Showing posts with label Liber Genealogus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Liber Genealogus. Show all posts

2012-05-19

New-Found Manuscript

Does a publication 10 years ago describing a new-found manuscript count as news? Not for a journalist. Nor ought it to be news when the author of the publication personally drew my attention to the article two years ago. But somehow I was too busy with other things, and only discovered today that the Biblioteca Malatestiana in Cesena, Italy possesses a previously unknown 11th-century manuscript of the Liber Genealogus. So it is news ... to me.

Readers may recall that I published online last year the ur-text of the Liber Genealogus of 427 (link). It is not a critical edition, but it is the first to present the archetypal text of the year 427 without clutter. Those who follow this blog will know that the Liber Genealogus is a strange chronological and genealogical tract which can only be understood if one realizes it was a learned commentary on a wondrous drawing: the Great Stemma.

In 2002, the eminent Italy-based historian-philologist Dr Michael Gorman published an article in the journal Scriptorium on 11th-century manuscripts from the monastery at Monte Amiato, a Benedictine community which was closed in 1782. He argued that three very similar codices had all been drafted in the scriptorium there in the 11th century. His article was re-published in Italian with some revisions in 2007.

The third of the manuscripts which he highlighted was one that had escaped the notice of Theodor Mommsen when he published his edition of the Liber Genealogus at the end of the 19th century. This manuscript at Cesena doubtless contains a copy of the F recension. Giuseppe Maria Muccioli writes in that library's printed catalogue that the text begins: Genealogia totius Sacra Scripturae, cum persecutionibus Christianorum, which echoes the Madrid incipit, Genealogiae totius bibliothecae ex omnibus libris veteris novique testamenti. I discussed the Madrid version in a post in February.

Here is a tabulation of the parallel contents of the three codices, based on the publications of Dr Gorman, Mommsen and Professor José Carlos Martín. The three columns at right represent the folio numbers in:
  • Plutei 20.54 
  • Conv. soppr. 364 
  • Cesena D.XXIV.I (Catalog)

Isidori Hispalensis Etymologiae (ed. Lindsay) lost 1- 100v 1- 183
Junilius Africanus De partibus divinae legis = Instituta regularia divinae legis (CPL 872) (Collins) 1ra - 8rb 100v- 107 183- 193v
Bede (thus identified by Gorman) Glose per totum alphabetum (Gorman reference: De ortographia, ed. CCSL 123A.7-57) 8rb – 15rb 107- 111v 193v- 201v
Anon Glossa super Octateuchum et Librum Regum (Glossa Rz: see Holtzmann) omit 111v- 116 202- 209v
Anon Divisiones temporum XIII (unpublished) 15rb – 21ra 116- 120 209v- 217
Isidori Hispalensis Ety. 6.3.2: ''Bibliothecam ... Esdras scriba ...." 21ra 120 217
Isidori Hispalensis Ety. 7.1.2-37 and 7.2.11-49  21ra – 22va 120- 121v 217- 219
Anon De litteris (grammatical tract on syllables, vowels, consonants: Qui primum interrogandum est his qui scientiam divinarum scripturarum scire desiderant...) 22va – 24ra 121v 219- 220v
Anon Liber Genealogus (CPL 2254) (ed. Mommsen MGH chron. min I, pp 160-196; ed. Piggin) 24ra – 30ra 122- 125v 220v- 228r
Isidori Hispalensis Chronographia, cum prologo; (ed. Martin) 30ra – 34ra lost lost
Anon Catalogus regum Langobardorum et Italicorum Lombardus  (ed. Waitz MGH scr. rer Lang.) ends with last Italian kings Lothair II and Berengar II and the crowning in 961 of Otto II as overlord of Italy  36va – 37ra lost lost
Anon Great Stemma (ed. Piggin) 38r – 45r lost lost
Pseudo-Julianus Ordo annorum mundi (ed. forthcoming, Martín) 45r lost lost

It will be obvious from this that the first three-quarters of the Plutei 20.54 manuscript has been lost, whereas the other two manuscripts are lacking their final quarter or third. The folios which we now see numbered 1-45 in the online digital version of Plutei 20.54 were numbered 143-187 when the codex was intact. Possessing all three codices allows us to reconstruct the lost model at Monte Amiato from which they must have been copied.

Gorman notes that the Divisiones temporum XIII above is a text with an annus praesens of 745 CE, matching the legendary date of foundation of the monastery, and argues that this, along with other formal criteria, establishes a clear link between this miscellany and the presumed 11th-century Monte Amiata scriptorium.

Gorman's article is also of interest for its discussion of a medieval diagram which is based on the Great Stemma but adds new content. It was probably made in the same scriptorium. This is found in another Florence manuscript, Cod. Amiatinus 3, ff 169-172v (not online). He notes that this diagram's list of popes finishes with Agapetus (papacy 946-955), and conjectures that this information was drawn from yet another extant manuscript that had been made and kept at Monte Amiata, plut. 65.35, f 3r. (online) which contains a Liber pontificalis.

Note added in 2013:  The latter manuscript is discussed in a later post.

Gorman, Michael. ‘Codici manoscritti dalla Badia amiatina nel secolo XI’. In La Tuscia nell’alto e pieno medioevo. Fonti e temi storiografici ‘territoriali’ e ‘generali’, edited by Mario Marrocchi and Carlo Prezzolini, 15–102. Florence: Sismel - Edizioni del Galluzzo, 2007.

------. ‘Manuscript Books at Monte Amiata in the Eleventh Century’. Scriptorium 56 (2002): 225–293: 268–271.

Martín, José Carlos. Isidori Hispalensis Chronica. Turnhout: Brepols, 2003.*67
Mommsen, Theodor, ed. ‘[Liber Genealogus:] Additamentum II [to the] Chronographus anni CCCLIIII’. In Chronicorum minororum saec. IV. V. VI. VII. Vol. 1. Monumenta Germaniae Historica (MGH), Auctores Antiquissimi (AA) 9. Berlin: Weidmann, 1892.

