Tag: Manuscripts

The text tradition of Hippolytus “Commentary on Daniel”

Posted on by Roger Pearse

A question has reached me about the Commentary on Daniel of Hippolytus, especially with regard to the passage in 4.23.3:

For the first advent of our Lord in the flesh, when he was born in Bethlehem, eight days before the kalends of January [December 25th], the 4th day of the week [Wednesday], while Augustus was in his forty-second year, [2 or 3BC] but from Adam five thousand and five hundred years.  He suffered in the thirty third year, 8 days before the kalends of April [March 25th], the Day of Preparation, the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar [29 or 30 AD], while Rufus and Roubellion and Gaius Caesar, for the 4th time, and Gaius Cestius Saturninus were Consuls. (tr. Tom Schmidt).

But what is the textual basis for this?  It doesn’t appear in the Ante-Nicene Fathers version of the text.

A look at the Sources Chretiennes (14; p. 64) edition tells me that the Greek text of the work is entirely recovered from quotations in catenas.  In a catena, each quotation appears underneath the relevant biblical verse, and is labelled with the name of the author from whom it has been taken.  So the sequence is fairly clear, even if all you have is extracts, provided that the original author wrote his commentary in the same sequence as the biblical text.

The process of recovering the commentary began with one of the great 17th century editors, B. Corderius, who printed the first fragment of the text in his Expositio patrum graecorum in psalmos, vol. 3, Anvers, 1646 on p.951.  In 1672 Fr. Combefis, Bibliothecae graecorum patrum auctarium novissimum, vol. 1, p. 50-55 printed two more important fragments, this time commenting on Susanna.  Since then various editors have accrued more and more fragments from the catenas, and are listed in Bonwetsch’s edition of 1897.  A list of mss. and editions appears on p.xxviii of Bonwetsch (p.43 of the Google books PDF).

The remains seem to be divided into four books.  The last addition to the stock was in 1911, when Dioboutonis printed new fragments from a 10th century manuscript from the monastery of Meteores.  The end result is a text which contains few obvious lacunas.  However there must still be material which is lost, especially in book 1.

The text cannot be said to be in good condition.  The manuscripts in which the material is preserved are often in a poor state, or illegible.  The most recent edition, that of Bonwetsch in the Griechische Christlicher Schriftsteller 1 in 1897 (online, thankfully) often indicates words added by conjecture or asterisks where there are gaps impossible to fill.

But one compensation is that an Old Slavonic translation exists of the entire work as it once existed in Greek.  This tells us, of course, that the Greek text must still have existed in the 10th century when these translations were made.  Four manuscripts of this translation exist, none complete, but which fortunately have their omissions in different places.  This means that we can read the whole work pretty much as it came from the hand of the author.  The most ancient manuscript is 12-13th century.  Fortunately Bonwetsch translated the Old Slavonic into German, and the translation was used by the SC editor to help with the Greek.

Our passage is extant in Greek, and appears on pp.306-7 of the SC edition.  But the SC editor queries whether part of the text –“Gaius Caesar, for the 4th time, and Gaius Cestius Saturninus” — was interpolated by a later writer.

The apparatus of Bonwetsch (p.242; p.295 of the PDF) tells us that this passage was quoted by the Syriac writer  George, Bishop of the Arab tribes.  The apparatus also refers to George Syncellus, and Cyril of Scythopolis as using bits of it.  The text is given in mss. ABP and S; A= Athos, Vatopedi 260 / Paris suppl. gr. 682 (10-11th century); B=Chalcis 11 (15-16th c.); P=Paris gr. 159 p.469f.; S=the old Slavonic.

So… the text is reasonably well established, and reasonably reliable.  The Greek for our passage seems sound, with only a couple of bits in brackets.  We have a good early witness for the text, and also a translation in a 7th century Syriac writer and a 10th century translation.

Share

Medieval mss from Switzerland online?

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Very good news from Switzerland, which has launched the e-codices site:

The goal of e-codices is to provide access to the medieval manuscripts of Switzerland via a virtual library. On the e-codices site, complete digital reproductions of the manuscripts are linked with corresponding scholarly descriptions. Our aim is to serve not only manuscript researchers, but also interested members of the general public.

At the moment, the virtual library contains 570 manuscripts from 24 different libraries. The virtual library will be continuously updated and extended.

