I’ve just discovered a blog dedicated to Arabic Christianity, and patristics in general, Notes on Arab Orthodoxy. Great news!
I’ve been in Cambridge today, and struck gold in the Eusebius project, but I’ll blog about this later.
Thoughts on Antiquity, Patristics, putting things online, information access, and more
I’ve just discovered a blog dedicated to Arabic Christianity, and patristics in general, Notes on Arab Orthodoxy. Great news!
I’ve been in Cambridge today, and struck gold in the Eusebius project, but I’ll blog about this later.
Phil Snyder has posted the digest of patristics posts for the last month here.
The last known manuscript of Eusebius “Gospel questions” is mentioned by Latino Latini in a letter to Andreas Masius. The information about it begins “Sirleto wants you to know…” The quotation was printed by Angelo Mai when he first printed the remains of that work of Eusebius, reprinted by Migne, and so on. I’ve been trying to locate the letter in which Latini says this, without much luck.
But in a way, perhaps I am looking at the wrong end. Latini never saw the manuscript. His information came from Sirleto. Possibly it came by word of mouth, but equally there might be a letter somewhere from Sirleto to Latini — such letters do exist.
What I need to do, I think, is to find the correspondence of Sirleto. Do the papers of Latini contain the letters he received, I wonder? Pierre Petitmengin will know, so I ought to ask him. Have Sirleto’s letters been published?
I know nothing about Sirleto. In Petitmengin’s article I find mention of P. Paschini, Guglielmo Sirleto prima del cardinalato [1565] in Tre ricerche sulla storia della Chiesa nel Cinquecento, Rome, 1945, p. 153-281. There is an article on Sirleto, Guglielmo in the Biographisch-bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon, 10 (1995), c. 532-33. There is Denzler, Georg. Kardinal Guglielmo Sirleto : (1514 – 1585.) Leben u. Werk. Ein Beitrag z. nachtridentin. Reform. München : Hueber, 1964. I hate books in German.
Online there is an article in a curious Catholic Encyclopedia site (a site which puts page scans online and then meanly defaces them!), and in the Italian Wikipedia, which links to a site about cardinals in English with a Sirleto article with bibliography. Looking through the last, someone published stuff from Sirleto’s papers, and suggests that these are in the Vatican.
UPDATE: There is a Wikipedia article, spelling his name Gugliemo, and a real Catholic Encyclopedia site.
The classics and the fathers were rediscovered at the renaissance. Enthusiasts scampered up and down Europe searching for books, banging on the doors of abbeys in search of lost texts. They often met with hostility; the ignorant curators saw the interest only as a chance to charge for access, something not unknown to us in the age of digitising material. Once this first phase of copying was over, and texts like Tacitus and Quintillian began to circulate, first in manuscript copies, then in print, then progress consisted of emendation and improvement. In the 16th century this was the nature of scholarly work. Even so, they knew of material now vanished. Latinus Latinius, or more properly Latino Latini, was a scholar of this period. I have been reading an article on him by Pierre Petitmengin 1 for the last few days, from which these notes are taken.
Latini was a self-effacing man. He published only short items under his own name in his life-time, of the kind that would today be published in journals. His name does not appear on his most important work, the Roman edition of the works of St. Cyprian. But his name appears here and there in other scholarly output of the day, always indicating a formidable scholar. The Pamelius edition contains his conjectures; he wrote a piece on the obelisks of Rome which attracted a long reply. His critical observations circulated widely among scholars in manuscript via letters. They display a wide range of interests; words found in Galen or whether St. Ambrose was consecrated bishop of Milan in the life time of Auxentius.
He did not come from money. His parents were middle-class, although educated, and he had to live by his skills as a master of Ciceronian Latin, holding the post of secretary ab epistulis for a series of cardinals. The death of the first of these in 1563 was a crisis; “I have had to abandon working on Cyprian, leaving it only partly corrected, and also my other studies.” The next two patrons each died after a year. He then entered the employment of Marcantonio Colonna. The cardinal allowed him free lodging at a little house in the Via Lata, near his palace, and tranquility returned. He was to remain there for more than 20 years, from 1572 until his death.
He travelled little. His obligation to his employer obliged him to go with him to Bologna in 1565, where he found manuscripts and scholars; and to Salerno in 1573, where he found neither, and where even the bread was poor and expensive and the wine less good than Rome. Otherwise his life was externally quiet and uneventful. From the age of 70 he was obliged to stay at home – often in bed – because of poor health. In 1575 he went for months without visiting St. Peter’s; a visit to the Vatican Library became an event worthy of notice in a letter. He never sought out the Great and the Good, preferring freedom to the waste of time and energy necessarily involved in dancing attendance on these in hopes of obtaining something. But in the end this solitary life came to press on him. He writes that he had become bored, especially once his failing sight deprived him of his favourite past-time, the reading and correction of copies of Latin and Italian poets, and writing to friends. It deprived him of the salt of his existence, the “gentle company of good and learned men” (virorum optimorumque suavissima consuetudine frui), as he wrote to one of them.
