The Annals of Eutychius of Alexandria (10th c. AD) – chapter 11 (part 3)

The story continues… sadly with very little historical value.

7.  Constantine made the necessary preparations and prepared to fight against Maxentius, King of the Romans.  He had prepared a large cross, placed it on top of a standard, and went against Maxentius, king of Rome.  Having heard that Constantine had moved to fight against him, Maxentius prepared to face him, and chose a bridge over the river in front of Rome as the place of battle. Then he came out with all his men, and fought against Constantine, who conquered and triumphed making a great slaughter of his men.  Maxentius tried to return into the city with the rest of the soldiers, but the bridge gave way and he drowned with all his men: the river was choked with drowned and killed men.  With golden crowns and every kind of music, the inhabitants of Rome poured out of the town to meet Constantine and celebrated the triumph with great jubilation.

On entering the city, [Constantine] ordered that the bodies of the Christian martyrs, and those who were crucified, should be buried.  All those who had fled, and those whom Maxentius had exiled, returned to their country and to their homes, and those who had seen them confiscated got them back.  The inhabitants of Rome made festival for seven days in honour of Constantine and the Cross, eating, drinking and rejoicing.  On hearing these things Maximian, called Galerius, was furious, gathered his troops and went out to fight against Constantine.  Hearing about this, Constantine also prepared his army and went to fight him. But when the men of Maximian saw the cross on the banner they fled: many were killed, others were taken prisoner and others begged to be spared.  Maximian fled away naked, and passed as a traveller, from place to place until he came to his city.  Here he called the priests of his gods, the magicians, the soothsayers that he loved so much, and whose recommendations he followed, and had them beheaded so that they would not fall into the hands of Constantine and serve him.  God sent down into the body of Maximian a devouring fire, so that his bowels were falling to pieces from the intense burning sensation that he had inside.  His eyes swelled to the point that they fell out, coming out of their sockets, and his flesh was burned so much as to break away from the bones, and he died the worst of deaths.

8. Constantine ruled all the territories of the Romans, in tranquility and peace. This was in forty-first year of the reign of Sabur, son of Hurmuz, king of the Persians.  Constantine was the son of Constantius, son of Wālantiyūs, son of Arsis, son of Decius, son of King Claudius, who lived in Rome at the time of the Apostles.  Constantine had a general whom he loved and preferred to the others, named Licinius.  He gave him his sister Constantina, entrusted him with the government and ordered him to honour the Christians, to love them and not to hurt any of them. When he came into his kingdom, Licinius returned to the worship of idols and ordered that the Christians should be put to death.  In his day found martyrdom the soldier Theodorus, Metropolitan of Barqah, and the Forty Martyrs, originating in the city of Sebastia of Cappadocia (20). Licinius had in Sebastia a lieutenant named Agricolaus. He had the Forty Martyrs brought outside the city of Cappadocia, and thrown naked into a pool of water, where on account of the excess cold, because of the snow, they died of frostbite.  Only one of them got out of the pool and headed for a tepidarium which was located at the shore of the lake to warm up, but the tepidarium collapsed on him, killing him instantly. The captain of the guard guarding the Forty then saw forty crowns of light coming down from heaven and resting on the heads of those martyrs, but one of these was suspended in the air.  The guard then stripped off his garments, and threw himself into the pool and believed in Christ, earning for himself the crown of light.  Then they took them out of the pool and loaded them on to a cart. There was, among them, a young man who had not yet died and was left aside.  His mother, who was standing beside them, had in fact picked him up to put him on the cart with the others, but would not release him because he was still alive. He expired on her shoulder and only then could she place him on the cart along with the martyrs. Then they took them out of the city of Sebastia and burned them. Informed of the fact, King Constantine wrote a letter to Licinius in which he rebuked him for what he had done.  But [Licinius] did not repent; indeed he gathered a large army and went to fight against Constantine who confronted him with his own soldiers in Bithynia.  [Licinius] was defeated; he was taken prisoner and was brought before Constantine who demoted him then to the city of Thessaloniki and designated him as his prefect.  Here he tried to gather a new army among the people of Thessaloniki with the intent to set out again against Constantine who, having heard about this, sent some of his men and killed him, cutting off his head.

Share

Draft translation of Chrysostom’s “Laus Diodori” now online

Regular correspondent IG has written to say that her translation of the Laus Diodori by Chrysostom (PG 52: 761-766 = CPG 4406) is now available online on Academia.edu here.  It’s just the bare translation, no commentary yet; but it’s there and it’s hot!

Share

The Annals of Eutychius of Alexandria (10th c. AD) – chapter 11 (part 2)

Once more Eutychius switches over again to the lost Sassanid Persian chronicle which he is interweaving with the Greek chronicles; and then back.  We are not told what became of Maximian: evidently the Sassanid chronicle did not say.

5.  As for Sabur, son of Hurmuz, king of the Persians, he grew up and become a young man, and, throughout his kingdom, order prevailed everywhere.  Hearing one day someone speak of Maximian, King of the Romans, and what he did to the Christians, he said to his men: “I want to go alone into the territory of the Romans so that I can see personally what is the condition of their kings, their armies and the streets of their countries.  When I have done this, I will return to my kingdom, filled with all the things that I have learned from them, and which I can use to attack them.”  But his men tried to dissuade him from the perils and the dangers which he might encounter.  He, however, did not accept their advice and, journeyed until he reached the heart of the territory of the Romans.  He continued for some time to wander from place to place when suddenly there came to him the news that a son of Maximian had offered a banquet, and that his father had given orders that the rabble and the poor should gather with him and sit with him at table, after the nobles had eaten their meal.  Sabur went there then, begging to be also present at the banquet.  As he sat at the table, there was carried to Maximian a glass of Sabur, on which was engraved the image of the Persian king.  The servants served drinks to the king and the nobles who were sat about, until the cup came into the hands of a sage, who could read the fate of men through the stars and had excellent knowledge of physiognomy. He looked carefully at the effigy – he had already happened to see the face of Sabur sitting among the other guests -, and he said: “I see a man among the guests who looks similar to the image on this cup.  If this man is not Sabur, there is nobody in the world like him.” King Maximilian said: “What do you mean?” He answered: “I see on this cup the image of Sabur, and that this man is he,” and so saying he took Sabur by the hand and led him before the king. The king then asked him who he was and Sabur said: “I am a poor Persian”. But being suspicious as he looked at him, Maximian suspected that he had not told the truth.  Therefore he persisted in his request, and Sabur said to them: “If you really want to know the truth, know then that I come from a state of Persia. My father committed a grave offense against our king who had him killed and  confiscated his goods. And since I had good reason to fear of my life, I have come here to you with the hope of obtaining protection in your country.  Having fallen into poverty and been made destitute, I have come here to you from famine, and extreme poverty”.  They took pity on him, and, thinking that he told the truth they decided to let him go.  But the sage opposed this, saying: “He is definitely Sabur. Put him to the test until you learn who he really is.”  Then King Maximian resorted to harsh measures, and threatened to kill him, but promised him safety provided that he revealed his true identity.  Sabur said: “It is strange that you can think that Sabur would prefer misery and hardship in your country, rather than occupy the place in his kingdom that is his.” But they did not believe his words.  Eventually he confessed that he was Sabur in person.  King Maximian then ordered him to be thrown into the belly of a statue in the shape of a cow, covered with cowhide, and he had him locked up, putting guards and custodians.  Maximian then marched against the land of the Persians, wrought carnage among their population, destroyed their city, cut down their trees and their palms, taking Sabur with him, wherever he went.  He continued so until he came to Gunday-Sabur (17) where leaders of Persia had fortified themselves.  He then built catapults and managed to destroy half the city without being able, however, to enter.  It was on that occasion that one night the keepers of Sabur relaxed their guard on the prisoner, forgetting to close the door, by which he brought food inside the statue.  It was the night of Ashan (18) (In another text [it says]: “It was the night of a party”).  There were around him, many residents of al-Ahwaz that the Romans had made prisoners.  Sabur heard their words and he understood their language. There were, nearby, wineskins full of oil and when night fell [Sabur] rose, called to a prisoner and said: “Get one of these skins and empty it out.” The prisoner did as he asked, and the strap with which he was held bound was all soaked.  He went out crawling like a reptile until he came to the gate of the city and gave a cry.  The sentries responded to his shout, and also he told them his name.  They recognized the voice and opened the gates of the city.

