Category: From my diary

Life of John Damascene by John, Patriarch of Jerusalem (BHG 884) – Part 3

Posted on by Roger Pearse

The scene is the slave-market in Damascus, after a raid into the west.  Some of the captives taken by the Saracens are being sold, the rest are to be killed as worthless.  Among them, the dignified figure of the captive Italian monk Cosmas has drawn the attention of the father of John Damascene, who is still a child at that time.

    *    *    *    *

9.  Cosmas explains his grief to John’s father. [1]

But John’s father, standing not far away and so seeing the man in tears, came up, to console him in his distress, and said, “Why, O man of God, do you weep over the loss of this world, having long ago renounced and become dead to it as I see from your manner of dress?”

Then the monk replied, “I do not lament the loss of this life; for I, as you have said, am dead to the world.  But what does trouble me is that I have sought after all human wisdom, and laid down a general education[2] as a foundation. I have exercised my tongue in rhetoric; I have cultivated my reasoning through the methods and demonstrations of dialectic; I pursued [the study of] moral philosophy, as much of it as [Aristotle the] Stagirite, and as much as [Chrysippus] the disciple of Ariston, have handed down; I have examined carefully everything concerning natural philosophy, as far as humanly possible; I have learned the principles of arithmetic; I have mastered geometry to the highest degree; I have formally completed the disciplines of musical harmony and proportion[3]; and I did not pass over anything concerning movement of the heavens and the turning of the stars, so  that, from the greatness and beauty of these created things, in accordance with my knowledge of them, I might possess a proportionate understanding of the Creator. For the one who has acquired a clearer knowledge of created things, understands more clearly and regards with greater wonder the one who created them.  From there, I advanced into the mysteries of theology, which the sons of the Greeks have handed down, and which our own theologians have most accurately elucidated.

So I am filled with these sciences, but I have not yet been able to impart[4] to anyone else the benefit from them, nor to produce a disciple through philosophy in the manner of a father producing a son.[5]  For just as most people want natural children to continue their family line, similarly those who have studied philosophy want, through teaching and initiation, to produce disciples[6] so that the golden line of philosophers may continue among the living for all time; and those who are the cause of this marvellous birth [of a disciple] inherit an immortal renown.  Moreover it is a characteristic of goodness to share with others the good things that one has in abundance.  Indeed anyone who is not like this, nor wishes to be, is not live in what is good, but in what is evil, as being full of pride and envy concerning those things which he does not want to share with others if he has received something good.  Therefore, even what he seems to have is taken away from him, just as with that servant who did not deposit the talent with the bankers.[7]  But I have chosen the good portion,[8] and I was very much inclined to become a sharer with others of the wisdom given to me.  But since I did not attain what I desired, that I might be counted among those faithful servants who doubled their talents through their dealings with others,[9] and I did not produce a disciple through philosophy, I am, as some might say, childless and miserable, as you see: my face is downcast and I am deeply distressed.”

    *    *    *    *

Onward.

Share
  1. [1]Heading by me.↩
  2. [2]ἐγκύκλιος, with παιδεία implicit: see LSJ: https://logeion.uchicago.edu/ἐγκύκλιος ↩
  3. [3]I had difficulty here.  “ἁρμολογίας δὲ μουσικῆς καὶ ἀναλογίας εὐτάκτους σεμνοπρεπῶς κατώρθωκα.” “εὐτάκτους” is the accusative plural, so must be the object of the verb.  A verb εὐτάκτέω is in LSJ, “to be orderly, behave well; reduce to order;” εὐτάκτημα: “act of orderly behaviour”, “well-ordered”.    Lequien’s Latin, “Musices concentus proportionesque probe satis sum assequutus” paraphrases.↩
  4. [4]Or “ready to impart.”↩
  5. [5]Lit. “nor to beget, through philosophy, a disciple in the manner of a father.”  But we really can’t use “beget” these days.↩
  6. [6]Lit. “father a child.”↩
  7. [7]Matt. 25:27.↩
  8. [8]Luke 10:42.↩
  9. [9]Matt. 25:14-30.↩

Life of John Damascene by John, Patriarch of Jerusalem (BHG 884) – Part 2

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Let’s have the next four chapters of the “Jerusalem Vita” of John Damascene.  John is still a child living in Damascus under Arab rule.

    *    *    *    *

5.  John’s parents were religious.

His grandparents were religious people, who alone preserved the fragrance of piety and the sweetness of the knowledge of Christ in the midst of thorns.  For they alone preserved the name of Christian, as a bright inheritance that could not be taken away, not faltering in the orthodox faith after the descendants of Hagar captured the city.  As a result their principles made them notable among the impious, as even their opponents revered this; or rather, in the same way as God glorified Daniel among the Assyrians, because of the piety that he showed, and Joseph in Egypt, appointing captives as overseers and rulers among foreigners and enemies, so in this way also he appointed John’s grandparents as overseers over business affairs among the Saracens, and so here the pious captives ruled over the impious ones who captured them.

O, the wondrous and great works of God, and marvellous and extraordinary deeds!”  Nothing is higher than virtue, nothing more honourable or exalted than piety.  For like a banner raised on a hill, or rather like a lamp in the night, or a seed in Israel, or a spark in the ashes, so too was the family of John left in Damascus, to bring forth this bright torch, which would shine out to every corner (of the world).  Such were the forbearers of the man whom we are praising.

