More images of then-surviving Roman monuments from “Speculum Romanae Magnificentiae” by A. Lafrery (1593)

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Following my post yesterday, Ste Trombetti has found that the prints by Lafrerie / Lafrery are to be located in the Speculum Romanae Magnificentiae (1593).  Happily this is online in high resolution, and downloadable in PDF form, at the UB in Heidelberg here (and the page shows all the pix in thumbnail too – a very well organised site).

This means that, for the first time, we can get some decent resolution images of some of the monuments.  Some of these we have seen before, in squinny little images defaced with bumptious watermarks, but here we have the full size images.  (Click on the pictures below to get these).

First up on tafel 116 is the Seven Churches of Rome and the Old St Peter’s (1575).  This is stylised, and the surroundings of each church are incorrect; but the depiction of the basilica itself is spot-on!

lafrery_000g_Tafel_116_7_churches

lafrery_000g_Tafel_116_7_churches_inset

Note the steps, the atrium behind it – interesting that Raphael omits the section with three arches leading into it, as being a later addition – then the  nave, with the hulk of the new basilica at the far end, and on the left the Vatican rotunda, the 3rd century tomb being used as the chapel of S. Andreas.  To the right of the church, as today, is the papal palace.

Also included by Lafrery is the picture of Old St. Peter’s (1581-86) by Claudio Duchetti & Ambrogio Brambilla, tafel 115:

lafrery_000g_Tafel_115_old_s_petersNote the pope in the Loggia, blessing the sea of people!

Next on plate 27 is the now vanished Septizonium, drawn by C. Duchetti & A. Brambilla:

Lafrery_000g_Tafel_027_septizonium

Pretty marvellous!  Our thanks to the UB in Heidelberg for making all this material accessible; and in a manner which means that we can actually study it, for once!

Share

Some more images of Old St Peter’s basilica in Rome

Posted on by Roger Pearse

This evening I did a Google Images search for images of Old St Peter’s basilica in Rome.  I’ve put some of these online before; but it’s always worth searching again, as new material appears all the time.

Note that you can click on these images to get a larger picture sometimes.

Via this site I learn of the existence of a map of Rome by Etienne du Perac (1577); curiously not from the text, but by inspecting the HTML source for the page!  Here’s a detail of it, highlighting the fountain that stood in the atrium:

pianta di Roma di Etienne Du Perac (1577), particolare del Vaticano.
Pianta di Roma di Etienne Du Perac (1577), particolare del Vaticano.

The same site also has a drawing of the fountain from somewhere, made anonymously ca. 1525.  One would like to know where this clearly well-informed website got its information!

La fontana di San Pietro, in un disegno a penna di anonimo del 1525 c.ca.
La fontana di San Pietro, in un disegno
a penna di anonimo del 1525 c.ca.

The huge brass pine-cone still stands in a courtyard in the Vatican, as those who have done the tour well know.  I wonder whether the item has any connection with the cult of Cybele, for a Phrygianum once stood somewhere on the hill, as the 4th century regionary catalogues indicate, and a bunch of 4th century inscriptions from it were dug up near the piazza outside new St. Peter’s.

Next let’s have a drawing of the construction of new St Peter’s.  The remains of the old nave stand to the left here, for this is a shot of the hulk of the new basilica from the north side.  The author is Martin van Heemskerk, in 1536.

Van Heemskerk, Construction of basilica, 1536.
Van Heemskerk, Construction of basilica, 1536.

Now another drawing (caution – the site plays audio at you!), this time showing the construction from the west.  The pointy tower on the front of the old basilica still stands, with some of the nave behind it.  But to the right is a circular building; the chapel of San Andreas, or “Vatican Rotunda”, a 3rd century tomb converted into a chapel.  And is the tip of the Vatican obelisk just visible beyond it?

Costruzione-San-Pietro-630x300

Now here’s another overview shot.  This, I learn from Anna Blennow – thank you! – is a detail from Antonio Lafreri’s image of the seven churches of Rome, 1575, here.  The surroundings of the church are not accurate, but the general layout is.  It shows the Vatican rotunda, just to the left side of the nave, with the atrium – and fountain – behind the raggedly front facade.

basilica_costantiniana_scomparsa_prima_basilica_di_san_pietro_(città_del_vaticano)

I also found online a picture of a model from the Vatican museums, although it was back-to-front on the site on which I found it!  It shows the Vatican rotunda, with the obelisk before it (although not the surrounding houses); and also the other 3rd century tomb behind it, the chapel of S. Petronilla, in which the Empress Maria, the young wife of the Emperor Honorius, was buried.  That tomb was demolished very early in the rebuilding, and the grave of the empress found and emptied.

vatican_museum_model

However the most exciting pictures are some colour paintings that had previously passed unnoticed.  The first is a painting of the burning of the Borgo, a district nearby, by none other than Raphael himself!

Raphael, The burning of the Borgo, detail.
Raphael, The burning of the Borgo, detail.

In the background is the tower, and to the left of it, the facade of the main church inside the atrium!  This, as we shall see, was indeed painted yellow, with pictures on it.  Ste Trombetti kindly drew my attention to this site, which zooms in yet further:

Raphael, Burning of the Borgo, more detailed
Raphael, Burning of the Borgo, more detailed

This shows the pope in the tower, and the church behind (not sure that all the elements are in their real and historical places here; but we don’t care, because we get these marvellous pictures).  The image of the stonework in particular gives a sense of scale otherwise difficult to sense in many of the old pictures.

The next image, a fresco from the sacristy in the modern Vatican, from Art Resource gives us a sadly low-resolution image of the exterior of the old basilica, which lines up very nicely with Raphael’s depiction (a high res image can doubtless be purchased at that site).

The atrium and entrance to the nave of old St Peter's.
The atrium and entrance to the nave of old St Peter’s.

Finally, also from Art Resource, is another image from the Vatican museum, this time with an unusual “head on” view of the outside of the basilica.  It shows the coronation of Sixtus V in 1585  A larger image of this would be very welcome!

Coronation of Sixtus V outside Old St Peter's.
Coronation of Sixtus V outside Old St Peter’s.

That’s it for now.  Many thanks indeed to Ste Trombetti and Anna Blennow, who saw these images being posted on Twitter and contributed their better images!

Share

The Annals of Eutychius of Alexandria (10th c. AD) – chapter 11 (part 4)

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Let’s continue reading this.  I’m taking the Italian translation by Pirone – itself a near-impossible item to obtain -, running it through Google Translate and cleaning up the output.  I know that “no true scholar” would do this; but since I see evidence that people simply don’t know what may be found in Eutychius, it seems worth doing.

