Tag: Manuscripts

From my diary

Posted on by Roger Pearse

2014 has certainly started with a bang!  Here I am, on the Friday of the first week back, and it seems as if I was never on holiday!

The two monochrome microfilm-PDF’s of the unpublished history by the 13th century Arabic Christian writer al-Makin, from the Bibliothèque Nationale Français are now on my hard disk.  Obtaining them cost over 200 euros, which I grudge greatly.  On the other hand I do like the BNF’s new website and system of ordering online!  This works very well.  Now if only we could get colour pictures of manuscripts at a reasonable price!!

The microfilms are at least clear and easily readable, which is more than the last ones obtained from the BnF were.

A week or two back Amazon (US) sent me a gift card.  This allowed me to buy the new translation of the patrialogical texts on Constantinople, about which I wrote a while back.  It was on the door mat this evening when I arrived home.  It’s a useful item to have, that’s for sure, although fairly elementary.  One thing that I did not like: all footnotes are at the end.  I had forgotten how annoying that is.

I’ve also signed up for the 5th British Patristics conference, to be held at Kings College London on 3-5th September, 2014.  I have attended two of these conferences, and they were both superior to the international patristics conference in Oxford.  The reason for this is that the time allowed for papers is longer, and so the papers contain more.

On a personal note, I’ve decided to make another effort to see the Northern Lights this year.

Share

From my diary

Posted on by Roger Pearse

I’ve spent today driving up to Cambridge to visit the university library.  My object was to obtain some articles by R. Delmaire on the subject of Chrysostom’s letters.  For the most part I was able to obtain these; although I was disappointed to discover that the latest available volume of one serial was not shelved or accessible.  I’m reading into them at the moment.  R. Delmaire’s 1991 study examined the letters, and reordered them by date.  The order in the Benedictine edition (and the PG) isn’t even that of the manuscripts!

The Letters of Chrysostom project is not mine, so I won’t say a lot about this.  But I have also discovered a list of the opening words of all of the letters at the Sources Chretiennes site here (PDF).

Equally useful, I have discovered a list of the works of Chrysostom at the same site, with the Clavis Patrum Graecorum number for them all, here (PDF).

I’ve also received from the Lebanese typist the next 10 pages of the transcription of al-Makin’s world history.  This is taken from the 1625 Erpenius edition, which has the merit of being printed.  Once we get to the end of this – for Erpenius died before he could complete editing the text – I shall have to try the typist on a PDF of a microfilm manuscript.

An email has arrived today from the Bibliothèque Nationale Français, containing an estimate for reproductions of two manuscripts of al-Makin.  They require 50 euros each, plus 10 euros for “shipping” (why?) plus M. Hollande’s tax on top of that, totalling around 130 euros, or nearly $190!  Quite a bit for 2 PDF’s!  Worse still, they propose to supply me with scans from microfilms — at least, I hope these are scans, for the estimate says only “microfilm”.  And these will be black and white, and quite possibly unreadable.  I have a lot of time for the BNF, but this is shameful.  For that price they could at least photograph the things with a consumer digital camera and supply me with some decent images!  I shall have to pay the blackmail – it is, at least, less than the Bodleian is demanding – but it is a salutary reminder, in these days of digitisation, how bad things were and still are in some places.

Onward!

Share

Some notes on the bindings of ancient codices

Posted on by Roger Pearse

A useful post at the British Library blog here drew my attention to an interesting question: what did the bindings of ancient manuscripts look like?

We all know that ancient books in 1 AD were written on rolls of papyrus.  With these we are not concerned here.  Examples have reached us, notably the charred rolls from Herculaneum.

A roll from Herculaneum
A roll from Herculaneum

Notes for day-to-day use were written on wax tablets.  These consisted of wooden boards with a recess, filled with wax.  The notes could be written on the wax with a sharp point, and erased with the flattened area at the other end.  Examples have been found, often with much scratching on the wood!  One such example, now in the Louvre, is given here.