6.  His father was devoted to virtue.

His father, coming from such a good background, was eager to surpass his parents in piety and other virtues, and to demonstrate even greater love for God.  For it was necessary that such an illustrious man, destined to reach the highest point of virtue, should have a parent more distinguished than those before him, so that, as from a sequential progression, the rise to greatness would occur in an orderly fashion, as if the affairs concerning this great and illustrious one were arranged from above by divine providence, just as happened in the case of John the Baptist.[1]  For since he [John the Baptist] was destined to shine forth as greater than the prophets before him and to perform a sacrament more exalted than any priestly office—the baptism of my Lord—divine providence ordained that he would not come from an ordinary lineage but from a priestly family, and that his father would be a prophet.  Thus, in this case, too, John’s father was appointed by providence to be especially pious and philanthropic.  For he was an administrator of public affairs throughout the entire country, having been appointed because of his outstanding virtue and his distinguished way of life, and in this he used to spend his wealth abundantly; not on revelry, drunkenness, or frittering it away, but rather he used all of whatever he had in gold and other movable wealth to ransom Christians who were being taken into captivity.  As for his immovable possessions—of which he had a great deal in Judea and Palestine—he gave them for the relief and livelihood of those Christians whom he had freed who chose to live in those lands.  The others he allowed to go as free men wherever they wished.  Such was the philanthropic virtue of the man.  For he lived with wealth as though he had nothing, and so he was making offerings to God both by night and by day.

7.  John is born and baptized.

Acting like this, he receives a reward, not for hospitality like Abraham, but a wondrous offspring (ὁ τόκος also means a return on investment, interest) for his love of humanity; if not from a promise, certainly from divine foreknowledge and predestination.  For God foresaw what sort of man John would become, and predestined him to be born of this man as a reward for him for the love of humanity that he showed habitually towards those who had exchanged their freedom for dreadful captivity.  Thus this glorious child was born to him, and while his [the child’s] body was still delicate, his father made him into a son of light, by rebirth through the spiritual mother (i.e. baptism in the church), accomplishing a deed which was not easy at that time, and which most people would not easily dare to do in the midst of those pagans.  Then the father’s concern for the child was not for him to learn to ride, nor to wield a spear skillfully, nor to shoot an arrow from a bow with precision, or to fight with wild animals and change natural gentleness into savage cruelty, as often happens with many who are troubled in spirit, and rush about wildly and recklessly.  For this reason, John’s father did not seek out some mountain-dwelling Chiron[2] to nourish his pupil on deer marrow, but rather a man trained in every field of learning was sought out, having knowledge of every kind of discourse, and pouring out good teaching from the soul’s heart, so that he might also raise his own son with such nourishing food and seasonings; and God fulfilled the man’s holy desire, and the one who was seeking found the one sought.  And the manner of the finding of the one who was sought is as follows.

8.  Cosmas the Elder was taken captive and brought to Damascus.  He was a priest and a monk.

The barbarians from Damascus, making a raid by sea, as they often did, and plundered many Christians, and going down to the sea in their ships, they took a large number of captives, and brought them into the city.  They offered some to those buying and drew their swords to kill the others.[3]  Also captured with them was a man dressed as a monk, originating from Italy, dignified in appearance, more dignified in soul, and named Cosmas.   A certain solemnity on his face shone forth, revealing his settled disposition.  Those being led to slaughter were falling at his feet: they entreated him to make God merciful to them, and to pray that they might find forgiveness for their sins from the merciful One.  Therefore the barbarians, seeing the supplication of those about to die, which they addressed to that dignified one, approached, and inquired of the man what his standing in the world might be, and what sort of prominence he held among the Christians.  But he answered, saying, “I possess no other rank in the world but that of priestly ordination.”  Indeed I am an unworthy, solitary nobody, and practising philosophy; not only the God-loving philosophy we practice, but also that [philosophy] which the sages outside [the faith] established.  But after he said these things, his eyes were filled with tears.

    *    *    *    *

That’s it for now.  On with the next four!  There are 40 chapters in all, so this may take a while!

Share
  1. [1]A deeply nasty sentence.↩
  2. [2]The mythical teacher of Achilles.↩
  3. [3]Lampe gives this meaning from this passage for οὓς δὲ μαχαίρας εἷλκον ποιήσασθαι ἀνάλωμα.↩

From my diary

Posted on by Roger Pearse

My apologies for the lack of posting.  I have some minor health problems which seem to have got worse over the last couple of months, and are beginning to prevent me doing much at all.  I will post as and when I can.  I’ve seen quite a number of interesting items to post about, but I don’t have the energy to pursue them at the moment.

I’m still working on the “Jerusalem Life” of John Damascene.  I’ve been having some interesting experiences using ChatGPT to parse the grammar and syntax of each sentence of the Greek in turn.  Mostly positive experiences, but sometimes infuriating!   I hope to write about this at some point.  Over the last week I have translated chapters 5-7, and I’ll post another chunk once I’ve done chapter 8.

