English translations of Chrysostom “De Severiano Recipiendo” and Severian’s “De pace” now online

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Long ago I became aware that there were two related sermons in the Patrologia Graeca.  The first was given by John Chrysostom, after the empress had interceded to patch up a dispute between him and another bishop, and entitled De Severiano Recipiendo (CPG 4395) – That Severian must be received.  The other was delivered the next day, by his enemy, Severian of Gabala, and entitled De pace (CPG 4214) – On peace.

The peace did not last, and Chrysostom was driven into an exile from which he did not return.

The two sermons are very short, in the PG, and in Latin.  They reach us as part of a collection of sermons, made in antiquity, perhaps by Ananias of Celeda.  They take Greek sermons, and produce abbreviated Latin versions of them.

The original text of Chrysostom’s sermon has not reached us; but Severian’s Greek was discovered in the monastery of Mar Saba, and published in 1891.

I first tried to get these translated longer ago than I can remember.  This failed.  I then had another go in 2010, which also failed after a short sample – 3 sentences – was produced.

After his work on the 3 sermons of Chrysostom on the Devil, Bryson Sewell has kindly rattled off a translation of both of these.  It is great to have them; and even better to have them so quickly.

Both are of the highest interest.  Chrysostom’s sermon is interrupted by the cheers of his supporters, even in the abbreviated version; while Severian, clearly preaching to a not-very-friendly crowd, strains every nerve and produces a marvellous display of rhetoric.

As ever, the results are now online, and in the public domain.  Copy freely and use as you will.

These files will also appear on Archive.org once its new and wonky uploader allows it!

UPDATE: Now at Archive.org here.

UPDATE: Files updated to correct an error in the introduction – the speeches were delivered before John’s first exile, not after it.

UPDATE (24/03/2022): A correspondent has asked me where he can find the Greek text of De Pace.  It is hard to find.  Here are the files from which both were translated:

Share

Severian of Gabala – bibliography (updated)

Posted on by Roger Pearse

I uploaded a list of the works of Severian of Gabala here.  I’ve worked on it a bit more since, and revised versions are now available:

  • Severian of Gabala – works (PDF)
  • Severian of Gabala – works (DOCX)

I don’t seem to have done anything on these for a week, so best to park them here!

UPDATE: Newer version here.

Share

Academic hoaxes, academic feuding – an article in the Oldie

Posted on by Roger Pearse

The Oldie magazine is probably read by few of us, being mainly for people who are, well, old.  A correspondent has sent me a copy of an article in this week’s issue, written by the editor, Richard Ingrams.

Harvey’s revenge

We love a spot of academic intrigue and so were delighted to receive an email from one Dr A D Harvey. Harvey, who describes himself as a ‘failed academic’, won notoriety after publishing academic articles under various pseudonyms and inventing a meeting between Dickens and Dostoevsky that fellow academics accepted as fact for years. American scholars finally uncovered the hoax and Harvey became the subject of a six page take-down in the Times Literary Supplement.

Not content to let sleeping feuds lie, Dr Harvey’s email to The Oldie is a copy of a letter he has sent to the TLS accusing it of running a hoax story in its own pages.  The piece in question, by Janetta Goldstein, is about an alternative ending to the Hans Christian Andersen Story, ‘The Invisible Robe’. But, Harvey writes, ‘The manuscript in Hackney Archives on which it is purportedly based seems to have no more physical existence than the new clothes the emperor was so proud of. I checked. Hackney Archives have a negative of a portrait of Mary Howitt but none of her papers, let alone a manuscript of a Hans Christian Andersen story with a previously unpublished variant ending.’ With some relish, Harvey adds, ‘It makes you wonder how many more bogus contributions have appeared in the TLS in recent months.’

Most would suspect that Harvey himself had a hand in the Hans Christian Andersen hoax, if indeed the alternative ending proves to be fake at all. But Harvey claims it bears none of his modus operandi — not that we can really take his word for that.

One thing we can be sure of: the TLS fact-checkers will be frantically searching for evidence of the Hackney manuscript and hoping that Dr Harvey has not been able to spectacularly settle his score with their scholarly journal.

The urge to twist the tail of the spectacularly aloof and patronisingly self-important is one that is probably common to most of us.  In this sense the activities of Dr Harvey are something that most of us will feel sympathy with.

Until we find that our own research has been compromised by such pranks, at any rate.

Verifying the raw data is never time wasted.

