From my diary

Employment beckons, and dealing with the paperwork associated with that, chasing people up, and so forth, has filled up today. 

I’ve emailed a PDF of the Eusebius book across to the Sources Chretiennes people for their approval.  I’m reprinting their Greek text, so it is a condition of doing so that they review the manuscript.  There are still a few corrections to add, but this can happen in parallel, if it takes them long to reply (as I think it might).  I was going to process my list of corrections into the PDF today, but was too distracted by real-world stuff.  There are really only a few, tho, I was pleased to see.

I’ve also been looking at Theodor Birt’s Die antike Buchwesen (The ancient book-trade).  After translating a few paragraphs, I have run the PDF through Finereader 9 to get a better OCR’d text.  I was hoping to do some more on this, but again was distracted.  Maybe later.

It seems possible  that I may get the rest of this week to myself, however.  If so I will try to deal with both of these.

Share

More on Polybius and tables of contents

In a comment on my post about Polybius and his discussion of tables of contents versus prefaces at the start of his books, Ted Janiszewski has kindly pointed out that Walbank’s remarks about the passage are online.  In fact at the PACE site, the text of Polybius with facing translation are available, with notes.  This does not work well in IE8, but displays is fine in Firefox.  It’s here.  So I’m going to excerpt what Walbank has to say; it is indeed of great interest in working out what Polybius means. 

The key words in all this are prographai and proekthesis.  The meaning of these words determines what Polybius is saying.  My current understanding is that prographai are lists, tables of contents, listing the subjects covered; and that a proekthesis is a part of the book itself — indeed a term used in orations –, in which the author sets forward the subject(s) which his argument will address.  But am I right? 

Here again is the text of the opening words of book 11, with the rather superficial Loeb translation of W.R.Paton, who reads prographai as “prologues”, and proekthesis as “summary”.  I then include Walbank’s remarks (corrected slightly for typos).  Note how Walbank uses Birt (whom I need to make available in another post), as everyone does. 

Ἴσως δέ τινες ἐπιζητοῦσι πῶς ἡμεῖς οὐ προγραφὰς ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ βίβλῳ, καθάπερ οἱ πρὸ ἡμῶν, ἀλλὰ καὶ προεκθέσεις καθ᾽ ἑκάστην ὀλυμπιάδα πεποιήκαμεν τῶν πράξεων

Some will perhaps inquire why in this work I do not, like former authors, write prologues but give a summary of the events in each Olympiad. 

 ἐν ταύτῇ τῇ βίβλῳ: probably, as Büner-Wobst suggests, the epitomator’s words, since βίβλος (βύβλος) must mean a book, not the whole work. Birt (Buchwesen, 142 n. 1) proposed adding καὶ ἐν ταῖς πρὸ ταύτης; but this is unconvincing. Orelli’s ἐν ταυτῇ τῇ πραγματείᾳ or Büner-Wobst’s ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ συντάξει gives the required sense. 

 καθάπερ οἱ πρὸ ἡμῶν: if, as this suggests, προγραφαί preceded the books of previous historians, they have rarely survived. The prefaces to Xenophon’s Anabasis, ii–vii, summarize the contents of the previous book, and are not προγραφαί at all; but one can form some impression of a προγραφή from FGH, 577 F 1 (= P. Oxy. 665), which is probably the προγραφή to a work on Sicilian history (Philistus?), and from FGH, 115 F 103 and 217, which are either προγραφαί or epitomes of books xii and xlvii of Theopompus’ Philippica. Examples survive in Diodorus. 

ἐγὼ δὲ κρίνω χρήσιμον μὲν εἶναι καὶ τὸ τῶν προγραφῶν γένος· καὶ γὰρ εἰς ἐπίστασιν ἄγει τοὺς ἀναγινώσκειν θέλοντας καὶ συνεκκαλεῖται καὶ παρορμᾷ πρὸς τὴν ἀνάγνωσιν τοὺς ἐντυγχάνοντας, πρὸς δὲ τούτοις πᾶν τὸ ζητούμενον ἑτοίμως ἔνεστιν εὑρεῖν διὰ τούτου· 

I indeed regard a prologue as a useful kind of thing, since it fixes the attention of those who wish to read the work and stimulates and encourages readers in their task, besides which by this means any matter that we are in search of can be easily found. 

 εἰς ἐπίστασιν ἄγει κτλ: cf. xiv. 1 a 1, εἰς ἐπίστασιν ἄγουσι τοὺς ἐντυγχάνοντας καὶ διὰ τὸ πλῆθος καὶ διὰ τὸ μέ γεθος τῶν γεγονότων. 

θεωρῶν δὲ διὰ πολλὰς αἰτίας καὶ τὰς τυχούσας ὀλιγωρούμενον καὶ φθειρόμενον τὸ τῶν προγραφῶν γένος, οὕτως καὶ διὰ ταῦτα πρὸς τοῦτο τὸ μέρος κατηνέχθην· 

But as I saw that for various fortuitous reasons prologues were now neglected and had degenerated in style, I was led to adopt the other alternative. 

 ὀλιγωρούμενον καὶ φθειρόμενον: ‘they are held in little account and get destroyed’. This is a general characteristic of προγραφαί, and not something which has recently come about as Paton’s translation implies: ‘as I saw that . . . prologues were now neglected and had degenerated in style’. φθειρόμενον refers, not to style (so Pdech, Mthode, 510 n. 78), but to the loss of προγραφαί (see above, 1 a n.). 

τῆς γὰρ προεκθέσεως οὐ μόνον ἰσοδυναμούσης πρὸς τὴν προγραφήν, ἀλλὰ καὶ πλεῖόν τι δυναμένης, ἅμα δὲ καὶ χώραν ἐχούσης ἀσφαλεστέραν διὰ τὸ συμπεπλέχθαι τῇ πραγματείᾳ

For an introductory summary is not only of equal value to a prologue but even of somewhat greater, while at the same time it occupies a surer position, as it forms an integral part of the work. 

τούτῳ μᾶλλον ἐδοκιμάσαμεν χρῆσθαι τῷ μέρει παρ᾽ ὅλην τὴν σύνταξιν πλὴν ἓξ τῶν πρώτων βυβλίων· ἐν ἐκείνοις δὲ προγραφὰς ἐποιησάμεθα διὰ τὸ μὴ λίαν ἐναρμόζειν ἐν αὐτοῖς τὸ τῶν προεκθέσεων γένος

I, therefore, decided to employ this method throughout except in the first six books to which I wrote prologues, because in their case previous summaries are not very suitable. 

 πλὴν ἓξ τῶν πρώτων βυβλίων: for the reading in M (resembling according to Hultsch) Mai read ‘and Cobet’; but there were special reasons for not giving προεκθέσεις καθf ἑκάστην ὀλυμπιάδα to books i–vi. i and ii were introductory, vi was an account of the constitution, army, etc., and iii-v dealt exceptionally with a single Olympiad. iii could have had a προέκθεσις to Ol. 140, but instead P. chose to prefix an introduction to the whole work (cf. iii. 1. 5 n.), just as he had included a προέκθεσις of the προκατασκευή in i. 13. 1–5. The προγραφαί, now lost, were a substitute, giving the contents of the first six books (cf. 1 a n.). 

This is very interesting indeed.  Walbank is taking the same view of prographai that I was tending towards; that these are “lists of contents”. 

But there is a reference out to book 14, which also has an introductory section.  The first part is ignored by Paton, so is from me (in brackets).  proekthesis appears again, this time translated differently.  Walbank again has a note. 