Roman wax tablet - Louvre
Roman wax tablet – Louvre

A natural development from this was to take a sheet of papyrus or parchment, and fold it in the middle, again to take notes.  This gives rise to the modern book-form or codex, which starts being used in the 1st century AD.

Such items are mentioned by Martial in his Epigrams, who tells the reader where his poems may be bought, written on these novel-sounding objects.  But most authors seem to have ignored this parvenu.  Snobbery is always a feature of the literary world, and it was perhaps used mainly by middle-class and business people.

One exception to this rule was the early Christians.  The municipal rubbish dump at Oxyrhynchus in Egypt has yielded immense amounts of papyrus fragments from ancient books; but analysis shows that the Christian texts tended to be written on a codex much earlier than non-Christian texts.  In this context, it is notable that the end of Mark’s gospel is lost, and plainly was lost very early indeed.  The end of a text, if it is written on a roll, tends to be well-preserved; but the last leaf of a codex can easily become detached, if the volume does not have a cover.  It has been suggested, therefore, that Mark’s gospel was originally written into a codex, and that the last leaf or two was lost, before almost any copies were made.

These early codices were unlike modern books in one respect.  They consisted of a single gathering or “quire”: you took a pile of sheets of papyrus, and folded them in the middle, and sewed a link in the centre of the fold to hold them together.  A modern example from here shows the problem nicely:

Single quire notebook
Single quire notebook

There is a maximum size to these items, and they quickly become very difficult to handle.  The solution was found in the 4th century AD, when the multi-quire codex went into general use.  Each quire was no more than 16 pages; and then the quires were sewn to each other to form a book of almost any length, and the binding attached.  A modern example again:

Multi-quire binding
Multi-quire binding

These very large codices come into use in the late 4th century AD, and of course remain in use today in modern hardback books.

The find of a collection of gnostic books at Nag Hammadi in Egypt in 1946 gave us a clear idea of what the ancient books of the early 4th century looked like (via here).  These were still single quire papyrus codices.

The Nag Hammadi codices
The Nag Hammadi codices

The British Library cover comes from a tax register written in 716-717.  It consists of limp leather, lined with papyrus.

British Library Papyrus 1442 - 8th century leather binding of Coptic tax register
British Library Papyrus 1442 – 8th century leather binding of Coptic tax register

Note that there is a flap: this would be covered with metal and used to keep the book closed.  It formed a catch, in effect.

The cover is decorated with ink, and, usefully, the British Library have enhanced a detail photograph to show it:

BL Papyrus 1442 - enhanced image of cover
BL Papyrus 1442 – enhanced image of cover

Let me say that, after attempting to enhance it further myself, I am full of respect for the skills of the chap who created that image!

Of course this is a fairly late example of an “ancient” binding, which happens to be that of a single-quire non-literary text.  But it is clear from the Nag Hammadi volumes that this is precisely the technology in use in the early 4th century, and no doubt earlier.  In which case, we may speculate that early – 1st century – copies of Mark’s gospel perhaps had covers of the same kind.

Share

How to find the digital manuscripts at the Bodleian-Vatican project

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Lots of ballyhoo in the press, but it is remarkably difficult to find any actual manuscripts digitised by this project, paid for by Leonard Polonsky (to whom all kudos), between the Vatican and the Bodleian libraries.

Anyway, the Greek manuscripts to be digitised are listed here:

http://bav.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/items-to-be-digitized-greek-manuscripts

The tiny number that have been done so far are linkable.  Here are the mss that have been done:

The Vatican mss have a table of contents of what is in the manuscript, which is helpful.

The Bodleian seem to intend to do their Barocci manuscripts – mostly miscellaneous stuff, probably containing goodies since accessing them was always a pain.  That is rather a good idea.

Soberingly the Bodleian library is still ripping off scholars for reproductions.  They charged one poor scholar £200 (300 USD) for images of one Arabic manuscript recently, and bound him by fearsome threats to share the output – delivered as digital images – with nobody.

