Author: Roger Pearse

Andrew of Caesarea, Commentary on Revelation online

Posted on by Roger Pearse

The tendency of PhD theses to appear online is something we must welcome.  One consequence is that we can sometimes find treasures.  One of these is a thesis by Eugenia Constantinou, containing a detailed study of the Commentary on Revelation by the 6th century author Andrew of Caesarea (in Cappadocia).  Studies, of course, are two a penny; but this one contains a translation of the text!  I’m not yet clear what text was translated; the work appears in Migne’s Patrologia Graeca vol. 106.

Apparently this is one of the earliest patristic commentaries on this book of the bible in the Greek East, and it formed the basis for later commentators.  You can find the PDF on the university website, here.

Share

Patristic witnesses to speaking in tongues

Posted on by Roger Pearse

I’ve had an email from Charles Sullivan, another patristic enthusiast, who has dedicated the last 20 years to going through Migne and locating every possible reference in the fathers to speaking in tongues.  He’s been translating them, and intends to publish A history of the gift of tongues, once he’s worked over all the texts. It was an email from him concerning Origen on 1 Corinthians that led me to look into this obscure text last week. 

I asked him how he went about his search.  The answer was interesting enough that I thought I would reproduce it:

This whole project began in the 1980s before the internet took off and before I had kids and needed to concentrate solely on making money for 20 years. During this time, I recreationally began to visually scan every page of MPG until volume 135, looking especially in the Latin text for key words. When I found some semblance of key words, I photocopied the pages to translate later. With Latin authors I haven’t been so detailed but I have used MPL and whatever other sources I can find. The resources in Latin are much easier to find and access than the Greek Fathers, so this part has not been much of a problem. Secondly, I went through them all, prioritizing and eliminating pages for translation. Third, because the internet was so young and flaky at the time, I built my own dictionary, grammar and bibliographical database in Filemaker to resource all my finds and keep up with everything.  I still use this. After these steps, I translate the pertinent passages.

My approach to translating is published on Scribd, 
http://www.scribd.com/doc/8484290/Translation-Tips-on-the-Greek-Church-Fathers

… I felt initially overwhelmed at the task of translating the Greek Church Fathers and understanding how MPG works. I don’t feel that way anymore, but it was painful. This was overcome in large part due to the help of Perseus, Google and many websites willing to publish manuscripts, texts and resources on the web. If these were not available, people like myself could not accomplish anything within this realm.

I am looking forward to the day when the open-source internet phenomenon, which has opened up the Jewish community and their ancient texts, will meander down into the vestibules of the Christian community.

The excellent translation tips I have remarked on before.  I also asked him who he was aiming his book at.  His reply was probably too modest:

It is for an academic audience who has a little, but not a great knowledge of Church Fathers and possess a good knowledge of the controversial Biblical texts. 

A 2,500 word or so summary will be available for free on the internet. The final book will be available for purchase on the ScribD website. I am not sure what to do with the print rights yet. Still too busy translating though I can feel that I am getting very close. Chrysostom and John of Damascus are the only big translations left for me to do. 

I think that there can be little doubt that Dr. Sullivan is a hero; someone who is doing something truly original, at a very serious level.  I particularly admire anyone who takes the PG, volume by volume, and works through it.

I hope that he will allow me to see a draft when it is ready.  It seems to me that we’re actually looking at a source book, or something like that, which deserves formal academic publication.  Comments on this, and also on any parallel work that’s been done, would be most welcome.

Share

A missing manuscript

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Another interesting post at Antiochepedia is worth repeating entirely:

The pool of original sources on Antioch is shallow to say the least. By a very roundabout hunt (for something else) I stumbled upon an 1866 article in a French journal (Bibliothèque de l’École des chartes) in which Leopold Delisle discusses a collection of manuscripts that Lord Ashburnham bought from a Mr Barrois. More sleuthing revealed that this collection was auctioned off in 1897 in a spectacular series of auctions. Amongst the documents that the author mentioned is one that caught my eye, seemingly a manuscript copied by the Benedictines. This document (numbered 6755) had the following subject matter in Delisle’s words:

1. Une partie du manuscrit a ete copie en 1267 (One part of the manuscript was copied in 1267)
2. Il y a des extraits de saint Bernard et de saint Augustin (extracts of St. Bernard and St. Augustine)
3. Il y a un traite de musique commencant par les mots (a musical treatise commencing with the words) Quoniam circa artem, et occupant neuf feuillets (and occupying 9 folios).
4. Un feuillet renferme au recto la description des environs de Jerusalem (Si quis ab occidentalibus), et au verso une court description d’Antioche (Haec urbs). Le feuillet suivants contient une liste des villes conquises en Espagne par Charlemagne. (A folio with a description of the environs of Jerusalem on the recto, and on the verso a short description of Antioch.  The following folios contain a list of cities in Spain conquered by Charlemagne)
5. Le traite de Methodius commence au verso d’un feuillet et occupe les quatre feuillets suivants. (The treatise of Methodius begins on the verso of a folio and occupies the next four folios).

