Category: Announcements

General announcements

Literary sources for the hippodrome of Alexandria: the Lageion

Posted on by Roger Pearse

I thought that it would be interesting to discuss the literary sources for the horse-racing track in Alexandria, the hippodrome.  When the French scholars arrived with Napoleon, a Roman-style circus or chariot-racing track was still visible just behind the Serapeum.  The spina or central barrier showed that it was used for this purpose; the narrowness of the track suggested that it had originally been a Greek hippodrome.  The track was in a depression, which meant that the audience seats could hold a great number.  Was this the hippodrome of Alexandria?  And when was it built?

If we could visit ancient Alexandria by time-machine, these are questions that we could answer easily.  But instead we must sift the remains of ancient literature, looking for an allusion or two.

The hippodrome actually had a name.  It was known as the “Lageion”, after Lagus, the ancestor of the Ptolemaic kings.  This we learn from the fragments of Herodian Grammaticus with confirmation from Epiphanius of Salamis.

Herodian Grammaticus

There are three references to the hippodrome in the remains of the 2nd century writer Herodian Grammaticus as printed by A. Lentz, Herodiani Technici reliquiae, 1867-70, 2 vols (series: Grammatici Graeci 3); online: vol.1, vol. 2.1, vol. 2.2. The references are:

  1. Vol. 1, p. 371 lines 1-2: from: Περὶ καθολικῆς προσῳδίας / De prosodia catholica “On prosody in general.”

I.e. Λάγειον τὸ ἱπποδρόμιον Ἀλεχανδρείας ἀπὸ Λάγου τινός – Lageion: the hippodrome of Alexandria, after a certain Lagos.

2. vol. 2, p. 458 line 37 to p. 459 line 3.  From: Peri orthographias / De orthographia / “On orthography”.

Not sure what this is saying: anyone?

3. vol 2. p. 541, 20: also from De orthographia:

Which says much the same as #1.

However there is a problem with the Lentz edition.  Basically it’s fake.

The Lentz edition is a modern reconstruction.  Only one of Herodian’s works actually survives, which – fortunately for us – is De prosodia catholica.  So the first quote is certainly by Herodian.  But the rest is made up from fragments; and Eleanor Dickey, who is the expert on these sorts of sources, advises using the original sources instead.[1]  For our purposes however the first reference is sufficient.

Epiphanius

Epiphanius of Salamis says much the same in De Mensuribus et Pondibus (On weights and measures) chapter 12.[2] The Syriac preserves the name of Lagus:

Then ceased the Rabbity (Lagid) kings, the Ptolemies, who were [105] descended from the Rabbit (Lagos), for whom the race course, when built in Alexandria, was called only in the same Alexandria the Rabbity.[106]

105 The Greek adds “plainly” or “clearly.”
106 I.e., the Lagid; but the Greek says, “who having built the race course in Alexandria named it the λαϊον.”[3]

One could wish that Epiphanius was slightly less pleased with his own linguistic cleverness here, but the sense is clear enough.

The next three texts suggest that the Lageion stood next to the Serapeum. This is compatible with the site found by Napoleon’s men.

Papyrus SB 6222 – letter of Dios

Papyrus SB 6222 is a letter from an athlete living at Alexandria to his sister.[4]  It records the emperor leading a religious procession at the Lageion on the date of a festival of Serapis, 22 December.  It’s probably Diocletian in 301 AD.  The procession probably relates to the Serapeum.

To my dear sister Sophrone, greetings, Dios.

Above all I pray to [the lord] god that you are doing well and also that the best things in life may be yours. I am wondering why until today you did not send us a single letter, although every day there are many acquaintances who are traveling north. Yet now, please, write back to us about your and our fathers’ wellbeing.

We are glad to be here. I will tell you everything that has happened to me in Alexandria. So, when we arrived here, we didn’t find the person whom we came looking for (but) we did find our lord the emperor visiting. He ordered that athletes be brought to the Campus and fortunately, I and the other five were selected, without the other athletes knowing. When I arrived there, I was at first paired up to do pankration and I had bad luck, as I do not know how to do pankration. So I was performing [poorly] for a long time… falling. The god was about to … I challenged the five to do pammachon. The emperor wanted to know whether I was [immediately) summoned to do it one man after the other. When I saw that [those who fell] were collecting dung from the contest, I challenged them for the pammachon.

The prize for us was a linen tunic and hundred guilders. The [linen tunic] is inexpensive, and I received … and I made … debtors (?) and I got a gold coin with the money and the other five the tunic. This happened on the 2?th of Choiak. And on the 26th of the same month he held the festival in the Lageion and we performed there. And I got a silver prize, a sleeveless tunic, and the money.[5]

So don’t be sad that we haven’t found the person, for good fortune has given us other things. Take care of your sister… God willing, we will come to meet you after Mecheir, making you happy. Your… sends you many greetings. I greet my dear father and all who love my soul.

I pray that you are well, my dear sister, for many years.

(Address on the back:) Deliver to my sister Sophronion, in D… For there (?) is the house. From her brother Dios. To Sophrone from her brother Dios.”[6]

Apothegmata Patrum, PG 65 col. 164

In the Apothegmata Patrum (Sayings of the Fathers) there is a reference to chariot racing and the Serapeum together.  When the Serapeum was overthrown by Theophilus of Alexandria, the news raced down the hill to where a miracle had just happened.

  1. The same related that there was a charioteer in Alexandria, whose mother was called Mary. In an equestrian fight he had a fall. Then getting up again he surpassed the men who had overthrown him and carried off the victory. The crowd cried out, ‘The son of Mary has fallen; he has risen again and is the victor.’ While these cries were still being heard, an uproar ran through the crowd in connection with the temple of Serapis; the great Theophilus had gone and overthrown the statue of Serapis and made himself master of the temple.[7]

Philostratus, Life of Apollonius of Tyana, book 5, 26.

Apollonius goes to the hippodrome, and attacks the crowd for sacrificing at a presumably nearby sanctuary while covered in blood. Possibly the sanctuary is the Serapeum.

[5.26] With these words he rebuked and silenced the Egyptian, showing that he was ignorant of religion. But because the Alexandrians are devoted to horses, and flock into the racecourse to see the spectacle, and murder one another in their partisanship, he therefore administered a grave rebuke to them over these matters, and entering the temple, he said: “How long will you persist in meeting your deaths, not in behalf of your families or of your shrines, but because you are determined to pollute the sacred precincts by entering them reeking with gore and to slaughter one another within the walls? … But here I see you rushing at one another with drawn swords, and ready to hurl stones, all over a horse race….”[8]

It’s all a bit speculative, but interesting.

