Thoughts on Antiquity, Patristics, putting things online, information access, and more
Wanted: people who know Coptic and would like 10c a word to translate it! There are quite a few fragments of Eusebius in the coptic catena of De Lagarde, and I’d like to get them all translated into English. A friend has just completed the second one — which was 134 words long. But there’s plenty more to do.
Interestingly the same catena has a fragment from Apollinaris, on Luke 1. Clearly the fact that a writer was a heretic was not that important in the catenas.
I’ve now had the letter of Latino Latini to Andreas Masius translated. This is the one that mentions the lost manuscript of Eusebius Diaphonia. It’s actually a very interesting, gossipy letter. The translator has offered to do the whole set of letters sometime, which is nice but not something I will pay for at this time. I’ll print it as an appendix to the edition of the Eusebius.
I’m still looking through the literature, trying to find leads to the last, lost manuscript of Eusebius of Caesarea’s Gospel contradictions. I’ve been reading my photocopy of Zoepfl’s book about the Commentary on the Hexameron of ps. Eustathius of Antioch, which — according to Latino Latini — probably was the first text in this now lost manuscript.
It seems that I am not alone in being interested in Latini’s comments. On p. 10 of Zoepfl, he lists a Spanish manuscript:
cod. Matrit. gr. 124 (1), a collection-manuscript, written by Antonius Calosyna in 1563 (2), contains in first place (f. 2ff) the ps.Eust. Commentary, under the title: Τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν εὐσταθίου ἐπισκόπου ἀντιοχείας ὁμιλία εἰς τὴν ἑξαήμερον ὑπόμνημα θαυμαστόν. The end of the work is missing.
(1) See J. Iriarte, Regiae Bibliothecae Matritensis codices Graeci manuscripti, vol. I (1769), p.501 f.; J.A.Fabricius-G.Ch.Harles, Bibliotheca Graeca, vol. IX (Hamburgi, 1804), 134 f.
(2) Latino Latini wrote on the 14th September 1563 to Andreas Masius (see Latinius II 116), “Cardinal Sirletus sends to tell you, there has been found in Sicily a work of Eustathius on the creation, or the six days.” This raises the question of whether there is a connection between the Matr. 124 and the manuscript mentioned by Latinius, especially when the Latin title in the manuscript is written in an Italian hand.
If Sirleto found a manuscript, he would first probably hire a scribe to make a copy for himself. Since this is made in the same year as Latini wrote saying that Sirleto had just found such an ms, containing both Eustathius and the lost work by Eusebius, is this the copy made? If so, what else is in this ms? From what was it copied?
Interesting, and leading to more questions!
UPDATE: Iriarte doesn’t seem to be online, unfortunately. Vol. 9 of Fabricius (found by doing a Google advanced search, author=Fabricius, date=1804) is here. This volume of Fabricius is a patrology, so we are in the section on Eustathius, reviewing scholarly opinion on the work and full of useful and interesting information.
It is interesting how these multi-volume Latin works of the 18th century make modern patrologies look babyish.
UPDATE2: The Pinakes database contains information on this ms., which is Madrid, BN, 04852. Eustathius is on ff.2-96v; but folios 1r-v and 97 r-v are blank, and the work is unfinished. It is then followed by 3 works by Gregory of Nyssa. I would guess, therefore, that the four parts are of different origins, and that the copy of Eustathius was not completed. Drat.
A small family emergency has brought me up to Cambridge again today, and given me the opportunity to examine Zoepfl’s monograph on the Hexameron of Ps.Eustathius of Antioch. This is a lightweight 50 page thing, which does NOT contain the text. Indeed it contains very little more than a list of manuscripts possibly available, not made very clear, and a list of contents, and a discussion of sources. It does indicate that the title Hexameron – on the six days of creation – is woefully inappropriate for the contents, which are miscellaneous.
Interestingly one section is devoted to the genealogy of Jesus, from Matthew. Since Eusebius in the Quaestiones spends quite a bit of time on the genealogies of Jesus, it makes sense that a volume might contain the two.