Share

“You’re not the same religion as me” – Severian of Gabala and his editors and reviewers

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Severian of Gabala (fl. 398 AD) was the enemy of John Chrysostom, patriarch of Constantinople, and assisted in driving the latter into exile and to his death.  The disagreement between them was not ideological, but arose from perceived snubs by John’s officials.  It seems that the patriarchal officialdom created enemies for Chrysostom faster than he could deal with them, since Severian was by no means the only one offended in this way.

St. John Chrysostom is perhaps the most important of the Greek fathers.  So it is not surprising that the Greek church does not remember Severian.  Our accounts of the affair are all written from a pro-Chrysostom perspective.   In that age, as today, personal smears are the main weapon used against an enemy, so it is important to note that nothing really damaging could be found to say about him.

All the same, his works have been neglected.  This is not surprising.  For everyone has their own special interests, which will dispose them to listen, or not, to a writer.  Severian manages to be outside the area of sympathy for almost everyone involved in patristics, in the past and now.

Firstly, scholars interested in Orthodoxy will see him the enemy of the greatest of their saints.

Roman Catholics will feel the same, to a lesser degree.  So he won’t really get a hearing for himself.

Secularists will – and do! – don’t believe in the bible, and so sneer at him for his literal-minded Antiochene exegesis.

So who, precisely, will read him with an open mind?

Fortunately there is today a constituency which might.  Modern bible-believing Christians with an interest in patristics are not invested in any of these biases.  Which means that, other things being equal, we may hope for a fairly unbiased evaluation of this ancient writer, untroubled by theological odium.

I have mentioned before that IVP Academic, from this background, has arranged to publish his six sermons on Genesis.  It is my intention to review this translation, and to review what Severian has to say.  On the face of it his interpretation is bonkers; but at least I won’t have any a priori reason not to listen.

This is why it is really useful to have a variety of religious and political outlooks in academia.  It means that obscure writers who appeal to no-one may find a partisan, and be edited, translated and commentated; in short, become accessible to us all.

I’m even grateful for all the ex-hippies working on the Nag Hammadi texts.  They may be a bit daft, and their “conclusions” best explicable as the product of chemical-induced brain damage; but the fact is that nothing on earth would have induced any sensible person – alright, very few – to spend the huge amounts of time on these daft gnostic texts that they have felt inclined to do.  In consequence, we are all the gainer.

Which is rather nice, really.

Severian, if you’re up there, you owe me a beer when we meet.

Share

Plans and illustrations of the Vatican from 1694

Posted on by Roger Pearse

We’ve been looking at old pictures of Old St Peter’s in Rome, and thinking about the Circus of Nero nearby, and other structures from ancient Rome.

Last week Brent Nongbri very kindly sent me an extract from one of those tourist books, which the Italians do so well, about the pagan tombs under the Vatican, which contains some interesting diagrams.[1]  In it, my eye was drawn to some splendid old pictures, which the author had reproduced from Carlo Fontana, Il Tempio Vaticano e la sua origine, Roma, 1694.[2]

The book is mainly about New St Peter’s.  It has details of how the Vatican obelisk was moved (with pictures!).  But it also contains plans and reconstructions of the older basilica, and the area around it.  I thought that these would be known to few, and deserved to be better known.

Here are some of them.  Click on the image to get the full-size picture.  (They’re all small)  I apologise for the cut-off to the right; the blog software doesn’t handle this very well.

Plan of the ancient Vatican area.
Plan of the ancient Vatican area.
fontana_2_plan
Plan of Nero’s circus and its relation to the basilica.
fontana_3_circus_of_nero_w_petronilla
Reconstruction of Circus of Nero with dome of “temple of Apollo”, later Mausoleum of Honorius, later still chapel of St. Petronilla.
fontana_4_plan_of_old_basilica
Plan of old St Peter’s, with New St Peter’s and the Circus of Nero all on the same plan.
fontana_5_section_of_old_basilica
Section lengthways through Old St Peter’s.
fontana_6_half_built_w_andrea
St Peter’s halfway rebuilt, from the south; the new circular church, the Vatican rotunda, and behind it most of the old church.
fontana_7_grottos_of_vatican
Plan of the cellars under the Vatican.
fontana_8_section_and_end_of_old_basilica
Section through Old St Peters side-ways, with picture of the old frontage.
Share
  1. [1]Pietro Zander, The Necropolis under St. Peter’s Basilica in the Vatican, Elio de Rosa editore, 2009.↩
  2. [2]Online at Archive.org here, from the original, rather strange, Microsoft digitisation; a better version at Heidelberg here.↩

Boxes of papyri in Berlin “unopened” since they left Egypt a century ago

Posted on by Roger Pearse

I’m reading William Brashear’s 1991 publication of P. Berol. 21196, identified as a Mithraic “catechism”.  It probably comes from excavations at Ashmunein (Hermopolis), undertaken by O. Rubensohn in 1906.  He asks, in the preface, if any more fragments of the papyrus are extant, and was unable to find any.  But then he states that there might still be some:

The Berlin collection still contains numerous boxes of papyri fromHermupolis, unopened since the day they arrived from Egypt almost a century ago.

