Showing posts with label Chronology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chronology. Show all posts

2016-11-21

Eusebius Online

A 15th-century manuscript of the Chronological Canons of Eusebius of Caesarea in Jerome's Latin is the great prize in the latest round of digitizations by the Vatican Library, which takes the posted total to 6,293.

Below is the bit of Urb.lat.421 where Eusebius tabulates events of the Eighth Olympiad (left). At right is Thales of Miletus. Below is a note about the the first captivity of Israel. 
Eusebius created a vast table of ancient dates in which he sought to align Jewish, Greek, Roman and other histories. One of my ever-unfinished tasks is to convert to an MS Excel spreadsheet the famous crowd-sourced 2005 English translation of this work led by Roger Pearse.

Below is the November 21 list of the 114 new postings. The Urb.lat. series is mainly modern Italian history and lit. The Pal.lat. titles have been online for a long time previously in Heidelberg and are only new to the Rome site.
  1. Arch.Cap.S.Pietro.H.70, Opusculum de sacrosancto Veronicae Sudario et Lancea
  2. Pal.lat.7
  3. Pal.lat.9
  4. Pal.lat.10
  5. Pal.lat.11
  6. Pal.lat.12
  7. Urb.lat.210
  8. Urb.lat.345
  9. Urb.lat.361
  10. Urb.lat.370
  11. Urb.lat.416
  12. Urb.lat.418
  13. Urb.lat.421
  14. Urb.lat.842
  15. Urb.lat.858
  16. Urb.lat.902
  17. Urb.lat.909
  18. Urb.lat.917
  19. Urb.lat.997
  20. Urb.lat.1001
  21. Urb.lat.1002
  22. Urb.lat.1003
  23. Urb.lat.1019
  24. Urb.lat.1035
  25. Urb.lat.1036
  26. Urb.lat.1039
  27. Urb.lat.1040
  28. Urb.lat.1042, diplomatic reports (Avisi) for the year 1571
  29. Urb.lat.1047
  30. Urb.lat.1050
  31. Urb.lat.1064.pt.2
  32. Urb.lat.1065.pt.2
  33. Urb.lat.1071.pt.1, Notizie da Venezia e da altre località d'Italia e d'Europa
  34. Urb.lat.1071.pt.2
  35. Urb.lat.1072.pt.1
  36. Urb.lat.1124
  37. Urb.lat.1132
  38. Urb.lat.1137
  39. Urb.lat.1171
  40. Urb.lat.1172
  41. Urb.lat.1181
  42. Urb.lat.1191
  43. Urb.lat.1195
  44. Urb.lat.1196
  45. Urb.lat.1199
  46. Urb.lat.1200
  47. Urb.lat.1201
  48. Urb.lat.1202
  49. Urb.lat.1216
  50. Urb.lat.1220
  51. Urb.lat.1233
  52. Urb.lat.1235
  53. Urb.lat.1241
  54. Urb.lat.1242
  55. Urb.lat.1243
  56. Urb.lat.1253
  57. Urb.lat.1254
  58. Urb.lat.1260
  59. Urb.lat.1273
  60. Urb.lat.1294
  61. Urb.lat.1295
  62. Urb.lat.1303
  63. Urb.lat.1309
  64. Urb.lat.1311
  65. Urb.lat.1312 , Aristotelian logic translated by Boethius and others, ms "Ub" in Minio-Paluello's editon. HT to @LatinAristotle
  66. Urb.lat.1314
  67. Urb.lat.1315
  68. Urb.lat.1317
  69. Urb.lat.1320
  70. Urb.lat.1322 , contains evidence of a 15th-century feud: Georg of Trebizond's concordance to Theodore Gaza's Aristotelian Problemata (f. 138v), HT to @LatinAristotle
  71. Urb.lat.1326 , Leonardo Bruni, his Latin version of Aristotle's Politica. HT to @LatinAristotle
  72. Urb.lat.1328
  73. Urb.lat.1333
  74. Urb.lat.1336
  75. Urb.lat.1337
  76. Urb.lat.1339
  77. Urb.lat.1340
  78. Urb.lat.1342
  79. Urb.lat.1343
  80. Urb.lat.1346
  81. Urb.lat.1360
  82. Urb.lat.1374
  83. Urb.lat.1392 , Pseudo-Aristotle, Latin Economica, Magna moralia, Averroes on Poetica & Peter of Spain on Physiognomonica, HT to @LatinAristotle
  84. Urb.lat.1395
  85. Urb.lat.1398
  86. Urb.lat.1408
  87. Urb.lat.1410
  88. Urb.lat.1419
  89. Urb.lat.1422
  90. Urb.lat.1425
  91. Urb.lat.1429
  92. Urb.lat.1430
  93. Urb.lat.1431
  94. Urb.lat.1432
  95. Urb.lat.1440
  96. Urb.lat.1443
  97. Urb.lat.1456
  98. Urb.lat.1460
  99. Urb.lat.1461
  100. Urb.lat.1471
  101. Urb.lat.1478
  102. Urb.lat.1480
  103. Urb.lat.1485
  104. Urb.lat.1487
  105. Urb.lat.1489
  106. Urb.lat.1496
  107. Urb.lat.1508
  108. Urb.lat.1531
  109. Urb.lat.1533
  110. Urb.lat.1551
  111. Vat.lat.1005
  112. Vat.lat.1034
  113. Vat.lat.1037
  114. Vat.lat.5958, Festus, De verborum significatione
This is Piggin's Unofficial List number 82. If you have corrections or additions, please use the comments box below. Follow me on Twitter (@JBPiggin) for news of more additions to DigiVatLib.

