Roger Pearse

Well, I'm only an interested layman with no relevant qualifications for anything I do. I also have no access to JSTOR most of the time, or any databases of bibliographies. But if I want to know about a text (and I always want to know about the manuscripts), this is what I would do.

Firstly I go to COPAC and do a query for it, to see what books exist. This will probably give a list of early editions, and hopefully a modern edition or translation. Armed with this I will do a google search -- there may be Bryn Mawr reviews of modern stuff, or some other useful info. This is a quick way to get an idea of what exists.

For patristic texts, I always hope to see a Sources Chrétiennes edition, since these always have a good introduction, a few pages on the manuscripts and early editions (which sometimes have the value of manuscripts), a bibliography, and a modern text and French translation. In the beginning I would photocopy the relevant pages, scan them in and shove them through a machine translator to get the sense. The French for "manuscript" is "manuscrit".

English-language translations are usually of poorer quality in their introductory material. The "Ancient Christian Writers" series is reasonable, tho, but includes no original language text (!).

At this point I have a command of sorts of the subject. Remember that what I am usually doing is getting an old English translation, with feeble intro, and beefing that up. I don't usually need or want to see a modern translation -- each loan costs me $10 and takes weeks -- but would if it was around. Nor do I need the latest scholarly theories. All I need is whatever raw data exists. So this skews my approach to texts.

I have forgotten to mention that for patristic or Syriac texts, there are the patrologies and handbooks of Syriac literature. Quasten is excellent for what he covers; Altaner gives a little more. I have 3 Syriac volumes also. I tend to use these to get an overview of who is writing when, and I search them for old English translations. They contain a bit of bibliography also.

No doubt something similar exists for classical and late-antique texts, but I have not come across it.

None of this will help you with short texts published in journals. I don't have a reliable method to locate these, and rely on stumbling over mentions while reading around. Once I discovered that F.C.Conybeare had done a lot of translations from the Armenian, I got hold of a biblio of his publications, and this led me to journal articles. I then browsed the journals for other papers of the same kind. I did ask in LT-ANTIQ for a better method, but none was volunteered.

I'm sure that you appreciate that over time one acquires a penumbra of information on texts, even if one isn't working on them, which gives you leads when you do.

I happen to have H.W.Bird's translation of Aurelius Victor (much less good than the French one, which talks clearly about the contents of that tripartite manuscript, which also contained the Origo gentis Romanae and a De viris illustribus -- I did a translation of the former, and so the intro to it on my site may give you useful info). He doesn't even bother to state this distinction, but just refers vaguely to the "epitome". It's a good piece of work, but some lay person should have been asked to read the intro.

A bit of both, as you see above. There is also the Clavis Patrum Latinorum which assigns a number to every Latin patristic text up to Bede, and which I have. (It's not readable, even to me). This gives you the reference to Migne's text, and to the CSEL and CCSL texts where they exist. There is the multi-volume Clavis Patrum Graecorum which I have never been able to afford which does the same for Greek.

I just follow my nose and look at whatever seems interesting. There are huge amounts that I know nothing about, of course. I also browse the stacks at Cambridge University Library -- that's how I discovered that an English translation exists of Macrobius, and that book 2 is a Roman joke book. I probably never achieve anything particularly final, except old age, but then I only get spare moments to do anything. This is where the professional scholar scores over the amateur -- day after day exhaustively working on the sources and literature for something.

That said, in the humanities, I suspect a lot of bluffing goes on. I'm ignorant, myself; but that's why I always ask to see ancient sources. These are limited, whereas the modern literature on some subjects would be impossible for anyone to master.

Fortunately the Latin text of both is at The Latin Library so it is possible, by searching for proper names, to see what parallels what. I admit that I skimmed the section on Constantine in Bird's translation, tho, to see if parallel material existed.

I regret that I don't know anything at all about the origin of the epitome; if you find out, let us all know.

I do know that Aurelius Victor and indeed the Breviarum of Eutropius both arose from the need for a potted history of the Roman empire in the late 4th century. The emperors were uncultured men from Dalmatia who had no real idea of what Rome was, or meant, or what its history was, or how its institutions came to exist. The emperor therefore commissioned these quick summaries, so that his staff could function. Victor was too long and flowery, so Eutropius produced a better version. People then brought Eutropius up to date by adding more on the end, for some centuries.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

S.C.Carlson

Yes, it can and does make the translation more complex. In the example above, you have one translating it fairly straight ("little boy") while the other tries to give a feeling for the metaphor by adding the phrase "irresponsible for his own actions."

mountainman

Thanks for this outline Roger. It encapsulates a necessary process
that you have obviously reiterated many times over the last decade
or so, to gather the material together that you have at your website.

I am embarrased to admit that I have never before visited
COPAC, and thus have
a bit to learn in many of the steps in this above process.

The process itself however, is obviously a mandatory requirement
for any researcher of the texts of the past (and their transmission
history). Is there a singular word or expression which defines
this area of research?

