Author: Roger Pearse

A 1559 drawing of the column of Arcadius in Constantinople

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Constantinople stands in an earthquake zone.  The Roman columns, patterned on the column of Trajan, were hollow, with a stairwell inside.  This made them very vulnerable to earth movements.   The column of Arcadius is one of those that did not survive, despite attempts by the Ottoman government to reinforce it with iron bands.  The massive base and the bottom of the stair do still exist, jammed in between two modern dwellings.  But the column itself is gone.

However drawings do exist.  Today I came across one made in 1599 by Melchior Lorck, a Danish diplomat who was present in the city as part of a German delegation.  He used his time to make drawings of what he saw there.  These are online at Leiden.

One of his prospects of Constantinople – includes a depiction of the column of Arcadius.  I’ve excerpted the area around the column.

Wonderful to get a glimpse of the past.

Thirty lines of the “Physica” of Empedocles found in a Cairo papyrus

Posted on by Roger Pearse

The news this week, that thirty lines of the Physica (Φυσικά, On Nature) of Empedocles have been found in a papyrus held in Cairo, is exciting for everyone interested in ancient literature.

Not that most of us have ever heard of this Empedocles.  He was a pre-Socratic philosopher who was active around 444 BC, invented the idea of the four elements – earth, fire, water, air – and threw himself into the volcano at Mount Etna in order to prove that he had become a god; an experiment which he did not survive.  All his works are lost, but two of them, the Physica and the Katharmoi (On Ritual Purifications) are mentioned by Diogenes Laertius (book 8) as totalling 5,000 lines.

Here’s the opening of his Katharmoi:

Friends, who in the great town of the yellow Acragas dwell on the city’s heights, caring about good deeds, I greet you. You see me going about as a divine god, no longer a mortal, honoured amongst all, it seems, and wreathed in ribbons and verdant garlands. [Whenever] I arrive in prosperous towns I am revered by men and women. They follow me in their thousands, asking me where lies their road to advantage, some requesting oracles, while others have asked to hear a healing utterance for ailments of all kinds, long pierced by troublesome [pains].1

Some 200 quotations of his works are known.  A long extract from book one of the Physica is preserved in Simplicius in the sixth century AD, a thousand years after it was composed, but the work must have perished soon afterwards.  There is a report that Giovanni Aurispa had a copy of the Katharmoi in his library in Venice, but exciting reports of long-lost works in that period tend to have as their source Greek book-dealers intent on bait-and-switch sales of much less exciting books.

The story of the rediscovery is itself fascinating.

In 1904 the German archaeologist Otto Rubensohn bought a chunk of cartonnage – papyrus reused like paper mache for coffins etc – from a dealer in Cairo, which he described as follows:

A collar-shaped, stiff strip of papyrus serving as a support to (gilded) copper leaves; the whole object was designed as a wreath, probably a funerary wreath; and it had come quite possibly from a necropolis at Panopolis [Akhmim].

The thin copper leaves formed a funerary wreath attached to the front of a mummy, and the papyrus was its support.  The leaves were removed, probably by Rubensohn, and then the whole thing collapsed into a mass of fragments.

These fifty-two fragments ended up under glass at Strasbourg in 1905, with reference P.Strasb.gr.Inv.1665-1666, and there they stayed until 1992.  In that year or nearly so – the articles I have seen vary – Alain Martin identified them as 70+ lines of the Physica of Empedocles.  The reason that he was able to do this was because Simplicius quotes a big chunk from book 1 of the Physica, and 20 lines of that was in this papyrus.  In fact the papyrus revealed that the copy used by Simplicius was slightly corrupt.

The original roll was written, on one side only, at the end of the first century AD by a good clear scribe without punctuation or word division.  The verso is blank.  Note the letter Gamma before one line at the bottom of one column.  This is a line number for stichiometry, meaning “300”, showing that the roll was written in columns of 30 hexameters, and this was the tenth column. 2

P.Strasb. gr. Inv. 1665-1666, assembled from the fragments.

But this is not all. In 2021 Belgian papyrologist Nathan Carlig discovered a further fragment of the same roll, while cataloguing papyri at the Institut français d’archéologie orientale in Cairo.  The papyrus has the reference P.Fouad inv. 218.  The fragment measures 10.9 cm (about 4.25 inches) wide by 13.2 cm (just over 5 inches) high, and contains parts of around thirty lines.

P. Fouad. inv 128. Credit: Université de Liège / N.Carlig

More specifically, Dr C. tells us in a blog post that:

The right, left, and bottom of the papyrus are mutilated, so that the left column bears the end of thirteen verses, while the right column consists of the beginning of twenty.

and:

The recovered text introduces Empedocles’ theory of pores, describing how perception occurs when particles emitted by objects enter the sense organs through small holes corresponding to the particles form and size. We know from the surviving fragments and the testimony of Plato, Aristotle, Theophrastus, and others that this theory was a fundamental part of Empedocles doctrine, with which he explained many natural phenomena, including magnetism and vision.

The papyrus was published early this year.3

Marvellous stuff really!

  1. David Sedley, Lucretius and the Transformation of Greek Wisdom, CUP (1999), chapter 1.  Extract online here.[↩]
  2. Publication: A. Martin and O. Primavesi, L’Empédocle de Strasbourg (P. Strasb. Gr. Inv. 1665–1666). Introduction, Édition et Commentaire. With an English Summary. Strasbourg, Berlin and New York, NY, (1999).  Also includes translation.  These details mainly from: N. van der Ben, “The Strasbourg Papyrus of Empedocles: Some Preliminary Remarks”, in: Mnemosyne, Fourth Series, 52 (1999), pp. 525-544.  JSTOR. Also a useful Bryn Mawr review.[↩]
  3. Publication: Nathan Carlig, Alain Martin, Oliver Primavesi, L’Empédocle du Caire (P.Fouad inv. 218). Introduction, texte, commentaire. Brussels: Association Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth (2025). Series: Papyrologica Bruxellensia, 44. The press-release.[↩]

The “De Haeresibus” of John Damascene and his chapter 100/101 on Islam

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Among the works of John Damascene (ca. 675-749 AD) is his “De Haeresibus” (On Heresies), which has the reference number CPG8044.  Like the many patristic texts of this title, it consists of a catalogue of heresies up to his own time.  The earlier materials are copied from earlier writers; the later chapters are his own.  Chapters 1-80 are taken from the summaries that prefix the Panarion of Epiphanius.1  A longer recension also exists, with additional chapters by later writers.  The numbering of the chapters varies in the editions.

