Tag: Santa Claus

Did St Nicholas of Myra / Santa Claus punch Arius at the Council of Nicaea?

Posted on by Roger Pearse

In many places online we can find the statement that St Nicholas of Myra – the basis for Santa Claus – was present at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, where he punched Arius in the mouth.  So … is it true?

Unfortunately we have almost no historical information at all about any St Nicholas of Myra – our information is entirely based on Saint’s Lives of him, of which the earliest are 9th century, and the latest are modern compilations based on medieval collections.  All these Lives are really closer to folk-tales than to history, and they reflect the accumulations of popular legends.  Some of them do have Nicholas attending the Council of Nicaea; but they do not contain the story of Nicholas punching Arius.

The main collection of source materials about Nicholas is by Gustav Anrich,[1] and in this I found what I suspect is the answer.

Before I look at the data, let’s summarise what it says.  Sometime in the middle ages, the story about his attendance at Nicaea was “improved” to show him slapping “an Arian”.  Over time, this turned into a story about him slapping Arius himself.  The story is now a standard item in Greek Orthodox tradition, and is embedded in their handbook of icon-painting.

On to the data.

In Anrich volume 1, p.459, in the section devoted to testimonia, there is an extract from a Latin text (!) by a certain Petrus de Natalibus, a Venetian.  Petrus in 1370 was bishop of Equilio (Jesolo) near Venice, and died around 1400.  The text of his work reads:

Fertur beatum Nicolaum jam senem Nicaeno concilio interfuisse et quemdam Arrianum zelo fidei in maxillam percussisse ob idque a concilio mitra et pallio privatum extitisse; propter quod ut plurimum sine mitra depingitur.  Sed dum aliquando missam beatae virginis, cujus erat devotus, in pontificalibus celebraret et privationem mitrae et pallii defleret quasi zelo nimio fidei ablata: ecce, cunctis videntibus, duo angeli eidem astiterunt, quorum unus mitram, alius pallium sibi divinitus restituerunt.   Et extunc insignia reassumpsit sibi caelitus restituta.[2]

It happened that saint Nicholas, now an old man, was present at the Council of Nicaea,  and out of jealousy of faith struck a certain Arian in the jaw, on account of which it is recorded that he was deprived of his mitre and pallium; on account of which he is often depicted without a mitre.  …[3]

This tells us that the story had arisen by whenever Petrus wrote these words – it is really difficult to find much about him! -, and was known in the West, or at least in Venice.  So it probably had existed for some time at that point.  But at this point it is not Arius himself – only “a certain Arian”.

The next piece of data is an extract from a biography by an obscure Damaskenos Monachus, written in the second half of the 16th century.  Apparently he lived in the second half of the 16th century, and may (or may not) be identical with the man of that name who was Bishop of Liti and Rendini in 1564; and Metropolitan of Naupaktos and Arta in 1570.  He composed a biography of St Nicholas of Myra, based on earlier accounts, which he included in his Thesaurus.  The oldest edition of his work was printed in Venice in 1570.  Anrich obtained this information from E. Legrand, Bibliographie hellenique II (1885), p.12 f., which contains little more than you have above.[4]

Anrich states that the Vita of Damaskenos is a vulgarisation of the Vita by Simon Metaphrastes, who created the standard Greek hagiographical texts in the 11th century.  I don’t know if any edition of Damaskinos can be found online?

Anrich gives the Greek of the extract.  Yesterday I posted this, and an appeal for a translation.  A kind corrrespondent obliged:

Damascenos the Monk:  Life of saint Nicholas the wonder-worker:  Large collection of lives of saints, or “Great Book of Saints” by Const. Chr. Doukakis.   Athens, 20 December, 1896, pages 171-190.

10.  p.179-180.  After the king seated himself on the throne, one hundred and fifty nine fathers seated themselves at either side of him, both they and Arius arguing with much unease.  Saint Nicholas, noticing that Arius was about to quash all the archpriests and moved by divine zeal, rose up and gave him a slap that shook all his members. Complaining, Arius says to the king: “O most just king, is it fair, before your royal highness, for one to strike another?  If he has something to say, let him speak as the other fathers do; if he is ignorant, let him remain silent as his like are. For what reason does he slap me in the presence of your highness?”  Hearing this, the king was greatly disappointed and said to the archpriests: “Holy archpriests, it is the law, that whosoever raises his hand before the king to strike someone, that it should be cut off. I leave this to you, so that your holiness(es) might be the judge.”  The archpriests replied, saying: “Your majesty, that the archpriest has acted wrongly all of us confess it; except that we beseech you, let us unstate him now and imprison him, and after the dissolution of the council, we shall then convict him.”

Having unstated and imprisoned him, that night Christ and the Holy Mother Theotokos appeared in prison and said: “Nicholas, why are you imprisoned?”  And the saint replied: “For loving You”. Christ then said to him: “Take this,” and gave him the holy gospel; the Holy Mother Theotokos gave him the archpriestly omophorion (scapular).  The next day some acquaintances of his brought him bread and they saw that he was freed of his fetters and on his shoulder he was wearing the omophorion, while reading the holy gospel he was holding in his hands. Having asked him where he found them, he told them the whole truth.  Having learnt of this, the king took him out of the prison and asked for forgiveness, as did all the others.  After the dissolution of the council, all the archpriests returned home, as did saint Nicholas, to his province.

This is the earliest text known to me, and evidently to Anrich, which records Nicholas punching Arius.

Anrich adds:

Die Darstellung der Nicaea-Episode stimmt mit den Angaben des Malbuches (unten S. 463,15 ff u. 33 ff); die nur in den Hauptzügen mit diesen beiden stimmende Dartellung von Petrus de Natalibus beweist, daß der Grundstock der Legende mindestens ins 14. Jh. zurückgeht.

