In the more ancient times, however, when MSS. books (rolls) were not quite so plentiful there was seemingly no difficulty in obtaining large sums for them.
Aristotle, died b.C. 322, paid for a few books of Leusippus, the philosopher, three Attick talents, which is about $3,000. Ptolemy Philadelphus [King of Egypt 285 - 246 B.C.E. (308 - 246 B.C.E.)] is said to have given the Athenians fifteen talents, an exemption from tribute and a large supply of provisions for the MSS. of Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides written by themselves.
Arbuthnot [Charles Arbuthnot], discussing this subject, remarks that Cicero's head, "which should justly come into the account of Eloquence brought twenty-five Myriads of Drachms," which is the equivalent of $40,000.' [57-61].
"In Ireland, first known as the Isle of Saints, was founded in the seventh century a great school of learning which included writing and illuminating [see 1990], which passed to the English by way of the monasteries created by Irish monks in Scotland. Their earliest existing MSS. are said to belong to that period. In the Irish scriptoriums (rooms or cells for writing) of the Benedictine monasteries where they ["MSS."] were prepared, so particular were the monks that the scribes were forbidden to use artificial light for fear of injuring the manuscripts." . [See: Addition 11, 907-909].
'In no section of that country [Italy] or of Europe during those centuries ["fourteenth and fifteenth"] do ink creations possess, in so marked a degree, the variety of color qualities that are seen on those of the city of Florence. Indeed it may be truly said that during those periods more ink written MSS. were produced in that place than all the rest of Europe. These productions of MSS. were not confined to simple ink writings. The heads of religious orders and rulers of the country liked to have artists near them to illuminate their missals and sacred books, besides the decorating of walls in their churches and palaces.
Through this art of illuminating and the painting of miniatures in MSS books, "oil" painting took root and the day for mere symbols and hieroglyphics was over.
IN THAT CITY [FLORENCE] OF SCHOLARS AND WEALTH IT WAS A FASHION AND LATER THE CUSTOM TO ACQUIRE GREEK, LATIN AND ORIENTAL MSS. [MANUSCRIPTS] AND COPY THEM FOR CIRCULATION AND SALE. The prices offered were sufficient to stimulate the search and zeal for them. We learn that in the year 1400 "on the square of the duoma a spacciatore was established whose business was to sell manuscripts often full of mistakes and blunders." Nicholas V, before he became Pope, was nicknamed "Tommaso the Copyist." He is said to have presented to the Vatican library as a gift five thousand volumes of his own creation [Is one to assume accurate copies? How many interpolations? Forgeries (of part, or entire texts)? Etc.?]' .
"The reading and judging of manuscripts are now known as the science of diplomatics. To determine their antiquity or genuineness requires the nicest distinctions and care, irrespective of alleged dates (whether exhibited by Roman numbers or the Arabic one which we continue to employ, and which first made their appearance near the commencement of the twelfth century). The inks as already mentioned and used on them, as we shall see, serve fully as much in estimating
authenticity or genuineness as does combined together,--the style of the writing, the miniatures, vignettes and arabesques (if any), the colors, covers, materials, ornamentation and the character of their contents." .
'The circumstance of the water mark has at various times been the means of detecting frauds, forgeries and impositions in our courts of law and elsewhere. The following is introduced as a whimsical example of such detections and is said to have occurred in the fifteenth century, and is related by Beloe, London, 1807:
"The monks of a certain monastery at Messina exhibited to a visitor with great triumph, a letter which they claimed had been written in ink by the Virgin Mary with her own hand, not on the ancient papyrus, but on paper made of rags. The visitor to whom it was shown observed with affected solemnity, that the letter involved also a miracle because the paper on which it was written could not have been in existence until over a thousand years after her death."' [303-304].
"The University of Pennsylvania claims to possess the oldest piece of writing in the world and which is on a fragment of a vase found at Nippur ["hundred miles south of Baghdad, Iraq"]. It is an inscription in picture writing supposed to have been made 4,500 years before Christ." .
from 1899 (Jacob Wilson): WORKS OF ROMANCE ARE FOUNDED ON FACTS [see Addition 35, 1718], AND WHAT MORE CAN BE SAID OF HISTORY?
from 1752 (John Henry Newman 1801 - 1890): "ALL KNOWLEDGE OF THE LATIN CLASSICS COMES TO US FROM THE MEDIEVAL TRANSCRIPTIONS OF THEM, AND THEY WHO TRANSCRIBED THEM HAD THE OPPORTUNITY OF FORGING OR GARBLING THEM. WE ARE SIMPLY AT THEIR MERCY".
[note: history is also defined as: "his story"!].
from 1843 (Edwin Johnson 1842 - 1901): "WE HAVE NOT IN OUR HANDS A PURE EDITION OF THE GREEK AND LATIN CLASSICS OF THE [ROMAN] EMPIRE."
from 1759: THE NEW TESTAMENT IS A COMBINATION OF FICTION, PLAGIARISM, FORGERY! [see Addition 34].
From: Roman History from Coins, Some uses of the Imperial Coinage to the Historian, Michael Grant, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Khartoum, Professor of Humanity in the University of Edinburgh; formerly President of the Royal Numismatic Society, Cambridge, 1958.
'....It was the emperor's responsibility to feed Rome, to see that the cornships reached its harbours (as they had often failed to do unless he intervened), and to organize lavish distributions of free or cheap grain. Greek philosophical theories, to which Roman coin-propaganda often subscribed (and Nero [Emperor 54 - 68 (37 - 68)] had imbibed them from Seneca [c. 4 B.C.E. - 65 C.E.]), encouraged the proclamation of service by the ruler to his people. In practical terms, Romans regarded the emperor's chief function as the provision of food (cf. Pl. 20, nos. 2 and 4). On this coin Nero celebrates his success. He was determined to be generous and popular, whatever the cost, and Tacitus [c. 55 - 120]--writing of this year A.D. 64--is bound to admit that the people of the capital found his presence so beneficial that they hated the idea of his going on a foreign tour; so he postponed it.
But in this same year ["A.D. 64"] came the Great Fire, with its terrible rumours of imperial incendiarism. The rumours were certainly untrue--as were the similar charges in 1666 against James Duke of York, who, like Nero, tried to put the fire out. But Nero felt it would be desirable to find scapegoats [Nero has been the classic scapegoat of Christians]; and he judged the unpopular Christians to be suitable for this purpose [disagree! evidence? Not "Tacitus"!]. Very soon, however, irritation was caused by his vast new 'Golden House'. The government was again able to tell a very different story. Not only were antique shrines piously and expensively restored (cf. Pl. 8, no. 6), but an appeal could also again be made to the people's appetites: Pl. 9, no. 4 shows the commodious Provision-Market--MAC(ellum) AVG(usti)--completed by Nero five years earlier, and no doubt one of the first buildings to be rebuilt after the Fire. He also reminded them that supplies were improved by the great new harbour he had opened at Ostia (p. 52; Pl. 9, no. 2). The harbour had been constructed by Claudius [Claudius I, Emperor 41 - 54 (10 B.C.E. - 54 C.E.)]; but even if only Nero's own building activities are considered, the official case in his favour is a fair one. A famous emperor, Trajan [Emperor 98 - 117 (53 - 117)], referred eulogistically to the construction programme of Nero's 'five years'--by which he probably meant his last five years (A.D. 64-68). As the epigrammatist Martial [c. 40 - c. 104] put it:
What is worse than Nero?
What is better than Nero's Baths?
After the fire of A.D. 64, Rome was replanned very wisely. Yet even this wise expenditure, added to the cost of warfare and ingratiating generosity, amounted to ruinous sums. So did Nero's fantastic personal extravagance. Despite his physical training, he spent much of most days having dinner; perhaps this helped him to appreciate the people's desire for food.
Yet the government, all the time, had its own point of view and had many people on its side. It is true that when the final crisis came in A.D. 68--starting with the obscure revolt of Vindex in Gaul, which failed but soon brought Galba (Pl. 14, no. 10) to the throne from Spain--the debit side of Nero's reputation proved, in terms of power, to exceed the credit side. But it might not have been so, if he had not feebly collapsed long before all was lost. And it had not been so for most of his fourteen years on the throne: these coins, with their persuasive arguments and gigantic circulation, suggest why.
Moreover, his posthumous reputation was sensational. As a philosopher of the next century, Dio Chrysostom, observed: 'Still, even now, all men long for Nero to be alive--and most men actually believe to this day that he is living.' So Nero's desire for posthumous fame was gratified. Pseudo-Neros proliferated and won many followers--especially in the East, and among the admiring Parthians. And while no holds are barred in Christian tradition, bronze tokens relating to the Roman Games showed Nero's head more than three hundred years after his death (Pl. 9, no. 6). Here, for a pagan populace in an officially Christian Rome, is Nero patron of the Circus. Memories of Nero's benefactions must have been remarkably tenacious.
Equally remarkable were early obituary tributes only a few months after his [Nero] death. Otho had lost his wife Poppaea (Pl. 10, no. 5) to Nero. In order to marry her, Nero had sent Otho away to govern Lusitania (Portugal), and had divorced and murdered, in particularly revolting circumstances, his own first wife Octavia (Pl. 10, no. 4). There were rumours that Otho encouraged Nero's devotion to Poppaea. Nevertheless, when he became emperor (Pl. 26, no. 1), Otho, as well as wearing a wig imitating Nero's hair-style, found it politically advisable to honour his memory. And then again, immediately afterwards--still in A.D. 69, the 'Year of the Four Emperors'--Vitellius (Pl. 14, no. 11) would say at his gluttonous dinner-parties Now sing us one of the Master's songs. The Master was Nero; nothing would have pleased him more.
Yet Nero's self-defense on his coins has, on the whole, failed to convince the world. He had killed too many senators to please the ancient historians, who mostly had senatorial sympathies; and he had killed too many Christians [disagree! evidence? Not "Tacitus"!], and led too outrageous a private life, to win the favour of a Christian posterity.' [34-37].
from: Nero, Gerard Walter, translated by Emma Craufurd, George Allen & Unwin, 1957 (1955 French). [Superb Bibliography].
The Fire of Rome" 
"....This thesis of Tertullian that Nero was the first to persecute the Christians has had and will continue to have many supporters. Later on, however, Saint Augustine pointed out their error somewhat sharply. 'What have they (those who hold this opinion) to say,' we read in the City of God, 'about the persecution in which the Saviour himself was crucified? If they answer that we are only to count those against the body and not that which attacked and put to death the head, what have they to say about that which arose in Jerusalem after Jesus Christ had ascended into heaven, when Saint Stephen was stoned, when Saint James, the brother of Saint John, was beheaded, when the apostle Saint Peter was put in prison and delivered by an angel; when Saint Paul used to ravage the Church and afterwards suffered for her what he had made her suffer, both in Judaea and in the other nations where his zeal led him to preach Jesus Christ? Why then do they want to begin the persecutions of the Church with Nero, whereas it was only through fearful sufferings which it would take too long to relate here that she arrived at the reign of this prince?'63
Without taking sides in the debate, we will confine ourselves to remarking that in speaking of Nero Saint Augustine makes not the slightest mention of the accusation which the text of the Annals [15:44] levels against him. It may be argued that his subject here does not require him to do so. Granted. But Saint Augustine never mentions it anywhere else either. He does not refer to it in the work which was specially intended on the occasion of the sack of Rome by Alaric in 410 to evoke all the calamities of the town, nor does he speak of it in any of his other writings. And yet, as a man deeply imbued with classical culture, he was very familiar with Tacitus. Tertullian ignores the passage as completely as St. Augustine does. How is it that neither of these writers ever thought of using a text which provided them with arguments so much in conformity with their views? I must own that I find it hard to understand." [162-163].
"Lactantius [240 - c. 320] was by no means an ignoramus. As a highly reputed professor of rhetoric he had been singled out for distinction by Diocletian before his conversion to Christianity. Constantine had entrusted him with the education of his eldest son. How was it possible that he did not know the works of Tacitus? And yet he makes not the slightest reference to the reasons given in the Annals [15:44] to explain the tortures Nero inflicted on the Christians." .
"Christians...had all heard of Nero; they all handed down from generation to generation the memory of the persecutions suffered under him by the leaders of their faith. This is the subject of an enormous number of reports which circulated among the faithful and of which they never seemed to tire. The historians have not taken enough account of the popular literature of the first centuries of Christianity of which a great many specimens have come down to us. THESE ADVENTURE STORIES--for in reality they are the prototypes of all such literature--were eagerly read or passed on by word of mouth, arranged to suit the tastes of their readers or hearers. Their favourite heroes were the apostles, and especially Saint Peter and Saint Paul, whose exploits provide the material for a regular stream of novels many times re-edited, imitated and translated into several languages. To be sure their obscure authors, whose names are forgotten, had never even heard of Tacitus, but their minds and imaginations were fed on stories preserved by tradition and it is for reflections of this tradition that we are searching in them.
Among these anonymous [Fictional] productions the ACTS OF PAUL--of which the original version probably dates from the year 150 or 160, that is to say about a century after the death of the [another Fictional] apostle [Paul (see #4, 105-151)]--was one of those which had a particularly resounding success. It is the last part of it which specially interests us. It concerns a young cup-bearer of Nero who came to hear Paul preach. He was killed on falling from an upper window where he had taken up his position for lack of room inside the house, and he was restored to life by the apostle. I will leave the author of the Acts to continue the story:
'When Nero heard of the death of Patrocles (the cup-bearer in question) he felt great sorrow and on returning from his bath he ordered another to serve him with wine. Then the young slaves said to him: "Caesar, Patrocles is alive and standing near the table." And he (Patrocles) hesitated to come in. And when he had entered he said to him: "Patrocles, you are alive?" And he answered: "I am alive, Caesar." And he asked him: "Who brought you to life?" And the child, carried away by the ardour of faith, said: "Christ Jesus, the King of eternity." Nero, troubled in spirit, continued: "So this Jesus is to reign over eternity and to overthrow the monarchies?" Patrocles replied: "Yes, he will overturn all the kingdoms and he will be alone for eternity and there will not be a kingdom to withstand him." Then Nero struck him in the face and said: "Patrocles, are you also in the service of this king?" And he replied: "Yes, my lord Caesar, for he raised me to life when I was dead." And Barsabas Justus with the large feet and Urion, the Capadocian, and Festus, the Galatian, Nero's head servants cried out: "We also are in the service of the God of eternity." And he had them put into chains after terrible tortures--they whom he loved to excess; then he ordered a search to be made for all the soldiers of the great king, and he published a decree which ran thus: All those who are found to be Christians and soldiers of Christ are to be put to death.'
So the search began, and soon they brought the apostle Paul before Nero in company with a crowd of other Christians. Noticing with what deference he was treated by his companions, the emperor recognized him as the leader and challenged him:
'Follower of the great king, and yet my prisoner, with what design did you secretly enter the kingdom of the Romans and enrol soldiers taken from my command?' Paul replied: 'Caesar we enrol soldiers not only from under your command but from all the inhabited world, for we have orders to exclude no one who wishes to enter the service of my king. If you yourself would like to submit to his service it will be your deliverance; and if you surrender to him and pray to him you will be saved. For the day will come when he will wage war against the world.'
'At these words', writes the author of the Acts, 'Nero commanded that all the prisoners should be burnt by fire and that Paul should be beheaded in accordance with the law of the Romans.' After that a general persecution of the Christians began. The people assembled in front of the imperial palace to protest and started crying out: 'It is enough, Caesar; these really are men from among us; you are destroying the strength of the Romans.'
'Then', the author of the Acts continues, 'persuaded by these words, Nero gave orders that no Christian should be touched until he had obtained full knowledge of their cause.' The sentence against Paul was not changed, however. After undergoing martyrdom the apostle rose again and appeared that very evening before Nero: 'Caesar, here is Paul, the soldier of God; I am not dead, but am alive. Numerous evils will befall you before many days are over, because you have shed the blood of the innocent.' At that Nero was troubled and ordered that all the prisoners should be set free.68
This popular interpretation of the death of Saint Paul should be compared with that given in the Acts of Peter, a similar production which probably came into existence as a result of the success of its predecessor and treats of the death of the Prince of the Apostles. It shows Peter actively pursuing his mission in Rome, and specially insists upon the success of his preaching among the women of the city. This enables the author of these Acts to imagine the following story: ...." [166-168].
"In about 400, Severus Sulpicius [Sulpicius Severus (see 1991)], the companion of Saint Martin who became his hagiographer, composed a Sacred History ["Historia Sacra" (see 1813)], a summary history of the Church up to the end of the fourth century. Speaking of the activities of Peter and Paul in Rome, he refers to the fire of 64 and is the first of all the Christian authors to accuse Nero of having resorted to the calumny attributed to him in our passage of the Annals [15:44]. This is what he [Sulpicius Severus] says: 'He (Nero) threw the odium of this disaster upon the Christians who, despite their innocence, suffered fearful torments. New kinds of death were invented: some were covered with the skins of animals and given up to the fury of dogs; others were attached to a cross, or consumed by flames; a great many were burnt at night to serve as torches.'80 ["80 Book II chap. XXIX." ]
This text is obviously based on the corresponding passage of Tacitus. It was therefore supposed that Severus had simply borrowed it from the Annals, and hence the conclusion was reached that at his time [Sulpicius Severus c. 360 - c. 430?] the Fifteenth Book contained the fragment concerning the Christians.
To this the following reply might be made:
1. Even if we admit that the text of the Annals, ([supposedly] published for the first time in about 115), contained the disputed passage [Annals 15:44] in 400, we could not be sure that nothing had been interpolated into one of the copies during the interval of 285 years (such interpolations were extremely frequent at the period [apparently, all periods!]). This might very easily have happened during the second half of THE FOURTH CENTURY WHEN CHRISTIANITY, NOW TRIUMPHANT, WAS ENGAGED IN CREATING THE HEROIC CHRONICLE OF ITS FIRST BEGINNINGS.
2. The similarity of the two texts does not necessarily prove that Severus Sulpicius [Sulpicius Severus (see 1991)] borrowed his from a contemporary copy of the Annals. The copyist who interpolated the passage into Tacitus might just as easily have added it after the publication of the Sacred History, using this work for his own ends.
3. Whichever hypothesis we adopt, one thing remains certain: of all the Christian authors who wrote before and after Tacitus up to the year 1000, Severus Sulpicius [Sulpicius Severus (see 1813, 1991)] is the only one to make use of the version implicating Nero, and, if we admit the authenticity of the corresponding passage of the Annals, we have to find some explanation for the 'conspiracy of silence' which surrounded it during the first ten centuries of the life of the Church." [End of Chapter IX: "The Fire of Rome"] [173-174].
from: The Dark Ages [800 - 1200 A.D. [here, regarded as 800 - 1200 A.D. For others, 500 - 1500 A.D. (which are also dates for the Middle Ages)]]; Essays Illustrating the State of Religion and Literature in the Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, and Twelfth Centuries. By S. R. Maitland [1792 - 1866], D.D., F.R.S., F.S.A., Sometime Librarian and Keeper of the MSS. at Lambeth. New Edition. With an Introduction by Frederick Stokes, M.A., John Hodges, Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London. 1889 (1845). ["iii"]. [Note: much Latin and French].
Impressions: S.R. Maitland wrote this book, to counteract negative claims of authors such as William Robertson. Apparently, the presumed tendency, was for protestants to paint a very dark picture of the Middle Ages (Dark Ages), thus, denigrating Catholicism. Here, Frederick Stokes, presents a Catholic edition of Maitland's The Dark Ages, 33 years after Maitland's death.
[For impressive Biographies of William Robertson [1721 - 1793], and, S.R. Maitland [1792 - 1866], see: Dictionary of National Biography].
"Catholic Standard Library
Maitland's Dark Ages." ["i"].
"[Frederick Stokes] Introduction.
[Note: Frederick Stokes begins impressively, then, degenerates in to "sour grapes", nostalgia for lost powers, envy, demagoguery, Church militarism (Crusades) (which stimulates memories of: laws against Jews and "Heretics", Inquisitions, etc.). That is, the scholar degenerates in to Homo sapiens theologicus--often, a nasty animal!]
It is by no means easy for even impartial men to arrive at clear and accurate knowledge of the social and mental conditions of peoples and classes living under different conditions from themselves. Even a selected body of men like a Royal Commission often ends by presenting widely different conclusions, drawn from precisely the same evidence as to the same facts. The actual condition, for instance, of the Irish peasantry is a subject of hot dispute among men of education and intelligence living under the same laws at the same time. When the class under consideration differs from its critics, as in the case of a foreign country, the difficulty is greatly increased. How many Englishmen are qualified to pronounce upon the social and economic conditions of Russia, or China, or, one might even add, of Ireland?
In truth, the judgments which men form are to a large extent subjective, and are determined not merely by evidence which may be the same for all, but by training, inclination, prejudice, sometimes even by heredity [see 1644]. In religious matters an impartial critic is the exception. THE GREAT MAJORITY OF MEN INHERIT THEIR FAITH, AS THEY DO THEIR PHYSIQUE, FROM THEIR PARENTS. Hence it may be assumed as fairly certain that a Protestant writer dealing with the Dark Ages--a period when Christendom was Roman Catholic--will have a tendency to deal out something
less than justice. Even if he be fair-minded--and many ultra-Protestant writers are not--there is the danger of what may be called involuntary bias. For most men unconsciously set up their own standards of happiness and enlightenment as the test by which others are to be judged. Rich men, as a class, take it for granted that their less favoured fellow creatures are necessarily miserable. Poor men too commonly accept the deplorable fallacy that to be rich is to be happy. The man of the world regards monastic life as a species of voluntary penal servitude. The monk, as a rule, assumes that there is no real happiness or virtue outside the cloister. Each decides not according to the objective truth of the matter, but more or less conformably to his own mental sympathies and tastes.
Perhaps no period of Christianity has been more misjudged than the Dark Ages--an epoch which, in the present work, is taken as comprising the ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth centuries [see 1910]. The general tradition when Maitland [Samuel Roffey Maitland 1792 - 1866] wrote--a tradition which has been greatly modified by later historians like Hallam and Gasquet--was that these ages were almost wholly barbaric; ages of ignorance, superstition, oppression, and general misery. Perhaps writers of the twenty-first century will take a similar view of the nineteenth, and regard it as a time when the world was desolated by famine, war, pestilence; when the condition of the poor was as harsh as it has ever been; when men were subject to conscription, invasion, misgovernment. The writers of the first half of this century looked down with scorn upon the centuries before the Reformation, yet historians like Walpole [probably, Horace Walpole 1717 - 1797] pronounce an almost equally severe verdict upon the times when George the Third was king. The Anglican Churchmen of the last century were emphatic in their denunciations of the abuses of pre-Reformation times. The general verdict of Churchmen of our own times as to the state of the Church of England in the eighteenth century is the reverse of flattering. It would be easy, indeed, by treating the Anglican Church in the eighteenth century as many Protestant writers--notably Robertson [William Robertson 1721 - 1793]--have treated the Church of the Middle Ages, to prove that that epoch was as dark as any century of the Christian era.