A critical edition of De Haeresibus appeared in 1981: B. Kotter, Die Schriften des Iohannes von Damaskos IV (PTS22), Berlin (1981), 19-69.   Prior to that the Greek text printed with parallel Latin translation in Migne PG 94, cols. 677-780 was used.  This is a reprint of the 1712 Lequien edition.

The chapter that has attracted most attention is that about the “heresy of the Ishmaelites”, i.e. Islam.    In Kotter’s edition this chapter is numbered 100 and found on pp.60-67.  In the old Patrologia Graeca edition it was numbered 101, and found on columns 763-774, followed by 102 and 103 (both on Iconoclasts) and an epilogue.

From the title of the work some have supposed that John considers Islam as a Christian heresy.  But the first 20 heresies described are pre-Christian beliefs including Judaism and Hellenism, which are described as the “the mothers and prototypes of all the heresies.” The term “heresy” here therefore simply signifies any non-Christian belief.2

The only English translation of the entire text of De Haeresibus seems to be that by F.H. Chase, which  appeared as Fathers of the Church 37 (1958).  This was based upon the Migne PG text.

The Chase translation of the chapter on Islam can be found online here.  Other translations of the Islam chapter exist, based on Migne, including J. W. Voorhis in Moslem World (October 1934) 391-398, and one by Kevin P. Edgecomb on the Biblicalia blog here.

A fresh translation appeared in 1972 from Daniel J. Sahas, who wrote a monograph on the Islam chapter.  Interestingly he suggested that Chase had relied “heavily” on the Latin translation in Migne, rather than the original Greek, resulting in “a few” mistakes.3

The critical edition by Kotter appeared in 1981, but we had to wait for a translation based upon it until 2016. Daniel J. Janosik, John of Damascus, First Apologist to the Muslims, Pickwick (2016), gives the Kotter text with a new parallel English translation from it on pp.260-268.4

The De Haeresibus was combined by John himself with two other works under the title of the  Fount of Knowledge, to form a summary of Christian teaching.  This compendium he dedicated to Cosmas, bishop of Maiuma, in 743, close to the end of his life.5.  There does not seem to be a CPG number for the compilation. The three works included in it circulated separately.  An English translation of the whole thing circulates online in PDF under the title “The Fount of Knowledge by Saint John Damascene”, with the note, “Derived from a Translation by Rev. G. N. Warwick of the The Patristic Society” (sic).  But this appears to be a retyped copy of the Chase translation – itself out of copyright in the USA – and the “Rev. G. N. Warwick” appears to be a fictional personage.6

There have been questions about whether the chapter is genuine, or composed by a later continuator.  The length and style of the chapter does support the idea that it is not an original part of De Haeresibus.  But arguments for a later date are no longer tenable, because the research of Kotter has located a ninth-century manuscript, plus extracts in an even earlier florilegium (MS. Moscow Synod. gr. 315) which he dated to between 750-850 AD.  So if it was not in fact written by John Damascene himself, it must be the work of a near-contemporary, and therefore still of value as a very early non-Muslim account of the origins of Islam.  In fact it predates any of the Muslim material in the Hadith.7 It discusses various surahs by Mohammed, including one which does not appear in the koran today.

The Islam chapter is brief, and I thought that it might be useful to give the Janosik translation, which is the only one made from the Kotter critical edition.

    *    *    *    *

There is also a coercive religion of the Ishmaelites which prevails at this time and deceives the people, being the forerunner of the Anti-Christ. It originates from Ishmael, who was brought forth from Hagar unto Abraham, and for this very reason they are called Hagarenes or Ishmaelites. They are also called Saracens from the word “Σάρρας κενοὺς” because of what was said by Hagar to the angel, “Sarah has sent me away empty.”

So then, these were idolaters and worshiped the morning star and Aphrodite, whom they also called in their language “Khabar,” which means “great.” Therefore, until the time of Heraclius, they were clearly idolaters, and from that time until now, a false prophet, called Mamed, sprung up among them; who, after conversing with an Arian monk concerning the Old and New Testament, fabricated his own heresy. And after ingratiating himself and gaining favor from the people under a false pretense of piety, he spread rumors that a book had been sent down to him from heaven by God. Thus, heretical pronouncements inscribed in his book and worthy of laughter, were instead handed down to them as something to be revered.

He says there is one God, creator of all things, who has neither been begotten nor has begotten. He also says that Christ was the Word of God and his Spirit, but only a creature and a servant, and that he was born without seed from Mary, the sister of Moses and Aaron. For, he says, the Word of God and the Spirit entered into Mary and she gave birth to Jesus, who was a prophet and servant of God. And he says that the Jews unlawfully wanted to crucify him, but after arresting him they only crucified his shadow; for, he says, the Christ was not crucified nor did he die, for God took him up to himself into heaven because he loved him. And this is what he says, that when Christ ascended into heaven, God questioned him, saying “O Jesus, did you say ‘I am the Son of God and God?’” And Jesus answered, saying, “Be merciful to me, Lord. You know that I did not say (that), nor am I too proud to be your servant. Errant men have written that I have made this declaration, but they are lying about me and they are the ones in error.” And, according to them, God answered him, saying, “I know that you did not say these words.”