Share

Life of John Damascene by John, Patriarch of Jerusalem (BHG 884) – Part 1

Posted on by Roger Pearse

A couple of weeks ago, I made a translation of the first four chapters of BHG 884, the Life of John Damascene.  This text is attributed in the manuscripts, and also in the text printed in the Patrologia Graeca 94, cols. 429-490, to a certain “John, Patriarch of Jerusalem.”  Apparently this is John VII (964-966); but a case has been made that it should instead be attributed to the patriarch John III of Antioch (996-1021), also referenced in some manuscripts.[1] The text is apparently known as the “Jerusalem Vita” because other hagiographical Lives exist.

The text was first printed by Michel Lequien in 1712, with a parallel modern Latin translation.  This is the text reprinted in the PG, and the PG text  is that included in the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (TLG 5273.1).

Initially I began by translating the early modern Latin translation, but then I gained access to the Greek, and reworked it somewhat.  Curiously I found that the Latin is sometimes less easy to follow than the Greek.

The chapter division is that of Lequien, found in the Greek and his Latin translation.  The chapter numbering in Lequien is confused, and also in the PG (but not in the same way!)  I will deal with this when I come to it.  But the truth is that there are 40 chapters.  The chapter headings below are not in the Greek, and appear to have been created by Lequien.  They’re useful, so I have included them.

    *    *    *    *    *    *

1. The deeds of holy men should be passed down to future generations, especially those of the doctors of the Church.

It has become customary among men, as a mark of honour, to make godly likenesses of those who have kept the image of God pure from all stain and blemish; whether they preserved it in its original integrity and grace, or restored it, when it was tarnished and defiled.  Indeed, those who are eager to show their reverence more zealously – their wealthy hands being inclined toward magnificence – employ superior materials in which to sculpt their likenesses, thinking that they thereby show greater honour to the holy men.

If then they display such magnificence and grandeur in depicting the outward likenesses of these saints, is it right for us to leave in a crude state the words recounting their deeds?  Certainly not.  The rougher people, being what they are, are excused for recounting simply the deeds of those who were pleasing to Christ; but those who have dedicated themselves to the study of eloquence will not at all be pardoned for devoting themselves to literature if they have allowed the lives of the saints to be written in a haphazard way; above all [the lives] of men whose spirit and life were here, immediately after they were purifying the mind from ignorance and forgetfulness and the soul from every disordered motion; of men, I say, by whom the world has been honoured, and whose books have enlightened the minds of all, not merely with the empty elegance of worldly wisdom, but also by pouring forth abundantly the light of the Holy Spirit.

2.  John Damascene must be considered among the foremost Doctors of the Church.  He flourished when the heresy of Iconoclasm emerged.  Leo the Isaurian was the author of the heresy.

One of these men, who indeed must be counted among the foremost, is the great and illustrious John, who was named after his homeland, Damascus.  For he was no small star in the firmament of the Church, but rather one of the greatest and most brilliant, so that he not only shone when heresy spread darkness everywhere, but he also dispelled the night of every false doctrine with the radiant clarity of his thoughts.  For darkness had indeed settled upon the whole world, by which the brilliant figures of the venerable images were obscured, and there was a profound and utter gloom; yet he who was spreading it and making it happen was not some man of the common people, sowing evil in one portion of the world, but it was he who, so to speak, held the ends of the earth in his hands, because he held the sceptre of the Roman empire.  Whereupon it came to pass that, storming in every direction, with tremendous force he overthrew the venerable images; some of those who venerated them Leo devoured, just like a lion capturing and roaring—as he was by name and disposition of mind; while others who were  holding fast to the true faith, he scattered to one place or another, and compelled them to hide in underground retreats.  And indeed many preferred to dwell with lions and dragons, rather than remain with him and his ministers: but others, who were overcome with fear, rushed to the remotest ends of the world (for who is not afraid when a lion roars?) and fled from him as from the face of a serpent.

3.  The name “John” in Hebrew signifies the grace of God.  The Life of St. John of Damascus originally written in Arabic.

But indeed this man, filled with the spiritual grace which his name signified, was boiling with anger against the serpent alone, such that his feelings of anger turned into the pursuit of goodness and courage.  He did not flee from Thrace, where he then resided, to the Sarmatians.  He did not hurry away from Byzantium to the columns of Hercules for the sake of his safety.  He did not go from the court into solitude because of the roaring of the lion.  Rather, when he was living, first in Damascus and later in Palestine, leading a monastic life in solitude, he valiantly fought against Leo.  For although this thrice-mighty athlete of mine was distant from him by a great distance, yet by means of his books, crafted with the fire of the Paraclete and tempered and hardened by a flood of life, he pierced his heart as if with a triple lance.  However, a fuller account of these matters will be given in its proper place.  Should we then neglect with contempt the life of such a man, because it is written in a rustic manner, or worse, in Arabic language and letters?  Certainly not.  Wherefore it is necessary to tell, from where and from what noble root this most flourishing shoot has sprung, which country is proud to have produced him.