And, in judging of any past age, it is necessary to remember that evil is more conspicuous than good; that one great criminal attracts more attention than thousands of men living quiet and virtuous lives. One year of war furnishes forth more food for the historian than a decade of peace. Moreover, it is necessary to remember the Dark Ages were a time when Roman Catholicism was dominant, while the writers who formed the existing traditions were mostly Protestant. It is hardly too much to say that modern literature, as a whole, is Protestant. For whatever reason, a species of intellectual sterility seems to have fallen upon Roman Catholics within the last two hundred years. For a century past Roman Catholicism has produced perhaps three literary men of the first rank--Lamennais, Dollinger, and Rosmini,--and of these, two were driven out of the Church, and the third, now dead, has been condemned by the present Pope.1 To anyone, however, acquainted with ecclesiastical history, the wonder will be not that Catholicism has lost the creative power it possessed in mediaeval times, but that it continues to exist at all. For a century past a series of hurricanes have swept upon the Latin Church, which have reduced her policy to a desperate struggle for very existence. Perhaps no Church since the days of the
Roman Empire has endured--and survived--so tremendous a persecution as that to which the Gallican Church was subjected at the close of the eighteenth century. In Italy a strong anti-Catholic movement, engendered by the secret societies, has culminated in the absorption of the Temporal Power, and is now again developing into a legislative policy, which will still further weaken and hamper the Italian clergy. In Germany the Catholics are just emerging from the obligations of the Falk laws. Everywhere education has passed out of the hands of the Church. The old universities are either Protestant or secularized, the primary schools are passing into the hands of the State. So complete is the de-Catholization of Europe, that at the Vatican Council--Rome's last appeal to the nations--representatives of the Catholic states were for the first time omitted from the Papal invitations. As Cardinal Antonelli said in his despatch to the Nuncio at Paris--"If the Holy See has not thought fit to invite Catholic princes to the Council, as it did on other occasions, everyone will easily understand that this is chiefly to be attributed to the changed circumstances of the times."
But it is not the Latin Church alone which is threatened. Christianity itself is menaced. We are face to face with a new phenomenon in the intellectual history of Europe--a religion without a God. Infidelity has developed into materialism, and materialism propounds to the world a philosophy which shall explain and solve the mysteries of the past and the future, which shall guide the thoughts and wills of men, but in which a Creator has no place. Man, according to the new Gospel, is a combination of chemical and physical atoms produced by evolution and dissolved by death. The moral effects of such a creed, when once established--and it is spreading daily--cannot but be disastrous. For without God there is no morality and no civilization, no joy in the past, no peace in the present, no hope for the future [classic Christian crap!]. Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die, and death is the end of all things [and, how have the Christians, like this author (Frederick Stokes), improved on this? The solution of Christians: make life miserable (or worse) for all creatures, and, "eat and drink", and "die"].
And this modern materialism comes upon us not as other religious movements have done with blare of trumpet and beat of drum, rather it steals upon men's minds like some poisonous malaria begotten of polluted river or unwholesome marsh, asphyxiating the conscience and corroding the intellect, so that men find that faith is dead before they were conscious that it was in danger. Moreover, the germ of it is in every man's heart, from the theologian watching with perplexed spirit the perennial waves of human folly and misery, to the peasant sullenly gazing at his empty platter and fireless grate, and its spread is helped and furthered by the social and economic miseries of the times. More and more the great landlords and labour-lords are eating up the people as men eat bread, and grinding the faces of the poor. More and more the wealth of Europe, scanty in proportion to the needs and numbers of her population, is being garnered into the cellars of the banker and the safes of the usurer. More and more money is used not to satisfy the legitimate needs of humanity, but as coins in a vast system of public gambling, as bait for the unwary, as the minister of a luxury, upon which Caligula might have looked with envious eye.
The Dark Ages had their miseries, too. Since, the Garden of Eden was closed to our first parents, happiness has not been the lot of any considerable community for any considerable time. The corruption, seemingly incurable, of human nature and the malice of the unseen enemies of our race have always and everywhere proved too strong to be overcome by any creed or constitution. But, on the other hand, these ages had many advantages which we do not enjoy. They were ages in which Christian faith was what a recent writer has called a "vivid dynamic reality." Whatever may be thought of the Crusades--and more than one great authority has held that they resulted in great political advantage to Europe--they were one of the most splendid displays of faith and manhood that the world has ever witnessed, except, perhaps, the earlier developments of Mahommedanism [this militant sentence should be stimulating]....' [vi-ix].
'On the whole, one is tempted to believe that the Dark Ages were not so very dark, nor our own times so very full of light as some of the authors [for example: William Robertson] criticized by Maitland would have us believe. Men lived simpler and rougher lives, but it does not follow that they led less happy ones. It is doubtful whether the influences of the nineteenth century do not tend to degrade men rather than to elevate them. "The individual withers, and the State is more and more." There is scant opportunity for prayer and repose in the restless, commonplace age in which we live. The whole atmosphere of the times is fatal to that spirit of faith which is the motive power of all real progress.
London, July 4, 1889.' [xvi].
First Edition." ["1"]
"let me thankfully believe that thousands of the persons at whom Robertson, and Jortin, and other such very miserable second-hand writers, have sneered, were men of enlarged minds, purified affections, and holy lives--that they were justly reverenced by men--and, above all, favourably accepted by God, and distinguished by the highest honour which He vouchsafes to those whom He has called into existence, that of being the channels of His love and mercy to their fellow-creatures." .
"'Amongst so many Bishops,' says Fleury, 'there was not one critic, who knew how to discern true from false Records'--Critic! quoth he [Fleury]. It is well if there was one amongst them who could write his own name."--Jortin [apparently, John Jortin 1698 - 1770 (see 1933-1938)].
I have said, that the state of things during the dark ages has been misrepresented by some popular writers; and also that, in making that charge, I did not mean to reflect on those who had professedly written on those times. Indeed, as far as I know, the opinions of men in general on the subject are less frequently formed from these writers, than from those who, having obtained popularity on some other grounds, treat incidentally of the subject, or here and there give a passing sneer to the dark ages. Few books have been more popular, or more generally read by thousands who never thought of asking for authorities, than [William] Robertson's "History of Charles the Fifth;" and, perhaps, I cannot do better than take some proofs and illustrations of what I have said from that work. Some remarks on his statements may not only tend to obviate those prejudices which have been raised by him, and by other writers, but may also furnish a sort of introduction absolutely required by those who have not given any attention to the subject.
In his "View of the Progress of Society," prefixed to his History, Robertson [William Robertson 1721 - 1793 (Gibbon [1737 - 1794] appreciated Robertson, and, Robertson appreciated Gibbon (Dict. Nat. Bio.))] says:--
"Literature, science, taste, were words scarce in use during the ages we are contemplating; or if they occur at any time, eminence in them is ascribed to persons and productions so contemptible that it appears their true import was little understood. Persons of the highest rank, and in the most eminent stations could not read or write. Many of the clergy did not understand the Breviary which they were obliged daily to recite; some of them could scarce read it."--(Vol. i. p. 18)' .
'But to return to Robertson--
"When any person made a present of a book to a church or a monastery, in which were the only libraries during these ages, it was deemed a donative of such value, that he offered it on the altar pro remedio animae suae, in order to obtain the forgiveness of his sins. Murat, vol. iii, p. 836. Hist. Liter. de France, t. vi. p. 6. Nouv. Trait. du Diplomat. par deux Bénédictins, 4to. tom. i. p. 481."
Now really if a book was to cost two hundred sheep and fifteen quarters of grain (to say nothing of the furs and money), I do not see anything very absurd in its being treated as a donative of value; at least, I wish that people would make gifts of the same value to churches nowadays, and I believe they would find that they were not considered quite contemptible. I think I have seen in a parish church a board (whether gilt or not, I do not remember) informing the world that Esquire somebody had given "forty shillings a year for ever to the poor of the parish--viz., to the vicar, five shillings," for preaching an annual sermon to commemorate his bounty, and so forth.' .
[an example of Maitland's "squirreliness"] "As to all these collateral matters, however, I content myself, for the present, with noticing them more briefly than I could wish. This paper is already longer than I expected it to have been, and than it ought to be, considering that it is written in what I hope the reader considers the worst possible style--without any name of person or place, or any date, or a single reference to any authority whatever. If he has fairly got thus far, there is perhaps little use--I wish there may be any courtesy--in telling him that he might have skipped it; that it is entirely parenthetical, and intended only as an introduction to another paper, in which I hope to explain why I have written it, and to excuse myself for writing it in such a manner." [Any questions!?]. . [End of essay "No. VI."].
'Robertson had said in his text:--
"Even the Christian religion, though its precepts are delivered, and its institutions are fixed in Scripture with a precision which should have exempted them from being misinterpreted or corrupted, degenerated during those ages of darkness into an illiberal superstition [classic phrase of Robertson]. The barbarous nations when converted to Christianity changed the object, not the spirit of their religious worship. They endeavoured to conciliate the favour of the true God by means not unlike to those which they had employed in order to appease their false deities. Instead of aspiring to sanctity and virtue, which alone can render men acceptable to the great author of order and of excellence, they imagined that they satisfied every obligation of duty by a scrupulous observance of external ceremonies. Religion, according to their conception of it, comprehended nothing else; and the rites, by which they persuaded themselves that they could gain the favour of Heaven, were of such a nature as might have been expected from the rude ideas of the ages which devised and introduced them. They were either so unmeaning as to be altogether unworthy of the Being to whose honour they were consecrated, or so absurd as to be a disgrace to reason and humanity."--(p. 19.) ....' .
'When Father Montfaucon [Bernard de Montfaucon 1655 - 1741] had completed the Benedictine edition of "Athanasius," he became convinced that the Greek fathers could not be properly edited without first ransacking the libraries of Italy for manuscripts; and therefore (permissu superiorum) he and Father Paul Brioys set off for that purpose on the 18th of May, 1698, and did not return until the 11th of June, 1701. In the course of the next year he published his "Diarium Italicum;"5 which was, I believe, the year after, translated into English.' .
'No man living has known anything like war in our country; and even in modern Europe generally, the mode of warfare, the circumstances of places taken by siege or by storm, as to their liability to be burned or utterly destroyed, and the fact that most books are now produced by hundreds or thousands at a time, make so great a difference, that we can scarcely institute a comparison. When, however, the word WAR is mentioned, it will readily occur to the reader, that among the desolations of fire and sword, manuscripts did not escape destruction; but I wish to raise a more
particular idea of the dangers to which they were exposed, and the destruction which they actually suffered from certain wars during and since the period with which we are engaged.
Think, in the first place, of the ravages of the Danes and Normans in the ninth century; accounts of their cruel desolations meet us at every turn in monastic history. It may easily be conceived, that at all times,--at least, all early times,--monasteries and churches were likely to form a nucleus, both from their being the places most likely to contain spoil, and from their being (next to those which were regularly fortified) the places of greatest strength. Hence they became peculiarly obnoxious ["subject, liable, exposed"] to destruction, and particularly to destruction by fire. As to the desolation of monasteries by these barbarians, however, the shortest way to give some idea of them would be to copy the article "Normanni," in the index of the third volume of Mabillon's [Jean Mabillon 1632 - 1707] Annals, in which he gives a list of the monasteries of his own order [Benedictine] which were pillaged or destroyed. Even that, however, would be too long to insert here; but it begins, "Normanni, monasteria ab eis incensa, eversa, direpta,--; Amausense,--; Arulense,--; Arvernense S. Illidii,--; Autissiodorense sancti Germani,--; Bardeneiense,--," &c.; and so the index goes on through the alphabet, naming between seventy and eighty Benedictine monasteries. It is impossible to doubt, and, indeed, in some cases it may be proved, that there was a great loss of books. When, for instance, the Abbey of Peterborough, in Northamptonshire, was burned by the Danes in the year 870, there was a large collection of books destroyed--sanctorum librorum ingens bibliotheca.3 ["3 Ingul."] The language of Ingulph may provoke a smile; and I assure the reader that I do not want to make mountains of mole-hills, or to catch at a word in any writer of the dark ages. But I cannot consent to sneer away the statement to nothing; and the rather because, though it may not be easy to say what the abbot's idea of an "ingens bibliotheca" was, yet, as will presently appear, he uses no such expression in speaking of the library of seven hundred volumes belonging to his own monastery which was burned in his own time--that is, in A.D. 1091.' [248-249].
"I need not insist on the liability of manuscripts to be destroyed by accidental FIRE, especially at a time when so many were kept in wooden buildings." .
'I do not wish to be tedious on this point, but I am irresistibly tempted, first of all, just to allude to the conflagration of the monastery of Teano, near Monte Casino [87 miles southeast of Rome], which was burned, as Leo Marsicanus says, "cum omnibus operibus suis," in the year 892, because, among those "opera" it is said that the original copy of the Rule of St. Benedict perished'. .
'Thieto, who was abbot of St. Gall's, in the year 937, was a strict disciplinarian; and this was very sensibly felt, not only by the monks, but by the school-boys. St. Mark's day being a holiday, some of the latter had got into mischief (quaedam errata commiserant) which the monitors (censores scholarum quos circatores vocabant) reported to the masters. Sentence having been passed on the guilty, one of them was sent to the upper part of the building to fetch rods. By way
of anticipatory revenge for his flogging, or as a desperate resource to avoid one, the boy took a brand from a fire and placed it under the dry wood which was next to the roof. This quickly took fire, and the flames, driven by the wind, soon seized the tower of the church. The monastery was almost entirely burned, and many books were lost (multi libri amissi), though they were in time to save the church bells and furniture. The writer who relates the story, adds, "that from this mischief, the monks of St. Gall took a great dislike to the scholars, and some thought that the school ought to be entirely given up, but he suggests that the loss which the monastery sustained by this occurrence was more than counterbalanced by the credit which it had gained through the scholars whom it had sent forth."2
If it had not happened in the same year , I should not have mentioned the burning of the famous monastery of Fulda [see 1989] [central Germany: c. 52 air miles northeast of Frankfurt am Main], because I do not know how it happened, and cannot prove that the library was burned; and where there are cases enough of positive evidence, it is not in general worth while to notice that which is merely presumptive, however strong it may be; and of this monastery and its library I hope to find a fitter occasion to speak.
"Towards the evening of that day," says the historian of the monastery of Lawresheim or Lorsch (a few miles east of Worms), speaking of the 21st of March in the year 1090, "after that, following the example of the carnal Israel, the people had sat down to eat and to drink, and risen up to play, it happened that, among other games, a disc, set on fire at the edge in the usual way, was whirled in the air by a soldier.3 Being driven round with great force, and presenting the appearance of a circle of fire, it forms a spectacle which pleases, not only the eye by its appearance, but as an exhibition of strength. This being whirled by someone who did not keep sufficiently fast hold, it flew, by his unintentional cast, on the top of the church. Sticking fast there, between the wooden tiles and the old beams, it set fire to the place. What need of many words? In the first place, the flame seized on the tower, which was made with admirable woodwork,4 and in which were the bells, and their ropes being burned they could not be used to give the alarm. It then seized all the upper part of the building, the towers, and the porches. At length the dropping of the melted lead, with which all the roof was covered, rendered it utterly impossible to go in or get anything out. Then was the face of things miserable--so many excellent buildings, of the church as well as of the whole monastery--so many fine ornaments devoured by the sudden ravages of the flames, a few only saved with great exertion and risk, either snatched with the hand or broken away with the axe or hatchet from the very midst of the fire."5' [254-256].
'I see that I must fairly skip over about a century, and say at once that Ingulph [c. 1030 - 1109; "a forgery dating from the thirteenth or fourteenth century", is attributed to him (Schaff-Herzog Encyc.)], to whom I am indebted for most of the foregoing particulars, was Abbot of Croyland in A.D. 1091. What I have hitherto said, though it seems to me to illustrate many parts of our subject, is given with immediate view to his account of what happened in his own time. Speaking of his beloved patron, Archbishop Lanfranc, who died in A.D. 1089, he [Ingulph] says--
"Two years after his ["Archbishop Lanfranc"] death, happened  that which was my [Ingulph] heaviest misfortune, which had been foreshown by so many prodigies--that total destruction of so great a monastery [Croyland Abbey], so often clearly foretold in very many visions, and other apparitions--that most fierce conflagration which cruelly devoured so many and such dwelling places of the servants of God. For our plumber, being employed in the tower of the church about the repairs of the roof, and not extinguishing his fire in the evening, but fatally and most foolishly covering it with ashes, that he might the more readily set to work in the morning, went down to supper; and when, after supper, all our servants had gone to bed, and were every one of them fast asleep, a strong wind rising from the north speedily brought on our great calamity. For, entering the tower through the lattice-work, which was open on every side, it first blew away the ashes, and then drove the live coals against the nearest woodwork, where, quickly finding dry materials which were more ready to catch, and thus gaining strength, the fire began to seize the more substantial parts. The peasants, who saw for a long while a great light in the belfry, supposed that the clerks of the church, or the plumber were finishing some work; but at length, perceiving the flames burst forth, they came knocking at the gates of the monastery with great clamour. It was just about the dead of the night, and we were all resting in our beds, taking our first and deepest sleep. At length, being awakened by the loud clamour of the people, and hastening to the nearest window, I saw as clearly as if it had been noon-day all the servants of the monastery running towards the church, crying and hallooing [shouting]. Having put on my slippers, and waked my companions, I hastened down into the cloister, where everything was as brilliant as if it had been lighted up with a thousand tapers. I ran to the door of the church; and attempting to enter, I was very nearly caught by the melted bell-metal and boiling lead, which were pouring down. I stepped back, however, in time; and, looking in, and seeing that the flames had everywhere got the upper hand, I took my course toward the dormitory. The lead from the church dropping on the cloister, and soon making its way through, I was severely burnt in the shoulder, and might have been burnt to death, if I had not quickly leaped into the open area of the cloister; where, seeing that the flames that issued from the tower of the church on every side had seized the nave also, and were pointed towards the dormitory of the monks, in which direction burning materials were continually carried, I cried out to those who were still in deep sleep; and, by raising my voice to the utmost, I was scarcely able, after a long while, to rouse them. They, recognizing my voice, and leaping out of bed in great alarm when they heard that the cloister was on fire, rushed through all the windows of the dormitory in their slippers, and half-naked, and fell miserably. Many, alas! were wounded, many bruised and fractured, by the hard fall.
"The flames, however, continuing to increase, and continually throwing flakes of fire from the church towards the refectory--first the chapter house, then the dormitory, then the refectory itself, and, at the same moment, the cloisters belonging to the infirmary, and the whole of the infirmary, with all the adjoining buildings, were swallowed up at one stroke. As all our brethren collected about me in the court, when I saw most of them half-naked, I tried to regain my own chamber that I might distribute the clothes I had there to those who were most in need. But every avenue to the hall was so exceedingly hot, and such a shower of melted lead was falling on every side, that even the boldest of the young men were obliged to keep their
distance. Moreover, not yet knowing that our infirmary had been seized by the flames on the other side, I was going round by the north cemetery towards the east end of the church, when I perceived that our infirmary was on fire, and that the unconquerable flames were raging with the utmost violence among the green trees--ash, oak, and willow--which were growing around. Returning, therefore, to the west side, I found my chamber like a furnace, vomiting forth incessant flames from all the windows; and, going forwards, I beheld, with tearful eyes, that all the contiguous buildings towards the south (that is to say, the halls of the converts and of the guests), and all the other buildings that were covered with lead, were on fire. But the tower of the church falling on the south transept, I was so terrified by the crash, that I fell on the ground, half dead in a fainting fit. I was picked up by my brethren, and carried into the porter's lodge; but I scarcely recovered the use of my faculties and my customary strength before morning.
"Day breaking at length, and I having recovered from my fit, the brethren weeping and languid, and some of them miserably wounded, and burnt in many parts of their bodies, performed divine service together with mournful voice, and lamentable wailing, in the hall of Grimketul, our corrodiary ["recipient of a corrody [yours to define]" (O.E.D.)]. Having performed all the hours of divine service, as well for the day as for the night, we went out to take a view of the state of things throughout the whole monastery, the flames being still unsubdued in many of the offices. It was then that I first perceived that our granary and stable were burned; the flames being not yet quenched, though their posts had been burned even below the level of the ground. About the third hour of the day, the fire being in great measure got under, we went into the church, and, extinguishing with water the fire which was already subsiding, we perceived in the incinerated choir that all the service books, both antiphonaries and graduals, had perished. On entering the vestry, however, we found all our sacred vestments, the relics of the saints, and some other valuables which were there reposited, untouched by the fire, because the building was covered with a double stone arch. Going up to our archives we found that, although they were entirely covered by a stone arch,5 nevertheless, the fire rushing in through the wooden windows, all our deeds were stuck together, and burnt up by the extreme heat, as if they had been in a glowing furnace or oven; although the cases in which they were kept appeared to be safe and sound. Our most beautiful chirographs, written in the Roman character, and adorned with golden crosses, and most beautiful paintings, and precious materials, which were reposited in that place, were all destroyed. The privileges also of the kings of Mercia, the most ancient and best, in like manner beautifully executed, with golden illuminations, but written in the Saxon character, were all burned. All our documents of this kind, greater and less, were about four hundred in number; and, in one moment of a most dismal night, they were destroyed and lost to us by lamentable misfortune. A few years before, I had taken from our archives a good many chirographs, written in the Saxon character, because we had duplicates, and in some cases triplicates of them; and had given them to our Cantor, Master Fulmar, to be kept in the cloister, to help the juniors to learn the Saxon character, because that letter had for a long while been despised and neglected by reason of the Normans, and was now known only to a few of the more aged; that so the younger ones, being instructed to read this character, might be more competent to use the documents of their monastery against their adversaries in their old age. These
chirographs, being kept in a certain old chest, which was enclosed by the wall of the church, were the only ones that were saved, and escaped the fire. These are now our chief and principal documents, which were formerly secondary, and put aside, having been long lightly esteemed and looked down upon, because of their barbarous writing; according to the saying of Job--'The things that my soul refused to touch are as my sorrowful meat.'6
"All our library also perished, which contained more than three hundred original volumes, beside smaller volumes, which were more than four hundred. Then, too, we lost that most beautiful and very costly table, wonderfully made with every kind of metal to distinguish the stars and the signs--Saturn was of copper--Jupiter of gold--Mars of iron--the Sun of brass--Mercury of amber--Venus of tin--the Moon of silver. The coloure circles, and all the signs of the zodiac, according to their kinds, by the skilful workmanship having their proper images and colours, in various forms and figures, engaged, beyond measure, not only the understanding, but the eyes, of the spectators by the multiplicity of precious stones and metals. There was not such another nadir [use here?] known or talked of in England. The King of France had formerly presented it to Turketul; and he, at his death, had given it to the common library, as well for ornament as to teach the juniors. Now it was consumed, and melted down to nothing, in the devouring fire.
"Our chapter-house was totally consumed; our dormitory, and all the beds of the monks which were in it, and the building which adjoined, perished in one conflagration. In like manner our infirmary, with the chapel, the baths, and all the adjoining offices, were burned. Our refectory and all that it contained (except a few stone cups, and the horn and crucibolus of Wichtlaf, king of Mercia, which were kept in stone chests), with the adjoining kitchens, and all the hall and chamber of the converts, with all that was in them, were burnt together. Our cellar, and the very casks full of beer, were destroyed. The halls also of the abbot, and his chamber, and the whole court of the monastery, which had been most beautifully surrounded with very elegant buildings through the diligence of my predecessors,--(unhappy I, that my stay there was prolonged to behold such a sight!)--perished in a miserable conflagration, the flames raging on every side with the fury of Greek fire. A few huts of our poor pensioners, and the outhouses of our cattle, and the buildings containing the other animals, being at a greater distance, and covered with stone, were all that were preserved. For, beside the north transept of the church, from whence the wind rushing forth most powerfully drove the flames towards the south, all the buildings of the monastery, especially those that were roofed with lead, whether built of wood or stone, our chirographs and valuables, books and utensils, bells and their turrets, clothes and provisions, in one moment of time, while I, most unhappy, presided, were lost and consumed.
"Many signs and many portents prognosticated these fires, and nocturnal visions very often predicted them; but all these things I understood only after the event. Not only the words of our holy Father Turketul, when he was at the point of death, earnestly admonishing us to take care of our fire, but also those of our blessed father Wulfran at Fontanelle, in a night vision, commanding me carefully to preserve the fire of the house of the three saints,--that is to say, Guthlac, Neot, and Waldev,--
contained most certain admonitions. But I understand and confess all these things, unhappily, too late; and I, who for my sins do worthily deserve to pour forth such lamentations and useless tears, am only indulging in vain complaints.