Ὅτι φησὶν Πολύβιος περὶ ἑαυτοῦ καὶ περὶ τῆς τῶν βίβλων ὑποθετικῆς ἐξηγήσεως· Ἴσως μὲν οὖν ἐπὶ πάσαις ταῖς ὀλυμπιάσιν αἱ προεκθέσεις τῶν πράξεων εἰς ἐπίστασιν ἄγουσι τοὺς ἐντυγχάνοντας καὶ διὰ τὸ πλῆθος καὶ διὰ τὸ μέγεθος τῶν γεγονότων, ὡς ἂν ὑπὸ μίαν σύνοψιν ἀγομένων τῶν ἐξ ὅλης τῆς οἰκουμένης ἔργων· 

[This says Polybius about himself and the meaning of the subject in his books]. Perhaps it is true that in all Olympiads the syllabus of events arrests the attention of the reader, owing to their number and importance, the actions of the whole world being brought under one point of view. 

αἱ προεκθέσεις τῶν πράξεων: ‘the introductory surveys of events’. 

εἰς ἐπίστασιν ἄγουσι: ‘arouse the attention of the reader’; cf. xi. 1 a 2. 

Here proekthesis is “introduction”.  So I think we’re proceeding on the right lines. 

The other point of interest in all this is the reference to examples in FGH.  There is a CDROM of the “New Jacoby” from Brill, doubtless at a price that one had better not ask.  But as I far as I know, the FGH is not accessible online, even though early volumes must be out of copyright.  Does anyone have access to FGH, 577 F 1 (= P. Oxy. 665), FGH, 115 F 103 and 217? 

Fortunately POxy665 we can access here, in vol.4, p.80 of the Oxyrynchus Papyri (1904).  Even better, there is a plate (plate I).  The right hand column is the fragment in which we are interested. 

 

P.Oxy.655 a table of contents in a 2nd century papyrus history of Sicily

This is transcribed as follows:

P.Oxy.655 transcription

Selected details from the book:

Fr. (a) 10·5 x 4.6, Fr. (b) 10·5 x 4·6 cm.

These fragments, which belong evidently to the same column, of which they formed the upper and lower portions respectively, are notwithstanding their small size of no slight interest and importance. They contain an abstract or summary of events in Sicily, the different items, which are stated in the concisest manner, being marked off by paragraphi and further distinguished from each other by the protrusion of the first lines into the left margin.

The papyrus was a regular literary roll, written in a fine uncial hand, which bears a very strong resemblance to that of the Oxyrhynchus papyrus of the Prooi/mia Demografika/ (facsimile in P. Oxy. I, p. 54), and also to that of the Bacchylides papyrus, to which it presents a still closer parallel than was provided by the Demosthenes MS. We should assign it, like the Demosthenes, to the second century A.D.; an earlier date is not at all likely. Probably this is part of an epitome of a continuous history of Sicily, and it may well be that, as Blass thinks, the work epitomized was the lost History of Timaeus.

The period to which the fragments refer seems to be that immediately following the general overthrow of the tyrannies in the Sicilian cities which took place about the year 465 B.C. (Diod. xi. 68.5). This period is indicated by the frequent mentions of conflicts with the Xenoi, by whom are meant the mercenaries settled in the cities by the tyrants as a support of their rule. …

The fragments also supply information of an expedition of Agrigentum against Crastus, and an engagement subsequently occurred at the latter place between the Agrigentines and forces from Himera and Gela, which may be supposed to have come to the assistance of Crastus. …

So … this, then, is an example of prographai, as they existed in the 2nd century, for a historical writer.

Share

Coptic language course at Cambridge in November

Quite by accident I see that a weekend course in Coptic is on offer at Madingley Hall at Cambridge, at the Cambridge University Institute of Continuing Education which runs leisure courses.  It starts at 19:15 on Friday 19 November 2010, and ends at 14:00 on Sunday 21 November 2010.  It costs £350 residential and £240 otherwise.

This course will introduce students to the basics of reading Coptic (Sahidic dialect). No prior knowledge of the Egyptian language, or of Greek, will be assumed. Language teaching will be interspersed with contextual sessions, explaining the development of Coptic and examining different genres of Coptic text. 

Over the millennia, the language of ancient Egypt was written in different scripts: hieroglyphs, hieratic, demotic and Coptic. Coptic was the final stage of ancient Egyptian, and used the Greek alphabet (plus some additional signs) to record the language spoken by indigenous Egyptians in the late Roman, Byzantine and early Arab periods. Coptic continues to be used in the liturgy of the Egyptian Christian Church. Many surviving Coptic texts reflect the milieu of Egyptian and early eastern Christianity; these include Biblical works, hagiographies, monastic works and apocryphal gospels of the type preserved in the Nag Hammadi codices. Texts such as personal and business letters, spells and legal contracts tell us about the day-to-day life of the ordinary Egyptian. 

This might be quite interesting to do, if the spare cash is available and I’m not too knackered after a week’s work.  Not that it would give you much information, but it must give you something, and is probably better than sitting there by yourself with a grammar.

Share

More on chapter titles from Albino’s article

I got a little ahead of myself, discussing Birgk’s 1872 comments about lists of subjects at the start of books of Polybius.  I was in fact going through the article in Italian by Diana Albino on chapter titles, and started by translating the bit about Gesner, the first to write on the subject.  Let’s hear some more from Albino, then.

Il Bergk (2) per primo, invece, asserì che già prima di Polibio si era diffuse l’uso di far precedere un quadro sommario ad ogni libro o di riassumere brevemente l’argomento di ogni capitolo in note marginali o in soprascritte, per rendere più agevole la lettura e la consultazione delle opere (3).

Dopo il Bergk, Theodoro Birt (4) affermò che la divisione ed i titoli dei capitoli non potevano essere tanto antichi; ma la scoperta, di poco posteriore alla pubblicazione della sua opera, di un gran numero di papiri permise di approfondire molti aspetti della questione, sicché lo studioso tedesco fu indotto a modificare il suo primo giudizio ed a constatare che divisione, titoli, sommari a volte risalgono agli stessi autori.

Già nei papiri, infatti, spesso le varie parti sono staccate l’una dall’altra o mediante intervalli di spazio o mediante l’accorgimento di far sporgere nel margine le prime lettere del rigo iniziale di ciascuna sezione o mediante i segni speciali ad indicare diplh~, korwni/j e paragra/foj. Presentano tali caratteristiche alcuni papiri di Ercolano (5) ed alcuni papiri del III secolo d.C. e precisamente i frammenti del codice papiraceo contenente la orazione di Demostene contro Aristarco (6) ed il brano del volumen nel quale era il Pente/muxoj di Ferecide (7). Tali modi di suddividere si conservarono anche nel Medioevo. Così, nel codice M (fine del sec. V, inizio del VI) della Naturalis Historia di Plinio il Vecchio, i capitoli sono contrassegnati o da intervalli vuoti o da lettere maiuscole o anche dal segno di coronide (8). Sempre tra i papiri alcuni volumina rivestono particolare importanza ai fini della nostra ricerca, in quanto presentano sui vari sezionamenti veri e propri titoli. Ricordiamo, innanzitutto, il papiro berlinese, attribuito al II secolo, che contiene un indice di persone e fatti degni di nota (9). I personaggi che vi sono ricordati sono raggruppati in varie sezioni precedute ciascuna dall’indicazione dell’attività da essi svolta, che assolve quindi la funzione di un titolo di capitolo.