The first time we encounter him in a circle of scholars is in the preface to the editio princeps (published in 1555) of the Library of Apollodorus, that 2nd century handbook of classical mythology. His foremost colleage was Guglielmo Sirleto, who was to abandon Chrysoloras and take up the study of the Greek fathers, and end by becoming a cardinal and the librarian of the Vatican library. Other colleagues were not always so fortunate; one died in prison, another in the pontifical galleys. Another associate was the orientalist Andreas Masius, to whom he addressed many letters. Yet another was the wealthy bibliophile, Fulvio Orsini, whose collection of manuscripts and rare books entered the Vatican en bloc after his death. This circle of classical-minded people did not survive the changes made in Rome by Paul IV and Pius IV and the beginning of the Counter-Reformation.
Latini corresponded widely, although never with protestants. He was happiest in the middle of doing a number of things. In Rome he became something of an institution, visited by learned foreigners. Claude Dupuy (Puteanus) visited in 1586. Less welcome was a German Jesuit who sought to embroil him in a crusade against protestant scholarship, addressing him with titles which Latini felt were undeserved and inappropriate. During this time he was engaged on a long and tedious task, revising the Decretal of Gratian, which finally appeared in 1582. Gradually a new circle of scholars gathered around him, mostly of a younger generation. The future cardinal Baronius, the biblical scholar Antonio Agellio, and Bandini, who was to catalogue the Vatican collection.
A scholar of this period did not have the advantages of a modern scholar. Latini sought to build a library that would allow him to work, of the kind that those working in very specialised areas must still build for themselves. His ambition was to own a copy of every work by every ancient author. His collection became known, with that of Orsini, as one of the most complete in Rome. Not rich, he had to buy or beg books, for instance writing to a friend on hearing that a German Jesuit had translated the Commentary on Luke of Titus of Bostra, although the book is not among his collection today. When a long-desired book arrived at the little house, it would be something of an event. Latini would read it carefully, and write a little review which would be attached at the top of the book, on its merits or demerits. For authors where he had more than one copy, one would form his working copy, and all the notes on that author would appear in that copy. These volumes, filled with Latini’s acute observations, became treasures. Cardinal Sirleto considered his bible, the companion of his whole scholarly life, the apple of his eye and even mentioned it in his will. Latini was particularly attached to his Gelenius edition of Tertullian (1550) which he never stopped using from 1554 until he died. The majority of his books are still in the collection in Viterbo.
One that is not is a 1535 Aldine Lactantius and Tertullian which wandered as far as Paris. Latini collated the Apologeticum of Tertullian with two manuscripts from Bologna. He used siglum L for one in litteris Longobardicis, A for the other, V for the consensus of both. The mss still exist, so Latini’s work is only of historical interest. But he did the same for the codex Veronensis of Cyprian, very ancient and now lost, which makes his collation one of the most important textual witnesses for the letters of Cyprian. Another feature of his work is the careful cross-referencing. He read and reread all the authors in his library, and down the years would link related material as the works gradually became part of his mind and memory.
In so many ways he was a modern figure. The frequency and content of his Italian correspondance reminds us of modern emails. His scholarly care shows what 19th century scholarship was to become. But like ourselves he had to live in a world in which political interference in what could be said and written was on the increase. I will write another post on Latini and the Index expurgatorius.
He left his library to his home town, Viterbo, where it rests today, his working copies heavy with careful, erudite observations, mostly unpublished. Interest in him disappeared after the 17th century, after the death of canon Domenico Macri (1604-1672), who published two collections of his letters and assembled a selection of the scholarly notes in Latini’s books. While Viterbo has named a road after him, his books remain in boxes in a chapel of San Lorenzo, awaiting the reopening of the Archivio Capitolare.
1. Pierre Petitmengin, Latino Latini (1513-1593): Une longue vie au service des Peres de l’eglise. in Humanisme et Eglise en Italie et en France meridionale (xve siecle – milieu du xvie siecle), ed. Patrick Gilli, Rome (2004), pp. 381-407.
If I buy an image of a page of a manuscript from the BL, I can’t put it here without paying the BL some huge fee a year. So of course I don’t. So I don’t commission the photograph either.