4.  Damascus.

This city is none other than Damascus.  For just as it takes great pride in Paul — because it was indeed the first to witness him traversing the heavens[2] when he had renounced impiety, and becoming, instead of Christ-hating, Christ-loving—, so also it also fittingly and reverently takes pride in this man [John], not as if he came from elsewhere or converted from some other religion to the true one, but because it grew him from its own root, and beyond giving him physical existence, it nurtured him in godliness and raised him in learning, and it takes great pride in its offshoot.  And it feels pride and rejoices more in him, than in any other of the ornaments which give it splendour— whether you speak of the mild climate or the many streams of sweet and clear waters with which it is irrigated.  It is not the abundance of noble fruits that exalts and elevates this city, but rather that from it sprouted this beautiful and noble tree, which was nourished by these streams of water, and in due time produced the fruits of the Spirit.  Its fruits are always fresh among us, lovely to look at, sweet to taste, and those who touch and partake of them are not only delighted but are also nourished, growing, and brought to spiritual maturity, leading them to perfection in the Spirit.  Thus has the city of Damascus been made glorious more by this offspring of hers, than by all the other good and delightful things with which she has been enriched. This is the city that brought forth this man.

    *    *    *    *    *    *

I hope to do some more in due course.

Share
  1. [1]Vassa Kontouma, “John III of Antioch (996–1021) and the Life of John of Damascus (BHG 884)” in: V. Kontouma, John of Damascus: New Studies on his Life and Works. Ashgate (2015). ISBN 9781409446378.↩
  2. [2]The Greek word here is οὐρανοδρόμος; which is quoted in Lampe p.978 from this passage.↩

From My Diary

Posted on by Roger Pearse

I’m afraid that I am easily distracted.  I still need to write another post on the Sacra Parallela of John Damascene (d. 745).  But while looking at Lequien’s 1712 edition, I found at the start of volume 1, on p.i-xxiv, a “Vita”: a hagiographical “Life” of John Damascene.  This was ascribed to a certain “John, Patriarch of Jerusalem.”  The Vita is listed in the Bibliographica Hagiographica Graeca – the big index created by the Bollandists of all the hagiographical texts – where its number is BHG 884.  This text is reprinted in PG 94, cols. 429-490, and in the Acta Sanctorum  for May, vol. 2, 723-730.

There does not seem to be any translation into a modern language.  However Lequien printed the Life with parallel Latin translation.  This is fortunate, for the Greek text in Lequien is somewhat abbreviated and hard to read, at least by me.  And these days we have quite decent Latin translation, from Google Translate, and also, less accurate but more readable, from ChatGPT.

Out of curiosity, I scanned the Latin text and ran it through ChatGPT 4.  The result was rather amazing – a terribly readable and useful output.

Encouraged by this, I tried to discover whether an electronic Greek text was in the Thesaurus Linguae Graeca collection.  It has; but finding it in the “canon” was really quite difficult.  At least, as someone who rarely uses the TLG, I found it difficult.  There are three different “Lives” in the TLG, together given the index number TLG 5273, and the title is “Vitae Sancti Joannis Damasceni”.  It’s the “vitAE” rather than “vitA” that gets you.  Our text is TLG 5273.2.

Unfortunately this text is not in the elderly CDROM versions that circulate online.  However a kind correspondent sent me the electronic Greek, and I fed this into ChatGPT as well.  This also produced a fairly readable output.

Let’s compare them.  First the translation of the Latin:

I. [The deeds of holy men should be passed down to future generations, especially those of the Doctors of the Church.]

It has become customary among men to honour with representations the image of God in those who have kept it pure from all stain and blemish. Whether they preserved it in its original integrity and grace, or, when it was tarnished and defiled, they restored it, a divine likeness is made for them as a mark of honour. Indeed, those who desire to be seen as lovers of a more exalted reverence, often spare no expense in this endeavour; their generous hands, inclined toward magnificence, employ superior materials in which they engrave their images, thinking that they thereby show greater honour to the holy men.

So, if they display such splendour and grandeur in depicting the forms of these saints, should we leave the words recounting their deeds in a rough and ornament-less style? By no means! The less polished writers are worthy of pardon when, according to the capacity they possess, they narrate in a simple style the deeds of those who pleased Christ. But for those who have dedicated themselves to the pursuit of eloquence, it will not be forgiven if they compile hastily assembled accounts of the lives of the saints—especially of those men whose very spirit and life was devoted to learning, who laboured to free both the mind from ignorance and forgetfulness and the soul from all disorderly passions. These men, who have brought honour to the world and whose books have enlightened the minds of all, did not simply adorn themselves with the external elegance of worldly wisdom, but poured forth abundantly the light of the Holy Spirit.

Now the Greek:

1. To those who have preserved the image unsullied and uncorrupted, well-ordered, and in good condition as from the beginning—or even to those who have often let it be scattered or stained but have restored it—people customarily give honor to the divine forms of these individuals. And those who show their reverence more zealously, and whose hand, along with their wealth, is more magnificent and splendid, use more radiant and noble materials and imprint their forms upon them, believing they thereby dedicate greater honor to the saints.

If, then, they are so eager to adorn their outward form, how could they be expected to neglect and leave in a crude state the words concerning the history of their deeds? Certainly not. For the rougher people, as they are, are excused for simply recounting the deeds of those who were pleasing to Christ; but for those who take study of words seriously, it is not excusable to neglect the lives of saints, recording them hastily and carelessly—especially of men whose very breath and life is to be vigilant in words, and who, by means of words, have purified their minds from ignorance and forgetfulness and their souls from all passionate impulses.

And from those by whom the earthly realm has been adorned, and every mind illuminated, the words upon which they labored not only possess the grace of worldly wisdom but also abundantly emit the light of the Paraclete [Holy Spirit].

