Author: Roger Pearse

From my diary

Posted on by Roger Pearse

The Roman medical writer Galen (ca. 190) mentions Jews and Christians in 6 places in his works.  This afternoon I have been trying to compose a sensible web page on these passages.

The passages were collected (more or less) by R. Walzer in his monograph, Galen on Jews and Christians (Oxford, 1949).  But the book is so badly put together that it is very difficult indeed for the reader to determine what precisely he is looking at.  You have to flip to and fro in the book, merely to find out what the source is for whatever he is quoting.  It is a terribly incoherent book.

One example of carelessness that I observed is that for passages 1-5 he mentions whether the work of Galen is in De libris propriis, Galen’s own list of his own works.  For passage 6 he does not bother (although I find that it is).

He often uses out of date texts; he gives a Latin version of a passage in Bar Hebraeus, while ignoring Budge’s English translation.

He starts a discussion of the Arabic witnesses to passage 6 with the latest, and then plunges into a confused discussion of parallel sources.  He gives something from most of these, but apparently forgets to actually give the text of Ibn al-Qifti, for instance.

Eh, lad, it’s hard work!

But I’m getting there.  I’m gradually bringing some order into it all, and, when it’s done, it will be truly done.

Share

Du Perac’s 1575 picture of the ruins of the Septizodium

Posted on by Roger Pearse

I’ve posted before about the Septizodium (or Septizonium), an immense facade which ran across the front of the Palatine hill in Rome, in order to form a gateway for visitors coming up the Appian Way.  It’s all gone now, but parts of it still existed in Renaissance Rome, before being demolished for use as building materials.

Du Perac, in his collection of drawings of Rome in 1575, includes a picture of the remains of the Septizodium as he saw it.  Click on the image for a larger picture.

Septizonium, 1575 (Du Perac)

What makes his image useful is that he gives a panorama — we can see how the monument stood and looked, relative to the road outside the Palatine.  The Circus Maximus is to the left, while the road running right today leads up to the Colloseum.

I think all of us have walked down this road, from the Colloseum on our way to the Circus Maximus and the Baths of Caracalla, so the Septizodium would have been on our right.  I believe the modern pavement has a marking on it to show where it stood.

The image is from Gallica.bnf.fr.  I would hope that one day Du Perac’s book will appear online in a rather better quality image.

UPDATE: I had not realised that Du Perac also includes a view of the remains of the Septizodium from the side/rear, in a view of the Circus Maximus.  But he does!  Here  it is — the Septizodium is on the right of the Palatine.

Circus Maximus, Palatine and Septizodium (Du Perac, 1575)
Share

More images of the temple of the sun in Rome

Posted on by Roger Pearse

This collection of old photos includes this 1850 image of some large slabs of masonry from the temple in the Giardini Colonna:

Temple of the Sun, Rome. G. Caneva, 1850

On this site I find another drawing: “Il Tempio del Sole e il Palazzo del Quirinale, 1616.” by Aloisio Giovannoli:

Sadly the image is too small for me to even read the writing at the bottom. The view is looking towards the brand new Palazzo di Quirinale, completed in 1616.

A bunch of images of fragments from the temple, taken in 1910, are here.  None are especially interesting.

Share

Another image of the ruins of the Temple of Sol Invictus

Posted on by Roger Pearse

I was surfing around, trying to locate the “Colonna gardens” or “Giardino Colonna” when I stumbled across this site, and quickly found myself looking at yet another old engraving of the ruins of the temple.  But this page is actually dedicated to the monument, and includes photos of ancient brickwork from the area.

The towers on the front of the wall are medieval, part of the Colonna family fortress.

The image comes from Giuseppe Vasi, Delle Magnificenze di Roma Antica e Moderna, book 10, plate 193, ii (1761), reprinting an image from 1565 by Bernardo Gamucci.  Apparently the Vasi book does contain another view of the ruins.

The Rome Art Lover site is itself well worth exploring — a feast of materials and photographs, and not just from Rome.

