Paul of Aegina and his medical handbook

Posted on by Roger Pearse

The technical literature of antiquity is generally hard for us to access.  Few would perhaps be able to venture much beyond Galen and Hippocrates for ancient medical writers.

This evening I learned of the existence of Paulus Aeginata, Paul of Aegina, a 7th century compiler of a medical encyclopedia.  An article by Vivian Nutton, From Galen to Alexander, mentioned a certain “Paul”, who was translated by Francis Adams in 1834.  Nutton (p.2) states:

The most obvious difference between the medicine of the second and that of the sixth century A.D. can be summed up in one word, Galenism, in both its positive and its pejorative meanings. Instead of the variety of great names that can be cited for the second century-Galen, Rufus, Soranus, Antyllus, maybe even Aretaeus-and the evidence from both literary and epigraphic texts for new interests and ideas on surgery, the fourthand later centuries present us with a dull and narrow range of authors-the summarizers, the encyclopaedists-who have been studied not for themselves but for the earlier sources they happen to encapsulate. Oribasius, Aetius, Alexander, Paul are the medical refrigerators of antiquity: we are concerned with their contents, not their mechanics or their design.

…

We are in a quandary also because our conception of how medicine works has changed drastically; and it is not surprising that the last major work of medico-historical value to be done on them was over a century ago by Francis Adams, whose third and final volume of his great translation of Paul appeared in 1847. The reason for this is simple: to Adams, Paul was transmitting a living medicine, one that could still be used in his daily practice in Scotland. and it was precisely for this reason that Adams, on the basis of his own experience as a doctor, could reach such a sound judgment on the merits of this compiler.

It is a useful, not to say frightening, reminder how far medical knowledge has advanced in 150 years.

This naturally led me to do a Google search.  I was able to find vol.2 (1846) and vol. 3 (1847), but not vol. 1.  This 1834 work may be the first volume, perhaps.

 However a browse suggests that the subject matter will not be of interest except to those interested in the history of medicine.  I had hoped for something on antiquity, but sadly not.  But perhaps the preface by Paulus himself will be of interest.  In the interests of readability I have paragraphed it.

It is not because the more ancient Writers have omitted any thing relative to the Art that I have composed this Work, but for the purpose of giving a compendious course of instruction. For, on the contrary, every thing is handled by them in a proper manner, and without any omissions, whereas the moderns have not only in the first place neglected the study of them, but have also blamed them for prolixity. Wherefore, I have undertaken the following Treatise, which, as is like, will serve as a Commentary to those who may choose to consult it, whilst it will prove an exercise to me.

For it appears wonderful that Lawyers should be possessed of compendious, and, as they call them, popular legal Synopses, in which are contained the heads of all the Laws, to serve for immediate use, whilst we neglect these things, although they have it generally in their power to put off the investigation of any point for a considerable time, whereas we can seldom or rarely do so; for in many cases necessity requires that we act promptly, and hence Hippocrates has properly said, “The season is brief.”

For their business is generally conducted in the midst of cities, where there is an abundant supply of books, whereas physicians have to act not only in cities, in the fields, and in desert places, but also at sea on board of ships, where such diseases sometimes suddenly break out as, in the event of procrastination, would occasion death, or at least incur the most imminent danger. But to remember all the rules of the healing art, and all the particular substances connected with it, is exceedingly difficult, if not altogether impossible.

On this account, I have collected this Epitome from the works of the ancients, and have set down little of my own, except a few things which I have seen and tried in the practice of the art. For being conversant with the most distinguished writers in the profession, and in particular wit Oribasius, who, in one work, gave a select view of every thing relating to health, (he being posterior to Galen, and one of the more modern authors,) I have collected what was best in them, and have endeavoured, if possible, not to pass by any one distemper.

For the work of Oribasius, comprehending 70 books, contains indeed an exposition of the whole art, but it is not easily to be procured on account of its bulk, whilst the epitome of it, addressed to his son, Eustathius, is deficient in some diseases altogether, and gives but an imperfect description of others, sometimes the causes and diagnosis being omitted, and sometimes the proper plan of treatment being forgotten, as well as other things which have occurred to my recollection.