Share

The two recensions of al-Makin

Posted on by Roger Pearse

There are quite a number of manuscripts of the history by the 13th century Coptic historian al-Makin ibn al-Amid.  I have listed these in a previous post here.  Martino Diez, in his important article on the subject[1] has obtained copies of three of the manuscripts.  This is no small feat in itself, as I can bear witness myself after attempting it. Indeed a look at the prices on the Bodleian website today was quite enough to dissuade me from trying to obtain a copy of any of their manuscripts!  I have commented before on the corruption involved in charging huge sums for reproductions of public-owned manuscripts.

Diez obtained somehow copies of the following:

  • Vatican ar. 168. (16th c.)
  • Bodleian ar. 683. (AD 1591) (=Pococke 312)
  • Paris ar. 4729 (19th c.)

He writes:

Investigation shows that the three manuscripts belong to two different recensions.  One, the shorter, is present in ms. Vat. ar. 168 and in Pococke 312, and the other, longer, preserved in ms. Paris BNF ar. 4729.  The exact relationship between the two recensions seems, on first sight, difficult to establish.

The existence of two families of witnesses was already highlighted by Gaston Wiet in a long note to the History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria.  The French researcher proposed to call the first family the vulgata and assigned to it most of the witnesses, notably Paris BNF ar. 4524, Vat ar. 168 and 169, Borg. ar. 232, and Pococke 312.  All the same, Wiet noted the existence of a second family, “completed and retouched using [the Annals of] Eutychius, such as ms. Paris ar. 4729.”  “This manuscript reveals that its copyist had literary, confessional and chronological concerns: the material of al-Makin is treated very freely.  But the modifications at bottom belonging to the Chronicle [of al-Makin] have not been invented by the copyist.  It is obvious that he worked with a copy of the Annals of Eutychius before him.”  For Wiet, therefore, the vulgata is the original work of Ibn al-Amid, while ms. Paris ar. 4729 (which we will refer to as the “expanded” recension) represents a later elaboration, contaminated from other sources, notably Eutychius, and not without literary ambitions.

In reality the relations between the two recensions are more complicated.  That they are both fundamentally the same work is clear, because of the existence of the same rubrics for people (166 in both recensions), but it is not always the expanded recension that completes the vulgata.  It is not uncommon for the reverse to be the case.  Taken together, the differences are not marginal, especially in certain sections such as the introduction, or the history of Alexander.  The key to understanding this is supplied by the author himself in his preface.  …

Here Diez gives a transcription of the incipit from all three manuscripts and portions of the preface; unfortunately without translation, so of course I cannot follow it.  Then:

The text clearly shows that the vulgata represents an abridgement (muhtasar) of the chronicle, made by the author himself.  He states, in fact, that, after completing a first version of his work, he came into possession of new sources (on the origin of the world, the shape of the world, on the patriarchs, on the kings of Persia) which enriched the treatment of certain periods.  However the work was already too long, and someone, “to whom it was not possible to say ‘no'” (“someone who sought to make his request accepted and to assist in the pursuit of his desire”) asked Ibn-al `Amid to make an abridgement which contained all the best known events.  And this is exactly what is called the vulgata of Ibn-al `Amid.

He then explores what the “expanded” edition is.  Is it indeed the original version, or a longer version, enriched with further information before being condensed?  He argues that it is the former; this is, indeed, the original version produced by al-Makin.  He notes that the titles and explicits of the copies indicate something – again this is not translated so I can’t say what that is! – and then details differences.  Diez does not seem to deal with the question of contamination from Eutychius, however.

If both versions are indeed by the author, any future edition and translation needs to include both.  But clearly there is more work to be done.

Share
  1. [1]Martino Diez, “Les antiquites greco-romaines entre ibn al-`Amid et Ibn Khaldun. Notes pour une histoire de la tradition, in: Studia Graeco-Arabica 3 (2013), 121-140.  Online here.↩

Eusebius Chronicon book 1 – portion of original Greek rediscovered!