Share

David Ulansey to bring out new book on Mithras?

Posted on by Roger Pearse

A little while ago I read and reviewed David Ulansey’s well-known  book on the Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries.  The book has remained in print for many years now.

On his website, there is an interesting announcement:

I am also currently finishing a new book for Oxford called The Other Christ: The Mysteries of Mithras and the Origins of Christianity.

I wonder what this is.  I have written to him, anyway, to enquire.

This year, as every year, we get the less pleasant kind of atheist going around the web jeering “Jesus is really Mithras! Har! Har”.  It happens less than it did, since some of us took to combatting it, but, besides being anti-social, it does Mithras studies no good at all.  We are unlikely to establish how it felt to be initiated into the cult, while we have our minds full of anachronism.

UPDATE: 2nd Jan. 2012 — In case anyone asks, I didn’t get a reply; but of course the email address may be out of date, or he may be away.

Share

More on Aurelian’s temple of the sun

Posted on by Roger Pearse

A commenter added some very useful links to my last post on this.  The following is another drawing (from here) of the ruins of the temple of Sol Invictus, as they were before 1704, in a drawing by Jan Goeree.  The top bit is uninteresting, but the portrait at the bottom is another matter.

The same commenter pointed out that Bill Thayer has an article online with much useful content about this edifice.  The article adds that it might, indeed, not be Aurelian’s temple at all, but rather a temple of Serapis.  Here is what it says about the ruins (over-paragraphed by me):

In the gardens of the Palazzo Colonna considerable remains of a great temple were standing in the sixteenth century, consisting principally of part of the cella wall of peperino and the north (right) corner of the façade and pediment. This was known as the Torre Mesa, Torre di Mecenate, and Frontispizio di Nerone; LR, fig. 166 from Du Pérac,º Vestigi, pl. 31 (1575).

Part of these ruins were removed at the end of the fifteenth century, and more between 1549 and 1555, but the final destruction of the Torre itself was not effected until about 1630 (LS III.203‑205, and earlier references there given).

Numerous drawings and plans of these ruins are extant, made by the architects and artists of the period, from Sangallo [2] (Barb. 63v., 65, 65v., 68v.) in the fifteenth century to Giovannoli (Ill. 47) and Donati in the early seventeenth century (for list see HJ 422, n79; LS loc. cit.; DuP 141);[3] the plans, however, by their differences in detail show that they have been arbitrarily filled in.

The building stood on the edge of the hill, on the west side of the present Via della Consulta, and extended due east and west, with a great flight of steps leading from the platform at the rear of the cella to the plain some 20 metres below.

This flight was curiously built, being divided into double narrow rows of steps on each side with a central space. The temple area was surrounded with a wall containing niches but not with the usual porticus. The cella was built of peperino lined with marble, and was surrounded by marble columns in front and on the sides. The shafts of these columns were 17.66, the capitals 2.47, and the entablature 4.83 metres in height.

The corner of the pediment now lying in the Colonna gardens is the largest architectural fragment in Rome, its dimensions being 3.70 by 2.80 by 3.90 metres, and its weight 100 tons.

[2] His plan is the only one that is trustworthy.
[3] Add Meded. Nederl. Hist. Inst. VII.1927, 89‑92.

Interesting to learn that a 100-ton corner of the pediment still exists.  Does anyone have a photograph?

The article above includes a great number of abbreviations, which makes it rather hard to look any of the items up.  What I’d like to see is some of the pictures and plans.

Du Perac is Etienne du Perac, Vestigi Dell’Antichita Di Roma, Rome, 1575, that much I can find.  It seems to be online at Gallica here, although the quality is very poor indeed.  But even from this I can see that Du Perac’s book must be stunning, if one could get a decent copy.  Here’s his picture:

(Du Perac also includes an image of the Septizonium!)