2012-04-08

Mommsen's False Trail?

Some time ago I posted about the F recension of the Liber Genealogus and the possibility that it might either have originated in Oviedo, Spain or that the lost library of the Cathedral of Oviedo might have been a bottleneck through which both existing versions of the F recension (one in Florence, one in the Escorial library in Madrid) could have passed.

Theodor Mommsen offered a hint there might be a third codex in Madrid, a 16th-century paper manuscript seen by Knust, which contains the so-called Corpus Pelagianum. In his MGH volume on chronicles, Mommsen quoted the old call number for the item, T.10. Through the kind assistance of Professor Jose Carlos Martín of Salamanca, I learn that this item is now shelved as MSS/7089.

To see the bibliographic record in the National Library of Spain manuscript catalog, do a call number search entering the search term "MSS/7089". The OPAC result refers the reader to the printed catalog (PDF cat) which shows that the codex contains a 112-folio copy of the Corpus Pelagianum. The cataloger considers it to be a copy of MSS/1513 (PDF cat) in the same library, which contains 28 items, none of them, as far as I can see from their descriptions, being the Liber Genealogus.

It seems to me that Mommsen laid a false trail here, mentioning Knust only because Knust had vaguely noted that there were genealogies in this codex. I have not checked this further, but suspect that T.10 does not contain the Liber Genealogus. It seems likely that of half a dozen codices with the Corpus Pelagianum, only the Escorial codex contains this book.

2012-02-21

What Did Pelagius See?

Theodor Mommsen describes a paper manuscript which included the Liber Genealogus. Though he did not personally see it, he knew it was kept in the Escorial Library outside Madrid:
Ovetensis episcopus Pelagius (a. 1101 – 1129) corpori chronicorum suo, de quo in praefatione ad Isidoriana disputabimus, hunc librum inseruit inscriptum teste Ambrosio Morales (apud Florez – Risco Esp. sagr. vol. 38 p. 367): incipit genealogiae totius bibliothecae ex omnibus libris veteris novique testamenti. archetypum periit, extant apographa et in codice Matritensi bibl. nat. T 10 saec . XVII (Knust Archiv 8, 799) et in Escurialensi b I 9 chart. saec. XV teste Ewaldo (neues Archiv 6, 232), scilicet tractatus inscriptus ita: incipiunt genealogiae totius bibliothecae ex omnibus libris veteris novique testamenti descriptum; adnotatur: hic liber genealogiae fuit desumptus ex libro vetustissimo ecclesiae Ovetensis in membranis litteris goticis scripto et dicitur finire in Theodosio: videtur igitur similis fuisse nostri F.
The above is online at the digital MGH. It feels faintly irreverent to add hyperlinks to 19th-century Latin but I have done so, since the relevant page of Ambrosio Morales's account and tabulation in Espana Sagrada is online. Friedrich Heinrich Knust ( -1841) (biography) was a German scholar who visited archives in Spain, as did Ewald whose Reise nach Spanien im Winter von 1878 auf 1879 is also online.

As Mommsen says, the 12th-century original that was kept at Oviedo is gone for ever. Hardly any of the Escorial Library is online, so there is no point searching for images of this unique paper copy, but Antolín's catalogue is helpful.

This 12th-century copy of the Liber Genealogus seems to have been been inserted into Pelagius's Liber chronicorum. Rouse and McNelis think the final comment about "in membranis litteris goticis scripto" is by the 15th-century copyist in León, referring to Visigothic script. Or is it a note by Pelagius talking about a book that was old in his day?

It is not clear what manuscript is described in Knust's abstract ("einige Genealogien aus dem alten und neuen Testamente" in a 17th- or 18th-century codex at the Biblioteca Nacional in Madrid with the former call number T10). I did not find the Liber Genealogus listed in the other manuscripts there containing Pelagius's chronological work. There seem to be at least five manuscripts containing elements of Pelagius's Liber chronicorum at the library, including one that is a roundup with his Libro de los Testamentos de la catedral de Oviedo in Ms. 6957 (catalogue entry, warning, large PDF!). But in each case, the content at practically every folio is described, making it unlikely that the Liber Genealogus is in any gap and somehow overlooked.

The interest of the matter to me is of course: what else was lodged in the now-lost cathedral library at Oviedo in the days when Pelagius was in charge? We know the library contained the now-lost Gospel Book of Justus because Ambrosio de Morales saw it there. But did the library also contain a copy of the Great Stemma?

2012-02-15

Editio Princeps

As far as I know, the editio princeps of the Liber Genealogus is the edition of the Codex Taurinensis published at Paris by Christoph Pfaff in 1712. It can found on Google Books. The full title is Firmiani Lactantii Epitome Institutionum Divinarum ad Pentadium fratrem. For a German note about Pfaff, see Wikipedia.