There are many other absurd stories worthy of laughter recorded in this writing, which he insolently boasts descended upon him from God. But when we ask, “and who testified that God has given him a scripture? And who among the prophets has announced that such a prophet would rise up?” they are at a loss. We then relate to them how Moses received the law from God who appeared on Mt. Sinai in the sight of all the people in a cloud and fire and darkness and a whirlwind. We also relate to them that all the prophets, beginning with Moses and in succession, foretold the coming of Christ. They also said that Christ is God, and that as the Son of God he will come by taking on flesh, and that he will be crucified, and die, and rise again, and that he will be the judge of the living and the dead. We ask them, then, “how is it that your prophet did not come in this same way, with others witnessing about him? And how is it that God did not give him the scripture, of which you speak, while in your presence, as God gave the law to Moses on the smoking mountain while all the people were looking on, so that you may have assurance?” They reply that God does as he pleases. We tell them that we know this also. But, we ask, “In what manner was the writing revealed to your prophet?” They replied that while he was asleep the writing came down upon him. Then, in jest, we say to them that since he received the writing while sleeping and was not aware of the divine activity taking place, the popular proverb is fulfilled in him: [“you are spinning me dreams”].G

Again we ask, “How is it that when he commanded you in your scripture not to do or to receive anything without witnesses, you did not ask him ‘first show us through witness that you are a prophet, and that you have come from God, and which scriptures testify about you.’”Ashamed, they remain silent. “With good reason we say this, for you are not allowed to marry a woman without witnesses, nor to do business, nor to acquire (property)—you do not even allow one to receive a donkey or any beast unwitnessed. On the one hand, you take wives and possess property and donkeys and everything else through witnesses; yet, on the other hand, you accept your faith and your scriptures unwitnessed. For the one who has handed down this scripture to you has no verification from any source, nor is there any prior witness to him known. Furthermore, he received this while asleep!”

Moreover, they call us “ἑταιριαστάς” (Associators) because, they say, we introduce in addition to God a partner when we declare that Christ is the son of God and God. We say to them in response: “This is what the prophets and the Scriptures have delivered to us. You insist that you also accept the prophets. If, therefore, we are wrong in saying Christ is the son of God, then so too are those who have taught this and handed it down to us.” Some of them say that we have allegorized the prophets and added these things to what they have said, while others say that the Hebrews, out of hatred, have deceived us by writing those things as if they had been written by the prophets, so that we might be misled.

Again we say to them, “Since you also say that Christ is Word and Spirit of God, why do you accuse us of being “ἑταιριαστάς”(Associators)? For the Word and the Spirit are inseparable from the one in whom they exist by nature. Therefore, if the Word of God is in God, then it is evident that he is God as well. If, however, the Word is outside of God, then, according to you, God is without Word and Spirit. Consequently, by avoiding the association of a partner with God, you have mutilated him. It would be far better for you to say that he had a partner, rather than mutilate him and treat him like a stone, a piece of wood or some inanimate object. Thus, since you falsely call us “ἑταιριαστάς” (Associators), we will, in turn, call you “κόπτας” (Mutilators) of God.

They also accuse us of idolatry because they say we worship the cross which they despise. So we say to them, “Why, therefore, do you rub yourselves against the stone attached to your “Χαβαθὰν” (Ka’ba), and express your adoration for the stone by kissing it?

Some say that it is because Abraham had sexual relations with Hagar upon it, and others that he tied his camel to it when he was about to sacrifice Isaac. And we reply to them, “The Scripture says that the mountain was wooded and had trees from which Abraham cut wood and laid it upon Isaac for the sacrifice of a whole burnt offering, and he left the donkeys with the servants. Therefore, why talk nonsense, for in that place there is neither wood from a forest or passage for donkeys.” They are indeed ashamed; nevertheless, they assert that the stone is of Abraham. Then we respond, “Suppose that it is of Abraham, as you foolishly maintain. Are you not ashamed for kissing this thing just because Abraham had sexual relations with a woman upon it, or that he tied a camel to it? Yet you convict us of venerating the cross of Christ, through which the power of demons and the deception of the devil have been destroyed?” Moreover, this “stone,” about which they speak, is the head of Aphrodite, whom they used to worship, and whom they also called Kabar. Even today, traces of an engraved image are visible to careful observers.

This Mamed, as it has been related, composed many absurd stories and gave a title to each one. For example, there is the writing On Woman, in which he clearly makes legal provision for taking four wives as well as a thousand concubines, if one is able—as many as his hand can possess and support beyond the four wives. He also made it legal for one to divorce whomever he pleases, or, if he wishes, to take up another, for the following reason:

Mamed had a companion named Zayd. This man had a beautiful wife with whom Mamed fell in love. While they were sitting together, Mamed said, “Zayd, God has commanded me to take away your wife.” Zayd replied, “You are an apostle. Do as God has told you; take my wife.” Or rather, that we may tell it more precisely from the beginning, he said to him, “God has commanded me (to tell you) that you should divorce your wife.” And Zayd divorced her. After several days he said, “God has now commanded that I should also take her.” Then, after having taken her and committed adultery with her, he made up this law: “Let him who desires it, divorce his wife. But if he should desire to return to her after having divorced, let someone else (first) marry her. For it is not lawful to take her unless she has been married by another. Furthermore, even if a brother divorces her, let his brother marry her, if he is willing.” In this same scripture precepts are given such as: “Till the land which God has given you, and beautify it. And do this and in this manner”—not to say all the obscene things, as he did.

Again, there is the writing of the Camel of God. On this subject he says that there was a camel from God, and she drank a whole river and could not pass between two mountains due to inadequate space. There were people in that place, he says, and on one day they would drink the water, while the camel would drink it on the next. Moreover, by drinking the water she nourished them because she provided them with milk instead of water. However, since these men were wicked, he says, they rose up and killed the camel. However, she had an offspring, a small camel, which, he says, when the mother had been destroyed, cried out to God; and he took it to himself.