Posted on by Roger Pearse

A very interesting article (in English) by J. Gruskova has appeared on the web, discussing recent work with Byzantine palimpsests, at the Austrian National Library.[1]  Somewhat annoyingly the PDF doesn’t allow copying of the text, so I can’t give you more than snippets here.

The article notes various palimpsests where modern technology – multi-spectral imaging – is producing spectacular results, even compared with the use of UV lamps less than 10 years ago.

The most interesting is the discovery of two leaves from a manuscript of Eusebius’ Chronicon book 1, otherwise preserved only in a single Armenian manuscript.  The ms. is Vienna Iur. gr. 18, fol. 32 and 39, which must have been an internal bifolium of a quire.  Comparing it with Karst’s GCS edition, it contains the text from Karst p.9, line 1, to Karst p.10 line 27.  It was digitised under UV in 2007 and 2008, which allowed only 60% of the text to be read; MSI will now be applied to it.

Other items discussed are 33 folios of Herodian’s De prosodia catholica, a 2nd century AD exposition in 20 books of the rules for accentuating Greek; an anthology of Byzantine legislation known as the Basilica; possible fragments of the lost 3rd c. Scythica (about the Goths etc) of Dexippus; and a new manuscript of Constantine Porphyrogenitus’ De cerimoniis.

It’s all extremely valuable stuff; but also very encouraging!  We have the technology.

Share
  1. [1]J. Grusková, Further Steps in Revealing, Editing and Analysing Important Ancient Greek and Byzantine Texts Hidden in Palimpsests. Graecolatina et Orientalia 33-34 (2012) 69-82.↩

Mediceo-Laurenziana digital manuscripts site offline for fear of cyber-attack

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Via the Macrotypography blog I learn of some very bad news indeed:

Java Disaster in Florence

The digital library of 3,000-plus manuscripts at the Medicea Laurenziana Library in Florence was introduced on this blog as outstanding news three years ago. This year, disaster struck as hackers round the world exploited security vulnerabilities in Java software. Java’s security had to be tightened to such a degree that the current plug-ins for browsers can no longer access the digital library in Florence.
This mess has been evident for several weeks. The library has just issued a notice about the problem which offers little solace other than a promise to act in “a short space of time” to achieve a permanent solution. The notice (digitally dated December 6) blames “security controls in the latest version of the Java interpreter that no longer allow the execution of our viewer.”The interim solution proposed is not satisfactory: uninstalling your current Java version and downgrading to the old low-security version, SE 6, which is “still compatible with our application”.Oracle warns that this version is “not recommended for use” and is reserved for developers and administrators doing debugging. Running an unsafe Java version would, in my view, only be feasible if you were to reserve a dedicated computer to visit the Laurentian site alone. Otherwise the risk would be too great of catching a virus while the PC was used to visit other parts of the internet. And who has computers to spare?

Curse these criminals.  The powerful of our day are rushing to ensure that we don’t say anything online that might offend the wealthy and well-connected, but indifferent to the threat from cyber-criminals.

Of course the other moral to learn is … would libraries please stop messing about with producing custom “viewers” and just make PDF’s available?  or else place the files at Archive.org, as the Cairo Patriarchate did recently?

Share

The Borborites-Phibionites in the “books of Jeu”

Posted on by Roger Pearse

I have already mentioned a passage in the Pistis Sophia, found in the codex Askewianus, that refers to Borborite practices.

But there is also a reference in the texts known as the “Books of Jeu” (the name is modern), in the so-called Bruce codex.  This was obtained by the Scottish traveller James Bruce ca. 1769, who bought it at Medinet Habu near Luxor in Egypt while on his journey to Ethiopia.  It is today in the Bodleian Library in Oxford, where it has the shelfmark Ms. Bruce 9.  It has suffered damage since it arrived there, and a transcription by C. G. Woide is of great value, as preserving a number of leaves now lost.

