Category: Announcements

General announcements

Creating addiction – are there links between Wikipedia and the techniques used by online computer game sites?

Posted on by Roger Pearse

I read today a troubling article about online “free-to-play” games, which instantly reminded me of Wikipedia, and the way in which people become hooked on participating in it.  Chasing the whale: examining the ethics of free-to-play games is about online games, that encourage addiction in order to profit from the vulnerable.

“I’d use birthday money, I’d eat cheaper lunches, I’d ask my wife to pay for dinner so I’d have a spare $10-$20 to spend in the store. Which does mean, I guess, that I was thinking about it even away from the game.”

Chris was in his mid-20s when he began spending a few dollars here and there on Team Fortress 2. All of his friends had recently moved out of town, and his wife was now working a nighttime job, leading him to take solace in an online TF2 community.   …

“I’ve never really been addicted to anything else, so I can’t say for certain whether a ‘real’ addiction would be stronger,” he notes. “I would say that it felt akin to what I’d expect a compulsive gambling addiction would feel like — social pressures reinforced a behavior that kept me searching for an adrenaline rush I’d never be able to recapture, even as it kept me from making progress in life.”

“There were nights where I’d be up until 3 am drinking beer and playing Team Fortress and chasing those silly hats with purple text, ignoring the gambler’s fallacy and swearing that if I dropped another $50 I’d be sure to win this time,” he adds. “Then I’d wake up the next morning and see that I’d not only spent over a hundred dollars on digital hats, but failed my only objective by uncrating a bunch of junk.” …

Chris’ behavior during this time is how people in the video game industry would describe a “whale”– someone who spends large amounts on free-to-play games, and essentially makes the business model viable by balancing out the 99 percent of players who don’t ever fork out a dime.

And while Chris is happy to admit that a portion of his addiction was no doubt down to his own silly mistakes, he reasons, “I have to question whether a business model built on exploiting ‘whales’ like me isn’t somewhat to blame. Free-to-play games aren’t after everyone for a few dollars — they’re after weak people in vulnerable states for hundreds, if not thousands.”

But what causes people to do this?  Well, it isn’t entirely voluntary; not unless we presume that businesses merely hope for the best in such situations.

I also received messages from people who claimed to be ex-employees at free-to-play companies, and who told me that their respective employers would often build games purposely to entrap these “whales.”  …

“I used to work at [company], and it paid well and advanced my career,” the person told me. “But I recognize that [company]’s games cause great harm to people’s lives. They are designed for addiction. [company] chooses what to add to their games based on metrics that maximize players’ investments of time and money. [company]’s games find and exploit the right people, and then suck everything they can out of them, without giving much in return. It’s not hard to see the parallels to the tobacco industry.  ….

The ex-employee says that it all comes down to one main point: “Enabling self-destructive behavior is wrong.”

“It’s wrong when the tobacco and gambling industries do it, and it’s a shame that portions of the game industry do it too,” they added.

There is some research coming into being, and I highlight a couple of passages:

Dr. Mark D. Griffiths is a psychologist and director of the International Gaming Research Unit in the psychology department at Nottingham Trent University. The professor is well known for his research in the field of video game addiction and gambling.

Griffiths published a paper last year in which he argued that social games have gambling-like elements, even when there is no money involved whatsoever — rather, they introduce the principles of gambling through in-app purchases.

“On first look, games like FarmVille may not seem to have much connection to gambling, but the psychology behind such activities is very similar,” he argues. “Even when games do not involve money, they introduce players to the principles and excitement of gambling. Companies like Zynga have been accused of leveraging the mechanics of gambling to build their empire.”

One element that Griffiths has found to be particularly key in encouraging gambling-like behavior in free-to-play games is the act of random reinforcement — that is, the unpredictability of winning or getting other types of intermittent rewards.

“Small unpredictable rewards lead to highly engaged and repetitive behavior,” he says. “In a minority of cases, this may lead to addiction.”  …

Isn’t the goal of every social media site to get people “highly engaged”?  Isn’t that what Wikipedia seeks to do to visitors?

In another paper published earlier this year with his colleague Michael Auer, Griffiths argues that “the most important factors along with individual susceptibility and risk factors of the individual gambler are the structural characteristics relating to the speed and frequency of the game rather than the type of game.”

“The general rule is that the higher the event frequency, the more likely it is that the gambling activity will cause problems for the individual (particularly if the individual is susceptible and vulnerable),” he adds. “Problem and pathological gambling are essentially about rewards, and the speed and frequency of those rewards. Almost any game could be designed to either have high event frequencies or low event frequencies.” ….

Griffiths is keen to stress that, as of yet, the psychosocial impact of free-to-play games are only just beginning to be investigated by people in the field of games.

“Empirically, we know almost nothing about the psychosocial impact of gambling via social networking sites, although research suggests the playing of free games among adolescents is one of the risk factors for both the uptake of real gambling and problem gambling,” he adds.

Of course the extraction of money is not a feature of Wikipedia.  But inducing people to spend time contributing emphatically is.

I’m not suggesting  that the owners of Wikipedia are setting out to do harm to their contributors.  My impression is that they are instead largely indifferent to the welfare of contributors, and enjoying creating their encyclopedia.