This is what we want to see; the mss becoming accessible to us all.  Well done the Swiss!

When you access the site, they want you to click to “accept terms”.  Yes, well, that is just silly, lads — how are you going to enforce that on someone in Turkmenistan?  But at least they have recognised that the world and his wife use English!

I did a search for ‘Eusebius’, and up come various catalogue entries.  The mss seem to be mostly Latin; descriptions were in German, but none the worse for that.  ‘Tertullian’ brought up no results.  ‘Origen’ gave nothing; ‘Origenes’ 8 mss.  Interestingly this included a “Martin Bodmer” result — is it possible that all the Bodmer mss are now online?  If so, that would be very exciting!

And … there are 74 Bodmer mss online.  I wonder what treasures this contains?

H/t Open Access Manuscript Library of Switzerland at Charles Ellwood Jones.

Share

The transmission of the Blessing of Isaac, Jacob and Moses by Hippolytus

Posted on by Roger Pearse

In the Patrologia Orientalis 27, fascicle 1-2, a text called The blessing of Jacob appears.   It is a commentary on Genesis 49.  This is given in Greek, but also in Armenian and Georgian.  A French translation is included.  The Greek text seems to have been discovered relatively recently, and contains glosses at some points, as the Armenian shows.  There is also a text called The blessing of Moses printed, which is extant only in Armenian and Georgian, with a couple of fragments of Greek only.

Share

The Paris magical codex

Posted on by Roger Pearse

In the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris is an early fourth century papyrus codex (ms. supplement grec 574) which contains a variety of texts, spells, hymns, etc.   It is 36 folios in length – large for a papyrus, and contains 3274 lines.

The manuscript was acquired in Egypt by the collector Giovanni Anastasi (# 1073 in his collection) and bought at auction in Paris by the BNF in 1857.  It probably comes from Thebes (=Luxor).  Apparently Anastasi was told that his papyri were found in a grave there, perhaps sometime around 1825, although we cannot be sure of this.  Anastasi certainly sold a larger collection of papyri to the Dutch archaeologist C. J. C. Reuvens, the founder and first director of the Oudheidkundig Museum in Leiden, sometime after 1825.1

The codex seems to be the working handbook for an Egyptian magician, compiled from many sources.  It contains more than 50 documents, doubtless acquired from various sources, and is the single most comprehensive handbook of magic known from the ancient world.  The documents contained in it must all be 4th century or earlier — possibly much earlier — and each document has its own history prior to being copied into the codex. 

The text was printed by Karl Preisendanz, Papyri Graecae Magicae, vol. 1, Leipzig, 1928, rev. 1973, as item IV (hence PGM IV).  Various online versions of this seem to exist.  An English translation was made by H.-D.Betz, The Greek Magical Papyri in translation, 1986.  There is an enormous secondary literature.

The best known of these texts is on lines 475- 834, the so-called Mithras liturgy, a series of prayers which begins by invoking Sol Mithras and may — or may not — have some connection to the mysteries of Mithras.

Other parts show Jewish influence, and one spell, an exorcism ending with the words — Come out of NN — on line 3019, contains the words:

I adjure you by the God of the Hebrews, Jesus, Jaba, Jae, Abraoth, Aia, Thoth, Ele, …. 2

and ends with Ptah, which shows how magicians were willing to tap into supposed names of power in just the way recorded in Acts.  It also contains a string of the seven vowels of the Greek alphabet (a, e, h, i, o, u, w) which Eusebius tells us in the Praeparatio Evangelica 11.6.36 was treated by the pagans as a name of power equivalent to the Hebrew Tetragrammaton.  Its presence in the spell shows that he was right.  The same series are also used in the Mithras liturgy.

1 Pieter Willem van der Horst, Jews and Christians in their Graeco-Roman context, p. 269. Here.
2. A. Deismann, Light from the ancient East, pp.258-260 prints the full text of a two leaf spell with English translation, online here.

Share

New online Syriac manuscripts, catalogues of Cairo mss

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Kristian Heal at BYU has been busy, and is doing some excellent work in making resources available.  The following announcement appeared in Hugoye and in Nascas.

I am pleased to bring to your attention some additional resources now available on our website.