9. Constantine was baptized in a town called Nicomedia, in the twelfth year of his reign.  He gave orders to build churches in each country and to take from the Crown Treasury the money with which to make enough vessels for the churches.  In the first year of his reign Eusebius was made patriarch of Rome.  He held the office for six years and died.  In the seventh year of his reign Miltiades was made patriarch of Rome (22).  He held the office for four years and died.  In the eleventh year of his reign Sylvester was made patriarch of Rome (23).  He held the office for twenty-eight years old and died.  In his ninth year in office the council was held in the city of Nicaea (24).  In the third year of the reign of Constantine Filūniqūs [= Philogonus] was also made patriarch of Antioch.  He held the office for five years and died.  In the ninth year of his reign Paulinus was made patriarch of Antioch.  He held the office for five years and died. In the fifteenth year of his reign Istāt [=Eustathius] was made patriarch of Antioch. He held the office for eight years and died.  In his fifth year in office there was the council in the city of Nicaea.  In the first year of the reign of Constantine Asun was made bishop of Jerusalem (25). He held the seat for nine years and died.  In the tenth year of his reign Macarius was made bishop of Jerusalem.  He held the seat for nineteen years and died.  In his tenth year in office there was the council in the city of Nicaea.  In the fifth year of the reign of Constantine there was also made patriarch of Alexandria Alexander, a disciple of Peter Martyr, the patriarch of Alexandria who had been killed, a companion of Ashillā, patriarch of Alexandria.  He held the seat for sixteen years and died.  In his fifteenth year in office there was the Council of Nicaea in the city because Alexander, Patriarch of Alexandria, had forbidden Arius to enter the church, and excommunicated him saying: “Arius is accursed because the patriarch Peter, before his martyrdom, told us: “God has cursed Arius: do  not receive him and not let him go in with you into the church.”  At the head of the city of Asyut (26), in the province of Egypt, there was a bishop named Meletius who shared the doctrine of Arius.  The patriarch Alexander excommunicated him.  There was at Alexandria a great temple that Queen Cleopatra had built in honor of Saturn, inside which was kept a large bronze idol which was called Mika’il.  The inhabitants of Alexandria and Egypt were accustomed, every twelve month of Hathor, i.e. Tishrin ath-Thani (27), to celebrate, in honor of this idol, a great festival during which they offered many sacrifices.  When he became Patriarch of Alexandria and having everywhere publicly professed the Christian religion, Alexander decided to destroy the idol and to put an end to the sacrifices. But since the people of Alexandria objected, he tricked them by saying: “From this idol can be expected neither utility nor profit. I would suggest, therefore, that you celebrate this feast in honor of the angel Michael and offer him these sacrifices that you may intercede for you before God, and so benefit you better than this idol.”  Having them willingly accepted his words, [the patriarch] demolished the idol and put up a cross, and he called the temple “the church of [St] Michael” which is the church now called ”al-Qaysariyyah”, which was burned and destroyed at the time of entry into Alexandria of Magharibah. The festival and sacrifices were thus dedicated to the archangel Michael.  Even today the Copts of Alexandria and Egypt are accustomed to celebrate on this day the archangel Michael, cutting the throat of many animals in his honour.

10. When Alexander, Patriarch of Alexandria, interdicted Arius from entering the church and excommunicated him, the latter appealed to King Constantine, asking him to help him against the patriarch of Alexandria.  With Arius joined two bishops, one of whom was called Eumenius, bishop of the city of Nicomedia (28), and the other Eusebius, bishop of the city of Phila (29). They appealed to King Constantine, and Arius said: “Alexander, Patriarch of Alexandria, has acted unfairly against me and wrongly expelled me from the church.”  And so saying, he asked him to convene the church in order to discuss the matter openly in the presence of the king.  Constantine then sent his messenger to Alexandria and summoned the Patriarch in order to arrange a meeting between him and Arius and so to adjudicate the affair. King Constantine said to Arius: “Expound your doctrine.” Arius said: “I assert that the Father has always been, before the Son was. Then it is fact that the Son is the Word but he is created and made. Then the Father gave the Son, who is named Word, the power to be creator of the heavens and the earth and what is between them, as he himself said in his holy Gospel in the passage where he says: ‘I have been given all authority on heaven and on earth.’ He was not, therefore, creator by his own power but by that which had been conferred on him.  I assert that this Word then took on a body over time, in the womb of the Virgin Mary and by the power of the Holy Spirit so as to become one Christ.  Christ, therefore, is the result of putting together the Word and the flesh, both, however, created”.

11. To this Alexander replied, saying: “Tell us, what do you think is more important for us: to worship the one who created us, or to worship one who did not create us?” And Arius said: “Worshipping the one who created us.” Alexander replied: “If the Son created us, as you assert, and the Son is [in his turn] created, it follows that to worship the Son who created us is more proper than to worship the Father, who is uncreated; indeed, to worship the Father creator would be an impiety and to worship the created Son an act of the pure faith.  But that would be the most absurd of things.”  The king found the argument [of Alexander] was right, along with the others who were present with him, and found that the doctrine of Arius was instead absurd.  There were many other questions and answers between the two, but in the end the king Constantine authorized Alexander, Patriarch of Alexandria, to excommunicate Arius and anyone who upheld his doctrine. Alexander then said to the king Constantine: “No, it is for the king himself to convene the patriarchs and bishops, so that there is a council at which to deliver a judgment, to excommunicate Arius and set forth the true faith, in order to present it with clear wording to all nations.” Constantine then sent his messengers into all countries and gathered the patriarchs and bishops.  Within a year and two months there gathered at Nicaea two thousand and forty-eight bishops of differing opinions and religions.  For there were those who claimed that Christ and his mother are two other gods, and these were the Barbarāniyyah, also called Maryamiyyūn;(30) there were those who claimed that the Son comes from the Father like the flame of a fire fed by the same fire, and that the former is not subject to reduction by the fact that he depends on the second, and this was the doctrine of Sabellius and his followers; there were those who claimed that Mary had by no means kept Christ in her womb for nine months, but that he passed through her belly like water goes into the gutter (31), since the Word came in by her ear and immediately went out to where the baby comes out, and this was the doctrine of Ebanus and his followers; there were those who said that Christ is a man and was created by the Deity like each of us as to the substance, which is the principle of the Son of Mary, and that, having been chosen to be the saviour of the human substance by virtue of divine grace that came down and dwelt in him through love and will, for this reason he was called the Son of God. And there were those who said that God is one substance and one person, and that he was called by three names but they did not believe either in Word or in the Holy Spirit, and it was this, the doctrine of Paul of Samosata, Patriarch of Antioch, and its followers, that the Paulicians held.  There were those who argued that there are three gods, one good, one bad and a third one sharing in both, and this was the doctrine of the excommunicated Marcion and his followers, who claimed that Marcion was the leader of the Apostles, denying that role to the Apostle Peter.  And there, finally, those who supported the divinity of Christ, and this was the doctrine of the apostle Paul and the three hundred and eighteen bishops (32).

When King Constantine heard their doctrines, he was very surprised at many of their differences and put at their disposal a building where he gave them space, ordering them to talk to each other in order to determine on which side was the true religion to follow.  Of these, the Three hundred and Eighteen found themselves unanimous on one doctrine and one religion, after discussing with each other and with the other bishops.  They refuted the arguments of the others, and proclaimed the true faith, while the other bishops even among themselves held to conflicting doctrines and religions.  The king then for the three hundred and eighteen bishops had a large room set aside, sat among them, and took his ring, his sword and his scepter and handed them to them, saying: “Today I have given you authority over my kingdom, to do what seems appropriate to you to do for the definition of right religion and for the good of the faithful.”  They blessed the king, girded on his sword and said: “Profess publicly the Christian religion and be its defender.”  Then they wrote for him forty books containing the constitutions and laws, some of which related to what the king should know and do, and other related to the responsibility of making the bishops.  The leader and president of the council was Alexander, Patriarch of Alexandria, along with Eustathius, Patriarch of Antioch, and Macarius, Bishop of Jerusalem.  Silvester, patriarch of Rome, had sent as his representatives two priests, one of whom was called Vitus and the other Vincentius (33).  [The Three hundred and eighteen] unanimously sanctioned the expulsion of Arius and his followers, excommunicated him and all those who supported his doctrine, and formulated the profession of faith by establishing that the Son was born of the Father before all ages, and that the Son is of the substance of the Father, uncreated.  They appointed then Metrophanes as patriarch of Constantinople.  They were also unanimous in stating that the Christian Easter should be celebrated on the Sunday after the Passover of the Jews, and that the Passover of the latter should not to be celebrated in place of the day of Easter for Christians.  Also they confirmed what had been said on the Calculation of the days of fasting and Easter by Demetrius, patriarch of Alexandria, Ghayānūs (34), Bishop of Jerusalem, Maximus, Patriarch of Antioch and Victor, Patriarch of Rome, and that is that the fasting of Christians must end on Easter day, or on the Sunday after the Passover of the Jews.