"But that we may go on, let us return to our sad history. Our great misfortune being quickly made known through the whole vicinity, many of our neighbours, having bowels of mercy for our misery, most kindly looked with an eye of pity on our destitution. For our lord and most holy father Remigius, bishop of Lincoln, graciously granted to those who should do to us, or procure for us, any good, forty days of indulgence; and beside this, he gave us forty marks of silver in money. By his advice and suggestion, also, the venerable canons of the church of Lincoln, and the citizens of that city, who were our neighbours, sent us a hundred marks. Also Richard de Rulos, Lord of Brunne and Depyng, as our faithful brother and loving friend in the time of tribulation, then gave us ten quarters of wheat, ten quarters of barley, ten quarters of peas, ten quarters of beans, and ten pounds of silver. This was the contribution of Richard de Rulos towards the restoration of our monastery. Also Haco of Multon gave us twelve quarters of corn, and twenty five flitches of bacon. This was the contribution of the aforesaid Haco. Also Elsinus of Pyncebec gave us a hundred shillings in silver, and ten flitches. Also Ardnotus of Spalding gave us six quarters of corn, and two carcasses of beef, and twelve flitches of bacon. And beside these, many other persons made us various gifts, whereby our distress was much relieved, whose names may our Lord Jesus Christ write in the book of my life, and may He repay them with heavenly glory. But among so many benefactors, Juliana, a poor woman of Weston, of pious memory, must not be forgotten, for she gave us of her property, even all her living,--namely, a great quantity of twisted thread, to sew the garments of the brethren."
[Maitland] I pass over the arrangements which the abbot [Ingulph] proceeded to make for raising money on the lands of the monastery, and the documents which he has inserted respecting these transactions; but I must add the short paragraph which follows them:--
"[Ingulph] Being therefore mercifully helped by the contributions of so many of Christ's faithful people, as well our neighbours as persons at a distance, we laboured, in the first place, night and day, to rebuild the house of the Lord, lest their gifts should seem to have been cast away on a barren soil. We put in a new nave to the roof o the church, in place of the old one which had been burnt; we added also some other appendages, such as they were. Moreover, for the old tower of the church, a humble belfry, in which we placed two little bells which Fergus, the brass-worker of St. Botolph's, had lately given us, until better times, when we propose, by the help of the Lord, to renew everything in a better manner, and to raise to the Lord of majesty a worthy temple on surer foundations."
[Maitland] I trust that these details are not without interest in themselves, and they certainly conduce to one very principal object of these papers, which is, not merely to call the reader's attention to the facts of the dark ages, but to the writers who have recorded them. I have perhaps said more than enough of the ravages of fire and sword, and I hope to proceed immediately to the consideration of another
cause ["Negligence"] to which we may ascribe the scarcity of manuscripts.'
[End of essay "No. XV."] [271-277].
"No. XVII." 
If the reader has fairly considered the probable effects of war and fire, aided by the more slow and silent, but incessant operation of Time, assisted by damp and all the auxiliaries which he ["Time"] has employed when the negligence of man has left manuscripts at his mercy--if he has reflected that more than six hundred years have elapsed since the close of that period [800 - 1200 A.D.] of which we are speaking, during all which time the work of destruction has been going on--if he has at all realized these facts, surely I might confidently appeal to him whether it is very far short of a miracle, that any manuscripts of that or of an earlier period should have survived to the present time? ...." .
'Of all the thousands of manuscripts burned by war or by accident, by Danes or Hungarians, or housemaids,1 the ashes are dispersed and no trace remains. Those that were not found by Ambrose of Camaldoli, a mouldering part of general desolation2--those that were not rescued by Poggio when he drew Quintilian to light from a dark and filthy dungeon3--those that were not saved by Father Mennitius when he gathered in a "festive copia" from his Calabrian dependencies, where they were unheeded and perishing4--those, in short, that have not been redeemed by individual exertion to give us some notion of what has been lost, have left no memorial that they ever existed. Those which over-anxiety hid too carefully, may be hidden still;5 and those that brutal stupidity buried, have perished. What the rats have eaten we know not; what the deep sea has swallowed we cannot tell, and seldom think of. All those are gone without memorial, except such scattered notices as may be gleaned from the survivors. But there are thousands equally destroyed--thousands of murdered wretches not so completely annihilated; their ghosts do walk the earth--they glide, unseen, into our libraries, our studies, our very hands--they are all about and around us--we even take them up, and lay them down, without knowing of their existence; unless time and damp (as if to punish, and to mock, us for robbing them of their prey) have loosed their bonds, and sent them to confront us. But to speak soberly:--
IV. To the causes already mentioned, we must add IGNORANCE, CUPIDITY, DISHONESTY--they may all go together, for in some cases it may be difficult to say how much should be ascribed to one cause, how much to another.' [295-297].
"Whether the Jesuits were more or less guilty of stealing books, it is certainly a very bad thing, even when done from conscientious motives, as it seems to have been by Jacob the Jew, whose memoirs Mabillon [Jean Mabillon 1632 - 1707] met with in the Medicean library at Florence; and who therein confessed that before his conversion he had stolen the books of Christians, carrying off those which related to either the Old or the New Testament, but committing the works of the fathers to the flames--thus, in his kind and degree (and perhaps as only one out of many of his nation so employed), helping forward the work of destruction.5" .
"Some readers may not, perhaps, be aware that, at no very remote period, it was customary to take the precaution of chaining the books to the shelves." .
"Destruction of MSS." 
"Henry Wharton [1664 - 1695 (see Dict. Nat. Bio.)], in the preface to his Anglia Sacra, after stating the impossibility of rivalling works of a similar nature which had been published respecting France and Italy, owing to the destruction of manuscripts at the suppression of monasteries, &c., says, that he had met with a case in which a bishop avowedly, with the design of getting rid of popery, had burned all the Registers and documents belonging to his see.5 He does not name him; and, without inquiring who he was, we will charitably hope that he acted in stupid sincerity, and was the only English prelate that ever did such a thing, or anything like it." [502-503].
from: Miscellaneous Observations Upon Authors, Ancient and Modern, Vol. I., John Jortin 1698 - 1770, London: Printed for Tho. Wotton, at the Queen's-Head and Three Daggers, against St. Dunflan's Church in Fleet-Street. M.DCC.XXXI.
[Note: year 1731]. [I thank S.R. Maitland (see 1922), for citing John Jortin]. [received these two volumes (and first seen), 4/5/2002].
["Jortin, John: Archdeacon of London; b. in London Oct. 23, 1698; d. there Sept. 5, 1770. He was the son of a Huguenot exile from Brittany, who in 1691 became a gentleman of the privy chamber. He received his education at the Charterhouse School, and at Jesus College, Cambridge (B.A., 1719; M.A., 1721), where he held a fellowship 1721-28. He was ordained in 1724, and presented to the college living of Swavesey, Cambridgeshire, in Jan., 1727, which he resigned in Feb., 1731, to become preacher at a chapel in New Street, London. In 1731 he started a magazine entitled, Miscellaneous Observations upon Authors Ancient and Modern, which continued for two years. In 1737 he was presented to the vicarage of Eastwell, Kent, which he soon resigned. In 1747 he resigned his position in New Street to accept an appointment to a chapel in Oxenden Street, where he preached till 1760. He was assistant to Warburton at Lincoln's Inn, 1747-50, and Boyle lecturer in 1749. In 1751 he was presented to the rectory of St. Dunstan's-in-the-East by Thomas Herring, archbishop of Canterbury, who gave him the Lambeth degree of D.D. in 1755. In 1762 he became chaplain to Thomas Osbaldeston, bishop of London, who gave him a prebend in St. Paul's and presented him to the vicarage of Kensington, which he held with St. Dunstan's. He was made archdeacon of London in 1764. Jortin was a scholar of liberal views, and wrote with an engaging lightness of style...." (Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia (see also: Dict. Nat. Bio.))].
My design in thee Papers is to correct or explain ancient authors; and sometimes to make observations upon modern writers, to confirm what they have said, or to give reasons why I dissent from them.
Critical learning has met with humourous and with serious adversaries. Some ridicule it, and endeavour to laugh it out of countenance. And what sower Critic can be angry with these merry fellows, who make the Readers laugh, sometimes at their jests, and sometimes at those who make them? Others complain seriously of the Critics, and blame them for treating those uncivilly from whom they differ, and for thrusting their conjectures into the text. The first of these faults I detest: the other I cannot fall into in these papers...." ["1"].
"I have said enough in favour of criticism; too much perhaps, considering how little it concerns me to stand up for it. Some books I have read, and some observations I have made upon them. But I pretend not to the title of a critic: many things, in which I know my self to be deficient, go to the making of a critic; an extensive knowledge, a thorough skill in learned languages, a happy sagacity, a sound judgment, an obstinate application to study. Even all this is not enough, if some of the learned may be believed: A critic, according to them, is one who knows every thing, at least, not a little of every thing, who, like the Wise Man of the Stoics, is not only a great orator, philosopher, logician, etc. but a tolerable taylor, and shoemaker." [End of Preface] [3-4].
"OF ALL THE LATIN POETS NONE HAS COME DOWN TO US LESS CORRUPTED THAN VIRGIL, which is owing, amongst other causes, to the ancient Manuscripts, which Pierius made so good use of, and to the notes of Servius." .
"there is such thing as LOOSE THINKING often pass'd upon the world for FREE THINKING". .
[A critic wrote to The Freethought Exchange: more like "Freedom from Thought"!].
"[note: bolded brackets and contents, are from the author (John Jortin)]
[Remarks which I have received from the author of those upon Lucian, &c. pag. 72--76.]
Aristaenetus [also, Aristaenus, fl. c. 190 B.C.E.] is an author as little known AND AS MUCH CORRUPTED as any other whatsoever." .
["Communicated to me.]
Demosthenis Encomium [Forgery! (see 1868, 1869)], tho' publish'd among Lucian's Works, is yet generally supposed to be none of his: and indeed, the Style of it, which is affected, and stiff, very different from Lucian's Character, is a just reason to make it suspected. But the latter Part of it, which he calls...[5 Greek words], is the least exceptionable for its Style, and contains a handsome Encomium of Demosthenes; which is so much the more to be regarded, because it comes from the Mouth of his two great Enemies, Philip and Antipater.
But to read it with any tolerable Satisfaction, it will be necessary to observe and set right ["set right"! This probably, has occurred for centuries] some considerable Transpositions, which (as they stand at present) make it unintelligible...." .
"Josephus [c. 37 - c. 100 C.E.].
His Testimony concerning Jesus Christ.
Book XVIII, Chap. 3. Edit. Haverc.
The Objections against this Testimony are taken from
1. The Silence of some of the Antients [sic] [prior to Eusebius], who, if they had found it in their books, would have taken notice of it.
2. Its Incoherence with what goes before and follows it in the History.
3. The Difference of its Stile from the rest of the History.
4. Its being too great an Encomium of Christ to come from a Jew.
But none of them are so strong, as not to admit of an Answer:
1. It does not follow, that it must be spurious, because we find no notice taken of it by some Authors, where we expected to have met with it. They might have had Reasons that we know not: or they may have quoted it in some others of their Books, which have not reached our Age.
2. Nor ought we to be over scrupulous in weighing the Connexion of every Sentence in an Author with what precedes and follows it. Writers are not always equally accurate in that respect. And it is not impossible that some Sentence may have been lost, that would have made the Connexion better appear. Criticks frequently have recourse to these suppos'd Hiatus's, to salve the Incoherences, that seem to be in their Authors.
3. Judgement of Stile is often very fallacious. Authors are not always constant to the same Stile [see 1903 ("time or genre effect")]. Or, tho' a Judgement may be made upon the Stile of a whole Treatise; yet it is not so certain to judge of a Clause conflicting but of two or three Sentences; that, for the sake of some particular Words, or Phrases, or for the contexture of a Sentence, it must not be allowed to have been writ by such or such an Author. Few Writers, especially those that have writ much, but have some...[2 Greek words] which yet are not for that Reason, nor indeed ought to be rejected. But who will pretend to be so much a Master of Josephus's Writings, as to remember all the Words, and Phrases that he has made use of: or to be so well acquainted with the manner of his Composition, [Greek word within brackets] as to be able to affirm with reason, what ought not to be, upon that account, admitted to be his? For others have, even from the stile, concluded that it was writ by Josephus: particularly Mr. Daubuz has produc'd parallel places from other parts of his works, to confirm every part of this testimony. And his autority [sic] ought to be of the greater weight in this controversy, because he seems to have acted in it very impartially. For when he first enter'd into it, he was (as himself declares) prejudic'd not in favour of the testimony, but against it: he thought it to be
spurious. But upon a farther examination, the arguments on the other side, appear'd to him so convincing, that he changed his opinion: and publish'd a large and learned account of the reasons of his doing so. He may perhaps have carried some things too far: But in that part of it in which he compares the stile of this clause with the rest of Josephus's works, he has said enough, at least to shew that there is no occasion to reject it upon that account.
4. The last Objection seems to have more weight than any of the rest, or indeed than all of them. For if he believed him to be the Christ, the promised Messiah, no good reason can be given for his still continuing a Jew.
But to this it hath been said:
a. That we cannot suppose that Josephus [c. 37 - c. 100 C.E.] would, in a work wherein he has undertaken to give us a history of the fortune of the Jewish nation, from its original to his own age, omit to take notice of a person's appearing among them who took upon him the name of Christ, or the Messiah. As the Jews had long expected such a person, and promised themselves great advantages from his coming; he ought at least to have acquainted his readers when any appeared that pretended to that office: especially in the present cafe, when this appearance and declaration of his had so mighty an influence upon the Jewish people, that great numbers of them forsook the religion of their ancestors to follow him: The author of so great a change ought not to be past over in silence. He might have given him what character he thought fit; but he ought not to have been forgot: the rather, because he takes notice of others who appear'd with the like pretensions to be the Messias: and (what is nearer the present cafe) of John the Baptist, who was the forerunner of Christ, and of whom he gives an extraordinary good character, and of St. James, "Who (he "says) was the brother of Jesus, who was called "Christ."[the 4 quotation marks?] He speaks of Jesus, as of one that was better known than James: and yet, if this place is taken away, we find no other place in the whole history where he [Jesus Christ] is directly spoken of.
B. That in saying he was the Christ, he declared not his own opinion; (which it is plain was contrary) but that of his disciples, the Christians; and the name that (at least after his Resurrection) he was commonly known by. He might as well call him Christ without believing him to be so, as Pilate (in the inscription upon the Cross) called him the King of the Jews. The mentioning the Miracles, which he wrought, and were commonly known; and that he appeared to his Disciples after his death; as they all of them constantly affirmed, was no more than might be expected from an historian who pretends to great sincerity; and in an history which he writ on purpose to inform the Romans and Graecians, of all the considerable events which had befallen his nation, with which they were not much acquainted before. And if it were a reflection upon the Jews to say, that they put so extraordinary a person [Christ] to death: it is observed, that in several other parts of his history, he speaks with freedom enough both of his Nation and Religion.
[Greek letter [c.]] These answers to this objection seem to be well grounded; and they would receive a farther strength from a small alteration in the text, by reading...[6 Greek words], instead of...[5 Greek words]. As this is the most exceptionable expression in the whole clause, the mollifying it will go a great way to the removing the objection that has been made against it. And we have Josephus's Authority for the change: it is his own expression, in Book XX, Chap. 9. (Ed. Haverc.) [Section]. 1. Speaking of St. James's Martyrdom, he calls him [5 Greek words]. Others have understood the common reading in this sense: but this reading would put the author's meaning out of doubt. One would rather suppose that a single word has been dropp'd, than that a clause of three sentences has been thrust in. Or, if there has been any pia fraus in the cafe, I would rather think that a word has been flipp'd out, to make the expression a little stronger; than that a book, or even a small part of one has been forg'd: unless I see better reasons for the contrary, than those that have been alledg'd against this clause (when compared with the answers that have been made to them) seem to be." [359-363].
from: Vol. II. M.DCC.XXXII. [Note: year 1732]
"2. I come then to the second opinion, which I shall soon dispatch. F. Hardouin [apparently, Father Jean Hardouin] grounds it upon a single medal of Hadrian, or rather upon the single interpretation of it. For to tell the truth, it is a mere riddle; otherwise it would be a very powerful reason. By his own confession, the reverse hath only these letters: COL. H. LEG. H. which he explains Colonia Heliopolis, Legio Octava; blaming Vaillant, who interprets it, Colonia Heliopolis, Legio Heliopolis; as if the H were here of two different significations, and a double nature; being first for a Latin initial letter; and secondly, for a Greek numerical one. Such fancies, being supported by nothing else, deserve no regard, and can never be taken for a sufficient foundation of a singular opinion, by a reasonable man.
Besides, the type, or symbol, shews that the medal belongs to a sea-port town; for it represents two figures standing, and holding each a Rudder; which is never seen upon any medal of a Land-town, as is Heliopolis; and on the contrary is very often upon medals of towns certainly known to be on, or near the Sea, or navigable Rivers." [End of 2.] [20-21]. [See: Appendix III, 718 (Hardouin (numismatics))].
"[Communicated to me.]
I very much approve of the scheme you have formed, to communicate to the publick your remarks upon the classic writers. For as the great number and variety of editions of most authors is justly complain'd of by all those who are desirous of being acquainted with them; so it would be equally unreasonable to refuse any new lights which may still be given them. And since you find those writers, in the publishing of which persons of the greatest genius and learning have been so long employed, still capable of receiving farther improvements, as they certainly are; if you would turn
your view to another sort of authors, the first christian writers, both in Greek and Latin, you will find, that much more is there wanting to furnish the publick with correct editions of them. Most editors, as well as readers (some few indeed must be expected) have begun here, where they should have ended; that is, to enquire into their opinions and doctrines, without applying themselves to settle a true and accurate text, which ought to be the foundation first laid to come at the other.
What I now send you may serve for an instance of this; and I shall be well pleased if it should engage you to shew us the same thing in some others of them.
Tertullian's treatise de Oratione is IMPERFECT in all the editions, and in the few MSS. which have been found of that author. Lud. Ant. Muratorius met with an old MS. in the Ambrosian library, which has supplied what was wanting in all the others; and he published that treatise entire in the third volume of his Anecdota in the year 1713. As that collection, consisting of five volumes in quarto, is not common in these parts, it would, I believe, be very acceptable to many of your readers, who have a just value for the writings of Tertullian, to have their editions of his [Tertullian] works completed by your means. In the mean time, I have transcribed one chapter of it, which I here send you.
WE KNOW, FROM SEVERAL OTHER INSTANCES, HOW CORRUPT THOSE AUTHORS GENERALLY ARE, WHICH ARE PUBLISHED FROM A SINGLE MS. Muratorius has restored some passages, and you will see that I have attempted, at least, to do so in others...." [40-41].
"The present Texts of Tertullian, Sallust, Herodotus, Florus, and Plaurus depend chiefly on single MSS. [Manuscripts]" .
"The Writer de Mortibus Persecutorum.
Whoever be the Author of this book, we may say that he is a pretty good writer, and that great allowances ought to be made, when we consider how much HE IS CORRUPTED AND DEFACED. I am inclined to agree with those who think that he is not Lactantius. One thing I have observed, which some may call a trifle, but I will venture to mention it; it is, that Lactantius is immoderately fond of the word utique, and that the Writer De M.P. uses it seldom [early Stylommetry, Literary forensics]." .
from: A Short History of the Bible, Being a Popular Account of the Formation and Development of the Canon. by Bronson C. Keeler. The Book Tree, Escondido, California, 1997 (1881). [See: #25, 548-559; etc. (Keeler)].
word "Bible" was first applied to the books collectively
by St. Chrysostom [c. 347 - 407] in the fifth century.3
And as in the case of the Old Testament, so in that of the New,
copyists felt at liberty to change the language to suit their own
ideas by taking out texts and inserting new ones4'
. [See: 1504-1518 (Shires)].
"I need not amuse the reader with the speculations of theologians endeavoring to discover every reason but the right one for the number of the Gospels. Indeed I might not amuse him, for it is a pitiful recital. There is no sadder spectacle in the intellectual world, than that of men possessed of really great mental possibilities, frittering away their time and their self-respect in TRYING TO MAKE A SUPERSTITION APPEAR REASONABLE by explaining its absurdities in an illogical manner, and, instead of walking erect in the dignity of a rational manhood, STAGGERING ALONG IN A BLIND STUPOR, PRODUCED BY THE FUMES OF MYSTICISM [see 1850]." .
from: The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus, Arthur Drews, Arno, 1972 (1912).
'....Meantime we may reflect with comfort on the words of Dupuis [Charles François Dupuis 1742 - 1809]:
"There are large numbers of men so perversely minded that they will believe everything except what is recommended by sound intelligence and reason, and shrink from philosophy as the hydrophobic shrinks from water. These people will not read us, and do not concern us; we have not written for them. Their mind is the prey of the priests, just as their body will be the prey of the worms. WE HAVE WRITTEN ONLY FOR THE FRIENDS OF HUMANITY AND REASON. The rest belong to another world; even their God tells them that his kingdom is not of this world--that is to say, not of the world in which people use their judgment--and that the simple are blessed because theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Let us, therefore, leave to them their opinions, and not envy the priests such a possession. Let us pursue our way, without lingering to count the number of the credulous. When we have unveiled the sanctuary in which the priest shuts himself, we can hardly expect that he will press his followers to read us. We will be content with a happy revolution, and we will see that, for the honour of reason, it is so complete as to prevent the clergy from doing any further harm to mankind."
Arthur Drews.' [End of Preface] [xii].
from: Latin Palaeography, Antiquity and the Middle Ages, Bernhard Bischoff, Translated by Dáibhí Ó Cróinín and David Ganz, Cambridge, c1990 (1979 Berlin).
"The Beneventana, the vigorous south-Italian script that developed from a rounded, richly-ligatured Italian minuscule of pre-carolingian type, was a distinctive script that lasted five hundred years from the late eighth century to the thirteenth.112 Its chief centres were Beneventum, Bari, and Monte Cassino, which had been reconstructed after the Lombard destruction of AD 717 or 718, and whose monks, expelled because of a second destruction by the Saracens, fled in AD 883 first to Teano, later to Capua, to return finally in AD 949." .
"The attractive power exerted by MONTE CASSINO [87 MILES SOUTHEAST OF ROME], and its radiation throughout the whole Benedictine world, created connections that have left their mark on the text transmission [on forgeries?] and, in sporadic cases, on the script as well.124" .
"At the time [fourth century] of the [forced] conversion of Christianity Rome had twenty-eight libraries within its walls and book production was so well established a line of business that Diocletian, in his price edict, set rates for various qualities of script: for one-hundred lines in 'scriptura optima', twenty-five denarii; for somewhat lesser script, twenty denarii; and for functional script ('scriptura libelli bel tabularum'), ten denarii.7 The unit of valuation was the normal length of line in a verse of Vergil. The extent of a work is given in these units at the end of some manuscripts (stichometry),8 and stichometric lists survive for biblical books and for the writings of Cyprian.9" .
"In 949 the monks re-entered Monte Cassino and in the following centuries the monastery reached its apogee under abbot Desiderius (1058-87). One of his predecessors was the German Richer (1038-55), who came from Niederaltaich, one of the monasteries that had been ruled by Godehard of Hildesheim.14 Through these monastic connections it is possible to explain the presence at Monte Cassino of a manuscript of Widukind of Corvey, the double preservation of Frontinus here and in Hersfeld (or Fulda), and the familiarity of the Monte Cassino historian Peter the Deacon with Tactius's Agricola.15 In Desiderius's time the beneventan script attained its most harmonised formation.16 The library that was compiled here [Monte Cassino] possessed very rare works of classical literature: Varro, Seneca's Dialogues, Tacitus's Annals and Histories, as well as Apuleius.17" [214-215].
