Procopius, from Manuscripts to Books: # –$%
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Histos Supplement ( ) .– PROCOPIUS, FROM MANUSCRIPTS TO BOOKS: # –$% Brian Croke Abstract : The path from mainly th- and #th-century Byzantine manuscripts of Procopius’ Wars , Secret History and Buildings to a modern critical edition of all three works together was long and winding. At different points along the way from manuscripts to books the text of Procopius acquired its organised division into numbered Books, chapters and sections, while his writings were successively exploited by European scholars for purely contemporary purposes, which explains Procopius’ role in the history of scholarship. In the %th century Italian humanists such as Bruni and Biondo acquired manuscripts of Procopius from Constantinople and elsewhere but only used them in translation. Books % to $ of the Wars became popular immediately because they told the Italians about their sixth-century past which was otherwise dimly perceived a millennium later. The Persian and Vandal wars (Wars to #) barely rated interest, the Buildings , which excluded Italy, was un- published, and the Secret History presumed lost. By the =th century the centre of scholarly effort had moved into the German states of the Holy Roman Empire where Procopius became a highly valued source for the early history of the Goths and Vandals (Peutinger, Beatus, Cuspinian). This role lent him respectability and provided a new witness to bolster the antique identity of Germans but especially of the Swedes. The period from % to =% was the great era of philological effort and acumen applied to Procopius at Paris and Leiden, to a lesser extent at Rome and Augsburg, by the foremost scholars of the time including Scaliger, Casaubon and Grotius. The first edition of the Wars was published at Augsburg in = (Hoeschel), followed by that of the Secret History at Lyons in = (Alemanni), a version of the Buildings having already appeared at Basel in % (Beatus). Only in == /= did the first complete edition of all Procopius’ works (Maltretus) appear in Paris. This enabled Procopius to be seen for the first time as a historian and writer of the age of Justinian, thereby facilitating his use by $th-century historians such as Edward Gibbon. By $% , with the modern tech- niques of textual and historical scholarship now being codified, Proco- . Brian Croke pius still lacked the proper edition and the serious scholarly attention that was eventually to come, Dindorf’s edition ($–$) having turned out to be another lost opportunity. Keywords: history of scholarship, texts, Byzantine, Procopius, manuscripts, libraries, Bruni, Biondo, Peutinger, Beatus, Cuspinian, Vulcanius, Scaliger, Casaubon, Heinsius, Hoeschel, Grotius, Holsten, Peiresc Vulcanius, Gibbon, Niebuhr, Dindorf, Haury CONTENTS Introduction . Byzantine writers and manuscripts of Procopius’ text . Procopius comes to Italy: Bruni and Biondo . The first Latin and Italian translations #. German and Gothic history: Peutinger, Beatus Rhenanus and Lazius %. Procopius in Paris: Bodin, Pithou and new translations =. Procopius in Leiden: Vulcanius and Scaliger . Hoeschel and the first edition of Wars (= ) $. Alemanni’s edition of Secret History (= ) and its critics . Incomplete Improvements: Heinsius and Grotius . The Louvre Corpus and Maltretus’ edition (== /) . Using Procopius as historian: Ludewig, Lebeau and Gibbon . Niebuhr, and the ‘Bonn Corpus’ edition ($/$) Conclusion Appendix : Procopius texts and translations, # to $% Bibliography Introduction erona is one of the most European of Italian cities. In #% its key role in the development of European Vculture and scholarship was highlighted when Francesco Petrarch ( #–#) discovered in the cathedral chapter library there a copy of Cicero’s letters to his childhood friend Atticus. Thus began the modern under- standing of Cicero as Roman orator, philosopher and politician, but particularly letter-writer. Subsequent dis- coveries inspired by Petrarch eventually led to the formula- tion of what came to be called ‘humanism’, the studia Procopius: From Manuscripts to Books, "#$$–"&'$ . humanitatis , to which Cicero was pivotal. 