Wherefore, the present work will contain the Description, Causes, and Cure of all diseases, whether situated in parts of uniform texture, in particular organs, or consisting of solutions of continuity, and that not merely in a summary way, but at as great length as possible. But in the first place, we will give an exposition of every thing that relates to Health and Regimen. The last book contains an account of simple and compound Medicines. 

I find a few more details by a Google Books search. 

Paul lived in Alexandria, and an iambic in some of the manuscripts says that he was “well-travelled”.  The work is extant in quite a number of Greek manuscripts, and was edited by J. L. Heiberg in the Corpus Medicorum Graecorum.  It seems that the Pragmateia — the Greek title — was translated into Syriac sometime in the 8th or 9th century, although only fragments of this survive, in quotation.  It was then translated into Arabic by Hunain ibn Ishaq in the 10th. 1

His surgical techniques include the methods of castration (book 6, chapter 68), which he states:

The object of our art being to restore those parts which are in a preternatural state to their natural, the operation of castration professes just the reverse. But since we are sometimes compelled against our will by persons of high rank to perform the operation, we shall briefly describe the mode of doing it.

The eye-watering details may be omitted.

1. Peter E. Pormann, The oriental tradition of Paul of Aegina’s Pragmateia, Brill (2004).

Share

R.J.Hoffmann on “Movement humanism”, while Mary Beard writes against attempt to limit smut for kiddies

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Two interesting posts came in via my RSS feed.

The first, via eChurch blog, is by atheist R.J.Hoffmann, and entitled Movement Humanism.  What he describes is what most of us experience, when we encounter atheists or atheist writing:

While often claiming the protective cloak of science and reason as their aegis for intellectual rectitude, movement humanism was really all about creating straw-men, stereotypes and bogeymen and unfortunately came to believe in its own anti-religion discourse. …

To be blunt, movement humanism with its straw men and reductive techniques, its stereotyping and bogeymen, is not just stuck in the past but stuck in a religious past of its own making. It is a past that an authentic and fully inclusive humanism would want to reject. It is a past that many religious thinkers have already rejected.

That many of these headbanger atheists are precisely this kind of animal — the religious bigot — is what some of us have observed for some time.  The main religious hate one will encounter online is from atheists. 

This can come as a shock to those of us whose encounter with older atheism was in the form of J. S. Mill.  Such a realisation from a modern atheist like Hoffmann can only be welcome.

Less welcome is an article from classicist Mary Beard, who writes for the Times.  In Young minds … and the dirty bits (in Aristophanes), we get the following observations.

Of course, you will object, sexualised clothing and sexualised images near schools are not the same thing as the naughty bits in an ancient Greek dramatist. In some ways they are not — and in some ways they are. Both of them, in their different ways, are a nice illustration of the “BAN IT” culture that we have come to accept. If you dont like something, if you think — even more –that its presence could harm young minds and bodies, then BAN IT — as if that was effective, and the only strategy of change that there was.

Isn’t this cute?  Doesn’t it remind you of the hippy age?  Haven’t we all heard this kind of things for decades, as an excuse for filth?

The arguments all seem rather empty, to me.  We live in the age of the “Human Rights Commission”.  We know of writers like Ezra Levant dragged through legal proceedings for expressing an opinion.  We know of Christian street preachers lured by gay agents provocateurs to condemn unnatural vice and then denounced to the police.  Every week brings a new report of some family whose breadwinner has lost his job because he accidently expressed a non-politically correct opinion.  We live in an age of Stalinist-style repression of free speech.  But none of this features in the post.

Those who write like this — I don’t know about Dr. B personally — are almost never opposed to a BAN IT culture.  They’re in favour of it, so long as it is under their control, and will happily defend the most outrageous Gestapo-like tactics.  They object to the ban on filth because it is not a ban that they have advanced and feel comfortable that they control.

Heaven forbid, it might lead to condemnation of themselves.

Share

From my diary

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Two parcels this morning from Amazon. The first one contained a print-off version of Baumstark’s handbook on Syriac literature.  I ordered this while I was working on the Encyclopedia of Syriac Literature wiki, although I had a PDF.  But I can’t read a book in a PDF.  This one will get marginal notes that help me to find my way around.

