Category: Chapter titles

Bergk is the second author quoted as an authority on the history of scholarship in this area.  He writes so long ago that he uses “Capiteln” rather than “Kapiteln”!  But I think it is interesting to see what this foundational author on the subject actually says.

I have scanned and corrected his text.  Since I did not understand some of the German (and didn’t understand ‘Musterstürke’!), I will give that first, and then my English translation.  I have omitted the Greek text of Polybius quoted, purely because I cannot bring myself to type it in.

After a discussion of writers who give the number of lines of their works (Theopompus, Josephus), Bergk begins p.132 with the heading “Inhaltsangaben” (“Content information”) and proceeds as follows:

Später war es ganz gewöhnlich, einer  Schrift oder jedem einzelnen Buche eines grösseren Werkes eine summarische Uebersicht vorauszuschicken oder auch den Inhalt der einzelnen Abschnitte in Randbemerkungen oder Ueberschriften kurz zusammenzufassen und so für die Bequemlichkeit der Leser zu sorgen.  Polybius hatte dies im Anfange seines Geschichtswerkes regelmässig getan, später, weil er wahrnahm, dass die Abschreiber  diese Summarien geringschätzig behandelten und aus Bequemlichkeit meist wegliessen, zog er es vor, die einleitende Uebersicht mit der Darstellung selbst zu verbinden, um sie so gegen die Willkür der Schreiber zu schützen. [124] So hat auch Diodor solche Inhaltsangaben selbst hinzugefügt, die für die Kritik nicht unwichtig sind, wahrscheinlich auch Athenäus, während sie anderwärts von fremder Hand herrühren mögen; bei nachgelassenen Schriften mag der Herausgeber dafür Sorge getragen haben. [125] Wie gedankenlos und nachlässig die Abschreiber mit der Ueberlieferung verfuhren, erkennt man aus der kleinen, gewöhnlich dem Aristoteles zugeschriebenen Abhandlung über die Eleatischen Philosophen; hier war offenbar in der Ueberschrift jedes Abschnittes der Name des betreffenden Philosophen von dem Verfasser selbst hinzugefügt; diese Ueberschriften wurden später als entbehrlich weggelassen, und da der Verfasser die Gewohnheit hat, der Kürze halber im Texte selbst niemals den Namen des Philosophen, dessen System er kritisirt, zu nennen, entstand eine heillose Verwirrung, indem spätere Abschreiber nach Gutdünken die unentbehrlichen Ueberschriften ergänzten. Indem man den Inhalt der einzelnen Abschnitte kurz angab, bildete sich ganz von selbst die Eintheilung der Bücher in Capitel, [126] die wir besonders in gelehrten Arbeiten und Sammelwerken antreffen, wo die einzelnen Abschnitte lose an einander gereiht waren. Auch pflegte man wohl die Quellen, die man benutzt hatte, anzugeben, wie z. B. Parthenius in seinen erotischen Erzählungen, wo die neuere Kritik mit Unrecht Anstoss genommen hat, und Antoninus Liberalis in seinen Metamorphosen.

124. Vielleicht fügte er aber auch hier noch die prographai\ hinzu, denn die Worte des Polybius XI, I sind nicht ganz klar: … hin ist entweder ou) mo/non prographaj zu lesen, oder kai\ hinter a)lla\ zu tilgen. Dass die Sitte der prographai\ bei den Historikern vor Polybius allgemein üblich war, geht alls diesen Worten klar hervor; Polybius hatte dies Verfahren in den ersten fünf (zehn!) Büchern, wie er sagt, beobachtet, aber seine Klage über die Nachlässigkeit der Abschreiber ist nur zu begründet, es hat sich davon keine Spur erhalten. Die Neueren behandeln diese für das Verständniss sehr dienlichen Summarien und Randschriften meist zu geringschätzig, ja aus Hyperkritik hat man dieselben sogar da, wo sie handschriftlich erhalten sind, getilgt.

125. So rühren im Lucrez die Randschriften wahrscheinlich von Cicero her.

126. Denn kephalaion bedeutet ja eben die summarische Angabe des Inhaltes, welche am Rande vermerkt war. Kephalaia oder tmh/mata werden namentlich bei den Erklärern des Aristoteles sowie des Hippokrates (Schol. Hippocr. Dietz 11, 3), dann auch bei Photius in der Bibliothek erwähnt. Ebenso bei den Lateinern, Symmach. Ep. X, 27 citirt: Seneca lib. IV de benef. cap. XI. Cassiodor Arithm. I: Josephus in libro I antiquitatum titulo IX. In der alten c1assischen Zeit sind dagegen kephalaia Musterstürke, die man aus den classischen Schriftstellern auswählt, Plato Leg. VII, 810.