2011-10-07

New Issue by e-Codices

E-Codices in Switzerland this week put Cod. Sang. 133 online, and I have accordingly added hyperlinks to my edition of the Liber Genealogus of 427 on www.piggin.net so that readers can read both side by side on a computer screen. This is the codex I blogged about earlier this year. Lowe's description of the script is also provided on the e-Codices website.
As always, it is interesting to "thumb" through the other material in a volume like this. This little codex is a jewel, and I quote the manuscript summary:
This manuscript, still in its original Carolingian binding, consists of three parts and was written in Merovingian script by numerous hands, apparently in the late 8th and/or early 9th century, probably at the Abbey of St. Gall. It contains reliable versions of many onomastic texts, including copies of the work Liber de situ et nominibus locorum Hebraicorum by Jerome, the Cosmographia of Aethicus Ister, the chronicles of Isidore of Seville, Chronica maiora and Historia regum Gothorum, Vandalorum Sueborum, as well as an excellent version of the Itinerarium Antonini Placentini, an account of the pilgrimage of a citizen of Piacenza in about 560/570 to the Holy Land.
The latest rush of e-codices material, placed online Tuesday, appears to comprise 65 more volumes, and includes wonderfully illuminated bibles and some magnificent compilations. A compendium of histories, Cod. Sang. 547, penned in about 1200, caught my eye. Its summary says:
This rather hefty tome (weighing nearly 17 kilograms) compiled around 1200 contains copies in Latin of major works of world-, church- and ethnic history; examples include the History of the World by Orosius, the ecclesiastical history of Eusebius of Caesarea, the Summa of Biblical history (Historica Scholastica) of the early Parisian scholastic Peter Comestor († ca. 1179), the history of the first crusade by Robert of Reims, the history of the Langobards by Paulus Diaconus, the History of the English Church and People by the Venerable Bede, and Einhard’s Life of Charlemagne.
One cannot praise the work of e-codices (and the generosity of its benefactors) too highly. Christoph Flüeler, who leads the project, deserves high honour for this. I was shocked to hear that Switzerland not only has no system of honours to reward civic excellence, but also makes it an offence for its citizens to accept honours from other nations. I hope that Professor Flüeler can be assured in some other way of the high esteem in which we hold his work.

2011-09-25

Detective Story

Does the Liber Genealogus contain work by Lactantius? A detective story is developing around this unexpected proposition. I have only just discovered that the Liber Genealogus etymologies were comprehensively studied by the German philologist and Old Testament scholar Franz Wutz in his 1914-1915 book Onomastica Sacra. Unfortunately he did not notice during his years of study that the source he was using was in fact identical with the Liber Genealogus as published by Theodor Mommsen. This is a grand example of two great ships passing one another unseen in the night which has not, as far as I know, been brought to wide attention. Without Mommsen, Wutz's broad conclusions are weakened, although his fine detail bears continued reading.

Wutz (1882-1938) (short biography) was extending the work done two generations earlier by Paul de Lagarde (1827-1891) who had published a compilation of materials on biblical onomastics with a limited critical apparatus but without commentary, also entitled Onomastica Sacra, the first edition in 1870 and the second in 1887. Lagarde had presented a paper in 1890 with complete transcriptions of the Lucca (L) and Turin (T) recensions of the Liber Genealogus, and would doubtless have used these to proceed to a third edition of his Onomastica handbook, had it not been for his early death.

It was thus left to Carl Frick (1848-?)to begin a more thorough investigation of these documents. He published an edition of T in 1892 as part of his Chronica minora, with each biblical name carefully linked to certain Greek etymologies which Lagarde had published in his Onomastica compilation. Wutz thus had coherent texts available to him in printed form and could proceed to their analysis.

Wutz arrived at a most curious conclusion. He refers throughout his book to the set of etymologies in T and L as the "Laktanzgruppe", literally, the "Lactantius Group". He also included in the Laktanzgruppe those parts of Lagarde's Greek which Frick had painstakingly linked, word by word, to T. Wutz concluded that some lost Greek work had somehow been included in a manuscript of mixed notes and was able to distinguish two coherent fragments of it (reproduced below, denominated V3 and V4). His designation of T, L, V3 and V4 as the Laktanzgruppe implies he had solved a great mystery, but as it turns out, this nomenclature may have been simply a little joke by Wutz.

Wutz appears to have realized only at the last moment that Mommsen had published a wider-ranging collation of the Latin witnesses, binding T and L to the other recensions of the Liber Genealogus, in his MGH series (note 1, page xviii: Mommsen's Ausgabe des Lib. genealogus ... ist mir leider entgangen.) Had Wutz known of the St Gall (G) and Florence (F) recensions while he was conducting his research, he would probably not have attached the name "Lactantius" to the work and might well have reached different conclusions.

He was approaching the topic from a very different perspective to our own, and it is interesting to consider the basis on which he was thinking. As far as I have been able to understand his argumentation, Wutz suspected T was a Latin translation by Lactantius from a Greek work by a now unknown author and that Lactantius had attached it as an appendix to his Epitome. T appears just after the Epitome in the sole manuscript to have transmitted that ancient work more or less entire. This 6th- or 7th-century codex is at Turin: Archivio di Stato IB. 11.27 (formerly IB. VI.28), CLA IV. 438. Charles McNelis, who examined it in 1999, provides the following useful listing of its contents:
  • f. 2-42v, Lactantius, De opificio dei (CPL 87);
  • f. 42v-61, Lactan­tius, Epitome divinarum institutionum (CPL 86);
  • f. 61-62, extracts from the Latin translation of Hegemonius, Acta Archelai (CPG 3570);
  • f. 62­-71, Liber genealogus (Incipit origo generis humani and Explicit de generationibus);
  • f. 71v-81, Quintus Julius Hilarianus, De ratione paschae et mentis (CPL 2279);
  • f. 81 v-122v, Origenes, Omelie iv de Exodo. i. De can­tico; ii. De amaritudine aquae Merhae; iii. De Decalogo; iv. De tabernaculo (CPG 1413);
  • f. 122v, Augustinus, Sermo ad Caesareensis ecclesiae plebem Emerito presente habitus (CPL 284, ser. 339).
It will be clear from this juxtaposition why Wutz was able to believe the Liber Genealogus to be a work by Lactantius, whereas Bruno Krusch had earlier believed it to be the work of Q. Julius Hilarianus. Monceaux (vol. 6, p. 253) appears not to have known of Wutz's assessment and in any case favoured Krusch, writing, "Le Taurinensis contient à la fois le De ratione Paschae d'Hilarianus et le Liber genealogus." At the same time he was not 100 per cent convinced (Rouse and McNelis over-estimate Monceaux's certainty: sans doute (Monceaux) is the lowest degree of certitude in French, not the highest, rather like the exhortative English "surely"). In my own view, both Krusch and Wutz were barking up the wrong trees.

