Year: 2011

Eusebius update

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Regular readers will know that I commissioned a translation of all the fragments of Eusebius of Caesarea’s Gospel problems and solutions.  This meant translating from Greek, Latin, Syriac, Coptic and Christian Arabic.  The plan is to sell a book version of the result (with facing text and translation), and, once that has sold whatever it sells, to put the translation online. 

Bob the typesetter has worked his magic, and has sent me back the Latin and Coptic for reproofing, which I will do as soon as I get a few hours.  I was thinking that the Syriac needed to be bumped up a point size or two, but I couldn’t see why on reexamining the printed proof last night.  Maybe it was just winter evenings and inadequate lighting, perhaps?

I’ve also read through the astrological texts I mentioned a couple of posts ago.  These are fine, but entirely technical in nature.  Mind you, one gives the horoscope for the emperor Hadrian!

Share

Classics triennial conference

Posted on by Roger Pearse

There is a triennial Classics conference in Cambridge in late July.  Details from here.

I’ve never been to a classics conference, but it sounds interesting.  I might attend.

Share

More Papias fragments

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Tom Schmidt writes:

I added 11 new fragments to my page on Papias. I also gave parallel translations from the Syriac and Greek of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History and Armenian and Greek of Andrew of Caesarea’s Commentary on Revelation among other things as well.

All very useful to us all!

Share

Did the Adonia last two days?

Posted on by Roger Pearse

I have been hunting around for the origins of the following statement, which I first found in the Wikipedia article on the Adonia (the festival of Adonis), and then as copied from Smith’s Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, p.14:

ADOʹNIA (Ἀδώνια), a festival celebrated in honour of Aphrodite and Adonis in most of the Grecian cities, as well as in numerous places in the East. It lasted two days, and was celebrated by women exclusively. On the first day they brought into the streets statues of Adonis, which were laid out as corpses; and they observed all the rites customary at funerals, beating themselves and uttering lamentations. The second day was spent in merriment and feasting; because Adonis was allowed to return to life, and spend half of the year with Aphrodite. (Aristoph. Pax, 412, Schol. ad loc.; Plut. Alcib. 18, Nic. 13). For fuller particulars respecting the worship and festivals of Adonis, see Dict. of Biogr. s.v. Adonis.a

A Google books search on “adonis adonia two days” gives some interesting results.  In the Analytical review: or history of literature, domestic and foreign …, Volume 8 of 1790, page 292, we get this (and the plain text version given at Google was extraordinarily good, given the very old font and long-s):

‘ P. 11. ADONIA, solemn feasts in honour of Venus, and in memory of her beloved Adonis. The Adonia were observed with great solemnity by molt nations. Greeks, Phœnicians, Lycians, Syrians, Egyptians, &c. From Syria they are supposed to have passed into India. The prophet Ezekiel is understood to speak of them. They were still observed at Alexandria in the time of St. Cyril, and at Antioch in that of Julian the apostate, whose arrival there during the solemnity was taken for an ill omen. The Adonia lasted two days, on the first of which certain images of Venus and Adonis were carried with all the pomp and ceremonies practised at funerals ; the women wept, rent their hair, beat their breasts, &c. imitating the cries and lamentations of Venus for the death of her paramour. This rite called Adwniasm?, the Syrians were not contented with observing so far as respected the weeping, but also gave themselves discipline, shaved their heads, &c.—Among the Egyptians the queen herself used to bear the image of Adonis in procession. The women carried along with them shells filled with earth, in which grew several sorts of herbs, especially lettuces, in memory of Adonis having been laid out by Venus upon, a bed of lettuce. These were called khpoi, or gardens ; whence Adwnnidoj khpoi are proverbially applied to things unfruitful, or fading ; because those herbs were only sown so long before the festival as to sprout forth and be green at that time, and then were presently thrown into the water. The flutes used upon this day were called ?????, from ?????, which was the Phœnician name of Adonis. This sacrifice was termed kaqedra, probably because the days of mourning used to be called by that name. The following day was spent in every expression of mirth and joy, in memory of Venus’s having obtained the favour of Proserpina, that Adonis should return to life, and live with her one half of the year. According to Meursius, the two offices of mourning and rejoicing made two distinct feasts, which were held at different times of the year, the one six months after the other, Adonis being supposed to pass half the year with Proserpina, and the other half with Venus. St. Cyril mentions an extraordinary ceremony practised by the Alexandrians: a letter was written to the women of Byblos, to inform them that Adonis was found again : this letter was thrown into the sea, which, it was pretended, failed not to convey it to Byblos in, seven days, upon receipt of which the Byblian women ceased their mourning, sung his praises, and made rejoicings as if he were restored to life. The Egyptian Adonia are said by some, to have been held in memory of the death of Osiris ; by others, of his sickness and recovery. Bishop Patrick dates their origin, from the slaughter of the first born under Moses. The Adonia were otherwise called Salambo.