1.       Manuscript catalogues

Almost 20 years ago, Professor Kent Brown from Brigham Young University coordinated an NEH funded project to microfilm and catalogue manuscripts from Cairo and Jerusalem. Our Center is working on a project to improve access to this important collection of manuscripts on microfilm. As a first step to improving access we have digitized the preliminary catalogues of the whole collection that were prepared by the late Dr. William Macomber.

The catalogues are now available for download here: http://cpart.byu.edu/?page=121&sidebar

Over the coming months we will be donating copies of the microfilms to 10 research centers in Europe and the United states in an effort to enable scholars to better work with this important collection.

2.       Syriac and Garshuni Manuscripts from St. Mark’s Convent, Jerusalem

As part of our effort to improve access to Syriac resources in particular, we have prepared PDF copies of the  manuscripts filmed at St. Mark’s Convent, Jerusalem. One of the conditions of usage is that a copy of any publications based on these manuscripts be sent to St. Mark’s convent.

The manuscripts can be freely downloaded here: http://cpart.byu.edu/?page=126&sidebar

The online manuscripts are a wonderful idea, no hesitation.

I have more hesitation about the copies of the microfilms.   Now I have found it very difficult to get copies of material from BYU, so possible alternatives must be a good thing.  But … the libraries that will hold them are bound to be places like the Bodleian, who will certainly see this merely as a chance for profit, and will charge incredible sums if they are allowed to get away with it.  I can’t get material that I need from the Bodleian now. 

I imagine that KH was unable to get clearance to simply digitise the collection and place it online.  But it is a pity that his benevolence will probably be rendered useless by the greed of European library staff.

Share

Reference for the claim that only 1% of ancient literature survives

Posted on by Roger Pearse

People sometimes make arguments from what our surviving collection of classical texts do NOT contain.  I tend to reply by pointing out that only 1% of classical texts survive, which makes such a procedure very risky.  This figure comes from a statement by N. G. Wilson on the Archimedes Palimpsest Project web page, although the site has changed and I couldn’t find it just now. 

When I met N. G. Wilson by accident at the Oxford Patristics Conference some years ago I asked him about this, and he said that the figure came from Pietro Bembo, the renaissance scholar.

The discussion on CLASSICS-L of the same issue has now produced a quotation with a modern academic reference.  I reproduce the post (by Atticus Cox) here:

In partial answer to Jeffrey B. Gibson’s original question — “What percentage/How much of pre-second century CE literature is lost to us and how has this figure, whatever it may be, been determined?”

Rudolf Blum in his Kallimachos : The Alexandrian library and the origins of bibliography (Wisconsin, 1991) [= transl. by Hans H. Wellisch of BLUM, R.: Kallimachos und die Literaturverzeichnung bei den Griechen : Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Biobibliographie (Frankfurt, 1977)] states as follows (p.8):

Literary criticism was made difficult for the ancient philologists (similar to what their modern colleagues experience when they deal with medieval literature) because among Greek authors as well as among medieval ones there are so many namesakes (Apollonios, Alexandros, etc.).  Thus, for example, we find that Diogenes Laertios (3rd cent. A.D.) lists for 29 of the 82 philosophers with whom he deals in his work on the lives and opinions of famous philosophers (the most recent are from the end of the 2nd century A.D.) several known namesakes, most of whom had also been authors.[n.31]  Quite a few bearers of the same name were active in the same field, were compatriots and contemporaries.[n.32]  It also happened frequently that an author had the same name as his father, equally well-known as an author.  In such cases the customary procedure for the identification of persons — complementing the personal name by an indication of the father’s name (in the genitive) and the place of birth or domicile (in adjectival form) — was not sufficient.  One had to find further biographical details and to add them.

The large number of authors with the same name was a corollary of the large amount of Greek literature, the sheer bulk of which alone would have been enough to keep the ancient biobibliographers busy.  The small nation of the Greeks was immensely productive in art and scholarship.  Although it is impossible to ascertain the total number of all works written by Greek authors, there were certainly many more than those that have been preserved or are merely known to have existed.  For example, we have no adequate idea of the multitude of works which Kallimachos listed in the 120 books of his Pinakes.  Of the Greek literature created before 250 B.C. we have only a small, even though very valuable, part.  We do not even have the complete works of those authors who were included in the lists of classics compiled by the Alexandrian philologists.  Of all the works of pagan Greek literature perhaps only one percent has come down to us.[n.34]  All others were in part already forgotten by the third century A.D., in part they perished later, either because they were not deemed worthy to be copied when a new book form, the bound book (codex), supplanted the traditional scroll in the fourth century A.D.,[n.35] or because they belonged to ‘undesirable literature’ in the opinion of certain Christian groups.