Since the T text of the Liber Genealogus ends with the life of Christ, there is no easy way to date it. I have only recently shown that it is in fact a descendant from the Liber Genealogus of 427.

Wutz devoted considerable effort to backing up his Lactantius hypothesis, and here I summarize from his German, with page numbers in parentheses:
The Lactanzgruppe (hereafter LGr) of Greek and Latin texts is "completely new" and "completely independent of the Origen Group" (56). The names are presented in genealogical order, not the order of the biblical texts (57). The author's purpose was to present a 'stemma' of Christ and he thus limited his supplementary material to the tribes of Israel only (57). This shows the list is of purely Christian origin, and not Jewish (58). The Origen Group and LGr were created completely independently of one another. If the LGr were really the work of Lactantius, we would be well on the way to understanding how this onomastic work came to be written: Lactantius died in about 330, whereas Jerome did not translate the Philo/Origen list until 390, meaning the LGr would have existed in Latin translation 70 to 90 years earlier, only decades after Origen had completed his work (62). Supposing the Greek text is the prior one, it must therefore date from well before [the year 330] (63). Even though the Latin text is more comprehensive than the Greek fragments at many points, for example in the Exodus material, it too must derive from a Greek vorlage. The order of the Latin text we know must be that which originally prevailed in the lost Greek text, and this proves that the existing Greek fragments are not the vorlage (76). The actions of Jerome, who undoubtedly is the translator of the Origen Group, and had plainly intended to translate everything of this nature that he could lay hands on, indicate that either the LGr did not exist in Jerome's day or that it was unknown to him. The former is unlikely, since the Greek forms of certain names indicate a very early date. So the tradition that Lactantius translated this Greek Onomastica has historical plausibility behind it and should not be rejected without significant reason. Therefore Jerome did not know of the LGr. This is particularly remarkable insofar as other Origen Group lists do consult the LGr (77). Wutz's conclusion bears translating in full:
This thorough examination of the LGr has yielded some remarkable conclusions: A completely independent study of biblical names was composed in Greek by a Christian. If as tradition holds, a translation [into Latin] was performed on African soil at a very early point, six to eight decades before Jerome, then the Greek work must be dated much earlier to a point before the Origen Group. This does not necessarily mean its author worked in Africa. All that we can say is that he had a very good knowledge of Syrian, most probably the Christian Palestinian [dialect]. We have found no evidence to cast doubt on tradition. Up to the time of Jerome, this Onomastica remained almost hermetically sealed off from the numerous Origen Group explanations in circulation, but thereafter it influenced one fork of the Origen Group (96).
Once this false idea of Lactantius's role in the work had been placed in the world, it naturally put down roots. Ilona Opelt in her 1965 encyclopaedia article Etymologie appears to misunderstand Wutz's citation of T and L and compounds the error, describing these Latin codices as "zwei Hss. des Laktanz aus dem 6. und 7. Jh." I cannot see any material from Lactantius listed in the descriptions of codex L by Mommsen and Lagarde.

Let us now turn to the Greek texts of the Laktanzgruppe. Wutz performed a major service by re-edited these. They had earlier been printed by Lagarde and had originally been published by Jean Martianay (1647-1717) and later Dominic Vallarsi (1702-1771). Lagarde had applied the somewhat misleading heading "Onomastica Vaticana" to the pages where the two fragments are printed, although neither of them is in the Apostolic library at the Vatican. Roger Gryson in 1966 proposed fixed sigla, and possibly relying on Opelt 828 and Wutz 238, suggested that a fourth onomastic group be distinguished:
  • L (Laktanzgruppe)
  • O (Philo-Origen)
  • V (Onomastica Vaticana)
  • C (Glossae Colbertinae)
Wutz states (page xviii) that the Greek redaction of the Laktanzgruppe is to be found in seven manuscripts, while pointing out (page 3) that one 10th-century Rome manuscript, Biblioteca Vallicellana 66,4 (link), contains the source text (249v-254r) of the six others. He differentiates the following two fragments (page 4), but take the view that they once formed separate parts of a single text, now lost:
  • Lag. 177,63 -- 179,23 (Martianay: fragmentum tertium) == V3
  • Lag. 179,24 -- 181,83 (Martianay: fragmentum quartum) == V4
We start with V3, whereby line numbers are printed on one margin at every fifth line and the opposite margin contains biblical references keyed to those line numbers. The other numbers are possibly pages of Martinay's and Vallarsi's editions. Obviously, lines 56 to 61 are references, but are not visible on this blog entry because they are not part of V3. I have omitted the footnotes.

Fragmentum tertium (V3)




Fragmentum quartum (V4)





Wutz edited V3 and V4 with a more advanced apparatus than Lagarde had provided and published this at 685-703 of his book. Here is a summary of the names in English, with Lagarde's line numbers in bold, and Wutz's line numbers in italics. Some of the names I could not understand, but I have nevertheless transcribed them:

