied `Amr, ‘is a matter on which I can give no order without the authority of the Caliph: A letter accordingly was written, putting the question to Omar, who answered: ‘Touching the books you mention, if what is written in them agrees with the Book of God, they are not required: if it disagrees, they are not desired. Destroy them therefore: On receipt of this judgement, `Amr accordingly ordered the books to be distributed among the baths of Alexandria and used as fuel for heating: it took six months to consume them. ‘ Listen and wonder,’ adds the writer.

Such is the story as it makes its appearance in Arabic literature. Abu’l Faraj wrote in the latter half of the thirteenth century, and he says nothing about the source from which he derived the story : but he is followed by Abu’l Fida in the early fourteenth century, and later by Makrizi [2]. I t is true that `Abd al Latif, who wrote about 1200, mentions incidentally the burning of the Library by Omar’s order, and, giving no details, seems to take the fact for granted. This allusion seems to show that in his day the tradition was current.  …

Let us, however, examine the story as it stands. It is undeniably picturesque, and the reply of Omar has the true Oriental flavour. This really is the strongest point about it. But unfortunately precisely the same reply of Omar is recorded in connexion with the destruction of books in Persia [3]…

[1] Ed. Pococke, p. 114 tr. and 180 text. Renaudot thinks the story has an element of untrustworthiness: Gibbon discusses it rather briefly and disbelieves it. Pococke translates only the Arabic abridgement of Abu’l Faraj. In the Nineteenth Century for October, 1894. there is an article on the question by Vasudeva Rau, who alleges (po 560) that the story is not in the original Syriac, and probably was a later interpolation.The abridgement, however, was written by Abu’l Faraj himself, and the suggestion of interpolation is a mere conjecture. Nor would the fact, if established, be material. The article generally is based rather on a priori argument than research, and consequently is not of much value.

[2] This author, like `Abd al Latif, reports the story by way of allusion, taking it for granted. Thus speaking of the Serapeum he says, ‘Some think that these columns upheld the Porch of Aristotle, who taught philosophy here: that it was a school of learning: and that it contained the library which was burnt by `Amr on the advice of the Caliph Omar’ (Khitat, vol. i. p. 159).

[3]  See Prof. Bury’s ed. of Gibbon, vol. v. p. 454 n., where Ibn Khaldun, quoted byHaji Khalfah, is given as the authority. I may add that the feelings of the Muslims towards the books of the idolatrous Persians would be very different from their feelings towards the books of the Christians. In their early history at least the Muslims disliked the destruction of the written name of God.

This gives us the text of Makrizi, which is good, and yet another inaccurate translation of Pococke, which is not.  I begin  to think that what we need to do is collect the Arabic text of all the witnesses, and get them translated afresh and accurately.

Share