Great was the joy they felt for him, when he entered the city, and they raised their voices praising and glorifying God.  The men of Maximian awoke, and thought that reinforcements had arrived on the opposite side.  Sabur said to those who were in the fortress: “Get ready, and when you hear the sound of the nāqūs, attack”.  They did as he had told them, and broke out on the Romans, making great slaughter and seizing their property and all that they had accumulated.  Then Sabur penetrated the territory of the Romans, sowing death everywhere, and he destroyed many cities and picked up a huge booty.  On the lands of the Romans there then followed a severe famine and pestilence and plague, so that they were no longer able to bury the corpses because there were too many deaths.  So it was that the war of Sabur, the famine and the pestilence prevented the Romans from killing the Christians.

6.  As for Maxentius, king of Rome, he was the most wicked of the kings who had reigned before him and angered all who were in Rome, particularly the Christians, confiscating their property and killing men, women and children.  When the inhabitants of Rome heard about Constantine, of how he hated evil and loved good and that the people of his kingdom lived in peace and quiet, the leaders of the city of Rome wrote him a letter asking him to free them from the tyranny of Maxentius.  Reading their letter, Constantine was greatly worried and was perplexed, not knowing what to do.  As he was so full of thought, there appeared in the sky at noon, a cross of stars shining, around which was written “In this conquer”(19).  Then he came out and said to his men: “Did you see what I saw?” “Yes,” they answered, and at that time he embraced the Christian faith.  This happened six years after the death of his father Constantius.

Share

The literary development of the “Life” of St Nicholas of Myra (=Santa Claus)

The modern idea of “Santa Claus” derives, at some remove, from the medieval legends of the Greek orthodox St. Nicholas of Myra, recorded in the hagiographical texts known as “Saints’ Lives”.  Ever since I discovered that none of these vita‘s have been translated into English, I have been looking into the matter.  Of course the first thing is to understand what texts actually exist.

Yesterday I discovered a very useful summary of the various versions of the Life of Nicholas of Myra.  It appears as appendix ii in A. Blom’s Nikolaas van Myra en zijn tijd, Hilversum, 1998, p.259-262.  I obtained this, since it contains a translation (into Dutch) of the Vita per Michaelem, the Life as given by Michael the Archimandrite, as appendix i.  This summary would seem to deserve a wider circulation.

A. The oldest biographies and related texts.

For texts see Anrich[1], vol. 1; for commentary see Anrich, vol. 2, and Cioffari[2].

  • Proclus (390-447 AD), patriarch of Constantinople from 434 to 447, Eulogy (Enkomion) on Nicholas, with reference to the history of the three generals.

According Anrich this is a late text, and not by Proclus. According to Cioffari, it perhaps may be authentic, or from the period 447-550.

  • Theodore Anagnostes (? -518), ca 500 Lector in Constantinople, Historia Tripartita (in a manuscript from the 13th century) indicating that Nicholas participated at the council of Nicaea, 325 AD.

According to Anrich the entry is a later interpolation (based on Niketas, see below), but according to Cioffari however it is authentic.

  • Anonymous, Life of Nicholas, abbot of the monastery of Zion, bishop of Pinara.  This has references to the tomb of Nicholas of Myra.[3]

According to both Anrich and Cioffari this was written about 564.  Data from this vita was later mixed with the vita of Nicholas of Myra (the Vita per Michaelem), see below.

  • Legend of the three generals (Praxis de Stratelatis)

According to Anrich the version known to us was created between 460 and 580, but, according to Cioffari, between the death of Nicholas and the mid-5th century.

  • Eustrathios of Constantinople (?-600), Presbyter of Constantinople, Refutatio, with fragment of the legend of the three generals, quoted from a lost vita.

According to Anrich and Cioffari this is authentic, dating from the 2nd half of the 6th century.

  • Michael the Archimandrite, Life, Works and wondrous works of our Father Nikolaos, Bishop of Myra, in Lycia (the Vita per Michaelem – translations exist by Blom in appendix i, and also in German by Heiser.)

According to Anrich this was probably written between 814 and 843; according to Cioffari about 700.

  • Methodios (ad Theodorum), a monk (?), Life of Nicholas,  which follows Michael’s vita closely.

According to Anrich this dates before 843; according to Cioffari between 817 and 821.

  • Another Methodios (?), Eulogy on Nicholas, dated by Anrich and Cioffari after 860.
  • John Diaconus of Naples (John the Deacon; 850?), Vita S. Nicolai Episcopi, the first Latin vita, a free adaptation of mainly the vita of Methodios (ad Theodorum). Appears about 880.
  • Nicetas of Paphlagonia, bishop (? -890), Eulogy on Nicholas, containing the first mention of participation in the Council of Nicaea, and dating before 890.
  • Anonymous, a so-called Synaxariumvita with new motifs, the ‘imprisonment during the last persecution’ and ‘Nicaea’. Genesis about 900.
  • Anonymous, the so-called Vita Compilata, a biography in which Michael’s vita of Nicholas of Myra is intertwined with that of Nicholas, abbot of the monastery of Zion, together with elements from Methodios’ Eulogy etc.  According Anrich and Cioffari written between 860 and 975.
  • Simeon Metaphrastes, writing at Constantinople (?), Life of Nicholas, based on the Compilata, etc.  According Anrich and Cioffari written  between 975 and 1000.  This vita has become the authoritative version for all subsequent biographies.
  • Neophytos, priest, monk (1134-?), Eulogy on Nicholas; mainly a collection of miracle stories.