E.g. Col. VI, 10:
   Νομοθέται
Σόλων Λυκοῦργος Ζα-
[λεῦ]κος Χαρώνδας Δράκων
   Ζωγράφοι
Σέμων Ἀθεναῖος· οὗτος
[εὗ]ρε πρῶτος […..]

Nei frammenti del papiro contenente il De medicina (10) al rigo 38 della V colonna si nota il segno di diplh~; inoltre doveva esservi il titolo del capitolo, che è scomparso quasi completamente, tranne una lettera, p, che il Cronert ha supposto fosse l’iniziale di peri/. Titoli di capitolo si trovano anche nel Papiro Argentoratensis, attribuito al II secolo d.C., che contiene precetti medici, di cui due si riferiscono evidentemente a medicamenti per gli occhi (11). Infatti, i titoli che si trovano al rigo 1 e 10 e che sporgono nel margine sono:
1) πρὸς λευκ [ώματα]
2) πρὸς οὐλάς

Molto importante è poi il papiro contenente il commento di Didimo a Demostene, la cui scrittura è stata attribuita all’inizio del II secolo d.C., e sul retro l’ Ἠικῆς στοιχείωσις; di Ierocle, scritta da un copista alquanto posteriore (12).

Sulle colonne del papiro si trovano i titoli composti dal grammatico per fornire un indice del suo commento a quattro orazioni di Demostene; a volte su una colonna compaiono due titoli, ma il secondo è distinto dal segno di diplh~, che è poi riportato nell’interno dell’opera all’inizio del capitolo, cui si riferisce. Si può osservare che tali titoli di capitoli sono sicuramente anteriori, all’età del copista, giacché questi ha riportato su alcune colonne titoli che si riferiscono al contenuto di colonne diverse, evidentemente per un errore di trascrizione da un modello più antico. Altri papiri suddivisi in capitoli forniti di titoli sono il Papiro di Ossirinco, della fine del II sec. d.C., contenente precetti medici (13), gli Excerpta ex Tryphonis arte grammatica del sec. VI o VII d.C. (14), l’Anonymus Argentinensis della seconda metà del I sec. d.C. (15), sul cui contenuto sono sorte varie questioni e che infine il Laquer ha riconosciuto come frammento di un opera Peri\ Dhmosqenouj, di cui fu forse autore il già citato Didimo.

Which I have translated as:

Bergk (2) at first, however, claimed that even before Polybius, there had spread the use of preceding each book with a reference summary [abstract], or to summarize briefly the argument of each chapter in notes in the margin or superscript, to make easier the reading and consultation of the works (3).

After Bergk, Theodore Birt (4) stated that the division and the titles of the chapters could not be as old; but the discovery, shortly after the publication of his work, of a large number of papyri permitted a deeper investigation of many aspects of the issue , so that the German scholar was forced to modify his first opinion and to state that the divisions, titles, and summaries sometimes go back to the authors themselves.

Already in the papyri, in fact, the various parts are often separated from each other by intervals of spacing, or through the device of protruding into the margin the first letter of the initial line of each section, or by means of special signs to indicate diplh~, korwni/j and paragra/foj.  Some papyri of Hercolaneum introduce such characteristics (5)  and some papyri of the III century A.D.,  namely the fragments of papyrus containing the oration of Demosthenes against Aristarchus (6) and the portion of the volumen in which was the Pente/muxoj of Pherecydes (7). These ways of subdivision are also preserved in the Middle Ages. Thus, in codex M (end of the 5th century, beginning of the 6th) of the Naturalis Historia of Pliny the Elder, the chapters are marked by empty intervals or capital letters or even the sign of coronis (8). Also among the papyri some volumina are of particular importance for our research, as they present various sections and their own titles. Let us recall first the Berlin papyrus, attributed to the second century, which contains an index of people and events worthy of note (9). The characters that are recorded are grouped into several sections, each preceded by an indication of the activity they perform, which then performs the function of a chapter title.

E.g. Col. VI, 10:
   Νομοθέται
Σόλων Λυκοῦργος Ζα-
[λεῦ]κος Χαρώνδας Δράκων
   Ζωγράφοι
Σέμων Ἀθεναῖος· οὗτος
[εὗ]ρε πρῶτος […..]

In the fragments of papyrus containing the De medicina (10) in row 38 of column V we see the sign of the diplh~; there was also the title of the chapter, which has disappeared almost completely, except for one letter, π, which Crönert has supposed to be the first letter of περί. Chapter titles are also found in the Papyrus Argentoratensis, attributed to the second century AD, which contains medical precepts, two of which clearly refer to medicines for the eyes (11). In fact, the titles found in row 1 and 10 and protruding into the margin are:
1) πρὸς λευκ [ώματα]
2) πρὸς οὐλάς

Also very important is the papyrus containing the commentary of Didymus on Demosthenes, who has been attributed to the early second century AD, and on the back of the Ἠικῆς στοιχείωσις of Hierocles, written by a somewhat later copyist (12). 

Over the columns of the papyrus are the titles composed by the grammarian to provide an index of his commentary to four orations of Demosthenes; sometimes over a column there are two titles, but the second is distinguished by the sign of a dipl ~, which is repeated in the interior of the work at the beginning of the chapter to which it refers. It may be noted that such titles of chapters are certainly earlier than the date of the copyist, since over some columns are repeated titles that relate to the contents of different columns, evidently a transcription error from a more ancient model. Other papyri divided into chapters with titles are the Papyri of Oxyrhynchus, late second century. AD, containing medical precepts (13), the Excerpta ex Tryphonis arte grammatica  of the 6th or 7th century A.D., (14), the Anonymus argentinensis from the second half of the 1st century. A.D. (15), the contents of which raised various questions and which finally Laquer recognized as a fragment of a work Peri\ Demosthenous, which was probably written by the aforementioned Didymus.

(2) Griechische Literaturgeschichte, Berlin 1872, pp. 232-33.
(3) Like Polybius, Diodorus, Parthenius, Antoninus Liberalis, and Athenaeus adopted this method.
(4) Das antike Buchwesen in seinem Verhaltniss zur Litteratur, Berlin, 1882, pp. 157 ff. et passim.
(5) Herc. vol. 1580, col 7 vs. 6 B (Coll. altera XI, 99) e col. 10, 8 Z, C. a. XI, 102.
(6) Oxyrh. III, 459, p. 112.
(7) Greek papyri, ed. GRENFELL, II, XI, 2, 4.
(8) Cfr. K. DZIATZKO: Untersuchungen ueber ausgewahlte Kapitel des antiken Buchwesens, Leipzig, 1900, p. 53 e pp. 113-114; PLINII Naturalis Historia ed. SILLING, Gothae 1855 voI. VI, Proleg. pp. 18, 20, 26.
(9) Ed. H. DIELS: Abhandl. d. Akad. 2, Berlin, 1904; cfr. Arch. f. Pap. Forschg. III, 492.
(10) Pap. Mus. Brit. n. 155.
(11) Ed. K. KALBFLEISCH: Ind. Lect. Rostochiae 1902; cfr. CRONERT: Archiv. ii, p. 375 n. 376.
(12) Cfr. Didymi de Demosthene commenta, edd. H. DIELS and W. SCHUBART, Lipsiae, 1904.
(13) Oxyrh.. pap. II, n. 234, pp. 134, 136.
(14) Griech. Papyri, ed. HALBERLIN, Lipsiae, 1897, p. 80.
(15) Ed. B. KEIL, Argentorati, 1902 (edito princeps).