2015-05-22

Memories of Old St Peter's

The 4th-century Old Saint Peter's Basilica in Rome and nearby buildings were gradually demolished in the 16th century to make way for the grand St. Peter's which opened in 1626 and which we know today. What had been there previously was far less grand: here is St. Peter's Square and the entrance to the old forecourt:

The Vatican archivist, Giacomo Grimaldi, was charged with recording what had been destroyed. Among the losses was a huge wall mosaic by the Renaissance artist Giotto, the Navicella (literally "little ship"), which showed Christ walking on water. Grimaldi sketched it at it was then, rather different from the restoration that now exists:


Much of his documentation, together with drawings, is to be found in a codex at the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Barb. lat. 2733, which dates from 1620. You can now leaf through it online. The St Peter's exterior is shown at folio 152v (although I screen-shotted above an enhanced composite from the Met guide to the Vatican) and the Navicella is at folio 147r.

This compendium is among the most interesting items to be digitized and uploaded on May 21. Here is the full list:
  1. Barb.lat.2154.pt.B, the important manuscript R1 of the celebrated Chronograph of 354, an illustrated late antique calendar or almanac (image below). This is one of the greatest treasures in book history: a copy of a lost copy of the lost book that is the earliest western title known to have had full-page illustrations. See Roger Pearse's online edition of the Chronograph, where the pages of R1 are transcribed. Jeremy Norman has written a brief  note on its place in book history. For more detail, read Richard W. Burgess's survey of the manuscripts, where he writes: R1 [was] made in 1620 for de Peiresc and sent to Rome to Girolamo Aleandro.
  2. Barb.lat.2733.pt.1, description with sketches of Old St Peter's in Rome, completed by Grimaldi in 1620
  3. Barb.lat.4434, Città e castella (1626): hand-coloured engravings of Italian walled towns
  4. Barb.or.157.pt.B
  5. Borgh.60
  6. Borgh.61
  7. Borgh.182, Ricceri, Muzio, Carmen de sacello Exquilino
  8. Borgh.191, Opera quaedam de pauperitate et ordine Franciscano
  9. Borgh.303, Henricus Gandavensis (1217-1293), Godefridi de Fontibus et anonymi: Scripta de re philosophica et theologica
  10. Borgh.342
  11. Chig.M.IV.l
  12. Ott.lat.3116.pt.bis, single engraving, scene with money-counter
  13. Reg.lat.189, papal register
  14. Urb.lat.1057, bound book of papal records
  15. Vat.ar.1507
  16. Vat.lat.1612, Renaissance text of the first-century Latin elegiac poet Propertius
  17. Vat.lat.10295  
  18. Vat.lat.14208, portolan chart on the verge of legibility (when will they learn to scan these at higher resolution?)
  19. Vat.turc.169
  20. Vat.turc.275
  21. Vat.turc.395
  22. Vat.turc.434
Above is October from the Chronograph of 354 (Barb.lat.2154 above).

Also released earlier in the week:
Embedded image permalink

As always, if you know more about any of these items, please add a note in the comment box below. [This is Piggin's Unofficial List 12.]