There’s no question as to which is more readable.  You have to struggle with the output from the Greek, and mentally retranslate it, merely to understand what is being said.  It probably does reflect the wordiness of the Byzantine text, to be fair. But it’s not very usable.

Likewise Lequien’s Latin translator probably paraphrased and simplified.  He wrote so that people with little Greek could understand the text.  They might not have great Latin either!  Best keep it simple.

I started to work on a translation myself, taking account of both of these and the original Greek and Latin.  But then I found that the ChatGPT output is not reliable, in either version.  Additional words and clauses appear, with no justification in the original, and  going some way beyond the acceptable for paraphrase.  I was tempted just to post both outputs, with a cautionary note, and move on.  But I have resisted doing this.

What I am doing now is to produce a translation from the Latin version, therefore.  It’s not ideal.  But it’s going to be more useful than struggling through 40 chapters of the Greek, which I would anyway have to paraphrase in order that anybody could understand it.

Oh well.  The Sacra Parallela will have to wait.

The start of the autumn term has brought a rash of emails, many of them asking me to do something for somebody.  I try to be sympathetic to such people, many of whom plainly have been thrown in the deep end of a subject about which they do not know even the basics.  But of course I am also wary of the email which reads “please mistuh can you do my homework for me huh” or similar.  There is also the type of researcher for a TV programme who writes and wants you to do the research – which they are paid to do – for them.  The unwary are flattered.  But after a while, you get wise to the scam.

Recently I had one lady write to me asking me to research the background to a medieval quote.  My first thought was “why me?”  But I was lying on the sofa with my smartphone in hand when it arrived.  A simple google search revealed that the very volume that she wanted to find was online, a couple of clicks away.  A second google search revealed the Latin text, and that the quotation in question was from Solinus, the 3rd century pagan medical writer.  It took all of five minutes, and she could perfectly well have done this herself and answered her own question, in the time that it took her to write to a perfect stranger with his own life to lead on the other side of the world.  I confess that I felt very impatient with this.  Indeed I found that she had written to me six times in two years with similar requests.  This time, her request was in vain.

There are those who contribute to the internet, as I do, and spend their days uploading, researching, publishing, purely for the love of it.  There are also those people in this world who, on seeing someone being generous, see only a mug, and an opportunity to help themselves.  I am reminded of the story of a monastery of Benedictine monks in England who decided to serve free steak dinners to any who came.  Their intended guests were the homeless.  But it was not long before men in expensive cars started to drive down all the way from Birmingham in order to get a free lunch at someone else’s expense.  Likewise other religious houses in England have found that there is a certain constituency of vagrants who see them as prey for free board and lodging.

Indeed while writing these words, my phone rang, and woman with a thick Indian accent spoke, telling me that she was from a mobile phone company, in order to offer me a discount for being such a good customer.  “No, you aren’t,” I replied, somewhat curtly, for I have had this scam before.  “No, I suppose I’m not,” came the response in a sad voice.

It can be a sad world, if we let it.  But actually it’s a jolly good world for the most part, and we are extremely fortunate and blessed, all of us, beyond our deserts.  Let’s remember it!

Share

The “Sacra Parallela” of John Damascene

Posted on by Roger Pearse

In 1712, Michel Lequien printed the complete works of John Damascene (d. ca. 749) in two volumes (download from here and here), together with a Latin translation.  This edition was reprinted by Migne in the Patrologia Graeca, vols 95 and 96.  Among the genuine works, he printed in volume 2 a text which he called the “Sacra Parallela” or “Sacred Parallels”, with an appendix of more material from a codex Rupefulcaldina.  (In my previous posts we discussed the pseudo-Josephus text, which appears in this edition as the final portion of the material.)

The text is an anthology of extracts from earlier writers; what is called, in academic jargon, a “florilegium”.  As the literary culture of antiquity faded, the Byzantines, who were trying to preserve it, found that one of the most effective ways was to compile anthologies.  A great number exist.  Many which survive are compiled from still earlier anthologies.

So what we actually have is a bunch of Greek manuscripts, held in various manuscript repositories.  Each manuscript contains extracts.  Some manuscripts are copies of others.

The “Sacra Parallela” is one such florilegium.  Lequien printed it from one Vatican manuscript, the “Florilegium Vaticanum”, and the appendix came from a “Florilegium Rupefulcaldinum.”

A collection of extracts needs an index, so that the reader can find whatever subject he is looking for.  So the “Sacra Parallela” starts with a short prologue, followed by an index, and then the body of the text.  The index itself may be copied from one anthology to another, and modified (often inaccurately), so may tell us something about the chain of transmission.

Here’s the start of the index in Lequien’s edition, vol.2, p.281:

The work is divided into sections. Each section is called a “stoicheion” (“element”), corresponding to a letter of the Greek alphabet.  So here we see “Alpha”.

Each letter is divided into “titles” – subjects, basically.  Letter A is divided into 51 titles, for instance.  The first of these, title 1, is “On the eternity of the holy and consubstantial Trinity, and that there is only one God over all.”  Title 2 is “That God cannot be avoided…”.  Title 4: “On the love and fear of God…”.  Title 6: “About angels…”  And so on.