In n.34 Blum explains that his figures are based on the counts of Hans Gerstinger [= GERSTINGER, H.: Bestand und Überlieferung der Literaturwerke des griechisch-römischen Altertums (Graz, 1948)] —

n.34: “According to Gerstinger (1948) p.10, about 2000 Greek authors were known by name before the discovery of papyri.  But the complete works of only 136 (6.8%) and fragments of another 127 (6.3%) were preserved.  Gerstinger counted, however, only authors whose names were known, not works known by their titles.  The numerical relation between these and the works that are preserved wholly or partially would certainly even be much worse.  Whether a count of known titles would serve any purpose remains to be seen.  The main sources would be the biobibliographic articles in the Suda, but even the authority on which it is based, the epitomator of the Onomatologos by Hesychios of Miletos (6th century A.D.), no longer listed many authors which e.g. Diogenes Laertios (3rd century A.D.) had still named in his work.”

The other notes are as follows:
n.31: “He lists on average 5-6 homonyms, in one case 14 (Herakleides), in two cases 20 each (Demetrios and Theodoros).”
n.32: “E.g. in the fifth century B.C. there were two Attic tragic poets by the name of Euripides other than the famous one.”
n.33: “Despite the more precise Roman system of naming persons (/praenomen/, /nomen gentile/, /cognomen/) there were many homonyms, although relatively few among authors, because there were fewer of them than in Greece.”
n.35: “Widmann (1967) columns 586-603 [= WIDMANN, H. : ‘Herstellung und Vertrieb des Buches in der griechisch-römischen Welt’ in /Archiv für Geschichte des Buchwesens/ 8 (1967) 545-640].

Share

Doubts about the discovery at Nag Hammadi, and some comments on papyrology

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Mark Goodacre has posted some comments on his blog by a couple of scholars casting doubt on how the Nag Hammadi codices were found.  I’ve added to his post a fairly long comment about some of the scholarly rivalries behind all this.  But you can read it there.

It led to me recall my own limited experiences with papyrologists.  I’ve found a lot of them seem like jealous misers, hoarding material that should be published.  There are a couple of scholars out there who have unique access to a papyrus codex of a Greek mathematical treatise. 

This was sold to dealers in Switzerland along with the ps.Gospel of Judas codex, and travelled the same ruinous past.  The codex was cut up into separate pages by the US art dealer Bruce Ferrini, of evil reputation these days, and sold to at least two different groups of people.

But they haven’t published it.  One of them informed me graciously that he had more important things to do.  That is, more important than sharing with the world the one bit of unique material that he had, which no-one could work on until he finished doing his other little tasks.  Perhaps I didn’t understand him properly, but I felt exasperated at this.

Nor is this a unique occurrence.  We all know how the scholars working on the Dead Sea Scrolls hoarded them, preventing any but a favoured few from accessing the material while they worked in a very leisurely way to produce editions which they expected would make their own names.  The Nag Hammadi codices were monopolised by a bunch of scholars in a very similar way until James M. Robinson found a way to break the cartel and publish all the material.  No doubt they would still be unpublished, but for him. 

This isn’t just a modern phenomenon.  Henry Tattam ca. 1840 travelled to the Nitrian desert in Egypt and purchased a huge number of Syriac texts from the monastery of St. Mary Deipara (Deir al-Suryani), which he sent to the British Library.  But the curator, William Cureton, reserved what he considered to be the most interesting texts for himself to publish, which he did over the next 20 years!  While this had the fortunate consequence of forcing other scholars to edit less interesting material which might not otherwise have attracted attention, it was a supremely selfish thing to do.

Selfishness, it seems, is too often a characteristic of papyrologists.  While I write to all sorts of people, my attempts to communicate with papyrologists are generally futile.  It is as if a clique exists, which excludes rather than includes.  Yet the number of people who would like to work in the field but cannot obtain teaching posts is sufficiently large that I have met several examples at the Oxford Patristics Conference, which I tend to attend for just a single day every four years.