The presentation of the Nicaea episode is consistent with the information provided by the Painting book (below, p 463, 15 et seq u 33 et seq.); since only the more significant features of these two versions agree with the story as given by Petrus de Natalibus, this shows that the foundation of the legend goes back at least to the 14th century.

The “Painting book” (I don’t know the English name of this work: in German it is the Malbuch) is the 18th century manual of iconography from Mount Athos, produced by Dionysius of Foura.  This gives the legends to be attached to icons.  The first reads as follows:

“The holy and ecumenical 1st Synod in Nicaea….
And Arius, standing, also in hieratic vestment, and standing before him, Saint Nicholas with arm outstretched to slap him.”

The second one says:

“The saint in prison, receiving the gospel from Christ and the omophorion from the Holy Mother. – Prison, and at the centre is the saint and Christ at his right holding a gospel; at his left the Theotokos holding an omphorion: they are giving these to him.”

The presence of the item in the Handbook shows that the topic is a standard one for icons.  So we may presume that the story reaches us today from Greek Orthodox sources, for whom it is a traditional motif, depicted in their churches.

Here is an example of the scene in a fresco from the Soumela monastery (via Livius.org):

St Nicholas of Myra slapping Arius at the Council of Nicaea. Fresco at Soumela. By Marco Prins. Via Livius.org.
St Nicholas of Myra slapping Arius at the Council of Nicaea. Icon at Soumela. Via Livius.org.

To summarise again: there is no ancient evidence whatever that St Nicholas punched or slapped Arius at the First Council of Nicaea.  The story is not found in any text before the late 14th century, and even that one mentions only “a certain Arian”.  In the next two centuries the legend mutates into Nicholas slapping Arius; and is then disseminated in works of popular fiction, and by the paintings of icons.  It has no historical basis whatever.

UPDATE: I am advised that ράπισμα means slap, not punch.  My correspondent adds: ” it was a slap intended to shock Arius back to his senses”.

Share
  1. [1]G. Anrich, Hagios Nikolaos: Der Heilige Nikolaos in der Griechischen Kirche, 2 vols, 1913.  Accessible to Americans at Hathi Trust.↩
  2. [2]Anrich gives a reference: Petrus de Natalibus, Catalogus sanctorum et gestorum eorum ex diversis voluminibus collectus, Lugduni 1508, Fol. VII.  The English title appears to be Legends of the Saints.  Various editions are present on Google Books.  In the 1543 edition, the text is on folio Vb, at the top of the right-hand column.↩
  3. [3]Translation is mine.↩
  4. [4]This volume can be found online at Google Books, but not without considerable effort.  It is here (US only).↩

The literary development of the “Life” of St Nicholas of Myra (=Santa Claus)

Posted on by Roger Pearse

The modern idea of “Santa Claus” derives, at some remove, from the medieval legends of the Greek orthodox St. Nicholas of Myra, recorded in the hagiographical texts known as “Saints’ Lives”.  Ever since I discovered that none of these vita‘s have been translated into English, I have been looking into the matter.  Of course the first thing is to understand what texts actually exist.

Yesterday I discovered a very useful summary of the various versions of the Life of Nicholas of Myra.  It appears as appendix ii in A. Blom’s Nikolaas van Myra en zijn tijd, Hilversum, 1998, p.259-262.  I obtained this, since it contains a translation (into Dutch) of the Vita per Michaelem, the Life as given by Michael the Archimandrite, as appendix i.  This summary would seem to deserve a wider circulation.

A. The oldest biographies and related texts.

For texts see Anrich[1], vol. 1; for commentary see Anrich, vol. 2, and Cioffari[2].

  • Proclus (390-447 AD), patriarch of Constantinople from 434 to 447, Eulogy (Enkomion) on Nicholas, with reference to the history of the three generals.

According Anrich this is a late text, and not by Proclus. According to Cioffari, it perhaps may be authentic, or from the period 447-550.

  • Theodore Anagnostes (? -518), ca 500 Lector in Constantinople, Historia Tripartita (in a manuscript from the 13th century) indicating that Nicholas participated at the council of Nicaea, 325 AD.

According to Anrich the entry is a later interpolation (based on Niketas, see below), but according to Cioffari however it is authentic.

  • Anonymous, Life of Nicholas, abbot of the monastery of Zion, bishop of Pinara.  This has references to the tomb of Nicholas of Myra.[3]

According to both Anrich and Cioffari this was written about 564.  Data from this vita was later mixed with the vita of Nicholas of Myra (the Vita per Michaelem), see below.

  • Legend of the three generals (Praxis de Stratelatis)

According to Anrich the version known to us was created between 460 and 580, but, according to Cioffari, between the death of Nicholas and the mid-5th century.

  • Eustrathios of Constantinople (?-600), Presbyter of Constantinople, Refutatio, with fragment of the legend of the three generals, quoted from a lost vita.

According to Anrich and Cioffari this is authentic, dating from the 2nd half of the 6th century.

  • Michael the Archimandrite, Life, Works and wondrous works of our Father Nikolaos, Bishop of Myra, in Lycia (the Vita per Michaelem – translations exist by Blom in appendix i, and also in German by Heiser.)

According to Anrich this was probably written between 814 and 843; according to Cioffari about 700.

  • Methodios (ad Theodorum), a monk (?), Life of Nicholas,  which follows Michael’s vita closely.

According to Anrich this dates before 843; according to Cioffari between 817 and 821.