Share

A useful paper on Eutychius of Alexandria (Sa`id ibn Batriq); and some rueful reflections on why a useful tax-funded book has been made copyright of Brill

Posted on by Roger Pearse

A little while ago I came across an article, online in PDF format, which contained much the most useful overview known to me of the life and works of the 10th century Melkite patriarch of Alexandria, Eutychius, known to the Arabs as Sa`id ibn Bitriq.  The author is Uriel Simonsohn, an Israeli academic, and the paper appears in Christian-Muslim Relations: A bibliographical history, ed. David Thomas &c, Brill, 2010, vol. 2 (900-1050), p.224.  This series of volumes gives details of the writers and their works, and is incredibly useful, or would be if anyone could access it (of which more anon).

Dr Simonsohn has, thankfully, made his article available, and from it we can judge the quality of the work done.  A couple of excerpts:

Little can be established with certainty about the life and career of Saʿīd ibn Batṛīq, a 10th-century Melkite patriarch of Alexandria. The earliest source to provide some detail is a 13th- or 14th-century copy of Ibn Batṛīq’s historiographical treatise, allegedly written by the patriarch himself (Ibn Batṛīq, Eutychii, ed. Cheikho, Carra de Vaux and Zayyat, ii, pp. 69-70, 86-87). It is here that we are informed for the first time that Ibn Batṛīq, the mutatạbbib, i.e. a practitioner of medicine, was born in Fustạ̄t ̣ in the eighth year of the caliphate of al-Muʿtamid (r. 870-92), i.e. 877, and was appointed in 933 as patriarch of Alexandria by the Caliph al-Qāhir (r. 932-34), whereupon he was named Eutychius; he died in 940.  …

The Arabic historiographical treatise known as the Annales, following its Latin translation by E. Pococke in 1658-59, is also known as Kitāb naẓm al-jawhar, ‘String of pearls’ and Kitāb al-taʾrīkh al-majmūʿ ʿalāl-taḥqīq wa-l-taṣdīq, ‘The book of history, compiled through investigation and verification’. Although the work has often been referred to as a Byzantine universal history, nothing in the composition suggests its classification within a particular category of historiographical works. Rather, the work reflects a mixture of diverse historiographical traditions, among which one can list Eusebian chronography, Sasanian and Muslim historiographies, Palestinian hagiography, and legendary tales of various sorts. It was completed, according to al-Antạ̄kī, in 938.

The oldest manuscript copy of the work, MS Sinai, Monastery of St Catherine – Ar. 582 (163 folios), represents the oldest known text of the Annales. Indeed, Michel Breydy, who has presented the most detailed study of the manuscript, has argued that the text is the autograph of Ibn Batṛīq himself. The manuscript has the dimensions of a notebook and consists of 163 folios. According to Breydy, it lacks roughly two parts of the beginning of the original work and six of its end. Furthermore, the part referring to the caliphs al-Qāhir (r. 932-34) and al-Rāḍī (r. 934-40), could not have been composed by Ibn Batṛīq himself. The original manuscript may have consisted of 242 folios, of which 23 are missing at the beginning and about 56 at the end. A comparison of the text of MS Sinai Ar. 582 with the texts conserved in later manuscripts, reveals evident traces of successive manipulations, as well as divergences of the later texts from the earliest (and possibly original) version.  …

 Finally, a particular work from which Ibn Batṛīq drew much of his narrative is the Arabic translation of the history of the Sasanid kings, prepared by the Muslim convert ʿAbdallāh ibn al-Muqaffaʿ (d. c. 756). A strikingly literal correspondence between the last section of MS Sinai Ar. 582 and Muslim sources that conserve a textual transmission that had originated with the Egyptian muḥaddith ʿUthmān ibn Ṣāliḥ (d. 834) regarding the conquest of Egypt, allows us to believe that Ibn Batṛīq had similarly transcribed extracts from other Muslim authors as well. …

The Annales are currently extant in some 30 manuscripts, copied both in the Near East and in the West. …

It’s all excellent stuff, and I highly recommend it to anyone with an interest in Eutychius or the works of Christian Arabic historiography.

But there is a snag.  Looking at the preview (p.iv), I see that “This project was supported by a grant from the Arts and Humanities Research Council” – that sounds like taxpayers money -, which makes it all the more odd that the copyright has been given away to Brill, a commercial publisher, and the output is not open-access.  Shame on you, AHRC!

The volume has a couple of introductory papers, and then, starting on p.74, a series of entries on literary figures who wrote in Arabic on the subject of relations between Christians and Muslims, complete with bibliography.  This material is of the highest value, when we consider how difficult it is to access anything in English, and it is really a scandal that it is offline and inaccessible.

I see that eBooks of the volumes do exist – doubtless made available on subscription only to university libraries.  But what use is that to those of us who pay for them?

I have nothing against Brill; but if we paid for this, and it seems likely that we did, then it should not be the property of a commercial company, to be exploited by selling it back to the universities that produced it.

Share

Gamucci’s images of the Septizonium; the Temple of the Sun; the Arch of Claudius; and the obelisk and Vatican Rotunda

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Ste. Trombetti has continued to search through early books and prints for images of vanished Rome.  Here is another example, from the 1565 work Dell’Antichita di Roma by Bernardo Gamucci.[1]  It depicts the remains of the monumental facade that Septimius Severus built across the end of the Palatine hill facing the Appian Way.  Behind it we can see the Arch of Constantine, behind which stands the Colosseum.  Known as the Septizonium, it was clearly falling down, and was shortly afterwards taken down for its materials.
Septizonium_b_gammuci_1565_p82

Further on in the same volume, on p.123, we find a depiction of part of the “Temple of the Sun” or “House of Nero” on the Quirinal, which was most probably actually a temple of Serapis:

temple_of_sun_house_nero_gamucci_1565

On p.151 is an image of the “Arch of Domitian”, which the text says may be the Arch of Claudius.  This is also a long-demolished item, of which I have never seen any drawings.  Does anybody know?

Arch of Domitian (or Claudius). Gamucci, 1565.
Arch of Domitian (or Claudius). Gamucci, 1565.

On page 195 there is a marvellous drawing made of the south side of St Peter’s; mostly Old St Peter’s, but with the new church rising in the distance.  In front of us is the obelisk that now stands in St Peter’s square, but then stood, still, in its original position.  Behind it stands a circular 3rd century tomb, the Vatican Rotunda, long since converted into a chapel of St Andrew.

Obelisk and Vatican Rotunda, on the south side of Old St Peter's in Rome. Gamucci, 1565.
Obelisk and Vatican Rotunda, on the south side of Old St Peter’s in Rome. Gamucci, 1565.