However there was certainly another hippodrome in Alexandria, on the east side.

Strabo Book 17, 1:10.

This talks about a hippodrome which was known to Augustus.

Below the canal are the Serapion and ancient temples, so to speak abandoned, for the construction of new temples, those of Nicopolis there is also still an amphitheater and the five-year games also take place there, the old buildings are neglected. In short, the city monuments and shrines. The most beautiful is the porticoes have more than one stage. In the city center), the court and public gardens. There is also the Paneion …: from its summit, one can contemplate the whole city, which extends from all parts to its feet. Starting from the Necropolis, – the longitudinal avenue is next to the gymnasium to reach the Canopic Gate; then it is the Hippodrome, as it is called, and the adjacent valleys, as far as the Canopic Canal. As you cross the Hippodrome, you come to Nicopolis, which occupies on the seashore a built surface comparable to that of a city. It is thirty stades from Alexandria. Augustus favoured this place because it was there that he won battle over the troops who were marching against him with Antony.[9]

This is not spoken of as near the Serapeum.

Some further references.

3 Maccabees 4, 11; 5.46; 6.16

This discusses a persecution of the Jews in Alexandria under Ptolemy IV Philopator.

4:11. When they had been brought to the place called Schedia and the voyage as determined by the king was over, he ordered them to be thrown into the hippodrome on the outskirts of the city, an immense concourse eminently suitable for making the captives a public example to all who came down to the city and to those who left the city for a sojourn in the country, the purpose being to prevent them from associating with the king’s forces or claiming to be within the precincts of the city.

5:46. About dawn, when the city was already full of innumerable crowds making their way toward the hippodrome, he entered the palace and incited the king to take up the business on hand.

6:16. Just as Eleazar was finishing his prayer, the king arrived at the hippodrome with the beasts and the whole wanton array of his army. And the Jews observed it and raised a great cry to heaven that made the surrounding valleys ring with the is sound and struck uncontrollable terror in all the hosts.

Here the hippodrome is in a valley, as the one next to the Serapeum is.

Our final Greek reference is in Evagrius, which says that the city tended to assemble there.

Evagrius Scholasticus book 2, chapter 5

These events after the Council of Chalcedon, in 453 AD:

And that thence resulted still more alarming consequences, from the license of |64 the soldiery towards the wives and daughters of the Alexandrians: that, subsequently, the people, being assembled in the hippodrome, entreated Florus, who was the military commandant, as well as the civil governor, with such urgency as to procure terms for themselves, in the distribution of provisions, of which he had deprived them, as well as the privileges of the baths and spectacles, and all others from which, on account of their turbulence, they had been debarred: that, at his suggestion, Florus presented himself to the people, and pledged himself to that effect, and by this means stopped the sedition for a time.[10]

Next we come to Arabic  writers.

Eutychius (Sa`id ibn Bitriq), PG 111 col. 975A.

The 10th century Arabic Christian historian writes:

22. Ptolemy, the conqueror of Ur, died. After him ruled Ptolemy [I], called Lagus, for twenty-nine years. He built a large hippodrome for horse racing in Alexandria, which was later burned down in the days of King Zeno.  After him, his son Ptolemy [II] reigned, called Philadelphus, for twenty-six years.[11]

Severus of al-Ashmounein, History of the Patriarchs of the Coptic Church of Alexandria, PO1, p.467, in 539 AD.

The Copts are being persecuted by the emperor:

But the letters of their blessed Father Theodosius came to them from his place of exile, reminding them of the faith, and consoling them, and encouraging them to patience. So when their trouble increased, an assembly of the orthodox met together, priests and laymen, and took counsel together as to building a church in which they might take refuge, so that they might not be like the Jews. And they did what they proposed, and built a church by the power of Christ, in the western part of Alexandria, in the place called the Pillars, or the Serapeum; and this church is the Angelion, which they built secretly at the hundred and five steps. And another congregation of the people also built another church, in the name of Cosmas and Damian, to the east of the amphitheatre, and a little to the west of the colonnade; and they finished it in the year 278 of Diocletian. When the prince learnt this, he sent and opened all the churches, and put them under the authority of the Chalcedonians. So when the blessed Father Theodosius learnt that there remained to him no other than these two newly-built churches, the church of the Angelion, and the church of Cosmas and Damian the Martyrs, he sighed and wept, because he knew the people of Alexandria, and that they loved pomp and honour, and he feared that they would depart from the orthodox Faith, with a view to gaining honour from the prince.[12]

The translator has rendered “mal`ab” as amphitheatre but it should be hippodrome.

al-Maqrizi

Writing very much later the Arabic writer al-Maqrizi says that the “mal`ab” or hippodrome is the third wonder of Alexandria in his time, after the Pharos and Pompey’s Pillar.

Among the marvelous things of Egypt, says Qoda’i, there is Alexandria and the marvels it contains, among which are: the Lighthouse, the Column and the Circus where everyone gathers on a certain day of the year; there, a ball is thrown, and the one in whose lap it fell must infallibly reign over Egypt. At one of these feasts, `Amr ben El’As, who received the ball in his lap, and later in the time of Islam, ruled Egypt. This circus could contain a million spectators who all perfectly saw the one facing them. When a reading was given, the whole world heard it, and if a show was given, everyone saw it distinctly to the end, without being at all obstructed by the multitude of steps which rose before or behind him.[13]

There are probably more references, but that’s what I have.  Not much, considering the central importance the place obviously played in Alexandrian life.

The name of “Lageion” only appears in Roman-period writers.  Epiphanius indicates that the building is Ptolemaic, named after Lagus.  Perhaps the original construction was by Ptolemy II Philadelphus, who built so much of Alexandria, and named it in memory of his grandfather Lagus.  But we cannot say this for sure.  Obviously it was remodelled in the Roman period to add the spina.

UPDATE:  Apparently the best study of the Lageion is John H. Humphrey, Roman Circuses: Arenas for Chariot Racing, 1986, pp.505-513, notes 676-680.  There is a Google Books preview here.  The opening remarks are worth reproducing:

A great deal of discussion has centred around the question of Alexandria’s entertainment buildings, particularly its hippodromes and stadia, of each of which there were probably two. The problems are thorny and caused in no small part by the fact that several different names are used in the ancient sources for the hippodromes (‘Lageion’, ‘hippodrome’ and ‘stadium’). P. M. Fraser, in his monumental study of Ptolemaic Alexandria, reached three conclusions about these entertainment buildings: 1. the third-century BC stadium was in the area of the palaces on the northeast side of the city; 2. a hippodrome referred to by Strabo was located outside the city walls on the east side on the way to the suburb of Nicopolis (there was also a stadium at Nicopolis); and 3. the large stadium or hippodrome found by the French near the Serapeion at the southwest corner of the city is probably that referred to by later Roman writers as the Lageion (although there is no evidence for it being called by that name in the Ptolemaic or early imperial sources).