  • Another Methodios (?), Eulogy on Nicholas, dated by Anrich and Cioffari after 860.
  • John Diaconus of Naples (John the Deacon; 850?), Vita S. Nicolai Episcopi, the first Latin vita, a free adaptation of mainly the vita of Methodios (ad Theodorum). Appears about 880.
  • Nicetas of Paphlagonia, bishop (? -890), Eulogy on Nicholas, containing the first mention of participation in the Council of Nicaea, and dating before 890.
  • Anonymous, a so-called Synaxariumvita with new motifs, the ‘imprisonment during the last persecution’ and ‘Nicaea’. Genesis about 900.
  • Anonymous, the so-called Vita Compilata, a biography in which Michael’s vita of Nicholas of Myra is intertwined with that of Nicholas, abbot of the monastery of Zion, together with elements from Methodios’ Eulogy etc.  According Anrich and Cioffari written between 860 and 975.
  • Simeon Metaphrastes, writing at Constantinople (?), Life of Nicholas, based on the Compilata, etc.  According Anrich and Cioffari written  between 975 and 1000.  This vita has become the authoritative version for all subsequent biographies.
  • Neophytos, priest, monk (1134-?), Eulogy on Nicholas; mainly a collection of miracle stories.

B. Wonder Stories

Some miracles circulated independently, like that of the three generals (Praxis de Stratelatis) and a story about Nicholas’ intervention with Constantine related to taxes imposed on Myra (Praxis de Tributo). Most occur in the biographies or in separate collections. In the thousand years after Nicholas’ death at least 50 of these legends may be counted, first the originals in the vitae etc., then stories about rescues from sea crossing, from Saracen captivity or other emergency, relief of poverty, restitution of stolen goods, cures etc.

The most important are listed below, with only the titles given.

From Michael: infant prodigy, choice as Bishop, three daughters, three generals (short), a rescue of sailors, a grain multiplication (the corn ships), frustration of the wrath of Artemis.

From Methodios (ad Theodorum): the same, except the corn ships.

From the other Methodios (Eulogy): three daughters, a different version of the corn ships, three generals and (as miracles after Nicholas’ death) rescue of Methodios’ father John from a shipwreck, rescue of a Mytilenian priest from the hands of Saracens, deliverance of Petros from captivity.

From the Vita Compilata:

  • From the Vita by Michaelem: the rescue of sailors, the corn ships, Artemis.
  • From the Eulogy of Methodios: another version of the corn ships, the three generals.
  • From Methodios (ad Theodorum) the Mytilenian priest and others (the collection Six miracles, see below.).
  • From Nicholas of Zion, a series of healings.

In Metaphrastes: three daughters, the rescue of sailors, Artemis, the three generals, a version of the corn and ships (from Nicholas of Sion): the calming of the storm and the resurrection from death of the sailor Ammonios.

The collection Three miracles (created between 850 and 900): rescue of shipwrecked Demetrios (discussed by Blom in chapter XV), the liberation of a young man named Basil from the hands of Saracens, the rescue of the monk Nicholas from danger at sea.

The collection Six miracles (created after 850/900); rescue of shipwrecked John, the priest of Mytilene, Petros, Demetrios, Basil, Nicholas.

From Neophytos: a collection of more than thirty miracle stories, in addition to the above, plus new additions such as the lone sailor (see Blom chapter VIII), a stray Saracen trader (see Blom chapter XV), return of stolen property (a thieving Shepherd), a bleeding Nicholas picture …

The spread of the story to the west

Apart from the vita of John Diaconus, all the above mentioned texts are Greek. The worship of Nicholas passed to the west through southern Italy. Rome, Calabria, Apulia, Sicily remained under Byzantine influence for hundreds of years after the downfall of the kingdom of the Ostrogoths (552) and the incursions of the Lombards in Italy (568); Rome until the 8th century, Sicily until 9th, Calabria and Apulia until the 11th, when the Normans conquered the area. The Greek colonies there imported Greek saints, including Nicholas. Probably in the 7th century, the history of the three generals was already known in Rome, and from there was inserted into numerous martyrologia and other texts. The vita of John Diaconus obviously played a big role in the dissemination of knowledge about Nicholaos generally, while later, through the transfer of the relics to Bari in Apulia, the movements of the Normans and the Crusades, his worship yet again increased significantly.

C. Later literature

Besides the vita of Metaphrastes, the vita of John Diaconus was the source of a number of later vitae, such as those in the Golden Legend of Jacobus de Voragine (? -1298) and the Catalogus Sanctorum of Peter de Natalibus (second half of 14th century).

The Breviarium Romanum (1568) and the Martyrologium Romanum (1586) have derived a number of miracle stories from this source.

1620.  A. Beatillo, Historia della Vita, Miracoli, Traslatione … di San Niccolo. An indiscriminate collection of miracle stories.

17th century. Italian and French use of Beatillo’s Historia.

1699.  Le Nain the Tillemont, Memoires pour servir d l’histoire ecclésiastique des six premiers siècles (a beginning of a critical examination of the available material).

1701.  A. Baillet, Les Vies des Saints (following Tillemont).

1732. Article in Le Grand Dictionnaire historique (Moreri) expresses great doubt on numerous elements from the vitae.

1740.  Le Quien, Oriens Christianus, opposes criticism (as in, 1745, J. de l’Isle).

1747.  Review committee for the Roman Breviary, but does nothing.

1751. N.C. Falcone, Sancti Nicolai confessoris et pontificis et celeberrimi thaumaturgi Acta Primigenia Nuper detecta. He believes, on the basis of sloppy reasoning, that Nicholas of Myra is a mystification of Nicholas of Sion, whose vita he said that he discovered in 1720 in the Vatican library.