But the sort of motivators, which we see being exploited and described in the article, may well be happening in Wikipedia also.

I wonder how many “whales” there are, among Wikipedia contributors, getting that “buzz” by spending time on the site?

Share

Why Codinus did not write the works ascribed to him – by Theodor Preger

Posted on by Roger Pearse

The Patria — the historical works describing the monuments of Constantinople — are ascribed to George Codinus in some of the manuscripts.  Averil Cameron states[1] that:

Preger demonstrated in 1895 (op. cit. n.8) that these works belong to the tenth century and are not (as previously supposed) by George Codinus.

The reference given in Cameron tends to confuse the reader as the only works of Preger referenced there are the 1901-7 Scriptores Originum Constantinopolitarum and the 1898 Anonymi Byzantini edition of the Parastaseis.  Fortunately a bit of digging reveals the answer.  In fact[2] this is a reference to an 1895 study of the textual tradition entitled Beiträge zur Textgeschichte der πάτρια Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, (München 1895).  This may be found online at the Universitätsbibliothek Eichstätt-Ingolstadt and indeed elsewhere.

Preger deals with the matter incisively in the very first paragraph of his work (p.4):

It was the opinion of Lambeck, in his De Codini vita et scriptis, repeated also by Krumbacher in his history of literature, a scholar named George Kodinos in the 15th century published three works: 1. Peri twn o)ffikiwn tou= palation Kpolews [De officiis] 2. the Patria Kpo/lews and 3. a low-quality chronicle.  Yet Lambeck himself, in his edition of the Patria made use of a manuscript which can be dated at the latest to the 14th century (Paris gr. 854; labelled H by me).  In fact the unknown-to-him manuscript Munich  218 is 11th or 12th century.  Either Kodinos lived earlier or he is not the author of the Patria.

He continues:

The reason why Lambeck placed Kodinos in the 15th century was because the chronicle written by him finishes with the fall of Constantinople to the Turks.  This wretched concoction follows the Patria in many manuscripts, but is anonymous.  The fact that the works are transmitted together tells us nothing about the authorship of either.  Probably the chronicle has nothing to do with Kodinos.  Nor can we get clues about his life from the Officia aulae Cpolitanae.  For even in this work, the name of the author is based only on conjecture.

The Officia was first edited in 1588 by Franciscus Junius from a manuscript of Julius Pacius.  The title read, “Tou= sofwta/tou kouropala/tou peri\ tw=n o)ffikiali/wn” etc.  So it stands also in ms. Munich 247; in Munich 156 the first two words “tou= sofwta/tou” are missing.

Both manuscripts were written by Andreas Damarios.  The vague official title “curopalates” only occurs in manuscripts from Damarios — Lambeck claims that he didn’t find it in any manuscript — so the likelihood that is authentic is very weak.

When Junius published the De officia for the second time in 1596, he printed the title as “Georgi/ou tou= Kwdinou= peri\ tw=n o)ffikiali/wn” etc.  because, as he indicates on p.7, in one manuscript the title read “Parekbolai e)k th=j bi/blioi tou= xronikou= peri\ tw=n patrw=n th=j Kwnstantinoupo.lewj . . . . . . sunteqei=sai para\ Fewgri/ou tou= Kwdinou=”.

There is a footnote on “in one manuscript”:

On the title he states: “… recens lacunas non exiguas ope Mss. Palatinae bibliothecae, Augustanae et Seileranae supplevit.”  There is no manuscript of the Patria among the Augustanae manuscripts.  There are two mss (70 and 301) among the Palatine mss., which include the Patria with the above title and the Officia.  Where the Seiler manuscript might be found I do not know.

He continues:

So Junius committed a very serious error: he mixed up the titles of two sequential works, the Patria and the Officia, in the same manuscript.  Although Gretser, in his edition of the Officia notes this mistake, he still attributes the work to Georgios Kodinos, probably on no other ground than that he believed that the works in the manuscript were written by the same man.  He cites no manuscript evidence, and I have not found the name of Kodinos attached to the Officia in any manuscript.

At this point Preger adds a footnote that he has found a manuscript in the Vatican, Barberini gr. 164, where under p.13, is a note associating the two.  But this manuscript too is a Damarios production: and he states that no confidence can be placed in any title given by Damarios.  To this effect he quotes Muratori (in Latin): “In one word: so dishonest was Andreas Damarios the Epirote, that we should believe nothing from him nor in his book titles.”

The Officia are to us just as anonymous as the chronicle; they seem to have been written during or after the reign of John Cantacuzene (1341-55).

The name of Georgios Kodinos is only found before the Patria here also only in one family of manuscripts which shows other deviations from the original.  It seems likely that Kodinos is merely the name of the scholar to whom we owe the recension of the text of the Patria found in the family of manuscripts that I have labelled B.  I will say more about this later.  At the moment I will say only that the entry on the fall of the porphyry column in 1106 AD (Bekker p. 15,13 ff) is an interpolation from B.  This is also the latest date mentioned in the work.  All the manuscripts of B are from the 16th century or at most from the end of the 15th century.  It is therefore possible that Kodinos lived in the 15th century, although we cannot prove it.  Our only certainty is that his lifetime must be placed between 1106 and ca. 1450.