The other was Aelian’s Varia Historia. 

The Bar Hebraeus Chronicon Ecclesiasticum vol. 2 PDF that I uploaded to Archive.org on Thursday is defective; the pages are in the wrong order!  I’ve made a new one and it is uploading as we speak.  Apologies to the 15 people who have already downloaded it.

Share

Mithras and 25th December in Franz Cumont, English and French

Posted on by Roger Pearse

The great Franz Cumont, the founder of Mithraic studies, was not well served by his publisher.  The latter permitted an English translation to be made, not of the whole Textes et Monumentes — which would have been of great use — but instead of merely the last portion of only tome 1, the Conclusions.  The work was published in 1903, and is online here and many other places.  But the footnotes that Cumont had given to that section in the full work, rather than being augmented for a stand-alone work, were abbreviated still further.

Cumont made many statements which connect Mithras, the 25 December as the late Roman festival of Sol Invictus on that date, and Christmas.  I thought it would be interesting to explore them.

A look in the English index gives this entry:

Christmas, 167, 191, 196, 202. 

while the French contains only the following entry (t.1, p373):

Noel, placée au 25 Décembre, 342, n. 4.

The entry on p.202 of the English has no connection to this subject.  But here’s what the English translation says, on p.167:

Possibly the sixteenth or middle day of the month continued (as in Persia) to have Mithra for its patron. On the other hand, there is never a word in the Occident concerning the celebration of the Mithrakana, which were so popular in Asia. They were doubtless merged in the celebration of the 25th of December, for a very wide-spread custom required that the new birth of the Sun (Natalis invicti), which began to wax great again on the termination of the winter solstice, should be celebrated by sacred festivals.

No footnotes, notice.  Here is the corresponding passage in Textes et monumentes, tome 1, p.325:

Par coutre, on n’entend jamais parler en Occident de la célébration des Mithrakana, qui étaient si populaires en Asie. Ils avaient sans doute été transportés au 25 décembre, car une coutume très générale voulait que la renaissance du Soleil (Natalis invicti), qui à partir du solstice d’hiver recommençait à croître, fût marquée par des réjouissances sacrées [1].

1) cf. Carmen. adv. pagan. (t. II, p. 52): Qui hibernum (hierium ms.) docuit sub terra quaere Solem, cf. Julien (t. II, p. 66); S. Léon (t. II, p. 68,1. 4); Corippe (t. II, p. 701. – Les textes qui nous parlent de cette fête ont été réunis par Mommsen, CIL, I, 2e éd., p. 338, mais ils concernent le culte officiel de Sol Invictus, établi par Aurélien, plutôt que les mystères de Mithra, et ne nous apprennent rien sur les rites de ceux-ci. Je note cependant que, d’après un auteur syriaque, on avait coutume lumina accendere, festivitatis causa. Sur la substitution de la Noêl à cette fête, cf. infra, ch. VI, p.342.

The statement is referenced, but only in the French, possibly because it refers to volume 2 of Textes et Monumentes, which does not appear in the English:

1) cf. Carmen. adv. pagan. (vol. II, p. 52): Qui hibernum (hierium ms.) docuit sub terra quaere Solem, cf. Julian the Apostate (vol. II, p. 66); St. Leo (vol. II, p. 68,1. 4); Corippe (vol. II, p. 701. – The texts which tell us about this festival have been collected by Mommsen, CIL, vol. I, 2nd ed., p. 338, but they concern only the official cult of Sol Invictus, established by Aurelien, rather than the mysteries of Mithra, and tell us nothing about the rites of the latter. But I note that, according to a Syriac author, there was the custom to lumina accendere, festivitatis causa. (burn a light, because of the festival). On the substitution of Christmas for this festival, see below, ch. VI, p.342.

Note that in all of this there is nothing to justify Cumont’s claim that supposed festivals of Mithras — for which he gives no evidence — were “doubtless” (speculation) merged with the Natalis Invicti on 25 December.  The reference, useful as it is, gives us only access to material about the Natalis Invicti.