Then we say to them, Where was that camel from?” And they reply that it was from God. And we say, “Did any other camel couple with this one?” and they say, “No.” Therefore, we say, “How then was it begotten? For we see that your camel was without father, without mother, and without genealogy, and the one who begat suffered evil. Yet there appears neither the one who coupled (with the mother), nor (where) the small camel was taken up. According to you, your prophet spoke from God. Why, then, did he not learn where the camel grazed and who got milk from milking it? Was she destroyed one day by evil men, as her mother had been? Or did she enter into Paradise as your forerunner so that you might have the river of milk that you so foolishly talk about? For you say that three rivers flow for you in Paradise: of water, wine and milk. If the camel, your forerunner, is outside of Paradise, it is evident that either she is dried up from hunger and thirst, or others are enjoying her milk. In vain, then, your prophet insolently boasts of having conversed with God, for the mystery of the camel has not been revealed to him. But, on the other hand, if she is in Paradise, she will again drink up the water, and for lack of water you will dry up in the midst of the delights of Paradise. Even if you desire to drink wine from the river flowing by, since there is no water to mix with your wine, for the camel drank it all, you will become inflamed, overcome with drunkenness and fall asleep. And because your head is heavy with a drunken sleep and you are intoxicated by wine, you will miss out on the pleasures of Paradise. How is it, then, that your prophet did not think you might encounter these things in the Paradise of delights? Nor did he show any concern about where the camel now lives. But neither did you ask him (about the camel); instead, this dreamer was informing you about the three rivers. But we clearly profess to you that your wonderful camel has run before you into the souls of donkeys, where you also are destined to spend your life as beasts. But at that place are the outer darkness, eternal punishment, roaring fire, worms that never sleep, and the demons of Hell.

Mamed speaks again in the writing on The Table. He says that Christ requested a table from God and it was given to him. For God, he says, said to him, “I have given to you and to yours an incorruptible table.”

Furthermore, I think I will pass over the writing on The Cow as well as other sayings worthy only of laughter because of their number.

He legislated that they be circumcised, including their wives. He also gave a command not to keep the Sabbath and not to be baptized, as well as on the one hand, to eat what is forbidden in the law, and on the other hand, to abstain from other things that are permitted. He also absolutely prohibited the drinking of wine.

    *    *    *    *

Online controversies have started to reference this material, so I hope that this will help those who go searching for information.

  1. Note a in CPG entry; FOC37, p.xxix.[↩]
  2. See R. G. Hoyland, “Seeing Islam as Others Saw It”, Princeton (1997), pp.484-5; referencing D. J. Sahas, “John of Damascus on Islam. Revisited,” Abr-Nahrain 23 ( 1984-85), 104-18; pp.112-14. This is reprinted in his “Byzantium and Islam”, Brill (2022), chapter 18.[↩]
  3. Daniel J. Sahas, John of Damascus on Islam, Brill (1972); p.67; 132-143.[↩]
  4. ‘This critical text was the main source of the author’s translation, which was then compared with a French translation of the critical text, Le Coz, Jean Damascene, 210–27. Other pre-critical text translations were also consulted: Sahas, John of Damascus on Islam,, 132–41. Chase, St. John of Damascus: Writings, 153–60; Voorhis, “John of Damascus on the Moslem Heresy,” 391–98; and Edgecomb, “Biblicalia Blog.”’[↩]
  5. Janosik, p.90.[↩]
  6. A copy may be found here.[↩]
  7. Janosik, p.93.[↩]

Eusebius Gallicanus, Homily 12, De Pascha 1 – English translation

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Tomorrow is Easter Sunday, and as ever I celebrate Sunday by leaving the computer turned off.  At the moment I have a pile of Latin sermons before me; the homilies of Eusebius of Emesa, Eusebius of Alexandria and Eusebius Gallicanus before me.

I thought that we might celebrate Easter by translating a previously untranslated Easter homily into English.  A quick search reveals that “Eusebius Gallicanus” includes 12 Easter homilies, the first in two versions.  Here is a quick machine-translated version of the first of those.  It’s plainly just a fragment; but no matter.

1. Rejoice, O heaven, and be glad, O earth. This day has shone forth more brightly from the tomb than it ever gleamed from the sun. Let hell exult because it is broken; let it rejoice because it is visited; let it triumph because after long ages it has seen an unknown light and has drawn breath in the darkness of deep night.

O beautiful light, you who shone forth from the radiant summit of heaven, and amidst the purple streams have clothed those sitting in darkness and in the shadow of death with sudden brightness! Immediately the grating of stiff chains is loosed; the shattered bonds of the condemned have fallen; the torturers, their minds struck dumb, are astonished; at once the impious workshop trembled when it saw Christ in its very abodes.

2. “Who then,” they say, “is this terrible one, gleaming with snow-white splendour? Never has our Tartarus received such a one; never has the world vomited forth such a one into our caverns. This one is an invader, not a debtor; an exactor, not a sinner. We see a judge, not a suppliant: he comes to command, not to submit; to rescue, not to remain. Where now did the gatekeepers sleep while this warrior assailed our strongholds? If he were guilty, he would not be so proud; if any offenses darkened him, he would never scatter our Tartarus with his radiance. If he is God, why has he come? If a man, why has he presumed? If God, what is he doing in the tomb? If a man, why does he release captives? Has he perhaps made a pact with our author? Or has he attacked him and conquered him, and so crossed over into our realm? Surely he was dead, surely he was mocked. Our champion did not know what destruction this one would bring upon hell. That cross, which deceived our joys and gave birth to our losses—by wood we were enriched, by wood we are overthrown! That power, always dreaded by the peoples, perishes.”

“No living person has ever entered here; no one has ever terrified the executioners. Never in this dwelling, blinded as it is by perpetual darkness, has a pleasant light appeared. Has the sun perhaps departed from the world? But neither heaven nor the stars obey us, and yet hell is shining. We cannot defend the prison’s custody against him. We have been poorly invaded; we could not darken the light; moreover, we fear for our own destruction.”

The Latin, from CCSL 101, modifiied to restore the “v” and “j” so that it is more readable to normal people (!):

DE PASCHA, I

1. Exsulta caelum, et laetare terra. Dies iste amplius ex sepulcro radiavit, quam de sole refulsit. Ovet inferus quia resolutus est, gaudeat quia visitatus est, resultet quia ignotam lucem post saecula longa vidit et in profundae noctis caligine respiravit.

O pulchra lux quae de candido caeli fastigio promicasti, et inter fluenta purpurea sedentes in tenebris et umbra mortis subita claritate vestisti! Soluit confestim stridorem rigen­tium catenarum: dirupta cecidere vincula damnatorum, Attonitae mentis obstupuere tortores; simul impia officina contremuit, cum Christum in suis sedibus vidit.