…

Share
  1. [1]B. Gamucci, Libri quattro dell’antichità della Citta di Roma: raccolte sotto breuita da diversi antichi et moderni scrittori, Venice: G. Varisco &c, 1565. Online at Google books here, or in better quality at Heidelberg here.↩

The Annals of Eutychius of Alexandria (10th c. AD) – chapter 11 (part 3)

Posted on by Roger Pearse

The story continues… sadly with very little historical value.

7.  Constantine made the necessary preparations and prepared to fight against Maxentius, King of the Romans.  He had prepared a large cross, placed it on top of a standard, and went against Maxentius, king of Rome.  Having heard that Constantine had moved to fight against him, Maxentius prepared to face him, and chose a bridge over the river in front of Rome as the place of battle. Then he came out with all his men, and fought against Constantine, who conquered and triumphed making a great slaughter of his men.  Maxentius tried to return into the city with the rest of the soldiers, but the bridge gave way and he drowned with all his men: the river was choked with drowned and killed men.  With golden crowns and every kind of music, the inhabitants of Rome poured out of the town to meet Constantine and celebrated the triumph with great jubilation.

On entering the city, [Constantine] ordered that the bodies of the Christian martyrs, and those who were crucified, should be buried.  All those who had fled, and those whom Maxentius had exiled, returned to their country and to their homes, and those who had seen them confiscated got them back.  The inhabitants of Rome made festival for seven days in honour of Constantine and the Cross, eating, drinking and rejoicing.  On hearing these things Maximian, called Galerius, was furious, gathered his troops and went out to fight against Constantine.  Hearing about this, Constantine also prepared his army and went to fight him. But when the men of Maximian saw the cross on the banner they fled: many were killed, others were taken prisoner and others begged to be spared.  Maximian fled away naked, and passed as a traveller, from place to place until he came to his city.  Here he called the priests of his gods, the magicians, the soothsayers that he loved so much, and whose recommendations he followed, and had them beheaded so that they would not fall into the hands of Constantine and serve him.  God sent down into the body of Maximian a devouring fire, so that his bowels were falling to pieces from the intense burning sensation that he had inside.  His eyes swelled to the point that they fell out, coming out of their sockets, and his flesh was burned so much as to break away from the bones, and he died the worst of deaths.

8. Constantine ruled all the territories of the Romans, in tranquility and peace. This was in forty-first year of the reign of Sabur, son of Hurmuz, king of the Persians.  Constantine was the son of Constantius, son of Wālantiyūs, son of Arsis, son of Decius, son of King Claudius, who lived in Rome at the time of the Apostles.  Constantine had a general whom he loved and preferred to the others, named Licinius.  He gave him his sister Constantina, entrusted him with the government and ordered him to honour the Christians, to love them and not to hurt any of them. When he came into his kingdom, Licinius returned to the worship of idols and ordered that the Christians should be put to death.  In his day found martyrdom the soldier Theodorus, Metropolitan of Barqah, and the Forty Martyrs, originating in the city of Sebastia of Cappadocia (20). Licinius had in Sebastia a lieutenant named Agricolaus. He had the Forty Martyrs brought outside the city of Cappadocia, and thrown naked into a pool of water, where on account of the excess cold, because of the snow, they died of frostbite.  Only one of them got out of the pool and headed for a tepidarium which was located at the shore of the lake to warm up, but the tepidarium collapsed on him, killing him instantly. The captain of the guard guarding the Forty then saw forty crowns of light coming down from heaven and resting on the heads of those martyrs, but one of these was suspended in the air.  The guard then stripped off his garments, and threw himself into the pool and believed in Christ, earning for himself the crown of light.  Then they took them out of the pool and loaded them on to a cart. There was, among them, a young man who had not yet died and was left aside.  His mother, who was standing beside them, had in fact picked him up to put him on the cart with the others, but would not release him because he was still alive. He expired on her shoulder and only then could she place him on the cart along with the martyrs. Then they took them out of the city of Sebastia and burned them. Informed of the fact, King Constantine wrote a letter to Licinius in which he rebuked him for what he had done.  But [Licinius] did not repent; indeed he gathered a large army and went to fight against Constantine who confronted him with his own soldiers in Bithynia.  [Licinius] was defeated; he was taken prisoner and was brought before Constantine who demoted him then to the city of Thessaloniki and designated him as his prefect.  Here he tried to gather a new army among the people of Thessaloniki with the intent to set out again against Constantine who, having heard about this, sent some of his men and killed him, cutting off his head.

Share

Draft translation of Chrysostom’s “Laus Diodori” now online

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Regular correspondent IG has written to say that her translation of the Laus Diodori by Chrysostom (PG 52: 761-766 = CPG 4406) is now available online on Academia.edu here.  It’s just the bare translation, no commentary yet; but it’s there and it’s hot!

Share

The Annals of Eutychius of Alexandria (10th c. AD) – chapter 11 (part 2)

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Once more Eutychius switches over again to the lost Sassanid Persian chronicle which he is interweaving with the Greek chronicles; and then back.  We are not told what became of Maximian: evidently the Sassanid chronicle did not say.

5.  As for Sabur, son of Hurmuz, king of the Persians, he grew up and become a young man, and, throughout his kingdom, order prevailed everywhere.  Hearing one day someone speak of Maximian, King of the Romans, and what he did to the Christians, he said to his men: “I want to go alone into the territory of the Romans so that I can see personally what is the condition of their kings, their armies and the streets of their countries.  When I have done this, I will return to my kingdom, filled with all the things that I have learned from them, and which I can use to attack them.”  But his men tried to dissuade him from the perils and the dangers which he might encounter.  He, however, did not accept their advice and, journeyed until he reached the heart of the territory of the Romans.  He continued for some time to wander from place to place when suddenly there came to him the news that a son of Maximian had offered a banquet, and that his father had given orders that the rabble and the poor should gather with him and sit with him at table, after the nobles had eaten their meal.  Sabur went there then, begging to be also present at the banquet.  As he sat at the table, there was carried to Maximian a glass of Sabur, on which was engraved the image of the Persian king.  The servants served drinks to the king and the nobles who were sat about, until the cup came into the hands of a sage, who could read the fate of men through the stars and had excellent knowledge of physiognomy. He looked carefully at the effigy – he had already happened to see the face of Sabur sitting among the other guests -, and he said: “I see a man among the guests who looks similar to the image on this cup.  If this man is not Sabur, there is nobody in the world like him.” King Maximilian said: “What do you mean?” He answered: “I see on this cup the image of Sabur, and that this man is he,” and so saying he took Sabur by the hand and led him before the king. The king then asked him who he was and Sabur said: “I am a poor Persian”. But being suspicious as he looked at him, Maximian suspected that he had not told the truth.  Therefore he persisted in his request, and Sabur said to them: “If you really want to know the truth, know then that I come from a state of Persia. My father committed a grave offense against our king who had him killed and  confiscated his goods. And since I had good reason to fear of my life, I have come here to you with the hope of obtaining protection in your country.  Having fallen into poverty and been made destitute, I have come here to you from famine, and extreme poverty”.  They took pity on him, and, thinking that he told the truth they decided to let him go.  But the sage opposed this, saying: “He is definitely Sabur. Put him to the test until you learn who he really is.”  Then King Maximian resorted to harsh measures, and threatened to kill him, but promised him safety provided that he revealed his true identity.  Sabur said: “It is strange that you can think that Sabur would prefer misery and hardship in your country, rather than occupy the place in his kingdom that is his.” But they did not believe his words.  Eventually he confessed that he was Sabur in person.  King Maximian then ordered him to be thrown into the belly of a statue in the shape of a cow, covered with cowhide, and he had him locked up, putting guards and custodians.  Maximian then marched against the land of the Persians, wrought carnage among their population, destroyed their city, cut down their trees and their palms, taking Sabur with him, wherever he went.  He continued so until he came to Gunday-Sabur (17) where leaders of Persia had fortified themselves.  He then built catapults and managed to destroy half the city without being able, however, to enter.  It was on that occasion that one night the keepers of Sabur relaxed their guard on the prisoner, forgetting to close the door, by which he brought food inside the statue.  It was the night of Ashan (18) (In another text [it says]: “It was the night of a party”).  There were around him, many residents of al-Ahwaz that the Romans had made prisoners.  Sabur heard their words and he understood their language. There were, nearby, wineskins full of oil and when night fell [Sabur] rose, called to a prisoner and said: “Get one of these skins and empty it out.” The prisoner did as he asked, and the strap with which he was held bound was all soaked.  He went out crawling like a reptile until he came to the gate of the city and gave a cry.  The sentries responded to his shout, and also he told them his name.  They recognized the voice and opened the gates of the city.