Which I render as:

Later, it was quite common to precede a text, or any single book of a larger work, with a summary overview, or also to summarise briefly the contents of each section in marginal notes or headings, and thus to provide for the convenience of the reader.  Polybius did this systematically at the beginning of his historical work, but later, because he perceived that the copyist of these summaries treated them with disdain and often omitted them for convenience, he preferred to link the introductory overview with the full text itself, thereby to protect against the whims of the transcriber. [124] So likewise Diodorus added himself such content information, which is not unimportant for critical studies, and probably Athenaeus also, although these may also derive from a alien hand; in posthumous works the editors may have taken on this task. [125] How thoughtlessly and carelessly the copyist proceeded with the transmission, is evident from the small treatise, usually attributed to Aristotle, on the Eleatic philosophers; here there was obviously in the heading of each section, the name of the philosopher, added by the author himself; these titles were later dropped as unnecessary, and since the author has the habit of brevity, half the time the name of the philosopher whose system he criticizes is not named, leaving a hopeless confusion, which was supplemented at will by later copyists with the indispensable headings. By indicating the contents of each section, the division of books into chapters arose automatically, [126] which we find especially in scholarly works and compilations, where the individual sections were loosely linked to one another. Also they were probably used to indicate the sources that had been used, as in e.g. Parthenius in his erotic stories, where more recent critical studies have wrongly objected to them, and Antoninus Liberalis in his Metamorphoses.

124.  Perhaps he also added the prographai, for the words of Polybius XI, 1, are not quite clear: … either we should read ou) mo/non prographaj or place kai\ behind a)lla\. That the custom of prographai was common among the historians before Polybius is clear from these words; Polybius had observed the custom in his first five (ten!) books, as he says, but his complaint about the negligence of the copyists is only too well founded, and his manuscripts retain no trace of them.  Modern writers mostly disdain these summaries and marginal notes, which are very important for understanding, indeed treated them with hypercriticism, even when they are preserved in the manuscripts.

125.  Thus the marginal notes in Lucretius are probably due to Cicero.

126.  Because kephalaion means equally the summary indication of contents, which were noted in the margin.  Kephalaia or tmh/mata were mentioned in the commentators on Aristotle and Hippocrates (Schol. Hippoc. ed. Dietz, 11, 3), and also by Photius in the Bibliotheca. Likewise among the Latin writers, Symmach.  Ep.  X, 27 cites:  Seneca lib.  IV  de benef. cap.  XI.  Cassiodorus  Arithm.  I:  Josephus in libro I  antiquitatum titulo IX.  In earlier classical times ‘Musterstürke’ (?) are against kephalaia, which are selected from classical writers, Plato Leg. VII, 810.

Bergk then goes on to discuss paragraphs as an aid to understanding.  And that is all he says about capituli.

The point about marginal headings to indicate content brought to mind the Medici manuscript of Tacitus’ Annals.  This I know contains one or two words in the margin against various bits.  Famously there is such a note against Annals 15:44, reading simply ‘Christianos’.  This would be a medieval example of an ancient practice.  I doubt that Tacitus composed that note, however!  But it could be ancient, if Bergk is right.

Matthew Crawford has kindly pointed out a passage by Cyril of Alexandria discussing chapter divisions.  This passage is new to me.  It may be found in his commentary on the Old Testament, in the preface to the Glaphyra in Genesim.  This is online in PG 69, col. 16.  I don’t know a lot of Greek, and find Migne’s Greek difficult to use.  But the Latin translation he supplies says:

Sciendum vero etiam hoc, quod cum De adoratione et cultu in spiritu et veritate XVII libros scripserimus, multamque in illis contemplationem copiam complexi simus, capita huic operi inserta certo consilio praetermisimus, et inexaminata reliquimus: tamenetsi interdum accidit ut alicuius eorum necessaria de causa meminerimus. 

My not very good stab at translating it (but better than nothing) is:

But also know this, that since we wrote 17 books On adoration and worship in spirit and in truth, and we included a great quantity of thinking in them, we deliberately omitted chapters inserted in this work, and left them unexamined: although sometimes it happens that we may refer to some of them out of necessity.

UPDATE: Matt wrote to me with his translation of these words, and I had misunderstood them as referring to chapter titles rather than chapters.  The point is that both the Glaphyra and the De adoratione are Old Testament commentaries, and Cyril was omitting discussion of those chapters he had already discussed.  The De adoratione is  in PG68, complete with chapter divisions.  He writes:

The chapter divisions Cyril is referring to are in his OT commentary called De Adoratione. However, in the preface to his other OT commentary called Glaphyra, he makes reference to the chapter divisions in De Adoratione. If you look at PG 68 you can see the chapter divisions there with their titles.

Also, I translated the passage from the preface to Glaphyra a bit different than you did, though I could be mistaken! Cyril’s Greek is tough and I often find myself struggling. If it wasn’t for the Latin translation in PG, I would be completely lost on a number of passages. Nonetheless, here’s what I got:

‘And one should see that since we have composed 17 books in De adoratione et cultu in spiritu et veritate and gathered together much fullness of thoughts in them, we have intentionally passed over those chapters in the present writing, and we have kept what is unexamined.’

So as I read it, Cyril is saying that he is not including in the Glaphyra those topics he covered in the De Adoratione. But as I said, I could be mistaken. Please let me know what you think.