The Bruce codex contains two works, to which the first editor, Schmidt, gave the name of the First and Second books of Jeu, plus an untitled work.  Schmidt presumed that a reference in the Pistis Sophia to “two books of Jeu” referred to these books.  The actual title found in the manuscript at the end of the “first book” is The book of the Great Logos corresponding to Mysteries.  No other title is present in the manuscript.[1]

These works were probably composed in the first half of the third century AD.[2]

In the Second book of Jeu, chapter 43,[3] it says:

43. But when he [Jesus] had finished saying these things, he said to them once more: “These mysteries which I shall give to you, guard them and do not given them to any man except he is worthy of them. Do not give them to father, or mother or brother, or sister, or relative, or for food or for drink, or for a woman, or for gold, or for silver, or for anything at all of this world. Guard them and do not give them to anyone at all for the sake of the goods of this whole world. Do not give them to any woman or to any man who is in any faith of these 72 archons, or who serves them. Neither give them to those who serve the eight powers of the great archon, who are those who eat the menstrual blood of their impurity and the semen of men, saying : “We have known the knowledge of truth, and we pray to the true God.” However, their God is wicked.

Emphasis mine.  Note the reference to the the cultists talking about “knowledge of truth”, i.e. gnosis.  Did they call themselves Gnostics, we might ask?

Share
  1. [1]V. Macdermot, p.xi-xii.↩
  2. [2]Stephen Benko, “The libertine gnostic sect of the  Phibionites according to Epiphanius”, Vigiliae Christianae 21 (1967), 113.↩
  3. [3]V. Macdermot, “The books of Jeu and the untitled text in the Bruce codex”, Nag Hammadi Studies XIII (1978), p.100.↩

170 Christian Arabic manuscripts from St Mark’s Cathedral in Cairo now online!

Posted on by Roger Pearse

They are here:

http://cpart.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/home/resources/manuscripts/cop/

Blessedly, they have all been placed on Archive.org!  So they are downloadable as PDF’s!!!  What an excellent decision!

The images are all from microfilms.  But at least we have them!

Mostly Arabic, some Coptic.  Lots of biblical mss, of course;

This one caught my eye:

COP 20-5 (Theology 30)

  • Principal Work: Catenae of the Fathers on the four gospels
  • Language: Arabic; Folios: 246; Date: 16/17th C

[View; Download;]

Could this be an Arabic version of the De Lagarde Coptic catena?

We could use more details at the bottom; it looks as if catalogue details will eventually appear.

Share

An important 6th c. historical witness: notes on the ‘Life’ of Symeon Stylites the Younger

Posted on by Roger Pearse

In a preceding post I quoted from two different versions of the Saint’s Life of S. Symeon Stylites the Younger (521-592).  I have now obtained photocopies of much of Van den Ven’s edition, and I think a summary might be of general use.[1]

Manuscripts

The following manuscripts exist.