B. Wonder Stories

Some miracles circulated independently, like that of the three generals (Praxis de Stratelatis) and a story about Nicholas’ intervention with Constantine related to taxes imposed on Myra (Praxis de Tributo). Most occur in the biographies or in separate collections. In the thousand years after Nicholas’ death at least 50 of these legends may be counted, first the originals in the vitae etc., then stories about rescues from sea crossing, from Saracen captivity or other emergency, relief of poverty, restitution of stolen goods, cures etc.

The most important are listed below, with only the titles given.

From Michael: infant prodigy, choice as Bishop, three daughters, three generals (short), a rescue of sailors, a grain multiplication (the corn ships), frustration of the wrath of Artemis.

From Methodios (ad Theodorum): the same, except the corn ships.

From the other Methodios (Eulogy): three daughters, a different version of the corn ships, three generals and (as miracles after Nicholas’ death) rescue of Methodios’ father John from a shipwreck, rescue of a Mytilenian priest from the hands of Saracens, deliverance of Petros from captivity.

From the Vita Compilata:

  • From the Vita by Michaelem: the rescue of sailors, the corn ships, Artemis.
  • From the Eulogy of Methodios: another version of the corn ships, the three generals.
  • From Methodios (ad Theodorum) the Mytilenian priest and others (the collection Six miracles, see below.).
  • From Nicholas of Zion, a series of healings.

In Metaphrastes: three daughters, the rescue of sailors, Artemis, the three generals, a version of the corn and ships (from Nicholas of Sion): the calming of the storm and the resurrection from death of the sailor Ammonios.

The collection Three miracles (created between 850 and 900): rescue of shipwrecked Demetrios (discussed by Blom in chapter XV), the liberation of a young man named Basil from the hands of Saracens, the rescue of the monk Nicholas from danger at sea.

The collection Six miracles (created after 850/900); rescue of shipwrecked John, the priest of Mytilene, Petros, Demetrios, Basil, Nicholas.

From Neophytos: a collection of more than thirty miracle stories, in addition to the above, plus new additions such as the lone sailor (see Blom chapter VIII), a stray Saracen trader (see Blom chapter XV), return of stolen property (a thieving Shepherd), a bleeding Nicholas picture …

The spread of the story to the west

Apart from the vita of John Diaconus, all the above mentioned texts are Greek. The worship of Nicholas passed to the west through southern Italy. Rome, Calabria, Apulia, Sicily remained under Byzantine influence for hundreds of years after the downfall of the kingdom of the Ostrogoths (552) and the incursions of the Lombards in Italy (568); Rome until the 8th century, Sicily until 9th, Calabria and Apulia until the 11th, when the Normans conquered the area. The Greek colonies there imported Greek saints, including Nicholas. Probably in the 7th century, the history of the three generals was already known in Rome, and from there was inserted into numerous martyrologia and other texts. The vita of John Diaconus obviously played a big role in the dissemination of knowledge about Nicholaos generally, while later, through the transfer of the relics to Bari in Apulia, the movements of the Normans and the Crusades, his worship yet again increased significantly.

C. Later literature

Besides the vita of Metaphrastes, the vita of John Diaconus was the source of a number of later vitae, such as those in the Golden Legend of Jacobus de Voragine (? -1298) and the Catalogus Sanctorum of Peter de Natalibus (second half of 14th century).

The Breviarium Romanum (1568) and the Martyrologium Romanum (1586) have derived a number of miracle stories from this source.

1620.  A. Beatillo, Historia della Vita, Miracoli, Traslatione … di San Niccolo. An indiscriminate collection of miracle stories.

17th century. Italian and French use of Beatillo’s Historia.

1699.  Le Nain the Tillemont, Memoires pour servir d l’histoire ecclésiastique des six premiers siècles (a beginning of a critical examination of the available material).

1701.  A. Baillet, Les Vies des Saints (following Tillemont).

1732. Article in Le Grand Dictionnaire historique (Moreri) expresses great doubt on numerous elements from the vitae.

1740.  Le Quien, Oriens Christianus, opposes criticism (as in, 1745, J. de l’Isle).

1747.  Review committee for the Roman Breviary, but does nothing.

1751. N.C. Falcone, Sancti Nicolai confessoris et pontificis et celeberrimi thaumaturgi Acta Primigenia Nuper detecta. He believes, on the basis of sloppy reasoning, that Nicholas of Myra is a mystification of Nicholas of Sion, whose vita he said that he discovered in 1720 in the Vatican library.

1753. N. Putignani, Vindiciae vitae et gestorum Thaumaturgi S. Nicolai, Diatriba, and 1771 Istoria della Vita. Refutes the arguments of Falcone. A weak work, like J. S. Assemani’s treatment of Falcone’s thesis in his Kalendaria (1755).

19th century. This century yielded little progress on the problem of Nicholas (Anrich, 202vv.).  Most work was devotional (Cioffari, 289vv.). Cioffari devotes an interesting chapter to some Russian studies.

1886 is noteworthy only for an uncritical, popular work of J. Laroche, Vie de S. Nicolas.

Blom’s bibliography covers the 20th century.

Share
  1. [1]Anrich, G., Hagios Nikolaos, Texte und Untersuchungen, 2 Bnde, Berlin 1913/1917.  Online via here.
  2. [2]G. Cioffari, S. Nicola nella Critica Storica, Bari 1987.  References by Blom to “Cioffari” always mean this work, which I have not seen.
  3. [3]An English translation of this item exists: I. Sevcenko and N. Sevcenko, The Life of Saint Nicholas of Sion, Holy Cross Press, 1999, ISBN 978-0917653032.

Why Methodius ad Theodorum (9 c.) is proving very difficult to translate

Back in 2013 I wondered what the earliest sources were for the life of St. Nicholas of Myra, whose legends form the basis for the Santa Claus story.  There are three, all 9-10th century, in fact.  I decided that one of these, the Methodius ad Theodorum, c. 817-821 AD, would be a good candidate to get translated.  But it’s proving a real challenge.  We may have to admit defeat!  But I think that it would be good to document where we got to.

The Methodius ad Theodorum is BHG 1352y, and appears only in Anrich’s collection[1], vol. 1, p.140-150, and repeated again as an appendix in vol. 2, p.546-556.