1 The only problem was that neither Petrarch himself, immediately copying the letters at Verona, nor those he inspired, could make sense of the bilingual Cicero’s various Greek quotations, as testified by their poor attempts to transcribe the Greek.2 Petrarch learned some Greek but not much. He was once gifted a manuscript of Homer’s Iliad which he admired but was unable to read. Homer only became accessible to Petrarch and his literary friend Giovanni Boccaccio (–%) at Florence when a Latin translation was commissioned from the southern Italian Leontius Pilatus.3 At the same time, in far off Constantinople, Greek was still a living language for the people who called themselves ‘Romans’ but who were manifestly ‘Greeks’ to anyone in Italy. They were still being educated according to essentially the same purposes and criteria as in Cicero’s day. The educated man (and some- times woman) was schooled in classical writers such as Homer and Demosthenes with a view to becoming a competent writer and speaker. In Constantinople the ancient Greek writings, including the histories of Herodotus and Thucydides, also continued to be read and copied. Among the other historians whose works attracted interest in the fourteenth century was Procopius of Caesarea who, in the same city eight centuries earlier, was writing his accounts of the emperor Justinian’s Wars and Buildings , complemented by a more enigmatic invective best known by its misleading modern name of Secret History . 1 On the unique importance of the Cathedral Chapter library at Verona: Weiss ( = ) – ; for a recent explanation of Petrarch’s approach to Cicero, beginning at Verona: Eisner ( #) %%– , and for a definition of ‘humanism’ as a narrow preoccupation with classical Latin style and eloquence, rather than anything more social or political, along with humanism’s scholarly history and controversy: Baker ( %); and for Petrarch’s influence on historiography in particular: Kelley ( $) –=. 2 Reeve ( =) . 3 Homer translation: Wilson ( ) –=; Forrai ( #) % –= ; Gittes ( %) % . .# Brian Croke Doubtless many valuable and older manuscripts of Procopius’ works were lost during bonfires arising from the sack of Constantinople by the crusading western soldiery in # and its aftermath. 4 With the restoration of Byzantine control of the city and hinterland from =, the works of Procopius could be read and copied again. While for Petrarch Greek remained ‘a promised land from which he was excluded’, 5 his contemporary Nicephorus Gregoras ( %–= ), for instance, not only wrote an extensive history of his own times in the manner of Thucydides and Procopius but also possessed and copied manuscripts of Procopius.6 Later, these manuscripts arrived in Italy where they aided in the rediscovery of Procopius up to a millennium after he had spent time there himself in the % s as the secretary of Justinian’s general Belisarius. This is the story of the progressive modern understand- ing (from # to $% ) of Procopius and his works as a witness to his era and culture, but the example of Procopius also illustrates the development of European historiography and textual scholarship more broadly. It highlights the fact that the value of any text, Procopius’ works in this case, lay in the changing contemporary purpose scholars found for it. The modern preoccupation with textual purity was always a secondary consideration. Procopius was deployed and discussed in translation in Europe for over a century before the first published edition of his Wars in = , followed by the Secret History in = , with a version of the Buildings first appearing in Greek decades earlier in %. Thereafter, various attempts were made to provide an improved text for scholarly and general historical purposes but even by the more scientific philological and editing standards of $% , 4 Runciman ( ) ; Wilson ( ) = . 5 Wilamowitz-Moellendorff ( $ ) . 6 Nicephorus copied extracts from Procopius’ Wars, identified as being from his own hand, in Pal. Gr . , ff. –$ (Heidelberg) and Buildings in Laur. Plut. .% (Florence) with Fryde ( ) = ; Bianconi ( %) and Clérigues ( ) (establishing Nicephorus as scribe, not just owner, of these manuscripts, plus others). Procopius: From Manuscripts to Books, "#$$–"&'$ .% the works of Procopius were seriously wanting. Indeed, by $% the modern scholarly study of Procopius as author and historian of the age of Justinian had hardly begun. Byzantine Writers and Manuscripts of Procopius’ Text Procopius’ writings in the %# s and %% s, the Wars , Buildings , and the so-called Secret History , were preserved and copied throughout the subsequent centuries, especially at Constan- tinople.7 Writing in the % s at Antioch, the church historian Evagrius used Procopius’ Wars extensively and highly praised his work. 8 Later, when engaged on his complex chronicle (c. $ –$%), Theophanes made use of a manuscript of Procopius’ Wars .9 Some decades after that (c. $#%), Photius recorded in his Bibliotheca that Procopius’ ‘useful and valuable historical work’ had ensured that he ‘left behind an undying renown amongst all lovers of learning’.10 Photius had read at least the eight books of Procopius’ Wars , going on to explain that the author was an eyewitness of the events involving the general Belisarius before summarising only the first two books (Persian Wars).11 Certainly, a copy of the Wars was kept in the impe- 7 Byzantine users of Procopius are listed in Rubin ( %) %$ – , to which can be added several