2014-03-09

A Short Chronographic Work

We are about three months away from seeing the first-ever critical edition of the Ordo Annorum Mundi, a minor chronographic work that has not won adequate scholarly attention in the past. This is very welcome news.

I have just registered this from looking at the website of Brepols, the Belgian publisher of the Corpus Christianorum series. Its Series Latina comprises critical editions of Latin texts from the first eight centuries of the Christian era and is one of the great contemporary monuments of scholarship.

The Ordo will appear in volume II of the works of Julian of Toledo and is being edited by the eminent Spanish scholar José Carlos Martín-Iglesias of the University of Salamanca, one of the foremost living experts on Julian. He has already established that the Ordo's author is not Julian, but has decided this volume is the best place to publish it (since no one can say who the author is).

The publisher's page states about this part of the project:
On a voulu attribuer a Julien de Tolède une petite chronologie qui fait le calcul des années du monde depuis la création jusqu'à la naissance du Christ dans sa première rédaction, du Ve siècle environ. Cet opuscule est bientôt arrivé en Espagne wisigothique et a connu des nouvelles rédactions du temps des rois Chintila (636-640) et Wamba (672-680). On peut reconstruire jusqu'à cinq versions différentes de cet oeuvre entre le Ve et le VIIIe siècle.
The Ordo may not be of any great intrinsic value, but its importance comes from its usefulness as a tracer of intellectual history and other literary works. It is intimately related to the Great Stemma and was consulted and extensively quoted by Beatus of Lièbana in his Apocalypse Commentary (which means that it is not unlikely that Beatus saw and adopted the Great Stemma itself for his own purposes).

This important volume is scheduled for publication this June. In anticipation of its publication, I have left my own text and page of notes on the Ordo Annorum Mundi largely unchanged, since it will soon be superseded by Professor Martín's expert analysis.

2014-02-24

Italian Digressions

One of the memorable phrases of Richard Burgess's recent article, 'The Date, Purpose, and Historical Context of the Original Greek and the Latin Translation of the So-Called Excerpta Latina Barbari', is the "Italian Digression". This is his term for an extensive and not-quite-explicable interpolation of material about the rulers of Italy, Alba Longa and Rome into a Latin chronograph, the Excerpta Latina Barbari.

Chronographs often resemble Wikipedia articles that were originally conceived as harmonious texts and then acquire additions which various officious readers decide it "would be good to have as well". The result is usually a lopsided mess. Wikipedia neatly allows its readers to compare versions and even undo the more foolish and self-indulgent digressions. Late Antique manuscripts do not come with such conveniences.

That makes it an intellectual challenge to unwind this process of accumulation. As Professor Burgess demonstrates with his analyses of chronographs, this can sometimes succeed.

Readers of this blog will recall that the Great Stemma is an early fifth-century chronographic diagram where the reader can see the whole course of biblical history at a glance, somewhat like the divine vision omnis etiam mundus ... ante oculos eius adductus est (the whole world placed before the eyes, in Gregory the Great's phrase for an overview of the whole human condition at a glance).

The Great Stemma seems to have developed in parallel with the Liber Genealogus of 427. Digressions quickly developed in both.

The first edition of the Liber Genealogus (datable because it mentions the Roman consuls of 427 as the very latest ones) was exclusively concerned with the biblical timespans.

The LG edition of 455 (which gives its date as the 16th year of the reign of Genseric as well as the year of death of Valentinian III) throws in for no apparent reason a long witty anecdote from 1 Esdras 3. What has this debate about the comparative merits of booze, power, sex and truth at the Emperor Darius's feast got to do with chronography?

Perhaps the answer lies in the Esdras story's conclusion: that truth endures and is strong forever? Or is the whole digression an erudite game, where each editor of the LG chases up a topic initiated by his predecessor? You tell me a story about the Jews and Darius, I'll tell you a literary Darius story back.

The digressions do not stop. The LG same edition of 455, represented by a single manuscript now preserved at Lucca, Italy, also digressively inserts a list of kings of Rome. This kind of list is generally termed an Ordo Romanorum Regum. What we don't fully understand is why Late Antique writers felt the urge to insert this seemingly irrelevant information into annalistic documents.