Once all these very old references would have been a problem to access.  Thanks to Google, these are probably all online!  I need to follow all this up.

Share

Google translate does Latin?

The Daily Telegraph has an article that Google has added 50 languages, including Latin, to the translator.  It’s here.

So…. does it work?  Well, not very well as yet.  I grabbed the start of Friderici’s book on ancient books, which starts thus:

Quamquam plurimae fere quaestiones, quae ad antiquorum rem librariam pertinent, his temporibus pertractatae atque propremodum expIicatae sunt, tamen de una vel altera re disputatio nondum ad finem est perducta. Huc spectant, quas mihi tractandas proposui, quaestiones de libris antiquis in capita divisis, de  capitum inscriptionibus, de indicibus capitum sive summariis.

This Google gave as:

And yet the most of, by questions, which the thing to its former secretaries belong, at the present time, and handled propremodum expIicatae are, however, one or two out of the discussion, the thing to the end is not yet degree. Refer to this, which I proposed to me to be treated, the questions concerning the ancient books in the first assigned to the heads of the, of the head of inscriptions, of the informers, heads or summaries.

Um.  The first sentence should probably be something like this:

Although most of the questions, which relate to the copying of ancient books, at the present time have been drawn out and explained, however, one or two items of the discussion have not yet been bottomed out.

Still, it can only get better, and is a very, very welcome addition.  I am using Google translate to work with Albino’s Italian article on chapter titles this morning, and it makes it possible for me to read and understand her article.  I also have Systran translator, which sometimes is better, mostly not so good; and an online dictionary. 

And it means that ordinary herberts like me can work with information encoded in funny languages!  Magic!

Share

Polybius on prefaces and summaries for his books

Let’s return to chapter titles, summaries at the start of books, and the question of chapter divisions.  In my last post I translated Bergk, but did not give the Greek of Polybius, book 11, nor an English translation.  He says that Polybius says he started his multi-book history by giving each book a summary or headings at the front, but abandoned the idea at book 11, in favour of a preface, because the copyists were not copying the summaries.

Now Polybius is online, and so are two translations of his remarks at the start of book 11.  So we can look for ourselves.  Here’s the Greek from Perseus:

Ἴσως δέ τινες ἐπιζητοῦσι πῶς ἡμεῖς οὐ προγραφὰς ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ βίβλῳ, καθάπερ οἱ πρὸ ἡμῶν, ἀλλὰ καὶ προεκθέσεις καθ᾽ ἑκάστην ὀλυμπιάδα πεποιήκαμεν τῶν πράξεων. [2] ἐγὼ δὲ κρίνω χρήσιμον μὲν εἶναι καὶ τὸ τῶν προγραφῶν γένος: καὶ γὰρ εἰς ἐπίστασιν ἄγει τοὺς ἀναγινώσκειν θέλοντας καὶ συνεκκαλεῖται καὶ παρορμᾷ πρὸς τὴν ἀνάγνωσιν τοὺς ἐντυγχάνοντας, πρὸς δὲ τούτοις πᾶν τὸ ζητούμενον ἑτοίμως ἔνεστιν εὑρεῖν διὰ τούτου: [3] θεωρῶν δὲ διὰ πολλὰς αἰτίας καὶ τὰς τυχούσας ὀλιγωρούμενον καὶ φθειρόμενον τὸ τῶν προγραφῶν γένος, οὕτως καὶ διὰ ταῦτα πρὸς τοῦτο τὸ μέρος κατηνέχθην: [4] τῆς γὰρ προεκθέσεως οὐ μόνον ἰσοδυναμούσης πρὸς τὴν προγραφήν, ἀλλὰ καὶ πλεῖόν τι δυναμένης, ἅμα δὲ καὶ χώραν ἐχούσης ἀσφαλεστέραν διὰ τὸ συμπεπλέχθαι τῇ πραγματείᾳ, [5] τούτῳ μᾶλλον ἐδοκιμάσαμεν χρῆσθαι τῷ μέρει παρ᾽ ὅλην τὴν σύνταξιν πλὴν ἓξ τῶν πρώτων βυβλίων: ἐν ἐκείνοις δὲ προγραφὰς ἐποιησάμεθα διὰ τὸ μὴ λίαν ἐναρμόζειν ἐν αὐτοῖς τὸ τῶν προεκθέσεων γένος.

Here is the translation from Perseus, by Evelyn S. Shuckburgh (1882).

My reason for prefixing a table of contents to each book, rather than a preface, is not because I do not recognise the usefulness of a preface in arresting attention and rousing interest, and also giving facilities for finding any passage that is wanted, but because I find prefaces viewed, though from many inadequate reasons, with contempt and neglect. I therefore had recourse to a table of contents throughout my history, except the first six books, arranged according to Olympiads, as being as effective, or even more so, than a preface, and at the same time as less subject to the objection of being out of place, for it is closely connected with the subject-matter. In the first six books I wrote prefaces, because I thought a mere table of contents less suitable. . . .

And here is the Loeb translation by W.R.Paton, thanks to the generosity of Bill Thayer:

Some will perhaps inquire why in this work I do not, like former authors, write prologues but give a summary of the events in each Olympiad. I indeed regard a prologue as a useful kind of thing, since it fixes the attention of those who wish to read the work and stimulates and encourages readers in their task, besides which by this means any matter that we are in search of can be easily found. But as I saw that for various fortuitous reasons prologues were now neglected and had degenerated in style, I was led to adopt the other alternative. For an introductory summary is not only of equal value to a prologue but even of somewhat greater, while at the same time it occupies a surer position, as it forms an integral part of the work.  I, therefore, decided to employ this method throughout except in the first six books to which I wrote prologues, because in their case previous summaries are not very suitable.

So.  What are the words being used for “preface”, “prologue”?  Well, prographe is it.  LSJ gives us:

προγραφή , h(,
A. public notice, advertisement, X.Eq.Mag.4.9, Plb.25.3.2, SIG976.37(Samos, ii B.C.), OGI515.38 (Mylasa, iii A.D.); edict, D.C.47.13; ἐκ προγραφῆς by edict, Id.56.25.
2. notice of sale, Thphr. Fr.97.2(pl.), Plu.2.205c; public sale of confiscated property, Str.5.4.11.
3. ἐπὶ θανάτῳ προγραφαίproscriptions, App.BC1.2; “σφαγαὶ καὶ π.” Plu.Brut.27; warrant for arrest, BGU372.8 (ii A.D., pl.).
II. table drawn up in advance, of an astronomical cycle, D.S.12.36.
III. heading, preliminary form, BGU780.2 (ii A.D.), Men.Prot. p.16D., etc.; title of a prescription, Gal.13.777:—Dim. προγον-γράφιον [α^], to/, Sammelb.5273.10(v A.D.).

Hum.  And for “summary”? proekthesis, which has the meaning in LSJ:

προέκ-θεσις , εως, h(,

A. [select] introduction, preface,τῆς πραγματείαςPlb. 3.1.7, 8.11.2; prefatory account, Scymn.13, D.H.Comp.23, Quint. Inst.9.2.106.

But surely both translators have inverted the meanings of the  two words?  Proekthesis would seem to  be “introduction”, “preface”; indeed Polybius is given as the reference in LSJ for this meaning. While prographai seems to mean the table of contents, table of headings, titles, and NOT “preface” — indeed the passage has no meaning if the two words mean the same.