These conclusions appear to be essentially correct, although some of the details of the picture require modification. In particular, the hippodrome referred to by Strabo appears not to have been a proper hippodrome and no races are likely to have been held there at any time. Instead, it appears that all the references to chariot and horse racing at Alexandria concern the other building, the Lageion, which is variously named in the sources by the three terms listed above. Secondly, the large entertainment building recorded by the French in 1799, a building which both Maricq and Fraser believe to be the same as the Lageion, poses a further problem in that it did not appear adequate to accommodate chariot racing throughout the Roman and later period: it appeared inadequate chiefly because of the recorded width of its arena (only 51m.). a width which had, among other reasons, prompted the French expedition to call the building a stadium and not a hippodrome. It will be argued that this figure of 51m. is in error and that the actual width of its arena was about 65m., so that the building was able to accommodate not only racing in the Greek style but also apparently up to twelve teams of the Roman style of racing once the circus factions had become installed in Alexandria (which happened by the early fourth century AD). Thus no obstacle remains as to why this building should not have been used for all chariot racing at Alexandria from the Ptolemaic to the Byzantine period, although it doubtless underwent many modifications including changes in the arrangements of its starting gates and barrier, to facilitate the change-over from Greek to Roman style racing, and to accommodate the growing citizen body and cater to the growing popularity of the sport there. …

The argument for the wider width is that 20 years elapsed between Napoleon’s engineers measuring the remains, and the publication, and the editors misread the plan prepared by the former.

The literary sources, then, refer almost exclusively to the Lageion, next to the Serapeum.

Share
  1. [1]Eleanor Dickey, “A catalogue of works attributed to the grammarian Herodian”, Classical Philology 109 (2014), 325-45, writes thus (p.334):  “Περὶ καθολικῆς προσῳδίας / De prosodia catholica “On prosody in general.” This was Herodian’s main work, probably written after his more specialized treatises such as Περὶ Ἰλιακῆς προσῳδίας and Περὶ Ἀττικῆς προσῳδίας.[50] It was chiefly concerned with accentuation and now survives only in fragments and epitomes, from which Lentz has reconstructed the work. [51] It is safer to use the surviving material itself than to use Lentz’s reconstruction (particularly as some of the surviving material was unavailable to Lentz); this material is mainly to be found in an epitome attributed to Arcadius, an epitome attributed to John Philoponus, a palimpsest fragment, and a papyrus fragment.[52]”

     51. Lentz 1867–70 in GG 3.1: 1–547 + corrigenda in GG 3.2: 1233–40; cf. GG 3.1: xxxv–lxxi.
    52. For Pseudo-Arcadius there is an inadequate edition by Schmidt (1860) and a new one in preparation by Stephanie Roussou; for Philoponus there is an inadequate edition by Dindorf (1825) and a new one about to appear (Xenis 2014); the palimpsest fragment has been edited by Hunger (1967) and the papyrus by Wouters (1979, 216–24).” Roussou’s thesis is here: https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/ora:6155.↩

  2. [2]Epiphanius, On Weights and Measures 12; Greek text: PG 43, col. 257A; Epiphanius’ Treatise on Weights and Measures, The Syriac Version, ed. and trans. J. E. Dean (1935), 12 p. 28.↩
  3. [3]Online:  http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/epiphanius_weights_03_text.htm↩
  4. [4]http://berlpap.smb.museum/00333/↩
  5. [5] τὸ στιχάριο[ν. τ]αῦτα τῇ β̣[  ̣] τοῦ Χοίακ. καὶ τῇ κϛ τοῦ αὐτοῦ μη[νὸς] ἦξεν τὴν ἱερὰν ἐν τῷ Λαγαίῳ, καὶ ἐκεῖ ἐπο[ι]ησάμην, καὶ ἔλαβ[ον κ]ο[λό]β̣ιον ἀργυροῦν καὶ κολόβιο(ν) καὶ τὸ ἀργύριον. ↩
  6. [6]Translation: S. Remijsen, “Pammachon, a New Sport”, BASP 47, 2010, 185–204. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24519794↩
  7. [7]Benedicta Ward, The Sayings of the Desert Fathers: The Alphabetical Collection. E – Epiphanius, section 2 (1984) p.57.↩
  8. [8]http://www.livius.org/sources/content/philostratus-life-of-apollonius/philostratus-life-of-apollonius-5.26-30/#5.26↩
  9. [9]From Mariq: En deçà du canal se trouvent le Sérapeion et temples antiques, pour ainsi dire abandonnés, à construction des nouveaux temples, ceux de Nicopolis il se trouve d’ailleurs encore un amphithéâtre et les jeux quinquennaux aussi se déroulent là-bas, les anciens édifices sont négligés. Bref, la ville monuments et de sanctuaires. Le plus beau est dont les portiques ont plus d’un stade. Au centre ville), le tribunal et les jardins publics. Il y a aussi le Paneion… : de son sommet, on peut contempler la ville entière, qui s’étend de toutes parts à ses pieds. Partant de la Nécropole,- l’avenue longitudinale côtoie le gymnase pour atteindre la Porte canopique ; puis c’est l’Hippodrome, comme on l’appelle, et les vallons adjacents3, jusqu’au canal de Canope. « En traversant l’Hippodrome, on arrive à Nicopolis, qui occupe sur le bord de la mer une surface bâtie comparable à celle d’une ville. Elle est à trente stades d’Alexandrie. Auguste a favorisé ce lieu parce que c’est là qu’il a gagné bataille sur les troupes qui marchaient contre lui avec Antoine. »↩
  10. [10]http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/evagrius_2_book2.htm↩
  11. [11]Edited: Cheikho, CSCO, Script. arab., Ser. 3, 6 [1906], p. 76 ; trad. Pocock, PG, 111, col. 975A.  Italian translation: Pirone, Eutichio, p.140, chapter 7, section 22; my translation here.↩
  12. [12]http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/severus_hermopolis_hist_alex_patr_02_part2.htm#TIMOTHY_III↩
  13. [13]Edited: G. Wiet, t. 3 [= MIFAO, 46], p. 125. Online here.  French translation: Bouriant, Mém. Miss. Arch. Fr., 17 [1900], p. 452. Online here and here. Vol. 2, p.452: “Parmi les choses merveilleuses de l’Égypte, dit Qoda’i, il y a Alexandrie et les merveilles qu’elle renferme, au nombre desquelles sont : le Phare, la Colonne et le Cirque où l’on se réunissait à un jour déterminé de l’année; là, on lançait une balle et celui dans le giron de qui elle retombait devait infailli blement régner sur l’Égypte. A l’une de ces fêtes assista `Amr ben El’As qui reçut la balle dans son giron, et plus tard, au temps de l’Islam, il gouverna l’Égypte. Ce cirque pouvait contenir un million de spectateurs qui tous voyaient parfaitement celui qui leur faisait face. Quand on y faisait quelque lecture, tout le mondel’entendait, et si l’on donnait quelque spectacle, chacun le voyait distinctement jusqu’au dernier, sans être aucunement gêné par la multitude de gradins qui s’élevaient devant ou derrière lui.”↩