FInally, let me say that when time permits I intend to attempt
to perform this process on a specific text, and then document
the process by means of this text as an example. But did I
already see something like this at your site, or was it in a
discussion thread somewhere?

Anyway, thanks for the useful information.



Patrology seems to be a word understood to mean a
"Study of the Fathers of the Church". I am seeking
another word which is the more generic, based on a
"study of all authors of antiquity", which you seem to
be doing. The study of the traces of the records of
all literature written in an epoch, for example.

To be fair, although you seem to be coming from an
angle which includes "patrology" your research extends
outside the bounds of "patrology" (which I view as an
hierarchical structure) and into the regions of general
ancient history of all texts (which I view as a relational
structure). Do you agree with this assessment?


The following relates to these databases ...

When you say ... (It's not readable, even to me), from this I
understand that 1) you are a (Oracle?) RDBMS professional
(mentioned somewhere at your website), and 2) these two
database have been "locked up" somehow, and are not open
and amenable to "being opened". Is this correct?

Both these databases seem to relate to patistic literature
(ie: history as viewed by the fathers of the church), and
appear to be exceedingly(?) rich with resources for research.

Thanks for your reference to them.
BTW, are you sure "they cannot be hacked"?

Note that I am not talking about malicious activity
only the activity of bring the data that is contained
therein out into the light of easier and more amenable
analyses. Hopefully being a database (RDBMS) professional
(which I think your resume discloses) you will appreciate
the distinction I am trying to define.

In order to make this task easier ...


Information technology will assist.
The RDBMS to be specific. (IMO)




Thanks again for these references.

I will certainly not cross Aurelius Victor and the (his?) Epitomist
off my list of "the authors of antiquity" until some follow up on
the above has been conducted.


Is there to be any association in this with the loss of
the innate greek speeking, writing and reading skills
within the empire during the late fourth century, and
the (as it would appear to me anyway, now) emergence
of the domination of the latin.


Best wishes,



Pete

Roger Pearse

Well, it's a UK thing. But it's possible to use it quite creatively.

Not that I know of.

Well, I'm interested in all sorts of things, and I don't feel the need to draw lines, other than for practical purposes (i.e., I can't do everything).

I'm scanning patristic texts because there are few other people who will do it if I don't, and few of those have the access that I have to libraries. Bill Thayer is working away on classical texts, and there are other sites dedicated to mainly pagan antiquity. As a Christian I have an interest in the patristic texts that most people do not (although my interest is mainly historical), and, hey, someone has to do it.

Whatever I look at, I want to know about the manner in which this nice printed text got to us from the author (a personal thing, apparently not widely shared). The methods of transmission (Überlieferung in German -- no single English word) are much the same for all Latin literature (I came to this from Tertullian, so what I learned there is generally relevant) -- basically the Benedictine monks copied it or kept a copy of it -- and very similar as far as I can tell for Greek. Syriac seems to be basically similar. Coptic and Ethiopic also. (I don't know nearly enough about Georgian and Armenian mss to say; likewise Arabic and Persian).

Looking at surviving medieval library catalogues gives an idea of what there was and what the interests were at that time. I have a few online.

No, no, I have plainly misled you completely. The CPL and CPG are *books*.

By "not readable" I meant in the same way as you can't sit down and read a dictionary cover to cover -- too little action and too many headings. (You *can* read Quasten from cover to cover, and I frequently take a volume to bed, open it somewhere, and read about some obscure author, his extant works, etc. It's a great way to absorb info. I wish I knew of something similar for non-Christian texts).

The CPL is in Latin throughout; I have never opened the CPG, but I suspect that it has Greek titles and Latin text.

I do not know. We know from Augustine that it was perfectly possible to get a good classical education in the late 4th century, because he did. But he was one of the last. My own (worthless) opinion is that it's all symptomatic of the collapse of the western empire. Remember that society collapsed in every manner imaginable; not just militarily, but socially, culturally, politically, artistically, technologically, etc etc. Even the language rotted. Rome did not fall because of German strength, but because of Roman societal weakness. This comes out particularly from Ammianus Marcellinus (which I keep wishing was online) but also from the letters of Sidonius Apollinaris, and his description of the events in his region as the Goths took it over.

I believe that a lot of modern scholars pretend that the collapse was a good thing, and various revisionist slurring over of the facts are put out and potently believed by many. If I had power I would sentence every one of these maggots to live on a farm in Rhodesia and experience the darkness coming in first hand. The Dark Ages was a terrible, terrible time, and it just kept getting worse, until Charlemagne put something together and started the recovery. Imagine being a Roman landowner, listening to your son demanding to know why he has to learn to read when the local king whom his father serves can't read and sneers at it. The letters of Lupus of Ferrieres record the contempt of the Frankish nobility for letters, even in 800.

All the best,

Roger Pearse