Why did he did edit it twice?  Well, it appears from the introduction that the text was very difficult to edit from the sole manuscript, Ms. Vaticanus Graecus 2084 (10th c.).  Some of these Greek manuscripts are so heavily ligatured that they can be extremely hard to read!  But after he had published vol.1, Anrich discovered that Spyridonof had published another text from the same manuscript, Methodius’ Vita Theophanis, which clarified things somewhat. This led him to try a second time in vol. 2, and this time with punctuation.

A correspondent, Joel Eidsath, kindly picked up on my posts, and started a thread at Textkit to translate the Methodius Ad Theodorum.  In case this vanishes, I’ll quote some of it here.  Joel reckoned that the introduction was the worst bit, and the rest would be easier!  He did most of page 1 (of 10), and this read as follows:

Τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν Μεθοδίου πρεσβυτέρου καὶ ἡγουμένου εἰς τὸν βίον καὶ τὰ λείποντα τοῦ ὁσίου πατρὸς ἡμῶν Νικολάου ἀρχιεπισκόπου Μύρων.

Ἐπειδὴ ἡ τῶν καθ’ ἡμᾶς λόγων πλοκὴ τῇ ἀσαφείᾳ τῆς πρωχονοίας τὸ γρῖφόν σοι ἐντυγχάνοντι ἐπέχειν νομίζεται, ζητεῖ δὲ ἡ καθαρά σου ἁπλότης, ὦ ἀνδρῶν ἄριστε καὶ περιφανέστατε Θεόδωρε, λόγον ἐγκωμίου τῇ φράσει ἀποίκιλον καὶ νοήμασι τὸν εὐκάτοπτον, πρὸς δὲ καὶ τῷ ποσῷ τὸν ἀπέριττον — ἐγώ, ῖνα μὴ δόξω ἀνήκοος καὶ ὅπως σοι φανείην παρέτοιμος, τῇ πίστει καὶ κελεύσει σου χαριζόμενος, ἀνιστορῆσαι μᾶλλον τὰ τοῦ περιβοήτου Νικολάου μέγιστα κατορθώματα καὶ οὐκ αὖθις ἐγκωμιάσαι τὸ λοιπὸν προαιρήσομαι, ὡς τάχα τῆς ἱστορίας συνήθως ἐχούσης τὸ εὐκατάκουστον. εἰ δέ τι συμπλεκείη που τῇ ἱστορί ἐγκώμιον, θεῷ ἀναθετέον τὸ χάρισμα καὶ τῇ πίστει σου, τῷ δόντι καὶ τῇ χορηγηθείσῃ παρὰ τῆς αὐτοῦ μεγαλοδωρεᾶς, εὕρασθαι σὺν ἐξηγήσεσι τὸ ἐγκώμιον. ἔστι δὲ τῶν περὶ πάντας ἀκροατὰς διηγήσεων πλησιέστερον, μετὰ τὸ εἰπεῖν γένος καὶ πόλιν καὶ ἐπιτήδευμα, τὴν ἐκ νεαροῦ τοῦ σώματος ἀγωγήν τε καὶ αὔξησιν διαγράψασθαι, ἵν’ ὁμολογουμένην ἤτοι θαυμαζομένην τὴν ἀνάταξιν ἤ ἐπαύξησιν εἰς δύναμιν ἐκ δυνάμεως καὶ πρὸς τοιάνδε ἐκ τοιᾶσδε ἀγωγὴν ἤ προσαγωγὴν ὁ ἱστορεῖσθαι τολμώμενος τῇ τῶν ἀκουόντων διανοίᾳ σαφέστατα ἐγκατάθηται. καὶ δὴ θεοῦ διδοῦντος λόγον ἐν ἀνοίξει εὐθέτῳ τοῦ στόματος, ἅπερ ὄψις εἴτ’ οὖν ἐν βίβλοις ἀνάγνωσις δέδωκε, ταῦτα διηγησόμενος καὶ παρέστηκα.

From the our holy father Methodius, elder and leader, the biography and leavings of our pious father Nikolaus, archbishop of Myra:

After our complicated discussion, the intricate question that you left was thought to be unsolvable due to my poverty of mind. But your unblemished purity seeks, O Theodore, best and most famous of men, an encomium using simple words and clear images, over and above this a quantity of straightforwardness — I, that I may not appear to have ignored you nor appear to you unprepared, am obliging your faith and request with more unrecorded great virtuous acts of the much spoken of Nikolaus, and I have deliberately left out anything not laudatory [ἐγκωμιάσαι], so that the story will quickly grab hold of the understanding. And if somewhere the encomium’s story was tangled up, by the grace that is God’s and your faith, the giving and the bestowing of from his generosity, the encomium was found through interpretation. [[Very shaky on this next sentence, will come back to it later: But it is the closest to the stories heard by all, speaking of the family and city and trade, the raising up from youth and the training of his growth, that the pattern of the marvel to that all speak goes from strength to strength, from to such to such, bringing or giving, I undertake the narrative that the thought of those hearing may shine inwardly most wisely.]]. And indeed, the speech given by God that he well arranges from my open mouth, just as perhaps the snake that we read of in the Bible [pl.] that he has given, this I shall narrate and have set down [future + perfect? I will look that up later and revise].

Which is quite impressive, as far as it goes – thank you, Joel!  Michael Holmes added a couple of suggestions (thank you):

(Since you want just a simple straightforward account, to oblige you) from now on I’ll choose rather to tell the story of N’s greatest successes and not to sing his praises over again, since perhaps a narrative is usually easy on the ear. And if encomium somehow gets intertwined with the narrative, that gift of grace is to be attributed to God and to your faith, to God that gives and to your faith that is furnished by His generosity …

… I stand ready to tell what eye-witness or book-reading has provided.

Unfortunately other demands on his time intervened, and it was clearly a difficult task.  I then asked another (very capable) translator to have a go, and he ran into language difficulties also.

I wondered whether this was a matter of the language being so late; so I did a search for resources on medieval Greek, Byzantine hagiography, etc, and came up with very little. My next thought was to write to some scholars in the field, asking for advice on lexica etc. I reproduce parts of their responses here, precisely in case someone else is hunting for a road into medieval Greek.

First I wrote to Dr Alice-Mary Talbot and asked her advice on this.  She kindly responded:

I wish your translator well, but it takes time and the reading of many texts to make the adjustment to medieval Greek.  Of course the middle Byz. texts differ from each other, with some being very Atticizing, others being in a lower style.  The two main dictionaries he should be using, in addition to Liddell-Scott, are Lampe’s Patristic Greek Lexikon and Erich Trapp’s Lexikon zur byzantinischen Grazitat (not yet complete, but up to tau).  As for books on the development of medieval Greek, he should look at Geoffrey Horrocks, Greek : a history of the language and its speakers, and Robert Browning, Medieval and Modern Greek.