The most immediate observation is how different the translations are.  Paton seems to think that Polybius is referring to previous authors, rather than what Polybius had done in preceding books, but the text does not say this.  Indeed I am not sure that Paton understood the Greek of the whole passage.

Neither aligns with what Bergk said, as I understand him.  Can anyone with better Greek and better German than I clear this up?  For it looks as if either Bergk did not understand Polybius, or the two translators did not.

UPDATE: I thought I would do a word search on prographai, and found the following note in de Jong, Time in ancient Greek literature, Brill (2007) p.167, an article by T. Rood on Polybius:

4.  The term for the initial summary is proekthesis: cf. Walbank 1957-59, I 297-298.  For the first six books Polybius included a prographai, lists of contents appearing either outside the scroll or inside, before the text; the only proekthesis was the general summary of the whole work at 3.2-6 (cf. 11.1a, with Walbank ad loc.)  At 14.a1.1 Polybius claims that the proekthesis “arrests the attention of the reader” by showing the interconnections between events.

“Walbank” is A historical commentary on Polybius, I-III (Oxford, 1957-9), as it says on p.537 (and aren’t these Google previews a blessing?)  This suggests that I am right — that both translators have tripped up.  The idea of lists is definitely what prographai is about, public-facing lists of things.  I wish I could access Walbank!

But … I then search for proekthesis.  And I get a preview of Kennedy, Invention and method: two rhetorical treatises from the Hermogenic corpus, SBL, 2005, p.225.  This is a translation of Hermogenes, On forceful speaking.

CHAPTER 12: ON PRELIMINARY HEADINGS AND RECAPITULATION.

To state at the beginning headings for what one is going to prove or teach is called by technical writers proekthesis, and to give at the end a reminder of what has been demonstrated the technical writers call anakephalaiosis.[26]  The ancients however call proekthesis hyposkesis [27] and anakephalaiosis epanodos, as Demosthenes reveals when he says (23.18), “It is right for me, having promised (hypeskhemenon) three things, to demonstrate first, that it is contrary to the laws,” and in the other case “I go back [28] to the proofs that the crimes and corruption of these men is the cause of the present problems.”  And Plato (Phaedrus 266d-e) |[428] says that at the beginning (of a speech) there are proemia and narrations, followed by proofs…

26. “Preliminary exposition (of headings)” = “partition” and “recapitulation” respectively; for proekthesis  see Dionysius of Halicarnassus, On Composition 23 (vol. 2, p.117, 11 Usener-Radermacher); Quintilian 9.2.106, citing Rutilius; Anonymous Seguerianus #10; Fortunatianus 2.12 and 15; …

Which seems to make the opposite point.  Um! 

The Anonymous Seguerianus is also online here, Dilts, Two Greek rhetorical treatises from the Roman empire, Brill, 1997, p.5:

10. If the hearers know what the speeches are about, they will become more receptive.  Proekthesis, anaeosis, and merismos create receptivity.  11.  It is proekthesis whenever someone sets out, as in a heading (kephalaia), what he is going to say: for example, “I shall show both that the man is unworthy and  that the decree is illegal.”

But obviously if the proekthesis was of that form, it was a preface or summary of what he was about to say, not a list of contents.  Yet kephalaia is the word for “chapters”. 

The other link I found which is non-scholarly is this, but plainly well informed from some unspecified source.

It still seems to me that I am right; but clearly even the terminology is confusing people.

Share

An overview of and introduction to Coptic literature

Here are a few notes from a lengthy article in the DACL, which I found on my shelves in photocopy form this afternoon.

1. COPTIC LANGUAGE.  This is the language of Christian Egypt, ancient Egyptian with many borrowings from Greek, even in documentary texts, but written in Greek letters with some demotic letters.  Almost all the ecclesiastical words are Greek.  The first proto-Coptic appears in a London horoscope composed ca. 100 AD, the “demotic magic” of London and Leyden (ca. 200-300 AD) and a magical text in Paris (275-400 AD).  The first of these seems to be in a dialect related to Akhmimic, the others closer to Middle Egyptian.

2. DIALECTS.  The oldest texts are the graffiti of Akhmim, in the dialect known as Akhmimic, even though it is found in places as far removed from Akhmim as Panopolis.  The oldest document is the horoscope above; the most recent is in the copies of the 3rd century Acts of Pilate in the 4-5th century.  There is also a “sub-Akhmimic” dialect, showing mixture with Sahidic, perhaps due to transportation into Upper Egypt.  This appears in an ancient version of the gospel of John and in the Acts of Paul.

Sahidic is the literary language of Christian Egypt, because it is used in the works of Shenoute, the most important Coptic author (d. 452 AD).  From the 5-9th centuries it was the language of Coptic writers and of the liturgy, spoken from Aswan to the Delta.  Most of the Sahidic manuscripts are from the library of the White Monastery (Deir el-Abiad) at Atripe, 8km north of Sohag, and it may be the dialect of that place.  In the 18th century Assemani brought a large number of mss from there to Rome, which were split on his death between the Vatican library and the Biblioteca Borbonica at Naples.  C. G. Woide also acquired some, which ended up in the Bodleian library in Oxford.  Others went to the Marciana in Venice, others via Henry Tattam to Lord Crawford and thence to the John Rylands Library in Manchester, and some in Berlin, St. Petersburg and Vienna.  In 1884 most of what remained at the library was transferred to the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris.  In 1910 a discovery of 58 mss was made at the monastery of St. Michael in the Fayum, mostly complete (unusually) and mostly with dates on them.  In December 1911 these were bought by J. Pierpont Morgan, who gave photographic reproductions of them to many great European libraries.  The oldest of these mss dated to 832 AD, the latest to 914.  Nearly all Sahidic manucripts are by scribes from the school of Touton in the south of the Fayum.  There is also a “neo-Sahidic” of the late period, spotted with words from Bohairic.

Bohairic was the dialect of Lower Egypt, and almost everything that remains comes from the monastery of St. Macarius in the Wadi n’Natun.  None is more ancient than the 9th century.  The monophysite patriarchate of Alexandria transferred to this monastery in the 6th century, and so the liturgy and accompanying Saints’ lives, martyrdoms and homilies form a mass of Bohairic literature.  The monastery was destroyed for the fifth and final time in 817, which is why the surviving mss are all so late.  The dialect was perhaps restricted to monks and clergy, but preserves many ancient forms.  Parchment Bohairic mss are of the 9-10th century; paper ones (the Arabs having introduced this in the 9th century) then become standard.  In the 10th century there was a revival in Coptic. But in 1131 the patriarch Gabriel ordered that the Lord’s Prayer be given in Arabic, indicating that general understanding of Coptic was waning.  By the 14th century the liturgy is translated into Arabic, and glossaries and grammars of Coptic are written, proof that it was no longer well understood. In the 17th century the Englishman Huntington visited St. Macarius, but only a ms. of the gospels in that collection can be shown to be from there.  The German Wansleben (Vansleb) was unable to visit the monastery but bought mss, today in the Bibliotheque Nationale Francais.  In 1715 J.-S. Assemani bought many mss, now in the Vatican.  In 1844 Tischendorff bought numbers of fragments, mostly now in Leipzig but some in Cambridge.  In 1920 H. G. Evelyn-White found other fragments, often completing some of those found by Tischendorff or in the Vatican.

The Fayumic (or Baschmouric) dialect is contemporary with Bohairic.  Most of the remains are 9th century, but the translation of the bible is much older.

3. TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. The bible was a model for Coptic writers who followed even Greek elements embedded in the text.  Most important are the akhmimic translations, above all of the minor prophets,  and, in sub-akmimic, the gospel of John.  Sahidic mss are numerous for the Pentateuch, the Psalms, the books of wisdom, and the prophets, but many are just fragments.  In Sahidic the book of Job is pre-hexaplaric, but that of Isaiah based on the Hexapla.  The NT tends to a “Western” text type.  The Bohairic NT is related to ms. B and the great uncials.  There are only fragments of the fayumic version.  Many pieces of the fayumic NT are in the bindings in the Morgan collection.

4. APOCRYPHA.  Most of these are translated from Greek, but often with Coptic additions, usually with a tendency to the marvellous or fantastic.  OT apocrypha include: The History of Adam; Enoch; Testaments of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; the death of the patriarch Isaac; Paralipomena Ieremiae.  Three apocalypses of late Jewish origin, attributed to Elias and Sophonias, the first and second of which are extant in akhmimic, the second also in sahidic, and the third only in sahidic.  NT apocrypha include the Protevangelium of James, the letters of Christ and Abgar, the Acts of Pilate, the gospel of Nicodemus, the gospel of the 12 apostles, the gospel of Bartholomew, the life of the holy Virgin, the assumption of the Virgin, the death of St. Joseph.  Apocryphal acts: Andrew, Bartholomew, Stephen, James son of Alphaeus, Voyages of John, Death of John, Martydom of Luke, Martyrdom of Mark, Matthew (Preaching, Acts, Death),  Acts of Paul, Martyrdom of Paul, Philip (Preaching, Martyrdom), Peter (Acts, Martyrdom, Acts of Peter and Paul), Simon (Acts, Martyrdom), Thaddeus (Acts), Thomas (gospel, preaching, martyrdom).  Apocryphal revelations: Mysteries of St. John, Apocryphon of John the Baptist (author cites Theophilus and Cyril), Apocalypse of Paul, Investiture of St. Michael, Investiture of Gabriel.  The Nag Hammadi discoveries must be added to  this.

5.  APOSTOLIC FATHERS.  There are few patristic translations initially. By the time the Coptic church was writing its own works, these early texts had mostly lost their interest.  The Didache existed in Akhmimic, and 10-12.2 is extant in British Library Or. 9271.  The Shepherd of Hermas (Sahidic). 1 Clement (Sahidic and Akmimic) was extant in a Strasburg ms. and a nearly complete ms. at Berlin.  The “De virginitate” of Clement, or Athanasius (!) exists.  A Sahidic version of the letters of Ignatius is known.  There are extracts of Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Hippolytus in the Bohairic catena of de Lagarde from 888 AD, but this catena was probably translated from Greek rather than compiled in Coptic.

6.  TRANSLATED HOMILIES.  Most coptic literature is connected with the liturgy.  Many Greek homilies exist in Coptic, usually under the wrong name and often with modifications.  Coptic homilies consist of a series of anecdotes, often about the miracles of a saint, often rather rubbishy.  Abu’l Barakat in his (Arabic) Lamp of Shadows gives a list of literature used by Christians, probably Coptic (online here).  O’Reilly gives a list of authors, works, manuscripts and publications, too long to give here.  Authors: Acacius of Caesarea, Amphilochius of Iconium, Athanasius, Anastasius of Echaites, Basil of Caesarea, Benjamin of Alexandria, Celestine of Rome, Constantine of Assiut, Cyril of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, Damian of Alexandria, Demetrius of Antioch, Dioscorus of Alexandria, Ephrem Syrus, Epiphanius, Isaiah of Scete, Eustathius of Thrace, Evodius, Flavian of Ephesus, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa, Hippolytus, John of Alexandria, John Chrysostom, John of Parallos (6th cent.), Isaac of Antioch, Isaac of Kalamon, Mark of Alexandria, Paul of Tammah, Peter of Alexandria, Peter Mongus, Proclus of Cyzicus, Rufus of Shotep, Severus of Antioch, Severian of Gabala, Theodore of Ancyra, Theodore of Antioch (wrongly attributed), Theodosius of Alexandria, Theodosius of Jerusalem (ps.Theodosius), Theodotus of Ancyra, Theopompus of Antioch, Theophilus of Alexandria, and Timothy of Alexandria.

7.  THE FIRST HERMITS.  There are many lives of hermits in Coptic.  Most of these were compiled for use in services on the date of the commemoration of the saint.  There is no Coptic life of Paul the first hermit, but there is a Coptic version of S. Jerome’s life of him, translated from Latin (!).  Athanasius life of Anthony exists in a Sahidic version.  There are fragments of the letters of Anthony.

8.  PACHOMIUS.  Pachomius (d. 345-6) was the founder of monasticism in Upper Egypt, and the creator of the Pachomian rule.  His Life exists in Bohairic, in Sahidic (in fragments of 6 different versions), and in many Arabic versions.  The Coptic seems to be a translation of a Greek text, to which Coptic speeches of unknown origin have been added.  Most of the monastic literature is in Greek, or Coptic and Arabic (and even Ethiopic) versions of this.  Only the Shenouda material is of Coptic origin.  The Arabic version of the life of Pachomius, made in 1259, was made direct from the Greek. 

The great work of Pachomius was his Rule.  It is well known in Greek, and in a longer Latin translation by S. Jerome, who says ut erant de aegyptiaca in graecam linguam versa (as was translated from Egyptian into the Greek language).  A Coptic fragment at Paris, closely related to Jerome’s text, may show that the Greek text known today is an abbreviation.  The Instructions of Aba Pachomius and Counsels also exist.  There is also a homily of Pachomius for Holy Week, and another homily is extant., There is a reference to a lost treatise “on the end of the community”.

9.  SHENOUDA. Shenouda is the most important Coptic author.  He was the superior of the monastery of Atripe (the White Monastery), an organiser and reformer of monasticism.  His life was filled with impetuosity and a great zeal for holiness and good order.  His rule has a certain “bonhomie” but his discipline was strict, including corporal punishment sometimes so severe as to result in fatalities, and otherwise unknown to Egyptian monasticism.  His monastery contained 2,200 monks and 1,800 nuns, often drawn from the peasant class, who perhaps recognised no other form of discipline.  His life was written in Sahidic by his disciple Besa, and remains of this exist, but a Bohairic version has come down to us.  There were other Lives also.  He acquired a great reputation for sanctity and orthodoxy.  Cyril of Alexandria invited him and Victor, Archimandrite of Tanennisi, to  the Council of Ephesus in 433, where Shenouda made an impact at the start of the council by his violent language against Nestorius.  In 450 Egypt was invaded from the south by the Blemmyes, and Maximus, dux of Upper Egypt, asked his blessing before the campaign, and received it.  He was also present at the council of Chalcedon in 451.  Curiously Palladius does not mention him in the Lausiac History, although Palladius visited the White Monastery; but Shenouda was a Copt through and through, while Palladius was a Greek who disdained the Copts.  The reputation of Shenouda endured to the Arab period, when Abu’l Barakat in the 14th century mentioned that a great number of his works existed in Sahidic, and some had been translated into Bohairic and Arabic.  In the west his name was forgotten until modern times, although many of his works are extant in manuscript in the Vatican and Naples libraries.  83 works were published by J. Leipoldt in Sinuthii Archimandritae vita in Corp. Script. orient. 41, 1906, but more sermons and letters exist, as well as those published by Amelineau in Oeuvres de Schenoudi 1907-14.  His literary style is complicated and his sentences are often rather involved, and full of Greek words.

