Ben C Smith

Some questions about Philopon....

I have just uploaded a page on the testimonium of Phlegon to my site. The texts come from Felix Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, page 1165, on which another text from a certain Philopon appears, as follows:

Τουτου δε του σκοτους... και Φλεγων εν ταις ολυμπιασιν εμνησθη. λεγει γαÏ? οτι τω δ{ευτεÏ?ω} ετει της διακοσιοστης δευτεÏ?ας ολυμπιαδος εγενετο ηλιου εκλειψις μεγιστη των ουκ εγνωσμενων Ï€Ï?οτεÏ?ον, και νυξ ωÏ?α εκτη της ημεÏ?ας εγενετο, ωστε και αστεÏ?ας εν ουÏ?ανω φανηναι. οτι δε της εν τω σταυÏ?ω του δεσποτου ΧÏ?ιστου γενομενης του ηλιου εκλειψεως και ουχ ετεÏ?ας εμνησθη και Φλεγων, Ï€Ï?ωτον μεν εκ του λεγειν μη εγνωσθαι την τοιαυτην εκλειψιν τοις Ï€Ï?οτεÏ?ον χÏ?ονοις, εστι δηλον, ...και απ αυτης δε της πεÏ?ι ΤιβεÏ?ιου ΚαισαÏ?ος ιστοÏ?ιας δεικνυται. βασιλευειν μεν γαÏ? αυτον φησιν ο Φλεγων τω δευτεÏ?ω ετει της εκατοστης ενενηκοσιης {ογδοης} ολυμπιαδος, την δε εκλειψιν γεγονεναι εν τω τεταÏ?τω ετει της διακοσιοστης δευτεÏ?ας ολυμπιαδος.

My own rough and ready translation is:

And of this darkness... Phlegon also made mention in the [book of] Olympiads. For he says that in the second year of olympiad 202 an eclipse of the sun happened, of a greatness never formerly known, and at the sixth hour of the day it was night, so that even the stars in heaven appeared. And it is clear that it was the eclipse of the sun that happened while Christ the master was on the cross that Phlegon mentioned, and not another, first from his saying that such an eclipse was not known in former times, ...and also [because] it is shown from the history itself concerning Tiberius Caesar. For Phlegon says that he became king in the second year of olympiad 19{8}, but the eclipse happened in the fourth year of olympiad 202.

I intend to add this text to my web page, but know nothing about this Philipon. So on to my questions...:

1. Who was Philipon? When was his flourit?
2. What is the exact Latin title of his work (Jacoby abbreviates it as De opif. mund.)?
3. What is the standard English translation (if there is one) of that title?
4. Are there any glaring problems with my translation?
5. Why does Philipon say at one point that the eclipse happened in the second year of olympiad 202 and at another point that it was the fourth year of that olympiad?

Thanks in advance.

Ben.

Roger Pearse

Is this perhaps John Philoponus? Converted ca. 520, d. soon after 565 AD. (sp. 'floruit').

De opificio mundi (on the making of the world). It was a commentary on the bibical account of creation. A three volume edition and translation into German exists:

Title Details: De opificio mundi = Über die Erschaffung der Welt / Johannes Philoponos ; übersetzt und eingeleitet von Clemens Scholten
Series: Fontes Christiani ; Bd. 23
Publisher: Freiburg : Herder, c1997
Physical desc.: 3v., 728p ; 20cm
ISBN/ISSN: 3451239019
3451239027 (v. 2)
3451239035 (v. 3)

I could find no trace of any English translation of the work, and no standard English title -- quote the Latin and bracket the meaning. John Philoponus commented extensively on Aristotle, and these have been translated into English, so a look at one of those might answer this question.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

The translation doesn't seem too bad to me, although my Greek is very feeble -- anyone? Not sure that egeneto and the gegonenai in the last sentence should both be rendered 'happened' -- the latter is present tense, surely? (how does one enter Greek text in this forum?) The 'second year of olympiad 202' -- the 'second' looks odd (what is happening in the text there?).

