Month: October 2009

Is the Patrologia Graeca bed-time reading, and should it be?

Posted on by Roger Pearse

In a parallel universe where the sun always shines, the girls are all pretty, none of us grow sick or tiresome — and where I hold a prestigious and well-remunerated teaching post at a major university — one of the things I recommend to my better students is to buy or print copies of the Patrologia Graeca and take them to bed and read them.  If they take a volume to bed every night, and read it, even if all they read is mostly the Latin, and they read a page or two, they will acquire almost by osmosis a command of what these volumes contain.  In this way — I advise them, in my kindly but impressive way — they will acquire an inimitable knowledge of patristic literature, and a constant fund of unexpected knowledge that will serve them well all their days.

In this world, where things are less well-arranged, the idea is slightly fantastic, but still not without value.  Imagine if we could print off a volume, or perhaps half or a quarter of a volume?  Let it have wide margins, and let us take a pencil to bed with us, so we can scribble, and underline, and index.  Would this work?  I think it might.

There are practical difficulties.  Has anyone tried taking some of the digitised images of the PG and printing them?  The results do not tend to be good.  Let’s face it, Migne’s originals were not exactly well printed!   But … would it be readable?  Would it be possible?  I think it might.

Another question is where to start.  Should we start with PG1, which I imagine must contain the apostolic fathers.  My instinctive first reaction is not.  My second reaction is “maybe”.  After all, Migne reprints all that scholarship from the 16-17th century, much of it very learned, and in many cases  never superseded.  We would still learn things, even from this.

Or should it be later volumes?  Where should we start? 

Come, gentlemen.  Imagine yourselves in that parallel universe.  What would YOU recommend to your students?

Share

Hippolytus “Commentary on Daniel”

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Tom Schmidt writes to say that he has started a translation of the Commentary on Daniel by Hippolytus, which he mentions here.

Fragments of the work appear in the ANF collection, but a nearly complete Old Slavonic version exists (used by the Sources Chretiennes) and likewise a Greek version, which was published by GCS.  So this will be the first complete English translation. 

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

Obscure material

Posted on by Roger Pearse

When I look at older editions and translations of the classics, or indeed the fathers, I am sometimes struck by the way in which the authors make use of curious and recondite sources such as scholiasts.  Never have I seen it explained, however, how they come to locate these. 

Looking at 16th and 17th century editions, we quickly find that the indexes in these contain all sorts of references.  How did they do it?

Share

Demonax and the trolls, and other snippets from Lucian

Posted on by Roger Pearse

I was reading Lucian’s Life of Demonax here and came across this remark, which seemed eminently applicable to much online posting:

He once saw two philosophers engaged in a very unedifying game of cross questions and crooked answers. ‘Gentlemen,’ said he, ‘here is one man milking a billy-goat, and another catching the proceeds in a sieve.’

In Lucian’s Remarks addressed to an illiterate book-fancier here, we find another comment appropriate to those who always have a quote from an ancient source at their hands.

There are two ways in which a man may derive benefit from the study of the ancients: he may learn to express himself, or he may improve his morals by their example and warning; when it is clear that he has not profited in either of these respects, what are his books but a habitation for mice and vermin, and a source of castigation to negligent servants?

Most of Lucian’s works seem to be here.

Share

What percentage of ancient literature survives: some data

Posted on by Roger Pearse

An interesting discussion is going on at CLASSICS-L at the moment.

Jeffrey Gibson: How much pre-second century CE literature is lost to us — and how has this figure, whatever it may be, been determined?

…

Patrick T. Rourke: Even if you limit yourself to the plays produced at the Greater Dionysia during the productive lifetimes of the three great tragedians (~485 bce – 406 bce), that would be 33 out of 12×79=948, or 3.5%. That number is not an estimate, but a ceiling, because of all the factors you have to ignore to get that nice clean number:

  • I think the Rhesos is under the wrong name and is later than 406.
  • At least 15% of the Iphigeneia at Aulis has been replaced with a later attempt at a reconstruction.
  • There are fragments of hundreds of lost tragedies, enough to count as maybe 3 additional play equivalents.
  • Tragedy officially started in 534 bce, though we might not consider the earliest plays to fit our definition of the genre, and the productions of tragedies continued into the common era, though after about 400 bce repertory productions of older plays could take the place of new plays
  • We are counting satyr plays
  • We are ignoring the Lenaia, and other feativals and cities where tragedy came to be performed.
  • We are ignoring later book tragedies, which date to the mid 4th century bce.