View the Serapeum from above on Google Maps!

Posted on by Roger Pearse

The temple of Serapis stood on a raised area in ancient Alexandria.  It consisted of an enclosure with a colonnade all round, and the temple stood in the centre.

Remarkably this arrangement can still be seen today in satellite photographs on Google Maps!

The area to the north of the enclosure is a muslim cemetary, but then the great rectangle appears.  And in the centre of it, clear as a bell, is the square foundations of the great temple building itself.  It may have been destroyed by Theophilus of Alexandria in 391, but there it is today.

Let me give a map of ancient Alexandria for comparison, taken from A. Mariq’s article on the Lageion.[1]

Sadly nothing now seems to be visible of the hippodrome, that ran along the south side of the Serapeum enclosure.  It was still visible when Napoleon’s engineers arrived in the 1790s.

Share
  1. [1]A. Mariq, “Une influence alexandrine sur l’art Augusteen? Le Lageion et le Circus Maximus”, Revue Archéologique 37 (1951), 26-46, 142.↩

New edition and commentary of the Chronography of 354!

Posted on by Roger Pearse

The Chronography of 354 was a physical book, compiled for a late Roman nobleman and illustrated by a famous artist.  It contained 12 sections of practical information like calendars.  It also contained pictures of cities, and of Constantius and Gallus, “our emperors” – which the fall of Gallus later in the year must have made awkward.  The book is lost, but copies of all or part of it survive in various medieval manuscripts.  It was published piecemeal in the 19th century, and I gathered the bits and made them available online many years ago.  My scans of the illustrations have appeared all over the web since, amusingly.

A correspondent writes to tell me that a new edition and commentary has appeared, and is open-access!  You can download the PDFs!

A new open access edition is available:

Johannes Divjak and Wischmeyer Wolfgang, eds., Das Kalenderhandbuch von 354. Der Chronograph des Filocalus, 2 vols. (Wien: Holzhausen, 2014)

vol. 1: Der Bildteil des Chronographen, http://www.oapen.org/search?identifier=512257

vol. 2: Der Textteil,  http://www.oapen.org/search?identifier=512258

Burgess has a detailed critique:

Richard W.  Burgess, “The New Edition of the Chronograph of 354: A Detailed Critique,” Zeitschrift fur Antikes Christentum / Journal of Ancient Christianity 21, no. 2, (2017): 383–415, doi: 10.1515/zac-2017-0020

Thankfully Dr Burgess has placed his article online at Academia.edu here, in which he complains about formatting – not something I care much about.  The editors did publish a one-page response in ZAC, which you can pay DeGruyter $42 for if you so wish (does anyone? ever?  I’ve written to Dr Divjak suggesting he post it on Academia.edu instead.)

This is a great undertaking.  The content of the Chronography means that writing a commentary is a devil of a task.  Minute objections will always be possible.  But let’s recognise that they have performed a considerable service to us all, and even more so in making it accessible online.

Share

Sayings of Luqman – translated by Anthony Alcock

Posted on by Roger Pearse

The sage Luqman appears in the Koran, but also in other sources, as the author of collections of wisdom.  Anthony Alcock has translated one of these collections from Arabic, which is very good news.  The content itself is highly readable, and it is very useful to have.  Here it is:

Thank you, Dr. A!

Share

Does Victor of Vita quote from the Three Heavenly Witnesses?

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Victor of Vita lived in Roman Africa after its conquest by the Vandals.  The Vandals were Arians, and their kings persecuted the Catholic clergy.  In 484 Victor wrote an account of the persecutions, which has come down to us in a number of manuscripts.  These I list from C. Halms 1878 edition in the Monumenta Germanica Historiae, series: Auctores Antiq., vol. 3.1. Online here.  There is also the CSEL 7 edition by Petschenig (1881).

  • A = Laon, Codex Laudunensis 113 (9th c.)  Contains only book 2, and a list of Catholic bishops at the synod of 484, which alone is preserved in this copy.  Another used by an early editor no longer seems to exist.
  • B = Bamberg, Codex Bambergensis signatus E, 3, 4. (9th c.)
  • C = Upper Austria, Codex monasterii Cremifanensis, sign. 36 (12th c.)
  • L = Berlin, Codex Berolinensis lat. quart. 1. (12th c.)
  • M = Munich, Codex Monacensis 2545 (previously cod. Alderspacensis) (12th c.)
  • P = Paris latinus 2015 (once Colbertinus 905)(10th c.)
  • R = Brussels, Codex Bruxellensis 1794. (10th c.)
  • V = Vienna, Codex Vindobonensis 583 (previously “Univ. 239”)(10th c.)
  • W = Vienna, Codex Vindobonensis 408 (formerly Admontensis from the abbey of Admont) (11th c.).  Contains some crude interpolations.  Derived from V.
  • a = Codex Abrincensis 162 (12th c.) Both mutilated and interpolated.
  • b = Berne, Codex Bernensis 48. (Once Floriacensis)(11th c.)  Similar to R but inferior.
  • s = Admont, Codex Admontensis 739 (12th c.).  Derived from V.

Analysis of the readings means that the manuscripts fall into two families, both derived from O, the original now manuscript (manuscripts in Greek letters are lost ancestor manuscripts of one family or another).  The tree of which manuscript was copied from what (the stemma) looks like this:

The editio princeps, the first edition is actually “Parisiis ab Iano Parvo (=Jehan Petit) Ludovico XII. regnante impressa”.  This undated edition was unknown to editors who generally thought that this was the edition of Beatus Rhenanus at Basle in 1535.