I found that Smith, Dictionary of Greek and Roman geography, vol. 2, p.830, also has an article on the Aurelian monument:

By those who assume it to have been on the Quirinal it is identified with the remains of a very large building, on the declivity of the hill, in the Colonna gardens, on which spot a large Mithraic stone was discovered with the inscription “Soli Invicto.” (Vignoli, de Columna Antoniniana, p 174). This position may be very well reconciled with all the accounts respecting the temple. Becker that it is mentioned in the Notitia in the 7th Region (Via Lata). But this Region adjoined the western side of the Quirinal and the temple of the Sun may have been recorded in it just as buildings on the declivity of the Aventine are enumerated in the 11th Region or Circus Maximus. In the Catalogus Imperatorum Vienn. (ii p 246 Ronc.) it is said of Aurelian, “Templum Solis Castra in Campo Agrippae dedicavit” and it will appear in the next section that the Campus Agrippae must have been situated under this part of the Quirinal. …

Vignoli is online here, and the item proves to be a tauroctony, 4 “palmos” high and 8 broad, found in the Colonna temple.

Does this really have anything to do with the temple?

But I’d still like to see a collection of all the images and floor plans of this monument!

Share

Ibn Abi Usaibia, “History of Physicians” now online

Posted on by Roger Pearse

I have finally completed the transcription of the 1954 English translation by Lothar Kopf of Ibn Abi Usaibia, History of Physicians.  It may be found here.

I have divided the file into three sections, chapters 1-5, 6-10 and 11-15 respectively.  I have also written an introduction.

All this material is public domain — use it as you will.

Share

Hunting for Ibn Abi Usaibia in Brockelmann

Posted on by Roger Pearse

I want to know some details about an Arabic writer.  I look in Brockelmann’s Geschichte der arabischen Literatur, right?

It’s not very easy.  My first port of call was the index.  But this is in a strange order, and also heavily abbreviated.  After a lot of effort, I gave up.

My next thought was to look in the table of contents in each volume for “medezin” and look at each section.  Luckily I already know when he lived — he died in 1270 AD — so all I have to do is find the right one.  A search in the first edition draws a blank.  Ditto one in the last section of the 2nd ed.  But the latter does refer to “b.a.Us.” under each medical writer.  That’s our boy, of course, heavily abbreviated.  So he must be here somewhere.

Eventually I find, on p.265 of vol. 1 of the 2nd ed., in what is evidently the first section dedicated to medical writers, that it starts with a few general works.  And “Ibn a. Usaibi`a” is the first of these, and — blessedly — “S. 325/6”, i.e. look at p.325-6.  It also gives the edition as by Muller, Konigsberg, 1884, which is wrong — it’s Cairo, 1882.

Except p.325-6 doesn’t contain our boy.  “S” must mean “Supplement”, then?  Nope.  Suppl. 1, p.325 contains nothing of the kind.  Or is it supplement 2?  Nope.

Is it possible, is it really possible… that this muppet means “page 325-6 of the first edition”?  And … yes he does!  Hallelujah!  And it’s in section “personalgeschichte”, which means that the corresponding section in the supplement and 2nd edition should now be findable.  And indeed, on p.397-8 of the 2nd edition, there’s more about Ibn Abi Usaibia.  There’s even the numeral “325” in the margin.

I hope that I am giving some impression of the despair that anyone in a hurry must feel, confronted with this mess.   How we need some Arabist — or group of Arabists! — to produce a usable handbook!

Share

Atheists in Santa Monica hijack nativity displays

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Atheists often complain that they are not a popular group, that they are misrepresented and so forth.  In Santa Monica they’ve managed to give a whole city a reason to hate their guts.  (h/t Mark Steyn).  This from the Daily Telegraph:

For more than six decades, religious groups have recreated life-size scenes   depicting the birth of Jesus, alongside statues of the Virgin Mary and the   three wise men, on the city’s cliff top promenade.

But this year the traditional tableau in Palisades Park was replaced with a   battleground on religion.