As I said, that is a ceiling, amd a rough back-of-the-envelope number that my gut tells me is an order of magnitude too high (it’s probably closer to 0.4%), but it’s a nice way to demonstrate the problem.

We have 33 surviving tragedies (including satyric and pro-satyric plays):

7 of Aeschylus*
7 of Sophocles
19 of Euripides*

1 play ascribed to Aeschylus by all ancient authorities has been challenged on stylistic grounds, but I believe the skeptics still think it was anciently produced. 1 play ascribed to Euripides was challenged in antiquity on stylistic grounds – and we have a much better sample for Euripides; those theories would place production after 406 bce. Those three between them wrote slightly over 300 plays (123 for Sophocles, 91 or 95 for Euripides, ~ 88 or 92 for Aeschylus), so we have 10% of their work; 24 of the plays survive due to their use in schools, and 9 of Euripides plays survive due to an historical accident of transmission. It is possible that some of the surviving plays were produced at the Lenaia, which would add an additional several plays a year to those totals (obviously I don’t know, and can’t quickly find, the actual number; and we know that some of the lost plays for the big three for which we have titles were produced at the Lenaia, and at least four outside Athens altogether.)

The two dates I’ve chosen are the year before Aeschylus’ first recorded first prize and the year of Euripides’ and Sophocles’ deaths. That gives an active period for the three great tragedians of 79 years. The actual active life of the Greater Dionysia was closer to 700 years, but only some of the plays produced before Aeschylus would fit our definition of tragedy, and after the death of Sophocles, it became common to revive older plays. By the mid-4th century ther were only 9 new plays per Dionysia, and we can assume that the late 1 st and early 2 nd century had no new plays, so we might average out at 4 new plays per year for the last 500 years, which would raise the total closer to 3000 plays and lower the percentage to a little over 1%. Throw in the Lenaia and the number drops well below 1%.

The number twelve refers to the fact that three poets were chosen for each Greater Dionysia to present four plays: three tragedies and a satyr play. We believe that in some festivals in the 5 th century the satyr play was replaced by another kind of play, a prosatyric play, and that Euripides’ Alcestis is an example. By the mid 3rd century the satyr play is gone.

Aristotle mentions what I’ve called book tragedies – closet dramas that take the form of tragedy. They were apparently popular by the mid 3rd century, and there is no way of estimating them. None survives.

Other cities came to imitate Athens’ genre, but there is no way to quantify that. We hear about dramatic productions in Alexander’s camp, but at least some were revivals (I think at least one was a new play).

I’m also ignoring the rural Dionysia on the assumption (possibly quite wrong) that it was repertory only.

The sources include the scholia, hypotheses, lives of the poets, inscriptions, a couple of contemporary speeches, allusions throughout the history of Greek literature (including Aristophanes the comedic playwright), the Suda, numerous literary essays from Roman times, &c. The most accessible collection of evidence is Csapo and Slater, *The Context of Ancient Drama*. One book that experts use a lot for ancient evidence is probably Pickard-Cambridge, *Dramatic Festivals of Athens*, though even in its updated form, it is quite old now and so doesn’t take into account the past 40 years if research. For the whole discussion, I’d recommend as a starting point for general readers is the popular account in several brief sections of Stuart Kelly’s *The Book of Lost Books*. Reynolds and Wilson’s book from the 70s (and that may be the second edition), *Scribes and Scholars*, is the best in depth discussion of the transmission of classical texts that I know about.

I’d guess that the numbers for all other genres are worse than for tragedy – we are lucky that we have so much of it!

Gene O’Grady:  I’m being lazy and not checking, but I seem to recall that toward the end of this period there were reproductions of old plays (Aeschylus) at the festivals, so that would reduce the number of plays in the corpus, thus raising the percent that survive.

Also, do we know for sure that there was a satyr play every year?  And the site of original production of some plays (Andromache,  Archelaus, Aetnaeae) apparently wasn’t Athens.

Patrick T. Rourke: I had forgotten about Andromache, so my “at least 4” should be “at least 5”.