1753. N. Putignani, Vindiciae vitae et gestorum Thaumaturgi S. Nicolai, Diatriba, and 1771 Istoria della Vita. Refutes the arguments of Falcone. A weak work, like J. S. Assemani’s treatment of Falcone’s thesis in his Kalendaria (1755).

19th century. This century yielded little progress on the problem of Nicholas (Anrich, 202vv.).  Most work was devotional (Cioffari, 289vv.). Cioffari devotes an interesting chapter to some Russian studies.

1886 is noteworthy only for an uncritical, popular work of J. Laroche, Vie de S. Nicolas.

Blom’s bibliography covers the 20th century.

Share
  1. [1]Anrich, G., Hagios Nikolaos, Texte und Untersuchungen, 2 Bnde, Berlin 1913/1917.  Online via here.↩
  2. [2]G. Cioffari, S. Nicola nella Critica Storica, Bari 1987.  References by Blom to “Cioffari” always mean this work, which I have not seen.↩
  3. [3]An English translation of this item exists: I. Sevcenko and N. Sevcenko, The Life of Saint Nicholas of Sion, Holy Cross Press, 1999, ISBN 978-0917653032.↩

Why Methodius ad Theodorum (9 c.) is proving very difficult to translate

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Back in 2013 I wondered what the earliest sources were for the life of St. Nicholas of Myra, whose legends form the basis for the Santa Claus story.  There are three, all 9-10th century, in fact.  I decided that one of these, the Methodius ad Theodorum, c. 817-821 AD, would be a good candidate to get translated.  But it’s proving a real challenge.  We may have to admit defeat!  But I think that it would be good to document where we got to.

The Methodius ad Theodorum is BHG 1352y, and appears only in Anrich’s collection[1], vol. 1, p.140-150, and repeated again as an appendix in vol. 2, p.546-556.

Why did he did edit it twice?  Well, it appears from the introduction that the text was very difficult to edit from the sole manuscript, Ms. Vaticanus Graecus 2084 (10th c.).  Some of these Greek manuscripts are so heavily ligatured that they can be extremely hard to read!  But after he had published vol.1, Anrich discovered that Spyridonof had published another text from the same manuscript, Methodius’ Vita Theophanis, which clarified things somewhat. This led him to try a second time in vol. 2, and this time with punctuation.

A correspondent, Joel Eidsath, kindly picked up on my posts, and started a thread at Textkit to translate the Methodius Ad Theodorum.  In case this vanishes, I’ll quote some of it here.  Joel reckoned that the introduction was the worst bit, and the rest would be easier!  He did most of page 1 (of 10), and this read as follows:

Τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν Μεθοδίου πρεσβυτέρου καὶ ἡγουμένου εἰς τὸν βίον καὶ τὰ λείποντα τοῦ ὁσίου πατρὸς ἡμῶν Νικολάου ἀρχιεπισκόπου Μύρων.

Ἐπειδὴ ἡ τῶν καθ’ ἡμᾶς λόγων πλοκὴ τῇ ἀσαφείᾳ τῆς πρωχονοίας τὸ γρῖφόν σοι ἐντυγχάνοντι ἐπέχειν νομίζεται, ζητεῖ δὲ ἡ καθαρά σου ἁπλότης, ὦ ἀνδρῶν ἄριστε καὶ περιφανέστατε Θεόδωρε, λόγον ἐγκωμίου τῇ φράσει ἀποίκιλον καὶ νοήμασι τὸν εὐκάτοπτον, πρὸς δὲ καὶ τῷ ποσῷ τὸν ἀπέριττον — ἐγώ, ῖνα μὴ δόξω ἀνήκοος καὶ ὅπως σοι φανείην παρέτοιμος, τῇ πίστει καὶ κελεύσει σου χαριζόμενος, ἀνιστορῆσαι μᾶλλον τὰ τοῦ περιβοήτου Νικολάου μέγιστα κατορθώματα καὶ οὐκ αὖθις ἐγκωμιάσαι τὸ λοιπὸν προαιρήσομαι, ὡς τάχα τῆς ἱστορίας συνήθως ἐχούσης τὸ εὐκατάκουστον. εἰ δέ τι συμπλεκείη που τῇ ἱστορί ἐγκώμιον, θεῷ ἀναθετέον τὸ χάρισμα καὶ τῇ πίστει σου, τῷ δόντι καὶ τῇ χορηγηθείσῃ παρὰ τῆς αὐτοῦ μεγαλοδωρεᾶς, εὕρασθαι σὺν ἐξηγήσεσι τὸ ἐγκώμιον. ἔστι δὲ τῶν περὶ πάντας ἀκροατὰς διηγήσεων πλησιέστερον, μετὰ τὸ εἰπεῖν γένος καὶ πόλιν καὶ ἐπιτήδευμα, τὴν ἐκ νεαροῦ τοῦ σώματος ἀγωγήν τε καὶ αὔξησιν διαγράψασθαι, ἵν’ ὁμολογουμένην ἤτοι θαυμαζομένην τὴν ἀνάταξιν ἤ ἐπαύξησιν εἰς δύναμιν ἐκ δυνάμεως καὶ πρὸς τοιάνδε ἐκ τοιᾶσδε ἀγωγὴν ἤ προσαγωγὴν ὁ ἱστορεῖσθαι τολμώμενος τῇ τῶν ἀκουόντων διανοίᾳ σαφέστατα ἐγκατάθηται. καὶ δὴ θεοῦ διδοῦντος λόγον ἐν ἀνοίξει εὐθέτῳ τοῦ στόματος, ἅπερ ὄψις εἴτ’ οὖν ἐν βίβλοις ἀνάγνωσις δέδωκε, ταῦτα διηγησόμενος καὶ παρέστηκα.