2. “Quisnam” inquiunt “est iste terribilis et niveo splendore coruscus? Numquam noster talem excepit tartarus; numquam in nostra cavema talem evomuit mundus. Invasor iste, non debitor; exactor est, non peccator. Judicem videmus, non supplicem: venit iubere, non succumbere; eripere, non manere. Ubi iam janitores dormierunt, cum iste bellator claustra vexabat? Hic, si reus esset, superbus non esset; si eum aliqua delicta fuscarent, numquam nostros tartaros suo dissiparet fulgore. Si deus, ut quid venit? Si homo, quid praesumpsit? Si deus, quid in sepulcro facit? Si homo, qua­re captivos soluit? Numquidnam iste cum auctore nostro composuit? aut forte aggressus et ipsum vicit, et sic ad nos­tra regna transcendit? Certe mortuus erat, certe illusus erat. Proeliator noster nescivit quam hic stragem procuraret inferno. Crux illa fallens gaudia nostra, parturiens damna nostra; per lignum ditati sumus, per lignum evertimur! Perit potestas illa, semper populis formidata”.

“Nullus hic vivus intravit, nemo carnifices terruit. Numquam in hac habitatione et nigra semper caligine caecata, jucundum lumen apparuit. Aut forte sol de mundo migravit? Sed nec caelum nobis astraque parent*, et tamen inferus lucet. Defen­dere contra ipsum carceris nostri custodiam non valemus. Male intrati sumus, lumen obtenebrare nequiuimus, insuper et de nostro interitu formidamus”.

Happy Easter!

The Latin sermons of Eusebius of Emesa: excerpts from Buytaert’s introduction

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Yesterday I started to read the introduction to E.M. Buytaert, Eusèbe d’Émèse: discours conservés en latin : textes en partie inédits, tome premier: La collection de Troyes (discours 1-17), Louvan (1953).  After a bit I stopped and banged the French into Google Translate.  Here’s some bits.

First he gives a few words about Eusebius of Emesa himself:

Eusebius of Emesa was born around 300 AD in Edessa, Mesopotamia. His parents, wealthy Christians, introduced him to the Bible and Greek literature. Shortly after the Council of Nicaea, the young man left for Palestine; There he enriched his scriptural knowledge under the tutelage of Patrophilus of Scythopolis and Eusebius of Caesarea. Around 330, he arrived in Antioch, where he was admitted among the confidants of Patriarch Euphronius. The latter wished to incorporate the young scholar into his clergy, but Eusebius, seized by panic, fled to Alexandria, where he devoted himself to philosophical matters.

Returning to the Syrian metropolis under Euphronius’ successor around 335, he likely taught Holy Scripture and became a preacher. Having noticed his administrative qualities, the Eusebians chose him at the Council of the Encaenia (341) to replace Saint Athanasius, who had been deposed, and Pistos, the overly troublesome interloper. Eusebius declined the offer, but soon after accepted the see of Emesa, a Lebanese city now called Homs. His installation was not without difficulties: the Emesenians repeatedly accused him of supporting Sabellianism and dabbling in astrology. The following years are not well documented. Eusebius preached in Antioch, Beirut, and Jerusalem; he accompanied Emperor Constantius during the campaigns against the Persians; it cannot be proven that he attended any councils of the period.

By the spring of 359 at the latest, he had died and was buried in Antioch. Shortly after his death, his friend George of Laodicea wrote his encomium, which became the primary source for the Byzantine historians Socrates and Sozomen, to whom we owe most of our biographical details.

Now some context on the text.

To facilitate our discussion, it is helpful to list now the three principal collections which, in Latin patristics, have been associated with the name of Eusebius of Emesa.

1) The Gallican collection, commonly called the Pseudo-Eusebius of Emesa. The ten Homilies ad Monachos were the first to be published, as early as 1531; J. Gaigny, in 1547, increased the number of published pieces to 56, and A. Schott, in 1618, to 74. According to a more recent study by Dom G. Morin, the collection comprises 75 pieces: piece 39 is duplicate; then add two more Easter homilies, but remove two discourses that certainly belong to Maximus of Turin. Currently, it is believed that the collection contains a number of oratorical compositions by Faustus of Riez, but that the names of Caesarius of Arles and Eusebius of Emesa, put forward recently, must be definitively dismissed.

2) The collection of fourteen discourses, published by J. Sirmond, under the name of Eusebius of Caesarea, based on a Codex Herivaliensis and a manuscript that now belongs to the Bibliothèque Nationale de Paris, MS Latin 16837. Against Sirmond and many other authors, it is now established, we believe, that these discourses are the work, not of Eusebius of Caesarea, but of Eusebius of Emesa. It should be noted that this collection has also been preserved in manuscript 266 of Charleville.

3) The collection of seventeen short works, preserved in manuscript 523 of Troyes under the name of Eusebius of Emesa. His Discourses III and IV occupy the first and second positions in the previous collection brought to light by J. Sirmond. We will say a word later about the provenance of these seventeen discourses. [2].

It is the Troyes and Sirmond collections that we are publishing here. Of the twenty-nine discourses published, the seventeen in volume one give the complete Troyes collection, the twelve in volume two, the Sirmond collection, with the exception of his Discourses I and 2, which are identical to Discourses 3 and 4 of the Troyes collection and published with it.

Footnote 2 contains a useful warning:

At one time, Latin patristics knew yet another “Emesenian” collection.  A Dominican, who remained anonymous, edited 145 homilies under the title: Divi Eusebii episcopi EMISENI homiliae de Tempore et de Sanctis, Paris, 1554. In reality, this was the work of Bruno of Segni, which can be found in Marchesi, S. Brunonis Astensis Opera, Venice, 1651, or in the PL, vol. CLXIV-CLXV. See L’Heritage litt. d’Eusébe ad’Emése, p. 98.

Then Dr B. goes into a detailed description of the manuscripts from which he intends to edit the Latin text.  Most of this will be useful only to someone intending to do likewise, so this is just a summary:

Troyes, Bibliothèque de la ville, ms. 523. 11-12th century.  From Clairvaux, where it was MS M.40, and appears as such in the 1472 catalogue.  Transferred to Troyes with many other Clairvaux MSS at the Revolution.