"From the late thirteenth century on, many Paris book painters are known by name. Those that can be connected with surviving works are Maítre Honoré, who illuminated a breviary for Philip the Fair, and Jean Pucelle, active around 1325-30. He was one of the first to use grisaille technique and took up trends from Italian art, which was the dominant one on French soil, at Avignon.41 With the sons of Johann the Good (†1364), who was himself a lover of fine books, Charles V (1364-80), Louis of Anjou (†1384), Philip the Bold of Burgundy (†1404), and Jean Duc de Berry (†1416), there appeared a generation of bibliophiles such as had not existed in the middle ages. The library of the learned Charles V42 numbered over one thousand
manuscripts. It contained, besides French epics and romances, and ostentatious manuscripts of the bible and liturgy, the many French translations from classical authors, church Fathers, and medieval works that the king had had made. Even painters from distant towns and foreign parts were drawn to Paris by his orders, amongst them Flemings and Italians." [230-231].
"The Age of Humanism
In northern Italy laymen interested in literature, and active members of the notarial or judicial profession, already in the THIRTEENTH CENTURY discovered copies of rare or forgotten authors from old ecclesiastical libraries and used them in their works. Thus Albertanus of Brescia (†c. 1248) copied from a carolingian codex of the letters of Seneca which he provided with marginal comments and sketches.1 The Paduan scholars Lovato dei Lovati (1241-1309), Geremia di Montagnone (†1321) and Iohannes de Matociis, mansionarius of the cathedral at Verona,2 were lucky to make genuine discoveries. Amongst these were Catullus, Tibullus, Propertius, Varro De re rustica, the Scriptores historiae Augustae, and letters of Cicero; treasures of the Verona cathedral library which Rather had seen in the tenth century were rediscovered. For Lovato a second source was the library of Pomposa; the best manuscript of Seneca's tragedies that he used was written there in the eleventh century.
The effect of these discoveries could have remained limited for a long time to local literature and their use in florilegia, if Petrarch [1304 - 1374]3 had not incorporated them in the comprehensive picture of Roman antiquity which from his youth he had sought to recover. In the course of his efforts to acquire newer and better texts external circumstances came to his assistance; through his sojourn at the curia in Avignon he was able to establish valuable contacts. In the course of extensive journeys he himself made discoveries but he also utilised the old Veronese codices. Petrarch copied and collated a great deal; his first great achievement was the unification of the three Decades of Livy [59 B.C.E. - 17 C.E.] in one single volume.4
In his time the library of Monte Cassino became known as a hoard of ancient texts thanks to Zanobi da Strada and Boccaccio [Giovanni Boccaccio 1313 - 1375] (Apuleius, Tacitus, Varro De lingua Latina) and its codices, written in Beneventan, later made their way to Florence. In Florence it was Coluccio Salutati, a collector and humanist in Petrarch's sense, who passed on the master's ideal to a younger generation, of whom the papal secretary POGGIO BRACCIOLINI [1380 - 1459] was most prominent as THE MOST SUCCESSFUL DISCOVERER OF UNKNOWN CLASSICAL TEXTS. A participant in the council of Constance, he brought a rich booty home from the monasteries of the surrounding region, as well as from his extensive journeys in Germany and France." [235-236].
from: Tacitus, The Man and His Work, Clarence W. Mendell, Yale, 1957.
"11. Credibility of Tacitus' [see 1991] History" 
"Since 1875 there have been at least five major attempts to discredit the [? (some?)] works of Tacitus [c. 56 - c. 120] as either forgeries or fiction. Voltaire [1694 - 1778] had perhaps been the first in modern day seriously to revive Tertullian's [c. 160 - 220] charge of mendacity, and his claims were elaborated by a lawyer named Linguet. Only with Napoleon [1769 - 1821], however, was this position given serious consideration. The leaders of the [French] revolution had found tremendous comfort in Tacitus' anti-imperialism. For the modern successor to the Caesars it was important politically to discredit the historian and discount his popularity, but any effect which Napoleon's attacks may have had largely disappeared with the collapse of the emperor.
Two curious attempts were made toward the end of the nineteenth century to prove not that Tacitus was a liar but that what purported to be his writings were fifteenth-century forgeries. W.R. Ross [see 1991] published anonymously in 1878 a book entitled Tacitus and Bracciolini, intended to prove that Poggio Bracciolini [see 1989] was the author of what had come down from antiquity under the name of Tacitus. Twelve years later P. Hochart [see 1990] (De l'Authenticité des Annales et des Histoires de Tacite) maintained the same thesis with a much greater show of learning, following up by a supplementary volume. These two attempts gave ample assurance that the attack on these lines was futile, and only one further attempt of this sort has been made. That was in 1920 when LEO WIENER (Tacitus' Germania and Other Forgeries [see 1959 - 1967]) sought in vain ["sought in vain"! This is how dismissal is done. Just pronounce! More, "Bluff and Bullshit"!] to prove by a bewildering display of linguistic fireworks that the Germania and, by implication, other works of Tacitus were forgeries made after Arabic influence had extended into Europe.
After Gaston Boissier's brilliant book (Tacite, 1903) had roused new enthusiasm for the historian, Eugene Bacha (Le Genie de Tacite, 1906) attempted to prove that Tacitus was the master of romantic fiction, and somewhat later T.S. Jerome (Aspects of the Study of History, 1923) presented him as a consistent liar both by nature and by deliberate choice. Bacha's book has some value for its comments on stylistic matters, Jerome's none because of its over-all inaccuracy, its complete confusion of narratio in a legal speech and narratio in history, and its wholly unconvincing method. Neither writer won any general acceptance of his estimate of Tacitus' integrity [in question: "Tactitus' integrity"; integrity of centuries of scribes; integrity of centuries of rewriters; centuries of forgers; etc.]." [220-221]. [See: 1886 (Hardouin)].
Comment: The above dismissals by Clarence W. Mendell, are complex. Of course, this Addition (36), sometimes, dismisses Clarence W. Mendell.
from: Testaments of Time, The Search for Lost Manuscripts and Records, Leo Deuel, Knopf, 1966 (1965).
'Ancient literature had fallen into neglect with the eclipse of the Roman order in the West. Barbarian tribes poured into the collapsing empire and destroyed libraries and seats of learning. Meanwhile the Church professed little affection for the books of the heathen Greeks and Romans. A sixth-century historian of the Franks, Gregory of Tours, dryly observed: "The study of letters has perished."3 Typically enough, he had no regrets. Instead, he exhorted the faithful: "Let us shun the lying fables of the poets...lest we incur the doom of endless death by sentence of our Lord."4
Even the most learned Christian teachers of the "Dark Ages" were wont to expiate their occasional lapses into reading classical literature. St. Augustine, whom Petrarch revered, professed to hate the Greek language and to curse the time he had wasted poring over Vergil. And Pope Gregory the Great, contemporary of his namesake of Tours, though he had been born into an old Roman family scorned classical learning, boasted of his ignorance, and fostered irrationalism. In Spain, the most respected scholar was Archbishop Isidore of Seville, one of the tireless compilers whom the early Middle Ages brought forth in profusion. Yet he forbade his churchmen and monks to read any ancient authors except grammarians. The rhetorical works of Cicero and Quintilian he dismissed as "too diffuse to be read"5--a flagrant case of the darkest of pots calling the kettle black. IS IT ANY WONDER THAT THE CLASSICS WERE FORGOTTEN, AND MANY MANUSCRIPTS WERE LOST?
Yet, not all was darkness in the medieval "millennium." Some religious houses continued to care for the works of ancient literature, just as Caroligian scribes in the eighth and ninth centuries copied various classics and thus helped to transmit them to a later age.
By the eleventh century, with the growth of trade and cities, learning was no longer in disrepute. Cathedral schools and universities had become intellectual centers. Contacts with the more advanced Islamic civilization in Sicily and Spain had brought several Aristotelian treatises and other, most scientific and philosophical works into the West by the way of translations from the Arabic. However, scholars concentrated almost exclusively on theology. Because of this preoccupation, the rising tide of the scholastic movement retarded rather than furthered a knowledge of classical literature. And the monasteries--once prime guardians of manuscripts--tended to lose to other institutions the little intellectual zeal they ever had.' [4-6].
'In sum, the Middle Ages lacked what we call a classical tradition--a more or less established, consciously perpetuated canon of literary works. Barely any of the classics formed part of the stream of culture,6 and people had the most muddled notions about the writers and poets of antiquity. One authority attributed the Illiad to Pindar; Homer and Vergil were likely to be depicted as contemporaries and friends. A prominent professor at the University of Bologna, with whom Petrarch corresponded, referred to Cicero as one of the ancient poets.7 In some parts of medieval Italy, legend had raised Cicero to a great warlord who had besieged and stormed a fortress city held by the rebel chieftain "Catellina."8
This was the situation when Petrarch appeared on the scene.
We are concerned here with the mature Petrarch, the man of letters, rather than the young Petrarch, the supreme lyricist of the Canzoniere--his love songs to Laura in Italian. Our Petrarch was above all a writer in Latin, counselor of kings and cardinals, Italian patriot, author of the epic Africa--which in Vergilian verse sang the glory of all-conquering Rome--and the sworn enemy of scholasticism, astrology, and medical quackery. He [Petrarch] inaugurated a movement known as Humanism which was to refashion European culture.
Petrarchan Humanism emphasized man's role in this world and looked to the long-neglected freedoms of the past. In classical antiquity Petrarch and his followers found ideals of truth and beauty which they urged the Western world to reclaim. The past was the key to progress. If one upheld the worth and perfectibility of man, one had a stake in the revival of classical learning. If one would develop one's personality, become a rational being, adopt a proper style in public and private conduct, achieve the highest skill in speaking and writing, lead and train men--one must read the ancients.
But how to get hold of the classic authors? Few of the great works were readily accessible, and some were known only in pitiful fragments. Petrarch must have suffered frustration many times as he came across references to ancient masterpieces which apparently had vanished. He would then cry out in anger over the losses inflicted by the "barbarian" successors of Rome. "For every illustrious name that I invoke," he once wrote, "I call to mind a crime of the dark ages that followed! As if their own sterility had not been shame enough, they left the books born of the vigils of our fathers [the ancient Latins!], and the fruits of their genius to perish utterly. That epoch, which produced nothing, did not fear to squander the paternal heritage."9 It was singular good fortune to obtain even one copy of the work of one illustrious ancient writer. And then, more often than not, the manuscript had been so ineptly transcribed that Cicero, or Livy, would not have recognized his own work.1' [6-7].
'admirable ingenuity and meticulous scholarship may go into the vain [?] attempt to prove the genuine work a fraud. In the 1890's, two scholars [apparently: J.W. Ross, and, Polydore Hochart (see 1816-1817)] neatly demonstrated that Tacitus' Annals, said to have survived in only one [two] medieval manuscript[s], had really been composed by Poggio Bracciolini, who [may have (see 1808)] rediscovered [one] it. They made a good and impressive case. Yet chances are that they are wrong.
There are some [most?] works whose authenticity has not been conclusively established--some of Plato's letters, several of the Pauline Epistles, or the Tao Tê Ching, a great Chinese classic, for example. Here final judgment may have to be suspended. But nobody can tell when a work of art or a piece of writing that has long been accepted as the work of a master will rightly, or wrongly, be branded as spurious. We have to be grateful to the doubters, no matter how irritating, who refuse to be overawed by authority and reputation. Yet how are we to separate the genuine from the false? Scholars cannot always comfortably defer a judgment. Once a discovery is announced, they have to take a stand, though they may live to regret it. And truth so often has a disconcerting way of remaining elusive and inconspicuous.
"O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath," said Shakespeare.
Fortunately, the faking of manuscripts is such an exacting art and demands such a rare combination of talents in order to be successful--that is, to remain undetected--that relatively few ever undertake it. The cruder productions never find acceptance for long, and with advances in textual criticism, palaeography, and chemical and physical analysis, faking may soon become a dying art. However, the issue still hangs heavily over many manuscript discoveries of the past.
FORGERIES OF LITERARY WORKS ARE LEGION. FOR THE SAKE OF NATIONAL SELF-GLORIFICATION AND RELIGIOUS DOGMATISM, DECEPTION HAS BEEN WIDELY PRACTICED.
The systematic study of manuscripts may be said to owe its inception to the growing need, in the late Middle Ages, to establish the spuriousness of false deeds and other "legal" documents. This need decisively stimulated palaeography, the science of determining the age and origin of a piece of writing. Nicolaus Cusanus, the cardinal, and Lorenzo Valla, the papal secretary, contributed enormously to textual criticism and philology--and to the scientific method itself--by unmasking FALSE CHURCH DOCUMENTS.
WE HAVE MET WITH FORGERIES AND THE LONG SHADOW CAST BY SUSPICIONS OF THEM AT ALMOST EVERY TURN OF OUR STORY. In the nineteenth century there were such colorful practitioners as Constantine Simonides and the Karaite fanatic, Abraham Firkovich. There have been a host of others before and after. Recent scandals of this nature, among them the Van Meegeren fakes of Vermeer and the false statues of Etruscan warriors in New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art, have created considerable awareness of forgery in the arts and in archaeology.' [404-405].
Appreciation of Leo Wiener 1862 - 1939
from: "The New York Times", Thursday, December 14, 1939, page 27:
Dr. Leo Wiener, 77;
Professor Emeritus of Slavic
Languages and Literature
at Harvard is Dead
Translator of Tolstoy
Polish Immigrant Taught in
Middle Western Colleges
Before Returning East
Special to THE NEW YORK TIMES.
Boston, Dec. 13--Dr. Leo Wiener, Professor Emeritus of Slavic Languages and Literature at Harvard College and widely known writer on history and philology, died late last night at his home in Belmont at the age of 77.
Professor Wiener was born at Bialystok, Poland [then, Russia], July 26, 1862, and was educated at Warsaw, Minsk, Russia, and Berlin. He came to this country in 1882 and settled in Kansas City, Mo. After serving for a time as an instructor in a small college at Odessa, Mo., he joined the faculty of the University of Missouri, where he was assistant professor of German and romance languages.
In 1895 he taught languages at the New England Conservatory of Music and in 1896 he became an instructor at Harvard, rising in 1911 to the rank of professor. At Harvard he specialized in teaching the Slavic and romance languages. He retired as Professor Emeritus in 1930.
Professor Wiener was a prolific writer, the author of many books and articles, as well as more important works. Among his works were the "Anthology of Russian Literature," "An Interpretation of the Russian People" and "Commentary to the Germanic Laws and Mediaeval Documents." He was also translator and editor of the "Complete Works of Leo N. Tolstoy," a twenty-four-volume work.
His widow, Mrs. Bertha Kahn Wiener, and four children, Professor Norberth [Norbert] Wiener of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Mrs. Philip M. Franklin of Belmont, Mrs. C.W. Dodge of St. Louis and Frederick Wiener of Vermont.
Funeral services will be held at 2 P.M. on Friday at the First Unitarian Church in Belmont.
from: American National Biography, Volume 23, Oxford, 1999.
'Wiener, Leo (28 July 1862-12 Dec. 1939), philologist, translator, and educator, was born in Bialystok, Russia (now part of Poland), the son of Salomon Wiener, a scholar and teacher, and Frederika Rabinowitch, who was descended from a distinguished rabbinic family. Wiener grew up in a multilingual environment congenial to his stunning linguistic abilities. Although Wiener had a French governess, his father insisted that German be spoken at home. Hebrew was cultivated as the traditional language of prayer, study, and Jewish intellectual discourse, while Yiddish, Russian, and Polish were the vernaculars most commonly used in Bialystok." [341-342].
"When the World War I erupted in 1914, Wiener attempted to explain the mentality of the Russian people to Americans in his popular work An Interpretation of the Russian People (1915). In the same spirit he translated V.V. Veresaev's memoirs of the Russian-Japanese War of 1904-1905, In the War (1917). With the ascendancy of the Communist regime, Wiener lost interest in Russia. He wrote only one other book about the literature he loved, The Contemporary Drama of Russia (1924)." .
'Wiener's linguistic interests ranged far. His articles include studies of Ladino (Judaeo-Spanish), Maya language, Native American languages, medieval Latin, Medieval Arabic, Sumerian, and Egyptian. Toward the end of his life Wiener was familiar with some thirty languages. Steady employment enabled Wiener in 1903 to purchase a farm in Ayer, Massachusetts. There his old enthusiasm for tilling the soil reasserted itself.
"To my father's dying day," Norbert Wiener observed in his memoirs, "he was more pleased by raising a better crop than his professional farmer-neighbors than he would have been by the greatest philological discovery."
In 1932 Wiener was injured in a car accident. He died of a stroke in Belmont, Massachusetts. His work combined prodigious research and scrupulous scholarship with informed guesswork. Wiener did not pursue philology for its own sake but thought it a useful tool in his true profession as cultural historian.
papers covering the years between 1880 and 1935 are in the Harvard
University Archives. Norbert Wiener, Ex-Prodigy: My Childhood
and Youth (1953) [see 1948-1953], is a valuable source of information
about Wiener's personality. A comprehensive modern assessment is
Susanne Klingenstein, "A Philologist: The Adventures of Leo
Wiener (1862-1839 )," in her Jews in the American
Academy, 1900-1940 (1991). An obituary is in the New York
Times, 14 Dec. 1939 [see 1946].
Susanne Klingenstein' 
from: Ex-Prodigy, My Childhood and Youth, Norbert Wiener, M.I.T., 1953.
As this book will show, at one period I was an infant prodigy in the full sense of the word, for I entered college before the age of twelve, obtained my bachelor's degree before fifteen, and my doctorate before nineteen [Ph.D., Philosophy, Harvard, age 18]...." .
"Let me insert here a word or two about the Jewish family structure which is not irrelevant to the Jewish tradition of learning. At all times, the young learned man, and especially the rabbi, whether or not he had an ounce of practical judgment and was able to make a good career for himself in life, was always a match for the daughter of the rich merchant. Biologically this led to a situation in sharp contrast to that of the Christians of earlier times. The Western Christian learned man was absorbed in the church, and whether he had children or not, he was certainly not supposed to have them, and actually tended to be less fertile than the community around him. On the other hand, the Jewish scholar was very often in a position to have a large family. Thus THE BIOLOGICAL HABITS OF THE CHRISTIANS TENDED TO BREED OUT OF THE RACE WHATEVER HEREDITARY QUALITIES MAKE FOR LEARNING, WHEREAS THE BIOLOGICAL HABITS OF THE JEW TENDED TO BREED THESE QUALITIES IN. To what extent this genetic difference supplemented the cultural trend for learning among the Jews is difficult to say. But there is no reason to believe that the genetic factor was negligible. I have talked this matter over with my friend, Professor J.B.S. Haldane [1892 - 1964], and he certainly is of the same opinion. Indeed, it is quite possible that in giving this opinion I am merely presenting an idea which I have borrowed from Professor Haldane." [11-12].
Excursus: from: #3, 79-80; #4, 124 (Christian "Eugenics"):
408. "[Chapman Cohen] When the complete record of Christianity's misdeeds is finally and accurately written, this will stand out as its greatest crime against civilization. Its greatest crime has been, not the burning of men at the stake or the imprisonment of others in a Christian dungeon, but in the lower type of mind and character that it has encouraged, in the hypocrisy that it has made almost a second character. In Pagan Rome it was said that one priest could not meet another without a smile. If Christian can meet Christian today with a grave face, it is only because the selective influence of Christianity has developed a type that lacks the wit to perceive the absurdity of its own religious beliefs." [End of essay].
409. "the Church brutalised the breed of our forefathers. She acted precisely as if she had aimed at selecting the rudest portion of the community to be, alone, the parents of future generations. She practised the arts which breeders would use, who aimed at creating ferocious, currish, and stupid natures." [Sir Francis Galton 1822 - 1911].
410. '[Chapman Cohen] The nature of this process ["an hypocrisy that is unconscious, ingrained, organic, secured by a process of elimination that has been at work for many generations." (123)] has been well pointed out by Mr. [Sir] Francis Galton in the following passage:
The policy of the religious world in Europe...having first captured all the gentle natures and condemned them to celibacy, made another sweep of her [the Church's] huge nets...to catch those who were the most fearless, truth-seeking, and intelligent in their modes of thought, and therefore the most suitable parents of a high civilization, and put a strong check, if not a direct stop, to their progeny. Those she reserved on these occasions, to breed the generations of the future, were the servile, the indifferent, and again, the stupid. Thus as she...brutalized human nature by her system of celibacy applied to the gentle, she demoralized it by her system of persecution of the intelligent, the sincere, and the free. It is enough to make the blood boil to think of the blind folly that has caused the foremost nations of struggling humanity to be the heirs of such hateful ancestry, and that has so bred our instincts as to keep them in an unnecessarily long continued antagonism with the essential requirements of a steadily advancing civilization.2' ["2Hereditary Genius, p. 358."].
547. "the Church brutalized the breed of our forefathers...She [paraphrase]...aimed at creating ferocious, currish and stupid natures....It is enough to make the blood boil...to be the heirs of such hateful ancestry". [Sir Francis Galton 1822 - 1911].
End of Excursus.
'My father [Leo Wiener] chose to become a teacher of languages. He might almost as readily have become a teacher of mathematics, for he had both talent and interest in the field. Indeed, throughout my college training I learned the large part of my mathematics from him. There are times when I think that it would have been more fortunate for my father if he had taken mathematics for his field rather than philology." .
"I cannot imagine my father or myself being greatly moved as the Mills [James Mill 1773 - 1836, John Stuart Mill (son) 1806 - 1873] were by the icy glitter of Pope's translation of Homer. The poetry that most moved my father, as it has most moved me, was that of Heine [Heinrich Heine 1797 - 1856], with its aspiration for the beautiful and the bitter revulsion which comes as the poet sees far too clearly the horrible contrast of that which is with that which he would like to believe. I cannot imagine Mill [apparently, John Stuart Mill] regarding Heine as more than an impertinent upstart, although there well may be hidden references to Heine in Mill's books which give me the lie." .
"Religious problems seem to have dominated Samuel Butler [1835 - 1902] and also John Stuart Mill in the relations with their fathers. These problems were even more acute in the youth of Edmund Gosse [Sir Edmund William Gosse 1849 - 1928], another writer who must be mentioned in the discussion of father-son relations. Gosse's book Father and Son is like Butler's in being the account of the relations of a boy with a desire for independence to a very dominant father with theological interests. Indeed, Mill's book, for all of the want of a formal theology on the part of both father and son, has a strongly ethical tone which echoes similar preoccupation. In my own case, while my father was a man of strong moral sense, it cannot be said that he had any great interest in theology. The source of his humanitarianism was Tolstoy [Count Lev Nikolayevich 1828 - 1910], and even though Tolstoy embellishes his propagandist texts with many quotations from the Bible, he is at home with that side of Christianity which preaches humility and charity and extols the virtue of the oppressed and undervalued. I have already said that I had begun to express doubts of religion at the early age of five, in terms that would have brought me severe castigation and even more severe chiding at the hands of the elder Butler or the elder Gosse.
Let me return to the details of my own history. I certainly do not remember any effective opposition on the part of my father [Leo Wiener]. Indeed, I strongly suspect that my infantile adventures in agnosticism and atheism were scarcely more than a reflection of my father's own attitude which may have reflected the attitude of my scapegrace ["syn: black sheep"; etc.] grandfather, who had already left the fold of Judaism without embracing any equivalent religion. Even a skeptic like James Mill would have found my levity intolerable. My own career as an infant prodigy thus differs from that of these victims or beneficiaries of dominant fathers in that it was entirely on a secular plane.
