“OMG I’m So Hungover” – Ogham Annotations in a 9th century copy of Priscian

Posted on by Roger Pearse

The Anglandicus blog has an amusing 2014 article on Massive Scribal Hangovers: One Ninth Century Confession.  The whole post is well worth a read on Irish marginal notes in manuscripts.

One such manuscript has a great number of these marginalia.  Below is the upper portion of folio 204 in St. Gall 904 (or Codex Sangallensis 204, if we choose to be formal).  This was written in Ireland in 851 AD.  It contains a copy of Priscian’s Institutiones Grammaticae, a rather dry text.  The manuscript is online here; folio 204 is here.

Ogham note in top margin of St Gall 904, f.204 – “Latheirt” (= ale-killed)

At the top, where I have drawn a red box, is an Ogham marginal note.  This gives us a single word in Old Irish and reads simply “Latheirt“.  The meaning of this is given to us by an old Irish dictionary, Sanas Cormaic (Cormac’s glossary), itself perhaps composed in the 9th century.  An English translation of this is online at Archive.org here, and our word is on page 102.

This tells us that Lait(h) = Ale, the stuff consumed copiously in Northern society at this season, plus Irt = killed.  So Latheirt means “ale-killed”, ale has killed us.  The rather unimaginative translator adds that the Latin meaning is crapula, or “drunkenness”.

In short, our scribe has a massive hangover.  It is unlikely that this was assisting his perusal of Priscian.

The St Gall manuscript is interesting because of its many Old Irish marginalia.  The website tells us that it contains “over 9,000 glosses, among them 3,478 in the Old Irish language. The basis for the reconstruction of the Old Irish language.”

The Anglandicus blog seems to be only occasionally updated, but is well worth looking at.  The importance of the Irish monks to the dissemination of ancient texts in Europe can hardly be overestimated, and such marginal notes take us directly to their state of mind while doing so.

Share

From my diary

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Happy New Year, everyone.

I’ve created an electronic Latin text of the De solstitia et aequinoctia from the 1530 Froben edition.  This probably has some OCR errors in it, as I have already spotted one.  I’m waiting for a more modern edition to appear by inter-library loan.  I understand that the modern edition s not a critical edition:  it was just printed as an appendix to a book on something else, and based on three older manuscripts.  But I will know more when I have seen it.  Of course the 1530 edition was probably printed from a random late manuscript that Froben happened to have on hand.

I’ve looked a little at some of the online manuscripts, and already observed an interesting difference to the 1530 text.  This reads at one point:

cum praecepta eius servaverimus

But I find that the Laud misc. 452, f.79, and the St Gall 103, both 9th century, read instead:

cum praecepta eius observaverimus

which is much more comprehensible.  It will be most interesting to see the modern edition.

I did start to think about translating De solstitia et aequinoctia, but I realised that I already have two Latin translations in flight – an early Life of St George, and the short Life of St Cuthman.  I decided to leave De solstitia for now.  I will upload the electronic text when I am ready anyway.

In the meantime I have returned to St Cuthman.  I’m working on it, while adding extra information to my QuickLatin Latin parser.  I added some material explaining the Supine, for instance.  I’m also finding errors.  I discovered today a problem with pronoun handling, which will have to be fixed.  So the translation and the Latin coding are moving forward together, albeit both slowly.  At some point I must package up the new version of QuickLatin and release it.  There is so much to do.

I also want to get back to work once my illness has completely faded away; that is, if my client still wants my services.  I suspect that I’ll be ready in about three weeks, and there is some six weeks of paid work there.  It will be good to finish that up.  Meanwhile I can get back into working, if only at my home computer!

Share

Order my books before they go out of print!

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Long term readers will remember that I commissioned two texts and translations in printed form: Eusebius, Gospel Problems and Solutions (2011), and Origen’s Homilies on Ezekiel (2014).  The first is the only version of this text; the second is the best version of the work.  Both contain catena fragments, the original text, and a facing translation.  The hardbacks are very splendid; and the paperback is a solid item too.

But all good things must come to an end, and these will go out of print in the next month or two.  So … if you or your library want copies, order them now from Amazon!

I know these are pricey, but once they are gone, they are gone.

Amazon don’t keep a lot of stock, naturally, but you can order any of these as all are in print.  Lead time is probably about a week when “out of stock”.

Thank you, everybody who supported this project!