Charleville, Bibliothèque de la ville, ms. 266.  2nd part of the 12th century.  Mutilated at the end.  Belonged to the Norbertine monastery of Belval, where it was MS. 421.  Transferred in 1795 with 82 other MSS of Belval to Charleville municipal library.  Folios 107r-160v contain the collection of homilies attributed in 1643 by Sirmond to Eusebius of Caesarea, in the same order as in the two MSS that Sirmond used.

Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, ms. arménien 110.  12th century.  A big heavy sermonary, in two columns.  On f.468r-469r are two pieces which are attributed “By St Eusebius, bishop”.  These are two fragments of the Troyes collection item 2, De filio.

London, British Library, ms. syriaque 676 (Add. 12,164).  6th century.  Contains a florilegium, which includes three extracts of the Sirmond collection no. 11.  Lemma is “Eusebii Emeseni, ex oratione De Fide” or “same”.

Also mentioned are BNF lat. 16837, a Syriac MS in Rome, and another Armenian MS in Venice.

In our blessed days, it is easier to consult manuscripts than ever, and especially French manuscripts, thanks to the IRHT and their ARCA site, https://arca.irht.cnrs.fr/.  The search engine on this is really useful.  Search for “Charleville 266” and that’s what you get.  You no longer have to guess for whatever fanciful title the locals may have given the town archives.

On the other hand the practical French identifications of yesterday – “Charleville, Bibliothèque de la ville” – are today replaced by bored locals with useless names such as “France, Charleville-Mézières, Voyelles Media Library”.

Charleville, Bibliothèque de la ville 266 is online.  There’s a digitised microfilm at https://arca.irht.cnrs.fr/ark:/63955/md97xk81jv2b, and also a few colour images.  But at the bottom, labelled “to do”, is “complete digital copy”.  You have to give it to the French, they’re really tackling the digitisation problem with determination.

Troyes 523 is much the same – a digitised microfilm and a few scattered images: https://arca.irht.cnrs.fr/ark:/63955/md77fq97930g.

I’ve not tried to hunt down the others.

From my diary

Posted on by Roger Pearse

I have long wanted to do something with the sermons of Eusebius of Emesa (d. ca. 360 AD).  These exist in an ancient Latin translation, which was published back in 1953 by E. M. Buytaert.1  But I never have, simply because I have never had access to it.  It’s a great publication, a solid piece of work: but you never see anything about it.  I suppose this is because nobody takes Eusebius of Emesa seriously.  He was a quiet, old-fashioned, scholarly figure, who left little mark on the Arian controversies.

Anyway, last week I weakened, and I ordered an actual physical copy of volume 1 brand-new from Peeters in Louvain.  It’s not really that expensive – about 30 euros, plus modest postage.

This morning I had to go out and drag something round the side of the house.  When I did so, I found, behind the garden gate, a parcel.  Oh no.  For it was gently raining.

The courier had not troubled to leave a note, and no electronic communications had taken place.  Indeed I didn’t even have a delivery date.

In my own future interests, I decided to complain to the courier company.  Their “help page” was plainly designed to wear-out and baffle, rather than help.  So I wrote to the CEO, telling him the story in a nice way, and asking if he could give the delivery driver a spanking.  This afternoon I got a very nice email back from the poor girl charged with fielding complaints, who evidently got a chuckle out of my phrasing.  Apparently it had been dropped off yesterday.

But first I brought it in, nervously, and unwrapped it.  Multiple layers of too-soft cardboard.  But thankfully Peeters had shrink-wrapped the book itself in plastic, inside the packaging.  It’s fine.

Amusingly this must be *modern* shrink-wrapping, because grimy finger-prints were visible underneath it on the paper cover!

The marks are actually less visible on the real thing – the camera deceives, as we all know.

I’ve not looked inside it yet for an unexpected reason.  You see, I bought this new.  But this is no modern reproduction.  This is clearly from the original print run.  Peeters must have a stack of volumes that has sat there ever since 1953, for the last 73* years.  And, being a product of a different time, the pages are uncut!

It’s rather a privilege to have it.  But I’m sure that Dr Buytaert would be less sentimental, and tell me to get on, cut the pages and read what he had to say.

* 73 years, not 23!

  1. E.M. Buytaert, Eusèbe d’Émèse: discours conservés en latin : textes en partie inédits, 2 vols, Louvain (1953).  Archive.org, vol. 1; vol. 2. (borrowable only)[↩]

Getting bogged down in Procopius of Gaza

Posted on by Roger Pearse

When I first encountered the Italian translation by Federica Ciccolella of the letters of the sixth century sophist Procopius of Gaza, it seemed to me that it would be useful to simply run this through Google Translate, plus some AI translator, combine the two, and get a rough English version.  It wouldn’t be an academic translation, but it ought to be useful enough to stir up interest in the text in the anglophone world.

Unfortunately I’ve gradually got more and more bogged down.  As I worked, I began to feel the need for the Greek text, which I therefore obtained; and also an AI translation of that for orientation purposes.  Comparing this to the Italian indicated that the Greek ought to be consulted rather often.   Gradually the scope widened from the original, limited objective.  Really, it would have been better to start with the Greek altogether.  Instead I find myself comparing this output with that output and, inevitably, being drawn to whatever version is clearer, better English, punchier.  Which is not at all necessarily what Procopius wrote.

Worse yet, the memory loss that goes with getting older means that I have repeatedly lost my place and lost track of what I have or have not done.  I now have a large directory full of drafts, at various stages, with no clear idea of what outputs each drew upon, or the extent of my own interventions.  Being distracted by family commitments, and obliged to stop work for a week or two at various points, has not helped at all.  I’ve burned much more time than I ever intended on this marginal task.

What to do?

I think that the original objective was undoubtedly correct, and it is my own enthusiasm that has led me astray.  I think that the best thing to do is to return to that, and just ignore the Greek materials wherever I have not already done some work with them.  Likewise to prefer the Google Translate to the AI.  After all, the output from this task does not pretend to be a translation: only something to aid the reader to work with the text.  It’s bound to be a hotch-potch, but still better than the big fat nothing that we have at the moment.  But it still makes me wince.

What I must learn from this is the importance of controlling the scope of what I do.  Also I need to realise that these days I may well lose track of things in a long project.  I need to document what each portion of the text actually is, as I go.  This was never a problem in the past, when I did real translations with a clearer focus; but I think my original approach, intending something quick, is the reason why I got into difficulties.