Great was the joy they felt for him, when he entered the city, and they raised their voices praising and glorifying God.  The men of Maximian awoke, and thought that reinforcements had arrived on the opposite side.  Sabur said to those who were in the fortress: “Get ready, and when you hear the sound of the nāqūs, attack”.  They did as he had told them, and broke out on the Romans, making great slaughter and seizing their property and all that they had accumulated.  Then Sabur penetrated the territory of the Romans, sowing death everywhere, and he destroyed many cities and picked up a huge booty.  On the lands of the Romans there then followed a severe famine and pestilence and plague, so that they were no longer able to bury the corpses because there were too many deaths.  So it was that the war of Sabur, the famine and the pestilence prevented the Romans from killing the Christians.

6.  As for Maxentius, king of Rome, he was the most wicked of the kings who had reigned before him and angered all who were in Rome, particularly the Christians, confiscating their property and killing men, women and children.  When the inhabitants of Rome heard about Constantine, of how he hated evil and loved good and that the people of his kingdom lived in peace and quiet, the leaders of the city of Rome wrote him a letter asking him to free them from the tyranny of Maxentius.  Reading their letter, Constantine was greatly worried and was perplexed, not knowing what to do.  As he was so full of thought, there appeared in the sky at noon, a cross of stars shining, around which was written “In this conquer”(19).  Then he came out and said to his men: “Did you see what I saw?” “Yes,” they answered, and at that time he embraced the Christian faith.  This happened six years after the death of his father Constantius.

Share

The literary development of the “Life” of St Nicholas of Myra (=Santa Claus)

Posted on by Roger Pearse

The modern idea of “Santa Claus” derives, at some remove, from the medieval legends of the Greek orthodox St. Nicholas of Myra, recorded in the hagiographical texts known as “Saints’ Lives”.  Ever since I discovered that none of these vita‘s have been translated into English, I have been looking into the matter.  Of course the first thing is to understand what texts actually exist.

Yesterday I discovered a very useful summary of the various versions of the Life of Nicholas of Myra.  It appears as appendix ii in A. Blom’s Nikolaas van Myra en zijn tijd, Hilversum, 1998, p.259-262.  I obtained this, since it contains a translation (into Dutch) of the Vita per Michaelem, the Life as given by Michael the Archimandrite, as appendix i.  This summary would seem to deserve a wider circulation.

A. The oldest biographies and related texts.

For texts see Anrich[1], vol. 1; for commentary see Anrich, vol. 2, and Cioffari[2].

  • Proclus (390-447 AD), patriarch of Constantinople from 434 to 447, Eulogy (Enkomion) on Nicholas, with reference to the history of the three generals.

According Anrich this is a late text, and not by Proclus. According to Cioffari, it perhaps may be authentic, or from the period 447-550.

  • Theodore Anagnostes (? -518), ca 500 Lector in Constantinople, Historia Tripartita (in a manuscript from the 13th century) indicating that Nicholas participated at the council of Nicaea, 325 AD.

According to Anrich the entry is a later interpolation (based on Niketas, see below), but according to Cioffari however it is authentic.

  • Anonymous, Life of Nicholas, abbot of the monastery of Zion, bishop of Pinara.  This has references to the tomb of Nicholas of Myra.[3]

According to both Anrich and Cioffari this was written about 564.  Data from this vita was later mixed with the vita of Nicholas of Myra (the Vita per Michaelem), see below.

  • Legend of the three generals (Praxis de Stratelatis)

According to Anrich the version known to us was created between 460 and 580, but, according to Cioffari, between the death of Nicholas and the mid-5th century.

  • Eustrathios of Constantinople (?-600), Presbyter of Constantinople, Refutatio, with fragment of the legend of the three generals, quoted from a lost vita.

According to Anrich and Cioffari this is authentic, dating from the 2nd half of the 6th century.

  • Michael the Archimandrite, Life, Works and wondrous works of our Father Nikolaos, Bishop of Myra, in Lycia (the Vita per Michaelem – translations exist by Blom in appendix i, and also in German by Heiser.)

According to Anrich this was probably written between 814 and 843; according to Cioffari about 700.

  • Methodios (ad Theodorum), a monk (?), Life of Nicholas,  which follows Michael’s vita closely.

According to Anrich this dates before 843; according to Cioffari between 817 and 821.

  • Another Methodios (?), Eulogy on Nicholas, dated by Anrich and Cioffari after 860.
  • John Diaconus of Naples (John the Deacon; 850?), Vita S. Nicolai Episcopi, the first Latin vita, a free adaptation of mainly the vita of Methodios (ad Theodorum). Appears about 880.
  • Nicetas of Paphlagonia, bishop (? -890), Eulogy on Nicholas, containing the first mention of participation in the Council of Nicaea, and dating before 890.
  • Anonymous, a so-called Synaxariumvita with new motifs, the ‘imprisonment during the last persecution’ and ‘Nicaea’. Genesis about 900.
  • Anonymous, the so-called Vita Compilata, a biography in which Michael’s vita of Nicholas of Myra is intertwined with that of Nicholas, abbot of the monastery of Zion, together with elements from Methodios’ Eulogy etc.  According Anrich and Cioffari written between 860 and 975.
  • Simeon Metaphrastes, writing at Constantinople (?), Life of Nicholas, based on the Compilata, etc.  According Anrich and Cioffari written  between 975 and 1000.  This vita has become the authoritative version for all subsequent biographies.
  • Neophytos, priest, monk (1134-?), Eulogy on Nicholas; mainly a collection of miracle stories.

B. Wonder Stories

Some miracles circulated independently, like that of the three generals (Praxis de Stratelatis) and a story about Nicholas’ intervention with Constantine related to taxes imposed on Myra (Praxis de Tributo). Most occur in the biographies or in separate collections. In the thousand years after Nicholas’ death at least 50 of these legends may be counted, first the originals in the vitae etc., then stories about rescues from sea crossing, from Saracen captivity or other emergency, relief of poverty, restitution of stolen goods, cures etc.

The most important are listed below, with only the titles given.

From Michael: infant prodigy, choice as Bishop, three daughters, three generals (short), a rescue of sailors, a grain multiplication (the corn ships), frustration of the wrath of Artemis.