Share

Subscriptions by email

Posted on by Roger Pearse

A correspondent has asked me to enable a facility to subscribe to this blog by email.  I’ve added a widget for it to the sidebar on the right!  (I think the facility existed, but this makes it more obvious).

Share

Some notes on “De solstitiis et aequinoctiis” (CPL 2277)

Posted on by Roger Pearse

There are very few sources for a Roman festival of the sun on 25th December.  The main one is the entry in the Chronography of 354, in the Philocalian Calendar, labelling the day as “Natalis Invicti”, the birthday of Sol Invictus, the state sun-god.[1]  Next to it is a 13th century scholiast on Dionysius bar-Salibi.  But the third is an obscure homily generally referred to as De solstitiis et aequinoctiis, (or De solstitia et aequinoctia) which contains, towards the end, the following aside:

Sed et dominus noster nascitur mense decembris . . . VIII Kal. Ian. . . . Sed et invicti natalem apellant.  Quis utique tam invictus nisi dominus noster qui mortem subactam devicit?  Vel quod dicant solis esse natalem, ipse est sol iustitiae de quo malachias propheta dixit: “orietur vobis timentibus nomen ipsius sol iustitiae et sanitas est in pennis eius.”

But Our Lord, too, is born in the month of December . . . the eighth before the calends of January [25 December] . . . But they also call it the “Birthday of the invincible one” (Invictus). But who then is as invincible as our lord who defeated the death he suffered?  Or if they say that this is the birthday of the sun, well He Himself is the Sun of Justice of whom the prophet Malachi said (4:2), “But for you who fear my name, the Sun of justice shall arise, and health is in his wings.”[2]

The implication of this is that Christ as Sol Justitiae is a deliberate replacement for the pagan Sol Invictus.  It is a key piece of evidence in the “Calculation” theory of the origins of Dec. 25 as Christmas.[3]

So it’s an interesting passage.  Yet there is a remarkable vagueness in most articles which reference this text, as to what it is and where it may be found.

In the article quoted above, the author tells us that the full title of the work is De solstitia et aequinoctia conceptionis et nativitatis Domini Nostri Iesu Christi et Iohannis Baptistae (“On the solstice and equinox of the conception and birth of Our Lord Jesus Christ and John the Baptist”).

The work is in fact listed in the Clavis Patrum Latinorum as CPL 2277.   The date of composition is  uncertain.  The bible citations suggest an African origin, but there are also two terms which are Syriac.[4]

It is actually part of a collection of 38 sermons in Latin, all attributed to John Chrysostom, whose existence was documented for the first time by Dom André Wilmart in 1918.[5]  It is the 17th item in that collection.  Wilmart gives the following details:

Title: Iterum de natiuitate domini et Iohannis Baptistae et conceptionis de solistitia et aequinoctia conceptionis et natiuitatis domini nostri Iesu Christi et Johannis Baptistae.
Opening words: Nescio an quisquam ausus sit arcanum, fratres, ante Christi natiuitatem intellegere uel terminasse cursum horarum dierum ac noctium per quos solistitia et aequinoctia cognoscere possit.
Closing words:  ….Migrauerat enim gratia et ueritas a Iudaeis quia “lex per Moysen data est, nam gratia et ueritas per Iesum Christum facta est”. In Christo Iesu domino nostro qui uiuit et regnat cum patre et spiritu sancto per immortalia saecula saeculorum amen

Wilmart (p.306) gives a list of 25 copies of this collection of homilies, all with the same content in the same order, beginning in the 9th century.  Among the 9th century copies is Saint-Gall 103, which is online here.  Our text is pp. 176-191.  It begins on p. 176:

St Gall 103, p.176.

Note how the title is singular, but has been corrected to plural by another hand.  Our passage is on page 190, and the work ends on page 191:

St Gall 103, p.191

There are still other copies in existence.  One of these, transmitted independently, attributes the work to an otherwise unknown author – Pontius Maximus. This is  given in a 12th century manuscript, today Troyes 523, fol.205v-210v, originally from Clairvaux as the colophon on fol. 210v makes clear.  It is online here.  The text is the last work in the manuscript, which also contains 15 treatises in Latin by Eusebius of Emesa , followed by 5 by Tertullian.

Ms. Troyes 523, folio 205v. Incipit of De Solstitia.