Sometimes I despair of papyrologists.  How could this be allowed to happen?  Isn’t this shameful?

I can imagine someone about to whine about lack of funds.  Papyrology is chronically underfunded, it is true.  But then papyrologists so often seem to set out to annoy groups who might be tempted to fund their work.

An example of this, is the loud complaints that the Green Collection recruited amateur labour – “Christian apologists”, no less! the fiends! – to do manual work, cleaning and recovering papyri.  I’m afraid I shook my head at this, even as I read it.

Papyrology exists, as a discipline, because of Christians and the bible.  It exists because, among the very first finds of Grenfell and Hunt at Oxyrhynchus, were fragments of “sayings of Jesus”, which we now know to be part of the Gospel of Thomas.  Because of the mass interest in these finds, a major newspaper funded their next season and created the vast collection of papyri still being published, in a too leisurely way, even today.

This is the group in our society who have a real, persistent, determined reason to be interested, and who also have the money to fund more work than any of us can imagine.  This is the group who could fund dozens of chairs of papyrology, if they were treated with even ordinary courtesy.  They have motive, and they have tons of money.

But do we work with them?  On the contrary!  Every discovery of papyrus – like the “gospel of Jesus’ wife” – is given an anti-Christian spin.  The media networks do this, because they think annoying people will create a sensation, get ratings, and so advertising.  But the people who like those programs spend no money on papyrology.

May I invite my readers to imagine what sort of money even a single mega-church could spend, if it was convinced that among the sands of Egypt were texts that would illuminate, or confirm, or illustrate,  – whatever – the bible?

It’s easy enough to sneer at enthusiastic amateurs talking about washing papyri with palmolive. There’s been plenty of that.  It’s easy to jeer at famous apologist Josh McDowell and his promotion of the work.

And yet … it’s shameful too.  I welcome getting the public involved.  I welcome enthusiasm, the wide diffusion of involvement, in a guided way. Archaeologists have managed this with aplomb for decades.  They’ve even managed to get random metal-detectorists working with them, rather than against them.  The result is that archaeology has a large constituency among the public willing to lobby for them.  Times are hard, but they are well-placed.

So, are archaeologists, as a breed, simply more intelligent than papyrologists?  Really? For what kind of short-sighted idiot rushes to insult, to obstruct, to sneer, at the involvement of the public?

Most people reading this will not be Christian believers.  And I say to you: Do you put your love of antiquity first?  Your desire for learning, your wish to preserve and transmit these papyri first?  Or some religious dislike of Christians first?  Which is more important to you?

Papyrology is unable to do its job.  Papyrology is not doing its job, as Brashear makes clear.  Papyrology is paid to make this stuff available.

What we need is a plan to address the huge backlog of papyri, and to get it all published, and to find more.  That must involve using volunteers and amateur patrons.

Share

Ancient sources on the Gaianum / Circus of Nero

Posted on by Roger Pearse

It might be useful to gather all the ancient testimonies on the Circus of Nero / Circus of Gaius, on the Vatican, and see what they do, and do not, tell us.

Pliny the Elder, Natural History, NH book 36, chapter 14 / section 70 (Loeb, vol. 10, p.54-5):

Divus Claudius aliquot per annos adservatam, qua C. Caesar inportaverat…

The ship used by the emperor Gaius for bringing a third [obelisk] was carefully preserved by Claudius of Revered Memory, …

Pliny the Elder, Natural History, NH 36, chapter 15 / section 74(Loeb, vol. 10, p.58-9.)

Tertius [obeliscus] est Romae in Vaticano Gai et Neronis principum circo — ex omnibus unus omnino fractus est in molitione …

The third obelisk in Rome stands in the Vatican circus that was built by the emperors Gaius and Nero.  It was the only one of the three that was broken during removal.

This is rather loosely translated.  Literally: “In the Vatican circus of the emperors Gaius and Nero”.

Pliny the Elder, NH, book 16, ch. 76, 201-2 (Loeb, vol. 4, p.518-9.):

abies admirationis praecipuae visa est in nave quae ex Aegypto Gai principis iussu obeliscum in Vaticano circo statutum quattuorque truncos lapidis eiusdem ad sustinendum eum adduxit ;

An especially wonderful fir [tree] was seen in the ship which brought from Egypt at the order of the emperor Gaius the obelisk erected in the Vatican Circus and four shafts of the same stone to serve as its base.