Zoepfl’s list of manuscripts is very limited; less than I got from a search of Pinakes. I intend next to try to access the catalogue for the Biblioteca Nazionale in Naples and see what I can find.
He also discusses the editions of the work. There are precisely three; the editio princeps of Leo Allatius; a reprint of the Latin translation of Allatius in some series, and Migne’s reprint. The edition of Allatius was made from a copy he made himself of a manuscript in Rome in a private collection, possibly the Barberini collection. There are a lot of typos in the printed text, it seems. Allatius says that he just printed what he found in the mss., without changing it and added critical notes at the end. Indeed from the sound of it the edition of Allatius is (a) very unsatisfactory, as might be expected in 1629 and (b) the best that the work has ever received.
The work is about 90 columns of Migne long, i.e. 45 columns of Greek. I wish I knew a Greek translator whom I could just give money to and a translation would appear!
The commentary on the six days of creation by Eustathius of Antioch, to which Latino Latini refers in my previous post, is spurious. Indeed only one work by Eustathius (deposed 330 AD by an Arian synod) survives. The text was composed in the late 4th-early 5th century, and makes use of Basil the Great’s work on the same subject, as well as Josephus and even Achilles Tatius. Indeed the work appears to have much more historical interest than the dull title might indicate, since it quotes so many historical sources, at a date well before they appear in manuscript copies.
The work was published in 1629 by Leo Allatius, which is reprinted in the Patrologia Graeca 18, c.708-793. A modern edition by F. Zoepfl exists, with discussion of the codices. Eustathius is found in the Clavis Patrum Graecorum vol. 2, #3350f. The Commentary on the Hexameron is CPG 3393. It appears to be a deeply neglected work.
A search for CPG 3393 in Pinakes, the IRHT database of Greek manuscripts, gives 28 results, including a bunch of mss. in Rome, mostly in the Vatican. Nothing in Naples. But it is unlikely that our ms. is in the well-indexed lists of the IRHT, or it would already be known.
Bibliography:
Friedrich Zoepfl, Der Kommentar des Pseudo-Eustathios zum Hexaemeron, in Altestamentliche Abhandlungen X, 5, Munster, 1927.
In Hexameron Commentarius: Ac De Engastrimytho dissertatio adversus Originem… / Ed.: L. Allatius. Lugduni, 1629. PG 18.
Result! I’ve now got an idea of where to look for the lost full text of Eusebius’ Quaestiones ad Stephanum/Marinum!
When Angelo Mai published the sad remains of this work in 1823, he added a note that Latino Latini (in the 16th century) said that Cardinal Sirleto had told him that he had seen a manuscript of this work, in three books, in Sicily. Migne reprinted this.
But I suffer from acute reluctance to repeat stuff unchecked. For a year now I have been trying to locate a copy of the letter in which Latini said this. Today I succeeded. And … it turns out that Mai has misled us all. He did not mark insertions and omissions into what Latini wrote. Here is an excerpt:
Scire etiam te vult in Sicilia inventum esse Eustathii Antiocheni Episcopi librum de mundi creatione, idest de sex dierum operibus, unde Basilii plurima videantur sumpta esse; praeterea libros tres Eusebii Caesariensis de Evangeliorum diaphonea, qui omnes, ut ipse sperat, brevi in lucem prodibunt.
He also wants you to know that in Sicily there have been found the book of Eustathius bishop of Antioch on the creation of the world, that is of the works of the six days, from which many things seem to have been taken by Basil; in addition three books of Eusebius of Caesarea on the divergences in the Gospels, all of which, so he hopes, will be brought into the light shortly.
Now this is an important difference. For the first time we learn that the main find is a volume of Eustathius; and, if we translate praeterea as “following it”, it suggests to me that the two ‘finds’ are in a single physical volume. If so, it becomes no mystery that the Eusebius might “disappear.”