The red text tells us that, after the explicit for Tertullian, de paenitentia, the author is Pontius Maximus, and the title is de solstitiis et aequinoctiis…, i.e. plural.  I have also found an article that claims the work is “sometimes attributed to one Pontius Maximus or Pontius Maximianus, conjectured to be an African, but thought by others to be of anonymous Syrian origin.”[6]

There are only two editions of the text.

It was first printed in Divi Ioannis Chrysostomi Archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani opera, quae hactenus versa sunt, omnia, ed. Desiderius Erasmus (Vol. 2). Basel: Frobenius (1530), p. 336-342. (Online at Google Books).  No doubt this was printed from whatever manuscript happened to come to hand.  There are reprints of this, including a 1547 (col. 1285-1294) and a 1588 edition.  I’m not sure how late this was reprinted.

The only other edition is B. Botte, Les origines de la noël et de l’épiphanie (Series: Textes et études liturgiques 1). Louvain: Abbaye du Mont César (1932) who appended a version of the text on p. 93-105.  Hijmans states that this is not a critical edition, but is based on a collation of  a few manuscripts – somewhere I read that this was just three of the oldest.  The Botte edition text was also reprinted in the Patrologiae Latinae Supplementum vol. 1 (1959), pp.557-567.

I’ve tried to OCR the 1530 text, but it involves correcting every word!  So I’ve placed an interlibrary loan for the 1932 book, and I hope that we can at least get the Latin text online.

This is the sort of exercise that reminds us how much there is to do!

UPDATE:

  • The 9th century Oxford Laud Misc. 452, originally at Lorsch, is also online here.  Our text is on f.77r-83r.
  • The 9-10th century Paris BNF lat. 12140 is online here, although in monochrome.  Our homily is on f.87v-98r.
  • An English translation is now online.
Share
  1. [1]Natalis may also mean the date of the founding of a temple, and other deities than Sol Invictus were called “invictus”, but this probably does refer to Sol Invictus.↩
  2. [2]Steven Hijmans, “Sol Invictus, the winter solstice, and the origins of Christmas,” in: Mouseion III.3 (2003), 377-398, esp. 379-80; also the Catholic Encyclopedia version.↩
  3. [3]See S. K. Roll, Towards the Origins of Christmas, p.97.↩
  4. [4]S. K. Roll, Towards the Origins of Christmas, p.97. “The text is generally thought to date from after the earliest notation of Christmas on the calendar, but before a feast was widely celebrated on that date, probably the early fourth century. The Latin text betrays certain African turns of phrase, but also two specifically Syriac terms.[173]” and “173. Botte, Origines, 91, and Engberding, “Der 25. Dezember,” 36, both explore these in some detail.” – H. Engberding, “Der 25. Dezember als Tag der Feier der Geburt des Herrn,” Archiv fur Liturgiewissenschaft 2 (1952), 25-43.  Unfortunately neither is accessible to me.↩
  5. [5]A. Wilmart, “La collection des 38 homélies latines de saint Jean Chrysostome,” in: Journal of Theological Studies 19 (1918), 305-327.  There is also a study that I have not seen in German: W. Wenk, Zur Sammlung der 38 Homilien des Chrysostomus Latinus (mit Edition der Nr. 6, 8, 27, 32 und 33), Wiener Studien Beiheft 10, Wien 1988.↩
  6. [6]R. Love, “Bede and John Chrysostom”, Journal of Medieval Latin 17 (2007) 72-87, p.77, identifying a quote from our work in Bede.↩

Was there no festival of Sol on 25 December before 324 AD?

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Most of us are aware that the 25th December is labelled as the “Natalis [solis] Invicti” in the Chronography of 354; specifically in the 6th part, which contains the so-called “Calendar of Philocalus” (online here), listing the state holidays.  Sol Invictus was introduced into Rome by Aurelian in 274 AD as a state cult, and it seems reasonable to suppose that this state holiday was introduced at the same time.   The Chronography also lists the saints’ days, in another calendar dating from 336 (online here), including Christmas on 25 December.  It is often supposed, therefore, that the date of Christmas was selected precisely to coincide with this solar holiday.  This theory was advanced by H. Usener in his book Das Weihnachstfest (1889, rep. 1911) with a follow-up in his posthumous article on Sol Invictus in 1905.[1]

However I have lately seen claims that, far from Christmas being located on the date of a pagan holiday, the truth is that Julian the Apostate (or someone) established a solar festival on the pre-existing date of Christmas!  These claims seem to derive from an interesting article by Steven Hijmans, “Usener’s Christmas”.[2]  Hijman is a revisionist, so it is necessary to be wary, but I thought that it might be useful to review some of the evidence.