There is a modern English translation in the Liverpool University Press series: Victor of Vita: History of the Vandal Persecution, tr. John Moorhead, Liverpool (1992); series: Translated Texts for Historians 10.

The passage that refers to the Comma Johanneum, the interpolated passage in 1 John 5:7 which discusses the Trinity, is in book 2, chapter 11 (section 82; p.34 of the edition).  Halms’ edition (which Moorhead translated) reads:

82. Vnde nullus ambiguitatis relinquitur locus, quin clareat spiritum sanctum et deum esse et suae voluntatis auctorem, qui cuncta operari et secundum propriae voluntatis arbitrium divinae dispensationis dona largiri apertissime demonstratur, quia ubi voluntaria gratiarum distributio praedicatur, non potest videri condicio servitutis: in creatura enim servitus intellegenda est, in trinitate vero dominatio ac libertas. Et ut adhuc luce clarius unius divinitatis esse cum patre et filio spiritum sanctum doceamus, Iohannis evangelistae testimonio conprobatur.  Ait namque: tres sunt qui testimonium perhibent in caelo, pater, verbum et spiritus sanctus, et hi tres unum sunt. Numquid ait: tres in differenti aequalitate seiuneti aut quibuslibet diversitatum gradibus longo separationis intervallo divisi? sed, tres, inquit, unum sunt.

The CSEL text is the same, and the apparatus contains only trivial variants.

This is rendered by Moorhead (p.56):

82 And so, no occasion for uncertainty is left. It is clear that the Holy Spirit is also God and the author of his own will, he who is most clearly shown to be at work in all things and to bestow the gifts of the divine dispensation according to the judgment of his own will, because where it is proclaimed that he distributes graces where he wills, servile condition cannot exist, for servitude is to be understood in what is created, but power and freedom in the Trinity. And so that we may teach the Holy Spirit to be of one divinity with the Father and the Son still more clearly than the light, here is proof from the testimony of John the evangelist. For he says: ‘There are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.’ Surely he does he not say ‘three separated by a difference in quality’ or ‘divided by grades which differentiate, so that there is a great distance between them?’ No, he says that the ‘three are one.’

That’s that, pretty much; this 5th century Latin text definitely mentions the Three Heavenly Witnesses as part of the text of 1 John.

Moorhead adds a comment on the text of scripture used by Victor (p.xix ff.):

To avoid a multiplication of footnotes I have supplied references to biblical quotations and allusions in parentheses, without troubling to register minor ways, whether due to the text which Victor or the authors of the Book of the catholic faith were familiar with, faulty memory, or some other cause, in which they differ from modern printed versions of the Bible. The chapter and verse numbers of the psalms are those of the Vulgate, but the names of books of the Bible are those by which they are generally known in English. Where ‘Vulg’ is added, the text Victor cites is similar to the Vulgate and differs significantly from the modem translations readers may have at their disposal; where ‘cf’ is added, Victor’s text is significantly different from both the Vulgate and modem versions.[23]

The footnote:

23. It must be said that some of the variants which occur in the Book of the catholic faith constitute amendments in a Trinitarian direction.

It is perhaps inevitable in the circumstances, if undesirable, that the most useful reading was preferred.

Share

More on Project Hindsight

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Back in 2010-11, I became aware of Project Hindsight, a series of privately published English translations by Robert H. Schmidt of ancient astrological texts.  These are draft translations, coming out of the modern astrology community.  But it is unlikely that anybody will ever translate these highly technical texts, and copies are very hard to find.

For some reason today I started thinking of Antiochus of Athens, and then found myself wondering whether I ever acquired copies of this collection.  In fact, I find, I acquired the volumes containing Antiochus and Hephaestio.  Today I wrote and enquired about getting copies of all the rest, except for those with Vettius Valens and Ptolemy.  We shall see what they say.

I wish I could get copies of all these into a major research library or two.

UPDATE: 5th Oct. 2018.  I wrote to order five of these, and I learn that the paper copies are out of print.  However PDF versions can still be purchased of the entire library at $25 each.  There is a discount for several volumes.  The entire set can be purchased for $225.  I’ve just purchased 6 volumes.  After all, who knows when anybody will translate astrological texts again?

List of Greek Track PDFS — 1785 total pages! — you get everything below for $225

VOL. I: PAULUS ALEXANDRINUS. INTRODUCTION TO ASTROLOGY. (Complete). 378 A.D. Composed as an introduction for his son, and representing the main line of the tradition, it is the best way to get an overview of the major themes and concepts of Hellenistic astrology. It exhibits considerable sensitivity to the subtleties of the astrological language.

VOL. IIa: ANONYMOUS OF 379. ON THE FIXED STARS. A substantial chunk survives of this ambitious treatise, including elaborate natal delineations for 30 fixed stars when on the angles and when configured with the planets. The only work of its kind.

VOL. IIb: ANTIOCHUS OF ATHENS. FRAGMENTS FROM HIS THESAURUS. 2nd century A.D. The best source for the definition and clarification of specialized astrological terminology taken for granted by Ptolemy and others.

VOL. III: PTOLEMY. PHASES OF THE FIXED STARS. Circa 150 A.D. Astrological weather prediction based on heliacal risings & settings of 30 fixed stars, showing evidence of having been excised from the Almagest–perhaps censored? Complete calendar of predictions for every day of the Alexandrian year. Hints at the broader philosophical importance of the phasis concept.

VOL. IV: VETTIUS VALENS. ANTHOLOGY, Bk I. 160 A. D. The most definitive compendium of antiquity containing a critical assessment of the astrological thought of Valens’ predecessors, thereby preserving much ancient astrology for posterity. Notable for its highly personal style and its emphasis on experience rather than theory alone. Book 1 contains extensive treatments of the nature and effects of the planets singly, two by two, and three by three. Similarly complete treatments of the 12 signs, and many other matters.

VOL. V: PTOLEMY. TETRABIBLOS, Bk I. Circa 150 A.D. A marvel of literary architecture, badly in need of a new translation. Book I first argues eloquently for the possibility and usefulness of astrology, and then presents Ptolemy’s “scientific” framework for astrology within the context of Aristotelean natural philosophy. Deals with the special natures of the planets, signs, and configurations. Derives the dignities with reference to a tropical zodiac.