No author is given for the Patria in any manuscript other than the B mss.    In the remainder, there is no date later than the reign of Basil II. Bulgaroktonos (976 -1025)  (p. 128,1 ff. Bekker).

Unfortunately at this point the author drops into Greek, saying that the text is named on p.114,11.  From this reference he infers that the passage must be written between 989-1006 AD.  He continues:

In addition on p.145,6 it is stated that since the foundation of Hagia Sophia is 458 years.  This church was founded in 537 AD (see Clinton, Fasti Romani II 143 n.) which places this notice in the year 995 AD.  It is therefore certain that the author of the Patria Kpolews did not live in the 15th century but at the turn of the first millennium.

The argument as to the date is not quite conclusive; but the mysterious George Codinus is clearly no longer the author.

Share
  1. [1]Averil Cameron,  Constantinople in the Early Eighth Century: The Parastaseis Syntomoi Chronikai : Introduction, Translation, and Commentary, Brill (1984), p.4, n.15.↩
  2. [2]German Wikisource gives links to many of Preger’s works online↩

How to find the digital manuscripts at the Bodleian-Vatican project

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Lots of ballyhoo in the press, but it is remarkably difficult to find any actual manuscripts digitised by this project, paid for by Leonard Polonsky (to whom all kudos), between the Vatican and the Bodleian libraries.

Anyway, the Greek manuscripts to be digitised are listed here:

http://bav.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/items-to-be-digitized-greek-manuscripts

The tiny number that have been done so far are linkable.  Here are the mss that have been done:

The Vatican mss have a table of contents of what is in the manuscript, which is helpful.

The Bodleian seem to intend to do their Barocci manuscripts – mostly miscellaneous stuff, probably containing goodies since accessing them was always a pain.  That is rather a good idea.

Soberingly the Bodleian library is still ripping off scholars for reproductions.  They charged one poor scholar £200 (300 USD) for images of one Arabic manuscript recently, and bound him by fearsome threats to share the output – delivered as digital images – with nobody.

Share

From my diary

Posted on by Roger Pearse

A bit of a red-letter day today: the interior setup of the Origen book — or Origen of Alexandria: Exegetical works on Ezekiel as I must get used to calling it — is complete.  This evening I uploaded the PDF to Lulu.com (which I use to generate proof copies, because Lightning Source do not provide such a facility), and ordered myself a printed and bound copy with a blank cover.

This first proof copy will allow me to check that the PDF actually is right for the printer (well, for a printer), and that the text block doesn’t disappear into the binding and so on.

It’s now the Christmas period, so I don’t suppose this will appear until after Christmas.  But once it has, I will generate another proof copy for the translator; two pairs of eyes being better than one.  There’s bound to be glitches somewhere, but the typesetter, Simon Hartshorne (whom I found through PeoplePerHour.com), has really done an excellent and painstaking job.  He’s also verified the requirements of Lightning Source.  Let’s hope that the cold light of print doesn’t reveal too many errors on anybody’s part!

Of course I had no idea how long the book was going to be.  Lulu.com will only handle books up to 740 pages.  Fortunately the book is 738 pages, without endleaves, so it will just scrape in!

The cover design is finalised, and the templates for the hardback and softback covers will be obtained and completed this week.  Simon Hartshorne is doing the cover design as well, and he found a very acceptable pair of cover photographs.  It was almost a pity that we couldn’t use both!

I have to admit that Simon has rescued the project, which had languished for a year or two now.  The speed and efficiency with which he proceeded through the book — even though I don’t think that he had ever set up an academic book with facing Latin/Greek and English pages — gave everyone an impetus to do the 1% remaining writing.  He priced competitively as well.

It’s a big step forward.  I’m hoping to have the book on sale by the start of March 2014.

Share

More on the tombs of the emperors at the Church of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople

Posted on by Roger Pearse

The now-vanished Church of the Holy Apostles stood on a high place in Constantinople with views of the sea to north and south.  It stood in the western part of the city, standing on the main street which connected the Forum of Theodosius with the Charisian gate (Edirnekapi), and which corresponds to the modern Fevzi Pasha cadi.  It was built by Constantine and substantially rebuilt by Justinian, after which it took the form of a cross with a central dome and subsidiary domes, plus a number of buildings in the grounds.  It was in poor repair by 1453, and some of the mausolea were roofless by this time.  The church and its ancillary buildings were entirely destroyed by the Turks after they took the city, and the mosque of Mehmet Fatih – Mehmet the Conquerer – built on its site.[1]  It is described by Procopius in De aedificiis i.4.9-24,[2] and also in flowery terms by Byzantine writer Nicholas Mesarites, sometime between 1198-1203.[3]

800px-Istanbul_-_Museo_archeologico_-_Sarcofagi_imperiali_bizantini_-_Foto_G._Dall'Orto_28-5-2006_2
Porphyry sarcophagi of the emperors

Outside the archaeological museum in Istanbul stand four huge porphyry sarcophagi.[4]  These seem to have been found in the grounds of the Turkish Topkapi palace nearby, where they were brought, probably for use as building material, and then buried.[5]

That each early emperor was buried in a porphyry sarcophagus – larnax – is attested by the lists of tombs in the church given in the sources.  The first of these is contained in the Book of Ceremonies ii.42 by Constantine Porphyrogenitus.[6]  Mesarites describes the mausoleums – Heroons – in chapters 39-40.  Two other versions of the material appear in the Patria, texts about Constantinople of which I translated a portion last time, and in a manuscript printed by Du Cange.  There is also the Chronicon Altinate, which is included in the MGH but which for some reason I am entirely unable to find online at the MGH website.