In the Chronography of 354, in the “Filocalian calendar”, some holidays – all associated with emperors or gods – are marked by chariot races (circenses missus).  These are also in multiples of 12 races, with one exception.  The sole exception is the entry for 25 December:

 N·INVICTI·CM·XXX

Which is the natalis of Invictus (rather than Sol) and 30 races, rather than a multiple of 12.  It is, therefore, an anomalous entry.

Hijmans makes some very interesting points about this.

  • Firstly, he argues that celebrating festivals with chariot races rather than sacrifices was an innovation of Constantine, introduced after Constantine defeated Licinius in 324.  It’s not an ancient thing.  So all these chariot races were introduced then.
  • Secondly, since all the ancient festivals were multiples of 12, it is clear that no festival of Sol existed on 25 December at that time.  If it had, it too would be a multiple of 12.  Therefore it is a later addition; as the irregular naming also indicates.
  • Thirdly he speculates that this entry may not even have been present in the original copy made in 354, but added later.
  • This leaves the first definite mention of a solar festival on this date to Julian the Apostate’s Hymn to King Helios, in December 362.

This is an interesting argument indeed.  What do we make of it?

Hijmans does not detail his first point, merely referring to M. Wallraff, Christus Verus Sol (2001), p.132, “citing Eusebius”. Unfortunately the Wallraff volume is inaccessible to me.   So we have to leave this point unchecked.

The second point relies on the accurate transmission of numerals in copies of the Chronography.  I am not clear whether this is actually reliable, or whether the text printed by Mommsen – which is the basis for the online version – is a critical text or not.   The Dec. 25 date could really have read “XXXVI” for all we know.

Obviously speculation, as in the third point, is not evidence.  I would suggest that we should not infer interpolation without need.

All the same this is a very interesting point.  Is it really possible that this was the case?

Update (5th August 2023): In August 2020 Dr Hijmans kindly responded to this article, and gave me permission to post his comments.  I am slightly ashamed that it took me so long to do so.  He wrote:

I have a few comments to supplement my arguments which you summarize so clearly in that blog.

1. Irrespective of whether we take the calendar (354) or Julian (362) as the first mention of a solar festival, it is interesting to note that there is no evidence before the mid 4th c. AD for a solar festival on December 25th or indeed on any of the astronomically significant days (if we take Dec. 25 to be the winter solstice). All traditional feast days for Sol are on astronomically random days. Thus there was no latent expectation, in antiquity, that the winter Solstice should be celebrated in honour of Sol. In other words the evidence we have for the celebration of Christmas (330s) is about a generation earlier than the evidence for a festival for Sol on that day.

2. The calendar mentions every celebrated emperor or deity explicitly by name, including Sol for the multi-day festival in October. Why is December 25 the sole exception?

3. Julian clearly states that there were two separate festivals of Sol in 362. One was the “newish” multi-day festival held every four years, and the other was an ancient one-day festival celebrated around the time of the winter solstice, established by Numa. If the newish, four-year festival is not the one founded by Aurelian, which is it then? If it is the one founded by Aurelian (as it surely must be), then on the evidence of Julian it was not celebrated on or around December 25, as that was the date of the annual one-day festival. The entry in the Calendar of 354 for a multi day ludi Solis on October 19-22 confirms this (which ludi were these, if not the ones of Aurelian). As the ludi were first celebrated in 274, they would also have been held in 254 (calendar, 20th games) and 262 (Julian, 22nd games). I really do not see any other way to read this evidence.

4. I think that the fact that Julian attributes the annual winter solstice Sol-festival to Numa is simply to give it pedigree. There is no evidence for such a festival, even in the late Republican and early imperial fasti (in which Sol is well-represented: 8/9 August, 29 August, also 11 December (if we accept Lydus).

To this I replied:

I do like your theory, and it would be convenient for me personally in arguing with the bat-witted “Christmas is really pagan” element among us. But for the same reasons I’m on my guard against it.