Some years ago I wrote an article on a similar "Italian digression" which seems to have been added to the Great Stemma. What have ancient Roman kings got to do with biblical history? Their dates don't help you to figure out the age of the world, or the antiquity of Judaism. Perhaps it is something merely ideological. Maybe 5th-century Christian writers felt a need to flaunt their knowledge of early Roman history as an expression of their patriotic allegiance to the Christian empire and their revulsion for the barbarian Germanic invaders who were disrupting the old order.

We don't really know the answer. But digressions may give us a feeling for the issues that preoccupied a generation of editors, just as alterations to Wikipedia articles often give you a picture of what kind of people are hiding behind the pseudonyms and what the Wikipedians' obsessions are.

2013-12-13

Rehabilitation for Forgotten Frick

When he was not at the blackboard, Carl Frick, a provincial German schoolteacher, studied the tangled world of Late Antique chronography. In 1892 he published Chronica Minora. This book was denoted volume one on the title page, indicating it was planned as the start of a series, but there was never any follow-up.

In a field where three celebrity scholars were at work, Frick (1848-?) was at a disadvantage, working without a place in the academic mill. He had the added misfortune to bring out the first volume in the same year as editions of chronica were also published by the legal historian Theodor Mommsen and by Paul de Lagarde.

Of Mommsen, the most eminent scholar in Germany in his own lifetime, and Lagarde, an unpleasant anti-Semite, we know a great deal. The story of another key scholar of chronography, Heinrich Gelzer, was recovered by Martin Wallraff in a book article in 2006. Frick however was largely forgotten.

Even the German national bibliography research unit with its vast documentary resources seems to have lost Chronica Minora and is apparently not aware of his date of death. One might note that here in Germany's second city, there appears to be only a single copy of Frick's main work in any Hamburg library today.

This week, Richard Burgess, the most eminent contemporary historian of Late Antique chronography, placed online an article which goes a considerable way to rehabilitating Frick and his achievements. The article seems to have been issued in print last month in the journal Traditio and is now also available via Burgess' repository on Academia.edu.
Professor Burgess's article acutely dissects a mysterious document, the Excerpta Latina Barbari, which forms codex Paris. Lat. 4884, now digitized at the BNF website (Catalog). He backs the BNF catalogers' view that it dates from about 780 CE, making it about a century later than supposed by some other authors, and that it was made at Corbie in France as a "perfect replica" (in Latin translation) of a "mass-produced" Greek codex which is now lost but was then in the possession of Bishop George of Amiens. His principal thrust is an argument, which is very much in the Frick tradition, in mitigation of the translator's so-called barbarian aptitude and a robust rejection of two recent alternative theses about the Excerpta from Benjamin Garstad and Pier Franco Beatrice.

Frick, who probably did not even see this Latin manuscript in Paris, tells us he borrowed in 1883 a sixteenth-century handwritten copy by Joseph Justus Scaliger from the Hamburg State Library. (This was in the day when the postman still brought thousand-year-old manuscripts to scholars' front doors.) Frick did not edit the text anew: he simply copied from a predecessor. But he had the creative idea of drafting up his own Greek version of the document. This was a central feature of Chronica Minora.

Burgess calls this (note 2) "still the most important study, which includes a surprisingly useful and insightful back-translation into Greek on facing pages" and praises (note 69) the "sensible comments of Frick in defense of the translator, whose Latin he says is no worse than that of Gregory of Tours (sixth century) or Virgilius Maro grammaticus (seventh century)." He also ridicules (note 10) Mommsen's claim to have personally examined the Paris manuscript, suggesting the polymath instead "had a student transcribe Schoene's text and add the entry numbers (for even they suffer from corruptions)." In conclusion he states:
Carl Frick's 1892 introduction and edition should have resulted in an intensified study of the Chron. Scal. But the earlier appearance that year of Theodor[e] Mommsen's own Chronica minora volume in the massive and authoritative Monumenta Germaniae Historica series, which has never gone out of print, meant that Frick's volume one was the last of the series, went out of print, and was on the whole forgotten ..." (page 43)
My own interest in chronography studies grew from the possibility that the evolution of chronicles might provide a key to date a fifth-century historical diagram, the Great Stemma, and a chronological text of perhaps the sixth century, the Ordo Annorum Mundi, which is transmitted with it. The Excerpta, or Chronographia Scaligeriana, as Burgess proposes it should be called, is not of direct assistance, since it is of a later date (Burgess proposes the final version in Greek cannot have dated any earlier than the 530s). However the chronographia comes from the same general culture as the Great Stemma and Liber Genealogus, where the uncanonical Protevangelium of James was regarded as a source of valid historical information.