Let’s have a look at the version in the Book of Ceremonies.

CONCERNING THE TOMBS OF THE EMPERORS WHICH ARE IN THE CHURCH OF THE HOLY APOSTLES

Heroon of the Holy and Great Constantine.

1. In the principal place, to the east, lies the sarcophagus of St. Constantine, [of] porphyry, or rather ‘Roman’ [stone], in which he himself lies with the blessed Helen his mother.
2. Another sarcophagus, [of] porphyry Roman [stone], in which lies Constantius the son of Constantine the Great.
3. Another sarcophagus, porphyry Roman, in which lies Theodosius the Great.
4. Another sarcophagus, green hieracites, in which lies Leo the Great.
5. Another sarcophagus, porphyry Roman, in which lies Marcianus with his wife Pulcheria.
6. Another sarcophagus, green Thessalian, in which lies the Emperor Zeno.
7. Another sarcophagus, Aquitanian, in which lies Anastasios Dikoros with Ariadne his wife.
8. Another sarcophagus, of green Thessalian stone, in which lies the Emperor Michael, the son of Theophilos. Note that this sarcophagus of Michael is that of the Emperor Justin the Great. It lay in the monastery of the Augusta, below the Apostle St. Thomas, in which the robes of the apostles were found. And Lord Leo the Emperor took it and placed it here for the burial of the body of this Michael.
9. Another sarcophagus, green Thessalian, in which lies Basil with Eudokia and Alexander his son.
10. Another sarcophagus, Sagarian or pneumonousiani, in which lies the renowned Leo with his son Constantine, who died later, the Porphyrogennetos.
11. Another sarcophagus, [of] white, so-called imperial, [stone], in which lies Constantine the son of Basil.
12. Another sarcophagus, green Thessalian, in which lies St. Theophano, the first wife of the blessed Leo, with Eudokia her daughter.
13. Another sarcophagus, Bithynian, in which lies Zoe the second wife of the same Leo.
14. Another sarcophagus, green Thessalian, in which lies Eudokia the third wife of the same Lord Leo, she who was surnamed Baine.
15. Another sarcophagus, Proconesian, in which lie Anna and Anna the daughters of the blessed Leo and Zoe.
16. Another small sarcophagus, Sagarian or pneumonousian, in which lies Basil the brother of Constantine Porphyrogennetos, and Bardas the son of Basil his grandfather.
17. Another small sarcophagus, of Sagarian stone, in which lies . . .

Heroon of the Great Justinian

18. At the apse itself, to the east, is the first sarcophagus, in which lies the body of Justinian, of unusual foreign stone, in colour between Bithynian and Chalcedonian, something like stone of Ostrite.
19. Another sarcophagus, of Hierapolitan stone, in which lies Theodora the wife of Justinian the Great.
20. Another sarcophagus lying to the west, on the right hand, of stone of Dokimion, of variegated rose colour, in which lies Eudokia the wife of Justinian the Younger.
21. Another sarcophagus, of white Proconesian stone, in which lies Justin the Younger.
22. Another sarcophagus, of Proconesian stone, in which lies Sophia the wife of Justin.
23. Another sarcophagus, of white stone of Dokimion, onyx, in which lies Heraklios the Great.
24. Another sarcophagus, green Thessalian, in which lies Fabia the wife of Heraklios.
25. Another sarcophagus, Proconesian, of Constantine Pogonatos.
26. Another sarcophagus, of green Thessalian stone, in which lies Fausta the wife of Constantine Pogonatos.
27. Another sarcophagus, Sagarian, in which lies Constantine, the descendant of Heraklios, the son of Constantine Pogonatos.
28. Another sarcophagus, of variegated Sagarian stone, in which lies Anastasios also called Artemios.
29. Another sarcophagus, of Hierapolitan stone, in which lies the wife of Anastasios also called Artemios.
30. Another sarcophagus, of Proconesian stone, in which lies Leo the Isaurian.
31. Another sarcophagus, of green Thessalian stone, in which lay Constantine, the son of the Isaurian, who was surnamed Kaballinos; but he was cast out by Michael and Theodora, and his cursed body was burned. Likewise his sarcophagus was cast out and broken up, and served for the foundations of the Pharos. And the great blocks which are in the Pharos belonged to this sarcophagus.
32. Another sarcophagus, of Proconesian stone, in which lies Eirene the wife of Constantine Kaballinos.
33. Another sarcophagus, green Thessalian, in which lies the wife of Kaballinos.
34. A small coffin of Proconesian stones, in which lie Kosmo and Eirene, sisters of Kaballinos.
35. Another sarcophagus, Proconesian, in which lies Leo the Chazar, son of Constantine Kaballinos.
36. Another sarcophagus, of Proconesian stone, in which lies Eirene the wife of Leo the Chazar.
37. Another sarcophagus, green Thessalian, in which lies Michael Travlos.
38. Another sarcophagus, of Sagarian stone, in which lies Thekla the wife of Michael Travlos.
39. Another sarcophagus, of green stone, in which lies Theophilos the Emperor.
40. Another small sarcophagus, green, in which lies Constantine the son of Theophilos.
41. Another small sarcophagus, of Sagarian stone, in which lies Maria the daughter of Theophilos.