I like your argument that Julian knew that the October multi-day festival was newer; that would fit with Aurelian. But what, then, is the Natalis Invicti on 25 Dec? It works as the supposed anniversary of the dedication of the temple of Sol Invictus by Aurelian. But can we say that Aurelian created two festivals, and that Julian knew only of one and supposed the other to be from the days of Numa, i.e. traditional (I wouldn’t see this wording as anything but a rhetorical flourish meaning “very ancient”)? Do we see it as some form of dressing up of the solstice that ordinary people celebrated anyway, (was it with torches?)? If so, any 3rd century emperor could have created it. Maybe even a 4th century emperor. Does it have to have a deeper significance? You make a good point about the absence of mention of either emperor or deity – is that why?

Your point about the Roman failure to mark astronomical events is fascinating. Hmm!

I can also see Julian creating a fake festival, to undermine a Christian one. He was an intelligent persecutor,and his methods have been adopted ever since. But I don’t know how much time he even spent in Rome. And … would he care? It would only affect Rome, after all. I’ve never looked at the data for Christmas in the 4th century – was it widespread? If not, why would he bother? I think of him as mainly interested in the Greek east.

But at root, I don’t much like hypothesising an interpolation of this stuff into the Philocalian calendar. The Chronography was, after all, a physical book – a splendid artwork. It could well have had something added into it at an early stage, before any copies were made. Just as Jerome added material into the empty spaces in Eusebius’ Chronicon, someone could have added in the material about DNSI. It’s true. But I don’t like it. It feels way too much like the lazy German scholarship of the 19th century – I almost wrote “the last century”! – which treated inconvenient data as something to be excused. There’s no evidence of this. We have so little evidence, that we can not afford to discard any of it.

So … I am hesitant.

Dr H. kindly responded:

I am hesitant too to conclude with certainty hat Christmas preceded a pagan winter celebration of Sol. I (try to) state simply that there is no evidence for it. The evidence against it is essentially an argumentum e silentio.

Julian states unequivocally that the multi-day, quadrennial festival that he did not celebrate around the time of the winter solstice was “newish” and that the one-day festival which is at the heart of his hymn to Helios goes back to Numa. He does not say when the multi-day festival was celebrated, but I think the October date given by the Calendar makes that quite clear.

I would qualify that as “established Roman religion connected with Sol” did not show particular interest in astronomy (which – given the state of the Roman calendar up to the Julians, should not really surprise us, in hindsight.) But even Roman imperial religion shows no real sign of this, at leas as fat a Sol is concerned. To the best of my knowledge even Mithraism had not particular festival on the winter Solstice. I would have to check, but I thought the Tienen evidence placed the major Mithraic celebrations (as established by buried remnants of feasts) in the Spring? That they celebrated December 25 is not, I believe, supported by any actual primary sources…

Julian’s hymn to Helios sounds to me like a work written specifically to promote the solar celebration of December 25. I don’t think that necessarily means he ‘invented’ it. There are various ways in which one can imagine such a festival to have arisen in the fourth century, with collective “memory” being a very likely one. I think it is very well possible that Julian believed the convenient “fact” of a solar festival on the 25th. His insistence on the importance of that festival is striking.

As for interpolation. We need to explain the major anomalies of this entry (number of chariot races, wording of the entry). The calendar gives no hint of what those reasons were. I would hazard that a later interpolation is the most likely interpretation – not in the Calendar of Filocalus himself, but in the “mother calendar” which it copied. An entirely pagan official calendar Rome would not be unthinkable in the 350s, but may have prompted somebody to pencil in – say – the birthday of Christ (in Rome around the 320s, much late in most other cases we can identify)

Very useful points indeed.  Thank you!

Share
  1. [1]H. Usener, “Sol Invictus”, RhM 60 (1905) pp. 465-491.↩
  2. [2]Steven Hijmans, “Usener’s Christmas: A contribution to the modern construct of late antique solar syncretism”, in: M. Espagne & P. Rabault-Feuerhahn (edd.), Hermann Usener und die Metamorphosen der Philologie. Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz, 2011. 139-152.  Online here, although the online version appears to be a draft.  However Hijmans’ full thesis, with extensive plates, is online here.↩

The first mention of Yule: the Gothic liturgical calendar in the Codex Argenteus

Posted on by Roger Pearse

The first mention of “Yule” is to be found in a palimpsest manuscript, perhaps of the the 6th century AD.  A number of Gothic bibles were reused for their parchment at the northern Italian monastery of Bobbio, and one of these contains a fragment of a Gothic calendar of saints’ days as the last but one leaf.  Curiously the literature seems to refer to this as the Codex Ambrosianus A, without ever specifying the shelf-mark at the Ambrosian Library in Milan more precisely.[1]