I remember when the late Carsten Peter Thiede proposed his idea that some fragments of the gospels at Magdalen College Oxford were in fact first century.  The media were all over it, which of course was good.  After all, it was media interest in the fragments of the ps.gospel of Thomas from Oxyrhynchus ca. 1900 that produced funding for the work there for several years.  But the response of papyrologists was a sustained campaign of vitriol.  Thiede himself was a papyrologist, and he had found a way to promote the subject to the mass media.  But ranks were closed firmly against him.  Any Thiede-enthusiast could expect only abuse.

It is unnecessary to consider whether Thiede’s theory was right.  I think the excellent T.C.Skeat successfully showed that it was not, and why, in a model article.  But who cares?  He brought the wider world into contact with a discipline that almost never gets any media coverage.  The coverage it does get is not of the kind that will bring in students and funding.  Thiede had found a way past that — and his peers never forgave him, and the opportunity was squandered.

Since Thiede was also a Christian, I cannot help wondering whether religious animus contributed.  The efforts of Paul Mirecki to use papyrological discoveries to promote his own curious views attracted no such contempt, after all.  But if so, I wish that the scholars had been more professional.  And they could be very unprofessional.  The introduction to Graham Stanton’s Gospel Truth? in paperback contained, if memory serves me, a bitter attack on Thiede in terms that would have earned Stanton a punch in the face in any pub in Britain.  How did this benefit anyone?  If Thiede could persuade churches to fund an expedition to find books, as at Oxyrhynchus, wouldn’t that we wonderful?  Probably any one US mid-western mega-church could easily find more funds than the whole discipline currently receives.  Why turn this down?

In Egypt, under the sands, there are any number of papyrus codices as yet undiscovered.  Nearly all those discovered in the last 30 years were found by peasants by accident and sold to art dealers.  Many doubtless perished; although since the Cairo dealers know that these are worth real money in the west and maintain agents in rural districts who will give cash down for antiquities, most are probably saved from the cruder fate of the fireplace.  But no serious scholarly effort to recover these books is being made.  Meanwhile texts are hidden, or lost, or sold, while cliques squabble.  It is enough to make any man despair.

We need a new movement in papyrology.  We need an attitude of openness, of enthusiasm to share.  We need the scholar who hides material to be treated like the one who falsifies it.  We need progress!

Share

Serious excitement – copies of British Library Arabic manuscripts for less than $1?

Posted on by Roger Pearse

In the NASCAS forum a poster mentioned:

Speaking of manuscripts, friends, I wanted to let you know that the Bibliothica Alexandrina has the WHOLE Arabic collection of manuscripts held at the British Library. One can obtain a digital copy for only 5 (yes five) Egyptian Pounds, i.e., 90 US cents!

Now this is very, very exciting news.  And I have an idea how this might be so.  I believe some Arab princeling paid for all the Arabic mss in UK libraries to be photographed for microfiche.  But I have never known where to access this material.  Perhaps this is the source of this.

I’ve enquired of the poster how I can get these.  I have written before that there is a manuscript of the 13th century Arabic Christian historian al-Makin (BL or.  7564) which I want.  Indeed I even ordered a microfilm copy from the BL; who sent me, at a huge price, just the second half!

If the report is true, this is very good news.  It might apply to other libraries than the BL, such as the Bodleian.  Today I also heard that the Bodleian tried to screw a scholar from Leiden who wanted a photocopy of a dissertation, and demanded 150 GBP (around $220) for a photocopy.  This hateful monopoly must be overthrown; no scholarship can happen while access to the primary texts is subject to blackmail of this kind.

Let us hope and pray this is so, and that a torrent of copies is about to be unleashed on the scholarly world!

Share

Fragments of Eusebius in the Mingana collection

Posted on by Roger Pearse

PDF’s are such a blessing.  I’ve been looking at the PDF of volume 1 of the Mingana collection of Syriac manuscripts in Birmingham.  How quickly we take these for granted!  Once, just to consult such a volume, would have meant a day off work, a 60 mile journey, and being robbed blind for copies — if I was even allowed copied.  That was the situation, only five years ago.  Not now!

This will be a dull post, I fear.  Because I ordered some photos of manuscripts in the collection, but no longer remember what was so precious in them!  This post is my journey of discovery.