Here’s the start of the body text, at the end of the index, on p.297:

Here we see stoicheion/letter “Alpha”.  We start with title 1, “On the eternity of the holy and consubstantial Trinity…,”  and continue with a bunch of bible quotations, which Lequien helpfully printed in Italics.  After a page and a half of these, we get the first extract, which is from Basil, followed by three extracts from Gregory Nazianzen.

The extract author is given in the margin.  For Gregory Nazianzen the Greek says only: “of the theologian” (i.e. Gregory Nazianzen).  I suspect this is exactly what is found in the manuscript margin, rather than by Lequien: marginal author identification.

After letter Omega, there is a list of authors referenced on p.730.  I don’t know if this is an addition by Lequien rather than something in the manuscript.

That concludes my overview of what is usually meant when we refer to the “Sacra Parallela”.  I’ll look at the prologue next.

Share

1,000 British Library Manuscripts now back online!

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Today I learned that the British Library has made 1,000 manuscripts available online again.  They are here.  Scroll past the pretty-pretty stuff, and a very workable list appears, on three pages, in order of collection/fond.  Each row is a link, with shelfmark, date, and a quick summary of contents.  Most are Latin, but there are papyri on page 3.  There are no downloads (“as yet”).  But it is a huge relief to see these appear.

It looks rather as if the images mostly (all?) come from manuscripts that were made available to other institutions, and thereby preserved off-site.  If so, that ought to give BL management pause for thought as to the wisdom of only holding digital images in one place.

Funnily enough the list format, although obviously knocked up quickly, is far more usable to a researcher than anything we had on the old site.  I do hope that it is retained, possibly divided into collections, as with the Wiglaf index to the Vatican manuscripts.  Most manuscript repository sites are a pig to navigate.

Looking good.

Share

More on Pseudo-Josephus, “Discourse to the Greeks on Hades”

Posted on by Roger Pearse

In my last post, I mentioned that this Pseudo-Josephus text is transmitted to us in a range of manuscripts, but is also transmitted in the “Sacra Parallela.”   The Sacra is an immense anthology of extracts from the Fathers.  Since then I have been trying to find out more about the Sacra.  It was originally in three volumes, often attributed to John Damascene, but only compilations derive from it survive.

The Sacra has only been edited once, by Michel Lequien, in 1712, in two volumes (here and here), with parallel Latin translation.  But in recent years a German team has been working on the text, and now they have issued an edition of two recensions of the second volume of the Sacra, in the Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos series.[1]  Each recension gets two volumes.  Sadly these do not contain a translation.

The edition by J. Declerck of the second recension of Book II of the Sacra Parallela (volumes 3 and  4 ) contains 2,007 extracts.  These are organised in alphabetical order, using 23 letters of the Greek alphabet.  Apparently this recension included no entries for “zeta.”

But the last entry given is out of sequence.  Indeed this entry is none other than pseudo-Josephus, “Against Plato, on the cause of everything”; in other words, our “discourse to the Greeks on Hades.”  The section is noticeably far longer than the short extracts that precede it.

Here’s the start of this part.

Even the reviewer, Paul-Hubert Poirier, had some difficulty understanding the abbreviations at the top!  *II2 is the second recension of book II of the Sacra.  The asterisk is inscrutable, apparently. “PMLb” is a group of manuscripts.

That it appears there, out of sequence at the end, must mean that it is an addition, added later on to the end of some copy of this recension of the text, and transmitted with it.  For the first recension ends with a short extract from Justin Martyr.  The fact that it is a comparatively long text in several chapters also suggests that it is not part of the original.

We’ve already seen that this version of pseudo-Josephus was edited a century ago by Holl from two manuscripts.  These also form the basis of the new critical edition.  But this edition also ends at the same place, earlier than the Barocci manuscript used for the English translation.

I would infer from this that the pseudo-Josephus text is a free-floating bit of text, on version of which accidentally became attached to the end of one recension of the Sacra Parallela.

So pseudo-Josephus is not a portion of the Sacra Parallela which has gone solo.  Rather it is an independent artist that has joined the band.

Share
  1. [1]T. Thum/J. Declerck, Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos, in the Patristische Texte und Studien series.↩

Pseudo-Josephus, “A Discourse to the Greeks concerning Hades” – an investigation

Posted on by Roger Pearse

There is a text floating around the web under the title of “Josephus’s Discourse to the Greeks concerning Hades.”  The full title is “An extract out of Josephus’s discourse to the Greeks, concerning Hades: wherein are contained the souls of the righteous and the unrighteous.”  Bill Thayer has the most reliable version of the piece on his site, here.

This item is from William Whiston’s 1737 version of the complete works of Josephus, and in the original edition it was printed as Dissertation V in volume one.  (Dissertation VI defended its authenticity).  While omitted in most reprints, these dissertations can be found in the 1741 reprint.[1] But the text is plainly not by Josephus, not least because chapter 8 starts with an apocryphal saying of Jesus.  This is found in other patristic texts and reads, “In whatsoever ways I shall find you, in them shall I judge you entirely.”  So we may call it pseudo-Josephus.

Whiston’s “Dissertation V”

We need to find the Greek text for this, before we can discuss it.  In his original edition, Whiston gives a note about this, which leads us down some quite interesting rabbit holes.  As we shall see, it leads to a number of what appear to be unresolved issues.