The calendar was first printed, with Latin translation, by the inevitable Angelo Mai, then prefect of the Ambrosian Library.[2]

An old edition of the calendar may be found at Archive.org here, [3]

Fragment of an ancient Gothic calendar from Codex Ambrosianus A

The actual meaning of these ancient words in a little known language is much debated even today, but for our purposes a quick-and-dirty version of Angelo Mai’s Latin will help us get an idea of what we are looking at.

23.  The sufferings of the martyrs and Fritharic among the Gothic people.

29.  The commemoration of the martyrs who, with Werekan the presbyter and Batwin the minister of the Catholic church were burned among the Gothic people.

… beginning of July .30.

3.  Of King Constantine.

6.  Of Bishop Dorotheus.

15.  Of Philip the Apostle of Hierapolis.

19.  Of the venerable nuns of Beroea, 40 in all.

But Ebbinghaus rendered the second entry as perhaps, “The memory of the martyrs who were with Wereka the priest and Batwins—all that is left of a church full of people—burnt in Gothia”[4].

Likewise “July” is not what subsequent readers have understood.  The “Naubaimbar” or “November” above wasn’t even visible to Mai.  Recently David Laudau has restudied images of the palimpsest and has shown that the word is not there.

I’ve been trying to find out more details, but it is remarkably hard to find your way into the literature.  I can’t find the shelfmarks for the manuscripts.  The key article on the calendar appears to be E. A. Ebbinghaus, “The Gothic Calendar”, General Linguistics 15 (1975); but I can find no evidence of the journal.

David Landau seems to have done a lot of work on this, and especially on the word “jiuleis”.  His home page is here, and includes many PDFs of his articles.  In “The Source of the Gothic Month Name jiuleis and its Cognates”,   Namenkundliche Informationen 95-6 (2009), pp. 239-248, he argues that it cannot mean “Jul” or “Yule”, because no such pre-Christian feast existed.  His source for this is given as Gustav Bilfinger, Untersuchungen iiber die Zeitrechnung der alten Germanen. Vol.2: Das Germanische Julfest, Stuttgart 1901.  The value of this statement is not known to me.  Instead he argues that it derives from “jubilee”.

It would be interesting to know more about this obscure text in an obscure language.

Share
  1. [1]D. Gary Miller, The Oxford Gothic Grammar, Oxford (2019), p.9.  Preview here.↩
  2. [2]Vlphilae partium ineditarum in Ambrosianis palimpsestis ab Angelo Maio, 1819.  Online here, p.26 f.↩
  3. [3]W. Streitberg, Die gotische Bibel, 1908.  The calendar is on p.472-4.↩
  4. [4]Ernst A. Ebbinghaus, “The Second Entry of the Gothic Calendar”, The Journal of English and Germanic Philology 77 (1978), 183-7. JSTOR↩

From my diary

Posted on by Roger Pearse

I’ve been updating the Mithras site with images that people have sent me over the last year.  These go into the catalogue of monuments and inscriptions that I maintain, as and when I feel like it.  I’ve added an entry for the “new” Mithraeum at Ostia, which has been dubbed the “Mithraeum of the coloured marbles.”  I think that I have dealt with the backlog.

The actual publications about the new Mithraeum are thankfully online at Academia.edu.  While going through the Academia page, I noticed increased signs that the owners intend to monetise the site – containing content, remember, that they did not create.  I fear that the greed of the Academia.edu owners will kill the site.  But I imagine that people will just migrate to another.

I must now try to return to adding syntactical information to QuickLatin.

Share

“Feasting in excess”: a fingerprint phrase in quotations of Gregory Nazianzen on the Nativity

Posted on by Roger Pearse

I came across this (rather useless) page, which contained the curious claim:

In 389AD, St Gregory Nazianzen, one of the four fathers of the Greek Church criticized customs of ‘feasting in excess” and “dancing” at Christmas. This criticism arose because these festive excesses were hangovers from the pagan midwinter festivals like Saturnalia when celebrants suspended normal life and pleasure ruled.