From Methodios (ad Theodorum): the same, except the corn ships.

From the other Methodios (Eulogy): three daughters, a different version of the corn ships, three generals and (as miracles after Nicholas’ death) rescue of Methodios’ father John from a shipwreck, rescue of a Mytilenian priest from the hands of Saracens, deliverance of Petros from captivity.

From the Vita Compilata:

  • From the Vita by Michaelem: the rescue of sailors, the corn ships, Artemis.
  • From the Eulogy of Methodios: another version of the corn ships, the three generals.
  • From Methodios (ad Theodorum) the Mytilenian priest and others (the collection Six miracles, see below.).
  • From Nicholas of Zion, a series of healings.

In Metaphrastes: three daughters, the rescue of sailors, Artemis, the three generals, a version of the corn and ships (from Nicholas of Sion): the calming of the storm and the resurrection from death of the sailor Ammonios.

The collection Three miracles (created between 850 and 900): rescue of shipwrecked Demetrios (discussed by Blom in chapter XV), the liberation of a young man named Basil from the hands of Saracens, the rescue of the monk Nicholas from danger at sea.

The collection Six miracles (created after 850/900); rescue of shipwrecked John, the priest of Mytilene, Petros, Demetrios, Basil, Nicholas.

From Neophytos: a collection of more than thirty miracle stories, in addition to the above, plus new additions such as the lone sailor (see Blom chapter VIII), a stray Saracen trader (see Blom chapter XV), return of stolen property (a thieving Shepherd), a bleeding Nicholas picture …

The spread of the story to the west

Apart from the vita of John Diaconus, all the above mentioned texts are Greek. The worship of Nicholas passed to the west through southern Italy. Rome, Calabria, Apulia, Sicily remained under Byzantine influence for hundreds of years after the downfall of the kingdom of the Ostrogoths (552) and the incursions of the Lombards in Italy (568); Rome until the 8th century, Sicily until 9th, Calabria and Apulia until the 11th, when the Normans conquered the area. The Greek colonies there imported Greek saints, including Nicholas. Probably in the 7th century, the history of the three generals was already known in Rome, and from there was inserted into numerous martyrologia and other texts. The vita of John Diaconus obviously played a big role in the dissemination of knowledge about Nicholaos generally, while later, through the transfer of the relics to Bari in Apulia, the movements of the Normans and the Crusades, his worship yet again increased significantly.

C. Later literature

Besides the vita of Metaphrastes, the vita of John Diaconus was the source of a number of later vitae, such as those in the Golden Legend of Jacobus de Voragine (? -1298) and the Catalogus Sanctorum of Peter de Natalibus (second half of 14th century).

The Breviarium Romanum (1568) and the Martyrologium Romanum (1586) have derived a number of miracle stories from this source.

1620.  A. Beatillo, Historia della Vita, Miracoli, Traslatione … di San Niccolo. An indiscriminate collection of miracle stories.

17th century. Italian and French use of Beatillo’s Historia.

1699.  Le Nain the Tillemont, Memoires pour servir d l’histoire ecclésiastique des six premiers siècles (a beginning of a critical examination of the available material).

1701.  A. Baillet, Les Vies des Saints (following Tillemont).

1732. Article in Le Grand Dictionnaire historique (Moreri) expresses great doubt on numerous elements from the vitae.

1740.  Le Quien, Oriens Christianus, opposes criticism (as in, 1745, J. de l’Isle).

1747.  Review committee for the Roman Breviary, but does nothing.

1751. N.C. Falcone, Sancti Nicolai confessoris et pontificis et celeberrimi thaumaturgi Acta Primigenia Nuper detecta. He believes, on the basis of sloppy reasoning, that Nicholas of Myra is a mystification of Nicholas of Sion, whose vita he said that he discovered in 1720 in the Vatican library.

1753. N. Putignani, Vindiciae vitae et gestorum Thaumaturgi S. Nicolai, Diatriba, and 1771 Istoria della Vita. Refutes the arguments of Falcone. A weak work, like J. S. Assemani’s treatment of Falcone’s thesis in his Kalendaria (1755).

19th century. This century yielded little progress on the problem of Nicholas (Anrich, 202vv.).  Most work was devotional (Cioffari, 289vv.). Cioffari devotes an interesting chapter to some Russian studies.

1886 is noteworthy only for an uncritical, popular work of J. Laroche, Vie de S. Nicolas.

Blom’s bibliography covers the 20th century.

Share
  1. [1]Anrich, G., Hagios Nikolaos, Texte und Untersuchungen, 2 Bnde, Berlin 1913/1917.  Online via here.↩
  2. [2]G. Cioffari, S. Nicola nella Critica Storica, Bari 1987.  References by Blom to “Cioffari” always mean this work, which I have not seen.↩
  3. [3]An English translation of this item exists: I. Sevcenko and N. Sevcenko, The Life of Saint Nicholas of Sion, Holy Cross Press, 1999, ISBN 978-0917653032.↩

Why Methodius ad Theodorum (9 c.) is proving very difficult to translate

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Back in 2013 I wondered what the earliest sources were for the life of St. Nicholas of Myra, whose legends form the basis for the Santa Claus story.  There are three, all 9-10th century, in fact.  I decided that one of these, the Methodius ad Theodorum, c. 817-821 AD, would be a good candidate to get translated.  But it’s proving a real challenge.  We may have to admit defeat!  But I think that it would be good to document where we got to.

The Methodius ad Theodorum is BHG 1352y, and appears only in Anrich’s collection[1], vol. 1, p.140-150, and repeated again as an appendix in vol. 2, p.546-556.

Why did he did edit it twice?  Well, it appears from the introduction that the text was very difficult to edit from the sole manuscript, Ms. Vaticanus Graecus 2084 (10th c.).  Some of these Greek manuscripts are so heavily ligatured that they can be extremely hard to read!  But after he had published vol.1, Anrich discovered that Spyridonof had published another text from the same manuscript, Methodius’ Vita Theophanis, which clarified things somewhat. This led him to try a second time in vol. 2, and this time with punctuation.

A correspondent, Joel Eidsath, kindly picked up on my posts, and started a thread at Textkit to translate the Methodius Ad Theodorum.  In case this vanishes, I’ll quote some of it here.  Joel reckoned that the introduction was the worst bit, and the rest would be easier!  He did most of page 1 (of 10), and this read as follows:

Τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν Μεθοδίου πρεσβυτέρου καὶ ἡγουμένου εἰς τὸν βίον καὶ τὰ λείποντα τοῦ ὁσίου πατρὸς ἡμῶν Νικολάου ἀρχιεπισκόπου Μύρων.