63 1 65 [Filum of Christ according to Matthew:] Adam 67 Abel 68 Cain Seth Enosh 69 9 Kenan Mahalalel 70 Jared Enoch Methuselah 71 Lamech Noe Shem 72 Ham Japheth [from Shem:] Arpachshad 73 Shelah Eber 74 Nahor 75 Esrom Thara Abram 76 Abraham 77 Isaac 78 Jacob [filum stops here] Esau 79 21 Reuben Simeon 80 Levi Judah 81 Issachar Zebulon Dan 82 Nephtali Gad Aser 83 Joseph Benjamin 84 Melchisedech 86 [Jacob's family from Gen 46:8-25:] Reuben Pallu 87 Carmi 88 31 Simeon Jemuel Jamin Ohad 89 Iachin Zohar 90 Levi Gershon Kohath 91 Merari 92 Judah Er Onan 93 Shelah Perez Zerah 94 Issachar Tola Puvah Iob? 95 Solomon? 96 Zebulun Sered 97 Elom Jahleel 98 Dan [see Wutz 66; sons of Gad:] Ziphion Haggi Shuni 99 48 Ezbon Eri 100 Areli 1 [sons of Dan:] Naphtali Jahzeel 2 Guni Jezer 3 Shillem 4 Gad 5 Asher Imnah Ishvah 6 Ishvi Beria 8 Joseph Ephraim Manasseh 9 Asenath Potiphera 10 Benjamin 11 62 Becher Ashbel Gera 12 Naaman Ehi Rosh 13 Muppim Huppim 14 [From Exodus:] Pithom Rameses Shiphrah 15 Moses 16 Reuel 17 Jethro 18 Perez Hezron Hamul 19 [Additional LXX Josephites:] Ephraim Southalaam Taam 21 Manasseh Galaad 22 Beriah Eber Melchiel 24 Ermeneia (2) 25 78 [Biblical women:] Eve Sarah 26 Agar Rebecca 27 Deborah 28 Zipporah Rachel 29 Aeia? 30 Bersabee Saraa? Tamar 31 Maria 32 Miriam 33 Ruth 34 Serah 36 [Filum of Christ according to Matthew resumed] Perez Hezron Ram 37 Amminadab Nahshon 38 Salmon* Boaz* 39 93 Jesse* David 40 Solomon 41 Rehoboam* Abijam* 42 Asa* 44 Jehoshaphat Jehoram Uzziah* 45 Jotham* Ahaz 46 100 [omissions!] Zedekiah [1st insert:] Madiam 47 Iesba (Jezebel?) Samareia Raasson 48 Romelion Pharaoh 49 Bathouel Chettoura 50 Chet Gerson [Num. 13:6:] Caleb Jephunneh 51 Elias Elissaie 52 Chebron Asaph 53 Gelbone Nelcha 54 110 Edem Gaidad Maiel 55 Adda Sella 56 Thobel Neomin 57 Iarer Chanaan 58 [Races of Japheth:] Gomer Magog 59 Medes Meshech Tiras 60 [of Gomer:] Ashkenaz [of Javan:] Elishah Tarshish 61 Kittim [Races of Ham:] Cush 62 Misraim 63 Put Seba Dedan 64 Nimrod 65 [Place-names:] Babel Erech Shinar 66 Ashur Nineveh Canaan Sidon Chethatha 68 127 [Races of Shem:] Elam Arpachshad 69 Aram Job Gamer 70 Mosoch Eber Joktan Almodad 72 Uzal Obal Abima-el 73 Ored Havilah 74 Aram? Jobab [mixed list:] Nachor 75 Aot Chaldaeans Suchem 76 Bethel Haggai (prophet?) Amarphal (Gen 14:1?) 77 Ariol Heschod 78 Onam 79 [Sinai (corr. Wutz 80-81)] batos* [peoples of Canaan:] Canaan Amorites 80 Girgashites Jebusites [2nd insert:] Daron (=Aaron) 82 143 Sinai? Israel.

The asterisks mark material that Wutz also found in the hypothetical "Lexikon" used by Ambrose of Milan. It is noticeable that the overall order of the names has some similarities to that in the Liber Genealogus, although considerable amounts of material (particularly Fila B and Fila D) are omitted.

Now the plot thickens. The Liber Genealogus has been written about by a series of scholars in the past hundred years, most notably by Paul Monceaux, Hervé Inglebert and Charles McNelis. Frick's exploration of the etymologies was known to them, but as far as I know, none mentions the very important analytical contribution a generation later by Wutz, an oversight which is understandable, since Wutz did not use the current title for the work. As a result, a century of research has proceeded along two tracks. This blog post is, as far as I know, the first time the two tracks have again met.

So the question is, did Lactantius write a glossary of biblical names that was expanded, 100 years after his death, into the Liber Genealogus of 427? Attractive as the idea is, it relies on only the weakest of supports: Wutz's modern "tradition" that associates Lactantius with the text because it is in the Turin manuscript. There does not seem to be any other evidence for such a link. But we do not have any idea who the true author of the etymologies is. One suspects that Wutz, having spent years looking at fanciful names and etymologies, smiled to himself one morning and made up a fanciful name of his own to leave to posterity. I believe that we should continue to use the term Laktanzgruppe, since it has the weight of a century of (somewhat obscure) tradition, while recognizing that it is a misnomer and misleading.

Wutz argues that the Greek text on which V3 and V4 are based is older than the Latin text of 427, and moreover that there is an Armenian branch of the Laktanzgruppe (document cited in a note by Erwin Preuschen (Wutz, 84), further study apparently conducted in 1981 by Michael E. Stone). If this is so, we are obliged to consider how the Laktanzgruppe of etymologies might have diffused. We can conceive of two paths by which it could have reached Donatist North Africa:
  • A Latin translation, now lost, could have been prepared in the 4th century, and could have lain side by side on the table with the Great Stemma while the Liber Genealogus was being written.
  • The manuscript may have remained in Greek, untranslated, until a Donatist scholar conceived the bold idea of translating it while using a familiar document, the Great Stemma, as a giver of structure.
The second of these choices is marginally more plausible, given that the underlying motive for writing the Liber Genealogus remains unclear. I have suggested that in the broadest terms it was an ekphrasis of the diagram, but we remain uncertain as to what the incentive to publish it was. A new translation, especially of a work that remained "untainted" by the touch of Catholic writers including Jerome, might perhaps have seemed a rewarding project for a Donatist to undertake.