It is clear that religion or the equivalent moral questions were what made the mid-Victorian tick. With my father [Leo Wiener] as with me, the predominating motive was that of a profound intellectual curiosity. He was a philologist; and for him, philology was more nearly an exploratory tool for the historian than a declaration of learning, or the means of taking to one's own soul the great writers of the past. Although there was always a strong moral implication in my father's personality and in the course of life toward which he directed me, my interest in science started with a devotion rather to the service of truth than to the service of humanity....
The service of truth, though not primarily a task of ethics, is one which both my father and I conceived to impose upon us the greatest moral obligation possible....
My father [Leo Wiener] felt the demand of intellectual honesty to be one which the scholar can as little repudiate on the basis of any personal danger into which it might lead him as the soldier can repudiate the duty to fight at the front or the doctor to stay and be effective in a plague-stricken city. Nevertheless, it was an obligation which both of us conceived to belong to a man, not merely as a human being, but precisely because he had chosen himself for the specific devotion of being a servant of the truth." [72, 73-74].
"I have said that my father [Leo Wiener] was a romanticist rather than a Victorian classicist. His closest spiritual kin, besides Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, were the German Liberals of 1848. His righteousness partook of the element of élan, of triumph, of glorious and effective effort, of drinking deep of life and the emotions thereof. For me, a boy just starting life, this made him in many ways a noble and uplifting figure, a poet at heart, amid the frigid and repressed figures of an uninspiring and decadent Boston. It was because of this, because my taskmaster was at the same time my hero, that I was not bent down into mere sullen ineffectiveness by the arduous course of discipline through which I went." .
"My parents took me [Norbert Wiener] to Dr. Haskell, our oculist, who gave strict orders that I was not to read for a period of six months, and that at the end of this period the entire question of my reading was to be reconsidered. Father [Leo Wiener] went ahead teaching me mathematics, both algebra and geometry, by ear, and my chemistry lessons went on. This period of ear training rather than eye training was probably one of the most valuable disciplines through which I have ever gone, for it forced me to be able to do my mathematics in my head and to think of languages as they are spoken rather than as mere exercises in writing. Many years later my training proved of great service to me when I came to learn Chinese, which a complicated notation has rendered far more difficult to the eye than it is to the ear. I don't suppose that this early training created the very good memory which I have carried with me down to the present day, but it certainly showed me that I had such a memory and made it possible for me to exploit it." [75-76].
This, then, concludes the account of my life from my birth in 1894 until 1926, when I was married at the age of thirty-one. I had joined the staff of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and there I have remained ever since." .
"I had the chance to sit under a very great man [father: Leo Wiener], and to see the inner operations of his mind. It is neither family conceit nor filial loyalty which makes me say this. I have lived the life of an active scholar for a third of a century, and I know very well the intellectual mettle of those with whom I have come into contact. My father's work was marred by flights of fancy to which he was unable to give full logical support, and more than one of his ideas has failed to stand the test of later criticism. To be a pioneer in a subject which, like philology, has a very attenuated inner discipline, is to run this risk. My father was a rather isolated worker, an enthusiast, and a man who had come from a different early career. This made his shortcomings almost inevitable; yet his influence in philology is comparable with that of Jespersen, and was an anticipation of the modern school of philologists who see in the cultural history of a language a stronger stream of continuity than in its merely formal phonetic and grammatical development. Both the phoneticists and the semanticists of the present day have come to a position closer to that of my father than to that of most of his contemporaries.
My work with my father [Leo Wiener] may seem to have been an almost unbroken series of clashes, and indeed the clashes were not few. He was a sensitive man, who felt the lack of the general recognition which he conceived to be his due. He sought for me to be not only his disciple but his friendly critic and perhaps his continuator. These were impossible roles for even a mature trained philologist to hold simultaneously; and they were absolutely out of the question for a half-grown boy. When I expressed any doubts of his logic, and I had some sincere doubts, I was berated as an impudent, unfilial child. Yet I could perceive at the same time the agony of my father and his need for approval. I knew that he sought for approval in what he felt was the one quarter in which he could expect it. Thus my self-protective anger and resentment were not unmixed with pity.
Father [Leo Wiener] was disappointed that his work did not achieve what he considered and what I consider adequate early recognition. He was not by any means a failure, nor did he think he was a failure, either in his intellectual contribution or in the general frame of academic success. As to the latter, Father reached and held the rank of full professor at Harvard, and was without any doubt esteemed very highly as a linguist and philologist of most individual genius. Yet among the very colleagues who esteemed him, I think there were few who realized that the position he was taking in the philological world was revolutionary. Neither do I think that, notwithstanding his respect for his Harvard colleagues, many of them represented to him a stage of philological learning and sophistication which could constitute a code whose judgment had any great meaning for him. Before he had repudiated Germany and Germany had repudiated him, his heart had been set on a German recognition which was unattainable in the closed German philological world of that epoch. Even after his break with all things German, I think he still looked toward Europe and hoped that in some miraculous way, a dove would appear from nowhere with an olive branch in its beak. I think he could never have looked forward, except as a dream, to the present state of affairs in which European scholarship is largely concentrated in America and in which his own point of view, instead of being regarded as a vision of a brilliant eccentric, is accepted and accredited.
Yet the fact that a posthumous success was awaiting him so little as fifteen years after his death  can scarcely have mitigated the essential tragedy of his position. And it is possible to be a tragic figure even with an honored position at a great university and a considerable degree of regard among one's colleagues. This position Father had attained, and MY MOTHER [BERTHA KAHN WIENER] MUST BE GIVEN GREAT CREDIT FOR TAKING A BRILLIANT AND UNWORLDLY MAN AND LEADING HIM TO THAT DEGREE OF PERSONAL SUCCESS AT WHICH HE EVENTUALLY ARRIVED. It was a great success and he knew it. But it was not the position of a re-founder of a science which he deserved and to which he aspired. He had aspired to be Prometheus bringing light, and he suffered in his own eyes the fate of a Prometheus.
From him [father: Leo Wiener] I learned the standards of scholarship which belong to the real scholar, and the degree of manliness, devotion, and honesty which a scholarly career requires. I learned that scholarship is a calling and a consecration, not a job. I learned a fierce hatred of all bluff and intellectual pretense, as well as a pride in not being baffled by any problem which I could possibly solve. These are worth a price in suffering, yet I would ask this price to be exacted of no man who has not the strength to stand up to it physically and morally. This price cannot be paid by a weakling, and it can kill. That I was a boy not only endowed with a certain intellectual vigor, but also physically strong, made it possible for me to bear the wounds of this Spartan nurture. Before I should even think of subjecting any child, boy or girl, to such a training I should have to be convinced not only of the intelligence of the child, but of its physical, mental, and moral stamina.
Even if we take this stamina for granted, it is a special treatment only to be employed where no ordinary treatment is adequate to the needs of the case. With my own children, indications of the need for such a highly specialized procedure have not occurred. At no time have I tried to subject them to a similar training. I cannot say what I should have done if I had found myself faced by the problem that faced my father [Leo Wiener]." [290-293].
from: Webster's Biographical Dictionary.
"Wie-ner\'w-ner, 'v-\, Leo. 1862-1939. American scholar, b. Bialystok, Poland [then, Russia]. To U.S. (1882); taught Slavic languages and literature at U. of Missouri (1892-95), Harvard (1896-1930; professor from 1911). Author of An Interpretation of the Russian People (1915), etc.
Wiener, Norbert. 1894-1964. American mathematician, b. Columbia, Mo. Son of Leo Wiener; professor, M.I.T. (1919-60); contributed greatly to study of stochastic processes and harmonic analysis; best known as founder of cybernetics ( a term he coined), study of information processing and control. Author of Cybernetics (1948), Human Use of Human Beings (1950), God and Golem, Inc. (1964), and autobiographical Ex-Prodigy (1953) and I Am a Mathematician (1956)." .
from: Jews in the American Academy, 1900-1940, The Dynamics of Intellectual Assimilation, Susanne Klingenstein, Yale, c1991.
"The focus of this study is not on the American finish line, but on the points of departure of the Jewish intellectuals portrayed here. Taking seriously their descent culture, that is, the culture into which they were born, reveals immediately that late-nineteenth century Jewry is not a monolithic culture. This study presents men (no female academics in the humanities could be found) from a broad variety of Jewish cultural niches. The men portrayed here come from German-tinged bourgeois Russian culture (LEO WIENER), from the Haskalah-touched world of the Lithuanian yeshivot, or Talmud academies (Harry Wolfson), from the impoverished world of the traditional shetl (Morris Cohen), from German Orthodoxy (Horace Kallen), from German Reform Judaism (Felix Adler), and from the post-Romantic Prussian-German bourgeoisie (Ludwig Lewisohn). The last portrait (Lionel Trilling) leads into the next generation but also refers back to the beginning of the study. Trilling's father came from the city of Bialystok, which Leo Wiener had left in his youth." [xiii].
Excursus: from: Enlarging America, The Cultural Work of Jewish Literary Scholars, 1930-1990, Susanne Klingenstein, Syracuse University Press, 1998.
"What a wee little part of a person's life are his acts and his words! His real life is led in his head, and is known to none but himself....Biographies are but the clothes and buttons of the man--the biography of the man himself cannot be written.
Whoever turns biographer commits himself to lies, to concealment, to hypocrisy, to embellishment, and even to dissembling his own lack of understanding, for biographical truth is not to be had, and even if one had it, one could not use it.
To write history is so difficult that most historians are forced to make concessions to the techniques of legend.
--Erich Auerbach" ["vii"].
Excursus: from: Sir William Osler [1849 - 1919], Aphorisms, c1961 (c1951):
"'[letter] Melancholy [see: Selected Writings of Sir William Osler] seemed to me [Charles Singer] to be his [Sir William Osler] essence, almost his driving force. Perhaps I saw wrongly but that is what I saw in him. I always felt 'this is a man who has had some deep sorrow.' What that was no living man knows. His biography glosses it, but there it was. BIOGRAPHIES NEVER TELL THE TRUTH--HOW CAN THEY, THAT IS WHY WE ALL READ FICTION."' [22-23]. [See: 1899 (Osler)].
End of Excursuses.
A Philologist: The Adventures of Leo Wiener (1862-1939)" 
'By the time Leo was thirteen he spoke several languages. His son, Norbert, explains that
The role of German in his life was reinforced by the fact that because of the German bias of my grandfather my father went to a Lutheran school. He learned French as the language of educated society; and in Eastern Europe, especially in Poland, there were still those who adhered to the Renaissance tradition and used Italian as another language of polite conversation. Moreover, my father soon left the Minsk Gymnasium for that of Warsaw, where the classes were also conducted in Russian, although Polish was the language that he spoke with his playmates. (EP [Ex-Prodigy (see 1948-1953)] 12)
After gymnasium (high school), where he excelled in Greek, Latin, and mathematics, Leo Wiener went to Warsaw University to study medicine. But he did not take to the subject and soon left for Berlin to enroll in the Polytechnicum, a professional school for engineers. It was not a change for the better, even though in the drafting room, where he worked between a Serb and a Greek, he was able to add two more languages to his linguistic repertory (EP 14).3 Disgusted with the debauchery of German student life, he joined a vegetarian society and soon detected that "although the purposes of the new régime were of the most pacific kind, there was also a sprinkling of antisemites among them."14 The group, however, reinforced "a vein of Tolstoyanism which had long been in him, and he decided to forswear drink, tobacco, and the eating of meat for the rest of his life" (EP 14-15). The missionary strain in Tolstoyanism finally gave a direction to Leo Wiener's restless adventurous spirit. Bored with his studies and annoyed by German philistinism as he had been annoyed earlier by "Polish inflammability and Russian apathy," he decided to set out and found a vegetarian-socialist colony in British Belize.
He had enough money to sail steerage to New Orleans, where he arrived in 1880 with the essentials of both Spanish and English (learned from grammar books and Scott's The Pirate) and the notorious twenty-five cents in his pocket. By then the harebrained Central America plan had disintegrated, and so he looked for a job. He worked first as a laborer in a cotton factory, then on a railroad construction site. Later he took to the road again, fell in with "the remains of an old Fourierist community in Missouri" (EP 19) and eventually found himself at the door of a Catholic church in Kansas City lured by the sign "Gaelic lessons given." He joined the class (though not the faith), and soon became the head of the local Gaelic society.5 The "Russian Irishman" also became notorious at the public library, where he called for books nobody else would read. It was hardly surprising then that when Leo Wiener decided to end his anomalous existence as laborer, peddler, and farmer and return to intellectual work, the Kansas City superintendent of schools, to whom Wiener had applied for a job, did not hesitate to employ this strange individual.
It may reflect the superintendent's strange sense of humor that he first assigned the applicant to a country school in Odessa, Missouri. But Wiener was soon promoted to a position at the Kansas City High School, where he taught Greek, Latin, and mathematics from 1884 to 1892. Although Wiener was now on his way to becoming an academic, he remained a Tolstoyan and a passionate outdoorsman.
To the end of his life, "he was more pleased by raising a better crop than his professional farmer-neighbors than he would have been by the greatest philological discovery" (EP 19).' [8-9].
"The second half of Leo Wiener's life, which he spent in Cambridge [Massachusetts] and its vicinity, was not fundamentally different from his life before his arrival at Harvard. His rebelliousness, restlessness, and impatience, aspects of a deep-seated unease, did not disappear but merely found other outlets: in his indefatigable, almost compulsive academic production, in the frequent buying and selling of the family home, and in the education of his prodigy son. It is difficult to say to what extent his "excitability," his perfectionism which could turn into tyranny (EP 52-53), and his complete inability to ingratiate himself with anyone were part of his personal disposition and to what extent they were due to his fundamental cultural Unbehagen (discontent). He was not only thoroughly uprooted, estranged from his Jewish origins, but he was also, as a Tolstoyan peasant at Harvard, singularly displaced--a social outsider, an oddball." .
'Whether Leo Wiener experienced any anti-Semitism at Harvard is not known. It seems unlikely, because the identity he flaunted was that of a Russian. This is not to say that he denied being Jewish. But his relationship to his Jewishness was complicated, and was certainly not made easier by his wife's Jewish self-hatred.
Bertha Kahn would not only look askance at her husband's relatives--who by and by arrived in America (EP 42, 50-51)--and speak with contempt of the "gluttony of the Jews" as she spoke of the "bigotry of the Irish or the laziness of the Negroes" (EP 146), but she would even deny that her own family was Jewish. Her son Norbert learned by accident that he was a Jew when the legend of the Wieners' descent from Maimonides was mentioned in conversation by on old acquaintance of his father. When the child also found out that his mother's maiden name, Kahn, was a variant of Cohen, he was shocked. "As I reasoned it out to myself," he wrote, "I was a Jew, and if the Jews were marked by those characteristics which my mother found so hateful, why I must have those characteristics myself, and share them with all those dear to me....I could not accept myself as a person of any value" (EP 148).' [12-13].
"Leo Wiener's humanitarian solution, a staunchly advocated Tolstoyanism, never lost the flavor of being an escape, or rebellion, rather than a solution. This romantic return-to-the-soil that he practiced as a farmer was counterpoised by a second, highly abstract, solution to the problems arising in a life led in a confusion of cultures. This second solution, which eased Wiener's cultural Unbehagen, was a philological one. It developed from Wiener's phenomenal linguistic memory. Like Harold Bloom two generations later, Wiener succeeded in transforming an extraordinary natural gift into an academic method. Wiener had a command of about thirty languages, a third of which he spoke fluently.12 His linguistic competence gave him access to a variety of
cultures, ranging from the familiar Slavic, Western European, and Jewish, to the more exotic Gypsy, Arabic, Mayan, and Aztec cultures. The ability to compare liberates one from the confines of one's own culture by creating distance; and it develops structural thinking, because perception of common structures is a way to organize a profusion of material." .
"Academic research and farm work might be an ideal combination for romantic and other utopian minds, but it was not likely to enhance Wiener's acceptability in the eyes of his colleagues at Harvard. His unusual entry into the guild as well as his unorthodox philological methods made for further isolation. He did not belong. Moreover, his romantic idealism and exuberance seemed out of place "amid the frigid and repressed figures of an uninspiring and decadent Boston (EP 74); and for Wiener's love of Russia, its language and literature, Cambridge was a less welcoming place than New York might have been. At the time of the First World War Wiener's preference for Russia brought him into a head-on-collision with his German Jewish colleague at Harvard, Hugo Münsterberg." .
'Wiener's political stance and his psychological needs are hardly separable. He was restless, discontent, and he lacked patience with those surrounding him. His own interpretation of his difficulties in dealing with Jewish organizations and with the Jewish Publication Society of America in particular reflects his confusion of psychology and politics. He claimed "that the friction was the result of an arrogant insistence on the part of the Jewish organizations that a Jew was a Jew before he was a man, and that he owed inalienable allegiance to his own group before humanity itself" (EP 146). Just as Wiener was opposed to the separate existence of Jews within another nation, he was opposed to their forming a separate state. In his exchange with Israel Zangwill, whom he considered "one of the most eloquent British Zionists," he pointed to the difficulties arising "from the superimposition of a Jewish colony upon a Moslem background" and insisted "that the future of the Jews in the newer countries lay in their identifying their interest with those of the country, not in opening the wound of a separate new nationalism" (EP 56).' .
'Leo Wiener sought to transcend the particularity of his descent by entering the realm of language, where nationalist prejudice would yield to "scientific vision" and where insight into the "common linguistic phenomena" would establish equality in the "sisterhood of languages" (and thus among their speakers).42' [would Leo Wiener agree?]. .
from: Commentary to the Germanic Laws and Mediaeval Documents, By Leo Wiener, Professor of Slavic Languages and Literatures at Harvard University, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, London: Humphrey Milford, Oxford University Press, 1915.
Abbott Lawrence Lowell
President of Harvard University
Who Has Encouraged Me in
My Labor of Research
This Volume is Gratefully
Several years ago the study of the private and public documents of the Middle Ages, which I consulted for the etymology of difficult words, revealed to me a strange fact: the vast majority of words treated by the Germanic, Romance, and Slavic philologists had been studied with an utter disregard of documentary evidence. At every turn the facts belied the scientific deductions. Neither chronology nor phonetics were approximately correct in any given case....
Puzzled by this obvious discrepancy, I passed more than five years in analyzing and excerpting all the accessible documents, to the number of 250,000 or more, from the earliest times of the Roman Empire to the year 1300. When I finally arranged my material, and, in the light of the facts thus discovered studied the Germanic laws and everything that had been written on the subject, I was shocked to find that hardly a historical fact, hardly a law, had been ascertained in connection with the morphological and semantic development of intrinsic words. If the historian had to deal with a difficult word, he consulted the etymological dictionaries, and if the etymologist needed a historic fact in order to explain the meaning of a word, he consulted a historian. Thus there was created a vicious circle which produced Germanic, Romance, and Slavic philology." ["vii"].
"With rare exceptions all the modern writers who, since the seventeenth century, have written on the Gothic Bible have accepted the dictum of those older authorities as final and have proceeded on the assumption that we have before us genuine documents of the time of Ulfilas [c. 311 - c. 382] or, at best, of redactions not more recent than the middle of the sixth century. But a number of important facts have been overlooked by them or have been so interpreted as to fit in with the a priori assumption. It, therefore, becomes necessary to reinvestigate all the Gothic manuscripts, both textually and palaeographically, before any theory independent of the statement by Philostorgius [c. 368 - c. 433] and the other ancient writers may be propounded." [xxxvi].
"one must again remember Traube's own statement that the Carolingian [c. 613 - c. 987] writers imitated fifth century [400 - 500] books down to minute details." [xlii].
from: Contributions Toward A History of Arabico-Gothic Culture, Volume III, Tacitus' Germania & Other Forgeries, By Leo Wiener, Professor of Slavic Languages and Literatures at Harvard University, author of "A Commentary to the Germanic Laws and Mediaeval Documents [see 1958]," "Contributions Toward a History of Arabico [Spanish Arabian]-Gothic Culture," "History of Yiddish Literature," "History of the Contemporary Russian Drama," "Anthology of Russian Literature," "Interpretation of the Russian People;" Translator of the Works of Tolstoy; Contributor to German, Russian, French, English, and American Philological Periodicals, Etc., Etc. Innes & Sons, 129-135 N. Twelfth St., Philadelphia, PA. MCMXX.
[I thank Cliff Carrington (search on google.com), Australia, for this reference].
"Sources Quoted [some samples]....
- Ammianus Marcellinus. Rerum gestarum libri qui supersunt, ed. by F. Eyssenhardt, Berolini 1971....
- Augustine, St. Migne, vols. XXXII, XXXIII, XLII, and CSEL., vol. XL....
- Bede. Migne, vol. XC....
- Cassiodorus. Opera omnia, ed. by J. Garet, Rotomagi 1679....Codex Theodosianus cum perpetuis commentariis Jacobi Gothofredi, ed. by J.D. Ritter, vol. V, Lipsiae 1741....
- Delahaye, H. Les légendes grecques des saints militaires, Paris 1909....
- Dio Chrysostom. Dionis Prussaensis quem vocant Chrysostomum quae exstant omnia, ed. by J. de Arnim, vol. II, Berolini 1896....
- Gregory of Tours. MGH., Scriptores rerum merovingicarum, vol. I....
- Hochart, P. De l'authenticité des Annales et des Histories de Tacite,Paris 1890....
- Migne, J. Patrologia graeca.
- Vol. XLII. Epiphanius Episcopus.
- Vol. LXXXVI. Eusebius.
- Vol. CI. Photius C.P. Patriarcha.
- Patrologia latina.
- Vol. X. S. Hilarii opera omnia.
- Vol. XVI. S. Ambrosii opera omnia.
- Vol. XXIII. S. Hieronymi opera omnia.
- Vols. XXXII, XXXIII, XLII. S. Aurelii Augustini opera omnia.
- Vol. XC. Venerabilis Bedae opera omnia....
- Orosius. Historiarum adversum paganos libri VII, ed. by C.
- Zangemeister, Vindobonae 1882, in CSEL., vol. V....
- Strabo. Geographica, ed. by C. Müller and F. Dübner, Parisiis 1853....
- Tacitus. Opera quae supersunt, ed. by J.G. Orellius, Turici, Berolini 1859-95....
- Zeno, Apostolo Dissertazioni Vossiane, vol. II, Venezia 1753....
- Zotenberg, H. Chronique de Abou-Djafar-Mo'hammed-Ben-Djarir-Ben-Yezid
- Tabari, vol. I, Paris 1867." ["xiii"-xx].
My Commentary to the Germanic Laws and Mediaeval Documents [see 1958], I must confess, suffers from a serious drawback--it is too conservative. When I wrote it, I was dimly conscious of the geological fault underlying the structure of Germanic history, philology, palaeography, and allied subjects, but I could not tear myself away from many accepted scientific [sic] conclusions, because it had not occurred to me that the stupendous scientific structure was reared exclusively on a foundation that would collapse the moment the geological fault led to an earthquake. Therefore I quoted Tacitus, Jordanes, and Auxentius as authorities, or, at least, did not disturb the conclusions to which they led. As my investigation proceeded, it became clearer and clearer that there was something wrong in the cherished authors, but I was totally unable to account for the positive references to Goths in the Greek authors, such as Procopius, and in the Greek synaxaries and martyrologies. It seemed incredible that such a distant subject as that dealing with the Goths, who had little in common with the Greeks, should have found its way so permanently into Greek thought.