So for  good or ill, I will stop.  I will use whatever I have already worked up, in whatever state it is.  I will add the minimal footnotes that I intended to add.  And I will throw the result over the wall, with a note explaining what it is.  The result should still be helpful to an English reader with little or no Italian, trying to get to grips with Dr Ciccolella’s work.

But it is an uncomfortable feeling, knowing that the result is not what I intended, may contain AI errors, and at bottom is misconceived.  All the same, I cannot face discarding my work and starting again, so I will just have to live with it.  The alternative seems to be to simply abandon the project.

An interesting interview with a translator

Posted on by Roger Pearse

The following 2015 article, “Interview with Translator Abdul Aziz Suraqah,” contains some interesting insights.

I recently had the honour of interviewing Sidi Abdul Aziz Suraqah, an inspiring translator, editor and educator, currently based in Toronto (Canada), who has translated some of the best available Classical Islamic text out there from Arabic to English. Moreover, he is famously known for his fantastic website and blog: Ibriz Media….

Sidra: Please could you share a bit about yourself?

Abdul Aziz : My name is Abdul Aziz Suraqah. I was born and raised in Atlanta, Georgia. During the golden age of Hip Hop, when I was 14 years old, I was inspired by groups like Public Enemy and KRS One to read The Autobiography of Malcolm X. That led to an interest in Islam, and so after reading a translation of the Quran I embraced Islam, al-Hamdulillah.  A couple of years later I began to study Arabic and soon thereafter pursued further studies in Yemen, Mauritania, and Morocco. I currently teach at Dar al-Ma’rifah and Risalah Foundation here in Toronto, Canada. And since 2007 I’ve been translating Islamic texts full time. The name of my service is Ibriz Media. ….

Sidra: Is there anything you find particularly challenging in your writing?

Abdul Aziz : The most challenging thing in translating Islamic literature, for me at least, is maintaining a good intention and upholding adab in the entire process from beginning to end. It’s not always easy to translate these incredibly profound spiritual or theological works day in and day out—it’s hard to be “on” and in the moment with the texts every single day. When I experience constriction (qabd) or a mental block or setback, I’ll work on less intensive projects or even pull back for a day or two and double up when my energy returns. …

From a technical perspective, the biggest challenge is striking a balance between fidelity to the source language, i.e., the original words of the author, and readability in the target language. It’s incredibly challenging and there are several possibilities to choose from, so the first rule I try to observe is “Do no harm.”

Sidra: What are the most rewarding elements of translating a book?

Abdul Aziz : …

It’s also very touching to meet someone who says they benefitted from a book I’ve translated. Translation work is lonely and most translators don’t get to hear back from readers, so when we do hear that someone has enjoyed or benefitted from our work it makes all the efforts worthwhile, al-Hamdulillah. The best feedback I’ve received was from a friend who read The Drink of the People of Purity and saw the author Shaykh Muhammad al-Qandusi in a dream. Here is what he said:

I fell asleep reading The Drink of The People of Purity. As soon as I fell asleep, I found myself at Bab al-Futuh [a large cemetery in Fez, Morocco in which lie thousands of saints and scholars] in front of the Maqam of Sayyidna Abdul Aziz al-Dabbagh. At the Maqam, I found an old man sitting with his back resting on the outer left wall of the Maqam. I walked to the man and asked him to make du’a for my affairs. He raised his head and said, “What more is there to give you after my book?” I was puzzled and then I asked him, “Are you Shaykh Muhammad al-Qandusi?” The man replied with a very intense stare, “I am him but he is not I. He knows where I am.” I lowered my gaze and begged for du’a. He said, “Do not wait to drink until you are overcome with thirst. Drink! And always stay hydrated.” He then said “If you don’t know what I mean then ask my Translator.” After he said this, His Jalal [majesty] immediately turned into Jamal [beauty] with a radiant smile. I kissed his forehead and woke up.

Sidra: Can you give us some examples of a word or phrase that just doesn’t translate well?

Abdul Aziz : Let’s see. Taqwa comes up a lot and there doesn’t seem to be good translation of it that is accurate and a single word. You’ll see renderings such as Godfearingness (my preferred choice when it is not used in a different context), mindfulness (a nice sounding translation but still a bit opaque), God-consciousness, and even fear.

When translating Shaykh Yusuf al-Nabahani’s Wasa’il al-wusul (Muhammad: His Character and Beauty) I had to wrestle with an oft-used word pair, mudarat and mudahana. Mudarat is defined as “the sacrifice of a worldly interest in order to attain either a worldly or a religious benefit, or both together,” so after much mental wrangling I settled on the word sociability. The other word, mudahana, literally means lubricity (yeah, that’s a word). It is defined as “the sacrifice of one’s religion for the sake of attaining a worldly benefit.” (Bajuri) The late translator Muhtar Holland (Allah have mercy upon him) translated it is “fawning flattery.” That’s a sound translation, but after consultation with some teachers I decided to translate it as sycophancy.

In Arabic there are many phrases that are hard to turn around into English. Sometimes the original flow is lost in order to preserve the structure of the target language; but over the years translators develop a repertoire of maneuvers and turns of phrase that get them out of tight spots.

Sidra: Which book past or present, do you imagine was the most difficult to translate?

Abdul Aziz : No need to imagine that one! The most difficult translation by far was Shaykh Sa’id Foudah’s A Refined Explanation on the Sanusi Creed. That project cost me blood, sweat, and tears (the latter two literally!) It’s an intermediate text in classical Sunni-Ash’ari theology detailing the textual and rational proofs for the tenets of faith. What made the project so challenging was the footnotes, as Shaykh Sa’id was quoting from earlier theologians who are known to use a very tightly packed style of speech where detailed meanings are crammed into terse phrases. It’s no exaggeration to say that unpacking those into clear English was at times terrifying. This is theology after all; who wants to mistranslate something about belief in Allah and His Messengers and unknowingly mislead innocent readers? Ya Latif!

Sidra: How long does it take you to translate a book roughly? 