The second sentence is the opinion of the writer, who is trying to tie Christmas to paganism somehow.  But what is the reference to Gregory?

If we search for ‘”feasting in excess” “dancing” Gregory Nazianzus’ in Google we get a longer phrase, “feasting to excess, dancing, and crowning the doors” – note the change from “in” to “to” – from the Daily Telegraph and the Times Literary Supplement in 2016.  The latter is reviewing (mainly) Mark Forsyth, A Christmas cornucopia : the hidden stories behind our Yuletide traditions, also 2016, and quoting from it.  This in turn seems to derive from Ronald Hutton, Stations of the Sun, 2001, which uses the exact same words, and gives a reference to “Golby and Purdue, Modern Christmas“.  But we can jump back to 1902, with W.F.Dawson, Christmas: Its Origin and Associations, whose quote is longer still:

against feasting to excess, dancing, and crowning the doors (practices derived from the heathens); urging the celebration of the festival after an heavenly and not an earthly manner.

In turn we find William Sandys in 1833 (Christmas Carols, ancient & modern, p.xiii) exactly the same words, but not in quotes, but as Sandys’ own words.  It is delightful to find, popping up here, the practice of turning indirect speech into direct speech, so common in bogus quotations.

Further back yet, in 1808, we find a quotation at some length in the works of Bishop Hall, although not containing the “excess” bit:

Amongst the rest, that of Gregory Nazianzen is so remarkable, that I may not omit it; as that, which sets forth the excess of joyful respect, wherewith the Ancient Christians were wont to keep this day. “ Let us,” saith he *, “ celebrate this Feast; not in a panegyrical but divine, not in a worldly but supersecular manner: not regarding so much ourselves or ours, as the worship of Christ, &c. And how shall we effect this ? Not by crowning our doors with garlands, nor by leading of dances, nor adorning our streets; not by feeding our eyes; not by delighting our ears with songs; not by effeminating our smell with perfumes; not with humouring our taste with dainties; not with pleasing our touch; not with silken and costly clothes, &c. not with the sparkling of jewels; not with the lustre of gold; not with the artifice of counterfeit colours, &c. let us leave these things to Pagans for their pomps, &c. But we, who adore the Word of the Father, if we think fit to affect delicacies, let us feed ourselves with the dainties of the Law of God; and with those discourses especially, which are fitting for this present Festival.” So that learned and eloquent Father, to his auditors of Constantinople.

The reference is to the “Oration upon the Day of the Nativity of Christ”.  But this itself is a reprint as there is an edition from 1738.

Earlier yet, in 1725, we find in Henry Bourne’s Antiquitates Vulgares, p.154:

Gregory Nazianzen, in that excellent Oration of his upon Christmas-Day, says, Let us not celebrate the Feast after an Earthly, but an Heavenly Manner; let not our Doors be crown’d; let not Dancing be encourag’d; let not the Cross-paths be adorned, the Eyes fed, nor the Ears delighted, &c. Let us not Feast to excess, nor be Drunk with Wine, &c.

And we can go still further, with the same quotation in the sermons of Hugh Latimer (d. 1555), the protestant Bishop of London burned by Bloody Mary, here in a 1758 reprint, on p.782.

I would guess, therefore, that we are looking at a passage of the sermon of Hugh Latimer, which has been transmitted to us, through a side-channel of quotations and re-quotations for nearly 500 years.  It has not been transmitted unaltered, but somehow it has come through.

By contract we can find the NPNF translation of Gregory’s Oration 38: On the Nativity, here. It seems to have influenced these popular works not at all.

Therefore let us keep the Feast, not after the manner of a heathen festival, but after a godly sort; not after the way of the world, but in a fashion above the world; not as our own but as belonging to Him Who is ours, or rather as our Master’s; not as of weakness, but as of healing; not as of creation, but of re-creation.

V. And how shall this be? Let us not adorn our porches, nor arrange dances, nor decorate the streets; let us not feast the eye, nor enchant the ear with music, nor enervate the nostrils with perfume, nor prostitute the taste, nor indulge the touch, those roads that are so prone to evil and entrances for sin; let us not be effeminate in clothing soft and flowing, whose beauty consists in its uselessness, nor with the glittering of gems or the sheen of gold or the tricks of colour, belying the beauty of nature, and invented to do despite unto the image of God; Not in rioting and drunkenness, with which are mingled, I know well, chambering and wantonness, since the lessons which evil teachers give are evil; or rather the harvests of worthless seeds are worthless. Let us not set up high beds of leaves, making tabernacles for the belly of what belongs to debauchery. Let us not appraise the bouquet of wines, the kickshaws of cooks, the great expense of unguents. Let not sea and land bring us as a gift their precious dung, for it is thus that I have learnt to estimate luxury; and let us not strive to outdo each other in intemperance (for to my mind every superfluity is intemperance, and all which is beyond absolute need), – and this while others are hungry and in want, who are made of the same clay and in the same manner.