A series of fortunate discoveries, many of them quite accidental, solved the puzzling questions beyond any expectation. The Graeco-Gothic relations became obvious at a flash, when the Tetraxite or Crimean Goths turned out to be a fraud. The whole history of the Crimean Goths is based on the definite account of John, the son of Photina, the bishop of the Goths, who was sent to the Tetraxite Goths at the end of the eighth century. All authors who have written on the subject have taken pains to elaborate on the importance of the story, and the presence of this saint in the Greek synaxaries under June 26. When I discovered, quite accidentally, that this saint was purloined from Jon Bar-Aphtonia, the Syrian saint, given in the Syrian synaxaries under June 26 as a Syrian bishop in the first half of the sixth century, all the other Gothic entries in the Greek calendars became invalidated, such as the burning of the Gothic church and the references to Ulfilas. THERE WAS NO ESCAPE--THE SPANISH GOTHS OF THE EIGHTH AND NINTH CENTURIES NOT ONLY FURNISHED WHOLESALE LITERARY AND DOCUMENTARY FRAUDS TO THE WESTERN WORLD, BUT ALSO INSPIRED INTERPOLATIONS AND MORE IMPORTANT FRAUDS IN GREEK LITERATURE.
I STILL CLUNG TO TACITUS. I HAD BEEN BROUGHT UP IN THE WORSHIP OF TACITUS, ESPECIALLY OF HIS GERMANIA. The more than seven hundred pages of A. Baumstark's Ausführliche Erläuterung des allgemeinen Theiles der Germania des Tacitus, and the more than three hundred pages of his Ausführliche Erläuterung des besondern völkerschaftlichen Theiles der Germania des Tacitus, filled me with awe. But one day, while confined to my room by an attack of the grippe, I picked up the Germania, to use it as an anodyne. Now, after I had become acquainted with the literary and linguistic balderdash of the Hispericists and had studied minutely Virgil Maro the Grammarian and Aethicus, I was struck by the amazing similarity in method in the Germania and the writers who had fallen under Arabic influence, and AT A GLANCE RECOGNIZED THAT THE GERMANIA WAS MERELY AN ELABORATION OF CAESAR'S DE BELLO GALLICO, where he deals with the manners of the Gauls and Germans and the mysterious animals. THE INVESTIGATION WHICH FOLLOWED PROVED THIS ASSUMPTION CORRECT DOWN TO THE MINUTEST DETAIL.
The very great mass of material before me makes it impossible to treat it all in one volume, hence I only summarily refer to the forgeries and interpolations in Cassiodorus [485/490 - c. 580], Bede [c. 673 - 735], and Ammianus [Ammianus Marcellinus c. 330 - 395]. All these and many more will be analyzed in a future [?] volume. The next volume will give the proof that the Physiologus is of Syrio-Arabic origin, and incidentally will confirm the fact that Gregory of Tours [538 - 594] has come down to us highly interpolated and that a series of other works, ascribed to Rufinus [probably the Rufinus 345 - 410] and others, are eighth century forgeries. Meanwhile,
I BEG THE READER TO CONCENTRATE HIS ATTENTION ON JORDANES' GETICA AND TACITUS' GERMANIA, WHERE THE CONCLUSIONS ARE FINAL.
Again and again must I express my thanks to Mr. J.B. Stetson, Jr., of Philadelphia, through whose assistance my labors have brought such early fruition. The last chapter, on an interpolation of Venantius Fortunatus [c. 540 - c. 600], is by Mr. Phillips Barry, who has followed my investigation for years, and is now collecting material on the origin of the Celtic Antiquitas.
The Author [Leo Wiener]." ["ix"-xi].
"It is obvious that Isidore [probably St. Isidore of Seville c. 560 - 636] took nothing whatsoever out of Eutropius [probably the Eutropius d. c. 370], and could have made nothing out of Orosius, if such had existed. Isidore got everything he needed out of Justin, while Pseudo-Orosius tried to improve Isidore with passages from Justin [Justin Martyr c. 100 - c. 165], Eutropius, and St. Augustine [354 - 430]." [22-23].
'We now have the difficult task of explaining how Orosius' Historica adversus paganos got mentioned in works presumably of the fifth and sixth centuries. Zangemeister mentions one manuscript of Orosius [early 5th century], the Laurentianus (L), which they claim to be of the sixth century, because of its being written in uncials. But UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS CANNOT BE DATED BY THE SCRIPT ALONE, and the Laurentianus is by no means a good copy, as far as the text goes. At the end of Book V there is the following notice: "Confectus codex in statione magistri uiliaric antiquarii ora pro me scribtore sic dnm habeas protectorem." Thus we see that a Goth was the copyist. There can be little doubt that it was a Spanish Goth of the eighth century, one of those who used the title Ormista for the book.' .
"But the Decretum Gelasianum is a well-known forgery, of which the oldest manuscript is of the eighth century.3" .
"A paraphrase from Gennadius on Orosius is found in Marcellini Comitis Chronicon, under the year 416.3 It is generally assumed that this Chronicle was written in the middle of the sixth century. The palaeographic proof is based on manuscript T, SUPPOSEDLY of the sixth century.4 Fortunately we have a reproduction of this manuscript.5 A glance at it shows that it cannot be earlier than of the eighth century, on account of the use of long i in the uncials. On the historical side, the proof is based on the fact that it quotes Orosius [5th century] profusely. If, indeed, Marcellinus quotes Orosius, and not vice versa, Marcellinus cannot be earlier than the end of the seventh or of the eighth century. Marcellinus is generally unknown in the Middle Ages.6 He is apparently excerpted by Jordanes [6th century], but Jordanes is an eighth century forgery. The citations in Bede are too late to be of any use; besides, Bede [c. 673 - 735] has come down to us in interpolated editions of the end of the eighth century.7" .
"We can now approach the interpolations and forgeries connected with Cassiodorus [c. 490 - c. 585], at least such as refer to the Historia tripartita and the De institutione. Of neither have we any early texts, the manuscripts of the latter not remounting above the twelfth century, and of the first not much farther back.
In the Preface of the Historia tripartita1 we are informed that Cassiodorus read Socrates ["Byzantine church historian." c. 380 - c. 450], Sozomenus, and Theodoretus and found that there was too much material in them, also that by the aid of Epiphanius Scholasticus [c. 510] he reduced the three to one work.2 This is contradicted by the statement in De institutione divinarum literarum that he ordered Epiphanius to translate the works and bring them together into one volume.1 It is now generally admitted that Cassiodorus could not have written such horrible Latinity and have committed the many blunders contained in the Historia tripartita, and that Epiphanius Scholasticus must be guilty of the atrocious translation, Cassiodorus being merely responsible for its edition.2 But it is inconceivable that Cassiodorus, with his limpid style, could have fathered a work which Beatus Rhenanus calls a perversion, not a version.3" [30-31].
"Orosius is several times mentioned in Gregory of Tours [538 - 594]. Cointe has long ago pointed out that there were interpolations in Gregory of Tours, but Arndt and Krusch think that Cointe's theory has been exploded, because we possess uncial manuscripts of Gregory's works.3 This is the weak point in the reply, since IT MUST NOW BE ACCEPTED AS SETTLED THAT NO UNCIAL MANUSCRIPT CAN BE DATED ON THE BASIS OF ITS SCRIPT." .
"This development and embellishment of the original story in Eusebius is obviously apocryphal, since Justin Martyr2 and Tertullian3 know of Christianity among the Scythians much earlier; but the account in Philostorgius [c. 368 - c. 433] is so clearly a development of the chance references in Sozomenus to Gallienus, Asia Minor, and captives, that the first can only have borrowed from the second. Sozomenus wrote about 450, when Philostorgius was most likely dead. At any rate, the history of Philostorgius goes up to 424, that of Sozomenus, at lest up to 439. It is, therefore, certain that Philostorgius had nothing whatsoever to do with the account of Ulfilas [c. 311 - c. 382]. Photius [c. 820 - 891] was not above distorting facts, and his lying propensities have been fully discussed. His tendency to insert passages
of his own into the work of other people is well known.4 Just as he appropriated whole passages from Theodoretus,5 without even mentioning the fact, so we may be quite sure that he similarly plagiarized Sozomenus for his passage in Philostorgius. The testimony of Photius, for we have not the original Philostorgius, is worthless and must be abandoned." .
"Obviously there was no statement made before that Auxentius was from Dorostorum. If it was, then the whole commentary is a worthless jumble from the start. One can see how the forger (for it can only be a forger who wrote this Commentary) came to make the final statement. He made Auxentius, the friend and associate of Demophilus, write the letter about Ulfilas, and later3 made both accompany Ulfilas to Constantinople. Now, the Auxentius who was the associate of Demophilus was Auxentius of Milan,4 who died in 374. The forger, noticing toward the end of his Commentary that he had made a blunder in date, created a new Auxentius, of Dorostorum, to present a letter about Ulfilas in or after 381, although no such Auxentius is known to history." .
"We shall find a still worse forgery in Ammianus later on. It is certainly curious that not a word was ever written about Ammianus before the sixteenth century, except a short reference to a sentence from the fourteenth book in Priscianus, XI. 51, and that the work of Marcellinus, which Poggio claimed to have found at Hersfeld or Fulda, should almost begin with that sentence, FOR HE CLAIMED to have found Marcellinus only beginning with book XIV. It looks as though Poggio used the sentence in Priscianus as a basis for his fabrication.2" .
"It is only Tacitus and Strabo who speak of Germanic Marsi. In the Annales of Tacitus, I. 56 and II. 25, and in I. 50, 51 we are told how the Roman soldiers arrived in the evening in the villages of the unsuspecting Marsi. Caesar divided his legions into four parts, and these laid waste fifty miles of territory. Neither sex nor age was spared. Their dwellings and sacred things and that famous temple, which they called Tamfanae, were razed to the ground.
This story is identical with that of the destruction of the Italian Marsi, as told in the Roman historians and retold in Orosius, V. 18. But THE FORGER OF THE ANNALES [OF TACITUS] got his account of the destruction of the temple from Isidore:
Isidore, Etymologiae. Tacitus."
[Two columns, in Latin, for comparisons, not presented]. .
"This correlation of the Marsi with Arminius in Tacitus, which is identical with the correlation of Herminon and the Marsi in Pseudo-Berosus, if nothing else, CONDEMNS THE ANNALES OF TACITUS, IN THE FORM IN WHICH WE HAVE THAT WORK, AS A BOLD FORGERY, and Strabo as greatly interpolated." [161-162].
"I have already shown that there are many interpolations in Dio Cassius." .
"No doubt many more interesting myths may be discovered in Jordanes. In the meantime, I have given enough to show that Jordanes is an eighth or early ninth century forgery, without a trace of historic background, except in a most distant way. I shall return to the subject at some future time. Now that I have discovered and described the condition of the Gothic Antiquitas, from which Jordanes drew most of his stories, I shall point out the most significant results from this Arabico-Gothic forgery." [End of chapter IV.] .
In the preceding pages I have shown what the constitution of the Gothic Antiquitas must have been, and how it was composed out of scraps of Dio Chrysostom, Persian mythology, and Syrian romances, many of these through Arabic sources. The influence of this Antiquitas on the works of antiquity has been enormous. Nearly all writings which dealt with reference to the Goths were in the eighth century "CORRECTED" in the light of what was supposed to be a genuine source of information. I have barely begun to trace the results of that baleful school of "correctors," who have tampered with genuine works, and the still more baleful school of forgers, who, on the basis of the Antiquitas, have created havoc in history.' ["174"].
"Poor Annius Viterbensis [Nanni]! What obloquy has been heaped upon him in the last four hundred years! As great a scholar as Trithemius, to whom we owe the preservation of one of the most important forgeries of the eighth century, he has suffered even more at the hands of his detractors, as well as his friends; but it will not be difficult to reestablish his reputation as one of the great Renaissance writers." . [See: 1744-1746 (Nanni)].
"It is sheer madness to accuse such a man [Nanni] of wilful forgery. A man who is supposed to have concocted all the Italian and Germanic antiquities would most certainly have committed a forgery on the Spanish antiquity, since his whole volume is dedicated to Ferdinand and Isabella; but he only builds up the origin of Spain by harmonizing Eusebius, Berosus, and the other authorities, in so far as they bear on Spanish antiquity. Of course, the books he published were all forgeries, but they were forgeries made in the eighth or ninth century by that clever school of genealogical forgers who produced the writings of Aethicus, Virgil Maro, Hegesippus, Jordanes, Tacitus, etc. Most, possibly all, the books, came from a collection which was made in 1315 by a certain Guilielmus of Mantua,4 in which there was also a fragment of Verrius, which he quoted.5" .
"I DO NOT DISCUSS THE CORRESPONDING PASSAGE IN TACITUS' GERMANIA, BECAUSE I SHALL ANALYZE THIS SILLY [see 1989 (clumsy)] FORGERY LATER ON." .
"Hunibald's History of the origin of the Franks is a forgery, and the only question is whether Trithemius was deceived by some one else who ascribed these forged Annals to Hunibald or whether he [Trithemius] himself concocted this Hunibald." [221-222].
"What else can be concluded from all this but that the whole history of the Franks originated in Trithemius' head?" .
"Now Tacitus, or, to speak more correctly, Pseudo-Tacitus,2 has consistently transferred the description of the Gauls to that of the Germans, in order to harmonize the Gallic and Germanic sides of the Franks. In the Germania the account of the Druids is found scattered in various chapters. In chapter VII we are told that no one among the Germans dared to punish criminals except the priests, as the crime was considered one against the gods. This is a paraphrase of the judicial duties of the Druids in Caesar:
[Two columns, in Latin, for comparisons, not presented]. [236-237].
"Chapter IX in Tacitus is similarly cribbed out of Caesar, VI. 16 and 17:
[Two columns, in Latin, for comparisons, not presented. .
[footnote] "1P. Hochart (De l'authenticité des Annales et des Histories de Tacite, Paris 1890), is unquestionably mistaken in his assumption that Poggio Bracciolini forged the Historiae and Annales, because the Germania was written before 851 and is based on them. But, to say the least, the Historiae and Annales have interpolations of as late as the eighth century, and these I discuss elsewhere." .
"In chapter XI of the Germania we have a good illustration of the eclectic [see 1852] way in which the history of the Germans was made up.
[Two columns, in Latin, for comparisons, not presented. .
"From what precedes it is clear that the forger who wrote the Germania, either on his own account, or because he found it so in his sources, tried to ascribe all the qualities of the Gauls and Druids to the Germans, that is, to the Franks. This is precisely what is done throughout Hunibald's work, as we learn from Trithemius' compilation." .
"Hochart observed,1 quite correctly, that in Tacitus' Annals and Historiae there is a queer description of a ship that has a prow at both ends and can move in either direction. Curiously enough, the Germania has the same account, and from a study of the three passages it may be shown that we have before us, to say the least, eighth century interpolations in the Historiae and Annales." . [See: 1816].
"The Germania of Tacitus.
A number of passages in the Germania have already been shown to proceed from a forger. We can now review the whole and discuss the borrowings and forgeries in detail." ["273"].
"With a little patience one may find the origin of all the romantic account of the Germans in Caesar's De bello gallico. I have shown enough to prove that the forger combined rascality with a ready wit and a certain amount of linguistic stupidity in his retelling of Caesar. I shall now proceed to investigate those parts which show unmistakable Arabic influence, thus definitely locating the forgery after 711." .
"THE UTTER WORTHLESSNESS OF THE GERMANIA [OF TACITUS] IS PATENT, BEYOND ANY POSSIBILITY OF DEFENCE. ONLY THE MENTALLY BLIND WILL DEFEND IT,
even as the nineteenth century forgeries, such as the notorious Kooeninginhof Manuscript, still find advocates. It is sad to contemplate that Germanic history and allied subjects are based on the Germania and the Getica, two monuments of conscious fraud and unconscious stupidity, the result of the first flower of Arabic romance, which led to The Thousand and One Nights. One may as well reconstruct history from this latter work, as draw any historical conclusions whatsoever from the Germania and the Getica." [End of chapter VII.] .
"Word Index ["316"-320]
Aeth. = Aethiopian.--Arab. = Arabic.--AS. = Anglo-Saxon.--Assyr. = Assyrian.--Avest. = Avestan.--Chald. = Chaldaic.--Copt. = Coptic.--Egyp. = Egyptian.--Eng. = English.--Finn. = Finnish.--Fr. = French.--Ger. = German.--Goth. = Gothic.--Gr. = Greek.--Heb. = Hebrew.--Ir. = Irish.--Ital.= Italian.--Lat. = Latin.--LLat. = Low Latin or Late Latin.--MPers. = Modern Persian.--Navar. = Navarrrese.--OCatal. = Old Catalan.--OFr. = Old French.--OHG. = Old High German.--OIr. = Old Irish.--OItal. = Old Italian.--ONorse = Old Norse.--OPers. = Old Persian.--OPort. = Old Portuguese.--OS. = Old Saxon.--OSpan. = Old Spanish.--Pehl. = Pehlevi.--Pers. = Persian.--Prov. = Provencal.--Sansk. = Sanskrit.--Scand. = Scandinavian.--Span. = Spanish.--Syr. = Syriac.--Talm. = Talmudic.--Welsh = Welsh...." ["316"].
"Subject Index" ["321"-328] [two entries (samples)]
"Orosius, his history a forgery, 8; based on Isidore, 8 ff.; not mentioned by St. Augustine, 12; quotes from De civitate Dei after his own death, 12; in the Decretum Gelasianum, 27; in Pseudo-Isidore, 27 f.; and Marcellini Comitis Chronicon, 29; not mentioned by Isidore 30; mentioned in interpolated Chronicon of Prosper, 30; in interpolated Gregory of Tours, 32 ff.; and Isidore, 33; and Florus, 34; and Valens 46 f.; in Apollinaris Sidonius, 118; and the Marsi, 161." .
"Tacitus and Arminius, 164 ff.; his Historiae interpolated or a forgery, 238, 245 ff.; his Annales interpolated or a forgery, 162, 238, 245; and Dio Chrysostom, 273; and Vegetius, 274; see Germania." .
_____ _____ _____
from: Contributions Toward A History of Arabico-Gothic Culture, Volume II, Leo Wiener, Neale, MCMXIX.
"The chief duty of modern scholars, when dealing with Carolingian times [c. 613 - c. 987], is cautiously to examine every bit of evidence and to proceed on the supposition that any given manuscript may have interpolations or may be a downright forgery." . [See: 1958].
from 1899 (Jacob Wilson): WORKS OF ROMANCE ARE FOUNDED ON FACTS [see Addition 35, 1718 (Lino Sanchez)], AND WHAT MORE CAN BE SAID OF HISTORY?
from 1885 (Forster Fitzgerald Arbuthnot): "It is said that Napoleon called HISTORY 'A FABLE OR FICTION AGREED UPON.' Chronology may be included under the same heading, most certainly the chronology of the time before the introduction of some kind of record." . [See: 1954 (Biography)].
from 1752 (John Henry Newman 1801 - 1890): "ALL KNOWLEDGE OF THE [GREEK AND] LATIN CLASSICS COMES TO US FROM THE MEDIEVAL TRANSCRIPTIONS OF THEM, AND THEY WHO TRANSCRIBED THEM HAD THE OPPORTUNITY OF FORGING OR GARBLING THEM. WE ARE SIMPLY AT THEIR MERCY".
[note: history is also defined as: "his story"!].
from 1843 (Edwin Johnson 1842 - 1901): "WE HAVE NOT IN OUR HANDS A PURE EDITION OF THE GREEK AND LATIN CLASSICS OF THE [ROMAN] EMPIRE."
from 1759 (Lino Sanchez): THE NEW TESTAMENT IS A COMBINATION OF FICTION, PLAGIARISM, FORGERY!
[see Addition 34; etc.].
from: The Fabrication of the Christ Myth, Harold Leidner [born 1916], Survey Books, Tampa, Florida, 2000. [received, and first seen, 4/1/2002]. [Must See!].
"My parents were Polish Jews" ("Author's Note" [see 1970]).
Excursus: from: #3, 47:
223. "It is odd that the Jews have always [Not in my researches. Much fear, collusion, etc.] classified Jesus as a myth [Sources?], yet his crucifixion allegedly took place in Jerusalem....Apart from the Gospels which cannot be regarded as either historical or objective since they were written for the sole purpose of fostering the faith of Christians--what other documentary evidence exists to prove that Jesus ever existed at all?" [Soledad de Montalvo].
[see Reference 223.] [see 102., 110.-112., 126., 211., 224., 226., 299., 363., etc.].
224. 'It is now more than half a century since Renan put the question, "Has Jewish tradition anything to teach us concerning Jesus?" This question must be answered in the negative. As far as the contemporaneous Jewish literature goes, it does not contain a single reference to the founder of Christianity. All the so-called Anti-Christiana collected by mediaeval fanatics, and freshened up again by modern ignoramuses, belong to the later centuries, when history and biography had given way to myth and speculation. Almost every Christian sect, every Christian community, created a Christ after its own image or dogma [see 260.-263., 288.-289., etc.]. The Jewish legend [of Jesus]--a growth of those later centuries--gave him an aspect of its own, purely apocryphal in its character, neither meant nor ever taken by the Jews as real history.'
[Solomon Schechter 1848 - 1915 (Cambridge. "headed the Jewish Theological Seminary" [New York])] [see 223., 401., etc.].
225. "That the Talmud is useless as a source of reliable information about Jesus is conceded by most Christian scholars." [G.A. Wells].
End of Excursus.
"Author's [Harold Leidner] Note" 
"I was born in 1916 in New York City. My parents were Polish Jews recently arrived." .
"Education: College of City of New York, 1932-1936. B.S. degree. New York University School of Law, 1936-1939. LL.B. degree. Passed the New York bar; admitted November, 1940.
U.S. Patent Office: passed examination for patent attorney and was registered as a patent attorney 1956.
I did not practice law as I was attracted to other fields. However this legal background has been of great value in evaluating the testimony and credibility of New Testament documents; especially patent law, which deals largely with questions of dating, priority, originality of material, infringement and copying." .
"Major influence: I was drawn to the field of gospel studies by a book that made a profound impression on me. This was The Case of the Nazarene Reopened, by Hyman E. Goldin (Exposition Press, 1948). Goldin was a lawyer, rabbi and Talmudist. He subjected the four gospel writers to sharp cross-examination as to each one's version of the crucifixion story and was able to show almost line-by-line divergence, contradiction, impossibility and fabrication in the four accounts. Here an orthodox rabbi had broken the ghetto taboos and had made a direct challenge to the Christian case.
And I was compelled to follow his arguments.
From that time onward (I came upon the book in the 1950s) I took up extensive reading on the gospel story and on early Christianity in general. My book is essentially a continuation and updating of Goldin, dealing with much of the material made available after his time, and like Goldin's book, is a legal brief for the Jewish side. The main defense that is used is to show that the gospel account is fictional and fraudulent in its entirety, and that an alternate explanation for Christian origins can be provided." [371-372].
TOO MANY JESUSES
"The indictment or information must so describe the person killed that the accused may know whom he or she is charged with having killed. If known, the name of the deceased must be alleged."
Corpus Juris Secundum, "Homicide" 144a. (vol.40, 551)
The name Jesus appears frequently in the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus. In the Loeb edition of his works the index lists this name no less than twenty-one times referring to different persons, and it is one of the most common names in the index. The famed and much-disputed reference to "Jesus the Christ" appears as number nine on the list, with many Jesuses before and after. Some of these had outstanding careers and some met death under strange and tragic circumstances. The premise of a unique and remarkable Jesus is thus placed in question at the very outset of our inquiry. Others had their share of drama as well.
Josephus has been accused many times of writing as little as possible about "the" Jesus, and suppressing what he knew. One would think that the very name would cause a guilty start and a quick glance over the shoulder. However our historian writes freely about the other twenty with no accusation of suppression as to the others. In fact it is the scholars who do the suppressing, writing as little as possible about the name frequency and the other references.