10. PISENTIUS.  Pisentius was a monk of el-Asas, near Jeme, opposite Thebes.  Ca. 598 he became bishop of Keft (Qibt) and died ca. 631-2.  His Life exists (a) in Sahidic, attributed to his disciple John; (b) in Bohairic, attributed to Moses, bishop of Keft; (c) in two Arabic versions.  The texts have the same basic content, but many divergences.  A miracle worked by the saint is recorded in Bohairic and included in the Synaxary.  One discourse is preserved from the period when he was a monk, and fragments of others in his life and elsewhere.  There are letters attributed to him (Nau, Journal Asiatique, 1917, p.415).  There is also a Prophetic letter, perhaps related to the “revelations” of ps.Methodius, containing predictions of the Arab conquest and even the Turkish invasion of the 12th century, published in Revue de l’Orient Chretien 191, 88, 318.

11. LIVES OF THE SAINTS.  There are a considerable number of these.  A full list with bibliography can be found in O’Leary, col.1617.  These include lives of Athanasius, Dioscorus of Alexandria, Epiphanius, Gregory Thaumaturgus, John IV of Alexandria, John Khame (the black), Macarius the Great (d. 390), Macarius of Alexandria, Samuel of Kalamon, Serapion of Thmuis, Severus of Antioch, Simeon Stylites.  Interesting is Takla Haymanat, an Ethiopian saint whose cult was spread in Egypt.  He visited the patriarch Gabriel (915-923) in Egypt.

 12.  FICTION WRITING.  In all the Coptic Lives, even in the Life of Shenouda himself, there is a considerable amount of material which is plainly invented, and marked by the introduction of improbable marvels.  Some Coptologists have thought of this as a characteristic of Coptic literature, and indeed of ancient Egyptian literature also.  In some cases the Coptic folk-story continues a much older tradition.  The  legend of Hilaria, the female monk who was the daughter of the emperor Zeno, is itself merely a recasting of the ancient Egyptian story of the princess Bent-Resh, and belongs to a well-known genre of folk-tale where a woman dresses as a man.  The legend of St. Marina also belongs to this class of story.  But in others the Coptic novel really contains a foreign story.  The novel of Eustathius and Theopiste is a version of the story of Eustace Placidas.  The novel of Gesius and Isidore is a tale of voyages and adventures, finding the relics of John the Baptist at Emesa.  The Cambyses Romance, attributed to Callisthenes, recounts the invasion of Egypt by that Persian king, based on Greek histories, Herodotus, the OT, and reworked in Coptic.  Cambyses is identified with Nebuchadnezzar, and the Persians, Babylonians and Assyrians are all confounded.  The legend is Byzantine, tho, rather than Egyptian, but set in Egypt.  The Alexander Romance, also attributed to Callisthenes, is also an import from Greek into Coptic.  The legend of Maximus and Domitius is a Syriac import, again of Byzantine origin, and extant in Bohairic.  The legend of Salome resembles that of St. Abraham of Qiduna, and again relates to the type of story found in Hilaria and Marina.  There is also a cycle of legends called Onnophrius, about travelling the desert.  There is also a legend of Thalassion, of the kind where a message is sent reading “kill the bearer”.

 13. APOPHTHEGMATA PATRUM.  This collection of sayings of the Fathers exists in many languages, and was made between 460-470 and 500 AD, among the followers of the abbot Poemen.  However even in 425 a prior collection existed, as Sulpicius Severus quotes from it.  The main collection exists in Greek, Bohairic, Sahidic, Latin (quoted by S. Benedict), Armenian, Georgian, and Arabic.  The Arabic version is late and of not much importance; the Armenian and Georgian versions of much importance.  The original language was Greek. 

14.  HISTORY.  Severus of Ashmounein, the author of the History of the Patriarchs, today extant only in Arabic, refers to archives and historical documents preserved in the monastery of S. Macarius in the Wadi n’Natrun, and names the authors of the archives, the deacon Apa Cyrus (Baqira) and Michael, son of Apater of Damanhur.  Since this monastery was the patriarchal seat, it would be necessary to refer to legal precedents, and that such an archive would naturally come into existance.  Fragments exist, although none attributable to those authors.  A long fragment in Bohairic describes part of the life of Timothy Aelurus, and is possibly the work of the Abbot George who wrote a history of the patriarchs from Cyril I to Alexander II.  Another fragment in Sahidic published by Crum traces the events of the year 541.  A Bohairic fragment discusses the controversy over John IV, of which an Arabic version exists.  A fragment of a translation of the Church History of Eusebius exists.  The remains of a Coptic version of the Lausiac History of Palladius are also extant.  The great chronicle of John of Nikiu no longer exists in Coptic, but a fragment in Sahidic recording the conquest of Egypt by Cambyses and very similar to John’s text is extant.  John of Maiuma, ca. 515, compiled in Greek a collection of anecdotes which he called the Plerophoriae,  using material by Peter the Iberian (d.488) who was involved in the consecration of Timothy Aelurus, and this Plerophoriae is mentioned in a 6-7th century catalogue.  There are remains of a Sahidic version of the work also.  A fragment of a history of the time of Justinian has been published by Crum as A coptic palimpsest in Proceed. society bibl. arch. 1897, p.310-322.

15.  THEOLOGICAL DIALOGUES.  A papyrus codex of the 6-7th century, published by Crum (Der papyrus-codex…,1915), begins with the Sahidic text of a session with questions posed by deacons Anthimus and Stephen to Cyril of Alexandria, and continues with a number of question-and-answer sessions, interspersed with letters.  There also exist some questions and answers on sentences in the gospels.

16.  THE PASSIONS OF THE MARTYRS.  Most Coptic martyrdoms describe saints during the Great Persecution under Diocletian.  All of them are related, and follow a similar model.  Delahaye has stated that none of them bear any resemblance to the historical martyrdoms.  The classic model for them all is ps.Josephus, also known as IV Maccabees, where Eleazar is martyred by the pagans.  Some form a cycle of stories.  There are also martyrdoms which are really apocryphal acts, or else translated from Greek but embellished.  Finally there are the panegyrics to the martyrs, which is a related form of literature.  More important are the “new martyrdoms” which record those put to death under the Arabs, such as the martyrdom of John of Phanidjoit in 1209 AD, certainly the work of an eye-witness (Amelineau, Journal. Asiatique 1887, p.134-189), of Michael of Damietta, of Salib, etc.  O’Leary gives a list of martyrdoms printed.

17. LITURGICAL BOOKS.  Coptic literature is ecclesiastical, and liturgical above all else.  The Coptic liturgy that remains is above all the Bohairic rite.  I.e. that of Alexandria, as developed in the monastery of S. Macarius in the Wadi n’Natrun.   Some of it has been translated from Greek.   The definitive edition of the rite is much later than the Arab conquest.  The most ancient manuscript is 10th century, from a period when Severus of Ashmounein was starting to write history in Arabic.  Nearly all the Bohairic manuscripts of the Vatican are acta, with a note against them of the day on which they were to be read as part of the liturgy.