The catalogue of Mr Barrois has an entry relating to the manuscript that says: 11. Descriptio nobilissime urbis Antiochie. Fol 61 verso. – ” Haec urbs Antiochia valde et pulcra et honorabilis”. So the description is short but might appear to be a pre-12th century description of the city.

Some sleuthing revealed a book called “Catalogue des manuscrits des fonds Libri et Barrois” in Google Books. This is in the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris. The catalogue describes 180 manuscripts. Concordances on . [264]-273 indicate the correspondence of their numbers in the Bibliothèque Nationale with those in the Fonds Libri and fonds Barrois at Ashburnham Place.

Fol. 61 v°. » Descriptio nobilissime urbis Antiochie “Нес urbs Antiochia valde est pulcra et honorabilis, quia intra muros ejus sunt quatuor montanee maxime et nimis alte… “

Its location would be an interesting addition to the pool of reports on the city. Now to find out where the manuscript went in the library auction so long ago…

The Delisle article here is Observations sur l’origine de plusieurs manuscrits de la collection de Mr Barrois, Bibliothèque de l’école des chartes 27 (1866) pp. 193-264.  I need to follow the trail myself and see where it leads. 

On p. 195, Delisle states that Barrois acquired at least 30 manuscripts stolen from the Royal Library (now the Bibliotheque Nationale Francais) around 1840.  His collection was sold to Lord Ashburnham around 1849.  Delisle lists on p.194-5 the various parts of the Ashburnham collection, and their catalogues.  The Barrois mss formed the second part of this collection.

On p.196, the first Barrois ms., Delisle states that “In 1848 the absence from the (French National) library was noted of ms. Latin 6755, which was described in the catalogue of 1744, and also in a catalogue of the Royal Library by the “Benedictines” (probably the Maurists) half a century earlier.  He prints both, and in each case they correspond to the catalogue above.  It looks as if the ms was cut up, and turned into three mss (doubtless for profit), and the portion of interest to us is Ms. Barrois 284.  The description is on f.61v of that ms (was on f. 88v of the BNF 6755).

(More when I’ve finished running the Acrobat OCR on the PDF’s)

The Barrois mss of the Ashburnham collection were apparently sold in 1901 at Sotheby, according to the New York Times.  This article lists buyers!  However it also says in the introduction: “Later Leopold Delisle proved that about one tenth of the manuscripts had been stolen from French libraries and thirteen years ago” — i.e. in 1888 —  “France reacquired them by purchase”.

So probably this ms. is again in the BNF, and should be listed in its catalogue.  The BNF catalogues are all digitised here.  But the catalogue for 6755 is merely the old one.  Apparently updates are in the Bibliothèque de l’Ecole des Chartes, which is in Gallica.  There is an entry in the 1888 volume, by Delisle, about the Barrois mss (p.41-46).  Delisle recounts the negotiations, and how he went to London and bought the manuscripts.  He states the intention to reconstitute, as far as possible, the original volumes from the mess left by Barrois.

Probably the answer is to email the BNF and ask about this ms.  A photograph of ms. latin 6755, fol 61v, will probably be the goods.

Isn’t it wonderful what we can now find online?!

Share

Antiochepedia

Posted on by Roger Pearse

I have several times referred to the excellent Antiochepedia blog, which post by post is exploring all that we know of that ancient city, which rivalled Alexandria and in which Christianity was established by the apostles.  To my astonishment it seems that I have never added a link to the sidebar, for there is none.

A recent entry discusses a festival, the Maiuma, and quotes Chrysostom (Homilies on Matthew, 7, ch. 7; slight updating of language):

But you [leave church and] go your way to the fountain of the devil, to see a harlot swim, and to endure shipwreck of the soul.

For that water is a sea of lasciviousness, not drowning bodies, but working shipwreck of souls. And while she swims naked, you, as you behold, are plunged into the depths of lust.

For such is the devil’s net. It doesn’t sink so much those who go down into the water itself, as those that sit above more …; and it chokes them more grievously than Pharaoh, who was of old sunk in the sea with his horses and his chariots. And if souls could but be seen, I could show you many floating on these waters, like the bodies of the Egyptians at that time.