VI. Let us leave all these to the Greeks and to the pomps and festivals of the Greeks, who call by the name of gods beings who rejoice in the reek of sacrifices, and who consistently worship with their belly; evil inventors and worshippers of evil demons. But we, the Object of whose adoration is the Word, if we must in some way have luxury, let us seek it in word, and in the Divine Law, and in histories; especially such as are the origin of this Feast; that our luxury may be akin to and not far removed from Him Who hath called us together.

There is probably a more modern translation, but these too have most likely stood forth in a void.

It is interesting to see this alternative form of transmission.  Probably the same process is the origin of many a “fragment” in late authors.

Share

A miscellany of things

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Here are a couple of things that I noticed recently, and might be useful to others.

Following an enquiry, I find that there is a translation of Theophylact on Matthew online here.  This is certainly better than the $70 needed to obtain the 1992 translation of the same work, at Amazon.com here.

Next, the physical remains of ancient Rome are always interesting.  Piranesi printed a drawing of the rear of the Pantheon, with what he claims are the remains of the Baths of Agrippa, completed before 12 BC and therefore one of the original public baths of thermae:

I was able to find online some photos of the same area, here.

Much of the baths still stood in the 17th century, despite use as a quarry for building materials.  It would be interesting to track down the older sketches that apparently exist.

Finally I saw something about the Ethiopian canon of the bible.  It is a common atheist jeer online is that the Ethiopian canon of the bible is larger than the normal, insinuating – the argument is rarely made explicit – that this proves that the bible does not exist, or is not by God, or something of the kind.  I’ve never worried about the odd additions to the Ethiopian canon, since Ethiopia was not converted to Christianity until the canon was pretty much set, and the isolation of that community, the little that we know about it, and its unusual circumstances could result in any amount of oddity.  One Ethiopian emperor used to eat pages of the bible when he was feeling ill, for instance.  This is not a very educated world.

But I spent a little time looking into this.  The Wikipedia article contains very poor sources.  The only one of any value seemed to  be by G.-A. Mikre-Sellassie,[1]  This says on p.119:

It is rather difficult to determine what exactly the official Canon of Scriptures of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church is. As R.W Cowley has rightly observed, one of the problems in this study is that in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church “the concept of canonicity is regarded more loosely than it is among most other churches”.[46] Apparently, the two terms, protocanonical and deuterocanonical, employed among many churches nowadays, are not known within the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.

46. R.W. Cowley, “The Biblical Canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church Today” in Ostikirchliche Studien, 23 (1974), 318-323. In this short article the author has attempted a careful study of the Canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.

This is not encouraging.  In fact the article did not give any kind of history of how the canon came to be – a common problem.  In general one gained the idea that in Ethiopian history the church was rather more important than the scriptures were, and the apocrypha might have a near-canonical status, or not, as times demanded.  Perhaps our own view on canon is shaped by the Reformers here, and is more precise than might have been the case either than in antiquity or the middle ages?  If so, the Ethiopians are merely continuing a late-antique vagueness, albeit shaped by their own unusual world.

One of the key sources is apparently E. Ullendorf, Ethiopia and the Bible: the Schweich Lectures 1967, OUP (1968).  This I could not access, but a Google Books preview gave me p.31 f., which gives an account about the translation of the Old and New Testaments into Ge`ez:

I don’t think that we need to rely on this very much.  Ullendorf also discusses the equally traditional idea that the bible in Ethiopian was translated by Arabic; and it seems to be a fact that many Ethiopian versions of ancient texts derive from an Arabic translation.  However I quickly drowned in the number of books and articles that I would have to read to know more!

That’s it for now.  More next time!

Share
  1. [1]Mikre-Sellassie, Gebre-Amanuel (1993). “The Bible and Its Canon in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church,” The Bible Translator 44 (1): 111-123.↩