  • A = Codex Athous Lavra B 71 (catal. 191), s.XI or XII.  Parchment.  Single column.  370 folios; the Life is on f.1-151v, the rest including the Life of S. Martha (his mother), 30 of his sermons, and some liturgical pieces in honour of both saints.  Written by 2 scribes. Little ornamentation.  Titles and initials in red; the Life is divided into 259 chapters, with chapter numbers in the margin in the original hand.  46 numbered quaternions.
  • S = Codex Sabaiticus 108, now at the Greek patriarchate in Jerusalem with the other Mar Saba mss.  End of s. X.  Parchment.  202 folios, the Life is on f.3-164v, followed by the Life of Martha, and then a vision of a monk of the abbey of S. Symeon on the Wonderful Mountain, to which the ms. belonged in the 12th c.  Originally the ms. only contained the two Lives, as the quaternion numbering shows, although most of this, being at the edge of the page, has been cut off.  There are 3 colophons.  Written in a single column in minuscule.  The 259 chapters are numbered in the margin in capitals, mostly in red ink.  The titles are in capitals with an ornamental band above them.
  • B = Codex Barrocianus 240, at the Bodleian Library in Oxford.  s.XII.  Parchment.  Contains a menologion for the month of May.  268 folios.  Written in 2 columns by a monk, Ignatius, who left a subscription on f.268v.  The Life is on f.175-258v.  The chapter numbering, written in the margin in uncial letters, is identical to A and S, except that chapter 256 is divided into two, giving 260 chapters.
  • M = Codex Monacensis gr. 366.  s.X. Parchment. Like B, a menologion for May.  243 folios.  The Life is on f.112-214.  Ehrhard believed that it was written at the Studios monastery in Constantinople; it seems to have later belonged to the Xenophon monastery on Mt. Athos.  Divided into only 240 chapters, usually by a second scribe who only added marginalia to the text.
  • P = Codex Parisinus gr. 1459. s.XI. 101 folios.  Written in 2 columns in a rounded minuscule.  30 quaternions.  Contains only the Life, mutilated at both ends; the ms. seems to have been a menologion like others, as the quaternion numbering suggests.  Chapter numbering is identical to A, S, and B.
  • V = Codex Athous Vatopedi 84 (once 79).  s.IX. Parchment, 272 f.  Also a menologion, for May-August.  Written in an early minuscule.  The Life is on f.83v-98v but very incomplete.  It has a title in uncials.  Not divided into chapters.
  • L = Codex Lesbiensis Leimon. 43.  s.XII-XIII.  Paper.  271 f. Two columns. A menologion for May and June.  The Life is on f.103-204.  Not divided into chapters.  Copied at the monastery of St. John the Prodromos of Petra, at Constantinople.
  • J = Codex Patmiacus 257. s.XII.  261 f. Menologion for May. Two columns. The Life is on f.145v-196.  Not divided into chapters.
  • Codex Athous Esphigmenou 105. s.XVIII. Paper. 287f. After various homilies, f.69-160v are the Life of S.Symeon; f.161-191v are the Life of S. Martha; f.192-287 are the 30 homilies of Symeon.  Ehrhard believes that it was copied from A.  Negligently copied, but showing some of the special readings of A.  258 chapters.

These nine manuscripts are the survivors of a much larger number, as attested by the many later derivative Lives, the (probably 8th century) Georgian translation, quotations in John Damascene, in the Acts of the 2nd council of Nicaea in 787 and liturgical texts.  But the text offered by these mss. is sound and can be confirmed by some 8th century quotations and the translation into Georgian.

Two groups appear: AS and BMP. The relationship of the first two is particularly close, and, when they agree, of great value, although they also have many faults in common.

A long verbatim extract of the text from chapter 158 appear in John Damascene’s 3rd discourse on images,[2] composed ca. 726-30 AD (although in the ms. used by John Damascene the chapter was numbered 132).  A second long extract from chapter 118 was read at the 2nd council of Nicaea in 787 by the deacon Cosmas from a copy of the Life given to the council by Joseph, Hegoumen of the monastery of Heraclea.[3]