Here’s p.190-191 of the English:

… It was in the valley of the Rhone, in Africa, and especially in the city of Rome, where the two competitors were most firmly established, that the rivalry, during the third century, became particularly brisk between the bands of Mithra’s worshippers and the disciples of Christ.

The struggle between the two rival religions was the more stubborn as their characters were the more alike, the adepts of both formed secret conventicles, closely united, the members of which gave themselves the name of “Brothers.”* The rites which they practised offered numerous analogies. The sectaries of the Persian god, like the Christians, purified themselves by baptism; received, by a species of confirmation, the power necessary to combat the spirits of evil; and expected from a Lord’s Supper salvation of body and soul. Like the latter, they also held Sunday sacred, and celebrated the birth of the Sun on the 25th of December, the same day on which Christmas has been celebrated, since the fourth century at least. …

All these very controversial claims are given with but a single footnote:

*I may remark that even the expression “dearest brothers” had already been used by the sectaries of Jupiter Dolichenus (CIL, VI, 406 = 30758: fratres carissimos et conlegas hon[estismos]) and probably also in the Mithraic associations.

We need hardly remark that such an expression might be used quite naturally in many forms of association, without any necessary reference to Jupiter Dolichenus, Mithras, Jesus, or indeed Noggin the Nog for all we know.

On p.339 of Textes et Monumentes we find the following:

C’est dans la vallée du Rhône, en Afrique et surtout dans la ville de Rome, où toutes deux étaient solidement établies, que la concurrence dut être particulièrement vive au IIIe siècle entre les collèges d’adorateurs de Mithra et la société des fidèles du Christ.

La lutte entre les deux religions rivales fut d’autant plus opiniâtre que leurs caractères étaient plus semblables [2]. Leurs adeptes formaient pareillement des conventicules secrets, étroitement unis, dont les membres se donnaient le nom de “Frères” [3]. Les rites qu’ils pratiquaient, offraient de nombreuses analogies : les sectateurs du dieu perse, comme les chrétiens, se purifiaient par un baptême, recevaient d’une confirmation la force de combattre les esprits du mal, et attendaient d’une communion le salut de l’âme et du corps [4]. Comme eux aussi, ils sanctifiaient le dimanche [5] et fêtaient la naissance du Soleil le 25 décembre, le jour où la Noël était célébrée, au moins depuis le IVe siècle [6].

2) Dom Martin insiste déjà sur nombre de ces analogies dans son Explication de divers monuments singuliers, 1739, p. 271 ss.
3) Minut. Felix, c. 9, § 9l, cf. supra, p. 318, n. 4, et Waltzing, Corporations profess. I, p. 329, n. 3.
4) Cf. supra, p. 319 ss.
5) Cf. supra, p. 119 et p. 325, n. 12. Le rapprochement a été fait dans l’antiquité, cf. Tertull, Apol., 16; Ad nationes, 13. — Il ne peut pas cependant y avoir eu d’action du mithriacisme sur le christanisme, car la substitution du Dimanche au sabbat date des temps apostoliques.
6) Cf. infra, p. 342, n. 4.

Again we have many more notes; but for the main claim, only note 6 “See below, p.342, n.4”.

On p.195-6 of the English we find the following:

We do not know whether the ritual of the sacraments and the hopes attaching to them suffered alteration through the influence of Mazdean dogmas and practices. Perhaps the custom of invoking the Sun three times each day,—at dawn, at noon, and at dusk,—was reproduced in the daily prayers of the Church, and it appears certain that the commemoration of the Nativity was set for the 25th of December, because it was at the winter solstice that the rebirth of the invincible god,* the Natalis invicti, was celebrated. In adopting this date, which was universally distinguished by sacred festivities, the ecclesiastical authority purified in some measure the profane usages which it could not suppress.

*See above, p. 167.