VOL. VI: HEPHAESTIO OF THEBES. COMPENDIUM, Bk I. 380 A.D. Treats of general principles of astrology & universal astrology, blending Ptolemy with Dorotheus and others. Highly interesting delineations of the decans. Also contains a very long excerpt from Nechepso/Petosiris on detailed eclipse delineation. Preserves an ancient Egyptian method of prediction using the Dog-Star alone.

VOL. VII: VETTIUS VALENS. ANTHOLOGY, Bk II. On the general subject of happiness and good fortune. Rough trimester predictions based on trigon rulers. Houses, Lots, and a derived house system reckoned not from the Ascendant but from the Lot of Fortune, with emphasis on the Place of Acquisition. Aspect delineation. Numerous other subjects. All illustrated with many sample charts.

VOL. VIII: VETTIUS VALENS. ANTHOLOGY, Bk III. On the general subject of length of life. The method of primary directions. The bound ruler. The combination of ascensional times with planetary periods. Prenatal new and full moons. Numerous examples of these life expectancy calculations. A large amount of dense but suggestive material on numerous alternative traditions.

VOL. IX: TEACHINGS ON TRANSITS. The four surviving Greek texts on transit delineation, attributed to Dorotheus, Orpheus, Anubio, and Valens. Some highly unexpected delineations suggest a different underlying principle. Indications as to the context in which transits were employed, and when they were to be taken into account.

VOL. X: THE ASTROLOGICAL RECORD OF THE EARLY SAGES IN GREEK. All the material found in the CCAG from astrologers who preceded Dorotheus, Valens, and Ptolemy or who seem to be independent of them. Hermes, Nechepso/Petosiris, Critodemus, “Zoroaster”, “Pythagoras”, Timaeus, Thrasyllus, Balbillus, & numerous others are represented. Most of it is katarchic or inceptional astrology.

VOL. XI: VETTIUS VALENS. ANTHOLOGY, Bk IV. More on aphesis. Distribution of times. The Lot of Fortune and times of life. Transferral and Reception of chronocratorship. “Assignments” of planets to planets. Much more miscellaneous lore and the usual complement of examples.

VOL. XII: PTOLEMY. TETRABIBLOS, Bk III. Genethliacal astrology and predictions for the characteristic events in human life, mainly using Ptolemy’s preferred method of planetary significators. Contains the notoriously obscure treatment of primary directions and length of life. The translator’s preface contains an analysis of house division, planetary strenght, and cusps in Hellenistic astrology.

VOL. XIII: VETTIUS VALENS. ANTHOLOGY, Bks V & VI. Eclipses, Inceptions, and the “Climacteric Year”. Place of accusation. More on releasings of the years. Keys to using profections. Some electional material. Philosophical digression on the nature of prognostication and training of the soul.

VOL. XIV: PTOLEMY. TETRABIBLOS, Bk IV. Completes the treatment of natal astrology begun in Bk III. Covers the topics of possessions, rank and eminence, work, marriage and sexual union, children, friends and enemies, travel abroad, and quality of death, and ends with a treatment of Ptolemy’s preferred system and hierarchy of time-lords.The translator’s preface contains a discussion of sect and related rejoicing conditions in Hellenistic astrology.

VOL. XV: HEPHAISTIO OF THEBES. COMPENDIUM, Bk II. 380 A.D. Deals with “topics”, or special subject areas in the native’s life. Contains an extensive summary of procedures for rectification and the study of the conception chart, a commentary on Ptolemy’s treatment of length of life, a discussion of the time-lord method later called decennials accompanied by fairly elaborate delineations of planet pairs, a treatment of rank and honor with three chart examples including one that is the most elaborate and detailed surviving Hellenistic chart reading, plus a great deal of miscellaneous astrological lore. Much of this material is found in no other Hellenistic source.

VETTIUS VALENS. ANTHOLOGY, Bk VII. Contains the only surviving intact presentation of an important timing procedure that derives directly from the earliest stratum of Hellenistic astrology, employing the periods of the planets and the ascentional times of the zoidia for the direct timing of planetary figures and configurations in a given nativity. Includes a method for investigating life expectancy based on a study of the domicile lord of the Ascendant in tandem with the domicile lord of the Lot of Fortune, supplemented with a study of the conjoinings of the Moon to other planets and a procedure for determining a succession of planets that have primary authority over the native’s successes and failures in all areas of life.

PROJECT HINDSIGHT COMPANION TO THE GREEK TRACK. Some statements of method from Hellenistic astrology on how to read a chart, a glossary of Greek astrological terms, a list of the primary astrologers from Hellenistic times through the early Byzantine period, plus a collection of useful tables.

Share

Heliogabalus or Elagabalus?

Posted on by Roger Pearse

The third century Antonine emperor M. Aurelius Antoninus, also known as Varius Bassianus, is universally called “Elagabalus” in modern scholarly literature in English.  Yet 19th century literature calls him “Heliogabalus”, and I see that French literature is less inclined to Elagabalus than English.  So… why the change?

The cause of the change appears to be the 1911 book The Amazing Emperor Heliogabalus, by J.S.Hay (online here).  In the preface (xi-xii) we read this extraordinary effusion:

After the Proclamation, I have preferred to call the Emperor by his official name, Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, or Antonine for short, as this is the only manner in which the coins, inscriptions, and documents describe him. After his death, it seems allowable to give him the nickname which his relations and later biographers have applied to him, namely, the latinised form of the name of his God. I have nowhere adopted the later Greek spelling or adaptation, Heliogabalus, either when referring to the God of the Emesans or to the Emperor himself. The only form in which the name occurs in inscriptions is in describing the Emperor as “Priest of Elagabal” or the Sun. Lampridius certainly Hellenised its form a century later, on what grounds is by no means clear, when one realises that neither the boy nor his God had any trace of Greek blood, tradition, or philosophy about them, … It is further unnecessary to drag in the Hellenised form of the Emperor’s name in order to pander to a popular and erroneous conception of the reign, which conception this book is designed to combat and generally offend. Heliogabalus is nevertheless the sole title by which this Emperor is known to the world at large, in consequence of which I have allowed the name to stand on the title-page, chiefly in order that Mrs. Grundy’s prurient mind may know, before she buys or borrows this volume, that it is the record of a life at which she may expect to be shocked, though she will in all probability find herself yawning before the middle of the introductory chapter.

The author’s smirking mockery of ordinary people may be a little strong for most of us to stomach.  But it is clear from his own words that he was a revisionist, determined to impose some novelty on the rest of us.  This should put us on our guard.