The books of Josephus appeared in Greek, and we give the list of names [Jesus characters] in their Greek form, as given in the index or in the text:
- Jesus son of Naue
- Jesus son of Saul
- Jesus, high priest, son of Phineas
- Jesus son of the high priest Jozadak
- Jesus son of Joiada
- Jesus, high priest, son of Simon
- Jesus, high priest, son of Phabes
- Jesus, high priest, son of Seë
- Jesus the Christ [see #3, 74]
- Jesus son of Damnaeus, became high priest
- Jesus son of Gamliel, became high priest
- Jesus son of Sapphas
- Jesus, chief priest, probably to be identified with 10 or 11
- Jesus son of Gamalas, high priest
- Jesus, brigand chief on borderland of Ptolemais
- Jesus son of Sapphias
- Jesus brother of Chares
- Jesus a Galilean, perhaps to be identified with 15
- Jesus in ambuscade, perhaps to be identified with 16
- Jesus, priest, son of Thebuthi
- Jesus son of Ananias, rude peasant, prophesies the fall of Jerusalem'
'The present writer has researched New Testament literature for a good number of years and has never seen the Jesus list from the Loeb index published and commented on by any writer
[I (LS) published this list (no comments) in The Freethought Exchange, July/August 1995, pages 101-102; reproduced on www.christianism.com, 1997, pages 73-75].
The Christian apologists are anxious to preserve the uniqueness of Jesus, and play down all material tending to question that uniqueness. The apologists are even more anxious to preserve Josephus as an unshakable witness for the Christian case. If the list were discussed then it would at once raise the question of why Josephus did not write "Jesus son of Joseph." It appears that the charge of cover-up and suppression should be directed at the scholar-apologists, not at Josephus.' .
'Josephus will be a major witness in our inquiry, hence a biographical note is in order. He was born into a leading priestly family in Jerusalem in the year 37 by our present calendar and died some time after 100. In his own life, as strange as any that he narrates, he was a Temple priest, Pharisee, emissary to Rome, then briefly and dubiously [what else is dubious?] a general in Galilee in the war against Rome. He was captured, and to save his life went over to the Roman side. After that he was an eyewitness to the siege and destruction of Jerusalem. Despite that--or perhaps because of that, to atone for the desertion--he became a spokesman and propagandist for Judaism in all his writings. Above all, he was a historian of the first rank, a task to which he devoted his life after the war. He worked with a staff of assistants and with matchless documentation available to him from Judaic, Greek and Roman sources. He devoted almost thirty years to these writings.
A tribute to his importance is given by Louis Feldman, who did the English translation for several of his books in the Loeb Library edition. Feldman writes:
"Josephus is our most important extant source for the period from the end of the second century BCE to the year 70, when the Second Temple was destroyed by the Romans... He is indispensable for our understanding of the political, social, economic and religious background of the rise of Christianity and of the other sects of the era, as well as of Jewry of the Diaspora. He is our most important literary guide to the geography, topography and monuments of Palestine, so that the archaeologist must dig with a spade in one hand and a copy of Josephus in the other. And he is most important as a historian of the Graeco-Roman world who sheds crucial lights on events of the last century of the Roman Republic and on the first century of the Roman Empire."2 ....' .
'The index to the Loeb ten-volume edition runs to 225 pages, small print, double column per page. It is mainly a list of names, and these run to the formidable total of 1,932 individuals (this by my count; I may be off slightly). And of this large number, only two have come under challenge as to their genuineness: Jesus and "James, the
brother of Jesus called the Christ." The others are unquestioned. Josephus is a model historian 99.99 [?] percent of the time, and fails only where he does not confirm the official story.
Returning to our Jesus list, we note that a number of the individuals referred to show linkages and parallels to the gospel Jesus. Again Josephus shows no awareness of this where we would expect him to note this at once. The list can be reduced to eighteen names, omitting "Jesus the Christ" and numbers 18 and 19, as not clearly identified. Of these eighteen, six [Jesuses] show linkages to the gospel story--from marginal literary resemblance to apparent plagiarism from Josephus by the gospel writers. Thus one-third of the names are relevant, and as indicated below, every major aspect of the career of the gospel Jesus is echoed in these other figures cited by Josephus--and without the need for the "historical Jesus."
This is an odd development. If Josephus were aware of the historical Jesus then he would certainly be aware of the resemblances and duplications to his own writings. How could he be silent? We leave this to the experts ["spin Doctors"] to answer.' .
'....we are led to a major premise: we do not need the human "Jesus of Nazareth" as the starting point, nor do we need a process of legend and myth building lasting decades and generations to arrive at an exalted and supernatural Christ. We can start right at the top and posit that Jesus is a radically christianized version of the supernatural Joshua. We thus have an alternate statement for Christian origins....' .
The Jerusalem Church
"The scanty and suspicious materials of ecclesiastical history seldom enable us to dispel the dark cloud that hangs over the first age of the church."
Edward Gibbon [1737 - 1794], Decline and Fall' .
'Despite the efforts of innumerable scholars over the past three hundred years, not a particle of hard conclusive evidence has been produced confirming any part of the life of Jesus. The prevailing mood of doubt and skepticism has been expressed by Rudolf Bultmann: "One can only emphasize the uncertainty of our knowledge of the person and work of the historical Jesus, and likewise of the origin of Christianity."23
Concerning the crucifixion story, a key episode is the assumed trial of Jesus before the Jewish Sanhedrin. Here Bultmann writes:
"I think the whole narrative in (gospel of) Mark is a secondary explanation... The account of the proceedings before the Sanhedrin in Mark 14:55-64 must be reckoned as a faith legend."24
Meaning that Mark, considered to be the earliest and most historical of the gospels, is giving a fictional account.
John Dominic Crossan, a recent writer, is even more emphatic:
"It is impossible, in my mind, to overestimate the creativity of Mark, but those twin trials (i.e., before the Sanhedrin and before Pilate) must be emphasized for what they are, namely, consummate theological fiction...It is magnificent theological fiction, to be sure, but entailing a dreadful price for Judaism."25 ["25. J.D. Crossan, The Historical Jesus, 390"]' .
'We may observe that New Testament scholarship is one long despairing search for what happened at the Beginning, because no documentary evidence can be found and all must be guessed at, since the later accounts are contradictory and suspect. To reconstruct this lost Beginning the scholars try to replace the missing data with "documentation" from all the social sciences [see 1988]--comparative religion, anthropology, sociology, etc.--to wind up with divergent accounts. And to the present, not a particle of hard conclusive evidence has been found confirming any part of the gospel story.
Here Josephus boasts that in the matter of keeping records...
"our forefathers assigned this to their chief priests and prophets, and down to our own times these records have been, and I venture to say, will continue to be, preserved with scrupulous accuracy."10 ["10. Josephus, Contra Apion, 1:29"]' .
'Justin was the most prominent Christian spokesman, missionary and apologist during the second century (AD 100-200). His birth is placed about 100, and he narrates that he was converted in his youth by a "venerable old man," apparently an elder of the new church, and who imparted the full content of the faith. If we place the conversion about 120, and posit that the "elder" had himself adopted the faith some decades back, then we are getting to about AD 90. This clearly brings us to the first age of the church.
Moreover there is good evidence that the gospels, in their final edited form, date after Justin and that Justin is giving an earlier form of the Christian polemic. THE GLIB ASSERTION THAT THE GOSPELS DATE FROM THE FIRST CENTURY, ABOUT AD 70 TO 90, DERIVES ONLY FROM THE UNPROVED: THAT THERE WAS A JESUS OF NAZARETH, AND THERE WERE DISCIPLES WHO PRESERVED TRADITIONS ABOUT HIM THAT TOOK WRITTEN FORM AT AN EARLY DATE. But first there must be proof that this "Jesus" [see #3, 41-104] existed and that he had "disciples" [see #8, 200-203] otherwise the early date is a Christian attempt to create history and legitimacy. IT REMAINS WITHOUT PROOF.
To go by the test of outside confirmation, which is the only test we can use, it is only late in the second century that the present four gospels are mentioned by name and quoted by name. They became canonical only about AD 180. This late dating, and evidence that much had taken place before the gospels appeared, was noted by Renan. He pointed out that the gospels surfaced towards the close of the
second century, about AD 180, or a hundred and fifty years after the assumed original events. They were the end product of a long process of editing and revision, by parties unknown. He noted also that the said church father Justin is placed prior to all this, and he diverges markedly from the gospels. These texts became canonical and authoritative after his time therefore it remains possible that Justin is giving us an earlier version of Christianity....' [151-152].
'One of the strongest arguments for the existence of "Jesus of Nazareth" has been that the gospels appeared about forty years after the alleged events, and with no intervening contradictory material. Now these texts appear to be hearsay at eight [?] generations removed, and with much intervening material. This opens up the whole area of the turbulent second century, with its chaos of rival sects, gospels and doctrines--so much so that the pagan Celsus noted sardonically that one would have to toss dice before deciding which sect to join.7
If the gospels indeed have this very late date, then the scholars have carried out a two-fold deception: by asserting the very early date they have bolstered the case for the "historical Jesus" by fake evidence; and they have in turn blocked off inquiry into areas that could challenge the entire case, blocking off the critics and opponents as well as the writings of early Christians--all this with the argument that these writings were late and irrelevant.
The scholar-apologists, committed to the "historical Jesus of Nazareth" as the starting point, have declared the gospel of Mark the earliest and most historical of the four. But if all four have equally obscure origins and are being revised at a late date, how can we be sure of this priority? The scholars have smuggled in the unproved Jesus to establish priority, but if this is dropped then alternate origins and alternate gospels are possible.
To return to Justin E.R. Goodenough, in his book The Theology of Justin Martyr, has no great admiration for his subject. The world of ideas that Justin grew up in and absorbed was not given to profundities. "The popular philosophical environment of Justin [was] a welter of crude superstitions expressed in myths and in snatches of philosophical terminology."8' .
'Justin is vehement on his insistence that Jesus is God [see Addition 30, 1326; etc.], and makes this his starting point. Thus at this stage of our inquiry we have two diametrically opposed concepts: the secular-naturalist view of the present-day New Testament scholars, that the starting point is the human Jesus of Nazareth, and against this the doctrinal-religious view, that the starting point is the incarnation of the Son of God. "Christ is not mere man of human origin, begotten in the common way of men."14
"He came forth as God from above, and became man among men, and will come here again."15
The writings of Justin are relevant to the question of gospel origins, since major themes in Justin are found in the gospel of John and in the gospel of Matthew. With John, it is the divinity of Jesus and with Matthew it is the prominence of PROOF-TEXTS from Scripture. These two elements comprise the primary tradition, and exclude the "historical Jesus." This indicates that the portrait of Jesus as a purely human figure is a later development.' .
'Justin and the gospel of John present a sacred drama. A divine being is incarnated and appears on earth in human guise. He carries out a salvationist mission on earth, acting in secrecy and beset by hostile forces. He seeks out his elect ones and imparts instructions to them, then returns to the heavens. It is basically the Gnostic [see: The Jesus Mysteries (1826-1827)] mystery, and if Justin is giving us the primary tradition, then he is rejecting the basic premise of modern scholarship. To the secular scholars, the starting point is the human Jesus of Nazareth, who was then mythified and deified. Justin starts at the top, with "high Christology." The human Jesus of Nazareth emerges as the end point at a much later stage.
We may note here that Bultmann was in agreement with Justin in giving priority to John [note: Justin did not know John. The "priority to John", by Justin, is a retrospective evaluation]. "In John the original meaning of the gospel comes out in fullest clarity, in that the evangelist, while making free use of the tradition, creates the figure of Jesus entirely from faith."21' .
'John's gospel may be earlier than the other three gospels--thus undermining the "historicity" of those three, and showing their human "Jesus of Nazareth" to be a later development.' .
'....From the foregoing, we have good evidence that the primary tradition and the primary gospel was that given in the gospel of John. THE VAUNTED PRIORITY OF MARK DERIVES FROM THE PREMISE THAT JESUS OF NAZARETH EXISTED and that Mark is giving the earliest "traditions" concerning this Jesus. Mark is arrived at by ruling out the other three: John gives a sacred myth, with no pretence at history; Luke removes himself by stating that many before him have composed gospels (Luke 1:1); Matthew relies mainly on visions and instructions from angels, also the working out of PROOF-TEXTS, "that it might be fulfilled that which was spoken by the prophet," in composing his life of Jesus. This leaves Mark as the least difficult to work with, and this created his priority.
Bultmann expresses his own reservations regarding Mark:
"Mark is the work of an author who is steeped in the theology of the early Church, and who ordered and arranged the traditional material that he received in the light of the faith of the early Church."33
"It has come to be recognized that the outline of Mark is not historical."34
We will continue with the testimony of Justin as giving the primary tradition.' [End of Chapter 11] [161-162].
From Proof-Text to Gospel Tradition" 
"In preaching and defending his system, Justin was challenged on all sides by rival sects and of course by the Jews. The supreme weapon used by Justin, in proving his theology and refuting all opponents was that of PROOF-TEXTS FROM SCRIPTURE. Here Justin shows himself to be a past master, and a walking library of these texts. His position is now invincible--AS LONG AS ONE BELIEVES IN THE SACRED FORCE OF THESE TEXTS, and in Justin's own reading and interpretation. Hence the topic of these texts, so arid and distant to the present-day secular layman, is to be considered in the sequence of development of the gospels. IT IS ONLY WHEN THE ARGUMENT OF THE TEXTS FELL BY THE WAYSIDE THAT THE HISTORICAL JESUS HAD TO BE CONSTRUCTED TO CONVINCE THE OPPONENTS." .
"...so-called histories... published by persons who never visited the sites nor were anywhere near the actions described, but based on a few hearsay reports put together..." [note: Josephus [c. 37 - c. 100] did not [too early!] comment on the Gospels. This comment, in Contra Apion, has application to the Gospels]
Josephus, Contra Apion, 1:46
Whatever the faults of Josephus, all grant that he knows the terrain, the customs, the history of the region--and he is quick to point out the ignorance of others in these matters. However a critical reading of the gospel narratives will show that these were written long after the assumed events and far from the scene, and that the writers were densely ignorant at every point. They are turning out a botched and inept job--meaning that they are fabricating the "life of Jesus" starting from point zero. Let us examine the gospel expertise....' .
'....the blunt conclusion emerges that the gospel writers did not know the geography and customs of the Holy Land, and did not know Judaism itself. Meaning that they were not using "historical traditions" but were working with, and adapting, source materials having nothing to do with historical data of any kind. If the writers were ignorant of major elements in geography, custom and religion, how can they give direct verbatim reports of what Jesus said, and if they are wrong in so much why should we believe any part of their narrative?
In addition to the acting out of proof-texts [continued on 1978]
["proof-texts" (my reaction): basically, quoting "scripture", to "prove", substantiate, etc., a doctrine, argument, etc. Used for childish one-upmanship. Barbaric rationalizing, for what the "proof-texter" has pre-determined to effectuate.
Infamous examples: "proof-texts" used to rationalize perennial persecutions of Jews and Heretics, and, centuries of Inquisitions.
Present day uses of "proof-texts" (from the usual Fictional sources--the Old Testament, and, New Testament), are similar to quoting a letter of a child, to Santa Claus, to "prove" the existence of Santa Claus, and then, attempting to exert powers, in relation to the "proven" Santa Claus]
and the use of free imagination, the gospel writers made use of specific sources in fabricating episodes in the "life of Jesus." We turn now to these sources....' .
'We must ask why Matthew went out of his way to use Joshuan material when he had the highly historical Jesus of Nazareth as a model, and why he distorted and falsified this material to serve his own agenda. The plain inference is that THERE WAS NO ORIGINAL [JESUS]. All had to be taken from sources and duly christianized. We have shown this in the "life of Jesus" constructed by Matthew from Joshuan materials.
But if THE LIFE (OF JESUS) IS A FABRICATION, CONSTRUCTED OUT OF SOURCE MATERIALS, how much confidence can we have in the crucifixion story--and what sources were used by the gospel novelists for that one? We turn to this topic....' [End of chapter 15] .
3. Joshua, 1:12-14
4. Joshua, 17:18...
11. Joshua, 20:24 [10:24]...
13. Joshua, 10:26...
16. Joshua, 10:27
17. Joshua, 10:27...
20. Joshua, 10:17, 18
21. Joshua, 10:17-18, 27" .
[Note: Henry Shires, Finding the Old Testament in the New (see 1504-1518), only references (218) Joshua 1:6, 7, 9, 18; 23:9; 24:18. How (why) did he miss the above Joshua references? Denial? Skullduggery? Just missed them?].
The Development of the Passion Narrative" 
'The passion narrative, comprising the arrest, trial and crucifixion of Jesus, is the central drama of the gospels. In addition to the gospel accounts, many other versions of the Passion were composed during the turbulent second century. These narratives are now labeled "apocryphal" and "non-canonical" because they lost out. We would like to see where Justin fits into this welter of rival crucifixion stories.
He preceded the gospels and he diverges from the gospels in the matter of the divinity of Christ, and it turned out that he was giving the primary tradition. Here we have evidence that the same situation exists as to the passion narrative: Justin diverges and appears to be giving the primary tradition.
In hindsight, we can say that THE FOUR GOSPELS EMERGED AS THE WINNERS BECAUSE THEY APPEARED TO BE THE MOST PLAUSIBLE AND HISTORICAL. Especially in the passion narrative the gospel accounts gave a much better version of the events than the "apocryphal" accounts. A particular error of these rejected accounts, which disqualified them, was their emphatic statements that the Jews alone carried out the execution of Jesus. For a crucifixion to take place in a Roman-occupied province, under the iron control of Roman troops, the execution would have to carried out by Roman troops. Indeed, crucifixions were the very symbol of Roman authority. Therefore any account that had the Jews carrying out the crucifixion of Jesus would have to [be] rejected as fictional.
Here we find, almost without exception, that the apocryphal texts name the Jews as the executioners, and the canonical accounts name Pilate and the Romans. WHAT, PERCHANCE, IF THE APOCRYPHAL TEXTS CAME FIRST, AND THE GOSPELS THEN TACKED ON THE ROMAN PRESENCE TO MEET THE OBJECTIONS OF THE CRITICS?' .
'....A LARGE NUMBER OF EPISODES IN THE GOSPEL PASSION NARRATIVE APPEAR TO DERIVE FROM PHILO. NO FEWER that [THAN] TWENTY-FOUR CAN BE FOUND. We must ask why Crossan [Who killed Jesus? Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story of the Death of Jesus] stopped short at three and did not go much further into the content of Philo's book ["Concerning Flaccus"], since he rejected Mark's version outright. We can guess that Crossan prudently refrained from venturing further into this dangerous territory, since it would question the very existence of the passion narrative. His colleagues have also stayed clear.
Bultmann quotes approvingly a statement that the gospels are little more than the crucifixion story:
"Since the main emphasis lay upon the conclusion, the Passion and the Easter story, it has quite correctly been said, 'With some exaggeration one might describe the gospels as Passion Narratives with extended introductions.'
If the ["crucifixion"] story drops out, then the gospels are dismantled.' .
'A comparison between Philo and the gospel will show that Philo's original stands up better:
a: A given detail or incident in Philo's account will be granted the highest authenticity as that of an eyewitness, even where it is openly partisan, while the same incident, when transferred to the gospel setting, will show errors and implausibilities. This demonstrates the artificial nature of the gospel version. It is derivative.
b: A standard criterion used by New Testament scholars for the genuineness of a given gospel episode is the "criterion of embarrassment." The argument is that the writer of an artificial account would leave out material that shows human shortcomings if he could, but he had to put these in as part of the authentic tradition. As examples, the scholars offer as proofs of genuineness that the gospels reveal human flaws and weaknesses on the part of Jesus and the disciples: the despair of Jesus in the Garden, the panic and flight of the disciples to avoid arrest, the disbelief of the disciples at the news of the Resurrection at Easter morning. But now we find that these very details are there in the source. They are in Philo's account. The gospel writers simply transferred them from Philo to the gospel. Hence this line of argument cannot be used by the apologists.
With this in mind we give our list of parallels, following the sequence of events in the gospel passion, although Philo--as will be explained--follows his own sequence dictated by the Alexandrian events:
1. We have a Judas-figure, fully created. He behaves honorably at first and
arouses no suspicion. He is "in charge of the purse" and only later is he
led into betrayal.
2. Judas is led to the betrayal by the malice and dishonesty of the enemies of
the Servant. They are moved by "envy."
3. There is a "temple act" involving the deliberate disruption and violation of the
religious precincts of the Jews.
4. There is a Last Supper, attended by a small group of friends. The motif of
finality and farewell is spelled out.
5. The Garden Scene presents the fear and despair of the Victim at his
approaching and inevitable death. It takes place at night and he is alone.
6. The Arrest is made by a detachment of soldiers, fully armed.
7. Throughout Philo portrays the Servant-community as innocent and the
opponents as cruel and merciless--duplicating the gospel motif.
8. The companion show cowardice and fear lest they be arrested as well. They
desert their leader.
9. A Herodian king visits the city and meets with the Roman governor to discuss
the fate of the Servant.
10. There is a Mockery Scene, wherein the target is attired in royal garb and
receives mock homage from his enemies.
11. In the trial of the Servant false charges are placed against him through malice
12. There is a spy mission, by an observer who conceals himself among the
servants and does not reveal his identity.
13. The Servant is scourged and beaten prior to crucifixion.
14. The tragic events take place on a national holiday, when it would be
appropriate to show clemency and offer release.
15. Mob instigators bully and threaten the Roman official, and force him to carry
out the sentence instead of clemency or amnesty.
16. Judas repents and makes full confession of his sins.
17. Judas meets his death by being torn to pieces in an open field.
18. For the crucifixion, there is a via dolorosa on the way to death that the
doomed Victim must travel.
19.The crucifixion takes place on "the third hour" which is nine in the morning on
the Roman reckoning, as in [the] Gospel of Mark.
20. There is jeering and abuse by the onlookers
21. The garments of the Servant are divided by his enemies.
22. The death of the Servant leaves his followers hopeless and despairing,
however there is miraculous news of the revival of hope at early dawn.
23. This is doubted at first, but later confirmed and the doubts are removed.
24. All gather in joyous celebration, with praise to God for the rescue.
With these 24 points available, why did Crossan stop at 3? And if 24 points of duplication can be found in a single document, covering every major element of the passion narrative, are we not entitled to name this as the source of that narrative? Philo has provided enough material to label the gospel account of the passion as fictional in its entirety. And as Bultmann and Raymond Brown have pointed out, the passion amounts to the gospel itself, hence the whole structure must go.' [234-237].
[See: Addition 34, 1576-1579 (Philo in the New Testament)].
"It is clear that Philo has composed ["Concerning Flaccus"] a unified, well-planned drama that moves in a straight line from the opening scene of high promise to the unmarked grave on the lonely isle. And each episode in the story finds a parallel in the gospel Passion. Crossan, as noted, had limited himself to three episodes in the account to find gospel parallels. We can now state that the entire book was used by the gospel writers to construct their passion narratives." .
Josephus [c. 37 - c. 100 C.E.] and the James Passage" 
'The passage, in the present text [Josephus, Antiquities 20:200], contains a reference to the slaying of James "brother to [of] Jesus called the Christ" hence is always cited by those supporting the disputed reference to Jesus found in Antiquities, volume 18, paragraphs 63, 64, and proving that Josephus was aware of the existence of Jesus. The reference to James appears as a single line imbedded in a rather lengthy episode dealing with the high priest Ananus. The line appears irrelevant to the content of the Ananus episode, and could be deleted with no effect on that story. This at the outset is a good hint that the James passage is a Christian interpolation. Line 200, in our present text, refers to "James, brother to [of] Jesus called the Christ."