I admit that I know nothing about Greek tragedy.  So this is all out of period for me.  Nor do I know anything of the Greater Dionysia.  I’ve asked for some clarification for us late-antiquity buffs, but it looks as if we have some information that a play was performed 12 times a year for 79 years.  I’d want to see the data, of course.

But this sort of quantifiable stuff is invaluable.

Share

List of CSEL volumes at Google Books

Posted on by Roger Pearse
Fr. Stefan Zara's banner
Fr. Stefan Zara’s banner

Fr. Stefan Zara’s site used to contain a list of the volumes of the CSEL in Google Books.  Unfortunately it has just been shut down.   It was hosted by WordPress who understandably took exception to some of the material that he was sharing.  I think that some was copyright in the US if not in his native Romania.  I thought I would add his banner at the left here, so we can remember it.

However I found a cached version of this useful list from 8 October 2009 in Google cache.  To preserve this useful item, I have edited it down and post it here.  Please add further links in the comments, if you come across them.  I don’t maintain collections of links, you see, as I have so much else to do.

Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum

The Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum (CSEL) is a series of critical editions of the Latin Church Fathers published by a committee of the Austrian Academy of Sciences.

The CSEL is intended to include the ecclesiastical authors who wrote in Latin from the late 2nd century AD until the death of Bede in 735. The texts are edited on the basis of all extant manuscripts and according to the principles of modern textual criticism and thus aim to provide a critical replacement for the corresponding volumes of the Patrologia Latina.