The Stoa to the South of the Same Church

42. In this lie the sarcophagi of Arkadios, Theodosios, his son, and Eudoxia his mother. The tomb of Arkadios is to the south, that of Theodosios to the north, that of Eudoxia to the east, each of the two porphyry or Roman.

The Stoa to the North of the Same Church

43. In this stoa, which is to the north, lies a cylindrically-shaped sarcophagus, in which lies the cursed and wretched body of the apostate Julian, porphyry or Roman in colour.
44. Another sarcophagus, porphyry, or Roman, in which lies the body of Jovian, who ruled after Julian.

hagia_sophia_islamic_tombs
Islamic Sultan’s tombs in the grounds of Hagia Sophia

The stoa means only a room containing pillars by this period, so may refer to any building within the church or standing outside of it.[7]

I would speculate that perhaps there were a number of mausolea standing in the grounds of the church, rather like the Islamic tombs of the early Sultans now standing in the grounds of Hagia Sophia?

The shape of the Heroon of Constantine is said by Mesarites to be circular, with a dome.  Mesarites tells us that the mausoleum of Justinian had many “stoaed” (i.e. pillared) corners, so perhaps that was octagonal or hexagonal or something like that.

However the arrangement of the tombs within the Heroon, by 400 AD, schematically, was as follows:

heroon_of_constantineEntry to the building was from the west.  Mesarites tells us that, in the principal place, at the east end, was the tomb of Constantine the Great.  To the south was that of Constantius II, while the tomb of Theodosius the Great was to the north.[8]

Let’s hear from Mesarites:

XXXIX. But let us, if you please, go off to this church which lies toward the east, so that we may look at the things in it, in order to admire and describe them–this church whose founder our discourse has already declared to be Constantius.  2. This whole church is domical and circular, and because of the rather extensive area of the plan, I suppose, it is divided up on all sides by numerous stoaed angles, for it was built for the reception of his father’s body and of his own and of the bodies of those who should rule after them.

3. To the east, then, and in first place the body of Constantine,5 who first ruled the Christian Empire, is laid to rest within this purple-hued sarcophagus as though on some purple-blooming royal couch–he who was, after the twelve disciples, the thirteenth herald of the orthodox faith, and likewise the founder of this imperial city.  4. The sarcophagus has a four-sided shape, somewhat oblong but not with equal sides. The tradition is that Helen, his mother and his fellow-worker for the orthodox faith, is buried with her son.

5. The tomb toward the south is that of the famous Constantius, the founder of the Church. This too is of porphyry color but not in all respects similar to the tomb of his father, just as he who lies within it was not in all ways similar to his father, but was inferior to his father, and followed behind him, in piety and in mental endowment.

6. The tomb toward the north and opposite this, and similar to those which have been mentioned, holds the body of Theodosius the Great like an inexhaustible treasure of noble deeds.   7. The one toward the east, closest to this one, is that of Pulcheria. She is the honored and celebrated founder of the monastery of the Hodegon; see how she, a virgin herself, holds in her hands the likeness of the all-holy Virgin.  …

Additional tombs, after Theodosius, were inserted later around the walls.

The Chronicon Altinate gives a list of emperors and their lengths of reigns.  It is of interest to us for what it says about the emperors in the mausoleum.  Starting on p.62 of MGH supplement 14:

Constantine, son of Constantius, born in Britain from the concubine Helena – the city in his name is in Thrace – … died on the 20th of May, a great and most Christian emperor.  His remains were placed in the church of the Holy Apostles in the sacrarium, which he himself also built, in a porphyry “pila”. …

Constantius … son of Constantine reigned for 24 years.  Constantine [sic] died on 3rd November and his body was placed in the church of the Holy Apostles in a porphyry “pila”.

Julian the apostate … His body was brought to Constantinople and placed in the western part in the church of the Holy Apostles in a porphyry “labrum”. …

On the 27th September Juvian [sic] died, most religious emperor, in Thichera a city of Galicia, and his body was brought to Constantinople, in the church of the Holy Apostles, in the porphyry “labrum” of the great Constantine.  After this his wife was placed in the same “labrum”.  He reigned 8 months.

… (the body of Valens was not found) …

[Valentinian]’s body was brought in the time of Theodosius the Great and placed in the church of the Holy Apostles where Constantine the Great [was] in a porphyry “lanarx”. …

On the 7th of January died the emperor Theodosius the Great at Milan.  His remains were brought to Constantinople and placed in the church of all the holy Apostles, in the sacrarium of Constantine the Great, in a porphyry “pila”; where also his wife Pracilla had previously been placed.