From the our holy father Methodius, elder and leader, the biography and leavings of our pious father Nikolaus, archbishop of Myra:

After our complicated discussion, the intricate question that you left was thought to be unsolvable due to my poverty of mind. But your unblemished purity seeks, O Theodore, best and most famous of men, an encomium using simple words and clear images, over and above this a quantity of straightforwardness — I, that I may not appear to have ignored you nor appear to you unprepared, am obliging your faith and request with more unrecorded great virtuous acts of the much spoken of Nikolaus, and I have deliberately left out anything not laudatory [ἐγκωμιάσαι], so that the story will quickly grab hold of the understanding. And if somewhere the encomium’s story was tangled up, by the grace that is God’s and your faith, the giving and the bestowing of from his generosity, the encomium was found through interpretation. [[Very shaky on this next sentence, will come back to it later: But it is the closest to the stories heard by all, speaking of the family and city and trade, the raising up from youth and the training of his growth, that the pattern of the marvel to that all speak goes from strength to strength, from to such to such, bringing or giving, I undertake the narrative that the thought of those hearing may shine inwardly most wisely.]]. And indeed, the speech given by God that he well arranges from my open mouth, just as perhaps the snake that we read of in the Bible [pl.] that he has given, this I shall narrate and have set down [future + perfect? I will look that up later and revise].

Which is quite impressive, as far as it goes – thank you, Joel!  Michael Holmes added a couple of suggestions (thank you):

(Since you want just a simple straightforward account, to oblige you) from now on I’ll choose rather to tell the story of N’s greatest successes and not to sing his praises over again, since perhaps a narrative is usually easy on the ear. And if encomium somehow gets intertwined with the narrative, that gift of grace is to be attributed to God and to your faith, to God that gives and to your faith that is furnished by His generosity …

… I stand ready to tell what eye-witness or book-reading has provided.

Unfortunately other demands on his time intervened, and it was clearly a difficult task.  I then asked another (very capable) translator to have a go, and he ran into language difficulties also.

I wondered whether this was a matter of the language being so late; so I did a search for resources on medieval Greek, Byzantine hagiography, etc, and came up with very little. My next thought was to write to some scholars in the field, asking for advice on lexica etc. I reproduce parts of their responses here, precisely in case someone else is hunting for a road into medieval Greek.

First I wrote to Dr Alice-Mary Talbot and asked her advice on this.  She kindly responded:

I wish your translator well, but it takes time and the reading of many texts to make the adjustment to medieval Greek.  Of course the middle Byz. texts differ from each other, with some being very Atticizing, others being in a lower style.  The two main dictionaries he should be using, in addition to Liddell-Scott, are Lampe’s Patristic Greek Lexikon and Erich Trapp’s Lexikon zur byzantinischen Grazitat (not yet complete, but up to tau).  As for books on the development of medieval Greek, he should look at Geoffrey Horrocks, Greek : a history of the language and its speakers, and Robert Browning, Medieval and Modern Greek.

I note that bootleg PDFs of Horrocks and Browning can be found online with little difficulty, thankfully; but I would guess that anyone seeking to get a lot out of them would be best advised to do so on paper, and use them as bed-time reading.

Another correspondent, “Inepti Graeculi”, suggested that I write to John A. Lee:

John A. L. Lee may be worth a contact. He is an expert on LXX Greek but is nuts on all things Greek. He’s also a lexicographer and has written a history of (NT) Greek lexicography so he may know of  obscure dictionaries etc that may be a help. He’s an honorary fellow at Macquarie these days and a nice guy.

So I did.  His response was very useful indeed:

I have had a quick look at the text online and I can see what your translator is up against. This is top-register literary Greek, based on Classical models and using all the devices of Classical grammar and rhetoric as developed in later centuries. It will not yield its meaning easily. A long training, beginning with Classical Greek, is what is really needed. I am not just saying this to put you (or him) off or to seem superior.

There are actually no specialist lexica or grammars that cover it fully. One will need to be ready to use all resources, namely:

A grammar of ancient Greek, esp. Smyth’s Greek Grammar + NT grammars (MHT, BDF).

Lexicons:
– LSJ (big edition + Suppl.)
– Lampe, Patristic Greek Lexicon
– Sophocles, Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods
– BDAG, NT lexicon
– Muraoka, LXX lexicon
– possibly one that covers Modern +, such as Babiniotis.

Even with these, there will be problematic constructions and uses. Tenacity (and time) will be needed.

The same correspondent (IG) pointed out that a free Latin translation of Methodius ad Theodorum was made by John the Deacon – this information from Wace: the hagiographical works, p.252 with more on p.238 – and that:

John the Deacon’s Vita Nicholai is in vol 2 of Mombribius’s Sanctuarium here at archive org (starting at page 296 = printed page number)

It’s allegedly a translation from the Greek and I found one reference that says it’s a translation of Methodius.

…

Nearly all of the Lexikon zur byzantinischen Gräzität (Lexicon for Byzantine Greek) should now be on line via TLG (one more fascicle to go) – http://www.tlg.uci.edu/lbg/aboutlbg.html#

This Greek portal has Kriarias, but that is useful for vulgar Greek and would be for later than 10th century:
http://www.greek-language.gr/greekLang/medieval_greek/kriaras/index.html

Cambridge Uni is well behind on their grammar of Medieval Greek. Geoffrey Horrocks was supposed to be involved with that. He’s probably the pre-eminent English speaking historian of the Greek language around today. His book on the history of the Greek language – 2nd ed. will give you some tips as to phonetic and morphological changes etc and different ‘dialects’ and registers of the time but it won’t be enough.