No question but this is the same narrative, but with references to Cyril of Alexandria and Julian the Apostate, and also a reference to Meursius who also turns up in the Wikipedia article.  No references, tho.  An evidently derived source is here (1816), with the extra snippet that “the Abbe Banier wrote a memoir on the subject”.  There are several early 19th century reference books, all containing the same material it seems.

John E. Thorburn, The Facts On File companion to classical drama, p.11, gives the story again:

A Greek festival (usually lasting two days) that honored Adonis.  The first day of the festival involved mourning for Adonis’ disappearance; the second day was devoted to a search for his body by the community’s women, with whom the Adonia was quite popular.  This ritual search celebrated Adonis’ return to life and a six-month reunion with his lover, Aphrodite (compare the arrangement among Hades, Persephone and Demeter).  The festival first appears in the fifth century B.C.E. {sic} but may not have been officially sanctioned by the Athenian government during that time.  [Ancient sources: Aristophanes, Peace, 420; Plato, Phaedrus, 276b].

Bibliography:

Detienne, M., The gardens of Adonis: spices in Greek mythology.  Translated from the French by Janet Lloyd.  Introduction by J. P. Vernant.  Hassocks.  U.K.: Harvester Press, 1977.

Simms, R. Mourning and community at the Athenian Adonia, Classical Journal 93, no. 2 (1997-8), 121-144.

Sommerstein, A. H., The comedies of Aristophanes, vol. 5. Peace, Warminster, U.K.: Aris & Philips, 1985, 152.

Well, that gives us some modern references to search for ancient sources at the very least.  A preview of Detienne is here, which apparently does not contain the words “two days”.  I have located a pirate copy of the book, which I will consult.  Let us see whether it gives us ancient sources for the claims above.  It would be nice to have the Simms article, but I don’t have access to that.

The passage in Plato is the following (full English here; Perseus here):

Phaedr. You mean the living word of knowledge which has a soul, and of which written word is properly no more than an image?

Soc. Yes, of course that is what I mean. And now may I be allowed to ask you a question: Would a husbandman, who is a man of sense, take the seeds, which he values and which he wishes to bear fruit, and in sober seriousness plant them during the heat of summer, in some garden of Adonis, that he may rejoice when he sees them in eight days appearing in beauty? at least he would do so, if at all, only for the sake of amusement and pastime. But when he is in earnest he sows in fitting soil, and practises husbandry, and is satisfied if in eight months the seeds which he has sown arrive at perfection?

Not much in this, I’m afraid.

UPDATE: The excellent Charles Anthon comes to our rescue in his A Classical Dictionary, p.18, 1869 (There seem to be several editions of this book; the earlier ones have different and less useful text).  The “two day” concept is attributed to Lucian, De dea Syria.   Here’s what he says:

ADONIA, a festival in honour of Adonis, celebrated both at Byblus in Phoenicia, and in most of the Grecian cities. Lucian (de Syria Dea. — vol. 9, p. 88, seqq., ed. Bip.) has left us an account of the manner in which it was held at Byblus. According to this writer, it lasted during two days, on the first of which every, thing wore an appearance of sorrow, and the death of the favourite of Venus was indicated by public mourning. On the following day, however, the aspect of things underwent a complete change, and the greatest joy prevailed on account of the fabled resurrection of Adonis from the dead. During this festival the priests of Byblus shaved their heads, in imitation of the priests of Isis in Egypt. In the Grecian cities, the manner of holding this festival was nearly, if not exactly, the same with that followed in Phoenicia. On the first day all the citizens put themselves in mourning; coffins were exposed at every door; the statues of Venus and Adonis were borne in procession, with certain vessels full of earth, in which the worshippers had raised com, herbs, and lettuce, and these vessels were called the gardens of Adonis (‘Adwnij kh/poi). After the ceremony was over they were thrown into the sea or some river, where they soon perished, and thus became emblems of the premature death of Adonis, who had fallen, like a young plant, in the flower of his age. (Histoire du Culte d’Adonis: Mem. Acad, des Inscrip, etc., vol. 4, p. 136, seqq.—Dupuis, Origine de Cultes, vol. 4, p. 118, seqq., cd. 1822.— Valckenaer, ad Theoc. Adwniuz in Arg.) The lettuce was used among the other herbs on this occasion, because Venus was fabled to have deposited the dead body of her favourite on a bed of lettuce. In allusion to this festival, the expression ‘Adwnioj khpoi became proverbial, and was applied to whatever perished previous to the period of maturity. (Adagia Veterum, p. 410.) Plutarch relates, in his life of Nicias, that the expedition against Syracuse set sail from the harbours of Athens, at the very time when the women of that city were celebrating the mournful part of the festival of Adonis, during which there were to be seen, in every quarter of the city, images of the dead, and funeral processions, the women accompanying them with dismal lamentations. Hence an unfavourable omen was drawn of the result of the expedition, which the event but too fatally realized. Theocritus, in his beautiful Idyll entitled A)dwniazousai, has left us an account of the part of this grand anniversary spectacle termed h( eu)resij, “the finding,” i. e., the resurrection of Adonis, the celebration of it having been made by order of Arsinoe, queen of Ptolemy Fhiladelphus. Boettiger (Sabina, p. 265) has a very ingenious idea in relation to the fruits exhibited on this joyful occasion. He thinks it impossible, that even so powerful a queen as Arsinoe should be able to obtain in the spring of the year, when this festival was always celebrated, fruits which had attained their full maturity (w~ria). He considers it more than probable that they were of wax. This conjecture will also furnish another, and perhaps a more satisfactory, explanation of the phrase Adwnioj khpoi, denoting things whose exterior promised fairly, while there was nothing real or substantial within. Adonis was the same deity with the Syrian Tammuz, whose festival was celebrated even by the Jews, when they degenerated into idolatry (Ezekiel, 8, 14); and Tammuz is the proper Syriac name for the Adonis of the Greeks. (Creuzer’s Symbolik, vol. ii., p. 86 ) (Vid Adonis.)

It’s quite a journey, this, in the underworld of ideas, repeated from one encyclopedia to another.  And if we look at Lucian, online here, do we find our two day festival, with Adonis alive on the second day?  We do not (* see below, tho).  And we find a great mess of syncretistic ideas, some relating to Attis and the Galli, not Adonis.

6. I saw too at Byblos a large temple, 10 sacred to the Byblian Aphrodite 11: this is the scene of the secret rites of Adonis: I mastered these. They assert that the legend about Adonis and the wild boar is true, 12 and that the facts occurred in their country, and in memory of this calamity they beat their breasts and wail every year, and perform their secret ritual amid signs of mourning through the whole countryside. When they have finished their mourning and wailing, they sacrifice in the first place to Adonis, as to one who has departed this life: after this they allege that he is alive again, and exhibit his effigy to the sky. They proceed to shave their heads, 13 too, like the Egyptians on the loss of their Apis. The women who refuse to be shaved have to submit to the following penalty, viz., to stand for the space of an entire day in readiness to expose their persons for hire. The place of hire is open to none but foreigners, and out of the proceeds of the traffic of these women a sacrifice to Aphrodite is paid. 14

A. J. M. Wedderburn, Baptism and Resurrection, (1987) pp.201-2 gives us more.  He too thinks that De dea Syria means a two day festival — reading “at the end of” as “on the day after”.  But we also learn that Cyril talks about the “resurrection” of Adonis in the Commentary on Isiah, 18.1 f. (PG 70, 441AB), and compares this with Procopius of Gaza, PG 87.2, 2140AB).  This is the most interesting reference yet.  But I must leave it for another time.

UPDATE: Andrew Eastbourne has written to correct the above:

For what it’s worth, the passage from Lucian *does* in fact explicitly say “on the next day” — the translation of De Dea Syria is faulty in that spot.  Here is the Greek of the relevant sentence (from TLG) with the words underlined:  μετὰ δὲ τῇ ἑτέρῃ ἡμέρῃ ζώειν τέ μιν μυθολογέουσι καὶ ἐς τὸν ἠέρα πέμπουσι καὶ τὰς κεφαλὰς ξύρονται ὅκως Αἰγύπτιοι ἀποθανόντος Ἄπιος.

Share

Locating the Golden Bough online

Posted on by Roger Pearse

One of the primary sources of material used by atheists for “Jesus = <insert god here>” is J. Frazer’s The Golden Bough, 1911.  In my experience, whenever I look at this kind of material, it is always worth checking what Frazer said.  In my case I want to find the origin of some curious statements about the Adonia.

His book is well referenced, if you go directly to it.  He’s the only author I have ever come across to know of 6th century Syriac author Thomas of Edessa, or to have read the Latin version — the only version ever made — of his De nativitate.  Yet read it he must have done, for he refers (correctly) to the fact that Thomas says the pagans even in his day celebrated a solar festival at Christmas-time.