Vol. 1 SULPICIUS SEVERUS, Opera – ed. C. Halm 1866; PSEUDO-SULPICIUS SEVERUS, Epistulae – ed. C. Halm 1866
Vol. 2 FIRMICUS MATERNUS, De errore profanarum religionum – ed. C. Halm 1869; MINUCIUS FELIX – ed. C. Halm 1867
Vol. 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 CYPRIANUS, Opera – ed. W. Hartel 1868/71
Vol. 4 ARNOBIUS, Adversus nationes – ed. A. Reifferscheid 1875
Vol. 5 OROSIUS, Historiae adversus paganos, Apologeticus – ed. C. Zangemeister 1882
Vol. 6 ENNODIUS, Opera – ed. W. Hartel 1882
Vol. 7 VICTOR VITENSIS, Historia persecutionis Africanae provinciae, PSEUDO-VICTOR VITENSIS, Passio septem monachorum, Notitia provinciarum et civitatum Africae – ed. M. Petschenig 1881
Vol. 8 SALVIANUS, De gubernatione dei, Epistulae, Ad ecclesiam – ed. F. Pauly 1883
Vol. 9/1 EUGIPPIUS, Epistula ad Probam virginem, Vita S. Severini – ed. P. Knöll 1885
Vol. 9/2 EUGIPPIUS, Excerpta ex operibus S. Augustini – ed. P. Knöll 1886
Vol. 10 SEDULIUS, Carmen paschale, Opus paschale, Epistulae – ed. J. Huemer 1885; editio altera supplementis aucta – cur. V. Panagl 2007
Vol. 11 CLAUDIANUS MAMERTUS, De statu animae, Epistula ad Sapaudum – ed. A. Engelbrecht 1885
Vol. 12 AUGUSTINUS, Speculum, Liber de divinis scripturis – ed. F. Weihrich 1887
Vol. 13 Iohannes CASSIANUS, Conlationes – ed. M. Petschenig 1886; editio altera supplementis aucta – cur. G. Kreuz 2004
Vol. 14 LUCIFER CALARITANUS, De non conveniendo cum haereticis, De regibus apostaticis, De sancto Athanasio, De non parcendo in deum delinquentibus, Moriendum esse pro dei filio, Epistulae – ed. W. Hartel 1886
Vol. 15 COMMODIANUS, Carmen apologeticum, Instructiones – ed. B. Dombart 1887
Vol. 16/1 Poetae Christiani Minores: PAULINUS PETRICORDIAE, Carmina – ed. M. Petschenig; ORIENTIUS, Carmina – ed. R. Ellis; PAULINUS PELLAEUS, Eucharisticos – ed. W. Brandes; CLAUDIUS MARIUS VICTOR, Alethia – ed. C. Schenkl; PROBA, Cento – ed. C. Schenkl; ANONYMUS, Sancti Paulini epigramma, Versus ad gratiam domini, De verbi incarnatione, De ecclesia – ed. C. Schenkl; 1888
Vol. 17 Iohannes CASSIANUS, De institutis coenobiorum et de octo principalium vitiorum remediis, De incarnatione Domini contra Nestorium – ed. M. Petschenig 1888; editio altera supplementis aucta – cur. G. Kreuz 2004
Vol.18 OROSIUS, Commonitorium de errore Priscillianistarum et Origenistarum – ed. G. Schepss 1889
Vol. 18 PRISCILLIANUS, Tractatus, Canones – ed. G. Schepss 1889
Vol. 19 LACTANTIUS, Divinae institutiones, Epitome divinarum institutionum – ed. S. Brandt 1890
Vol. 20 TERTULLIANUS, De spectaculis, De idololatria, Ad nationes, De testimonio animae, Scorpiace, De oratione, De baptismo, De ieiunio, De anima, De pudicitia – ed. A. Reifferscheid, G. Wissowa 1890
Vol. 21 FAUSTUS REIENSIS, Opera – ed. A. Engelbrecht 1891
Vol. 22 HILARIUS PICTAVIENSIS, Tractatus super psalmos – ed. A. Zingerle 1891
Vol. 23 ANONYMUS, (Cypriani) Carmen ad quendam senatorem – ed. R. Peiper 1881
Vol. 23 CYPRIANUS GALLUS, Heptateuchos, Fragmenta, De Sodoma, De Iona propheta; PSEUDO-HILARIUS, In Genesin ad Leonem papam, De martyrio Maccabaeorum, De evangelio – ed. R. Peiper 1891
Vol. 24 (bound with 23) IUVENCUS, Evangeliorum libri – ed. J. Huemer 1891
Vol. 25/1, 25/2 AUGUSTINUS, De utilitate credendi, De duabus animabus, Contra Fortunatum Manichaeum, Contra Adimantum, Contra epistulam fundamenti, Contra Faustum Manichaeum, Contra Felicem Manichaeum, De natura boni, Epistula Secundini, Contra Secundinum Manichaeum – ed. J. Zycha 1891/92
Vol. 26 OPTATUS MILEVITANUS, Contra Parmenianum Donatistam, Appendix decem monumentorum veterum – ed. C. Ziwsa 1893
Vol. 27/1 LACTANTIUS, De opificio dei, De ira dei, Carmina, Fragmenta – ed. S. Brandt 1893
Vol. 27/2.1 , 27/2.2 2 LACTANTIUS, De mortibus persecutorum – ed. S. Brandt, G. Laubmann 1897
Vol. 28/1 AUGUSTINUS, De Genesi ad litteram liber imperfectus, De Genesi ad litteram, Locutiones in Heptateuchum – ed. J. Zycha 1894