18.  POETRY.  Poetry is found principally from the 9-10th centuries.  There are two volumes of Sahidic hymns in the Morgan collection (XIII, XIV) but most poetry is in Bohairic.  There is a Byzantine element in Coptic poetry, and many pieces have a dramatic structure.  It is possible that in the 9th century popular Coptic poetry existed, but if so it has left no traces.  The hymns are a very important part of Coptic worship.  Among the hymns are the Theotokies for each day of the week.  All these hymns are of two metres, “Adam” or “Batos”, the first in a short metre, the second longer.  The hymn for Sunday commences with the word “Adam”, that forWednesday with “Batos”, hence the names.  The “Adam” hymns are recited for the first three days of the week, and the “Batos” hymns for the rest.  Each strophe contains four verses.  The Difnar (antiphonary) is a collection of hymns for every day of the year, and celebrate the principal saints.  Rhyme only appears in Coptic verse under Arabic influence, and following Arabic models.  The Triadon is a poem of the 13th century, preserved in a single manuscript in Naples.  Originally of 750 verses, only 428 remain.   It is written in neo-Sahidic, indeed one of the last compositions in Sahidic, and gives a summary of the history of the bible and the lives of the saints.  The style is tortuous.

19.  CANON LAW.  The Didache (q.v.) is undoubtedly the most ancient piece of canon law.  It is followed by the great collections of Canones Apostolorum and Canones ecclesiastici, whose Sahidic text was published by P. de Lagarde and by U. Bouriant using a defective manuscript in the Jacobite Coptic Patriarchate, and the Bohairic was published by Henry Tattam (Apostolical Constitutions, 1848).  The Canones Apostolorum are a recension of the Constit. apost. vol. VIII, 47, and the Canones Ecclesiastici are a compilation of three documents: 30 apostolic canons, attributed to Clement of Rome; 32 canons of “ordinances” of the Egyptian church; and an epitome of the Constit. apost. VIII, 1-46.  There is also a ps.Hippolytus, and it is noteworthy that Abu’l Barakat mentions the “canons of Hippolytus” among the works well-known in Christian Egypt.  There are also Coptic texts relating to the councils of Nicaea and Ephesus extant.  A papyrus of the 6-7th century gives a set of Canons of Athanasius of Alexandria (publ. by Riedel and Crum, London, 1904 with two fragments of a parchment codex, one at Naples in the Borgia collection and the other in Vienna in the Rainer collection), and these are the basis of a Coptic-Arabic collection of 107 canons.  A papyrus of Turin, much disordered, gives a set of Coptic canons of St. Basil.  In the Coptic-Arabic literature of the middle ages there are new Coptic canons of Christodulos (1047-1077), Cyril II (1078-92), Macarius (1103-29), Gabriel ibn Turaik (1131-45) and Cyril ibn Laqlaq (1235-43).  There are also canonists who made collections of canons, such as Abu Solh ibn Bana (12th c.), Abu’l Fadail ibn al-`Assal (13th c.) and Macarius (14th c.).  For monastic communities there was the letter of Macarius.

20.  GLOSSARIES AND GRAMMARS.  Fortunately there are glossaries with a series of Coptic and Greek words.  There is such a glossary for the books of Hosea and Amos, another glossary in a 6th century London papyrus, and a Coptic syllabary at the university of Michigan.  Much later are the Coptic-Arabic and Greek-Coptic-Arabic glossaries.  In the 11th century there were grammarians explaining the Coptic language to those who only spoke Arabic.  The principal grammarian is As-Sah al-As`ad Abu’l Faraj ibn al-Assal, whose Muqaddima or “principles” are an introduction to Bohairic grammar.  There is also a version of the same text adapted for Sahidic.  Another well-known grammarian was Athanasius of Qos (11th cent.), whose work is extant.

21.  SCIENTIFIC WORKS.  There are Coptic texts on alchemy and medicine, but all of them are translated from Arabic.  Coptic was never used for these purposes prior to the Arab conquest — Greek was the language of choice.  A 9th century Coptic medical papyrus was discovered by U. Bouriant in 1892, containing 237 formulae, in no particular order, and published by E. Chassinat.

22.  GNOSTIC BOOKS.*  Gnosticism was very popular in Egypt.  The most important text preserved when O’Reilly wrote was the Pistis Sophia, which pretends to give the revelations delivered by Christ to his disciples on the Mount of Olives, 11 years after the Resurrection.  This is late and unintelligent production of Graeco-Egyptian gnosticism.  Some consider that it was composed in Greek and translated into Coptic, others that it was composed in Coptic based on a mixture of Greek and Coptic sources. The ms. is in the British Library, Add. 5114.  Two Gnostic treatises are at Oxford in the Bruce papyrus, of the 5-6th century, translated from Greek: the books of Jeu.  There is also a magical manuscript on the letters of the alphabet at Oxford, Bodl. Hunt. 393.

* O’Reilly’s information is rendered obsolete by the discoveries at Nag Hammadi, and also the Manichaean codexes at Medinet Madu and Kellis, but is given as far as it goes.  A series of discoveries of Coptic texts have been made throughout the 20th century.

Bibliography: O’Leary, Litterature Copte in Dictionaire d’archeologie chretienne et de liturgie, t. 9, 2e partie (Lit-Lydie), 1930, col.1599-1635.  Lengthy bibliographies are given for all texts referenced, and where they are published. The account must be considerably out of date, but is worth giving even in extract because few seem to have an overview of what exists.

Share

Chapter titles in the first printed edition of Tertullian’s Apologeticum

I’m still turning photocopies into PDF’s.  Today I reached a photocopy of an incunabulum of Tertullian’s Apologeticum, which I scanned and have uploaded to Archive.org here.

Very early printed books, produced before 1500, are known as incunabula from the Latin “in the cradle.”  Early ones are essentially facsimiles of the manuscripts from which they were copied.  The first printers simply did what the scribes were doing, but did it with moveable type.  In fact some early printed texts were mistaken for manuscripts written by a very regular scribe.

These early books can be very useful, since the manuscript — usually just one! — that the printer had often no longer exists.  On the other hand, they usually just used whatever copy was to hand and easy to read.  This was usually a late copy, made recently, and cheaply available, so the quality could be poor.

As we all know, manuscripts tended to have decorated initial letters at the start of chapters.  These were works of art, added after the text was written, and the copyists left room for them, indicating what letter of the alphabet was required.  Not a few manuscripts failed to get the initial added.  Early printed books did the same, and a few were even illuminated.  This Tertullian was not:

Extract from Tertullian incunabulum with chapter title and missing initial

The medieval chapter divisions and titles were faithfully copied also.  Here we have one of them — “De Saturno & Iove” — for chapter 10.  But the text does not give chapter titles for chapters 2, 3, 6 and 8 (as you can see if you look at it).  This means, I  think, that they are not the product of the work of the printer, but copied from the manuscript he used, where some of the titles (but not the division) had dropped out.  These would be written in red in a manuscript, but of course in a printed book are just in ordinary black text.

The incunabulum also has a “table of contents” at the front, listing the chapters.  It would be most interesting to know whether the printer compiled this or copied it.  I have never seen a manuscript with such a table, myself.  My guess would be that he compiled it from the chapter titles in the text as it was.  The fact that it lists the titles, and simply gives “De ignorantia   caput primum, ii & iii.” suggests to me that he knew titles were missing, didn’t invent some — he was little more than a glorified copyist — and just gave what was there.

Later medieval Latin texts often have these short “capituli” inserted into spaces, just as we see above.  The editions rarely record them, so it is difficult for us to know which manuscripts have them, and whether they vary.  Until this work is done — a work that will get easier as manuscripts come online — then it is hard to say whether they are medieval additions, as has always been presumed, or more ancient.

Share