…

Actually that Greek portal does have a biblio for medieval Greek helps (only in the Greek section , but many refs in latin alphabet and Google translate is not bad with modern Greek)

For example:
http://www.greek-language.gr/greekLang/medieval_greek/bibliographies/loanword_terminology/bibliography.html?g=1

All of which is very interesting!

We may have to defer Methodius ad Theodorum; but it’s produced a lot of interesting information so far!

UPDATE: Some extra info from IG on Chrysostom’s language, which may or may not be useful considering his impact later:

I was wondering how does one identify an Atticist and how does their Greek differ say from ‘Attic’ which itself is a little slippery to define. Thucydides for example wrote in a sort of ‘international Attic’  whereas others might be said to have written in parochial Attic (say Lysias) (Geoffrey Horrocks book – pricey so try a library – is very good for this – but only at a high level).

I really can’t speak for 9th or 10th century Greek which is what we are dealing with. For the fourth century I have two references of Chrysostom’s Attic but I don’t think they will be of use to him:

Ameringer: The Stylistic Influence of the Second Sophistic on the Panegyrical Sermons of St John Chrysostom  (this is on Archive org but one copy has the last few pages missing so check before you download. Apparently similar studies were done on other fourth century authors)

Soffray: Rescherches sur la syntaxe de saint Jean Chrysostome d’apres les homelies sur les statues (this should be well and truly out of copyright but I can’t find it anywhere)

There is a big online dictionary that deals with Gregory Nazanzien’s (? I hope I have the right Gregory) vocab but that is available only through good research libraries. Access is pricey and its in German.

Frankly I find using classical lexicons (eg LSJ rather than Lampe) and grammars more useful for Chrysostom. And I find that he draws terminology from the Stoics, Aristotle and goodness knows what else, as do some of the ps Chrysostomica and ps Athanasia.

UPDATE: Bryson Sewell has had a go, and managed a draft of the first two pages, which he has kindly made available in case they are helpful.  These are here: Translation – Methodius ad Theodorum – First Draft (PDF) and here: Translation – Methodius ad Theodorum – First Draft (.docx).

And IG has transcribed the last page (bottom of p.555-end of 556), so let’s make that available also:

Καὶ ἐπὶ πᾶσι θαυμάσας καὶ προστησάμενος κρησφύγετον ἄσυλον τὸν μέγαν Νικόλαον ἔχε πρὸς πειρασμῶν λύτρωσιν πρεσβείαν θεῷ εὐυπήκοον, πρὸς νόσων ἐκδρασμὸν καθάρσιον εὔποτον, πρὸς πόλεμον σαρκὸς ἀνταγωνιστὴν δυσκαταμάχητον, πρὸς φιλίαν θεοῦ εἰκόνα ἀπαραχάρακτον, πρὸς ἔχθραν δαιμόνων ἐνστήλωμα ἀνεπίκλητον, πρὸς χρείαν πενήτων χαρακτήρα ἀρχέτυπον, πρὸς ζῆλον δογμάτων κανόνα εὐθύτατον, πρὸς διδαχὴν πρᾳότητος λύραν θεοτίνακτον, πρὸς ἐγκρατείας τόνον νεκρῶσεως τύμπανον, πρὸς ἀγνείας ἱδρῶτα δρόσον ἀνομβρίζοντα, πρὸς ἡνίαν σωμάτων πύκτην ἀνεπίψογον, πρὸς φρονήσεως κτῆσιν πολυκερδῆ ἔμπορον, πρὸς τάξιν ἀνδρεῖας ζυγὸν ἀνεπίκλητον, πρὸς κρίματα λόγων πρυτάνην ὸξύτητος, πρὸς δράματα τρόπων σοφὸν ἀκακούργητον, πρὸς νόμον πρακτέων σπαρτίον εὐθύτατον, πρὸς νοῦν ἀπευκταῖον θυμὸν εὐσυλλόγιστον, πρὸς θράσος ἀνοίας ἀργίας ἐπίγνωσιν, πρὸς θάρσος εὐνοίας συλλήπτορα τάχιστον, πρὸς μνήμην θανάτου νεκρὸν ἐμπνοώτατον, πρὸς τύπον ἐγέρσεως τὸ κλήσει παρίστασθαι, πρὸς πλάτος ἀγάπης τὸ χρᾶσθαι αὐτῷ καὶ ὁμώνυμα, πρὸς ἐλπίδα μελλόντων παρόντων καταφρόνησιν, πρὸς ζωὴν αἰωνίαν ἑκούσιον νέκρωσιν. καὶ πάντα πρὸς τούτου μαθητευόμενος γνησιώτατα, ποίησον σεαυτῷ τὴν ὅλην βιοτὴν τοῦ σοφωτάτου Νικολάου ἀλφάβητον ἰδιόκτητον. καὶ ὡς ἐκ γραμμάτων τῶν εἰρημένων πάντων στοιχειασθεὶς τὴν καρδίαν σου, ὃ θέλεις ἢ πράττειν ἢ λέγειν ἢ ἐννοεῖν, προσφιλέστατε, λάμβανε κατὰ νοῦν τὸν μέγαν Νικόλαον καὶ ὅρα, εἰ γέγονεν αὐτῷ ἐκείνῳ ἢ λελάληται ἢ ἐννενόηται, καὶ πρᾶττε κατ’ ἐκεῖνον, ὡς ἐντεθύμηται ἢ λελάληκεν αὐτὸς ἢ πεποίηκεν. οἱ γὰρ ἅγιοι, μιμηταὶ τοῦ κυρίου ἀκριβεῖς γενηθέντες, διὰ τῆς πρὸς αῦτοὺς χαρακτηρίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἡμᾶς μιμητὰς καθιστῶσι, ?? φησιν ὁ μέγας ἀπόστολος· «μιμηταί μου γίνεσθε, καθὼς κἀγὼ Χριστοῦ». καὶ λοιπὸν ὅλον τοῦ ὁσίου τὸν βίον γράμματα ἔχων, οἷάπερ ἔφαμεν, ἐξ αὐτοῦ λαμβάνων τὰ σχήματα εὐθέτως διατίθει τὰ πράγματα· ἵνα, ὃν ἀγαπᾶς κατὰ ψυχὴν καὶ περιέχει Νικόλαον, τοῦτον καὶ ζηλοῖς ἐπ’ ἔργοις καὶ μιμῇ διὰ βῖου παντὸς πατροπόθητα, κἀντεῦθεν ἐπαξίως τῆς διαθέσεως συγκληρωθείης αὐτῷ τῆν νίκην ἐν μέσῳ τῷ λαῷ σου καὶ γένῃ θεοδώρητον φερωνύμημα, τὸ αὐτὸ καὶ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν προσευχόμενος, χάριτι καὶ φιλανθρωπίᾳ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ᾧ ἡ δόξα σὺν τῷ πατρὶ καὶ τῷ ἁγίῳ πνεύματι εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. ἀμήν.