References

  • Gryson, Roger. "L'interprétation du nom de Lévi (Lévite) chez saint Ambroise." Sacris Erudiri 17, 2 (1966), 217-229.
  • Krusch, Bruno. Studien zur christlichen-mittelalterlichen Chronik, Leipzig, 1880.
  • Lagarde, Paul de. Onomastica Sacra: Pauli De Lagarde Studio Et Sumptibus Alterum Edita. Göttingen, 1887.
  • Monceaux, Paul. Littérature donatiste au temps de Saint Augustin. Vol. 6. 7 vols. Histoire littéraire de l'Afrique chrétienne depuis les origines jusqu'à l'invasion arabe. Paris, 1922.
  • Opelt, Ilona. "Etymologie". Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum (RAC), 6, col. 829. 1965.
  • Rouse, Richard, and Charles McNelis. “North African literary activity: A Cyprian fragment, the stichometric lists and a Donatist compendium.” Revue d'histoire des textes 30 (2000): 189-238.
  • Wutz, Franz. Onomastica sacra: Untersuchungen zum Liber interpretationis nominum hebraicorum des hl. Hieronymus (2 vols). Leipzig, 1914-15. Archive.org: PDF complete.

2011-07-22

Liber Genealogus Text

Just in time for the Oxford Patristics Conference, I have completed a new, structured edition of the Liber Genealogus and published it online here: www.piggin.net/stemmahist/libertext.htm.
Last summer I wasted a couple of weeks marking up a different recension of the Liber, that of Turin, in the mistaken belief that it was the earliest. This time I seem to have tracked down the recension that is truly the first, that of St Gall. It contains a subscription indicating it was written in 427 CE. I have keyed the transcript to the pages of the St Gall manuscript (I will make these hotlinks when it comes online). The manuscript page numbers begin with 299 (this particular codex is numbered by pages, not by folios). I have placed the etymological glosses in a column of their own at the right, which helps to make clearer how the author worked as he read his data from the Great Stemma diagram. The numbering is Mommsen's. It breaks the text into sections of wildly varying size, and I find it illogical, but it has been established as authoritative. Perhaps we can devise a better numbering system in the future.

2011-05-28

E-Codices

Some very good news from Professor Christoph Flüeler of the E-Codices manuscript digitization project in Switzerland. I asked him if Cod. Sang. 133, a little codex that is hugely important to the history of books, was likely to be released on the E-Codices website, and he replied that his team would speed this one up and make sure it is issued on the web in the next few months. This is magnificent. I am a big fan of E-Codices, which is a key source in Antiquity studies.

Cod. Sang. 133 in the Abbey Library at St. Gall in Switzerland is an important source in understanding the antique book trade, since it contains a set of more or less intact stichometric lists. These were computations of the length of books, calibrated in στιχοι or stichoi, that were used to set both the cost of transcription (the scribe's wages) and the book price (what the bookseller charged).

Cod. Sang. 133 contain fourth-century measurements of the books of the Bible and the 28 works of Cyprian. We know from the writer Galen (quoted here by Diels) that a Greek stichos or unit was 16 syllables, and this source confirms a Roman stichos, or verse, was similarly 16 Latin syllables.

Once described by Bernhard Bischoff as the "oldest document of the Christian book trade" and used by scholars such as Bruce Metzger to estimate the bulk of early bibles, this record gives us an insight into the economics of book publishing. The content is of course dry, for example:

This translates as:
The Four Gospels:
Matthew, 2700 lines
John, 1800 lines
Mark, 1700 lines
Luke, 3300 lines
All the lines make 10,000 lines.

But there are some interesting observations. The author lets fly for example at exploitative Roman booksellers for their slack and cheating ways with his beloved Cyprian:
Because the index of verses in Rome is not clearly given, and because in other places too, as a result of greed, they do not preserve it in full, I have gone through the books one by one, counting sixteen syllables per line, and have appended to each book the number of Virgilian hexameters it contains (Rouse translation).

The St. Gall manuscript, written during the late 8th or early 9th century, probably at St. Gall itself, and another manuscript, Rome, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale Vittorio Emanuele II, Vitt. Em. 1325 (handwritten catalog entry in Italian here, formerly Cheltenham or Phillipps 12266), written at Nonantola in the 10th or early 11th century, are the key practical records we have about the stichometric method.

These North African lists, the so-called indicula, were discovered (it seems) by the great Theodor Mommsen, who wrote them up in 1886. Mommsen expanded his fame with this codex in the late 19th century, publishing the Liber Genealogus in his MGH series. It also contains a curious work, the Inventiones Nominum, which mentions a good many unusual biblical names that never made it into canonical scripture.

The St. Gall codex was revisited in 2000 by eminent US professor Richard Rouse, who argued that the 11 items discovered by Mommsen in the collection (see below) were not a random group of texts, but formed an intact North African reference book or compendium. It had travelled through the centuries together and had been put together by Donatist scholars, according to Rouse and his co-writer Charles McNelis.

The St Gall codex is of quite a small format, which explains why the Liber Genealogus, not a very long work, fills 49 of its folios: there is not that much writing on each side. The script is very clear and the parchment clean, which suggests it was probably not very heavily used in its day. This text of the Liber is the earliest recension (the direct description of the Great Stemma) and therefore the most important.

Here is Mommsen's Latin description of the compendium, interspersed with text from Scherrer's 1875 St. Gall printed catalog, with one or two additions by me (the English bits, obviously):

Cod. Sang. 133

Pgm. 8° s. VIII u. IX; 657 (656) pages.

Scherrer: Drei oder vier Handschriften in einem Band. [Preceded by Eusebius/Jerome on Holy Land place-names. Followed by Isidore Chronicon pp 523-590 and 'Incipit cuius supra Goti de Magog Jafet filio orti' pp 590-597. Pages 598-601 blank.]

Mommsen: saec . IX formae octonariae praeter alia quae recenset catalogus editus p. 48 [Scherrer] a glutinatore demum cum his compacta medio loco p. 299-597 continet commentaries qui sequuntur:

1. p. 299 – 396 librum genealogum infra editum. [Scherrer: S. 299-396: 'Inc. liber genera(tio)num vel nominum patrum vel filiorum vet. test. vel novi a s. Hieronimo prbo conpraehensum etc. Incipit genilocus sci Hieronimi prb.' Am Ende: 'Explicit liber genealogus.' (Unbekannt und nicht von Hieronymus; reicht, laut p. 396, bis zum Jahr der Welt 5879 oder bis zum Consulat 'hieri et ardabii.')]