And on p.342 of the French this:

Nous ignorons si le rituel des sacrements et les espérances qu’on y attachait, ont pu subir en quelque mesure l’influence des pratiques et des dogmes mazdéens. Peut-être la coutume d’invoquer le Soleil trois fois chaque jour, à l’aurore, à midi et au crépuscule, a-t-elle été reproduite dans les prières quotidiennes de l’Église [3], et il paraît certain que la commémoration de la Nativité a été placée au 25 décembre parce qu’on fétait au solstice d’hiver le Natalis Invicti, la renaissance du dieu invincible [4]. En adoptant cette date, qui était universellement marquée par des réjouissances sacrées, l’autorité ecclésiastique purifia en quelque sorte des usages profanes qu’elle ne pouvait supprimer.

3) Usener, Gotternamen, p. 186, n. 27. Cf. cependant Duchesne. Origines du culte chrétien, 2e éd. p. 431 s.
4) Le premier qui ait mis ce fait en lumière, est Philippe del Torre (Mon. veteris Antii, p. 239 ss.) et non, comme on le dit d’ordinaire, Wernsdorf, De origine solemn. natalis Christi, Wittenberg, 1757. – Les principaux textes sont réunis par Mommsen, CIL, I 2e, p. 338. D’après un extrait que me communique M. Boll, le calendrier de l’astrologue Antiochus (Monac. gr., 287, f. 132), donne au 25 décembre l’indication: H(li/ou gene/qlion: C’est le plus ancien témoignage que l’on possède, et il est très important pour déterminer l’origine de la conception paienne (cf. Macrobe, I, 18, § 10). Sur l’histoire de sa transformation, cf. Usener, Das Weihnachtsfest, I, 1889, p. 214 ss. – Un passage récemment découvert du commentaire d’Hippolyte sur Daniel (IV, 23, p. 243, éd. Bonwetsch, 1897), donne déjà la date du 25 décembre pour la naissance du Christ, mais peut-être est-il interpolé (Hilgenfeld, Berl. Phil. Woch., 1897, p. 1324 s.). Il est certain que cette date, pour la célébration de la Noel, fut fixée à Rome par le pape Libère en 354, et qu’elle fut adoptée plus tard en Orient. – Diverses fêtes paiennes marquaient l’époque du solstice d’hiver; cf. Epiphan. Adv. haeres, t.II (t. II, p. 482 ss., éd. Dindorf).- M. Duchesne (Origines du culte chrétien, 2e éd., p. 250 ss.), propose une explication nouvelle du jour choisi pour la Noel. On y serait arrivé par des calculs chronologiques en partant de la date du 25 mars, que l’on croyail être celle de la mort du Christ. Cette explication n’exclut pas la première. – Cf. aussi infra, note additionnelle C.

The shoddy note in the English replaces a detailed note by Cumont, in which he gives details of reasons to suppose that Christmas replaces the Natalis Invicti.  Whether this argument is well-founded is not our present concern; we need merely note that Mithras is not mentioned anywhere in all of this, nor in the sources.  Nor, indeed, does Cumont say that it is.  He merely introduces this material in the middle of talk about supposed Mithraic influence on the church, and allows the reader to conclude what he will.  

Let us finally look at “additional  note C”, referenced in footnote 4 of the French.  It appears on p.355 of tome 1, and is headed “The sun, symbol of Christ”.  But the word “Mithra” is not mentioned at all.  Instead it charts how the Christians came to think of sol iustitiae and suggests connections with a solar festival on 25 Dec.

The statements that Cumont makes are very positive.  But he is merely speculating; for when he has data, he gives it, copiously.  But no data appears indicating any connection between 25 Dec. and Mithras; and the most Cumont can say is “probably”, “doubtless”.

I confess to finding no probability, and doubting entirely.

Share

From my diary

Posted on by Roger Pearse

I heard about elance last week, and decided to invite proposals for typesetting.  The site was not very friendly.  It demanded that I create a “job” in order to see what sort of people were available, whereas I would rather have done the opposite.  Anyway I did so.  When I started to get replies, I tried to look at them only for them to demand my credit card details, although they promised not to debit it.  Today I try to login; and they start demanding personal information, “for security”.  Can’t say I recommend this site so far.  The problem with all these sites is whether the people bidding are at all serious about doing the job well.  My experience with studentgems was that few were.

On to more useful things. 