I note that bootleg PDFs of Horrocks and Browning can be found online with little difficulty, thankfully; but I would guess that anyone seeking to get a lot out of them would be best advised to do so on paper, and use them as bed-time reading.

Another correspondent, “Inepti Graeculi”, suggested that I write to John A. Lee:

John A. L. Lee may be worth a contact. He is an expert on LXX Greek but is nuts on all things Greek. He’s also a lexicographer and has written a history of (NT) Greek lexicography so he may know of  obscure dictionaries etc that may be a help. He’s an honorary fellow at Macquarie these days and a nice guy.

So I did.  His response was very useful indeed:

I have had a quick look at the text online and I can see what your translator is up against. This is top-register literary Greek, based on Classical models and using all the devices of Classical grammar and rhetoric as developed in later centuries. It will not yield its meaning easily. A long training, beginning with Classical Greek, is what is really needed. I am not just saying this to put you (or him) off or to seem superior.

There are actually no specialist lexica or grammars that cover it fully. One will need to be ready to use all resources, namely:

A grammar of ancient Greek, esp. Smyth’s Greek Grammar + NT grammars (MHT, BDF).

Lexicons:
– LSJ (big edition + Suppl.)
– Lampe, Patristic Greek Lexicon
– Sophocles, Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods
– BDAG, NT lexicon
– Muraoka, LXX lexicon
– possibly one that covers Modern +, such as Babiniotis.

Even with these, there will be problematic constructions and uses. Tenacity (and time) will be needed.

The same correspondent (IG) pointed out that a free Latin translation of Methodius ad Theodorum was made by John the Deacon – this information from Wace: the hagiographical works, p.252 with more on p.238 – and that:

John the Deacon’s Vita Nicholai is in vol 2 of Mombribius’s Sanctuarium here at archive org (starting at page 296 = printed page number)

It’s allegedly a translation from the Greek and I found one reference that says it’s a translation of Methodius.

Nearly all of the Lexikon zur byzantinischen Gräzität (Lexicon for Byzantine Greek) should now be on line via TLG (one more fascicle to go) – http://www.tlg.uci.edu/lbg/aboutlbg.html#

This Greek portal has Kriarias, but that is useful for vulgar Greek and would be for later than 10th century:
http://www.greek-language.gr/greekLang/medieval_greek/kriaras/index.html

Cambridge Uni is well behind on their grammar of Medieval Greek. Geoffrey Horrocks was supposed to be involved with that. He’s probably the pre-eminent English speaking historian of the Greek language around today. His book on the history of the Greek language – 2nd ed. will give you some tips as to phonetic and morphological changes etc and different ‘dialects’ and registers of the time but it won’t be enough.

Actually that Greek portal does have a biblio for medieval Greek helps (only in the Greek section , but many refs in latin alphabet and Google translate is not bad with modern Greek)

For example:
http://www.greek-language.gr/greekLang/medieval_greek/bibliographies/loanword_terminology/bibliography.html?g=1

All of which is very interesting!

We may have to defer Methodius ad Theodorum; but it’s produced a lot of interesting information so far!

UPDATE: Some extra info from IG on Chrysostom’s language, which may or may not be useful considering his impact later:

I was wondering how does one identify an Atticist and how does their Greek differ say from ‘Attic’ which itself is a little slippery to define. Thucydides for example wrote in a sort of ‘international Attic’  whereas others might be said to have written in parochial Attic (say Lysias) (Geoffrey Horrocks book – pricey so try a library – is very good for this – but only at a high level).

I really can’t speak for 9th or 10th century Greek which is what we are dealing with. For the fourth century I have two references of Chrysostom’s Attic but I don’t think they will be of use to him:

Ameringer: The Stylistic Influence of the Second Sophistic on the Panegyrical Sermons of St John Chrysostom  (this is on Archive org but one copy has the last few pages missing so check before you download. Apparently similar studies were done on other fourth century authors)

Soffray: Rescherches sur la syntaxe de saint Jean Chrysostome d’apres les homelies sur les statues (this should be well and truly out of copyright but I can’t find it anywhere)

There is a big online dictionary that deals with Gregory Nazanzien’s (? I hope I have the right Gregory) vocab but that is available only through good research libraries. Access is pricey and its in German.

Frankly I find using classical lexicons (eg LSJ rather than Lampe) and grammars more useful for Chrysostom. And I find that he draws terminology from the Stoics, Aristotle and goodness knows what else, as do some of the ps Chrysostomica and ps Athanasia.

UPDATE: Bryson Sewell has had a go, and managed a draft of the first two pages, which he has kindly made available in case they are helpful.  These are here: Translation – Methodius ad Theodorum – First Draft (PDF) and here: Translation – Methodius ad Theodorum – First Draft (.docx).

And IG has transcribed the last page (bottom of p.555-end of 556), so let’s make that available also:

Καὶ ἐπὶ πᾶσι θαυμάσας καὶ προστησάμενος κρησφύγετον ἄσυλον τὸν μέγαν Νικόλαον ἔχε πρὸς πειρασμῶν λύτρωσιν πρεσβείαν θεῷ εὐυπήκοον, πρὸς νόσων ἐκδρασμὸν καθάρσιον εὔποτον, πρὸς πόλεμον σαρκὸς ἀνταγωνιστὴν δυσκαταμάχητον, πρὸς φιλίαν θεοῦ εἰκόνα ἀπαραχάρακτον, πρὸς ἔχθραν δαιμόνων ἐνστήλωμα ἀνεπίκλητον, πρὸς χρείαν πενήτων χαρακτήρα ἀρχέτυπον, πρὸς ζῆλον δογμάτων κανόνα εὐθύτατον, πρὸς διδαχὴν πρᾳότητος λύραν θεοτίνακτον, πρὸς ἐγκρατείας τόνον νεκρῶσεως τύμπανον, πρὸς ἀγνείας ἱδρῶτα δρόσον ἀνομβρίζοντα, πρὸς ἡνίαν σωμάτων πύκτην ἀνεπίψογον, πρὸς φρονήσεως κτῆσιν πολυκερδῆ ἔμπορον, πρὸς τάξιν ἀνδρεῖας ζυγὸν ἀνεπίκλητον, πρὸς κρίματα λόγων πρυτάνην ὸξύτητος, πρὸς δράματα τρόπων σοφὸν ἀκακούργητον, πρὸς νόμον πρακτέων σπαρτίον εὐθύτατον, πρὸς νοῦν ἀπευκταῖον θυμὸν εὐσυλλόγιστον, πρὸς θράσος ἀνοίας ἀργίας ἐπίγνωσιν, πρὸς θάρσος εὐνοίας συλλήπτορα τάχιστον, πρὸς μνήμην θανάτου νεκρὸν ἐμπνοώτατον, πρὸς τύπον ἐγέρσεως τὸ κλήσει παρίστασθαι, πρὸς πλάτος ἀγάπης τὸ χρᾶσθαι αὐτῷ καὶ ὁμώνυμα, πρὸς ἐλπίδα μελλόντων παρόντων καταφρόνησιν, πρὸς ζωὴν αἰωνίαν ἑκούσιον νέκρωσιν. καὶ πάντα πρὸς τούτου μαθητευόμενος γνησιώτατα, ποίησον σεαυτῷ τὴν ὅλην βιοτὴν τοῦ σοφωτάτου Νικολάου ἀλφάβητον ἰδιόκτητον. καὶ ὡς ἐκ γραμμάτων τῶν εἰρημένων πάντων στοιχειασθεὶς τὴν καρδίαν σου, ὃ θέλεις ἢ πράττειν ἢ λέγειν ἢ ἐννοεῖν, προσφιλέστατε, λάμβανε κατὰ νοῦν τὸν μέγαν Νικόλαον καὶ ὅρα, εἰ γέγονεν αὐτῷ ἐκείνῳ ἢ λελάληται ἢ ἐννενόηται, καὶ πρᾶττε κατ’ ἐκεῖνον, ὡς ἐντεθύμηται ἢ λελάληκεν αὐτὸς ἢ πεποίηκεν. οἱ γὰρ ἅγιοι, μιμηταὶ τοῦ κυρίου ἀκριβεῖς γενηθέντες, διὰ τῆς πρὸς αῦτοὺς χαρακτηρίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἡμᾶς μιμητὰς καθιστῶσι, ?? φησιν ὁ μέγας ἀπόστολος· «μιμηταί μου γίνεσθε, καθὼς κἀγὼ Χριστοῦ». καὶ λοιπὸν ὅλον τοῦ ὁσίου τὸν βίον γράμματα ἔχων, οἷάπερ ἔφαμεν, ἐξ αὐτοῦ λαμβάνων τὰ σχήματα εὐθέτως διατίθει τὰ πράγματα· ἵνα, ὃν ἀγαπᾶς κατὰ ψυχὴν καὶ περιέχει Νικόλαον, τοῦτον καὶ ζηλοῖς ἐπ’ ἔργοις καὶ μιμῇ διὰ βῖου παντὸς πατροπόθητα, κἀντεῦθεν ἐπαξίως τῆς διαθέσεως συγκληρωθείης αὐτῷ τῆν νίκην ἐν μέσῳ τῷ λαῷ σου καὶ γένῃ θεοδώρητον φερωνύμημα, τὸ αὐτὸ καὶ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν προσευχόμενος, χάριτι καὶ φιλανθρωπίᾳ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ᾧ ἡ δόξα σὺν τῷ πατρὶ καὶ τῷ ἁγίῳ πνεύματι εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. ἀμήν.

If anybody feels like typing up some more of the text, and contributing it in the comments, then please do.  Apparently it makes the task of working with it, using the LSJ and TLG, much easier for those wanting to do so!

UPDATE: Transcriptions of more portions of the text by Joel Eidsath can be found in the comments!

Share
  1. [1]G. Anrich, Hagios Nikolaos, 2 vols. Leipzig, 1913.

The Annals of Eutychius of Alexandria (10th c. AD) – chapter 11 (part 1)

The memory of the Great Persecution, under Diocletian, persisted.  Unfortunately the details seem to have been entirely forgotten by Eutychius’ time, and been replaced by fiction.

1. Diocletian began to reign in the eleventh year of the reign of Sabur, son of Hurmuz, king of the Persians.  Together with Diocletian reigned Maximian called Ilkūriyūs (1).  They reigned over the Romans for twenty years.  They inflicted on the Christians great misfortunes and long affliction, painful suffering and great tribulations, too great, in truth, to be described.  They caused the Christians all kinds of evil by killing them and confiscating their property.  Only God knows how many Christians they put to death!  In their days there were thousands and thousands of martyrs (2).  They tortured St George in various ways and put him to death in Palestine.  Saint George (3) was a native of Cappadocia.  They also put to death St. Menna, Sts. Victor, Fikinitiyūs, Abimacus and Mercurius.  In the tenth year of their reign Peter was made Patriarch of Alexandria.  He held the office for ten years.  In the twentieth year of their reign this Peter was beheaded in Alexandria.  In the first year of their reign Eutychianus was made patriarch of Rome (4).  He held the office for eight years and died.  In the ninth year of their reign Gaius was made patriarch of Rome (5).  He held the office for twelve years and died.  In the tenth year of their reign Awriyus [=Tyrannus] was made patriarch of Antioch.  He held the office for eleven years and died.  In the fifth year of their reign Māmūnis was made bishop of Jerusalem  (6).  He held the office for thirteen years and died.  In the eighteenth year of their reign Zabdas was made bishop of Jerusalem.  He held the office for ten years and died.

2. Peter, patriarch of Alexandria, had two disciples: one was called Ashīllà (7) and the other Alexander.  There also lived in Alexandria, a heretic named Arius who said:  “Only the Father is God, and the Son is a created being and made.  The Father has always been, but the Son was not”.  Then the patriarch Peter said to his two disciples: “Christ, [our] the Lord has cursed this Arius.  Beware, therefore, from accepting him or his doctrine.  In truth I have seen in a dream, while I was sleeping, Christ with his clothes torn and asked him: “Who has torn your clothes, my Lord?” And he answered me: ‘Arius’. Beware then of bringing him into the church with you.”  Five years after the murder of Peter, Patriarch of Alexandria, his disciple Asilla was made patriarch of Alexandria.  He held the office for six years and died.  Arius pleaded the cause of his friends before the patriarch Asilla, giving proof that he had repented of his perverse doctrine and his wickedness.  Asilla had then welcomed him and admitted in his church as  a consecrating priest.  Diocletian, meanwhile, was trying the Christians and putting them to death.

He was busy hunting them down when he came to a place called Dalmatia (8).  Here the vengeance of God fell upon him, and his body began to decompose and he was suffering from a horrible disease and such great wounds that of his flesh was filled with worms which fell to the ground.  Finally even his tongue and palate broke away and he died.  As for Maximian, called Herculeus, he also contracted a disease that burned his body to a crisp, and he died in Tarsus (9).  After them reigned Maxentius (10), son of Maximian.  Joining with him another Maximian called Galerius (11) reigned, for nine years.  This happened in the thirty-second year of the reign of Sabur, son of Hurmuz, Persian.  The two divided the kingdom between them: Maximian, called Galerius, reigned over the east, over Syria and the territory of Rum, while Maxentius ruled over the city of Rome and its territories.  Both acted towards the Christians like beasts and inflicted on them indescribable misfortunes and extermination like no other king before them had ever done.  Reigning with them over Byzantium and its territories was Constantius (12), father of Constantine.  He was a peaceful man, pious, a hater of idols and a lover of the Christians.  Constantius went into Mesopotamia and ar-Ruha (13).  Stopping in a village of the district of ar-Ruha, named Kafr-Fakhkhār, he happened to come across a handsome woman named Helena, who had received baptism at the hands of Barsiqā, bishop of ar-Ruha, and had learned to read the sacred books.  Constantius asked her father for her hand, and he gave her to him as his wife.  The woman became pregnant by him, and Constantius returned to Byzantium.  Helena gave birth to a son, fine-featured, gentle, intelligent, reluctant to do evil, and a lover of wisdom, named Constantine, who was educated in ar-Ruha and learned the wisdom of the Greeks (14).