2. p. 397 – 420 incipiunt prophetiae ex omnibus libris collecte. quae prophetiae membra habent .... cecidisse in hanc voluntate perseverantes caeci a dei fide lapsi sunt ignorantes. expl . coll . prophet . veteris novique testamenti.
[Scherrer: S. 397-426: 'Incip. prophetiae ex omnibus libris collecte.' (Katechese).]

3. p. 420′– 421 incipiunt virtutes Haeliae quae eius merito a domino factae sunt. prima virtus. clausit caelum . . . sublatus est in caelo.

4. p. 421 – 426 incipiunt etiam Helisei virtutes. prima virtus. de melote divisa est .... post mortem suam revixit. expl.

5. p. 427 – 454′ inc̅p̅t̅ inventi̅o̅n̅ nomi̅n̅ , duo sunt Adam , unus est protoplaustus .... et alius est Domires vir sponsor Teclae: inter ambas autem sunt an̅n̅ ferme DCCLXX. [Scherrer: S. 427-492: 'Incipt. invention. nominum.' (Aufzählung von Personen- und Völkernamen des A. T.).]

6. 454′– 484′ sequitur liber generationis cum praescriptione hac: haec sunt diutissime . . . . . . anni sunt v̅dccccxviii (vide infra p . 89), sed c . 240 – 331 ad brevem epitomam redactis et ad eius finem inserta computatione quae statim referetur adsunt rursus nostrae editionis c. 333 – 361, abest pars extrema c . 361 – 398: subscriptum expl .

7. p. 484 – 485 item interpretationes filiorum Iacob de Hebreo in Latino. amen vere. Ruben dei spiritus cet.

8. p. 485 – 488 item interpretationes Hebreas in Latin translatas . Hebrea lingua triplex .

9. p. 488 – 492 incipit indiculum veteris testamenti , item novi et Caecili Cipriani, quos indices versum numerum per singulos libros enuntiantes ex gemello libro Cheltenhamensi edidi in Hermae volumine 21 p . 142 seq. librarius iam is qui archetypum scripsit indices eos ad librum generationis non pertinentes neque ei continuatos ad titulorum eius laterculum adiunxit (v. p. 89 not.).

10. p. 492 item interpretationes Hebreas in Latinum . Maria domina cet. [Scherrer: S. 492-522: 'Interpretationes hebreas in latinum etc. Nomina locorum et interpr. nominum de hebreo in latinum. (Excerpte aus Hieron. Liber de interpr. nom. hebr. Opp. ed. Mart. II, von p. 3 bis circa p. 83.)

11. p. 493 – 522 nomina locorum et interpretatio nominum de Hebreo in Latinum. Hermon regio Hebreorum cet. similesque interpretationes aliae.


There is a very old Wikipedia article on stichometry, which I have just fixed a bit. Not just old in the sense of posted in 2005, but old because it was copied from a 100-year-old Encyclopaedia Britannica: it stated that one of the codices is at Cheltenham in Sir Thomas Phillipps's collection. In fact that collection was broken up and sold a century ago. This codex was purchased by the Italian state, and I have altered the Wikipedia article accordingly.

2011-05-26

Ekphrasis

In the classic sense, ekphrasis means a poem that vividly describes a work of art or other physical artefact. During the Greek period, such texts might describe weapons, exceptional clothing, household items of superior craftsmanship (urns, cups, baskets) and splendid buildings.

This form of expression connects with the Roman pride in showing off one's education (paideia) at dinner parties which Michael Squire describes (p. 219) in his book Image and Text in Graeco-Roman Antiquity: Learned discussions of myths and philology were the bread and butter of the cena and convivium, and it seems to have been de rigueur to intersperse dinner with all manner of literary entertainments, he notes. Even Petronius's Trimalchio appreciates that 'one must know one's philology at dinner' (oportet etiam inter cenandum philologiam nosse: Petron. Sat. 39.3), though getting his own woefully wrong, Squire notes.

Squire traces this back to Hellenistic examples, quoting (p. 239) a passage in Greek (Dom. 2) from Lucian's On the Hall: When it comes to what we see, the same law does not apply for ordinary as for learned men. For the former, it is enough to do the usual thing: simply to gaze, look around ... But when a man of learning looks upon what is beautiful, he would not, I think, be content with harvesting his delight in looking alone, nor would he allow himself to witness their beauty in silence; instead, he will do all he can to take his time and to reciprocate the image with speech.

Lucian's speaker later says: 'Visual judgement lies not in the act of looking, but a rational eloquence also concurs with what is seen' (Dom. 6, quoted Squire p. 240). Addressing this Hellenistic 'etiquette of viewing', Squire adds (p. 243): 'The art of being an educated viewer once again becomes the art of being equipped with paideia - of having the terms, language and knowledge to articulate what is remarkable in an image.

The remainder of Squire's argument, that 'verbally mediated responses might actually force viewers to look harder at what they saw' (p. 247), need not concern us here. Instead, I am concerned with the relationship between the Great Stemma and the Liber Genealogus. The one is a very large and impressive diagram, the other an extended text which muses, in list order, on the etymology of biblical names and drops in various tendentious remarks of a Donatist nature about the Church of Rome. In the order of the material, the earliest, G recension of the Liber Genealogus closely follows the diagram. It is all but inconceivable that this order would have been independently adopted without reference to the diagram.

We are thus left with the issue of how and why the Liber Genealogus was written.

It seems to me that the practice of ekphrasis offers a plausible hypothesis to explain its creation. Much of what we read in the Liber seems to be a response to the visualization, perhaps by a Christian displaying both classical learning and biblical knowledge. It might be too fanciful to imagine three or four Christian literati going out to dine with a secretary at hand to jot down what they say and the Great Stemma pinned up on the wall of the dining room. But certainly the Liber does seem to be written with the purpose of dazzling somebody with the eloquence and resourcefulness of its etymological speculation about Hebrew names of the Bible.