A single volume abridgement is accessible at Gutenberg.  But it came as rather a shock to discover that the original was actually in twelve volumes!  I tried to locate this on Google books in vain; a search on Archive.org was better.

To locate all 12 volumes, use this link.

Share

What is Bombycin?

Posted on by Roger Pearse

I mentioned that one of the manuscripts of Photius’ Lexicon was written on ‘bombycin’, and a commenter has asked what this is.   It’s Arabic paper, used widely in Byzantium from the 9th century onwards until superceded by western methods of paper manufacture.

One of the key references is J. Irigoin, Les premiers manuscrits grecs écrits sur papiers et le problème du bombycin, Scriptorium 4 (1950), 194-202; and this was reprinted in Dieter Harlfinger’s Griechische Kodikologie, p. 132.  And I happen to own a copy of Harlfinger.  Here is a quick translation of the opening portion of his article:

Ever since Bernard de Montfaucon, textbooks on Greek paleography have distinguished two types of paper used in manuscripts; bombycin paper, of oriental origin, and western paper.

Until the end of the 19th century, it was believed that bombycin paper was made with cotton, which neatly distinguished it from western paper which was made from old rags (hence the name, rag paper) made of linen.  Around 1885, the work of Briquet, at Geneva, and of Wiesner and Karabacek at Vienna has shown that “cotton paper” is a myth; oriental paper was made with linen fibres, and bombycin is a linen paper just like western paper.  The only difference between the two papers is the choice of product used to hold it together; starch in the east, and gelatine in the west.

Paleographers have all the same continued to use the adjective bombycinus to designate manuscripts written on paper of oriental origin, in opposition to chartacei, written on paper made in the west.  All the same, the distinction between the two papers is far from simple and recent catalogues of Greek mss. label as chartaceus all manuscripts on paper, without giving any indication of the origin of the material.

As a general rule, paleographers state that bombycin is of a more or less obvious brown colour.  It is thick and opaque, often fluffy at the edges of the leaves; it is this which gives it sometimes the appearance of blotting paper, and it happens sometimes that the bombycin disintegrates at the surface, which is very unfortunate for the text written on it.  Western paper is less obviously coloured, thinner and better glued together, and on holding up to the light the marks left by the manufacturing process, the mesh, and eventually the watermark.  The latter appears sporadically in the last 20 years of the 13th century, and generally from the 14th century on.

This rule appears clear and certain.  In fact it is not so clear, and it often  happens that one hesitates as to whether thick paper does or does not show the marks of the process, and in cases of doubt it tends to be called bombycin.

My work has made it possible for me to study a certain number of Greek mss.  I have examined with care those which are said to be written on bombycin, and this has led me to the following conclusion: many of the manuscripts listed as bombycins in the most recent publications show watermarks and are thus written on western paper.  I shall limit myself to three series of examples.

Irigoin then goes on to detail his work, and to draw up more precise guidelines for identifying bombycin.  After studying more than 200 Greek paper manuscripts written before 1300, he felt able to state with confidence which was which.  The blotting paper effect was unusual rather than characteristic, for instance.  He also looked at Arabic manuscripts, which used paper from the 9th century onwards.  There he found that most used the same kind of paper, suggesting that they were written in the Near East, in the region from where the Byzantine empire imported its paper at that period.

He also points out that paper sizes were different in the orient and in the west.  The oldest manuscript he could find written on western paper was from 1255 A.D.    He also mentions the first known Greek ms. written on paper — Ms. Vatican. gr. 2200, written at Damascus ca. 800 A.D., in an archaising cursive, and suggests that it was a one-off.  The next known ms. is Vatican gr. 504, from 1105, written partly on paper and partly on parchment.  But literary references indicate that paper was being used by the middle of the 11th century.  Western paper, imported from Italy, starts to appear in Byzantium in the middle of the 13th century.  In the 14th century, and especially after 1340, paper replaces parchment almost entirely.  Oriental paper declined in quality during the first years of the 14th century, and disappears.  It is used rarely after 1350, and hardly ever after 1380.  Political and economic factors prevented the Byzantines from trading to the east, and the Turkish threat forced them to look west.  Irigoin adds:

In conclusion, a manuscript written on oriental paper must be placed between the middle of the 11th century and 1380.

and finishes by listing technical details.

Share

The Lexicon of Photius

Posted on by Roger Pearse

One of the references to the festival of the Adonia is supposedly in “Photius”.  Perhaps his Lexicon would help, perhaps under Adonis or Adonia?  This led me to wonder where this text might be found.  I quickly found that a Google search needs “lexicon photii” to find anything at all.  Is there no Wikipedia article, even, for this text?