If anybody feels like typing up some more of the text, and contributing it in the comments, then please do.  Apparently it makes the task of working with it, using the LSJ and TLG, much easier for those wanting to do so!

UPDATE: Transcriptions of more portions of the text by Joel Eidsath can be found in the comments!

Share
  1. [1]G. Anrich, Hagios Nikolaos, 2 vols. Leipzig, 1913.↩

The life of St Nicholas of Myra in the “Methodius ad Theodorum”

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Further to my post about the ancient literary sources for Santa Claus – or St Nicholas of Myra – I have begun to look at getting translations made.  The first up is the “letter” of Methodius to Theodore, Methodius Ad Theodorum, BHG 1352y, which appears in Anrich vol. 1, 140-150 and in a revised version (with punctuation and some mistakes fixed) in vol. 2 546-556.[1]

So … what is this text?  Has any translation ever been made?

The text is preserved in Vaticanus graecus 2084, a 10th c. manuscript.  I don’t know if it can be found in Migne?  Or if a Latin translation exists?

Here is what I was able to discover.  I found pages like this one, from which I learn things like:

The oldest encomium — praise in honor of St. Nicholas — is preserved from the beginning of the eighth century.  It was delivered at his grave site by St. Andrew of Crete (d. 740), who called him a “pillar and support of the Church” (P.G. 97, 1191-1206).

Jean Blacker’s book on the hagiographical works of Wace incidentally contains quite a bit about sources for the Vita of Nicholas of Myra, and points me to a book by Gerardo Cioffari, S. Nicola nella critica storia, 1987.  This apparently discusses Methodius ad Theodorum as “the narrative encomium” on p.75-77 and gives it a date of 817-21 AD.  The Amazon page suggests that Cioffari has written a lot on Nicholas, indeed.  A German site exists for Nicholas of Myra here, but I could not find anything on our text in it.  More interesting was an Italian Encyclopedia site here, which said that Cardinal Pitra (who worked with Migne) was interested in the text:

Pitra (pp. 353-355) elenca trentotto scritti di M. di cui si ricordano: Encomio di s. Agata (Bibliotheca hagiographica Graeca [=B.H.G.], I, n. 38; Stelladoro); Vitadi Eusebio Alessandrino (B.H.G. e Novum auctarium B.H.G., n. 635x); la già citata Vita di Eutimio di Sardi (Gouillard, 1987), che pare risalire al periodo della sua reclusione a Sant’Andrea e quindi all’inizio dell’832; Vita di s. Nicola di Mira (B.H.G., II, n. 1362y; il cosiddetto Methodius ad Theodorum: testo in Anrich), scritta probabilmente per Teodoro Cratero, tra l’821 e l’838 (Ševčenko, Hagiography, pp. 17 s.[2]); l’Encomio in s. Nicolaum ep. Myrrensis, collocabile intorno all’838-840, attribuito a M. dalla più antica tradizione manoscritta (ma alcuni preferiscono restituirlo a Basilio di Lacedemonia).

Which gives us a couple more references.  In fact, I see, in BHG II, entry 1362y does not exist in my copy of the 3rd edition.  I wonder where it is hidden?

It’s a reminder that, despite all the material online, there are vast swathes of knowledge that remain obstinately offline.

Share
  1. [1]G. Anrich, Hagios Nikolaos, 2 vols, Leipzig, 1913.  This is accessible at Hathi Trust and there is a copy online elsewhere.↩
  2. [2]A. Bryer, J. Herrin, edd. Iconoclasm (Birmingham, 1977), esp. I. Sevcenko, “Hagiography of the Iconoclast Period,” 113-131 [= Ideology, Letters and Culture in the Byzantine World, (London:Variorum Reprints, 1982), V].↩

Ancient literary sources for St Nicholas of Myra

Posted on by Roger Pearse

It is Christmas Eve, and so what better time to ask the question: what, if anything, does the historical record tell us about a supposed 4th century bishop of Myra named Nicholas?

Every Christmas there is a flood of articles in the press and online about the origins of “Santa Claus”.  It is a curious reflection on our society, however, that these consist entirely of unreferenced hearsay.

I’d like to make a small difference this Christmas.  For some this means feeding the homeless and other useful things.  We book-lovers can’t do that kind of work; but here’s something we can do.