On p.599 of the PDF (col. 1197 of the book), there is listed the various snippets of Eusebius in various manuscripts.  In July 2008 I went through these, and ordered the following from the Mingana:

Ms. Mingana Syr. 332      Folios 1-9a          Eusebius
Ms. Mingana Syr. 480      Folios 29a-31b       Eusebius
Ms. Mingana Syr. 589      Folios 1-6a          Eusebius

Time to refresh my memory on these!

First I’m opening the Mingana catalogue in Adobe Acrobat and running an OCR on the file to create scannable text.  I only wish Adobe used some decent OCR software.  Come on chaps, talk to Abbyy!

 OK.  On p. 308 of the PDF (col. 616) we find ms. 332.  On ff.6b-7a there are quotations on the genealogy of Jesus, from Ephraim, Eusebius of Caesarea, and Philoxenus.  Wonder why I ordered as far as 9a.

 On p. 432 of the PDF (col. 863) is ms. 480.  Ff. 29a-31b consist of tables to show that there is no contradiction between the two genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke.  The first table is from Severus of Antioch; the others from Ephraim, Eusebius and Philoxenus.  Not sure why I thought this stuff was worthwhile, now.

On p. 562 of the PDF (col. 1125) is ms. 589. 

  • Ff.1b-3b = A short treatise on ecclesiastical chronology dealing with the lunar and solar months. 
  • Ff. 4a-5a : Another short treatise on chronology by Eusebius of Caesarea (called Eusebius of Palestine).
  • Fol. 5 : The months in which the year begins in the calendar of the Jews, the Arabs, the Copts, the Syrians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Persians and the Armenians.
  • Ff. 5b-17b: A medical treatise on the composition of the human body, by Ahud’ immeh Antipater, who mayor may not be the same man as Ahud-‘immeh of Tegrit.
  • and so on.

Fascinating stuff… or not.  This is what so manuscripts consist of, tho; pages of short, dubious-looking texts.

The upshot is that there is unlikely to be much here to impact on my Eusebius project.  Wonder what the “short treatise on chronology is”?  I might toss that over to my translator and ask.

Share

Birmingham Special Collections goes over to the Dark Side (a bit)

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Drat.  The Mingana library in Birmingham have had a mental breakdown of some kind.  They used to sell colour digital images of sub-publication standard for 1GBP (about $1.50) a go.  These were really very good for research purposes, although of course a journal publication would need better quality.

I asked them about copies of the Combefis book (see previous post).  I learn today that they’ve increased the charge to 2.50GBP, plus another 25% for fun; i.e. 3.10GBP, around $5 a go. 

I need 14 pages.  That would have been 14 GBP, which is a lot, when you consider it is merely pressing a shutter 14 times, but I would have paid it.  But there’s no way I would pay nearly 50 GBP for the equivalent of 14 photocopies!

This is really disappointing.  The Birmingham Special Collections people, who own the Mingana library, are people who I watch with interest, because they really do have some innovative ideas.  They’ve led the way in putting Syriac mss online, and making them freely available.  They introduced this system of £1 photographs of manuscripts, which is clearly the way to go.  They allow us to bring our cameras in and photograph, which makes them heroes in my view; we really ought to get all the Mingana mss photographed.  And they are nice, helpful people.  I approve of these guys.

And then they do something like this.

I can only imagine that need for money — a chronic need in all libraries — led some minor official at a meeting to look at this.  Probably they were selling quite a few of the £1 images.  And the same official, with the official lack of imagination, supposed that a 210% increase would generate 210% more money.  Of course it won’t; it will kill the sales dead.

No doubt they looked greedily at the charges demanded by libraries like the Bodleian, not realising that hardly anyone ever buys any of those overpriced images.  You don’t make money by charging the earth and scaring the punters away. 

How we need a public body to regulate these charges!

This may mean that I shall have to abandon the idea of using the Combefis fragment in my Eusebius book.  But if I do, there will be some pretty trenchant words in a footnote, saying who and why, for the benefit of posterity.  First against the wall, of course, will be the Bodleian.

Sad.

In the meantime, let’s see if I can find a library that (a) has a copy and (b) will sell me a reproduction at some reasonable price.

UPDATE: Durham University want £15 a photo — which is sick –, the Bodleian we know about, and the only other copy here in the UK, held in the British Library, well… their website has been redesigned and I can’t find anything.  I wonder if there are any copies in the USA?

Share