If we may believe Mr Hay, the emperor was never known as either Elagabalus or Heliogabalus during his lifetime.  No coin or inscription records this.  Furthermore every single Latin source that mentions him gives his name as Heliogabalus.  This is, of course, a graecised name – Helios rather than Sol – but that is what the Latin writers call him.

Our source for his reign is “Lampridius”, that is the life in the Historia Augusta.[1]  The translation portion may be found in two halves in English at Lacus Curtius, here and here; unfortunately the translator kindly renders “heliogabalus” as “elagabalus”, which is naughty.  Here’s the opening, which I have corrected:

Now when Macrinus had been slain and also his son Diadumenianus, who had been given an equal share of the power and also the name Antoninus, the imperial office was bestowed upon Varius Heliogabalus, solely because he was reputed to be the son of Bassianus.  As a matter of fact, he was the priest of Heliogabalus (sometimes called Jupiter, or the Sun), and had merely assumed the name Antoninus in order to prove his descent or else because he had learned that this name was so dear to mankind that for its sake even the parricide Bassianus had been greatly beloved.  Originally, he had the name Varius, but later he was called Heliogabalus because he was priest of this god — whom he afterwards brought with him from Syria to Rome, founding a temple for him on the site of an earlier shrine of Orcus. Finally, when he received the imperial power, he took the name Antoninus and was the last of the Antonines to rule the Roman Empire.

From this we learn that the word – whatever it is, Heliogabalus or Elagabalus – is the name of the god as well as the emperor.

This coin of Elagabalus is interesting in this respect.[2]  It is an aureus from the Antioch mint, struck in 218-219 AD.

The obverse reads IMP[ERATOR] C M AVR[ELIUS] ANTONINVS P F AVG[USTUS]. The reverse reads SANCT[O] DEO SOLI and then ELAGABAL, and shows the black stone of Emesa – the idol of the god – in a solar chariot.  (El Gabal was the Baal of Emesa).

The text reads “To the holy sun-god Elagabal” (although surely an -o should finish the god’s name, unless it was considered indeclinable?)  SOL ELAGABAL is the name; in Greek Helios Gabalos, from which Heliogabalos.

So with this coin alone we have clear evidence as to the Latin form of the god’s name during the reign of Elagabalus.

If we follow the Historia Augusta and “Lampridius”, this was also the name of the emperor.  This, I imagine, is the reason why Hay’s alteration has been accepted generally.  But… it is a hypothesis.  It consists of accepting one part of the testimony of the HA – the statement that the god’s name was the same as that given to the emperor in mockery after his death – and then presuming that the use of “Heliogabalus” throughout is therefore a mistake of some kind.

The Historia Augusta is a strange work anyway.  Supposedly the work of six authors, it has been shown conclusively that it was in fact the work of a single author in the late 4th century.  Some of it is based on excellent sources; other parts are pure fiction, notably the lives of the usurpers.  One might hypothesise that the author was using a Greek account, perhaps, which therefore referred to the god and his minion as Heliogabalus.  (The weird name “Gabal” might not be recognised).

I see the logic that Hay employs.  All the same… if that is the case, then I am not sure that the case is made.  Did the emperor even speak Latin?  Did he speak Greek a lot, perhaps?  What word did he use, talking of his god? We have no way of knowing whether the Romans, jeering at Heliogabalus would use the Latin form that Hay hypothesises.  Possibly the emperor often spoke Greek and the Romans repeated the alien word in their jeering?

We cannot know what the word was that the Romans spoke, jeering at the dead freak emperor.  But we do know that the Historia Augusta says “Heliogabalus”.  Surely we should have stuck with what we know?

But since the modern scholarly literature uses Elagabalus, we had better stick to that.

Share
  1. [1]Online in Latin and English at Bill Thayer’s site, Lacus Curtius, here.↩
  2. [2]Via MediaWiki↩

A kind invitation; or a hard-faced attempt to loot?

Posted on by Roger Pearse

I get a lot of emails.  Most are very welcome.  But I’ve never had an email like the ones I received this morning.

From: Ambrose Adriano
Subject: Roger Pearse’s blog contact form: Interested in merging Tertullian.org with Patristics.co?

Hey Roger,

First of all, thank you for all the content you’ve done. I can only imagine how long it took. I am the creator of www.patristics.co, and I was wondering if you wanted to join forces and merge your content onto my site. I have great aesthetics, but I am lacking in time and resources when it comes to uploading content. I would love to work with you, since we seem to have the same heart for the church fathers. Anyway, I just thought I’d ask.

-Ambrose

Well that’s a very kind invitation, of course.  Mr Adriano has created an empty website with some graphics; would I care to fill it with content?  My first reaction was to write back “Write your own damn content”.  But of course I get offers of collaboration from well-meaning people, which are sometimes clumsily expressed, and one must be polite.

But then I thought … “content”?  I don’t write “content”.  I write stuff for people to use.  “Content” is what a professional might call it.  This… this does not feel like a well-meaning amateur.

Sadly I was unable to think of any reason why I should donate my website with a mass of intellectual property to a complete stranger, and work at his direction, so I replied:

Hi Ambrose,

That’s an interesting email.  But I’m actually very happy doing my own thing, you know?  🙂

Good luck with your project.

That should have been the end of it.  But Mr Adriano – the name on the email was now “Garry Adriano” – was not finished, and wrote this:

Alright, I’ll make one last pitch then I’ll leave you alone Roger 😉

I understand that it would probably be uncomfortable to make such a big change, and it’s much easier to go with business as usual. However, are you really happy with “your” thing? Don’t you want to broaden your vision and make this about more than just you? I have a vision, and my heart is for educating the common man (through beauty) instead of just being a resource that scholars use occasionally.

If you’re afraid that you’d lose autonomy, I’m not interested in controlling you. You have the freedom to do what you already do, and you wouldn’t have to pay for hosting.

I have thousands of visitors with a rejuvenated love for the content, and it’s always growing. People do not want the past, they want the future, and this is what I am trying to give them. I will pray that you would one day reconsider and see me as being an opportunity for your own increase, rather than bury your talent in the sand merely because it happens to be yours.

“I have a vision….” is very eloquent, isn’t it?  And, despite having no content, he already has “thousands of visitors”.  Note the absence of mention of copyright, tho.

But funnily enough neither email actually shows any interest in the “content”.  That’s of no importance, plainly.  That “email” reads like boiler-plate.  If you wanted to get some gullible amateur to hand over their content to you, on some random subject, so that you could monetise it and make money, you might have such a letter on file, usable for any subject.