Suetonius, Caligula, 54. 1-2 (Loeb, vol. 1, p.486-7).

LIV. Sed et aliorum generum artes studiosissime et diversissimas exercuit. Thraex et auriga, idem cantor atque saltator, battuebat pugnatoriis armis, aurigabat exstructo plurifariam circo ;

LIV. Moreover he devoted himself with much enthusiasm to arts of other kinds and of great variety, appearing as a Thracian gladiator, as a charioteer, and even as a singer and dancer, fighting with the weapons of actual warfare, and driving in circuses built in various places;

Here there is an error in the Loeb translation: it ought to read in a circus built in various fashions.

Suetonius, Claudius, 21. (Loeb, vol. 2, p.40-41):

Circenses frequenter etiam in Vaticano commisit, nonnumquam interiecta per quinos missus venatione.  Circo vera Maxima marmoreis carceribus auratisque metis, quae utraque et tofina ac lignea antea fuerant, exculto propria senatoribus constituit loca promiscue spectare solitis;

He often gave games in the Vatican Circus also, at times with a beast-baiting between every five races. But the Great Circus he adorned with barriers of marble and gilded goals, whereas before they had been of tufa and wood, and assigned special seats to the senators, who had been in the habit of viewing the games with the rest of the people.

Tacitus, Annals, book 14, 14 (Loeb, vol. 4, p.130-131):

XIV. Vetus illi cupido erat curriculo quadrigarum insistere, …. Concertare [e]quis regium et antiquis ducibus factitatum memora[ba]t, idque vatum laudibus celebre et deorum honori datum. … Nec iam sisti poterat, cum Senecae ac Burro visum, ne utraque pervinceret, alterum concedere, clausumque valle Vaticana spatium, in quo equos regeret, haud promisco spectaculo. Mox ultro vocari populus Romanus laudibusque extollere, ut est vulgus cupiens voluptatum et, se eodem princeps trahat, laetum.

14. It was an old desire of his [Nero’s] to drive a chariot and team of four, …. “Racing with horses,” he used to observe, “was a royal accomplishment, and had been practised by the commanders of antiquity: the sport had been celebrated in the praises of poets and devoted to the worship of Heaven. … He could no longer be checked, when Seneca and Burrus decided to concede one of his points rather than allow him to carry both; and an enclosure was made in the Vatican valley, where he could manoeuvre his horses without the spectacle being public. Before long, the Roman people received an invitation in form, and began to hymn his praises, as is the way of the crowd, hungry for amusements, and delighted if the sovereign draws in the same direction.

Cassius Dio, 59, 14:

[Caligula poisoned] … the horses and charioteers of the rival factions; for he was strongly attached to the party that wore the frog-green, which from this colour was called also the Party of the Leek. Hence even to‑day the place where he used to practise driving the chariots is called the Gaianum after him.

Chronography of 354, section XIV (CVRIOSVM VRBIS REGIONVM XIV CVM BREVIARIVS SVIS; and NOTITIA REGIONVM VRBIS XIV – both have same text here).

REGIO XIIII TRANSTIBERIM continet Gaianum et Frigianum

REGION 14, TRANS-TIBER  contains: The Gaianum and the Phrygianum

The Platner and Ashby entry is worth including, for inscription material which I am  unable to access:

Gaianum: an open space in Region XIV (Reg. Cat.; Hemerol. Filoc. ad V Kal. April., CIL I2 p314), south of the naumachia Vaticana and east of the via Triumphalis, where Caligula was fond of having horse races (Cass. Dio LIX.14). From inscriptions found in the vicinity (CIL VI.10052‑4, 10057‑8, 10067, 33937, 33953; BC 1902, 177‑185) it appears to have been surrounded by statues of successful charioteers (HJ 662; DAP 2.viii.355‑60; BC 1896, 248‑9).

What do we learn from this?  I think we may reasonably state the following:

  1. Gaius – Caligula – practised chariot-racing, in an area known as the Gaianum, after his name.
  2. He had a circus which was constructed “plurifariam” – out of odds and ends.
  3. He also erected an obelisk in it.
  4. Claudius used the “Vatican circus” for shows, but, unlike the Circus Maximus, nothing says that he rebuilt it in marble.
  5. Nero used a chariot-racing area on the Vatican, initially as a private location, but then invited spectators, as Claudius had done.
  6. The circus was known as the Vatican circus of the emperors Gaius and Nero.
  7. Since it was named after Nero as well, at least in the time of Pliny, presumably Nero did substantial construction work there.
  8. An area on the Vatican was known as the Gaianum in the late 2nd century, and the name was still in use for the area in the 4th century.