In the reference literature today, the text is assigned to Hippolytus of Rome, and given a title such as “Adversus Graecos” or “Oratio ad Graecos de inferno”.  It is hesitantly classified as fragment 1 of the lost “De universo,” περί τοῦ παντός, (Clavis Patrum Graecorum CPG 1898).  This classification is based on Photius, Bibliotheca 48, which mentions such a work and ascribes it to Josephus, just as the manuscripts do today.  But Whiston, despite his cranky ideas, was right when he noted that the basis for the proposed identification with De universo was unsound, as Alice Whealey recently discussed.[2]

The text is printed in the Patrologia Graeca 10, cols. 796-801, with a Latin translation copied from Etienne Le Moyne, of whom more anon. The first half of the same text appears in PG 96, 541-544, labelled as the “Rupefucaldinum” version of John Damascene’s Sacra Parallela (CPG 8056).  There is a modern edition of our own text in K. Holl Fragmente vornizanischer Kirchenvater aus den Sacra Parallela (TU 20, 2), Leipzig (1899), pp.137-143.

Whiston’s translation predates all of these editions.  Ordinarily that would not matter, but in this case, as we shall see, it does.

Whiston encountered the text in the Addenda of the 1726 Havercamp edition, the basis for his translation of the works of Josephus.  This piece was in vol. 2, Addenda, p.145-7.[3]

But rather than using Havercamp’s text, he preferred that printed by David Humphreys, The Apologeticks of the Learned Athenian Philosopher Athenagoras, (1714).  This had a loose English translation on pp.292-9 and the Greek on pp.302-307.  Humphreys also collated it with a text printed in the end notes of David Hoeschelius, Photii Myriobiblon (1611).  The Notae at the end restart the page numbering from 1, so its on columns 9-12 at the back of the book.  Whiston mentions also Etienne Le Moyne, Varia sacra, ceu Sylloge variorum opusculorum graecorum, vol. 1 (1694), pp.53-62, whose Latin translation was adopted by Migne in the PG10.  Le Moyne attributes the text, without manuscript authority according to Whiston, to Hippolytus, Sermone contra Graecos, cuius titulus, contra Platonem de universi causa.

But here the mysteries begin.  Whiston prints the text in 8 chapters – the division and numbering are his own –, based upon the text of Humphreys.  But although Whiston himself states, “All the four copies … very nearly agree, till towards the latter end of § 6,” after that we have a problem.

I have only skimmed the texts, but it looks as if all the editions seem to agree as far as the last-but-one sentence in chapter 6.  Hoeschelius, the PG10 text, Le Moyne, and Holl also print a section of text equivalent to chapter 7.  The chapter 7 of Humphreys is rather different.  The chapter 8 of Humphreys is not present anywhere else.

Inevitably we have to ask what manuscript evidence each of these editions is based on.

The Pinakes database lists 10 manuscripts of our text:  Barocci MS 26 (9th c.) in the Bodleian Library in Oxford, BNF Coislin 131 (14th c.) in Paris, one in the Lavra on Mt Athos (K 113, 16th c.), Vatican gr. 723 (13-16th), and 6 more recent MSS also in the Vatican.  This from the online scan of a microfilm of Vatican gr. 723:

Vatican gr. 723, f. 239r (top)
Vatican gr. 723, fol. 240v (end)

So we can now look at the editions.

The Humphreys edition is based on MS Oxford Barocci 26.  Whiston tells us that this becomes nearly unreadable toward the end, but that this is the source of the material beyond chapter 6.  Sadly it is not online. He adds that the Barocci copy “is much the most valuable; because it is about a forth part larger than the other; and yet appears equally genuine.”[4]

Whiston also refers to the Coislin manuscript, which is online here.

Hoeschelius used an Italian manuscript, without specifying it.  He says only:

“Eius fragmentum ut ex Italia missum est pridem mihi a M.M. ita edo, pseudepigraphum, nec ne (non iniuria enim dubites) iudicent eruditi.  Equidem homini Christiano adscripserim.”

“I publish this fragment, just as it was sent to me some time ago from Italy by M.M., pseudepigraphical or not (for you would not be wrong to doubt), let the scholars decide. For my part, I would attribute it to a Christian author.”

So this was probably one of the Vatican manuscripts.  Whiston in “Dissertation 6” p.clxxxv tells us that “M.M.” was a certain Max Marguntius.

As far as I could tell from his rambling preface, Le Moyne does not identify the manuscript that he used for “Hippolytus”.

Pinakes also lists 39 manuscripts of the Sacra Parallela, from the 9th century onwards.  This work exists in various different recensions, and I am unclear whether pseudo-Josephus is present in all of these manuscripts.  Paris BNF gr. 923 (9th c.) and Venice Marciana gr. Z. 138 (10 med.) were used for the Holl edition, and there are three other manuscripts listed of recension “PMLb”, whatever that is.  But the mysteries of the Sacra Parallela will have to await another blog post.

It looks as if we have at least two recensions, and possibly three; the Barocci text via the Humphreys edition, the manuscript itself nearly unreadable at the end; the PG10 / Hoeschelius / Le Moyne text; and perhaps the Holl and PG96 text as a third group similar to the second.  Someone needs to collate these, collate the manuscripts, and establish a stemma.

I notice that even in the first sentence of the work, we find a separating variant.  Humphreys prints “Καὶ οὗτος μὲν ὁ περὶ δαιμόνων τόπος,” “And this is the place of demons.”  But other witnesses read “Καὶ οὗτος μὲν ὁ περὶ δαιμόνων λόγος,” translated by Whiston as “And this is the discourse concerning daemons.”