For in the first place, through a whole night the devil takes over their souls with the expectation of it.  Then he shows them the expected object, and he has at once bound them and made them captives. 

Don’t suppose, because you didn’t couple with the harlot, that you are clean from the sin, because in the intention of your heart you did it all. If you were taken by lust, you kindled the flame up higher.  If you felt nothing at what you saw, you deserve a heavier charge still, for being a scandal to others, by encouraging them in these spectacles, and for polluting your own eye-sight, and together with your eye-sight, your soul.

However, not merely to find fault, come let us devise a mode of correction too. What then will the mode be? I would commit you to your own wives, that they may instruct you!

But if you’re ashamed to have a woman for your teacher, then flee from sin, and you’ll quickly be able to mount up to the throne which God has given you. But so long as you sin, the Scripture will send you not just to a woman, but even to things irrational, and those of the viler sort.   Yep, it is not ashamed to send you, who are honored with reason, as a disciple to the ant!

Plainly this is no charge against the Scripture, but against them that so betray their own nobility of race. So we will do the same, and for the present we will commit you to your wife. But if you despise her, we will send you away to the school of the animals, and will point out to you just how many birds, fishes, four-footed beasts, and creeping things are found more honorable, and chaster than you!

Ashamed? and blushing at the comparison? Then rise up to your own nobility and flee the sea of hell and the river of fire; I mean, the pool in the theatre …

An interesting patristic verdict on pornography, and very sound psychology on the effect of it.

Share

Typesetting and other evils

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Sooner or later I’m going to receive the final versions of the translations that I have commissioned of Eusebius Quaestiones and Origen’s Homilies on Ezekiel.  I want to sell some copies of these to libraries.  Firstly, that will get them into the hands of the academic constituency, who still turn their noses up at online resources.  Secondly it will give them a better chance of survival; websites can be ephemeral.  And thirdly, it should help recoup some of the costs — not a small issue, since I looked today at the total bill and it is not small.

I’ve never published a thing, so it’s all a bit new to me.  What I want is to use print-on-demand if possible, but not produce anything rubbish; the libraries will not want to buy rubbish, and all the purchasers will be able to evaluate, really, is the quality of book making.

So probably it should be hardback, a sewn binding, on good quality paper.  That says I ought to use traditional publishing, if I could find it.  But I don’t really want 50 or 100 copies on my floor, which points to print-on-demand and sites like Lulu.com and blurb.com.  Trouble is, the books these produce are not conspicuous for quality.

I certainly need to get it typeset, or look unbearably amateurish.  I don’t know anything about typesetting, or how one does this or gets it done.

Does anyone have any ideas?  Say it’s 100 pages, about the size of A5, a Loeb, or a Sources Chretiennes edition?

Share

British Library FoI: how much do they make from reproduction of mss images?

Posted on by Roger Pearse

I’m still trying to find out just how much money the British Library make from charging for the reproduction of manuscript items online. I raised an FoI request here, and got an answer for all items (not manuscripts alone).  Click the tag “British Library” to see all the posts on this.

I note that the British library charges a fee to websites that use digital images of pages from manuscripts from the BL collection.  Please would you let me know, for each of the past 5 years (either calendar or financial, whichever is more convenient):

How many requests were made for use of BL collection images of these items on third party websites?

How much income was received by the BL in consideration of the use of BL collection images of these items on third party websites?

The reply: 

The table below indicates the number of requests for rights to reproduce BL collection images of manuscript items, for which a charge was made, and the income derived from those transactions for the five years in question.

  2004/2005 2005 / 2006 2006 / 2007 2007 / 2008 2008 / 2009
Number 772 845 959 527 664
Income 138,277 GBP 121,162 GBP 105,592 GBP 95,175 GBP 122,578 GBP

These figures are interesting, but still don’t indicate what proportion of this was on websites, as opposed to in printed books (which I suspect make up most of it).  I’m not quite sure how to find this out, tho.

UPDATE: I queried this, and got back the reply that they don’t hold that information on their systems!  That is, they levy charges but have no idea how many people are paying them, or if anyone is.  How very, very British Library.

I wonder if I complain to the Information Commissioner, whether they will get told to “go and find out”.  If there are 600 a year, it would hardly be a great task to look through the lot.

Share

C.H.Turner on Origen’s Commentary on 1 Corinthians

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Editions of the fragments of Origen’s commentaries on Ephesians and 1 Corinthians were published from the catenas in early issues of the Journal of Theological Studies.  Unfortunately the editors chose not to include translations, thereby guaranteeing oblivion to their work.