Google books showed me an 1823 edition here.  But unfortunately there is a lacuna of ca. 100 pages at precisely the point we want.  More modern editions exist.  But an 1864 edition has the same problem.   All these are based on the Codex Galeanus (Cambridge, Trinity College, O.3.9/5985, once no. 306), a 12th century parchment ms. of 149 leaves.

A preview of a much more modern edition (1982, De Gruyter, vol. 1 – A-D) by Christos Theodoridis is here.  And this has a much fuller text, and much of the introduction is also online, from which the following notes are taken.

It seems that in 1959 an academic at the university of Thessalonika named Linos Politis made an journey into western Macedonia for research purposes, and discovered at the monastery of Zavorda a manuscript (codex Zavordensis 95) of the 13-14th century, containing the complete text of the Lexicon.  The editor comments (p.ix) that a find of this kind, outside of papyri, is a rarity.  But it was 1974 before editing began.  The manuscript is 406 leaves, written on bombycin in two columns.  It is the only complete manuscript of the text.  The manuscript contains other items also.

Besides the Cambridge and Zavorda manuscripts, there is also a manuscript in Berlin: ms. Berolinensis graec. oct. 22, a 13th century parchment ms. of 111 leaves, mostly of miscellaneous contents.  It was bought in 1901 from Valentin Rose, and contains a portion of the text.  It was thought lost in World War 2, but Theodoridis set out to locate it.  During the war the mss. of the Prussian Staatsbibliothek were first sent to Furstenstein for safety, and then to the Benedictine monastery of Grüssau (now Krzeszow) in Silesia.  The monastery escaped the war, and the manuscript ended up in 1946 in Krakow, in the Jagellonen University Library there.

There are a couple of other sources: Atheniensis 1083, a 15-16th century paper ms. containing a 4 leaf extract of the work; and a manuscript in Mar Saba in Jerusalem, Sabbaiticus 137, a miscellaneous ms. of the 14-15th century of 169 leaves, with an extract on f.162-9.  A couple more minor sources are also given by Theodoridis.

But back to the Adonia in Photius.  In the 1982 edition, on p.46 – 47 we get the following, which gives us exactly what we want:

Anyone care to do a translation?  The latter entry (401) clearly identifies the connection with Phoenicia and Cyprus.

Share

More on the scholia on Aristophanes

Posted on by Roger Pearse

I’m still looking for a scholion on Aristophanes which gives real extra information on the festival of Adonis, the Adonia.

The Koster volumes mentioned by Eleanor Dickey in the previous post turn out to be Scholia in Aristophanem, Groningen 1960.  I doubt I can access this.

But I find a bibliography (with horrible pop-ups etc) of Aristophanes material here.  In the section on the scholia I find this:

Scoli:

  • W.Dindorf  Aristophanis comoediae IV/1-3: Scholia Graeca ex codicibus aucta et emendata, Oxford, 1838
  • F.Dübner Scholia Graeca in Aristophanem, cum prolegomenis grammaticorum Parigi, 1842 (1877²) -si rifa per buona parte a Dind.-
  • solo Ravennate: W.G.Rutherford  Scholia Aristophanica I-II London 1896 (il III: A Chapter in the History of Annotation, being Scholia Aristophanica, vol III, 1905) 
  • cfr. anche lo studio di G.Zuntz Die Aristophanes-Scholien der Papyri, Berlin, 1975²

W.J.W Koster – D.Holwerda (dal 1974 o 5? a c.di) Scholia in Aristophanem, Groningen 1960-

PARS I
W.J.W. Koster  1A Prolegomena de Comoedia, Groningen, 1975
N.G.Wilson 1B Scholia in Aristophanis Acharnenses, Groningen, 1975
D.Mervyn Jones 2 Scholia vetera in Aristophanis Equites et N.G.Wilson Scholia Tricliniana in Aristophanis.Equites, Groningen, 1969
D.Holwerda 3,1 Scholia vetera in Nubes et W.J.W.Koster Scholia scholiorumque partes editionis Aldinae propria Groningen, 1977
W.J.W.Koster 3,2 Scholia recentiora in Nubes, Groningen, 1974

PARS II (Scholia in Vespas, Pacem Aves et Lysistrata)
W.J.W.Koster 1 Scholia vetera et recentiora in Aristophanis Vespas, Groningen, 1978
D.Holwerda  2 Scholia vetera et recentiora in Aristophanis Pacem, Groningen, 1982
D.Holwerda  3 Scholia vetera et recentiora in Aristophanis Aves, Groningen, 1991
J.Hangard  4  Scholia in Aristophanis Lysistratam, Groningen, 1996

