Literature searching for a lost manuscript

I’m still looking through the literature, trying to find leads to the last, lost manuscript of Eusebius of Caesarea’s Gospel contradictions.  I’ve been reading my photocopy of Zoepfl’s book about the Commentary on the Hexameron of ps. Eustathius of Antioch, which — according to Latino Latini — probably was the first text in this now lost manuscript.

It seems that I am not alone in being interested in Latini’s comments.  On p. 10 of Zoepfl, he lists a Spanish manuscript:

cod. Matrit. gr. 124 (1), a collection-manuscript, written by Antonius Calosyna in 1563 (2), contains in first place (f. 2ff) the ps.Eust. Commentary, under the title: Τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν εὐσταθίου ἐπισκόπου ἀντιοχείας ὁμιλία εἰς τὴν ἑξαήμερον ὑπόμνημα θαυμαστόν.  The end of the work is missing.

(1) See J. Iriarte, Regiae Bibliothecae Matritensis codices Graeci manuscripti, vol. I (1769), p.501 f.; J.A.Fabricius-G.Ch.Harles, Bibliotheca Graeca, vol. IX (Hamburgi, 1804), 134 f.
(2) Latino Latini wrote on the 14th September 1563 to Andreas Masius (see Latinius II 116), “Cardinal Sirletus sends to tell you, there has been found in Sicily a work of Eustathius on the creation, or the six days.”  This raises the question of whether there is a connection between the Matr. 124 and the manuscript mentioned by Latinius, especially when the Latin title in the manuscript is written in an Italian hand.

If Sirleto found a manuscript, he would first probably hire a scribe to make a copy for himself.  Since this is made in the same year as Latini wrote saying that Sirleto had just found such an ms, containing both Eustathius and the lost work by Eusebius, is this the copy made?  If so, what else is in this ms?  From what was it copied?

Interesting, and leading to more questions!

UPDATE: Iriarte doesn’t seem to be online, unfortunately.  Vol. 9 of Fabricius (found by doing a Google advanced search, author=Fabricius, date=1804) is here.  This volume of Fabricius is a patrology, so we are in the section on Eustathius, reviewing scholarly opinion on the work and full of useful and interesting information.

It is interesting how these multi-volume Latin works of the 18th century make modern patrologies look babyish.

UPDATE2: The Pinakes database contains information on this ms., which is Madrid, BN, 04852.  Eustathius is on ff.2-96v; but folios 1r-v and 97 r-v are blank, and the work is unfinished.  It is then followed by 3 works by Gregory of Nyssa.  I would guess, therefore, that the four parts are of different origins, and that the copy of Eustathius was not completed.  Drat.


A lead on the lost manuscript of the full text of Eusebius’ “Diaphonia”

Result!  I’ve now got an idea of where to look for the lost full text of Eusebius’ Quaestiones ad Stephanum/Marinum!

When Angelo Mai published the sad remains of this work in 1823, he added a note that Latino Latini (in the 16th century) said that Cardinal Sirleto had told him that he had seen a manuscript of this work, in three books, in Sicily.  Migne reprinted this. 

But I suffer from acute reluctance to repeat stuff unchecked.  For a year now I have been trying to locate a copy of the letter in which Latini said this.  Today I succeeded.  And … it turns out that Mai has misled us all.  He did not mark insertions and omissions into what Latini wrote.  Here is an excerpt:

Scire etiam te vult in Sicilia inventum esse Eustathii Antiocheni Episcopi librum de mundi creatione, idest de sex dierum operibus, unde Basilii plurima videantur sumpta esse; praeterea libros tres Eusebii Caesariensis de Evangeliorum diaphonea, qui omnes, ut ipse sperat, brevi in lucem prodibunt.

He also wants you to know that in Sicily there have been found the book of Eustathius bishop of Antioch on the creation of the world, that is of the works of the six days, from which many things seem to have been taken by Basil; in addition three books of Eusebius of Caesarea on the divergences in the Gospels, all of which, so he hopes, will be brought into the light shortly.

Now this is an important difference.  For the first time we learn that the main find is a volume of Eustathius; and, if we translate praeterea as “following it”, it suggests to me that the two ‘finds’ are in a single physical volume.  If so, it becomes no mystery that the Eusebius might “disappear.”

When cataloguing a pile of manuscripts, the lazy librarian flips open the cover, scribbles down the title of the first work in it, and then closes the book and moves on to the next one.  And if there is one characteristic endemic to the Southern Italian librarian, it is laziness.  And who in the world would trouble themselves over a volume of Eustathius?  My eyes close, almost at the name.  How likely is this to be interesting?  Not very.  How likely is it that anyone has examined such a volume in centuries?  Not very.