A paraphrase of the Life exists, by Nicephoros Ouranos, of almost equal length to the original.[4]  It was published in 1685 in the Acta Sanctorum for May, vol. 5, by the Bollandist Janninck.  He used ms. B.14 (s.XI) of the library of Vallicellane.  There are many other copies, which have never been studied: Berlin. gr. Fol. 17 (s.XI), Bodleian Clark 44 (s.XII-XIII), Bodleian Rawlinson Auct. G 199 (1141 AD), Athos Dionysiou 143 (1632-3), Athos Iviron 424 (s.XVI), Moscow 15 (Vlad. 381) (1023 AD).  The author is named in the title in the Vallicellane and Oxford mss.: Nicephoros Ouranous, magistros of Antioch.  He was chamberlain of Basil II, and was sent to Baghdad by the emperor in 980 AD, where he was imprisoned by the Sultan Adoud-ad-Dawla.  He was permitted to return to Constantinople in December 986, and appointed magistros and commander of the soldiers in the east.  In the latter role he defeated the Bulgars at the battle of Sperchios.  At the end of 999 AD he became governor or duke of Antioch, and was still there in 1006 when he put down an Arab revolt.  He was also a literary figure, and the author of a Tactica.[5]  His paraphrase adds specific detail which the original had left vague.  In particular he gives details about Amantius, his predecessor as governor of Antioch which are entirely absent from the original.  He also uses much more elaborate language than the relatively simple contemporary Greek of the original.  Some of the faults of A and S also turn up in Nicephorus Ouranous’ paraphrase, suggesting that the latter had access to a manuscript of a similar parentage, probably from Antioch.

Three short abridgements of the Life also exist.

There is no trace of a Syriac, Armenian or Arabic translation of the Life, but a Georgian translation does exist.  The Life records that Georgians made the journey to see the Saint, even in his own lifetime.  The translation was published in 1918.[6]  It was based on ms. Tiflis A 105 (1697 AD), and A 177 (s.XVIII).  Other mss. exist, much more ancient, which were not used: Sinai Georgian 46 (before 987 AD, when it was rebound); Patriarchal library of Jerusalem 33 (s.XIII-XIV).  From the age of the Sinai ms., the Georgian translation must predate the year 950.

The author of the Life is not named in any of the manuscripts.  When John Damascene gives the extract from chapter 158, the title names the author as Arcadios, archbishop of Constantia in Cyprus (still alive in 638, and died).  The same passage (as well as the other) was read at the council of Nicaea II in 787, but without the title.  Chronology is against the identification: the author states that he became a disciple of Symeon at the time when the patriarch Ephrem of Antioch died.[7]  This took place in 545 AD; and if the author was Arcadios, and was only 15 at the time, he would have been at least 108 years old by 638 AD, when he is recorded by Anastasius the Sinaite as being in a fortress near Constantia.[8]  Van den Ven concludes that in reality the Life is anonymous.  The author was a contemporary of Symeon, as he tells us.  There is some evidence of the use of written sources; and in chapter 71, we learn that he has become a disciple of Symeon’s.  Prior to that point, the text consists of narratives of visions and other material, perhaps transmitted orally.  It is notable that the Life contains little mention of contemporary politics after the accession of Tiberius II (in 578 AD, chapter 211), but much before then.  The rest of the Life is a description of the miracles of the saint, and a brief account of his last moments.  The author, therefore, is silent about a great deal in the last 15 years of the Saint’s life.

The original text of the Life only became known in 1894, when some extracts were edited by A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus.  The publication of a critical edition was begun by Paul van den Ven of Louvain in 1913, but only actually appeared in 1962.

There is more to say, but I think we’ll leave that for a subsequent post now.

Share
  1. [1]Paul van den Ven, La vie ancienne de S. Symeon Stylite le Jeune, 2 vols, Brussels, 1962-4.↩
  2. [2]PG 94, col.1393.↩
  3. [3]Hardouin, Concilia IV, 217-24; Mansi, Concilia XIII, p.73-80.  The monastery is otherwise unknown.↩
  4. [4]BHG3 1690.↩
  5. [5]Cedrenus, ed. Bonn, p.454, 9.  Various modern references are given by Van den Ven.↩
  6. [6]Monumenta hagiographica georgica, pars prima, Keimena, t. 1, Tiflis, 1918, p.215-340.↩
  7. [7]Life, ch. 7.↩
  8. [8]F. Nau, Les recits inedits du moine Anastase, Revue de l’Institut catholique de Paris, 1902, p.57 (French translation); Greek text published in Oriens Christianus 3 (1903), p.69, from ms. Paris gr. 1596.↩