On the 1st May died the emperor Arcadius and his body was placed in the church of all the Holy Apostles in a porphyry “pilla” [sic] in the middle portico with his wife Eudokia, who before she died [acted] to the injury of St. John Chrysostom.  …

And so it continues.

There seem to have been several places in and around the church where imperial bodies may have been laid.  Space was no doubt a consideration also.

It is a pity that the site was destroyed.  I think most of us would like to see at least the sarcophagus of Constantine!  When I next go to Istanbul, I shall make sure that I do; if one of those porphyry tombs is his!

Share
  1. [1]P. Grierson, “The tombs and obits of the Byzantine emperors (337-1042)”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 16 (1962) 1+3-63.  JSTOR.  It contains an edition and English translation of the three main sources for the tombs.↩
  2. [2]Loeb edition: Procopius, Works, vii.48-54.↩
  3. [3]Glanville Downey, “Nikolaos Mesarites: Description of the Church of the Holy Apostles at Constantinople”, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 47 (1957), 855-924.  JSTOR. Text and English translation from Ms. Milan Ambrosianus gr. 350, formerly F 93 sup. and Ambros. gr. 352, formerly F 96 sup.↩
  4. [4]Photograph by Giovanni Dall’Orto from Wikimedia Commons here.↩
  5. [5]Cyril Mango, “Three Imperial Byzantine Sarcophagi Discovered in 1750”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 16 (1962), 397-402.  JSTOR. P.398: “The early sultans accumulated a considerable amount of Byzantine sculpture in the grounds of the Seraglio presumably with a view to using it as building material; it is sufficient to recall that some of the imperial sarcophagi that are now exposed in front of the Archaeological Museum were discovered in 1847 in the second court of the Seraglio.  All authorities agree that these sarcophagi must have come from the church of the Holy Apostles.”↩
  6. [6]Given on p.642-6 of Reiske’s edition in the Bonn series, and reprinted by Downey in the article above.↩
  7. [7]Downey, p.45: “It should be recalled finally that stoa could well be applied to a building which we should call a mausoleum, since it was used not only to denote a colonnade or portico, but a building or part of a building which was enclosed by pillars or consisted basically of pillars supporting a roof.  Zonaras (xiii 4, 28) indeed calls the Mausoleum of Constantine a stoa.”↩
  8. [8]Diagram from Grierson, p.23.↩

“In the Heroon of the great and holy Constantine towards the east end lies the porphyry larnax of the great Constantine himself…”

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Another text in the PG 157 volume (col.725) is one describing the tombs of the emperors in the Church of the Holy Apostles, here:

On the tombs of the emperors which are in the Church of the Holy Apostles.

In the Heroon of the great and holy Constantine towards the east end lies the porphyry larnax of the great Constantine himself, in which he himself is deposited with his mother Helena.

Another porphyry larnax, in which is deposited Constantine, son of the great Constantine.

Another porphyry larnax, in which is deposited Theodosius the Great.

Another porphyry larnax, in which is entombed Theodosius Junior.

Another larnax of green Thessalica, in which lies Zeno. …

And so it continues, including Heraclius, and various Byzantine rulers.  On col. 735 we read, after a stoa – literally a portico, but by this period any building or chamber containing columns – with three small larnaxes containing the remains of Arcadius and his wife and son:

Another stoa in the same church towards the west end, in which lies an larnax of expensive Roman stone, where is deposited the accursed corpse of Julian the Apostate.

UPDATE (18/12/2013): I have updated this to reflect the meanings of the words “stoa” and “larnax”, after reading more around the subject.  While the PG renders larnax as “urn”, it should be rendered “sarcophagus”.  “Roman stone” means porphyry.  “Thessalica” is thessalian marble.

Share

Some ancient statues taken to Constantinople under Constantius and Theosodius II

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Cyril Mango’s excellent article on the fate of ancient statues in Byzantium[1] tells us:

The importation of statues into Constantinople greatly diminished, but did not entirely cease, after the reign of Constantine. Individual statues were apparently brought in under Constantius II,[15] Valentinian,[16] and Theodosius II.[17]

The references given are to a publication, the Scriptores Originum Constantinopolitarum, published in two volumes in Leipzig, 1901 and 1907, ed. Preger.  These are to be found at Archive.org, here and here, but … they are in Greek only.  Not even a Latin translation is given.

Fortunately a shy mention in the preface indicates that a great deal of the material may be found in the Patrologia Graeca 157, col. 615 f.  The volume has a useful list of contents on col. 1259, which helps with  navigation.

The statues brought in under Constantius II are noted as follows (col. 720-1):

Of the statue of Zeus set up in the Hippodrome.

Many statues were sent from Iconium to Constantinople, one of which number was the Zeus which is in the Hippodrome.

Of the four gilded horses in the Hippodrome.

The four gilded horses, located on the upper side of the Hippdrome, were brought from the island of Chios when Theodosius the Younger was reigning.

Of the statues of Perseus and Andromeda.