What this means is that we ought to be looking in the manuscript catalogues for a volume of Eustathius.  If there is one, say in the old Royal Library in Naples, the capital of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, it may well repay investigation!

“You will find,” said Martin Routh, “it is a very good practice to always verify your references.”  Wouldn’t it be something to rediscover that manuscript!!!

UPDATE: I have tossed an email of enquiry to the Biblioteca Nazionale in Naples, and also to the Biblioteca centrale della Regione siciliana.  They ought to know what they have.  If they reply.


Eusebius, Cardinal Sirleto, and the letters of Latino Latini

The last known manuscript of Eusebius “Gospel questions” is mentioned by Latino Latini in a letter to Andreas Masius.  The information about it begins “Sirleto wants you to know…”  The quotation was printed by Angelo Mai when he first printed the remains of that work of Eusebius, reprinted by Migne, and so on.  I’ve been trying to locate the letter in which Latini says this, without much luck.

But in a way, perhaps I am looking at the wrong end.  Latini never saw the manuscript.  His information came from Sirleto.  Possibly it came by word of mouth, but equally there might be a letter somewhere from Sirleto to Latini — such letters do exist. 

What I need to do, I think, is to find the correspondence of Sirleto.  Do the papers of Latini contain the letters he received, I wonder?  Pierre Petitmengin will know, so I ought to ask him.  Have Sirleto’s letters been published?

I know nothing about Sirleto.  In Petitmengin’s article I find mention of P. Paschini, Guglielmo Sirleto prima del cardinalato [1565] in Tre ricerche sulla storia della Chiesa nel Cinquecento, Rome, 1945, p. 153-281.  There is an article on Sirleto, Guglielmo in the Biographisch-bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon, 10 (1995), c. 532-33. There is Denzler, Georg. Kardinal Guglielmo Sirleto : (1514 – 1585.) Leben u. Werk. Ein Beitrag z. nachtridentin. Reform. München : Hueber, 1964.  I hate books in German.

Online there is an article in a curious Catholic Encyclopedia site (a site which puts page scans online and then meanly defaces them!), and in the Italian Wikipedia, which links to a site about cardinals in English with a Sirleto article with bibliography.  Looking through the last, someone published stuff from Sirleto’s papers, and suggests that these are in the Vatican.

UPDATE: There is a Wikipedia article, spelling his name Gugliemo, and a real Catholic Encyclopedia site.


Latinus Latinius (1513-1593) – a long life in Patristics

The classics and the fathers were rediscovered at the renaissance.  Enthusiasts scampered up and down Europe searching for books, banging on the doors of abbeys in search of lost texts.  They often met with hostility; the ignorant curators saw the interest only as a chance to charge for access, something not unknown to us in the age of digitising material.  Once this first phase of copying was over, and texts like Tacitus and Quintillian began to circulate, first in manuscript copies, then in print, then progress consisted of emendation and improvement.  In the 16th century this was the nature of scholarly work.  Even so, they knew of material now vanished.  Latinus Latinius, or more properly Latino Latini, was a scholar of this period.  I have been reading an article on him by Pierre Petitmengin 1 for the last few days, from which these notes are taken.

Latini was a self-effacing man.  He published only short items under his own name in his life-time, of the kind that would today be published in journals.  His name does not appear on his most important work, the Roman edition of the works of St. Cyprian.  But his name appears here and there in other scholarly output of the day, always indicating a formidable scholar.  The Pamelius edition contains his conjectures; he wrote a piece on the obelisks of Rome which attracted a long reply.  His critical observations circulated widely among scholars in manuscript via letters.  They display a wide range of interests; words found in Galen or whether St. Ambrose was consecrated bishop of Milan in the life time of Auxentius.

He did not come from money.  His parents were middle-class, although educated, and he had to live by his skills as a master of Ciceronian Latin, holding the post of secretary ab epistulis for a series of cardinals.  The death of the first of these in 1563 was a crisis; “I have had to abandon working on Cyprian, leaving it only partly corrected, and also my other studies.”  The next two patrons each died after a year.  He then entered the employment of Marcantonio Colonna.  The cardinal allowed him free lodging at a little house in the Via Lata, near his palace, and tranquility returned.  He was to remain there for more than 20 years, from 1572 until his death. 