3. Maximian, called Galerius, was a coarse, violent man, full of hatred against the Christians and their implacable enemy; a womanizer to the point that he wouldn’t allow any Christian girl to flee without arresting, raping and killing her.  And even as he and his men deflowered the Christian virgins, they took possession of the their property and killed them.  The Christians suffered at their hands enormous tribulations.  It happened that one day someone spoke to Maximian of Constantine and described him as a quiet young man, who kept away from evil and was well educated.  His astrologers even told him that he would become king of a great kingdom.  He therefore thought to kill him, but Constantine heard of it and fled from the city of ar-Ruha, taking refuge in Byzantium, where he came to his father, Constantius, who gave him the kingdom.  A little later Constantius, Constantine’s father, died and God caused the king Maximian serious disease to the point that his decomposing flesh fell into pieces and rolled on the ground so that no-one could stand to be nearby: even his enemies had compassion on him because of the misfortune that had struck him. He came to himself and said: “Maybe this is my punishment because I killed the Christians.”  Letters were sent to all his provinces, ordering the release of the Christians, to honour them, not hurt them, and asked them to raise prayers of intercession for the king.  The Christians prayed for the king and interceded for him.  God gave him healing and then he became more vigorous and healthier than he had been at first.  But being healed and recovered, he resolved to be more evil than usual and sent letters in all his provinces giving the order to put to death the Christians, to exterminate them to the last in his kingdom, not to allow them to live in any city and in any village and annihilate them wherever they were.  Countless Christians, men women and children, were killed.  And many were the dead that were loaded onto wagons and thrown in the sea or in the desert.

4. In the city of Cappadocia there were killed Sergius and Bacchus (15), both citizens of that city, and Saint Barbara.  In the second year of the reign of Maximian Brtāliyūs was made patriarch of Antioch.  He held the office for six years and died.  In the third year of his reign Marcellus was made patriarch of Rome (16). He held the seat for two years and died.

Share

More online Greek manuscripts at the British Library

Another batch of Greek manuscripts has gone online at the British Library, which is excellent news.  It’s a fairly miscellaneous batch, but that’s all to the good.  New discoveries are not likely to be made in the “mainstream” manuscripts that are turned over constantly; but rather in those which are never handled or examined.

Here are some of the highlights (and, drat them, I see that they’ve busted the copy-and-paste again):

  • Add MS 36589, Sermons by Chrysostom, Amphilochius.  Eusebius of Caesarea, Martyrs of Palestine (long recension), plus saint’s lives 12th century.
  • Add MS 39606, Gregory of Nazianzus, Orationes, followed by extracts from Pseudo-Nonnus, Scholia mythologica.
  • Add MS 39618, Athanasius, Quaestiones ad Antiochum ducem [Sp.]. (TLG 2035.077). A longer version of Quaestio 1 than is printed in the Patrologia Graeca.  16th c.  Plus a couple of other items.
  • Burney MS 60, “Apparatus Bellicis” (whatever that may be), 16th c.  Includes extracts from Julius Africanus’ Kestoi, book 7.  Might be mathematical.  There’s a table of contents on fol. 2.
  • Burney MS 75, Letters by or attributed to classical and Byzantine figures, including Libanius, Nicholas Cabasilas, Brutus, Demetrius Cydones, Gregory of Nazianzus, and others. Written in part by the scribe Δημήτριος Ραοὺλ Καβάκης (ff 138r-144v, 177r-178v); formerly erroneously ascribed to Ἰωάσαφ. Greece (Mistra) or Italy, Central (Rome), mid-15th century.  Mostly letters of Gregory Nazianzen, but various interesting bits.  Also a Life of Libanius from Eunapius.
  • Burney MS 84, Proclus of Athens, In Platonis Alcibiadem I (TLG 4036.007), imperfect. Italy, N.? 4th quarter of the 16th century.

Also some biblical stuff, and various bits of Byzantine stuff that probably would repay opening and looking!

Share

Sayings attributed to Jesus in Muslim sources, translated by Anthony Alcock

In the Patrologia Orientalis 13 and 19 is a collection of deeds and sayings attributed to Jesus in Muslim sources of the 10th-11th century.  This was edited by Miguel Asin y Palacios in 1919 and 1924.  Asin apparently took the curious view that these went back to the 1st century.  (Anyone familiar at all with Arabic literature will be aware how much story-telling and elaboration features in it, so we need not take that opinion very seriously!)  But it is good to have these things, since they will undoubtedly pop up in odd places.

Anthony Alcock has started to translate this edition into English, and he has kindly made it available online to us all, with an explanatory introduction.  Here is the first part:

Enjoy!

Share

The Annals of Eutychius of Alexandria (10th c. AD) – chapter 10 (part 4 and end)

Let’s continue using Google translate on the Italian translation of the Annals, with some smoothing and correcting, and see what Eutychius has to say.  This section again contains a chunk from the lost Sassanid Persian chronicle.

16. Ghallitīnūs Caesar, King of the Romans, died.  After him Claudius Caesar (61) reigned in Rome, for one year only.  This happened in the third year of the reign of Hurmuz, king of the Persians.  In the first year of the reign of Claudius Caesar, Paul was made patriarch of Antioch.  He held the office for eight years and died.  He was called Paul of Samosata because he was from the city of Samosata and it was he who gave rise to the sect of the Paulicians.  The followers of his religion and the supporters of his doctrine were in fact called Paulicians from his name, i.e. Paul.  Paul of Samosata maintained that Christ, our Lord, was a man and was created by the Deity, just as each of us is, as to the substance, which is the principle of the Son of Mary, and that he was to be chosen to become the saviour of the human substance, was visited by divine grace that entered him by means of Love and Will, and was therefore called the Son of God.  He went further by saying that God is one substance and one person, and he did not believe in the Word or in the Holy Spirit.  After his death thirteen bishops gathered in the city of Antioch, examined the case and the doctrine, and after excommunicating him and the advocates of the doctrine, they returned each to his own home.