I ordered the Loeb of Aelian’s Varia Historia yesterday.  Apparently it’s quite an interesting read of miscellaneous subjects.   I also hunted around for an English translation of Solinus, but it seems there has been none since the 16th century.

Share

The library at Meshed / Mashhad in Iran — unknown classical texts!

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Let me direct you all to the comments on my earlier post about the discovery of some lost portions of Galen’s On my own books here.  The material is in Arabic translation, and found in a manuscript in Iran, at the library of Meshed.  I’d never heard of it!

A commenter has dug into the question and produced gold!  It seems that there are other unpublished texts there, including a mathematical commentary by Hypatia on Diophantus.  The library is now in a brand new building as well and has a website.

If you know Arabic and want to discover new classical texts, you need to visit Meshed / Mashhad.

Share

How long were ancient manuscripts used?

Posted on by Roger Pearse

An interesting but unsatisfying post at Ben Witherington, actually by Larry Hurtado: How long were ancient manuscripts used?

George W. Houston, “Papyrological Evidence for Book Collections and Libraries in the Roman Empire,” in Ancient Literacies: The Culture of Reading in Greece and Rome, ed. William A. Johnson and Holt N. Parker (Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 233-67.

One matter Houston addresses is how long manuscripts appear to have been in use.   On the basis of manuscripts from Oxyrhynchus and from Herculaneum in particular, Houston notes numerous examples of manuscripts discarded when they were ca. 2-3 centuries old.  Overall, he judges that the evidence indicates “a useful life of between one hundred and two hundred years for a majority of the volumes, with a significant minority lasting two hundred years or more” (p. 251).  And, as he notes, the evidence from Qumran leads to a similar view.

This would tally with the sort of evidence we get in Aulus Gellius, of manuscripts of the time of Cicero or Vergil being available.  A set of literary testimonia would be useful, I think.

I’ve found the book, and the article appears to be a very useful one, packed full of data and intelligently analysed.

H/t Jim Davila at Paleojudaica.

Share

Bar Hebraeus, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum vol. 2 now on Archive.org

Posted on by Roger Pearse

I’ve just created and uploaded a PDF of the Chronicon Ecclesiasticum of Bar Hebraeus, vol.2, to Archive.org.  The url is here:

http://www.archive.org/details/BarHebraeusChroniconEcclesiasticumVol.2

Many blessings on Glasgow University Library who kindly photocopied this 19th century volume for me.  It arrived this evening, so I have spent the time since productively!  It cost about 25GBP to get the copies, or around $40 (the invoice has yet to reach me, but will probably include a charge for postage).

For those not familiar with the work, the Chronicon Ecclesiasticum of Bar Hebraeus is a history of the church in a series of chapters, each covering an ecclesiastical figure.  Usually the figure is a patriarch.  The work is in two parts.  It runs up to his own time, in the 13th century.  He wrote in Syriac; the editors Abbeloos and Lamy include a simple Latin translation alongside it.

I uploaded volume 1 some years ago.  Now only volume 3 remains.  As far as I know, this 1872 edition is the only one that the work has ever received.  Yet it is the fundamental source for all Syriac studies.

I will obtain and scan volume 3 as well.  It’s too important a text to be inaccessible.  Any errors, do let me know.

Share

More on Critoboulos of Imbros

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Looking at the introduction to the German edition of Critoboulos’ history, I find that a German translation is promised.  And it was so:

Das Geschichtswerk des Kritobulos von Imbros, Reihe ‘Byzantinische Geschichtsschreiber’, Bd. XVII, hg. von J. Koder, übersetzt, eingeleitet und erklärt von Dieter Roderich Reinsch, Graz, Wien, Köln 1986.

Useful to know, anyway.

Share

The sack of Constantinople in 1453

Posted on by Roger Pearse

I happened across the following item online, described as an “eyewitness”, but not properly referenced.  We all know how unreliable such things can be, so I started to hunt around.  The text is given on this website here, and then repeated on various other sites.  Pajamas Media gives it in an article Turkey celebrates 558 years of illegal occupation of Constantinople.