He travelled little.  His obligation to his employer obliged him to go with him to Bologna in 1565, where he found manuscripts and scholars; and to Salerno in 1573, where he found neither, and where even the bread was poor and expensive and the wine less good than Rome.  Otherwise his life was externally quiet and uneventful.  From the age of 70 he was obliged to stay at home – often in bed – because of poor health.  In 1575 he went for months without visiting St. Peter’s; a visit to the Vatican Library became an event worthy of notice in a letter.  He never sought out the Great and the Good, preferring freedom to the waste of time and energy necessarily involved in dancing attendance on these in hopes of obtaining something.  But in the end this solitary life came to press on him.  He writes that he had become bored, especially once his failing sight deprived him of his favourite past-time, the reading and correction of copies of Latin and Italian poets, and writing to friends.  It deprived him of the salt of his existence, the “gentle company of good and learned men” (virorum optimorumque suavissima consuetudine frui), as he wrote to one of them.

The first time we encounter him in a circle of scholars is in the preface to the editio princeps (published in 1555) of the Library of Apollodorus, that 2nd century handbook of classical mythology.  His foremost colleage was Guglielmo Sirleto, who was to abandon Chrysoloras and take up the study of the Greek fathers, and end by becoming a cardinal and the librarian of the Vatican library.  Other colleagues were not always so fortunate; one died in prison, another in the pontifical galleys.  Another associate was the orientalist Andreas Masius, to whom he addressed many letters.  Yet another was the wealthy bibliophile, Fulvio Orsini, whose collection of manuscripts and rare books entered the Vatican en bloc after his death.  This circle of classical-minded people did not survive the changes made in Rome by Paul IV and Pius IV and the beginning of the Counter-Reformation.

Latini corresponded widely, although never with protestants.  He was happiest in the middle of doing a number of things.  In Rome he became something of an institution, visited by learned foreigners.  Claude Dupuy (Puteanus) visited in 1586.  Less welcome was a German Jesuit who sought to embroil him in a crusade against protestant scholarship, addressing him with titles which Latini felt were undeserved and inappropriate.  During this time he was engaged on a long and tedious task, revising the Decretal of Gratian, which finally appeared in 1582.  Gradually a new circle of scholars gathered around him, mostly of a younger generation.  The future cardinal Baronius, the biblical scholar Antonio Agellio, and Bandini, who was to catalogue the Vatican collection.

A scholar of this period did not have the advantages of a modern scholar.  Latini sought to build a library that would allow him to work, of the kind that those working in very specialised areas must still build for themselves.  His ambition was to own a copy of every work by every ancient author.  His collection became known, with that of Orsini, as one of the most complete in Rome.  Not rich, he had to buy or beg books, for instance writing to a friend on hearing that a German Jesuit had translated the Commentary on Luke of Titus of Bostra, although the book is not among his collection today.  When a long-desired book arrived at the little house, it would be something of an event.  Latini would read it carefully, and write a little review which would be attached at the top of the book, on its merits or demerits.  For authors where he had more than one copy, one would form his working copy, and all the notes on that author would appear in that copy.  These volumes, filled with Latini’s acute observations, became treasures.  Cardinal Sirleto considered his bible, the companion of his whole scholarly life, the apple of his eye and even mentioned it in his will.  Latini was particularly attached to his Gelenius edition of Tertullian (1550) which he never stopped using from 1554 until he died.  The majority of his books are still in the collection in Viterbo.

One that is not is a 1535 Aldine Lactantius and Tertullian which wandered as far as Paris.   Latini collated the Apologeticum of Tertullian with two manuscripts from Bologna.  He used siglum L for one in litteris Longobardicis, A for the other, V for the consensus of both.  The mss still exist, so Latini’s work is only of historical interest.  But he did the same for the codex Veronensis of Cyprian, very ancient and now lost, which makes his collation one of the most important textual witnesses for the letters of Cyprian.  Another feature of his work is the careful cross-referencing.  He read and reread all the authors in his library, and down the years would link related material as the works gradually became part of his mind and memory.

In so many ways he was a modern figure.  The frequency and content of his Italian correspondance reminds us of modern emails.  His scholarly care shows what 19th century scholarship was to become.  But like ourselves he had to live in a world in which political interference in what could be said and written was on the increase.  I will write another post on Latini and the Index expurgatorius.

