Happy Anniversary

This blog just can't seem to escape Constantine.

Christians in York have just celebrated the 1700th anniversary of Constantine's accession (25 July, 306), though the details seem confused. He was not made Augustus, but rather Caesar, and he at one time served with as many as five other emperors divided between the eastern and western empires. It took eighteen years before he ruled as sole emperor.

Emendationes

Emendationes is the newest in our continuing series of short-lived features (much like our old series of pithy quotes by Housman that numbered two or three). But we'll see how it goes. The idea is to correct misinformation in the press, and I've found a great example to start us off.

Alan Farago, writing in his Notes from Istanbul for the Orlando Sentinel, wants to use milennia of the city's history to support his claim that the citizens are war-weary, a dubious claim that reduces an entire people to the history of several other peoples.

But the issue is this:

Rivers of blood accompanied the change of each temple from ancient Greece to Christian church to mosque. Constantinople was renamed Byzantium before it was ever called Istanbul.

The fact is that Byzantium was the ancient name for the site, which came to be regarded as a 'second Rome.'

Let's take a second to remember that the name 'Byzantine Empire' has no historical basis, but it has been established practice among historians for so long to use it as a descriptive term because Constantinopolitan doesn't have quite the same zing as Byzantine.

And we're back. Constantine later made Byzantium the official seat of the Empire under the name New Rome. Before long it was renamed again to Constantinople, 'City of Constantine.' Though some reputable sites claim that the Ottoman Turks renamed the city Istanbul when the Byzantine Empire fell, the name was not officially adopted until 1930. The general use of Istanbul predates the official use, though I don't know how old it is.

The likely source of this mistake was trusting in the vague knowledge that the Byzantine Empire fell to the Ottoman Turks. The assumption would be that Byzantine Byzantium yielded to Turkish Istanbul. And since Constantinople -- as we all know, thanks to They Might Be Giants -- was the former name of Istanbul, it must be older than Byzantium.

"art squad v tomb raiders"

A general piece on the illicit antiquities trade.

Antiquities theft seems to me a serious issue, though I find myself differing from most of the people I've seen quoted on the issue (not that I've read much on the subject). Identity politics and nationalism make me very uncomfortable, and I have a hard time accepting that ethnicity or nationailty gives someone a special claim to culture, particularly ancient culture, which is equally accessible to all. I get the feeling that a lot of outrage over antiquities theft has to do with some vague notion of the works as belonging to a given people.

I never feel for the aggrieved nation, but rather for history. My only concern is that raided antiquities can tell us far less about history than those properly excavated. It angers me as much as the 'theft of culture' angers others. And yet I'm inclined to think that my reaction is the more sensible: while my primary motivation is to increase our store of certain historical evidence, many others seem motivated primarily by a belief in the sanctity of cultural identity and national pride.

unto the children of Israel

A Byzantine mosaic has been uncovered in Jerusalem by an unorthodox archaeological team:

"It is not every day that children ages 9 to 12 years old, Jewish and Arabs, uncover Christian archaeological remains which are an integral part of the cultural heritage of this land," said Hagit Noigbern, director of the Jerusalem Archaeological Center of the Israel Antiquities Authority, which organized the enrichment program.

"The Constant Emperor"

Constantine the Great, whose famous vision probably ranks as the number one web search bringing visitors to this site (thanks to Eric's posts on the subject), is the subject of an exhibition at the Yorkshire Museum in York till Oct. 29. The curator has a well written summary of the period of Constantine's accession and reign and the importance of his personality in shaping and guiding the empire (that's her clever title linked above). If you don't know anything about Constantine, it's a great introduction that might inspire you to learn more.


PS: Constantine reminded me a conversation I had once (was it with you, Eric?) about whether in English Augustine should be pronounced AugusTEEN rather than AuGUStin, just as Constantine is ConstanTEEN. ConSTANtin would sound ridiculous. I've setteled on AugusTEEN because Augustinus and Constantinus are of the same formation (the -i- is long and takes the accent). I think AuGUStin only seems acceptible by anology with Augustus, and many people, even some scholars, occasionally confuse the two.

a2 + b2 = c2

Here's proof (no pun intended) of the value of the classical tradition: Euclidean geometry and the Pythagorean theorem working their simple magic on the minds philosophers, scientists, and soldiers through the centuries, demonstrating two simple elements of critical thought: discovery and proof.

An obscure lexicon

I'm searching in vain for information on a work known as the Lexicon Patmense, alternately known as Λέξεις μεθ’ ἱστοριῶν ἐκ τῶν Δημοσθένους καὶ Αἰσχίνου λόγων or Lexicon in Demosthenem et Aeschinem. So far L'Année and Jstor have turned up nothing, and Google hasn't been much better.

Any ideas? According to the TLG, where I found the text, it was published as part of Sakkelion's Lexica Graeaca minora, Olms 1965. The TLG gives the date as uncertain.

At the moment I'm in a little suburban town without a good library, and I'm trying to find out the opinions any scholars might have regarding its date and provenance. My early efforts working strictly from the text have been frustrating.

The lexicon cites Nicander for the notion that fennel is attractive to snakes, because they doff their slough upon it (apologies to Seuss):

Καὶ ἡ μὲν μάραθρος ὄφεων ἀγωγός ἐστι διὰ τὴν ὀσμήν· Νίκανδρος γάρ
φησιν ὅτι ἐπὶ τῆς μαράθρου οἱ ὄφεις τὸ γῆρας ἀποδύονται.

This is an odd statement and a clear case of a misreading. Nicander says that snakes in springtime rejuvenate themselves in part by eating fennel (Th. 31). This establishes that they find it attractive, though there's no mention of their slough. But much later, while discussing the Amphisbaena, a mythical snake with a twin head upon its tail, he says that in springtime, when 'earth reveals serpents,' the amphisbaena 'does not feed upon a flowing shoot of fennel spray when it casts flesh round its body 'neath the sun.'

οὐδ’ ἄρ’, ὅταν χαράδρεια λίπῃ καὶ ῥωγάδα κοίλην
ἦρος ἀεξομένου ὁπόθ’ ἑρπετὰ γαῖα φαείνῃ, (390)
ἀκρεμόνος μαράθοιο χυτὸν περιβόσκεται ἔρνος,
εὖτ’ ἂν ὑπ’ ἠελίοιο περὶ φλόον ἅψεα βάλλῃ,
ἀλλ’ ἥγ’ ἀρπέζαις τε καὶ ἐν νεμέεσσι πεσοῦσα
φωλεύει βαθύυπνος, ἀπ’ εἰκαίης δὲ βοτεῖται
γαίης οὐδ’ ἀπὸ δίψος ἀλέξεται ἱεμένη περ.

He's clearly contrasting the amphisbaena with more typical snakes, and the fennel is recalled not because it relates to sloughing skin in any way, but because the amphisbaena's odd behavior, not eating fennel in spring, sets it apart. That last temporal clause is to be negated along with the eating of fennel, not taken as a positive. It fleshes out the idea of springtime, a time of rejuvenation. This is a common use of such clauses in Nicander, who tends to use them to add vivid images to a subject not rich in narrative potential.

The amphisbaena neither eats fennel, nor does what other snakes do in springtime, namely put on their new skin.

The interpretation is confused, I suspect in part due to the poor state of Nicander's text in the early Byzantine period. It was once described as 'illegible' and virtually written in a foreign tongue before the Palaeologan renaissance, and in such a corrupted state it would have been easier to misinterpret the passage.

But I'd like to be more certain about the date of the Lexicon before I make too much of it.