Perhaps I’m over-wary, but this really made me nervous.  The internet was once a network of people giving generously of their time and knowledge to the world. In some places it still is.  Today there are plenty of sites which purport to advise the reader on how to get rich quick by creating a blog or a website.  It seems we have a population of takers, rather than givers, attempting to take advantage.

I have no idea who Mr Adriano might be.  But perhaps others will receive his eloquent emails also.  Falling in with his requests might not be in their best interest.

Let the website author beware.  Caveat auctor.

UPDATE: A fresh email this evening.

Your blog post is very sad, inaccurate, and filled with assumptions about my intent, but if you wish to immediately judge and publicly mock people you don’t know, that’s between you and God. I did not even bring money into the conversation. That was your assumption.

The good news for you is, I don’t really care about your opinion of me. The bad news is, God does.

Oh dear.

Share

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

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Continuing our translation.  More material summarised from the bible.

3. If someone objects that in the Torah it is written that the sons of Abraham – in another text: the sons of Israel – were slaves for four hundred years (11) and then asks why we say instead that they were slaves for two hundred and seventeen years, we answer: “You have not chosen correctly the date from which to begin to compute to get to the four hundred years.  Know that it is written in the first book of the Torah that God – highest be His praise – said to Abraham: “Look up at the sky and count the stars if you can count them.  Your seed will be as numerous as them.”(12)  And God told him again: “I am the God who brought you out of Qarrà of the Chaldeans to bring you to this land that I will give you as an inheritance” (13). Abraham said: “My Lord, how will I know that I shall inherit it?”(14). And God answered him: “Take a young bull, a ram and a three-year-old goat, then take a turtledove and a pigeon. Divide them in half and place each half in front of the respective half, but do not divide the birds “(15).  Abraham did [as God had ordered him to do].  The birds immediately rushed to the sides, but Abraham called them and they went to him. It was sunset.  On Abraham there fell a deep sleep and a great fright because dense darkness had fallen on Abraham.  God told Abraham: “You must know that your descendants will dwell in a land not their own and will work there and will be slaves for four hundred years.  But I will judge the nation that they serve. Later they will come out and come here with great riches.  As for you, you will go in peace to your fathers and you will be buried after a decent old age”(16).  It is from this time when God said to Abraham: “Your descendants will be slaves for four hundred years” that it is necessary to compute the exodus of the children of Israel from Egypt. Understand it well!

4. Pharaoh let the children of Israel go and told them: “Go with Moses and worship your Lord on the holy mountain (17).  But in three days, go back to your places”. Moses ordered the women of the children of Israel to borrow clothes and jewels from the Egyptians and wear them. The women did as Moses had ordered them to do. Moses led them out of Egypt. There were six hundred thousand. The sea split in two before them, on the orders of Moses, and allowed them to walk in the middle. The pharaoh regretted allowing the children of Israel to leave. The pharaoh of the times of Moses was called ‘Amyūs (18). He chased them with six hundred thousand men and passed through where they had passed. But the waters rejoined over them and drowned the pharaoh with his men, without even one being saved. From Abraham to when the children of Israel came out of Egypt five hundred and seven years had passed away; from Fāliq to the exodus of the children of Israel from Egypt, one thousand and forty-eight; from the deluge to the exodus of the childrens of Israel from Egypt, one thousand five hundred and seventy-nine years; from Adam to the exodus of the children of Israel from Egypt, three thousand eight hundred and thirty-five years.

The children of Israel wandered for forty years. God rained manna and quails on them. In their wandering from one place to another they fought against the Amalekites and the Philistines. Whenever they tried to occupy Palestine they were driven out, and every time they tried to enter the territory of the Amalekites they engaged in battle and were driven back. When they thought of returning to Egypt, they were afraid of the people. In the desert there prophesied the sons of Qūrih (19), who were swallowed up by the earth, namely Ashīr, Ilqānā and Anīsāf (20). The earth swallowed Qūrih because he had become arrogant to Moses and insulted him. Moses therefore commanded the earth [to open] and it swallowed Qūrih with his tent and all that belonged to him.  Moses and Harun made a census of the sons of Israel who were in the desert, of those who carried arms, from twenty years upwards, except those of the tribe of Levi, and counted them six hundred and three thousand five hundred and fifty.  Then the sons of Levi, those from a month upwards, turned out to be twenty-two thousand two hundred and seventy-three. The total number of the sons of Israel that Moses and Harūn counted thus turned out to be six hundred and twenty-five thousand eight hundred and twenty-three. While in the desert, Moses killed Sīhūn, king of Hishwan (21): he destroyed their homes, killed their men and took their women captive. He killed the king of Madyan, destroyed Madyan and killed the men and the children, taking the women prisoner.  He killed the king of ‘Ūğ and destroyed the city, killing the men and children and making the women prisoner (22).

5. Moses ascended Mount Tur Sīnā (23) and God gave him the Torah written on plates. When he came down he found that the sons of Israel had taken the jewels of their women, smelted them, and had forged a calf’s head and worshiped it. Seeing them in this condition, he threw down the plates which were broken in pieces. Then Moses picked them up and placed them in an ark. Moses built the Tent of time using the thread of the garments of the women of the Israelites and placed a sanctuary within it. Harūn, his brother, was a priest in the sanctuary. In the desert, many snakes were mortally biting the children of Israel, who asked Moses for help. God then ordered Moses to make a bronze serpent and put it in such a way as to be clearly visible and to raise the standard in the camp of the children of Israel. Anyone who was bitten and looked at the bronze snake would not report any damage from the snake’s venom. Moses, Harūn and Maryam, their sister, died in the desert in the same year, having wandered for forty years in the desert. First Maryam, their sister, on the sixth of Nīsān, or Barmūdah (24), died at the age of one hundred and twenty-seven; then Harūn died, on the first of the month of Āb, or Misra (25), at the age of one hundred and twenty-three years and was buried on Mount Hūr (26); finally Moses died – on him be peace – on the seventh of the month of Adhār, or Baramhāt (27), in the land of Muwāb. He was buried in the wādī of Muwāb (28): he was one hundred and twenty years old.

Share

A new translation of Synesius’ “In praise of baldness” from Anthony Alcock

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Anthony Alcock has translated Synesius of Cyrene’s spoof Encomium of baldness  from Greek.  Synesius was a contemporary of Hypatia, and lived in the late 4th century.

Here it is:

Share