Ἐπειδὴ ἡ τῶν καθ’ ἡμᾶς λόγων πλοκὴ τῇ ἀσαφείᾳ τῆς πρωχονοίας τὸ γρῖφόν σοι ἐντυγχάνοντι ἐπέχειν νομίζεται, ζητεῖ δὲ ἡ καθαρά σου ἁπλότης, ὦ ἀνδρῶν ἄριστε καὶ περιφανέστατε Θεόδωρε, λόγον ἐγκωμίου τῇ φράσει ἀποίκιλον καὶ νοήμασι τὸν εὐκάτοπτον, πρὸς δὲ καὶ τῷ ποσῷ τὸν ἀπέριττον — ἐγώ, ῖνα μὴ δόξω ἀνήκοος καὶ ὅπως σοι φανείην παρέτοιμος, τῇ πίστει καὶ κελεύσει σου χαριζόμενος, ἀνιστορῆσαι μᾶλλον τὰ τοῦ περιβοήτου Νικολάου μέγιστα κατορθώματα καὶ οὐκ αὖθις ἐγκωμιάσαι τὸ λοιπὸν προαιρήσομαι, ὡς τάχα τῆς ἱστορίας συνήθως ἐχούσης τὸ εὐκατάκουστον. εἰ δέ τι συμπλεκείη που τῇ ἱστορί ἐγκώμιον, θεῷ ἀναθετέον τὸ χάρισμα καὶ τῇ πίστει σου, τῷ δόντι καὶ τῇ χορηγηθείσῃ παρὰ τῆς αὐτοῦ μεγαλοδωρεᾶς, εὕρασθαι σὺν ἐξηγήσεσι τὸ ἐγκώμιον. ἔστι δὲ τῶν περὶ πάντας ἀκροατὰς διηγήσεων πλησιέστερον, μετὰ τὸ εἰπεῖν γένος καὶ πόλιν καὶ ἐπιτήδευμα, τὴν ἐκ νεαροῦ τοῦ σώματος ἀγωγήν τε καὶ αὔξησιν διαγράψασθαι, ἵν’ ὁμολογουμένην ἤτοι θαυμαζομένην τὴν ἀνάταξιν ἤ ἐπαύξησιν εἰς δύναμιν ἐκ δυνάμεως καὶ πρὸς τοιάνδε ἐκ τοιᾶσδε ἀγωγὴν ἤ προσαγωγὴν ὁ ἱστορεῖσθαι τολμώμενος τῇ τῶν ἀκουόντων διανοίᾳ σαφέστατα ἐγκατάθηται. καὶ δὴ θεοῦ διδοῦντος λόγον ἐν ἀνοίξει εὐθέτῳ τοῦ στόματος, ἅπερ ὄψις εἴτ’ οὖν ἐν βίβλοις ἀνάγνωσις δέδωκε, ταῦτα διηγησόμενος καὶ παρέστηκα.

From the our holy father Methodius, elder and leader, the biography and leavings of our pious father Nikolaus, archbishop of Myra:

After our complicated discussion, the intricate question that you left was thought to be unsolvable due to my poverty of mind. But your unblemished purity seeks, O Theodore, best and most famous of men, an encomium using simple words and clear images, over and above this a quantity of straightforwardness — I, that I may not appear to have ignored you nor appear to you unprepared, am obliging your faith and request with more unrecorded great virtuous acts of the much spoken of Nikolaus, and I have deliberately left out anything not laudatory [ἐγκωμιάσαι], so that the story will quickly grab hold of the understanding. And if somewhere the encomium’s story was tangled up, by the grace that is God’s and your faith, the giving and the bestowing of from his generosity, the encomium was found through interpretation. [[Very shaky on this next sentence, will come back to it later: But it is the closest to the stories heard by all, speaking of the family and city and trade, the raising up from youth and the training of his growth, that the pattern of the marvel to that all speak goes from strength to strength, from to such to such, bringing or giving, I undertake the narrative that the thought of those hearing may shine inwardly most wisely.]]. And indeed, the speech given by God that he well arranges from my open mouth, just as perhaps the snake that we read of in the Bible [pl.] that he has given, this I shall narrate and have set down [future + perfect? I will look that up later and revise].

Which is quite impressive, as far as it goes – thank you, Joel!  Michael Holmes added a couple of suggestions (thank you):

(Since you want just a simple straightforward account, to oblige you) from now on I’ll choose rather to tell the story of N’s greatest successes and not to sing his praises over again, since perhaps a narrative is usually easy on the ear. And if encomium somehow gets intertwined with the narrative, that gift of grace is to be attributed to God and to your faith, to God that gives and to your faith that is furnished by His generosity …

… I stand ready to tell what eye-witness or book-reading has provided.

Unfortunately other demands on his time intervened, and it was clearly a difficult task.  I then asked another (very capable) translator to have a go, and he ran into language difficulties also.

I wondered whether this was a matter of the language being so late; so I did a search for resources on medieval Greek, Byzantine hagiography, etc, and came up with very little. My next thought was to write to some scholars in the field, asking for advice on lexica etc. I reproduce parts of their responses here, precisely in case someone else is hunting for a road into medieval Greek.

First I wrote to Dr Alice-Mary Talbot and asked her advice on this.  She kindly responded:

I wish your translator well, but it takes time and the reading of many texts to make the adjustment to medieval Greek.  Of course the middle Byz. texts differ from each other, with some being very Atticizing, others being in a lower style.  The two main dictionaries he should be using, in addition to Liddell-Scott, are Lampe’s Patristic Greek Lexikon and Erich Trapp’s Lexikon zur byzantinischen Grazitat (not yet complete, but up to tau).  As for books on the development of medieval Greek, he should look at Geoffrey Horrocks, Greek : a history of the language and its speakers, and Robert Browning, Medieval and Modern Greek.

I note that bootleg PDFs of Horrocks and Browning can be found online with little difficulty, thankfully; but I would guess that anyone seeking to get a lot out of them would be best advised to do so on paper, and use them as bed-time reading.

Another correspondent, “Inepti Graeculi”, suggested that I write to John A. Lee:

John A. L. Lee may be worth a contact. He is an expert on LXX Greek but is nuts on all things Greek. He’s also a lexicographer and has written a history of (NT) Greek lexicography so he may know of  obscure dictionaries etc that may be a help. He’s an honorary fellow at Macquarie these days and a nice guy.

So I did.  His response was very useful indeed:

I have had a quick look at the text online and I can see what your translator is up against. This is top-register literary Greek, based on Classical models and using all the devices of Classical grammar and rhetoric as developed in later centuries. It will not yield its meaning easily. A long training, beginning with Classical Greek, is what is really needed. I am not just saying this to put you (or him) off or to seem superior.

There are actually no specialist lexica or grammars that cover it fully. One will need to be ready to use all resources, namely:

A grammar of ancient Greek, esp. Smyth’s Greek Grammar + NT grammars (MHT, BDF).

Lexicons:
– LSJ (big edition + Suppl.)
– Lampe, Patristic Greek Lexicon
– Sophocles, Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods
– BDAG, NT lexicon
– Muraoka, LXX lexicon
– possibly one that covers Modern +, such as Babiniotis.

Even with these, there will be problematic constructions and uses. Tenacity (and time) will be needed.

The same correspondent (IG) pointed out that a free Latin translation of Methodius ad Theodorum was made by John the Deacon – this information from Wace: the hagiographical works, p.252 with more on p.238 – and that:

John the Deacon’s Vita Nicholai is in vol 2 of Mombribius’s Sanctuarium here at archive org (starting at page 296 = printed page number)

It’s allegedly a translation from the Greek and I found one reference that says it’s a translation of Methodius.

…

Nearly all of the Lexikon zur byzantinischen Gräzität (Lexicon for Byzantine Greek) should now be on line via TLG (one more fascicle to go) – http://www.tlg.uci.edu/lbg/aboutlbg.html#

This Greek portal has Kriarias, but that is useful for vulgar Greek and would be for later than 10th century:
http://www.greek-language.gr/greekLang/medieval_greek/kriaras/index.html

Cambridge Uni is well behind on their grammar of Medieval Greek. Geoffrey Horrocks was supposed to be involved with that. He’s probably the pre-eminent English speaking historian of the Greek language around today. His book on the history of the Greek language – 2nd ed. will give you some tips as to phonetic and morphological changes etc and different ‘dialects’ and registers of the time but it won’t be enough.