He left his library to his home town, Viterbo, where it rests today, his working copies heavy with careful, erudite observations, mostly unpublished.  Interest in him disappeared after the 17th century, after the death of canon Domenico Macri (1604-1672), who published two collections of his letters and assembled a selection of the scholarly notes in Latini’s books.  While Viterbo has named a road after him, his books remain in boxes in a chapel of San Lorenzo, awaiting the reopening of the Archivio Capitolare.

1. Pierre Petitmengin, Latino Latini (1513-1593): Une longue vie au service des Peres de l’eglise. in Humanisme et Eglise en Italie et en France meridionale (xve siecle – milieu du xvie siecle), ed. Patrick Gilli, Rome (2004), pp. 381-407.


Latino Latini, Sirleto, and the last, lost manuscript of Eusebius’ “Gospel Questions”

One problem with a project that runs on is that you forget stuff.  And I realise, with irritation, that I have done just this.  For my own benefit, here is the matter again.

Eusebius’ work on problems in the gospels, and their solutions, is lost.  But for a moment in the 16th century, it looked as if it might be recovered.  Angelo Mai, in the 1st edition of his publication of the fragments, refers (p. xii) to a letter by the scholar Latino Latini (Latinus Latinius) to Andreas Masius. In this he says:

Sirletus scire te vult, in Sicilia inventos esse libros tres Eusebii caesariensis de evangeliorum diaphonia, qui ut ipse sperat brevi in lucem edentur.

Sirleto wants you to know that in Sicily there may be found three books by Eusebius of Caesarea on the differences in the gospels, which he hopes soon to publish.

I would like to get this letter translated and include it in my translation of the remains of this work.  But… where to find it?

Mai gives the reference: Op. Tom. II, p. 116.  This seemingly helpful note is in fact deeply unhelpful, because it is too brief.  No work named “Opera” exists. 

A google search here reveals that this letter should be dated 1663.

The following item might seem to be it:

Epistolae, conjecturae, et observationes sacra, profanaque eruditione ornatae / Ex Bibliotheca Cathedralis Ecclesiae Viterbiensis a D. Magro … collectae …, Published: Romae : Viterbii, 1659-1667. Physical desc.: 2 v. ; 23 cm. (4to) Other names: Magri, Domenico, 1604-1672.

But in fact I have examined a copy of this at Cambridge University Library (shelfmark Acton.c.49.128), and it contains no such text, although it does include letters to Masius.  Another book of the same title exists at Durham.  I don’t know of another work by this writer which could be it.  His only other work, Bibliotheca Sacra et Profana, also in 2 volumes, is perhaps the only possibility.  I am hampered by these books being in rare books rooms, and themselves being rare!  A copy exists at Oxford, which may be read only in Duke Humphrey’s reading room (shelfmark S 67 Th).  Another is at Satan’s Seat, the British Library (shelfmark 1492.i.14).

I shall resume the struggle soon!  Perhaps the Cambridge copy is defective somehow.  I suspect, tho, that everyone has taken Migne’s reference, borrowed from Mai, and no-one before me has ever checked this!

Later: Mai probably used the Vatican collection.  Why not check there?  I find, by searching on “latini, latino”, two editions of the letters.

Author : Latini, Latino, 1513-1593.
Title : Latini Latinii … Epistolae, coniecturae & observationes sacra profanaque eruditione ornatae. Ex bibliotheca cathedralis ecclesiae Viterbiensis, a Dominico Magro … studio ac decennali labore selectae … Tomus secundus.
Publication : Viterbii, ex typ. Brancatia, apud Petrum Martinellum,
Date of publication : 1667.
Physical description : xii, 213 p. 1 tav. 22 cm.
Language : Latin
Date of record : 950117 
No.   Department   Call number  
1   MAG   Stamp.Chig.IV.947


Author : Latini, Latino, 1513-1593.
Title : Latini Latinii … Epistolae, coniecturae et observationes sacra, profanaque eruditione ornatae … a Dominico Magro … studio ac labore collectae …
Publication : Romae, typis Tinassij,
Date of publication : 1659-1667.
Physical description : 2 v. in 1 24 cm.
Language : Latin
Date of record : 950117
No.   Department   Call number  
1   MAG   Mai.XI.P.VII.30    
2   MAG   R.G.Teol.IV.4185    
3   MAG   Stamp.Barb.Y.X.75-76    
4   MAG   Stamp.Ferr.IV.4011    

Interesting that the call number, or shelfmark, of the latter includes one in a “Mai” collection!  Who knew that Mai’s books were at the Vatican?  Not me, that’s for sure.  But this does tend to suggest the existence of two different editions, printed at different places in the same year.