PARS III (Scholia in Thesmophoriazusas; Ranas; Ecclesiazusas et Plutum)
M.Chantry IVa  Scholia vetera in Aristophanis Plutum, Groningen, 1994
M.Chantry  IVb  Scholia recentiora in Aristophanis Plutum, Groningen, 1996 (-5?)
Mancano tuttora gli scoli a Thesm. (1), Ran. (2), Eccl. (3)

PARS IV (Ioannis Tzetzae commentarii), 1960-64, 4 voll. (l’ultimo di indici)
L.Massa Positano 1. Prolegomena et commentarium in Plutum, Groningen, 1960
D.Holwerda  2. Commentarium in Nubes, Groningen, 1960
W.J.W Koster  3. Comm. in Ranas et in Aves, Argumentum Equitum Groningen, 1964 (-2?)

That gives a lot more information (in Italian) on what and when are where. 

The first couple of these should be accessible, I would have thought.  And so it proves: the 1846 edition of Dindorf is indeed online: vol. 4 pt1 is here, pt 2 is here, pt 3 here.  But one problem with these volumes is the lack of a table of contents.  I was obliged to look through the PDF’s by reducing the magnification to “fit the page”, then skimming down with the scroll page at 100 page intervals looking at the titles.  The scholia in pacem — we’re looking for a scholion on Peace, 412, for stuff about the Adonia — is in vol.4, pt3, and 412 is on p.56 of the printed text (p.61 of the PDF). 

However the scholion did not seem to be what we are looking for.  It is very common to find that obscure references are inaccurate, precisely because few have the opportunity to verify them!  Here it is anyway:

Transcription:

412.  ἵνα τὰς τελετὰς αὐτοὶ λάβοιεν : Ἡμῶν ἀπολλυμένων καὶ τῶν βαρβάρων αὐτοῖς θυόντων.   παρατηρητέον δὲ ὅτι ἀντὶ τοῦ τὰς θυσίας κεῖται τὸ τελετάς.

Would someone with better Greek than me care to translate?

In the mean time I’m going to OCR the PDF using language = Greek, and see if a search will bring up anything on “Adon”!  I do believe a scholion is there somewhere.

UPDATE: Just scrolling down the page, 419 is it!  (link here)

Transcription: 

419.  τὰ Διπόλεια : Τὰ Διπόλεια τῷ Διὶ, τὰ Ἀδώνια τῷ Ἀδώνιδι καὶ τῇ Ἀφροδίτῃ.

419.  The Dipoleia: the Dipoleia of Zeus, the Adonia of Adonis and Aphrodite.

Which doesn’t give us much.  Hmm.

Share

The scholia on Aristophanes

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Since I discovered yesterday that a scholion on Aristophanes Peace 412 was an important source for information on the Adonia, I have been trying to find the text.  A search today led me to here.  This is a Google books preview of Eleanor Dickey’s Ancient Greek Scholarship: a guide to finding, reading, and understanding scholia, commentaries, lexica, and grammatical treatises, from their beginnings to the Byzantine period, Oxford University Press 2007.  Don’t bother clicking on the link unless you are American — the preview is for the US only (and what a wretched business it is, this new trick of keeping the previews hidden from non-US readers!)  But the book looks like a gem, on a subject which few know anything about.

Pages 28-31 contain the following interesting remarks:

The scholia to Aristophanes are among the most important sets of scholia, in part because they provide historical background without which many of the jokes and allusions in the comedies would be incomprehensible. They are relatively well preserved, and most of them can be found in a sound and reliable modern edition, making them easier to use than many scholia.

Most Aristophanes scholia fall into one of four groups: the old scholia, Tzetzes’ scholia, Thomas Magister’s scholia, and Demetrius Triclinius’ scholia. Scholarly attention tends to focus on the old scholia, which are the most useful in terms of the information they provide on Aristophanes, but the later annotations preserve some old material and are interesting in their own right because of the perspective they offer on Byzantine scholarship.

The old scholia to Aristophanes are derived from a variety of sources going back to the beginning of Alexandrian scholarship. Callimachus, Eratosthenes, and Lycophron (a contemporary of Zenodotus) all worked on Aristophanes to some extent, and the first continuous commentary on his plays was produced by Euphronius, the teacher of Aristophanes of Byzantium. Aristophanes of Byzantium himself produced an edition of the plays, providing an introduction to each (the extant verse hypotheses of the plays are thought to be distant descendants of these introductions) and may also have written a commentary; Callistratus and Aristarchus probably wrote commentaries on the plays, and Timachidas of Rhodes wrote one on the Frogs.