All the best,

Roger Pearse

S.C.Carlson

It looks a bit odd to me. I would normally expect δ to mean "four" or "fourth" but the editor expanded it to δ(ευτέÏ?ωι). Maybe there's a reason for it.

Also, Shlomo Pines noted that Agapius has preserved a version of this Phlegon testimonium in Arabic (but misattributed to Plato).

Stephen

S.C.Carlson

Actually, it is a perfect active infinitive.

Roger Pearse

Oh good! And I was looking for someone who could explain irregular Greek verbs to me.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ben C Smith

Pretty silly of me not to think of δ being numerical. That would explain the weird internal contradiction. However, it would still leave wide open why this instance is written numerically while the other instance is expanded with τεταÏ?τω.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

I just cut and paste Unicode Greek from my web pages onto the submission form. It is probably best, however, to do what Steven does and enclose the Greek in a font=Gentium, Palatino Linotype (and so forth) container (especially if you are using accents).

Thanks for the informed responses. The Philopon that you describe is indeed my man.

Interestingly, I now find on New Advent a reference to Philoponus, De mundi creatione, edited in 1730 by Corderius. (Surely this cannot be the same Corderius with whom I am familiar for one of our extant Papias fragments; the latter published a catena in 1630. Did Balthasar Cordier of Antwerp have progeny who followed in his footsteps? Or is one of the dates wrong?)

I wonder, is De mundi creatione just an alternate Latin title for De opificio mundi (sure sounds like it)? At any rate, another page on New Advent names Reichardt as the editor of De opificio mundi, and that is the one whom Jacoby references in Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker.

Philopon, middle of century VI. Got it. Thanks.

Ben.

Roger Pearse

I'd be surprised if any given scribe felt any hesitation between swapping between them. When I was working on Jerome's Chronicle, I don't think any two of the ancient and medieval manuscripts or printed editions I looked at had the same pattern (within text) of representing numbers by numeral-letters or in full. It's an obvious way to save space, given that the manuscript texts are full of abbreviations anyway.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

Good thought -- thanks.

Have a search in COPAC and see what Corderius brings up.

I think so too. Remember these will all be modern Latin versions of a Greek title.

He was a monophysite writer. His interest in Aristotle reflects the infighting in the Byzantine empire, ostensibly over the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD). This seemingly pointless theological noodling was conducted using Aristotelean dialectic (or so I am told). The result of this was that the works of Aristotle became incredibly important to all sides. The upshot was that these works were translated into Syriac, the native language of the eastern part of the empire; and not just once, but twice (by the monophysites and nestorians respectively) so that these groups could take part in the debates.

What was really going on, of course, had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with politics. The Eastern empire was a despotism that tolerated no political dissent or debate whatever. But religious dissent was tolerated, until a council could be convened to pronounce. Since all these people were Greeks, naturally they were very happy to engage in a war of words in philosophical terms. Better yet, the councils of the church were not really so very different from the agora-politics of the Greek city-states. They could even ostracize each other, just as they had done in the days of Pericles, only they called it 'anathematise'. But since it was all really an excuse for political problems, no real solution could be achieved unless the emperors dealt with the underlying problem -- and this they failed to do. The result was one 'heresy' after another, all involving much the same participants on each side. The Roman Catholics recognise no council later than Chalcedon, and I have a sneaking feeling that they wouldn't have recognised Chalcedon either if Pope Leo hadn't been daft enough to get involved.

But the positive consequence of all this is the creation of Syriac versions of Aristotle, of great accuracy, and the creation of tools and techniques to translate from Greek into Syriac. When all these lands were overrun by the Arabs, this continued to exist. When the Arabs eventually wanted textbooks, they got the Syriac translators to make them; and since Arabic is closely related to Syriac, as a semitic language, generally they either translated from Syriac or, if there was no Syriac version, made a Syriac version (using the tried and tested approach) and then ran that over into Arabic.

And thus Greek scientific literature came into the hands of the Arabs, purely because of the Christological controversies of the 6th century. It's a chapter in the history of scholarship that is known to almost no-one, which is why I thought it worth boring you with.

All the best,

Roger Pearse