Vol. 28/3 AUGUSTINUS, Quaestiones in Heptateuchum, Adnotationes in Iob – ed. J. Zycha 1895
Vol. 29 PAULINUS NOLANUS, Epistulae – ed. W. Hartel 1894; editio altera supplementis aucta – cur. M. Kamptner 1999
Vol. 30 PAULINUS NOLANUS, Carmina; PAULINUS PELLAEUS, Oratio – ed. W. Hartel 1894; editio altera supplementis aucta – cur. M. Kamptner 1999
Vol. 31 EUCHERIUS, Opera – ed. C. Wotke 1894
Vol. 32/1 32-1 Praefatio AMBROSIUS, Hexameron, De paradiso, De Cain, De Noe, De Abraham, De Isaac, De bono mortis – ed. C. Schenkl 1896
Vol. 32/2 AMBROSIUS, De Iacob, De Ioseph, De patriarchis, De fuga saeculi, De interpellatione Iob et David, De apologia prophetae David, De Helia, De Nabuthae, De Tobia – ed. C. Schenkl 1897
Vol. 32/4 AMBROSIUS, Expositio evangelii secundum Lucam – ed. C. Schenkl 1902
Vol. 33 AUGUSTINUS, Confessiones – ed. P. Knöll 1896
Vol. 34/1 AUGUSTINUS, Epistulae 1-30 – ed. A. Goldbacher 1895
Vol. 34/2 AUGUSTINUS, Epistulae 31-123 – ed. A. Goldbacher 1898
Vol. 35/1–2 COLLECTIO AVELLANA, ed. O. Günther 1895, 1898
Vol. 36 AUGUSTINUS, Retractationes – ed. P. Knöll 1902
Vol. 37 CASSIODORUS, Contra Apionem – ed. C. Boysen 1898
Vol. 38 FILASTRIUS, Diversarum hereseon liber – ed. F. Marx 1898
Vol. 39 ITINERARIA HIEROSOLYMITANA – ed. P. Geyer 1898
Vol. 40/1–40/2 AUGUSTINUS, De civitate Dei – ed. E. Hoffmann 1899/1900
Vol. 41 AUGUSTINUS, De fide et symbolo, De fide et operibus, De agone christiano, De continentia, De bono coniugali, De virginitate, De bono viduitatis, De adulterinis coniugiis, De mendacio, Contra mendacium, De opere monachorum, De divinatione daemonum, De cura pro mortuis gerenda, De patientia – ed. J. Zycha 1900
Vol. 42 AUGUSTINUS, De perfectione iustitiae hominis, De gestis Pelagii, De gratia Christi, De nuptiis et concupiscentia – ed. C. F. Vrba, J. Zycha 1902
Vol. 43 AUGUSTINUS, De consensu evangelistarum – ed. F. Weihrich 1904
Vol. 44 AUGUSTINUS, Epistulae 124-184 – ed. A. Goldbacher 1904
Vol. 45 EVAGRIUS, Altercatio legis inter Simonem Iudaeum et Theophilum Christianum – ed. E. Bratke 1904
Vol. 46 RUFINUS, Interpretatio orationum Gregorii Nazianzeni – ed. A. Engelbrecht 1910
Vol. 47 TERTULLIANUS, De patientia, De carnis resurrectione, Adversus Hermogenem, Adversus Valentinianos, Adversus omnes haereses, Adversus Praxean, Adversus Marcionem – ed. E. Kroymann 1906
Vol. 48 BOETHIUS, In Prophyrii isagogen commenta – ed. S. Brandt 1906
Vol. 49 VICTORINUS PETAVIONENSIS, Opera – ed. J. Haussleiter 1916
Vol. 50 [AMBROSIASTER]       PSEUDO-AUGUSTINUS, Quaestiones veteris et novi testamenti – ed. A. Souter 1908
Vol. 51 AUGUSTINUS, Psalmus contra partem Donati, Contra epistulam Parmeniani, De baptismo – ed. M. Petschenig 1908
Vol. 52 AUGUSTINUS, Contra litteras Petiliani, Epistula ad catholicos de secta Donatistarum, Contra Cresconium grammaticum et Donatistam – ed. M. Petschenig 1909
Vol. 53 AUGUSTINUS, De unico baptismo, Breviculus collationis cum Donatistis, Contra partem Donati post gesta, Sermo ad Caesariensis ecclesiae plebem, Gesta cum Emerito Donatistarum episcopo, Contra Gaudentium Donatistarum episcopum – ed. M. Petschenig 1910
Vol. 54 HIERONYMUS, Epistulae 1-70 – ed. I. Hilberg 1910/1918; editio altera supplementis aucta 1996
Vol. 55 HIERONYMUS, Epistulae 71-120 – ed. I. Hilberg 1910/1918; editio altera supplementis aucta 1996
Vol. 56/1 HIERONYMUS, Epistulae 121-154 – ed. I. Hilberg 1910/1918; editio altera supplementis aucta 1996
Vol. 56/2 HIERONYMUS, Epistularum Indices – comp. M. Kamptner 1996
Vol. 57 AUGUSTINUS, Epistulae 185-270 – ed. A. Goldbacher 1911
Vol. 58 AUGUSTINUS, Epistulae: Praefatio et indices – ed. A. Goldbacher 1923
Vol. 59 HIERONYMUS, In Hieremiam prophetam – ed. S. Reiter 1913
Vol. 60 AUGUSTINUS, De peccatorum meritis et remissione et de baptismo parvulorum, De spiritu et littera, De natura et gratia, De natura et origine animae, Contra duas epistulas Pelagianorum – ed. C. F. Vrba, J. Zycha 1913
Vol. 61 PRUDENTIUS, Carmina – ed. J. Bergman 1926