17. Claudius Caesar, King of the Romans, died.  After him Aurelian Caesar (62) reigned over the Romans, in Rome, for five years.  This happened in the fourth year of the reign of Hurmuz, son of Narsi, king of the Persians.  In the first year of the reign of Aurelian Caesar Dionysius was made Patriarch of Rome (63).  He held the office for eight years and died.  In the fourth year of his reign Neron was made patriarch of Alexandria.  He held the seat for nineteen years and died.  The Christians of Alexandria had been accustomed to pray in quarries and houses, secretly, for fear that the Romans might kill them, and the patriarch of Alexandria until then never appeared in public.  But as soon as Neron became patriarch, he began to be seen in public and always treated the Romans with so much grace that he obtained the right to construct a church in Alexandria in honor of the Lady Martmaryam.  In the fifth year of his reign [i.e. Aurelian Caesar], Hurmuz, son of Narsi, king of the Persians, died, without leaving a son to take his place.  But one of his wives was pregnant, and when the people asked: “Can you tell us if you bear a male or a female child?”  “I feel,” she said, “that the baby moves to the right, even though it does not weigh much.  So this is a sign that it will be a male child.”  Great was their joy, and they put the crown on the lap of the woman.  In fact, she gave birth to a male child, whose name was Sabur (64), and he is the one who was later nicknamed “Dhu’l-Aktāf” [i.e. “detaching from behind”] because every time he conquered a king, he dislocated his shoulder blades.  So the joy of the Persians was great, because of her.

18.  Aurelian Caesar, King of the Romans, died.  After him reigned Tacitus and Qūrinūs (65) for nine months and they were killed.  After them Marūnus Caesar (66) reigned over the Romans for six years.  This happened in the third year of the reign of Sabur, son of Hurmuz, king of the Persians.  In the third year of the reign of Marūnus, Felix was made patriarch of Rome (67).  He held the office for five years and died.  In the second year of his reign, Cyrillus was made patriarch of Antioch.  He held the seat for fifteen years and died.

19.  Marūnus Caesar, King of the Romans, died.  After him Farus (68) Caesar reigned, along with his two sons Fan (69) and Nūmāziyānūs (70), for two years.  This happened in the ninth year of the reign of Sabur, son of Hurmuz.  He was cruel against the Christians, and it was he who put to death the two brother-martyrs Cosmas and Damian.

The king Farus died and his two sons were killed.  After him Diocletian Caesar (71) reigned over the Romans, in Rome.

20. From the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in the reign of Diocletian had passed two hundred and six years; from the birth of Christ, our Lord, to the king Diocletian had passed two hundred seventy-six years; from the reign of Alexander to the reign of Diocletian there passed five hundred ninety-five years; from the captivity of Babylon to the reign of Diocletian had passed eight hundred fifty-eight years; from David to the reign of Diocletian had passed thirteen hundred thirty-five years; from the exodus of the children of Israel from Egypt to the reign of Diocletian had passed nineteen hundred forty-one years;  from Abraham to the reign of Diocletian had passed two thousand four hundred forty-eight years; from Faliq to Diocletian had passed two thousand nine hundred eighty-nine years; from the flood to Diocletian had passed three thousand five hundred twenty years; from Adam to Diocletian had passed five thousand seven hundred seventy-six years.

Share

Latin scribes getting Greek numerals wrong – authorial corrections in the text of Jerome’s Chronicle

Sometime before 325 AD, Eusebius of Caesarea compiled his Chronicle, in two books.  The second volume exploited the new, large-size, parchment codex, and consisted of page after page of tables of dates and events, synchronising events in different kingdoms, and laying the basis for all subsequent history.[1]  Around 380, Jerome came across a copy in Constantinople, and translated it into Latin.  A copy of his translation dated to 450 AD is held in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, where I have seen it; and 10 copies exist dated before 1000 AD.  Eusebius’ original Greek, unfortunately, did not survive.

The manuscripts split into two families, each based on a 5th century exemplar.  These are the group of 4 mss, SANP; and the group of 2, OM.  (A list, explaining each letter, can be found here).

In a fascinating paper which deserves to be better known,[2] Alden Mosshammer noticed that OM preserve errors of translation, which were corrected in SANP.   One of these requires access to the Greek.

Here’s the first example, (References are to Schoene’s 1956 edition, but you can find these in the online translation fairly easily).

P.217, line 24.

  • [Original] ἆθλα μ’ …  (nnn ran in the contest for the birthday of Rome …)
  • OM = athalamos natali romanae urbis cucurrit (currit M)  = “Athalamos ran in the contest…”
  • A = XL missus natali romanae urbis cucurrerunt = “40 ran in the contest…”
  • PN = quadraginta missus natali romanae urbis cucurrerunt = “40 ran in the contest…”

(I don’t know Greek numerals – what is the original number in Arabic numerals?)

It seems that Jerome dictated the numeral as a proper name, and the scribe wrote it down as one.  Somebody corrected it later, but OM preserve the dictation error.  Access to the Greek is required to spot this one.

The following example does not require consulting the Greek, and is in fact just a scribal correction:

P.83b, lines 21-23, is a heading.  It gives the name of Alcamenes, who was the 9th king of Sparta, and then the years of his reign follow below the heading.

  • [Original] = θἈλκαμένης  (i.e. “9. Alcamenes”).
  • O = thalcamenes
  • M = thalcamenis
  • A = VIIII menes
  • P = VIIII tarcamenes
  • N = VIIII tharcamenes

OM think the text reads “Thalcamenes”.  But the copyist SANP realised that the first letter was actually the number 9, although they still didn’t get the name right.  Possibly they realised this, because all the kings have numbers, so they inserted “VIIII” (i.e. “IX”) in front.

Here I have a little personal experience to contribute.

Scribes copied the names the first, and worked down the columns, rather than across.  When I transcribed the chronicle, I found that this was much the quickest and safest way.  The only problem was that you might write too many numerals, and suddenly realise that after year 9 there is a new king!  In the Bodleian ms (O), indeed, you see erasures of just this kind.  In HTML, luckily, I could just go back.

So the scribe will have quickly realised that a numeral was missing, and added it; although he could not determine the correct spelling of the name.  This correction could have occurred at any time, tho.

Mosshammer gives only these examples, and a couple of others which do not bear on this question.

Numerals in Greek are vulnerable things.  The first example proves that even St. Jerome could be foxed.  In this case, the lists of unfamiliar names, preceded by numerals, were a perfect occasion for error.

Share
  1. [1]The online translation may be found here (part 1).
  2. [2]Alden Mosshammer, “Luca Bibl. Capit. 490 and the manuscript tradition of Hieronymus’ (Eusebius’) Chronicle”, California Studies in Classical Antiquity 8 (1975), pp. 203-240.  Online at JSTOR here.