The work of these and other scholars was combined into a single commentary by Didymus in the late first century BC or early first century AD, and sometime in the first two centuries AD Symmachus compiled another commentary, using Didymus as his main source but also consulting other works. At a later date Symmachus’ commentary or one of its descendants, along with some other material, was copied into the generous margins of a book of the plays of Aristophanes and formed the archetype of our extant scholia.

Perhaps the most important of the additional sources of our scholia is the metrical commentary on Aristophanes written by Heliodorus around AD 100. This commentary is often studied apart from the other scholia, for it is crucial for our understanding of ancient metrical theory but of limited use in understanding Aristophanes. Heliodorus’ work has been preserved to varying extents for the different plays; one can reconstruct from the scholia nearly all of it for the Peace, as well as substantial sections of it for the Acharnians and Knights and some fragments for the Clouds and Wasps, but little else.

In addition to the direct tradition of the scholia, which is well attested in several manuscripts, there is an indirect tradition via the Suda, whose writer had access to the same body of material when it was more complete and therefore often preserves scholia that did not survive in the direct tradition. There are also a number of papyri and ancient parchment fragments with commentaries or scholia on Aristophanes; on the whole, those of the fourth century and later seem to reflect a body of material very similar to the ancestor of our scholia (though in some places more complete), while the earlier ones, which are much rarer, apparently belong to different traditions.

There is then a discussion of the Tzetzes scholia, and then the hard data:

The best edition of the scholia is a multivolume work edited first by W. J. W. Koster and later by D. Holwerda (1960– =TLG), which includes both old and Byzantine scholia, usually in separate volumes. The volumes containing the Thesmophoriazusae and Ecclesiazusae have not yet appeared, so for those plays the standard text of the scholia is still that of Dübner (1842 =TLG). While the Koster–Holwerda edition is unquestionably the best in terms of completeness and quality of the text presented, a number of older ones are still useful for specific purposes. Rutherford’s edition (1896) of the scholia in the Ravenna manuscript provides translations and commentary in English. White’s edition of the Heliodorus fragments (1912: 384–421) extracts all the Heliodorus fragments from the scholia, groups them together, and provides an excellent introduction (in English) with explanation of Heliodorus’ Greek. Jorsal et al. (1970) collect the Byzantine metrical scholia to the Frogs. White’s edition of the Birds scholia (1914) has much more detailed indices than the new edition, and Koster (1927) provides an important supplement for Plutus and Clouds.

Papyri with Aristophanes commentaries or scholia are not uncommon, and are conveniently collected with German translation and excellent discussion by Trojahn (2002). In addition, most of those relating to extant plays are included in the Koster–Holwerda edition, and those relating to lost plays can be found in Austin (1973).

Discussions of the Aristophanes scholia are numerous, lengthy, and extremely varied in character and conclusions. The best overview in English is still White’s exceptionally lucid introduction to his edition of the Birds scholia (1914), which covers the entire history of the creation and transmission of the scholia and includes detailed information on Didymus and Symmachus; this work is, however, out of date in places and is concerned almost exclusively with the old scholia. Dunbar’s introduction (1995: 31–49) is briefer but up to date and covers all types of scholarship. Rutherford (1905) offers a detailed and highly informative examination of the nature and contents of the old scholia, but many of his views are no longer accepted, and the author’s evident grumpiness can make the book difficult to read. Additional discussions of textual history can be found in Koster (1985), Hangard (1983, 1985), and the prefaces to the individual volumes of the Koster–Holwerda edition (particularly volumes i.i a, i.iii.i, and ii.i). Montana (1996) discusses the information the old scholia provide on the Αθηναίων πολιτεία. 

The papyrus scholia and commentaries are particularly interesting for the question of the dating of the transition from self-standing commentary to marginal scholia, as the marginal commentaries in Aristophanes papyri of the fourth century and later tend to resemble the medieval scholia more than is the case with other authors. Discussions of this and other issues relating to the papyri can be found in Trojahn (2002), Zuntz (1975), H. Maehler (1994: 124–6), Luppe (1978, 1982), and McNamee (1977: 175–96, 356; forthcoming). The best sources for discussion of Heliodorus are White (1912: 384–95) and Holwerda (1964, 1967). For the scholia recentiora one can consult N. Wilson (1962), O. L. Smith (1976b), Koster (1964), Koster and Holwerda (1954), Holzinger (1930), and the prefaces to volumes i.iii.ii, iii.iv b, and iv.i of the Koster–Holwerda edition. For examples of the way scholars use the Aristophanes scholia for historical information on the plays and on Athenian history and culture, see Carawan (1990), Lavelle (1989), Sutton (1980), Bicknell (1975), and Holwerda (1958).