Vol. 62 AMBROSIUS, Expositio de psalmo CXVIII – ed. M. Petschenig 1913, editio altera supplementis aucta – cur. M. Zelzer 1999
Vol. 63 AUGUSTINUS, Contra Academicos, De beata vita, De ordine – ed. P. Knöll 1922
Vol. 64 AMBROSIUS, Explanatio super psalmos XII – ed. M. Petschenig 1919; editio altera supplementis aucta – cur. M. Zelzer 1999
Vol. 65 HILARIUS PICTAVIENSIS, Tractatus mysteriorum, Fragmenta, Ad Constantium Imperatorem, Hymni; PSEUDO-HILARIUS, Epistula ad Abram filiam, Hymni – ed. A. Feder 1916
Vol. 66/1 HEGESIPPUS, Historiae – ed. V. Ussani 1932
Vol. 66/2 HEGESIPPUS, Historiae: Praefatio et indices – comp. C. Mras 1960
Vol. 67 BOETHIUS, De consolatione philosophiae – ed. W. Weinberger 1934
Vol. 68 GAUDENTIUS BRIXIENSIS, Tractatus – ed. A. Glück 1936
Vol. 69 TERTULLIANUS, Apologeticum – ed. H. Hoppe 1939
Vol. 70 TERTULLIANUS, De praescriptione haereticorum, De cultu feminarum, Ad uxorem, De exhortatione castitatis, De corona, De carne Christi, Adversus Iudaeos – ed. E. Kroymann 1942
Vol. 71 CASSIODORUS, Historia tripartita – ed. W. Jacob, R. Hanslik 1952
Vol. 72 ARATOR SUBDIACONUS, De actibus apostolorum (Historia apostolica) – ed. McKinlay 1951
Vol. 73 AMBROSIUS, Explanatio symboli, De sacramentis, De mysteriis, De paenitentia, De excessu fratris Satyri, De obitu Valentiniani, De obitu Theodosii – ed. O. Faller 1955
Vol. 74 AUGUSTINUS, De libero arbitrio – ed. W. M. Green 1956
Vol. 75 BENEDICTUS NURSINUS, Regula – ed. R. Hanslik 1960 (editio altera et correcta 1977)
Vol. 76 TERTULLIANUS, Ad martyras, Ad Scapulam, De fuga in persecutione, De monogamia, De virginibus velandis, De pallio – ed. V. Bulhart 1957
Vol. 76 TERTULLIANUS, De paenitentia – ed. Ph. Borleffs 1957
Vol. 77 AUGUSTINUS, De magistro – ed. G. Weigel 1961
Vol. 77 AUGUSTINUS, De vera religione – ed. W. M. Green 1961
Vol. 78 AMBROSIUS, De fide ad Gratianum Augustum – ed. O. Faller 1962
Vol. 79 AMBROSIUS, De spiritu sancto, De incarnationis dominicae sacramento – ed. O. Faller 1964
Vol. 80 AUGUSTINUS, De doctrina christiana – ed. W. M. Green 1963
Vol. 81/1-3 AMBROSIASTER, Commentarius in epistulas Paulinas – ed. H. J. Vogels
Vol. 82/1-4 AMBROSIUS, Epistulae et acta – ed. O. Faller, M. Zelzer 1968-1996
Vol. 83/1 MARIUS VICTORINUS, Ad Candidum Arrianum, Adversus Arium, De homoousio recipiendo, Hymni – ed. P. Henry, P. Hadot 1971
Vol. 83/2 MARIUS VICTORINUS, In epistulam Pauli ad Ephesios, In epistulam Pauli ad Galatas, In epistulam Pauli ad Philippenses – ed. F. Gori 1986
Vol. 84 AUGUSTINUS, Expositio quarumdam propositionum ex epistula ad Romanos, Epistulae ad Galatas expositio, Epistulae ad Romanos inchoata expositio – ed. J. Divjak 1971
Vol. 85/1-2 AUGUSTINUS, Contra secundam Iuliani responsionem opus imperfectum, lib. 1-3; 4-6 – ed. M. Zelzer 1974; 2004
Vol. 86 RUFINUS, Basili regula – ed. K. Zelzer 1986
Vol. 87 EUGIPPIUS, Regula – ed. F. Villegas, A. De Vogüé 1976
Vol. 88 AUGUSTINUS, Epistulae nuper in lucem prolatae (Epistulae Divjak) – ed. J. Divjak 1981
Vol. 89 AUGUSTINUS, Soliloquia, De inmortalitate animae, De quantitate animae – ed. W. Hörmann 1986
Vol. 90 AUGUSTINUS, De moribus ecclesiae catholicae et de moribus Manichaeorum – ed. J. B. Bauer 1992
Vol. 91 AUGUSTINUS, De Genesi contra Manichaeos – ed. D. Weber 1998
Vol. 92 AUGUSTINUS, Contra sermonem Arrianorum (praecedit Sermo Arrianorum) – ed. M. J. Suda, De correptione et gratia – ed. G. Folliet 2000
Vol. 93/1 AUGUSTINUS, Enarrationes in Psalmos 1-32 (expos.) – ed. C. Weidmann 2003
Vol. 94/1 AUGUSTINUS, Enarrationes in Psalmos 51-60 (expos.) – ed. H. Müller 2004
Vol. 95/3 AUGUSTINUS, Enarrationes in Psalmos 119-133 – ed. F. Gori 2001
Vol. 95/4 AUGUSTINUS, Enarrationes in Psalmos 134-140 – ed. F. Gori adiuvante F. Recanatini 2002
Vol. 95/5 AUGUSTINUS, Enarrationes in Psalmos 141-150 – ed. F. Gori adiuvante I. Spaccia 2005
Vol. 96 ANONYMUS, In Iob commentarius – ed. K. B. Steinhauser adiuvantibus H. Müller et D. Weber 2006