Let’s begin the process of collecting whatever primary sources there might be.  I am conscious that I probably don’t have the right reference literature.  I don’t know my way around the hagiographical texts.  So this can only be a first effort at the problem, and I intend to highlight my ignorance!  Feel free to contribute.  What we want here, surely, is primary sources.[1]

If there was such a person as Nicholas, bishop of Myra, during the time of Constantine, he left no literary works behind him.  Quasten’s Patrology for the period does not even mention him.

There are various lists in circulation, of various dates, of the bishops who attended the First Council of Nicaea.  Some of them supposedly include a Nicholas of Myra.  I have not seen any indication of which ones, however.

The orations of 5th century bishop Proclus of Constantinople[2] are supposed to contain a sermon praising Nicholas.  This item is listed in the CPG 5890, Laudatio S. Nicolai, but among the spuria.  It is BHG 13640, incipit: Adelfoi/ mou~, pate/rej kai\ te/kna. A text is offered: G. Anrich, Hagios Nikolaos I, Leipzig, 1913, 429-433.  This seems to be at Google Books here, but I cannot access it.  Apparently it denies that the text is really by Proclus; but as I say, I can’t look and see.  If anyone can, please let me know.

In the 6th century Procopius, De aedificiis book 1, chapter 6 (at Lacus Curtius), tells us that Justinian constructed a church in his honour:

Further on he established a shrine to St. Priscus and St. Nicholas, an entirely new creation of his own, at a spot where the Byzantines love especially to tarry, some worshipping and doing honour to these saints who have come to dwell among them, and others simply enjoying the charm of the precinct, since the Emperor forced back the wash of the sea and set the foundations far out into the water when he established this sanctuary.[3]

I don’t know enough hagiography to know if this really does refer to Nicholas of Myra.  It sounds like a pair of linked saints, however.

Our next port of call is the Bibliotheca Hagiographica Graecorum (BHG), vol. 2, p.139-151, nn. 1347-64 n.  This tells us the following:

  • BHG 1347: A Vita exists, published by Anrich (p.3-55), but previously by N.C. Falconius Sancti Nicolai … acta primigenia, Neapoli, 1751, 1-29. (Falconius is online here).
  • BHG 1348:  A second Vita per Michaelem, by Michael the Archimandrite (or by Methodius, bishop of Patar.), is again in Falconius 39-55, and Anrich.
  • BHG 1348b:  Another vita praemetaphrastica, of which the start is lost, and only part of it appears in Anrich.

Following this, there are several pages listing material.

Returning to Jones, however, I learn that 4 vitae originating in the 9th-10th century are known; the vita per Michaelem (start of 9th c.), “an epistolary composition, Methodius ad Theodorum (842×6)”, a Latin vita and miracles by John, a deacon of Naples (3rd quarter of the 9th c.; the Legenda aurea of James of Voragine, d. 1298, is based on this version), and a vita by Simon Metaphrastes (second half of 10th c.).

11 chapters of the Vita per Michaelem exists in English here.  The site states:

John Quinn, professor of classical languages, Hope College, Holland, Michigan, was doing the first English translation of the text for us when he suddenly and unexpectedly died while out jogging on June 19, 2008. His as yet unfinished translation is offered as a memorial to his work.

They add:

When an appropriate and willing scholar is found the translation will be completed.

I feel that somebody ought to do this.  It serves the interests of everyone to do so.  I suspect Anrich’s book — what a nuisance that this is inaccessible! — is the text used.

The Methodius ad Theodorum is BHG 1352y, and appears only in Anrich vol. 1, 140-150 and again in vol. 2 546-556.

Doubtless the Latin of John of Naples is to be found in the BHL, but I have no access to this.

The Metaphrastes version is BHG 1349, and may be found in Falconius p.86-108 and Anrich, and also in the PG 116, 317-356.  This last makes it very accessible.

I think that’s enough for the moment.

What we now need, I would have thought, is some translations of some of these; and some evaluations of them.  Unfortunately I have been unable to access either Anrich or Falconius!  It seems likely that Anrich will contain commentary.  How infuriating that a 1913 book is inaccessible, a century after publication!

Postscript: I have discovered that Anrich is at Hathi trust here; but only for US readers.

UPDATE: I have now managed to access the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church[4].  This tells me (p.1148):

[Tradition says he] was present at the Council of Nicaea. The latter supposition is most improbable, as he is not in any of the early lists of bishops present at the Council. The earliest evidence for his cult at Myra is found in the contemporary Life of
St Nicholas of Sion, who lived in the reign of the Emp. Justinian (d. 565). Episodes from the Life of St Nicholas of Sion were later transferred to the Life of his namesake.
Justinian himself built a church in Constantinople dedicated to St Priscus and St Nicholas.

The Life of St Nicholas of Sion is ed., with Eng. tr., by I. and N.P. Sevcenko (The Archbishop Iakovos Library of Ecclesiastical and Historical Sources, 10; Brookline, Mass. [1984]).

Perhaps we need to look at Nicholas of Sion next.

Share
  1. [1]A valuable secondary source pointing to the literature is Graham Jones, “St Nicholas, Icon of mercantile virtues: transition and continuity of a European myth,” in Myths of Europe (ed. Richard Littlejohns), 2007, 73-88; 75.↩
  2. [2]Listed in the Clavis Patrum Graecorum vol. 3, entry 5800 and on.↩
  3. [3]I obtained this reference from the otherwise useless entry in W.Smith and H. Wace, Dictionary of Christian Biography, vol. 4, 1887, p.41.  This does tell us that his “saints’ day” is December 6; important for looking up material.  The other reference is to “Surii Hist. Sant.”; I have had no luck with this yet.↩
  4. [4]3rd edition, 1997.↩