When cataloguing a pile of manuscripts, the lazy librarian flips open the cover, scribbles down the title of the first work in it, and then closes the book and moves on to the next one. And if there is one characteristic endemic to the Southern Italian librarian, it is laziness. And who in the world would trouble themselves over a volume of Eustathius? My eyes close, almost at the name. How likely is this to be interesting? Not very. How likely is it that anyone has examined such a volume in centuries? Not very.
What this means is that we ought to be looking in the manuscript catalogues for a volume of Eustathius. If there is one, say in the old Royal Library in Naples, the capital of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, it may well repay investigation!
“You will find,” said Martin Routh, “it is a very good practice to always verify your references.” Wouldn’t it be something to rediscover that manuscript!!!
UPDATE: I have tossed an email of enquiry to the Biblioteca Nazionale in Naples, and also to the Biblioteca centrale della Regione siciliana. They ought to know what they have. If they reply.
The last known manuscript of Eusebius “Gospel questions” is mentioned by Latino Latini in a letter to Andreas Masius. The information about it begins “Sirleto wants you to know…” The quotation was printed by Angelo Mai when he first printed the remains of that work of Eusebius, reprinted by Migne, and so on. I’ve been trying to locate the letter in which Latini says this, without much luck.
But in a way, perhaps I am looking at the wrong end. Latini never saw the manuscript. His information came from Sirleto. Possibly it came by word of mouth, but equally there might be a letter somewhere from Sirleto to Latini — such letters do exist.
What I need to do, I think, is to find the correspondence of Sirleto. Do the papers of Latini contain the letters he received, I wonder? Pierre Petitmengin will know, so I ought to ask him. Have Sirleto’s letters been published?
I know nothing about Sirleto. In Petitmengin’s article I find mention of P. Paschini, Guglielmo Sirleto prima del cardinalato [1565] in Tre ricerche sulla storia della Chiesa nel Cinquecento, Rome, 1945, p. 153-281. There is an article on Sirleto, Guglielmo in the Biographisch-bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon, 10 (1995), c. 532-33. There is Denzler, Georg. Kardinal Guglielmo Sirleto : (1514 – 1585.) Leben u. Werk. Ein Beitrag z. nachtridentin. Reform. München : Hueber, 1964. I hate books in German.
Online there is an article in a curious Catholic Encyclopedia site (a site which puts page scans online and then meanly defaces them!), and in the Italian Wikipedia, which links to a site about cardinals in English with a Sirleto article with bibliography. Looking through the last, someone published stuff from Sirleto’s papers, and suggests that these are in the Vatican.
UPDATE: There is a Wikipedia article, spelling his name Gugliemo, and a real Catholic Encyclopedia site.
One problem with a project that runs on is that you forget stuff. And I realise, with irritation, that I have done just this. For my own benefit, here is the matter again.
Eusebius’ work on problems in the gospels, and their solutions, is lost. But for a moment in the 16th century, it looked as if it might be recovered. Angelo Mai, in the 1st edition of his publication of the fragments, refers (p. xii) to a letter by the scholar Latino Latini (Latinus Latinius) to Andreas Masius. In this he says:
Sirletus scire te vult, in Sicilia inventos esse libros tres Eusebii caesariensis de evangeliorum diaphonia, qui ut ipse sperat brevi in lucem edentur.
Sirleto wants you to know that in Sicily there may be found three books by Eusebius of Caesarea on the differences in the gospels, which he hopes soon to publish.
I would like to get this letter translated and include it in my translation of the remains of this work. But… where to find it?
Mai gives the reference: Op. Tom. II, p. 116. This seemingly helpful note is in fact deeply unhelpful, because it is too brief. No work named “Opera” exists.
A google search here reveals that this letter should be dated 1663.
The following item might seem to be it:
Epistolae, conjecturae, et observationes sacra, profanaque eruditione ornatae / Ex Bibliotheca Cathedralis Ecclesiae Viterbiensis a D. Magro … collectae …, Published: Romae : Viterbii, 1659-1667. Physical desc.: 2 v. ; 23 cm. (4to) Other names: Magri, Domenico, 1604-1672.