Imagine if it cost nothing. Wouldn’t we all tend to use these images? Wouldn’t we all buy more images? We would, wouldn’t we?
So all this access is being stifled. Well, I wondered how much the BL make from this. After all, if they don’t make any money, they shouldn’t be doing it.
I’ve just placed a Freedom of Information request here. Let’s see what they made over the last five years. How many licenses they sold.
I bet it’s very few.
I have just discovered a website that allows UK citizens to make Freedom of Information requests. Apparently it’s being used to query why the National Portrait Gallery is picking a fight with Wikipedia. Useful to know, however. I wonder if there are interesting questions that might be asked of the British Library and its high-price low-quality policy on manuscript reproductions.
But I have just stumbled on the result of one, addressed to the National Portrait Gallery (also posted here). It’s about the way they stop people using images, so they can charge for licenses.
2008/9 235 licences granted
2007/8 413 licences granted
2006/7 295 licences granted
2005/6 est. 205 licences granted
2004/5 est. 305 licences granted2008/9 £11,291
2007/8 £18,812
2006/7 £16,573
2005/6 £10,021
2004/5 £14,915The Gallery has not calculated the cost of specifically administering the online rights programme exclusive of other Picture Library activities and therefore it does not hold the information you have requested.
Imagine if they said “do what you like.” The images would be freely available online and used wherever you like. The lost revenue would be… £10k a year.
So they have prevented us all from using the images on our websites (not that I particularly want to, but in general); in order to make a gross sum of ca. £10k a year. And they claim they have no idea whether they even cover costs!
Precious, precious information this.
Ninth century Byzantine chronicler Theophanes is the earliest Greek source to give a biography of Mohammed, or so I have been told. I referenced yesterday the relevant pages in the Bonn edition. But an English translation does exist, made by minor sci-fi author Harry Turtledove, although this only starts in 602 AD. This was published in 1982 so will be offline and in copyright long after I am dead, which is a pity.
Every time I find myself having to seek out an offline source, it’s a pain. I’ll only want the book for five minutes; but to get it will involved a lot of labour and time, or some money. This can’t be an unusual experience, and indicates why academic offline publishing must be doomed. It so pointless.
Another translation was made by Cyril Mango for Oxford University Press, in 1997, which starts in 284AD. It translated the De Boor text, and calls the Turtledove version “highly inaccurate” — pretty steep language. Apparently it look Mango 15 years to do. Yet the Turtledove translation is still being sold. I wonder how many copies it sells? Would the publisher sell the copyright? How much for?
I find that I have access to a DJVU version of Mango, and — bless them — that Abbyy Finereader will open it so I can scan the portion about Mohammed (on page 464). The chunk is not that long. In the meantime I’m reading Mango’s introduction.
Theophanes Confessor (d. 822) uses and continues the better known chronicle of George Syncellus. He was aristocratic in manner, addicted to sport when young, handsome and even portly in appearance. He was easy-going, a generous host, and even as a monk was not averse to taking the waters at a fashionable spa. He does not seem to have travelled much, staying in the Constantinople-Bithynia area. He openly says that he did not have a proper education, and learned his work as a scribe as part of his monastic obligation.
Where Theophanes’ chronicle differs from many is that he had access to a Syro-Palestinian source which informed him about Eastern events. He thus includes the Moslem rulers in his lists. No other Byzantine chronicler was so well equipped, nor so interested in this material, which Theophanes uses extensively. Like George Syncellus, he uses the Anno Mundi chronology and his work is a descendant of that of Eusebius of Caesarea; indeed the last such.
I will add Theophanes on Mohammed here when my OCR job finishes!
UPDATE: Here it is, translated by Cyril Mango:
[333] In this year died Mouamed, the leader and false prophet of the Saracens, after appointing his kinsman Aboubacharos (to his chieftainship).[1] At the same time his repute spread abroad) and everyone was frightened. At the beginning of his advent the misguided Jews thought he was the Messiah who is awaited by them, so that some of their leaders joined him and accepted his religion while forsaking that of Moses, who saw God. Those who did so were ten in number, and they remained with him until his murder.[2] But when they saw him eating camel meat, they realized that he was not the one they thought him to be, and were at a loss what to do; being afraid to abjure his religion, those wretched men taught him illicit things directed against us, Christians, and remained with him.