Abdul Aziz : It all depends on the nature of the book, the time period in which it was written, the size, etc. For a book in Arabic that is, say, 100 pages with average sized font, it can take anywhere from a month to two months to translate it provided it’s the only thing I’m working on. But that doesn’t factor in all of the behind-the-scenes work that goes into preparing a book for publication: self-edits, research, copy editing, typesetting, proofreading, etc. It usually takes 18 months or more for a book to get from A to Z and in bookstores, so when you see a translation made available at a bookstore or online, it was probably finished around two years ago.

There is more at the link, and all interesting.  This is not an academic translator, but someone doing this in the field.  “Abdul Aziz” is or was an American by birth, I should add.  His website, https://ibrizmedia.com/, is offline now, and it looks as if the domain has gone, but it is archived here.

The dream anecdote reminded me of an anecdote by Kevin Sylvan Guthrie, who translated various works of Proclus, including the Life by Marinus (online here):

This reissue of Proclus’ works came about in a strange, Providential way, Mr Emil Verch was a California miner, with no classical education, but with a deep desire to know the truth, and with abstemious impulses, and desire for knowledge of the Invisible.

One day, much to his surprise, he heard a great oration, in an unknown tongue, by a sage who appeared to him, and who was demonstrating geometrical and symbolic figures. After his great surprise was over, he insisted on knowing the sage’s name, and was told it was PROCLUS (this happened in a miner’s cabin in California’s mountain mining district, and later in the Delta Hotel in San Francisco).

As Mr Verch did not know anything about PROCLUS he went around asking about him, and ultimately, while working as engineer on a ship in New York Harbour, through the Marine Y.M.C.A, thanks to the enlightened liberality of Mr Beard who could appreciate mystic devotion even if in unfamiliar language, he came to me, and visited TEOCALLI, where I showed him what works of Proclus I happened to have, and a list of his works.

Till then I had neglected Proclus, being absorbed in Plotinus, Numenius, Pythagoras. Indeed, the ebbing of the forces of my life seemed to preclude any new interests; but Mr Verch’s insistence that I do something for PROCLUS led me to assent in principle. Encouraged by vague promises of assistance when I gave up my heart-breaking work at ALL SAINTS, during the 1924 Christmas vacation, I did my best to investigate anew a manifolding process, through which I have managed to get this much together, trusting to God to help.  [K.S.G.]

The parallel is not exact.  Indeed I fear that Guthrie may have been the victim of a prank by this Emil Verch, who amused himself at the expense of his victim.  But interesting to see people getting translators to do work for them by claiming a vision in a dream.

Back to Procopius of Gaza

Posted on by Roger Pearse

There are 174 letters of the 6th century sophist, Procopius of Gaza. I want to create a reasonably reliable translation for my own use, which I will put online in case anybody else would find it useful.  It won’t be of academic standard, but rather a tool.

I’ve been assembling materials for a while now.  I’ve got a Word document containing an electronic Greek text. This is made up of the text from the Garzya edition, and I’ve scanned the six extra letters to Megithius, which were discovered by Amato a decade ago.

I’ve also got the Italian translation, and I’ve got DeepSeek to create an AI translation of that.  I’ve also experimented a bit with Google Translate, and found that it is producing better translations of the Italian than DeepSeek.

I’ve got a PDF of the relevant volume of the Patrologia Graeca, which has a Latin translation in it.  But I don’t think this will be of great use, and I won’t try to create a Word document of it.

So I’m all set.

But a bit of self-knowledge comes in here.  174 letters is quite a lot.  In fact it’s overwhelming, and daunting.  Experience tells me that I need to give myself a reward every so often or I will drown.

The best way to do this is to divide it up into groups of 10 letters.  So I’ve created a “work” directory, and under that a directory “01”.  In that I have two files, one containing the Greek for letters 1-10, the other containing the English version of the Italian.  That’s a manageable amount.  If I tried, I could probably finish that up in a day, if I wasn’t otherwise engaged.  When I have done that chunk, I will extract the next ten letters, and so on.

Staring at two or three files and comparing them is tiring.  What I will need to do, for each letter, is interleave the sentences from each file.  So that’s a task still to do.

Forward!

A little web-archaeology of image files on the blog

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Earlier today I happened to notice that the images were not displaying on an old post.  A little investigation revealed others.  Eventually I installed a plugin to locate broken images, and got the results.

In some cases, WordPress had decided to change the how the link was handled.  The file was “somefile.JPG”, but the WordPress link was “somefile.jpg”.  This once worked; now it does not.  I dealt with this by renaming the file extension on my PC and uploading it to the server.

There were some images which had non-ascii characters in their file name.  Once these clearly worked.  But no longer.  I dealt with this by renaming as  before.

In some cases WordPress had decided, sometime, to add “-1” to the image name in the post.  Since it did not change the image file name, that broke the display.  I went through these posts and removed the “-1”.

And then there were the external images.  Links to websites now vanished.  I was able to retrieve most of these using Archive.org, and I stored them safely locally.

It was interesting to see an image from Chris Weimer’s blog, neonostalgia.com, the site on which I originally started to blog, under  the category of “Thoughts on Antiquity”.  The domain name has changed hands several times.  The author has disappeared from the web, engaged in the far better tasks of making a living and bringing up a family.  That might have been my destiny also, had a certain young lady thought differently about me, long ago.

It was interesting to find an image from J.B.Piggin’s site, also now gone.  He was the man who opened up the Vatican LIbrary, when he discovered the vast digitisation of manuscripts which was being obscured by the then wretched Vatican website.  His weekly updates of uploads brought that collection to the millions.

But worst of all, and unfixable, was one page on the 2012 discovery of a Mithraeum at Inveresk in Scotland: the Lewisvale Roman altars.  Unusually I linked all the images to the official site.  And… the site was first moved to another address, with a 301 redirect, but the images cunningly left on the old server.  That meant that Archive.org could not archive them.  Then both sites disappeared also.  Even the writer of the diary entries, conservator Pieta Greaves, had died, aged only 46.  So there is nothing to be done.

I occasionally think that I ought not to hold local copies of material, such as Mithras images.  Ah, if only I had done so!!

Anyway, the blog has been updated, and that particular issue is done.