countjulian

Livius, http://www.livius.org/sao-sd/sappho/sappho.html , makes the claim that Gregory Nazianzus ordered all of her books burned. Interesting claim, very believable, but is it true? What are the primary sources?

Chris Weimer

To Bede: I had totally forgotten about this. If you're still around, sorry.

Roger Pearse

It would be interesting to know. A lot of nasty things get said by the unscrupulous about Greek fathers, since their works are often not translated into English and so can't be readily checked.

It's not incredibly believeable. Since he was only a bishop, the most Gregory could have done would be to order this in his diocese. His brother, St. Basil, wrote an Address to young men on the right use of Greek literature. The Byzantine educational system remained based on pagan literature until 1453. The Greek fathers did not tend to have the urge to destroy pagan literature, and ancient society wasn't geared up for it. The idea is really a projection back from the age of printing and the Index expurgatorius of the Spanish Inquisition.

But what we need is the primary source; who knows? May be he did.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Bede

It's a late 16th century fiction. I blogged on it a while back here. I think CJ knows this but is looking for something to prove me wrong. He was fishing on the Great Library a while back also trying to find something to refute me.

Chris, no problem. Perhaps you could just say sorry for the when you first mentioned this. It was not that you believed an old myth that pissed me off, it was your assumption that the myth was so obviously true, I was stupid not to believe it.

Best wishes

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Roger Pearse

Thank you Bede for the update.

Moving away from the particular persons and incidents to a general principle:

The presumption that some bit of hearsay is so obviously true that any who question it must be idiots is a tedious one. I have no idea why so many do it, tho.

My personal context on this is a curious page, supposedly on the dies natalis solis invicti at about.com, titled Die natalis sol invictus (sic). I wrote to the author, one Jennifer Emick, pointing out as politely as possible that I wasn't sure that any of what was stated on this page was actually true. I got back reiteration -- so I suggested asking a scholar. The response to that was abuse!

I admit I hadn't realised about.com was like Wikipedia. What baffles me is how someone who clearly is completely ignorant feels able to scream abuse at anyone who suggests she might not be right.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Toto

A nice observation.

It seems you are not the only one who has problems with Ms. Emick, an "ordained non-denominational minster". The Temple of Seth objects to her characterization of them as Satanic.

S.C.Carlson

That's the $64,000 dollar question. Though wide-spread on the Internet, I've been unable to find a single site that cites a primary source for the claim.

I'm not sure to the extent that L. D. Reynolds & N. G. Wilson, Scribes and Scholars (1991), are aware of this claim, but their discussion on pp. 49-50 makes one skeptical of its plausibility:

The outlook of the fathers of the fourth century was no less liberal. Saint Basil wrote a short treatise advising the young on the best method of profiting from Greek literature, and Saint Gregory of Nazianzus criticized the majority of Christians for their complete rejection of pagan works, some of which he believed to be useful (PG 36.508a). There was in general no attempt to alter the curriculum by banishing the classical authors. . . .

The major classical texts, which had a firm position in the curriculum, were read by believer and unbeliever alike; but the survival of other texts was immediately put in danger when the new religion became universal, since the mass of the public, after the completion of their eduction, had no futher in reading pagan books. It is sometimes asserted that the Church formally imposed a censorship and burnt pagan books as a matter of policy. This policy, if it ever existed as such, took a long time to have its intended effect; in the seventh century the poems of Sappho were still being read in Egypt (P. Berol. 5006). . . .

A more nuanced (and, in my view, much more on the right track) treatment of why Sappho's works did not survive is by Michael L. Siemon. I also suspect that the Aeolic dialect her poems were written in didn't help either.

Stephen

Roger Pearse

Interesting -- thanks.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

countjulian

Already did that with the "Christians crucifying pagans issue" (BTW, did you ever change your entry on that commentary of the "Christian crimeline?). I posted it here because Livius isn't some raving Archay S.-o-phile feminist wack-job site, but a more generally respected site. I am flattered that you consider me something of you "arch-nemesis" in the battle to save Christendom. Maybe I could get a monocle .