I consider it necessary to give an account of this man’s origin. He was descended from a very widespread tribe, that of Ishmael, son of Abraham; for Nizaros, descendant of Ishmael, is recognized as the father of them all. He begot two sons, Moudaros and Rabias. Moudaros begot Kourasos, Kaisos, Themimes, Asados, and others unknown.[3] All of them dwelt in the Midianite desert and kept cattle, themselves living in tents. There are also those farther away who are not of their tribe, but of that of lektan, the so-called Amanites, that is Homerites. And some of them traded on their camels. Being destitute and an orphan, the aforesaid Mouamed decided to enter the service of a rich woman who was a relative of his, called Chadiga, as a hired worker [334] with a view to trading by camel in Egypt and Palestine. Little by little he became bolder and ingratiated himself with that woman, who was a widow, took her as a wife, and gained possession of her camels and her substance. Whenever he came to Palestine he consorted with Jews and Christians and sought from them certain scriptural matters. He was also afflicted with epilepsy. When his wife became aware of this, she was greatly distressed, inasmuch as she, a noblewoman, had married a man such as he, who was not only poor, but also an epileptic. He tried deceitfully to placate her by saying, ‘I keep seeing a vision of a certain angel called Gabriel, and being unable to bear his sight, I faint and fall down.’ Now, she had a certain monk [4] living there, a friend of hers (who had been exiled for his depraved doctrine), and she related everything to him, including the angel’s name. Wishing to satisfy her, he said to her, ‘He has spoken the truth, for this is the angel who is sent to all the prophets.’ When she had heard the words of the false monk, she was the first to believe in Mouamed and proclaimed to other women of her tribe that he was a prophet. Thus, the report spread from women to men, and first to Aboubacharos, whom he left as his successor. This heresy prevailed in the region of Ethribos, in the last resort by war: at first secretly, for ten years, and by war another ten, and openly nine.[5] He taught his subjects that he who kills an enemy or is killed by an enemy goes to Paradise; and he said that this paradise was one of carnal eating and drinking and intercourse with women, and had a river of wine, honey, and milk, and that the women were not like the ones down here, but different ones, and that the intercourse was long-lasting and the pleasure continuous; and other things full of profligacy and stupidity; also that men should feel sympathy for one another and help those who are wronged.
[1] Muhammad died in 632.
[2] … Muhammad, of course, was not murdered. Besides, the sequence of thought appears to require something like ‘until they had seen him taking food’. The reading phaghs is not appropriate unless it can mean the act of eating rather than ‘food’, the latter given by Du Cange, Gloss., s.vv. phage, phagh. Dr R. Hoyland has drawn our attention to Chr. 819, 7, which says of Muhammad, primus fecit sacrificium, et comedendum imposuit Arabibus, praeter eorum morem. The eating of camel is forbidden in Deut. 14: 7. The story of the rabbis, of whom only two embraced Islam sincerely, whereas the others pretended to do so, is found in the Sira of Ibn Ishaq (d. 768), trans. A. Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad (London, 1955), 239 ff., 246 ff.
[3] These names correspond to Nizar, Mudar, Rabi`a, Quraish, Qais, Tamim, and Asad. Discussion by L. I. Conrad, ByzF 15 (1990), 11 ff. Longer genealogy in Chr. 1234, 187-8. …
[4] … The legend of a Christian monk, variously called Sergius, Bahlra, or Nastur, who was either the teacher of Muhammad or recognized him as a prophet, enjoyed a wide currency. See S. Gero in Syrie colloque, 47-58.
[5] The durations given here, although presumably derived from an Arab source, do not agree with the Muslim tradition. See L. I. Conrad, ByzF 15 (1990), 18 ff.
I knew that a collection of sources did exist online somewhere. It seems that Peter Kirby, back in 2003, produced one and it is here. It is excerpted from Robert G. Hoyland, Seeing Islam as Others Saw It: A Survey and Evaluation of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam. (1997) Nearly all of it is about the Islamic invasions, as might be expected.
The De Boor edition of Theophanes is online at Google Books, although as it comes from a UK library, UK people are not allowed to view it (!). But I’ve been looking at the Bonn edition, which comes with Latin translation and so easier to thumb through. P. 503 is the first mention of Mohammed, in a list of lengths of reigns (plainly derived from some of the tables of years that we find in Eusebius, and Jacob of Edessa):
Of the Arabs, leader Muamed for nine years.
Paging down, I look for more. The same appears on p. 504 and 506! On p.511 (AD 622) it begins seriously:
Hoc anno Muamed Saracenorum dux et pseudopropheta, Abubachr cognato suo successore designato, mortuus est, ex quo omnes estimare.
In this year Muamed, general of the Saracens and false-prophet, having designated Abu-Bakr as his successor, died, as everyone calculates.
He then says that the Jews went over to Mohammed, believing him to be the expected Messiah. Then the story of Mohammed and his teaching runs on to p.514.
Anyone fancy translating the Greek?