  • “topos” is the reading of Humphreys (and so, presumably, the Barocci MS), Hoeschelius, Le Moyne, and the PG10. It is also the reading of the Coislin MS, from which Whiston must have taken his reading.
  • “logos” is the reading of Holl, and also PG96, both based on the Sacra Parallela.
Paris BNF coislin 131, fol. 1r (top)

So there is editorial work to be done on the “ad Graecos”, or whatever we call the text.  The text, its authorship, and relationships between the text witnesses, all this would make an interesting subject for publication.  But not by me!

Share
  1. [1]William Whiston, The Genuine Works Of Flavius Josephus, The Jewish Historian. Translated from the Original Greek : according to Havercamp’s accurate Edition, vol. 1 (1737), pp.clxxix-clxxxiv.↩
  2. [2]A. Whealey, “Hippolytus’ lost ‘De universo’ and ‘De resurrectione:’ Some new hypotheses”, in: Vigiliae Christianae 50 (1996), p.244-256.  JSTOR.↩
  3. [3]S. Havercamp, Flavii Josephi quae reperiri potuerunt, 2 vols (1726). BSB: Vol. 1. Vol 2.  The text begins on p.676 of the PDF download of vol. 2.↩
  4. [4]In “Dissertation VI”, p.clxxxvi.↩

Oh no! – Philo of Carpasia and his “Letter to Eucarpius” – Part 4

Posted on by Roger Pearse

In my last few posts, I’ve tracked down and translated the obscure “Letter to Eucarpius” by Philo of Carpasia.  All well and good, except… it’s not.  While googling yesterday, I discovered that it’s actually found among the Letters of Basil of Caesarea / Basil the Great, where it is letter 42, and directed to a certain Chilo!  Oh no!

The attribution to Philo comes to us only from the two manuscripts.  Yet the same letter is found attributed to Basil in other manuscripts.  In fact one of these manuscripts has a note in the margin, saying that it isn’t by Basil either, but by St Nilus.

Well, mea culpa, mea maxime culpa.  What I should have done, clearly, was to search the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae for the opening words of the letter.

Having said this, I don’t feel too bad that I forgot to do so.  Because I have just done that search, and each time it failed.  Yet I knew that they were the same!  In the end I just browsed to Basil Letter 42, and then I found out why the searches failed.  Here’s the start of the Greek of Philo:

And here is the beginning of the TLG text of Basil, Letter 42:

ΠΡΟΣ ΧΙΛΩΝΑ ΤΟΝ ΑΥΤΟΥ ΜΑΘΗΤΗΝ

Σωτηρίου πράγματος αἴτιος γενήσομαί σοι  <missing word>, ὦ γνήσιε ἀδελφέ, εἰ ἡδέως συμβουλευθείης παρ’ ἡμῶν τὰ πρακτέα, μάλιστα περὶ ὧν ἡμᾶς αὐτὸς παρεκάλεσας συμβουλεῦσαί σοι. Τὸ μὲν γὰρ κατάρξασθαι τοῦ μονήρους βίου πολλοῖς ἴσως τετόλμηται, τὸ δὲ ἀξίως ἐπιτελέσαι ὀλίγοις τάχα που πεπόνηται. Καὶ πάντως οὐκ ἐν προθέσει μόνον τὸ τέλος ὑπάρχει, ἀλλ’ ἐν τῷ τέλει τὸ κέρδος τῶν πεπονημένων. Οὐκοῦν οὐδὲν ὄφελος τοῖς μὴ πρὸς τὸ τοῦ σκοποῦ τέλος ἐπειγομένοις, ἄχρι δὲ τῆς ἀρχῆς μόνης ἱστῶσι τὸν τῶν μοναχῶν βίον· οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ καταγέλαστον καταλιμπάνουσι τὴν ἑαυτῶν πρόθεσιν, ἀνανδρίας καὶ ἀβουλίας παρὰ τῶν ἔξωθεν ἐγκαλούμενοι. Φησὶ γὰρ καὶ ὁ Κύριος περὶ τῶν τοιούτων. «Τίς, βουλόμενος πύργον οἰκοδομῆσαι, οὐχὶ πρῶτον καθίσας ψηφίζει τὴν δαπάνην, εἰ ἔχει τὰ πρὸς ἀπαρτισμόν; μή ποτε, θέντος αὐτοῦ θεμέλιον καὶ μὴ

I’ve highlighted the differences in the first sentence: quite enough to frustrate my search!

The actual author of the letter is unclear.  From googling, I find that there is a general feeling that letters 42-46 are a group that belong together, which, if by Basil, must precede his ordination as bishop. I am told that letter 42 is not found in any “ancient manuscripts” of Basil’s letters, but first in Paris 967 of 1377 AD; and that MS “Paris Regius 2895” – whatever that now is – has a note “Some attribute this to the holy Nilus”.  It also appears in several manuscripts of the homilies.[1]  I don’t think that this is the place to go into the arguments for Nilus or Basil.

Oh well!  It was fun to do anyway!

Share
  1. [1]Basil, Letters vol. 1, in: Fathers of the Church 13 (1951), p.102, note 1.↩