But in fact I have examined a copy of this at Cambridge University Library (shelfmark Acton.c.49.128), and it contains no such text, although it does include letters to Masius. Another book of the same title exists at Durham. I don’t know of another work by this writer which could be it. His only other work, Bibliotheca Sacra et Profana, also in 2 volumes, is perhaps the only possibility. I am hampered by these books being in rare books rooms, and themselves being rare! A copy exists at Oxford, which may be read only in Duke Humphrey’s reading room (shelfmark S 67 Th). Another is at Satan’s Seat, the British Library (shelfmark 1492.i.14).
I shall resume the struggle soon! Perhaps the Cambridge copy is defective somehow. I suspect, tho, that everyone has taken Migne’s reference, borrowed from Mai, and no-one before me has ever checked this!
Later: Mai probably used the Vatican collection. Why not check there? I find, by searching on “latini, latino”, two editions of the letters.
| Author : | Latini, Latino, 1513-1593. |
| Title : | Latini Latinii … Epistolae, coniecturae & observationes sacra profanaque eruditione ornatae. Ex bibliotheca cathedralis ecclesiae Viterbiensis, a Dominico Magro … studio ac decennali labore selectae … Tomus secundus. |
| Publication : | Viterbii, ex typ. Brancatia, apud Petrum Martinellum, |
| Date of publication : | 1667. |
| Physical description : | xii, 213 p. 1 tav. 22 cm. |
| Language : | Latin |
| Date of record : | 950117 |
| No. | Department | Call number | ||||
 |
|
|
|
|||
| 1 | MAG | Stamp.Chig.IV.947 |
and
| Author : | Latini, Latino, 1513-1593. |
| Title : | Latini Latinii … Epistolae, coniecturae et observationes sacra, profanaque eruditione ornatae … a Dominico Magro … studio ac labore collectae … |
| Publication : | Romae, typis Tinassij, |
| Date of publication : | 1659-1667. |
| Physical description : | 2 v. in 1 24 cm. |
| Language : | Latin |
| Date of record : | 950117 |
| No. | Department | Call number | ||||
|
|
|
|
|||
| 1 | MAG | Mai.XI.P.VII.30 | ||||
| 2 | MAG | R.G.Teol.IV.4185 | ||||
| 3 | MAG | Stamp.Barb.Y.X.75-76 | ||||
| 4 | MAG | Stamp.Ferr.IV.4011 |
Interesting that the call number, or shelfmark, of the latter includes one in a “Mai” collection! Who knew that Mai’s books were at the Vatican? Not me, that’s for sure. But this does tend to suggest the existence of two different editions, printed at different places in the same year.
Excellent news on the translation of Eusebius’ “Gospel problems and solutions” (Quaestiones ad Stephanum/Marinum). Two more of the Syriac fragments — those printed by Mai — appeared in my inbox over the weekend. Only one more to do!
I also obtained some splendid colour digital images of unpublished Syriac fragments of the same work from the Mingana library. We need to look at these, of course; and finally, to revise the whole version of the Syriac. Apparently the Syriac isn’t that close to the Greek, although it is written in quite good Syriac.
In addition, I heard from the translator of the Greek. He has resumed revising the whole translation of all the Greek, and is part way through the fragments.
Also a friend has translated a second Coptic fragment for me. It looks as if we’ll be done by autumn.
Deep joy! Someone who translates from Syriac has written to me and asked if I want any work done. I’ve pointed him at Syriac fragment 10 of the Quaestiones evangelicae of Eusebius.
I was rather despairing of ever getting this completed. There’s only 12 fragments, and 1-6 and 12 are all done. But… more people are interested in Syriac than capable in it, it seems.
So it’s all getting rather busy! The Greek is approaching completion, I now have another chance of getting the remaining 5 chunks of Syriac done. Someone is working on Origen, and of course my own hands are busy with Agapius and the Greek translator.
Is there something about summer? Do all the academics come out to play at the end of May, with time on their hands for a couple of months?
Maybe I should look for someone who knows Coptic as well, and see if I can get the Eusebius fragments in Coptic done!