Instead of Jesus being rocked softy in a manger, passers-by were greeted with   images of Satan, Father Christmas  and Jesus with the strap line: “37 million Americans know a myth when   they see one… What myths do you see?”

Fifteen of the boxes were simply left empty with a security fence surrounding   them.

Councillors were forced to pool requests for the spaces in a lottery this year  after atheist groups objected to the traditional use of the displays.

By a quirk of fate, the atheists won 18 of the 21 available display areas. A   Jewish group won the other spots. …

Bobbie Kirkhart, of Atheists United, said their use of the boxes was  simply levelling the playing field.

“For many years, atheists were excluded from city-subsidised displays,” he said. “Now, finally, atheists have an equal chance. Christians who   believe their god is concerned about such things might take note of the extraordinary luck the atheist lottery winners have enjoyed.”

Yes, I’m sure we all know precisely how much luck is involved in “winning” 18 out of 21 display slots.  Kirkhart apparently was allocated 9 “slots” by the city.

The LA Times has more details.  It seems that the “slots” were really an organised display of the nativity scene, in 14 sections, from the annunciation, the manger, the flight into Egypt, and so forth.  The whole thing was put together by a united effort by local churches.

The same article features a selection of comments by various atheists:

Patrick Elliott, a lawyer for the Freedom From Religion Foundation, said tradition is no excuse for violating the boundaries between church and state. “Just because they’re long-standing doesn’t mean they’re right,” he said.

Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, said December is a busy time for the organization’s attorneys, who challenge the use of public spaces for religious messages.

“It’s littering — literally, littering — these spaces,” Gaylor said of such displays, which she said are a “territorial attempt by Christians to impose their beliefs in this season.”

“That creates an atmosphere of intimidation,” said Gaylor, who noted that the organization’s banner was destroyed by vandals after being hung in Palisades Park. “Christians are the insiders, and everyone else is an outsider.”

In Santa Monica, atheist Damon Vix called national organizations seeking help because he felt marginalized by the display, and tradition alone didn’t merit saving it. Vix, a 43-year-old prop maker from Burbank, said the display “defines Santa Monica as a Christian city, and I feel very excluded by that.”

Vix, apparently, is the other one whom the city officials considered was the best possible person to award nine slots to.

The Independent also covers the story, although I have yet to see the BBC mention it.  Nor have I yet seen an apology from the city of Santa Monica.

Mark Steyn comments dryly:

Perhaps Santa Monica should adopt a less-theocratic moniker and change its name to Satan Monica, as its interpretation of the separation of church and state seems to have evolved into expressions of public contempt for large numbers of the citizenry augmented by the traumatizing of their children. Boy, I can’t wait to see what those courageous atheists come up with for Ramadan.

I have a feeling that it will be a long, cold, hard winter before the city of Santa Monica listens to atheist groups ever again.

Share

Ibn Abi Usaibia update

Posted on by Roger Pearse

A day of misery.  I hate footnotes.  Particularly those which are positioned in some other place than the foot of each page of text.  If the notes were just a little less useful, and the work that I am scanning was accessible in any other way, then I probably wouldn’t bother.

UPDATE: 259 footnotes so far.  My bones hurt.

UPDATE:  Went out to get chocolate — the only answer.  But I get to note 274, and discover again the missing page in the footnotes.  This is not good news.  I’ve been numbering all the notes consecutively; with an unknown number of notes on the missing page, I can’t number (and so can’t link up) the remaining notes.  Oh sugar!  Nor do I really want to put this to one side, and pick it up in 6 weeks time.  I hope to be very busy at that time.  I shall have to consider.

UPDATE: OK, the answer is to split the book into three sections.  All the footnotes which involve the missing bit are in section 1 (chapters 1-5); the others have only incidental notes.  I’ve done this now, and indeed uploaded them.  What I need to do now is write a preface to the thing.  Since I know nothing about Ibn Abi Usaibia, this means reading Brockelmann.  I might defer this to tomorrow, tho.

Share