From the city of Iconium mentioned earlier, a statue of Perseus and of princess Andromeda, who, as legend has it, and is also given by some as history, … (there follows a version of the legend of Perseus) …  There (at Iconium) first Perseus and then Andromeda died, and their statues were erected above the gate of the city.  In that place there were many sacrifices peformed by Decius, Diocletian and Maximian, and in the same place many saints received martyrdom.  And so the statues of Perseus and Andromeda were brought, it is said, when Constantius was reigning, after the church of Antioch had been purified.

This includes the references to Constantius and Theodosius II. The four horses from Chios are those now in Venice on the roof of St. Mark’s.

However I have been unable to locate in the PG the reference give by Mango to a statue named Perichytes and one of a donkey, brought in under Valentinian:

A statue called Perichytes as well as one of a donkey, both in the Hippodrome: ibid., I, p. 64, # 64; II, p. 192f., # 82. The Perichytes was nude except for a loincloth, and wore a helmet; it was stolen by western merchants some time between 935 and 959: Vita S. Lucae Stylitae, ed. A. Vogt, Analecta Bollandiana, XXXVIII (1909), p. 39f.; ed. F. Vanderstuyf, Patrol. Orient., XI (1915), p. 1o7 ff. For other instances of the theft of statues, see Script. orig. CP. I, p. 50 (under Theodosius II); II. p. 253, # 112 (under Caesar Bardas)..

I don’t know how reliable this source is, tho, as a guide to the monuments of Constantinople.  I have seen it attributed to a George Codinus, who may have lived in the 15th century, but drew on some 9th century inventory; but even this is doubtful.  The text itself makes many references to earlier writers, used as sources.  It might be interesting to find out!

UPDATE: I find a Bonn edition of Codinus, which contains a similar (but not identical) text here.

UPDATE: A correspondent has kindly alerted me that Averil Cameron has translated and commented on the text given in the PG, the Parastaseis syntomoi Chronikai (lit. Brief historical notes, = Scriptores originum Constantinopolitarum I, ed. Preger, p. 19-73).  Cameron adds that Preger demonstrated that the text could not be by Codinus, but was 10th century.  She adds that Bekker’s edition in the Bonn corpus (CSHB, 1843) and the reprint in the PG 157 are both unreliable and should be avoided.[2]  Unfortunately Preger printed no translation of any sort, and Cameron’s translation is inaccessible, so, for the general public like myself, it is PG or nothing.  So be a little wary of what I have given above.

There is a cluster of related texts, all giving descriptions of Constantinople and collectively known as the Patria.  My correspondent also tells me that the main work in French on the Patria is Dagron, Constantinople imaginaire, Paris, 1984; and that, in the Parastaseis, the Perichytes (= one that pours round) may be found in the note at the foot of page 61 of Preger’s edition.   My thanks to him for these useful details.

Share
  1. [1]Cyril Mango, “Antique Statuary and the Byzantine Beholder.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 17 (1963), pp. 53+55-75. Online here.↩
  2. [2]Averil Cameron, Constantinople in the Early Eighth Century, Leiden:Brill, 1984. Google Preview. See p.4, n.15.↩

The “Testimonium Flavianum” in al-Makin

Posted on by Roger Pearse

The so-called Testimonium Flavianum of Josephus has provoked extensive discussion down the years, not all of it either measured or even sensible.  One witness to the text is the Arabic versions.  These were handled in a rather mangled way in 1971 by Shlomo Pines,[1] who introduced the world to their existence in the World History of Agapius (a.k.a. Mahbub ibn Qustantin), the 10th century bishop of Hierapolis.  Pines made use of the CSCO edition, which rather misled him, and proposed that this version of the Testimonium preserved features corrupted in the Greek as it now stands.

Part of Agapius’ work is extant only in a single damaged manuscript in Florence.  But the CSCO editor of Agapius, Louis Cheikho,[2] believed that his text was quoted at length by the 13th century Coptic writer al-Makin Ibn-al `Amid, and so included extracts from the latter’s unedited work in an appendix.  Pines made use of the latter on the basis that this was “Agapius”.  But the actual text of Agapius is given in the Florence manuscript.  What al-Makin says may now be considered, since Martino Diez has kindly edited and translated the text for us.[3]

It is as follows:

tf_al-makinIn English:

And likewise Josephus the Hebrew says in his writings on the Jews: in those days, there was a wise man named Jesus.  He lived a good life, distinguishing himself by his learning, and many people, as many Jews as of other nations, became his disciples.  Pilate condemned him to crucifixion and death.  But those who had become his disciples did not cease to be so, and affirmed that he had appeared to them three days after the crucifixion and that he was alive.  Perhaps he was the Messiah of whom the prophets speak.

The text is preserved only in the “expanded” recension of al-Makin, which may or may not be the original version of the text (see here).  It appears towards the end of the life of Jesus, where the “expanded” edition includes a series of quotations from pagan authors on the subject of the events on and following Good Friday. (These are probably — I say this without seeing them — taken from collections of sayings, gnomologia, that circulated in the Arabic world.)

Diez edits the text from the single manuscript of the “expanded” recension accessible to him, Ms Paris BNF, arab. 4729, where it appears on folio 108r, lines 1-6.  Pines made use of Paris BNF ar. 294, f.162v-163r.[4]  As Diez rightly remarks, a study of the other witnesses to this recension of the text of al-Makin is necessary before much more is done.