…

Actually that Greek portal does have a biblio for medieval Greek helps (only in the Greek section , but many refs in latin alphabet and Google translate is not bad with modern Greek)

For example:
http://www.greek-language.gr/greekLang/medieval_greek/bibliographies/loanword_terminology/bibliography.html?g=1

All of which is very interesting!

We may have to defer Methodius ad Theodorum; but it’s produced a lot of interesting information so far!

UPDATE: Some extra info from IG on Chrysostom’s language, which may or may not be useful considering his impact later:

I was wondering how does one identify an Atticist and how does their Greek differ say from ‘Attic’ which itself is a little slippery to define. Thucydides for example wrote in a sort of ‘international Attic’  whereas others might be said to have written in parochial Attic (say Lysias) (Geoffrey Horrocks book – pricey so try a library – is very good for this – but only at a high level).

I really can’t speak for 9th or 10th century Greek which is what we are dealing with. For the fourth century I have two references of Chrysostom’s Attic but I don’t think they will be of use to him:

Ameringer: The Stylistic Influence of the Second Sophistic on the Panegyrical Sermons of St John Chrysostom  (this is on Archive org but one copy has the last few pages missing so check before you download. Apparently similar studies were done on other fourth century authors)

Soffray: Rescherches sur la syntaxe de saint Jean Chrysostome d’apres les homelies sur les statues (this should be well and truly out of copyright but I can’t find it anywhere)

There is a big online dictionary that deals with Gregory Nazanzien’s (? I hope I have the right Gregory) vocab but that is available only through good research libraries. Access is pricey and its in German.

Frankly I find using classical lexicons (eg LSJ rather than Lampe) and grammars more useful for Chrysostom. And I find that he draws terminology from the Stoics, Aristotle and goodness knows what else, as do some of the ps Chrysostomica and ps Athanasia.

UPDATE: Bryson Sewell has had a go, and managed a draft of the first two pages, which he has kindly made available in case they are helpful.  These are here: Translation – Methodius ad Theodorum – First Draft (PDF) and here: Translation – Methodius ad Theodorum – First Draft (.docx).

And IG has transcribed the last page (bottom of p.555-end of 556), so let’s make that available also:

Καὶ ἐπὶ πᾶσι θαυμάσας καὶ προστησάμενος κρησφύγετον ἄσυλον τὸν μέγαν Νικόλαον ἔχε πρὸς πειρασμῶν λύτρωσιν πρεσβείαν θεῷ εὐυπήκοον, πρὸς νόσων ἐκδρασμὸν καθάρσιον εὔποτον, πρὸς πόλεμον σαρκὸς ἀνταγωνιστὴν δυσκαταμάχητον, πρὸς φιλίαν θεοῦ εἰκόνα ἀπαραχάρακτον, πρὸς ἔχθραν δαιμόνων ἐνστήλωμα ἀνεπίκλητον, πρὸς χρείαν πενήτων χαρακτήρα ἀρχέτυπον, πρὸς ζῆλον δογμάτων κανόνα εὐθύτατον, πρὸς διδαχὴν πρᾳότητος λύραν θεοτίνακτον, πρὸς ἐγκρατείας τόνον νεκρῶσεως τύμπανον, πρὸς ἀγνείας ἱδρῶτα δρόσον ἀνομβρίζοντα, πρὸς ἡνίαν σωμάτων πύκτην ἀνεπίψογον, πρὸς φρονήσεως κτῆσιν πολυκερδῆ ἔμπορον, πρὸς τάξιν ἀνδρεῖας ζυγὸν ἀνεπίκλητον, πρὸς κρίματα λόγων πρυτάνην ὸξύτητος, πρὸς δράματα τρόπων σοφὸν ἀκακούργητον, πρὸς νόμον πρακτέων σπαρτίον εὐθύτατον, πρὸς νοῦν ἀπευκταῖον θυμὸν εὐσυλλόγιστον, πρὸς θράσος ἀνοίας ἀργίας ἐπίγνωσιν, πρὸς θάρσος εὐνοίας συλλήπτορα τάχιστον, πρὸς μνήμην θανάτου νεκρὸν ἐμπνοώτατον, πρὸς τύπον ἐγέρσεως τὸ κλήσει παρίστασθαι, πρὸς πλάτος ἀγάπης τὸ χρᾶσθαι αὐτῷ καὶ ὁμώνυμα, πρὸς ἐλπίδα μελλόντων παρόντων καταφρόνησιν, πρὸς ζωὴν αἰωνίαν ἑκούσιον νέκρωσιν. καὶ πάντα πρὸς τούτου μαθητευόμενος γνησιώτατα, ποίησον σεαυτῷ τὴν ὅλην βιοτὴν τοῦ σοφωτάτου Νικολάου ἀλφάβητον ἰδιόκτητον. καὶ ὡς ἐκ γραμμάτων τῶν εἰρημένων πάντων στοιχειασθεὶς τὴν καρδίαν σου, ὃ θέλεις ἢ πράττειν ἢ λέγειν ἢ ἐννοεῖν, προσφιλέστατε, λάμβανε κατὰ νοῦν τὸν μέγαν Νικόλαον καὶ ὅρα, εἰ γέγονεν αὐτῷ ἐκείνῳ ἢ λελάληται ἢ ἐννενόηται, καὶ πρᾶττε κατ’ ἐκεῖνον, ὡς ἐντεθύμηται ἢ λελάληκεν αὐτὸς ἢ πεποίηκεν. οἱ γὰρ ἅγιοι, μιμηταὶ τοῦ κυρίου ἀκριβεῖς γενηθέντες, διὰ τῆς πρὸς αῦτοὺς χαρακτηρίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἡμᾶς μιμητὰς καθιστῶσι, ?? φησιν ὁ μέγας ἀπόστολος· «μιμηταί μου γίνεσθε, καθὼς κἀγὼ Χριστοῦ». καὶ λοιπὸν ὅλον τοῦ ὁσίου τὸν βίον γράμματα ἔχων, οἷάπερ ἔφαμεν, ἐξ αὐτοῦ λαμβάνων τὰ σχήματα εὐθέτως διατίθει τὰ πράγματα· ἵνα, ὃν ἀγαπᾶς κατὰ ψυχὴν καὶ περιέχει Νικόλαον, τοῦτον καὶ ζηλοῖς ἐπ’ ἔργοις καὶ μιμῇ διὰ βῖου παντὸς πατροπόθητα, κἀντεῦθεν ἐπαξίως τῆς διαθέσεως συγκληρωθείης αὐτῷ τῆν νίκην ἐν μέσῳ τῷ λαῷ σου καὶ γένῃ θεοδώρητον φερωνύμημα, τὸ αὐτὸ καὶ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν προσευχόμενος, χάριτι καὶ φιλανθρωπίᾳ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ᾧ ἡ δόξα σὺν τῷ πατρὶ καὶ τῷ ἁγίῳ πνεύματι εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. ἀμήν.

If anybody feels like typing up some more of the text, and contributing it in the comments, then please do.  Apparently it makes the task of working with it, using the LSJ and TLG, much easier for those wanting to do so!

UPDATE: Transcriptions of more portions of the text by Joel Eidsath can be found in the comments!

Share
  1. [1]G. Anrich, Hagios Nikolaos, 2 vols. Leipzig, 1913.↩