Nothing will ever equal the horror of this harrowing and terrible spectacle. People frightened by the shouting ran out of their houses and were cut down by the sword before they knew what was happening. And some were massacred in their houses where they tried to hide, and some in churches where they sought refuge.

The enraged Turkish soldiers . . . gave no quarter. When they had massacred and there was no longer any resistance, they were intent on pillage and roamed through the town stealing, disrobing, pillaging, killing, raping, taking captive men, women, children, old men, young men, monks, priests, people of all sorts and conditions . . . There were virgins who awoke from troubled sleep to find those brigands standing over them with bloody hands and faces full of abject fury. This medley of all nations, these frantic brutes stormed into their houses, dragged them, tore them, forced them, dishonored them, raped them at the cross-roads and made them submit to the most terrible outrages. It is even said that at the mere sight of them many girls were so stupefied that they almost gave up the ghost.

Old men of venerable appearance were dragged by their white hair and piteously beaten. Priests were led into captivity in batches, as well as reverend virgins, hermits and recluses who were dedicated to God alone and lived only for Him to whom they sacrificed themselves, who were dragged from their cells and others from the churches in which they had sought refuge, in spite of their weeping and sobs and their emaciated cheeks, to be made objects of scorn before being struck down. Tender children were brutally snatched from their mothers’ breasts and girls were pitilessly given up to strange and horrible unions, and a thousand other terrible things happened. . .

Temples were desecrated, ransacked and pillaged . . . sacred objects were scornfully flung aside, the holy icons and the holy vessels were desecrated. Ornaments were burned, broken in pieces or simply thrown into the streets. Saints’ shrines were brutally violated in order to get out the remains which were then thrown to the wind. Chalices and cups for the celebration of the Mass were set aside for their orgies or broken or melted down or sold. Priests’ garments embroidered with gold and set with pearls and gems were sold to the highest bidder and thrown into the fire to extract the gold. Immense numbers of sacred and profane books were flung on the fire or tom up and trampled under foot. The majority, however, were sold at derisory prices, for a few pence. Saints’ altars, tom from their foundations, were overturned. All the most holy hiding places were violated and broken in order to get out the holy treasures which they contained . . .

When Mehmed (II) saw the ravages, the destruction and the deserted houses and all that had perished and become ruins, then a great sadness took possession of him and he repented the pillage and all the destruction. Tears came to his eyes and sobbing he expressed his sadness. ‘What a town this was! And we have allowed it to be destroyed’! His soul was full of sorrow. And in truth it was natural, so much did the horror of the situation exceed all limits.

The reference given is “Routh, C. R. N. They Saw It Happen in Europe 1450-1600 (1965).”

The book is in Google books, and searching for the first line gives us something even in the snippet.  It comes from p.386:

Source: On May 29th the city fell and there ensued the wildest scenes of butchery and destruction by the Turks.  Critobulus, op. cit., English version from Guerdan and Halliday, op. cit., p.218.

This is then followed by our text.

Critobulus is a writer new to me, but a German edition exists: Critobuli Imbriotae historiae (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 22), De Gruyter (1983). Incredibly these muppets printed it without a translation, presumably to show how clever they were.  Of course the rest of us know that anyone can print a text; if you have to write a translation, you do have to work out what the words mean! Apparently the autograph ms. exists in the library of the Seraglio in Istanbul.  It seems that C. Muller was the first to print it in part 1 of vol. 5 of Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, 1870, p.40 f.  This is online and can be consulted, but again is Greek only.

A further search on the snippet view reveals that “op.cit.” means A History of the Deeds of Mohammed II.  Critobulus of Imbros was, it seems, a renegade who converted to Islam. 

Likewise I find that “Guerdan and Halliday” means Byzantium: its triumphs and tragedy, by R. Guerdan, trans. by D. L. B. Halliday, Allen and Unwin (1954). 

Further searches reveals that a translation does exist of the source text: Charles T. Riggs, Michael Critobulus (Kritovoulos), History of Mehmed the Conqueror, Princeton (1954).  It would be nice to check the above against this, and see to what extent it is accurate.  Because the subject is a politically loaded one, it needs to be checked carefully.  I’ve ordered a copy of the Riggs translation by ILL, and we will see!

Share