I think the only possible comment on that is “wow”. 

I deeply approve of this book.  In fact I’ve got to buy a copy of it.  I’ve managed to find a bootleg PDF of it, but you can’t read a book like this on-screen!

The author knew what she was doing.  In the preface she tells us that scholars are increasingly making use of the ancient Greek scholarly tradition, while finding it very difficult to access.  Her book, therefore, is intended to facilitate access.  Well done!

It is a pity that Oxford University Press did not see facilitating access in the same way.

Share

The Project Hindsight translations of ancient astrological texts

Posted on by Roger Pearse

A few weeks ago I wrote of my discovery that a bunch of ancient astrological texts existed in an largely unknown English translation by Robert Schmidt of Project Hindsight.  These can be obtained by emailing the site and sending money by Paypal (a price list is here, but prices are actually more flexible than the flat $45 per booklet).  A table of contents for each volume is on the site (e.g. Antiochus of Athens is here).

These translations have remained unknown.  I cannot check l’Année Philologique, but I don’t know that they have ever received an academic review.  COPAC, the UK union catalogue for research libraries, did not reveal a single copy in any of them.   They were originally sold on a subscription basis to interested people in the astrological community, and so did not circulate more widely.

The Project Hindsight early translations of Hellenistic textsNow I’m not very interested in ancient astrological texts.  The existence of astrology and astrologers in our own times is something of a curiosity.  I have found those I have dealt with to be rather civilised folk, somewhat gun-shy and afraid of being taken for cranks and cultists when they write.  

It was important to get rid of astrology so that astronomy could be born.  But since they are so harmless, we may see these people, and their interest in the astrological tradition, as a genuine survival from ancient times.  It’s a part of our own day that would be thoroughly comprehensible to a Roman.  It’s as if the worship of Apollo lingered in some mountain fastness; wrong, no doubt, but of great historical interest.  This has led me to take an interest in the matter, and perhaps to write more than I might otherwise have done.

I believe that all ancient literature should be accessible to anyone who wants to click on a link.  At the very least, it should be easy for people to find out about them!  So I invested some of my own money and obtained three volumes from the series; Antiochus of Athens, The Thesaurus; and Hephaistio of Thebes, Apotelesmatics vols.1 and 2.  I was warned that these were not of professional quality, that they were reprints, perhaps even photocopies, and that this was why they are not widely advertised.

A package arrived this morning from the US.  On opening it, I found three A5 booklets, a card cover, bound as a single-quire with two staples in the spine holding the quire together.  My first impression was positive.  The text is typeset professionally, the tone is calm and sensible, and the introduction by Robert Schmidt a model of professionalism. 

An opening of the Antiochus of Athens booklet from Project HindsightI attach a couple of photographs.  You should be able to click through on these to the full-size images.  Unfortunately it is rather dim here today, and I am never that handy with a camera taking images of pages anyway.

The volumes, as far as book production is concerned, seem to me to be perfectly acceptable and nothing to be ashamed of.  A few of the pages betray the odd mark indicating that a photocopier has been involved — the odd dust speck, the odd hair.  But all of us have photocopies of that kind!  The text is always perfectly clear and readable with none of the blodges that you get from photocopying old paper.

The prices are rather high, it must be said at once.  But you can haggle.  The team at Project Hindsight have reprints on the shelf of some of the volumes, which they are willing to let go at a discount.

The introduction to the Antiochus by Robert Schmidt is a model of how this should be done.  He indicates his sources, he states what text he is translating, and he gives an appendix indicating how he has translated specific technical terms.  The additional editorial work and notes by Robert Hand also look good.

This issue of technical terminology is a real one, which must obstruct all progress in this field until a specialist lexicon is compiled.   Mark Riley, while working on Vettius Valens, did start compiling such a lexicon, and he has placed his notes online.  It is interesting that Robert Schmidt has found the same need, and I could wish that the Project should place online a digest of how these terms were rendered.  In fact Dr Schmidt might be well advised to publish an article in some technical journal on this very subject. 

A number of volumes of Vettius Valens are in the Project Hindsight list.  It seems that Dr Riley and Dr Schmidt worked independently, neither aware of the other.  But the result is probably of benefit to everyone.

Robert Schmidt is now reworking his translations, with the benefit of 17 years experience, into a new series of hardbacks, again to be sold on subscription.  We must all wish this enterprise well, and I hope  that the translator reaps a handsome financial reward, for his efforts have benefitted mankind to an extraordinary degree.

I wish I knew how to get some of the major libraries here to subscribe, for it is clear to me that these volumes need to be held in research libraries, and will otherwise be very hard of access.  Anyone any ideas?

Share