In JTS 10 C. H. Turner commented on some of the newly published texts:

Certain it is that these commentaries [on Ephesians and 1 Corinthians] contain many interesting things which appear so far to have escaped the notice of Church historians.  A reference to the inconsistencies between the duty of a Christian and the duty of a soldier (on I Cor. v I I) has escaped even Harnack’s encyclopaedic knowledge of early Christian literature. The summary of the Eucharistic service as the ‘invocation of the name of God and of Christ and of the Holy Spirit over the elements (on I Cor. vii 5) is absent from Mr Brightman’s collection of liturgical passages from the Egyptian fathers. And I myself, when writing on Patristic commentaries on St Paul (in the supplementary volume to Hastings’s Dictionary of the Bible p. 489), ought to have cited Origen’s distinct allusions to a predecessor or predecessors in the exegesis of the same epistle: … (on I Cor. vii 24), … (on I Cor. ix 20).

Note further the information about Ophites (on xii 3), about Montanists (on xiv 34), about heretics who used the Creed (on xv 20), about parts of the Old Testament unsuitable for Church lessons (on xiv 7, 8), about a Pauline citation found in Aquila and the other interpreters but not in the LXX text (on xiv 21 ), about Apollos being bishop of Corinth (on xvi 12).

Any fragments of the original Greek of Origen’s work on the New Testament are worth all that we can devote to them of loving and patient study.

They do sound interesting, don’t they!  If I didn’t have so much on the go already, I might be tempted to commission a translation.

Share

Origen on 1 Corinthians

Posted on by Roger Pearse

My attention has been drawn to the remains of Origen’s Homilies on 1 Corinthians.  These are not in Migne, but appear in a number of volumes in the Journal of Theological Studies.  Manuel Crespo has kindly pointed out to me that there are a total of five articles published by Jenkins in the JTS, plus another by C.H.Turner:

  • ORIGEN-CITATIONS, THE, IN CRAMER’S CATENA ON I “Corinthians”; Jenkins, C., Rev. Journal of Theological Studies 6 (1905) p.113 (4 pages)  (JTS6 is online here).
  • ORIGEN ON I CORINTHIANS, Jenkins, C., Rev. Journal of Theological Studies 9 (1908) p.231 (17 pages)
  • ORIGEN ON I CORINTHIANS. Jenkins, C., Rev. Journal of Theological Studies 9 (1908) p.353 (20 pages)
  • ORIGEN ON I CORINTHIANS. Jenkins, C., Rev. Journal of Theological Studies 9 (1908) p.500 (15 pages) (JTS9 is online here).
  • ORIGEN ON I CORINTHIANS. IV. Jenkins, Claude, Rev. Journal of Theological Studies 10 (1909) p.29 (22 pages)
  • ORIGEN’S COMMENTARY ON I CORINTHIANS, NOTES ON THE TEXT OF. Turner, C. H., Journal of Theological Studies 10 (1909) p.270 (7 pages)

 Interesting indeed!  More when I have read through this material.

Context of all of this?  Well, 1 Corinthians is where Paul talks about speaking in tongues.  Wouldn’t it be interesting to know what Origen says about this?

Share

John Damascene: “On the Orthodox Faith”

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Juvenaly has written to tell me that he is producing a revised and improved version of John Damascene’s work “On the orthodox faith.”  About half of the work has been revised so far.  It can be found here. 

In the past he has been working on revising the dreadful English version of Cyril of Alexandria’s “Commentary on John”, but apparently this is on hold at the moment.  No wonder; the translation by Phillip Pusey is more like a ‘crib’, and the size of the work would daunt anyone.

He has also produced an updated version of the 1920 translation of the “Mystical Theology” of Dionysius the Areopagite, revising the language to make it intelligible in modern English.  It is here. 

Share

Is this the title page of Abu’l Makarem?

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Sometimes it is a pain not knowing Arabic, and this is one of those times.  Below is a page from a PDF which has reached me, containing a file named “abu.makarim_tarikh.i.pdf”.  The book is entirely in Arabic, in a directory labelled “Christian Arabic”, and has a picture of a Coptic bishop at the front.  It is 125 pages long.  So… what is it?

Some people will remember my interest in the Coptic-Arabic history of “Abu Salih”, or Abu’l Makarem as it turns out to be.  One portion was published with an English translation; another third has been published in Arabic; and a final chunk remains unpublished.  Is this PDF part of the Arabic portion, I wonder?

Can anyone tell me what the page says?  (Click on the image for the full size image).

Page from unknown PDF
Page from unknown PDF
Share