In context, as will be shown, a large question mark can be placed against the genuineness of this phrase.' .
'Concerning the above [discussion], the "fair-minded" reader may well conclude that the reference to "James, brother of Jesus called the Christ" has no relevance to the story, and is a forgery.' .
Josephus [c. 37 - c. 100 C.E.] and the Testimonium
"The passage [Josephus, Antiquities 18:63-64] concerning Jesus Christ which was inserted into the text of Josephus between the time of Origen and that of Eusebius may furnish an example of no vulgar forgery."
Gibbon, Decline and Fall
What Gibbon meant by the above statement is that we are dealing with a FORGERY that was carefully and astutely drawn, and that it made Josephus a witness to the basic elements of the Christian case, all in a brief text.' .
'By the sharpest of ironies, it was the opponents who invented the human Jesus. The tactic used by Celsus and his aide was the same as that used by the opponents in the Age of Enlightenment, sixteen centuries later. In both eras they
were erecting a human figure and a human biography to counter the portrait of Jesus as a divinity.
Albert Schweitzer [1875 - 1965], in his landmark study, The Quest of the Historical Jesus, indicated plainly that the historical Jesus was never established or confirmed by standard conventional evidence, but instead was but forward as a radical hypothesis by the skeptics and rationalists of the eighteenth century. In the opening chapter of his book he makes this important statement:
"The historical investigation of the life of Jesus did not take its rise from a purely historical interest; it turned to the Jesus of history as an ally in the struggle against the tyranny of dogma."6
That is, if Jesus could be presented as a purely human, historical person, free of supernatural elements, and if it could be argued that a later Church had invented all its dogmas, mysteries and miracles and had foisted these on the human Jesus, then that would strip this Church of all legitimacy and authority. Had the skeptics "turned to" the Jesus of history or had they created him? In both cases, in the early period and in the eighteenth century, the gospels were the only source for the counter-histories.' .
'Origen [c. 185 - c. 254] argues solely on the basis of proof-texts [see 1977] from Scripture to prove all events in the career of Jesus. He offers no other evidence.
"Jesus is the Son of God who gave the Law and the prophets. We, who belong to the Church, do not transgress the Law but have escaped the mythologizing of the Jews. We have our minds humbled and educated by the mystical contemplation of the Law and the prophets."18
"All the prophecies which preceded His birth were preparations for His worship. And the wonders which he wrought were by a divine power which was foretold by the prophets."19
"The ignorance of the Jews regarding Christ was caused by their not having heard the prophecies about Him."20
This is the sum total of his argument, and is the Christian situation as of his period, about AD 230. He has no history or tradition.
The victory of Christianity came a century later, when Constantine [Emperor 306 (312) - 337 (c. 280 - 337)] chose this ["Christianity"] as the official religion of the empire. This led to the suppression of rival sects and religions. The Jews survived, but were gradually stripped of all rights under Roman law, and reduced to pariah status. The long epic of Hellenic universalist Judaism came to an end and was replaced by the sealed-off ghetto.
What this means is that Christianity in the early period never succeeded in proving its case on the basis of historical evidence, but only through the crushing force of Roman authority, censorship and suppression. Fifteen centuries would pass from the time of Origen to the reopening of challenges to the gospel story. We may inquire whether the scholar-apologists of the modern period have made a better case.' .
'A survey of New Testament scholarship in the modern era will reveal remarkably little in the way of results. A good summary of the first one hundred fifty years of this research is provided by Albert Schweitzer [1875 - 1965] in his classic, The Quest of the Historical Jesus. He begins in the 1760s and brings the quest down to his own date, the early 1900s. He covers the work of some 250 scholars, no two of whom agree, and in the closing chapter writes:
"There is nothing more NEGATIVE than the result of the critical study of the life of Jesus... He is a figure designed by rationalism, endowed with life by liberalism, and clothed by modern theology in an historical garb"1
In this closing chapter Schweitzer also reveals that this "critical study" was a bogus enterprise. New Testament scholarship pretends to be engaged in objective research, however the field is dominated by members of the Christian establishment, engaged in apologetics and damage control. The scholars discussed by Schweitzer were theologians, almost without exception. They were ordained clergymen, or at least graduate students of theology, and the enormous body of research carried out by them during the nineteenth century is labeled by him as "...the science [sic] of historical theology"2
At that period the scholars in the field had not yet arrogated to themselves the title of historians. Instead they labeled themselves as critical theologians or historical theologians.' .
'all the scholars in the field, from the earliest period to Schweitzer's day, from radical to conservative, were engaged in missionary activity rather than historical research. And this continues to the present. Almost every writer in the field today is on the faculty of a theological department or institution. Any scholar-theologian who takes this missionary approach cannot pretend to be engaged in historical research of an objective nature. He will certainly find ways to interpret the data to fit his goal, and will find ways to reject documents that threaten the goal.
Schweitzer also indicated that the quest had a dubious origin. It began by smuggling in the premise that "Jesus of Nazareth" existed, and then used this literary creation to attack the church establishment. In the opening stage, that of the eighteenth century Age of Enlightenment, Jesus was presented by the rationalists, skeptics and philosophes of that era as free from all supernatural and miraculous elements. The writers "turned to the Jesus of history as an ally in the struggle against the tyranny of dogma"--without the small formality of proving that this Jesus had actually lived. The quest proved to be a game of catch-up, to locate the personage they had posited in the first place.' .
'Raymond Brown was considered among the most influential of American scholars in this field ["Theologian-Apologists"]. His book The Death of the Messiah lists 1500 authors in the index, along with scores of scholarly publications and reference works. Let us see what he has to offer on the passion narrative--the "PN" as he calls it.
Having gotten Josephus to vouch that Jesus plausibly existed, Brown goes on to make this central to the story. All is unproved but Brown [Raymond Brown exhibits quintessential "Bluff and Bullshit"! (see #1, 31, 184.)] makes this so emphatic that THE ILLUSION OF HISTORICAL FACT IS FOISTED UPON THE READER:
"Jesus was a human figure of actual history."7
"One can characterize as bedrock history that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified at Jerusalem."8
He was "...someone who lived at a particular time in a particular place among real people."9
"We shall begin with indisputable facts... All four Gospels have a Sanhedrin session that dealt with Jesus."10
"That Jesus was buried is historically certain."11
"It is solid history that Jesus was associated with John the Baptist and that John Baptist was put to death by Herod Antipas."12
The above illustrates the modus operandi. By placing the assumed Jesus in a historical framework of time, place and 'real people' then Jesus is made historical himself. Which is like saying that in the novel War and Peace the character of Prince Andrey becomes historical because he is in the framework of hundreds of historical facts dealing with Napoleon's invasion of Russia. But at least Tolstoy had his facts right. As we demonstrated in an earlier chapter, the attempt of the gospel writers to describe the terrain, the customs and the religion itself of the region led to error upon error. The writers know as little of Judea and Galilee as they know of the Upper Amazon.' . [See: 1899 ("works of romance are founded on facts")].
'Brown relies heavily on the word "TRADITION." However there is a wide difference between tradition and history. Historical research makes a sharp distinction between what is labeled as factual event, confirmed and corroborated as to time and place, and what is found in legend and tradition. Tradition is defined generally as "...the handing down orally of stories, beliefs, customs, etc. from generation to generation."
In Christianity, tradition has the specific meaning of "the unwritten teachings regarded as handed down from Jesus and the Apostles."
Thus the word ["tradition"] very conveniently establishes the existence of Jesus and the Apostles at the beginning, and also establishes the sincerity and good faith of the gospel writers at the end. These ["gospel"] writers can be accused of many things, but they have avoided the main charge: that the whole story is a fake and they have invented the story. It is the magic word "tradition" that has rescued them and granted their bona fides ["Good faith, freedom from intent to deceive." (O.E.D.)].' [352-353].
'Clyde Pharr writes:
"THE THEODOSIAN CODE AND NOVELLAS [supplements] form the richest single source and the only official collection of contemporary information for the political, social and economic conditions of the later Roman Empire."8
The Code, in effect, spelled out the concordat between the later emperors and the Catholic faction, chosen among many rival sects, as being the most disciplined and submissive to authority, and most unswerving in its support of the empire. The emperor, his army and bureaucracy, would control politics and the economy, maintaining 'order' with iron force. The Church would control the social and religious life of the State, preaching harmony, with each party to the concordant upholding the other.
FROM THE BEGINNINGS OF THE CHRISTIAN MOVEMENT SUBMISSION TO AUTHORITY HAD BEEN PREACHED AS A VIRTUE. Tertullian, about AD 190, affirmed his loyalty to Caesar, and declared that the fall of Rome would mean the end of the world:
"We are ever making intercession for all the emperors. We pray for them long life, a secure rule, a safe home, brave armies, a faithful senate, an honest people, a quiet world, and everything for which a man or a Caesar can pray." (Apologia 30:4)
He [Tertullian] then quotes 1 Timothy 2:2: "Pray for kings, for princes and powers, that all things may be tranquil for you." (Apologia 31:3)
"There is another need and a greater one, for praying for the Emperors... The end of the age itself, with its menace of hideous suffering, is delayed by the respite which the empire means for us... I set the majesty of Caesar below God, and all the more commend him to God, to whom alone I subordinate him." (Apologia 32:1, 33:2)' .
'A heretic was defined as anyone who wavered in the slightest from the Catholic faith: "If any man should disturb the Catholic faith, he is deserving of deportation [paraphrase]." (Code 16.4.3)
"Those persons who may be discovered to deviate even in a minor point of doctrine from the tenets and the faith of the Catholic religion are included in the designation of heretics, and must be subject to the sanctions issued against these heretics [paraphrase]." (Code 16.5.28)
"No man shall argue about religion or discuss it, or give any counsel. If any person, with flagrant and damnable audacity, should dare to persist in his actions of ruinous obstinacy, he shall be restrained with a due penalty and proper punishment." (Code 16.6.2 [source?])
In this world of harshest authority on all sides, with all freedom of movement in thought and occupation now forbidden, there was no longer a place for a religion as flexible and challenging as Hellenic Judaism. Its very existence was seen as a threat. Meaning that this Judaism would either be wiped out, or would have to adopt the specific role and marginal place dictated by the triumphant Church--and that was a pariah existence. Since the Church was indispensable in the matter of instilling obedience throughout society, any request by the Church to the emperor would be granted. The Church would now settle accounts once and for all with the Jews.' .
"The attacks began after Constantine, with Judaism fully protected under law prior to that time." .
'"If any person should be converted from Christianity to Judaism, then his property shall be forfeit to the treasury." (Code 16.8.7, dated AD 353, and showing that Judaism was still gaining converts)
The wording of one law indicates that attacks on synagogues were beginning:
"It is sufficiently established that the sect of the Jews is forbidden by no law... [The authorities] will restrain with proper severity the excesses of those persons who, in the name of the Christian religion, presume to commit certain unlawful acts, and attempt to destroy and despoil the synagogues [paraphrase]." (Code 16.8.9, dated AD 396 )' .
'"Jews and Samaritans shall be deprived of all employment in the imperial service [paraphrase]." (Code 16.8.16)
There are virulent statutes, referring to "the detestable and offensive name of Jews." (Code 16.8.19)
The laws were aimed at...
"...a perversity that is Jewish and alien to the Roman empire... It is more grievous than death and more cruel than murder that [if] any person of the Christian faith shall [should] be polluted by Jewish unbelief [disbelief]." (Code 16.8.20, dated AD 409)
This was a call for the removal of Jews from all contact with Christians, to avoid the pollution. A process of 'ethnic cleansing' then took place, the removal being to ghetto areas. The method of choice was setting fire to synagogues. This is the plain inference of a statute that provided no penalty for those that set the fires, merely the pious utterance that "now and henceforth no person shall seize and [or] burn their synagogues [compare: posted "off limits" lists, for sailors, which served as tips, when going ashore]." (Code 16.8.25, dated AD 423)
To this was appended an order that the Jews be compensated by being given a site on which to construct a new synagogue--which of course would be set on fire in due course.
Even this token concession was removed by Novella Title 3.8 (dated AD 438): "They shall not dare to construct a synagogue anew... They must repair the ruins of their synagogue[s] [at the original site]."
Again a futile tactic. The only recourse left was to retire to a ghetto district, out of reach of the mob. The ghetto existence of the Jews therefore derived directly from the Church's incitement to violence.
....the long epic of Hellenic Judaism, that had started 325 BC in Alexandria, came to an end. It had endured, with its remarkable history and achievements, for more than seven hundred and fifty years.' [367, 368] [End of text].
Comment: (a classic topic) what part did Christianism ("Christianity") play, in the destruction of the Roman Empire? What part in the destruction of Hellenic Judaism?
'As we bring our inquiry to a close several conclusions may be stated:
1. THE GOSPEL STORY IS FICTIONAL IN ITS ENTIRETY. THERE NEVER WAS A JESUS OF NAZARETH AND THERE NEVER WAS A CRUCIFIXION STORY.
2. In particular the passion narrative must be condemned as a deliberate fraud, meant to attack and defame the Jews.
3. CHRISTIANITY HAS FABRICATED ITS ORIGINS, ITS LEGITIMACY AND ITS HISTORICAL TRUTH BY THE CAPTURE AND OCCUPATION OF THE JUDAIC SCRIPTURES [see Addition 34, 1504-1518], AND THE CLAIM TO BE THE TRUE ISRAEL. THIS IS A CONQUEST AND OCCUPATION WHICH THE JEWS HAVE NEVER RECOGNIZED.
4. An alternative explanation can be provided for Christian origins and early Christianity--one that does not require the "historical Jesus."
5. NEW TESTAMENT SCHOLARSHIP IS A BOGUS ENTERPRISE. It creates scenarios and takes over material from the social sciences [see 1974] to give the impression that Christianity has an authentic historical origin. The POSE of objective research is used to prop up the gospel story but no hard evidence can be found to support that story.' .
- Alexander the False
Prophet, 1813, 1871-1872, 1878
- amended, 1879
- Annals [Annales]
[of "Tacitus"], 1760, 1773-1774, 1776, 1783, 1786-1790,
1796, 1808-1810, 1814, 1817, 1847, 1851-1852, 1854-1855, 1857,
1864, 1876-1878, 1915, 1917-1918, 1925, 1940, 1944, 1963-1965
- Arbuthnot, F.F.,
1882-1885, 1911, 1968
- Augustine, 1736,
1739, 1754, 1760, 1768, 1770, 1786, 1822, 1839-1840, 1843-1845,
1847, 1854, 1903, 1915, 1943, 1959, 1961, 1967
- Benedictine, 1780,
1839, 1843-1844, 1846, 1848-1849, 1859, 1886-1887, 1911, 1924-1925,
- Bible, 1756, 1770,
1772, 1790, 1810, 1829, 1841-1842, 1877, 1880, 1898, 1900, 1939,
1941, 1950, 1958
- Bracciolini, Poggio,
1752-1753, 1774, 1788-1789, 1796, 1807-1810, 1941-1942, 1944,
- Catholic, 1755-1757,
1779, 1797, 1804, 1826, 1847, 1857, 1877, 1881, 1894, 1919, 1920-1921,
- Christiani, 1796,
1843, 1847, 1850, 1858, 1863-1864, 1875
- Christianism, 1736,
1799, 1803, 1811-1813, 1988
- Christianity, 1736,
1739, 1748, 1759, 1772, 1778, 1784-1785, 1787-1788, 1826, 1847,
1854, 1856-1858, 1865, 1873, 1880-1882, 1908, 1915-1916, 1918,
1920-1921, 1924, 1940, 1948, 1950, 1962, 1969-1970, 1972-1973,
1975, 1983-1985, 1987-1888
- Christus, 1768,
1773, 1847, 1853, 1856-1857, 1864, 1875, 1877
- Cicero, 1752, 1779,
1802, 1805, 1809, 1838, 1843-1844, 1900-1903, 1910-1911, 1941,
- clumsy, 1736, 1806,
1811, 1827, 1844-1845, 1854, 1964
- cognitionibus, 1796,
- Consolatio, 1779,
- Crown of Thorns,
1748, 1819, 1822, 1837
- discovery, 1740,
1742, 1744, 1746, 1778, 1789, 1808-1809, 1852, 1891, 1903, 1944,
- Edessa, King of,
1746-1747, 1877, 1892
- Epiphanius, 1795,
1803, 1849, 1959
- Erasmus, 1752, 1753,
- Eusebius, 1746-1747,
1755, 1759, 1765, 1771-1774, 1785-1786, 1788, 1793, 1798, 1800,
1812, 1826, 1892, 1935, 1959, 1962, 1964, 1982
- Farrer, James Anson,
1750, 1766, 1781, 1888
- fiction, passim
- forgery, passim
- Fulda, 1926, 1940,
- garbled, 1849, 1879
- Germania, 1808-1809,
1816, 1900, 1942, 1959-1961, 1964-1967
- gloss, 1843, 1856
- Hadrian, Emperor,
1761, 1796, 1799, 1804, 1848, 1875, 1878, 1937
- Hardouin, Jean, 1736, 1742, 1752, 1754, 1756, 1781, 1838-1840, 1842, 1848, 1859, 1886, 1937
- Historia Sacra, 1774, 1788, 1813, 1847, 1917
- Hochart, Polydore, 1783, 1786-1790, 1798, 1807, 1813, 1815-1817, 1857, 1878, 1942, 1944, 1959, 1965
- illuminate [decorate], 1742, 1756, 1769, 1829, 1906-1907, 1911, 1928, 1940
- interpolation, 1758, 1772-1773, 1784, 1786, 1800, 1811, 1827, 1843-1844, 1850-1851, 1856, 1859, 1865, 1875, 1878, 1911, 1918, 1960-1963, 1965, 1967, 1982
- Jesus Christ, 1739, 1746-1747, 1750, 1754, 1759-1760, 1763-1764, 1767-1776, 1778, 1783, 1785-1786, 1792, 1795-1796, 1806, 1810-1811, 1818-1820, 1826-1827, 1831-1833, 1835, 1837, 1856-1857, 1861-1862, 1865, 1874, 1877-1880, 1887, 1892, 1896, 1915-16, 1930, 1933, 1935-1936, 1939, 1969, 1971-1980, 1982-1985, 1988
- Johnson, Edwin, 1786, 1838, 1840, 1857, 1882-1883, 1885, 1912, 1968
- Josephus, 1745, 1759, 1770-1773, 1810-1811, 1827, 1843-1846, 1848, 1851, 1854, 1865, 1877-1878, 1899, 1904, 1935,-1937, 1971-1974, 1977, 1982, 1985
- Julius Africanus, 1793, 1801, 1803
- Ligorio, Pirro, 1748-1749, 1766, 1805
- Lucas, Vrain-Denis, 1806, 1894
- Lucian [c. 117 - c. 180], 1760, 1775, 1777, 1813, 1848, 1856, 1859, 1865-1871, 1873, 1878, 1909, 1934
- Mabillon, Jean, 1755, 1766, 1841, 1887, 1925, 1932
- Monte Cassino, 1847, 1849, 1940-1941
- Montfaucon, Bernard de, 1756, 1841, 1924
- Nanni, 1744-1745, 1779-1780, 1805, 1964
- Natalis, 1810, 1814, 1817
- Nero, 1742, 1760, 1776, 1784-1788, 1793, 1796, 1798-1799, 1808, 1810-1817, 1840, 1853-1854, 1864, 1866, 1868-1870, 1875, 1878, 1900, 1913-1918
- New Testament, 1747, 1749, 1757, 1759, 1763-1764, 1766-1770, 1775, 1777-1778, 1781, 1792, 1826-1827, 1840, 1847, 1851, 1859, 1880, 1892, 1912, 1932, 1968, 1970, 1972, 1974-1975, 1978, 1980-1981, 1984, 1988
- Old Testament, 1764, 1766, 1768, 1770, 1774, 1840, 1859, 1883, 1886, 1939, 1978
- palaeography, 1736, 1766, 1804, 1828-1829, 1841, 1859, 1885, 1888-1890, 1900, 1940, 1945, 1960
- Paul, 1757, 1760, 1762-1763, 1777, 1784-1785, 1787, 1793, 1795, 1799, 1803-1806, 1811, 1813, 1822, 1826-1827, 1831-1834, 1837, 1841, 1845, 1854, 1857, 1866, 1874, 1882, 1892, 1894, 1915-1917, 1924, 1933, 1944
- Peregrinus, 1813, 1848, 1867, 1873-1874, 1878
- Phalaris, 1739, 1741, 1759
- Philo, 1745, 1754, 1770-1771, 1810, 1827, 1979-1982
- Philopatris, 1848, 1866-1868, 1878
- plagiarism, 1759, 1761, 1781, 1813, 1816, 1912, 1967-1968, 1973
- Pliny [62 - 113], 1754, 1781, 1784, 1786, 1790, 1793, 1795-1799, 1802, 1808-1809, 1811-1812, 1847, 1852, 1856-1858, 1861-1864, 1875, 1877-1878, 1906
- Pontius Pilate, 1773, 1853, 1877
- Prefect, 1799, 1810, 1846, 1851
- printing, 1755, 1763, 1810, 1840, 1850, 1887, 1890, 1895, 1898, 1908-1909
- redaction, 1795, 1800, 1805, 1814, 1825, 1958
- relics, 1746, 1748-1749, 1790, 1818-1819, 1821-1823, 1825, 1831-1834, 1836, 1896, 1928
- Ross, J.W., 1774, 1789-1790, 1807, 1810, 1813-1814, 1816-1817, 1944
- Senatus Consult, 1795, 1797, 1802
- Seneca, 1760, 1770, 1777, 1787, 1801, 1805, 1809, 1814, 1817, 1826, 1840, 1844-1845, 1854, 1892, 1903, 1906, 1913, 1940-1941
- Shroud of Turin, 1748, 1822
- Sigonio, Carlo, 1752-1753, 1779, 1813, 1825, 1901-1903
- Simonides, Constantine, 1749-1750, 1766, 1805, 1888-1891, 1945
- Smith, Joseph, 1896
- Speyer, Wolfgang, 1764-1766, 1780-1781, 1788, 1790, 1800, 1802, 1805, 1808, 1810, 1825
- Suetonius [c. 69 - after 122], 1761, 1786, 1802, 1810-1811, 1814, 1817, 1847, 1852, 1856-1857, 1864, 1875, 1878, 1904
- Sulpicius Severus [c. 360 - c. 430?], 1774, 1783-1784, 1787-1788, 1813, 1844, 1846-1847, 1853-1854, 1863, 1917-1918
- Syme, Sir Ronald, 1781, 1798, 1807, 1816
- Tacitus [c. 55 - 120], 1752, 1760, 1770-1771, 1773-1774, 1776, 1783-1784, 1786-1790, 1795, 1807-1811, 1813-1814, 1816-1817, 1825, 1844-1847, 1851-1852, 1854-1857, 1860, 1864, 1875-1878, 1900, 1913-1918, 1940-1942, 1944, 1959-1961, 1963-1967, 1989
- Tertullian, 1736, 1762, 1768, 1773, 1784-1785, 1790, 1792-1793, 1796-1797, 1799, 1808, 1811-1812, 1846-1847, 1849, 1854, 1857-1864, 1892, 1915, 1937-1938, 1942, 1962, 1986
- Wiener, Leo, 1900, 1942, 1946-1947, 1949-1959, 1961, 1967
- [from: #4, 116, 490.: addition; annotated; conscious fiction; enlarged; version; improved; not of unity of authorship; altered, rewritten, and expanded; compiled; recension; inserted; edited; embellished; prepared for church use; literary creations; borrowed (plagiarized); reworked (my favorite!); Catholic forgery; all proceeded from one circle or "school"; etc.].