Share
  1. [1]S. Pines, An Arabic Version of the Testimonium Flavianum and its Implications, Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Jerusalem, 1971.↩
  2. [2]Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 65 (Scriptores arabici 10), Beirut 1912.↩
  3. [3]M. Diez, “”, Studia Graeco-Arabica 3 (2013), 221-140, esp. 134-5.↩
  4. [4]Pines, p.6-7, n.6.↩

The two recensions of al-Makin

Posted on by Roger Pearse

There are quite a number of manuscripts of the history by the 13th century Coptic historian al-Makin ibn al-Amid.  I have listed these in a previous post here.  Martino Diez, in his important article on the subject[1] has obtained copies of three of the manuscripts.  This is no small feat in itself, as I can bear witness myself after attempting it. Indeed a look at the prices on the Bodleian website today was quite enough to dissuade me from trying to obtain a copy of any of their manuscripts!  I have commented before on the corruption involved in charging huge sums for reproductions of public-owned manuscripts.

Diez obtained somehow copies of the following:

  • Vatican ar. 168. (16th c.)
  • Bodleian ar. 683. (AD 1591) (=Pococke 312)
  • Paris ar. 4729 (19th c.)

He writes:

Investigation shows that the three manuscripts belong to two different recensions.  One, the shorter, is present in ms. Vat. ar. 168 and in Pococke 312, and the other, longer, preserved in ms. Paris BNF ar. 4729.  The exact relationship between the two recensions seems, on first sight, difficult to establish.

The existence of two families of witnesses was already highlighted by Gaston Wiet in a long note to the History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria.  The French researcher proposed to call the first family the vulgata and assigned to it most of the witnesses, notably Paris BNF ar. 4524, Vat ar. 168 and 169, Borg. ar. 232, and Pococke 312.  All the same, Wiet noted the existence of a second family, “completed and retouched using [the Annals of] Eutychius, such as ms. Paris ar. 4729.”  “This manuscript reveals that its copyist had literary, confessional and chronological concerns: the material of al-Makin is treated very freely.  But the modifications at bottom belonging to the Chronicle [of al-Makin] have not been invented by the copyist.  It is obvious that he worked with a copy of the Annals of Eutychius before him.”  For Wiet, therefore, the vulgata is the original work of Ibn al-Amid, while ms. Paris ar. 4729 (which we will refer to as the “expanded” recension) represents a later elaboration, contaminated from other sources, notably Eutychius, and not without literary ambitions.

In reality the relations between the two recensions are more complicated.  That they are both fundamentally the same work is clear, because of the existence of the same rubrics for people (166 in both recensions), but it is not always the expanded recension that completes the vulgata.  It is not uncommon for the reverse to be the case.  Taken together, the differences are not marginal, especially in certain sections such as the introduction, or the history of Alexander.  The key to understanding this is supplied by the author himself in his preface.  …

Here Diez gives a transcription of the incipit from all three manuscripts and portions of the preface; unfortunately without translation, so of course I cannot follow it.  Then:

The text clearly shows that the vulgata represents an abridgement (muhtasar) of the chronicle, made by the author himself.  He states, in fact, that, after completing a first version of his work, he came into possession of new sources (on the origin of the world, the shape of the world, on the patriarchs, on the kings of Persia) which enriched the treatment of certain periods.  However the work was already too long, and someone, “to whom it was not possible to say ‘no'” (“someone who sought to make his request accepted and to assist in the pursuit of his desire”) asked Ibn-al `Amid to make an abridgement which contained all the best known events.  And this is exactly what is called the vulgata of Ibn-al `Amid.

He then explores what the “expanded” edition is.  Is it indeed the original version, or a longer version, enriched with further information before being condensed?  He argues that it is the former; this is, indeed, the original version produced by al-Makin.  He notes that the titles and explicits of the copies indicate something – again this is not translated so I can’t say what that is! – and then details differences.  Diez does not seem to deal with the question of contamination from Eutychius, however.

If both versions are indeed by the author, any future edition and translation needs to include both.  But clearly there is more work to be done.

Share
  1. [1]Martino Diez, “Les antiquites greco-romaines entre ibn al-`Amid et Ibn Khaldun. Notes pour une histoire de la tradition, in: Studia Graeco-Arabica 3 (2013), 121-140.  Online here.↩

Diez’ article on al-Makin is online!

Posted on by Roger Pearse

I have started to blog about a fascinating article on the Coptic historian, al-Makin.  The article is Martino Diez, “Les antiquites greco-romaines entre ibn al-`Amid et Ibn Khaldun. Notes pour une histoire de la tradition”, in: Studia Graeco-Arabica 3 (2013), 121-140.  But I had not realised that the full article is online!  The PDF is here, and vol.3 of the journal is here.  In fact the whole journal is online at www.greekintoarabic.eu.  It seems to be funded by an EU grant.  The first volume contains only 3 papers; but vols. 2 and 3 are full size.

I strongly approve.  It means that this research is available to inform those who pay for it.

Share