UPDATE: Bob Buller very kindly sent me a bunch of extra links to fill the gaps on this, and I have added them in.  Thank you!
UPDATE: A correspondent is sending me some corrections, which I am merging in.

UPDATE: More links here.

UPDATE: Thanks to Ted Janiszewski for some more!

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

Lying awake and thinking about Eusebius

Posted on by Roger Pearse

These days I seem to get insomnia the night before any journey. I wish I knew why.

Anyway tonight I find myself thinking about the Tough questions on the gospels and their solutions by Eusebius of Caesarea.  I’ve had all the Greek fragments translated, even the ones which largely duplicate other fragments.  The question now is how to present all this material?  What will work, for the reader?

In an ideal world, we’d create a critical text.  Then we’d translate that.  But this work is highly non-ideal.

For one thing, we have an epitome of the work; and we have catena fragments of the full text.  Can we really integrate these into one critical text?  They never were one text, at any point in their life.  Claudio Zamagni, who edited the epitome for the Sources Chretiennes, thought not. 

OK, so we have two works.  So we use Zamagni’s critical text of the epitome and translate that (and we did).  What do we do about all the catena fragments?

The thing is, it isn’t simple.  These fragments belong to a number of different catenas.  Catena writers ‘adjust’ the texts they quote, adding words at either end, modifying tenses, etc, in order to get a flowing commentary out of them.  No blame to them; but how on earth do you do a critical edition of that?  Unless you edit the catena, which we aren’t doing.

Do we try to combine fragments?  But… we’re not editing the Greek of the fragments.  Anyway, all we have is stuff already published, as I wasn’t really able to access the manuscripts.

Or do we have the same basic idea, repeated five times in slightly varying forms on the page?

How do I combine these with the epitome?  Do I have the epitome first, and then all the fragments?  Or do I print each “question” in the epitome, and then add related fragments underneath (with a bucket at the end for fragments of unknown relation to the epitome, belonging to “questions” not preserved by it).  I sort of favour the last alternative, because it would be more usable for a reader who wants to know what Eusebius said on a given subject.  But it breaks up the flow of the work.

It’s going to be an unusual publication, that’s for sure.  It won’t be specially scholarly.  To produce anything more than a translation of the lot, in some order or other, is beyond my means, given the problems of the text.

Decisions, decisions — and suggestions very welcome!

Share

Sisyphus and Wikipedia

Posted on by Roger Pearse

I’ve spent a few hours over the last week or two trying to clean up the Wikipedia article, and got it into some kind of shape.  It has taken but a few days for someone (anonymous!) to turn up and start reintroducing rubbish that I had removed.   I added a whole load of valuable data; his change was to globally alter AD to the American/Jewish CE.  Well, that was useful, wasn’t it?

Can I have my hours of life back please?

Share