Since we know that there was a circus, of “Gaius and Nero”, all these events most naturally relate to a single place, on the Vatican.   The location of that place is defined into modern times by the position of the obelisk, which stood on the south side of Old St. Peter’s basilica and is now in the St Peter’s square of the new basilica.

The regionary catalogues also tell us that the circus was close to the Vatican temple of Cybele, the Vatican Phrygianum.

Share

An extract from Severian of Gabala “On Epiphany”

Posted on by Roger Pearse

While working on the bibliography of Severian of Gabala, I came across a 1952 paper by A. Wenger in which he publishes, with French translation, a portion of Severian’s homily on Epiphany.[1]  I thought that it might be good to give this here in English.

So great is the light, so great is the beauty that makes the Church shine!   And so shines also, in the same way, the perfect crown of empire, worthy of the crown of the empire, which God has given to the world, the good offspring, the flower on a good tree.

In speaking thus, I mean both the brothers and the harmony of the empire, which verifies the words, ” The brother who helps his brother is like a strong city, and as a fortified palace” and “These are the two anointed sons of that blessing which brought near the Lord all the earth,” flowers of piety, supporting the Truth, the ramparts of the Church, since Christ took over the empire.

I see the offspring with the root, I see the blessed emperor bright among his children. Because his glory is not dead.  It is among the righteous.  For the just, says the Scripture, leave a memory (eternal).

I see him shine through (his) living image . I consider what came before and I tremble: how everywhere the spectre of war is dissipated by the faith of the great emperor .

This faith of the father is the rampart of the children of the empire. God who has watched over the emperor, watch over the fruit of this noble root!

Pray, brethren, that the flames of faith are preserved, the bulwark of the Church!

Let no-one think that this is a speech of flattery.  This is the truth.  Yes, God uses men as a bulwark of the Church.  Absolutely.  Do not you know that after having given great things to men, God asks little things of us?

He gave the manna in the desert, and he asks the priests for bread, saying: “You shall set out a table in my presence.”  He gave a pillar of fire and he said: “Place a lamp before me.”

You make so great a source of light, and you ask for a lamp, so that, by the blessings that I receive, I pay tribute to your generosity, and so you, by the gifts that you offer, fill up your desire for recognition.  May we, brethren, fully enlightened, give glory to God most holy . To him be glory for ever and ever.  Amen.

— St. Severian , on Epiphany.

This seems clearly to address Arcadius, soon after the death of Theodosius I.

The reference at the end to divine blessings has rather the sound of a man hoping for a handout from the emperor, doesn’t it?!

Share
  1. [1]Online here.↩

Revue des Etudes Augustiniennes available online!

Posted on by Roger Pearse

I had not realised that the important French journal, Revue des Etudes Augustiniennes, was freely available online from 1955-2005, but so it is!  It’s here.

Marvellous!

Share

How ancient writers lost their books? A modern parallel!

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Ancient writers often composed their works in many books.  Often, we find that not all of these books have reached us.  Some have; some have not.

This evening I had an illuminating experience.

Like many people, I have a directory on my hard disk, full of PDF’s of old Loeb editions.  Among these are nine volumes of Pliny the Elder’s Natural History, obtained from Archive.org long ago and seldom looked at.

This evening I wanted to consult a passage, referenced as being in book 36.  I looked for my Loeb PDF’s, and was troubled to discover that volume 9, in PDF, apparently ended with book 35.  Was it possible…?

Indeed it was.  It turned out that the Loeb edition was in TEN volumes; and the tenth volume is not to be met with online.

I had never noticed.  As far as I knew – until the pinch came – I had all of Pliny the Elder.

Why this should be is hard to say.  Possibly copyright, that bugbear of scholarship, is to blame.  But it doesn’t matter, for our purposes, just why the volume is absent.

The point is that Pliny is now circulating, and circulating very widely, in a mutilated form.  If some disaster intervened, and my hard disk was the sole transmitter of his work, those last book(s) would be gone for good.

It’s very like the situation that must have happened many times in antiquity.  A busy owner, a mass of books, seldom consulted, and one or more volumes quietly absent and unnoticed.

It is no surprise that we have missing volumes of ancient multi-volume works.  The marvel is that so much has survived!

In the mean time … does by chance anyone have a PDF of the 10th volume of the Loeb edition?

Share