2011-04-10

Liber Genealogus

A 9,000-word study of the links between the Liber Genealogus and the Great Stemma more or less completes my detailed research into the oldest stemma diagram known. I have just placed this new article online. I do not pretend it offers any great amusement: it is rather dry stuff. But we need the detail to assemble the case that the Liber is the textual account of someone who had read the Stemma, or something like it. I don't think many people read the Liber Genealogus: it is difficult to see what use it ever was to any reader. Mommsen's edition of the Liber does not help the contemporary reader much either. It is not particularly easy to use, given that the composite Mommsen text overlays the original G recension with material from the Origo Humani Generis and a lot of Donatist disputation. It might have almost been easier for me to just read a manuscript. Unfortunately, the best and oldest one is not online. The excellent Swiss e-codices project has not yet digitized Cod. Sang. 133, which contains the G recension dating from the late 8th or early 9th century. That is quite impressive: this codex was penned less than 400 years after the Liber Genealogus was written in 427. In the absence of this much-needed digital work, one can only consult Plutei 20.54 in Florence, which contains the inferior F recension. This is in fact the same codex that contains the most primitive form of the Great Stemma.

2010-09-11

Old Vellum and Bookselling

A learned article by Richard Rouse and Charles McNelis appeared a decade ago. North African literary activity is subtitled "A Cyprian fragment, the stichometric lists and a Donatist compendium" and incredibly it rounds up four utterly diverse topics in one discussion: the unlikely discovery of a very worn piece of old vellum in a codex binding, Late Antique bookselling, a North African Christian sect and how 19th-century philologists could not see the wood for the trees. The article comes to the conclusion that a lot of the Late Antique bible-handbook and chronographic material we now have was saved for posterity in a single compendium.
Rouse, who is now emeritus professor at UCLA, and McNelis, now associate professor at Georgetown University, suggest a way by which the Great Stemma (that is not of course their name for it) might derive from the Liber Genealogus. It would be nice if this fitted the facts, but we have three signal differences between these works:
  • they use different versions of the Table of Nations from Genesis 10
  • they use different chronologies of the kings of Rome
  • the Great Stemma has none of the Liber's etymological content
Of course the overall structure of the documents is similar, and both evince a fascination with the Twelve Minor Prophets of the Old Testament. It looks as if the latter topic is going to need some further research...

2010-08-24

Setback or Progress

After weeks of combing through the Liber Genealogus, including creating my own fully keyed versions of both Frick's and Mommsen's versions, I think I am barking up the wrong tree. My original idea was to hunt for any clues that the Liber Genealogus author might have had the Great Stemma open on the desk in front of him as he wrote. There are no such clues. The two works appear to be siblings, drawing on a common tradition but created in utter ignorance of one another.

The crux is the Table of Nations, the strange anthropological list in Genesis 10 which is the inspiration for two ancient works, the Antiquities of Josephus and the Chronicon of Hippolytus.

The Liber bases all its statements about the different ethnicities in the Mediterranean and Middle East on the Chronicon. In fact, when Bauer and Helm were compiling the critical edition of the Chronicon and came to its ethnicities chapter, the so-called Diamerismos, they often used the Liber Genealogus as a check (see Bauer/Helm, page 1).

The Great Stemma, on the other hand, offers an almost unalloyed reproduction of the ethnicities list in Josephus' Antiquities, a fact that Yolanda Zaluska published 25 years ago. It ought not to have surprised me, but I never appreciated what a black-and-white distinction this is and how starkly this difference in sourcing separates the Great Stemma from the Liber.

I always feel disappointed when a setback like this sinks in. But of course the finding is progress. And in fact it has exciting implications, because it implies yet another way in which the Great Stemma must predate the thinking and intellectual resources of the early 5th century. Its author can have known nothing of Jerome or Augustus. But the thought that he worked in a library where there was not one scrap of Hippolytus to read? Who is this guy? How far back should we be looking? This is tantalizing.

[Later note: the final two paragraphs above are mistaken. It is far more likely that the Table of Nations was worked into the Great Stemma by a Spanish recensor, using a copy of Isidore's Etymologiae. There is no evidence the Great Stemma author was even interested in the Table of Nations material, and why should he have been? The ethnicities material does not add any useful information on the genealogy of Christ or on the chronography which are his central concerns (October 1, 2010).]

[Much later note: I did finally discover sequential evidence. The Liber follows the order of the Great Stemma. This is the subject of my Oxford Patristics Conference paper (September 25, 2011).]

2010-05-14

Liber Genealogus

Göttingen University Library in Germany has a digital version of Paul de Lagarde's 1892 edition of the Lucca Cathedral manuscript of the Liber Genealogus. This is in a very rare printed periodical, not available on Archive.org or Google Books. I can only see two libraries in Germany which catalogue this article, entitled SeptuagintStudien, II (perhaps a rare 19th century use of so-called CamelCase). Neither Göttingen nor Mainz are willing to interloan it.
The Liber is a vital text in understanding the Great Stemma. Both works belong to the same tradition (we are not yet sure how their interdependency should be described). This edition is very useful as de Lagarde went to the trouble to link each name to its biblical place with a reference, an extra duty which the Mommsen edition does not bother with. I went to the same trouble myself, and will have to see how our results compare. There is also a Greek text for comparison.
Ayuso Marazuela quotes the de Lagarde version (omitting the "de" from the name and adding a hyphen to the CamelCase), but de Lagarde is not mentioned in the Klapisch-Zuber bibliography.
Carl Frick brought out an all-Latin critical edition of yet another version, the Turin manuscript, in 1892, and published that in his handbook Chronica Minora under the title Origo Humani Generis. The Hathi Trust has placed Frick online, but unfortunately it is only accessible from inside the United States.
Here are the links:
1. de Lagarde
2. Mommsen
3. Frick