In his volume, Frick has nothing to say about either the Great Stemma (imperfectly edited by me) or the Ordo Annorum Mundi (soon to be published by Brepols) and we cannot know what he planned to include in any later volumes, since his project collapsed. One is naturally curious about deserving figures who die in obscurity, so I find it touching that Burgess has now elevated Frick above Mommsen in his assessment.

It is Frick's modesty and dogged work which makes him an appealing figure (see my previous post). Whether any of Frick's papers survive at Höxter, where he ran a well-provided school library, I do not know. I once emailed the school but got no reply. At least one of his Latin textbooks remained in use for a century.

In Frick's further defence, I would also stress that his employment as a schoolmaster (see his Prussian education ministry file) should not be taken as a sign that he had a markedly lower academic standing than his professorial contemporaries. We judge this from a 21st century perspective at our peril. He worked in schools in a period when secondary education attracted many superb scholars. The more conservative sort of German schoolteacher today still joins a union known as the Philologenverband. In the nineteenth century, many of its members really were philologists.

Teachers of Latin and Greek in Frick's day were often first-class scholars or writers, as I can attest from the example of my cousin John Henry Fowler, an Oxford graduate and talented writer who earning his living as a rather dour Bristol boarding-school master. But the profession has come down in the world. Andreas Schleicher of the OECD warned only last week that the demotion and reduced professionalism of teachers is the central problem in the steady decline of many western education systems.

2012-09-23

Farewell Hippolytus

In the past day I have been re-analysing some of the data which I examined and proceeded to describe two years ago in a blog post entitled Setback or Progress. At that time I was trying to discover the source of manuscript data which portrayed different ethnicities of the western world as tribal descendants of the biblical patriarch Noah. I was able to establish that this data was not part of the original version of the Great Stemma.

In the course of that research I took a closer look at the Chronicle (about 235 AD) of Hippolytus of Rome and formed the mistaken impression that Hippolytus had been a believer in a certain inflated and baroque chronology which had been abstracted from the biblical Book of Judges by an early Christian or Jewish chronographer.

Finding one's way among the subtle differences in Antique chronography (which is only preserved in fragmentary manuscripts based on repeated revisions of the original works) is an immensely tedious and complex affair which has never been the main focus of my research. The modern scholarly analysis of this material often employs elaborate arguments which magnify the faintest of evidence to arrive at some kind of usable conclusion.

In this case, much of the argument turns on how many phases make up the Book of Judges chronology and which phases were included. My Studia Patristica article, which is already in press, states:
Distinctively Hippolytan elements in the account can be found for example in the period from Joshua to Eli inclusive, which is divided by the Great Stemma into 22 political phases. Hippolytan features here include the rule of an apocryphal judge Shamgar (6th phase) and his alter ego Samera (21st). Both phases were witnessed as present in the Great Stemma when it was seen by the author of the Liber Genealogus in 427, whereas their existence had been firmly ruled out by Eusebius. This would suggest that the author was either hostile to or ignorant of Eusebius.
However I have now read and re-read Rudolf Helm's 1955 edition of the Hippolytus Chronicle (particularly pages 164-167) and understood that (at least in the editor Helm's view), Hippolytus divided the period (Joshua to Eli inclusive) into only 20 phases and excluded the rule of an apocryphal judge Shamgar (6th phase) and his alter ego Samera (21st). These are tiny distinctions, but are enough to derail the argument that Hippolytus was involved.

Farewell Hippolytus: you are no longer on the Great Stemma team.

I have duly changed the page on my website that deals with the matter. In the Studia Patristica article, which can no longer be altered, I would now want to say that there are elements in the diagram which clash with the theories of Eusebius and plainly come from an older, as-yet unidentified chronographer. The misidentification of that chronographer as Hippolytus is a very minor issue, and does not in any way weaken the main thrust of the article: that the Liber Genealogus is a description of an early version of the Great Stemma diagram.

The necessary conclusion after dumping Hippolytus is that some other chronological tradition influenced the Great Stemma. Perhaps the chronographer involved was Julius Africanus, perhaps not. I am not intending to research the issue further. If my error proves to be the stalking horse for a future scholarly article by a specialist, so much the better. I would welcome scholars in the history-of-chronography field taking up the matter and giving it a thorough review.