Le Nain de Tillemont. Mémoires pour servir a l’histoire écclésiastique des six premiers siècles. (Published:) 1693-1712.

Mémoires pour servir a l’histoire écclésiastique des six premiers siècles,

justifiez par les citations des auteurs originaux,

avec une chronologie où l’on fait un abrégé de l’histoire ecclésiastique et profane

et des notes pour éclaircir les difficultez des faits et de la chronologie

Published: 1693-1712.
Volumes: 16
Publisher Paris : C. Robustel
Language French
Call number BX 167 .L43 1701
Digitizing sponsor University of Ottawa
Book contributor University of Ottawa
Collection universityofottawa; toronto

The success of this great work (Histoire des Empereurs) was immediate from the appearance of the first volume and led to a demand for the publication of the Histoire ecclésiastique. Boucherat, Chancelier of France, employed his influence. A new censor was appointed and permission was granted. Before publication, however, strong pressure was exerted on Tillemont to reorganize his work and arrange his material in the form of Annals. In refusing to make the change, he offered his Histoire to another or others who would be willing to rework it in the manner desired, but no one accepted the offer. Volume I was published in 1693. Its title reads : Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire ecclésiastique des six premiers siècles, justifiez par les citations des auteurs originaux, avec une chronologie où l’on fait un abrégé de l’histoire ecclésiastique et profane et des notes pour éclaircir les difficultez des faits et de la chronologie. Volumes II (1694), III (1695), and IV (1696) were prepared for the press by Tillemont himself.
Volumes V-XVI (1698-1712) were given their final preparation by Tronchay. Volume XIII, which contains the life of St. Augustine, appeared after VII, because the Latin vita published by the Maurists in their great edition of St. Augustine was a translation into Latin of the French original written by Tillemont, and it was thought desirable to make the French original available to the public as soon as possible.

Martin R. P. McGuire, ‘Louis-Sebastien le Nain de Tillemont’. The Catholic Historical Review, Vol. 52, No. 2 (Jul., 1966), pp. 194-195.

mmoirespourser01lena_0005

16 Volumes available through Scribd.

16 Volumes available through the Bibliotheca Pretiosa.

Bibliotheca Pretiosa: Error 2048.

Dear Friends:

We’ve noticed an error displaying documents in the pages dynamically generated with the Scribd Api. This due to the usage of the now outdated API V. 1, which must be replaced with the API v. 2, to allow native management of all the HTML5 features.

Among this, we are working to update the lost items due to name changing, revisions updated, and other minor issues which disallow the access to some contents in several collections.

Please apologize us by any disturb. We will notify the updates about the solution of these issues.

The Administrative PLGO Board Team.

UPDATE from Nov. 18, 2015:

The problem has been fixed temporarily. The documents are being displayed as flash-based ones, and are totally manageable through the web page http://bibliothecapretiosa.plgo.org

We are working in a whole migration from flash-viewer to native HTML5 standard.

If you still experiencing any trouble, please contact us.

The Administrative PLGO Board Team.

Robinson. Texts and studies: contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. Volume 1. 1891.

Previously announced here, the 4 issues of the first volume has been published by Internet Archive, and may be now accessed through the Bibliotheca Pretiosa and Scribd too.

3 items has been digitized at full color, and one of them [THE PASSION OF S. PERPETUA] is available only as microfilm, in b/w images.

The handwritten note in the front-cover of the issue 4 was done not to correct an ‘errata’, but as a misplaced warning to help the readers. The back-cover show that a single page is attached to the 4th. issue, as a main front-page of the whole volume 1; that’s the reason the 4 issues appear listed there:

Vol. I.

No. 1. THE APOLOGY OF ARISTIDES : by J. Rendel Harris, M. A. : with an Appendix by the editor.
No. 2. THE PASSION OF S. PERPETUA, with an Appendix on the Scillitan Martyrdom : by the editor.
No. 3. THE LORD’S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH : by F. H. Chase, B. D.
No. 4. THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON : by A. E. Brooke, M. A.

Harris, Robinson. The Apology of Aristides on behalf of the Christians : from a Syriac ms. preserved on Mou… by Patrologia Latina, Graeca et Orientalis

Robinson. The Passion of S. Perpetua [microform]. 1891. by Patrologia Latina, Graeca et Orientalis

Chase. The Lord's prayer in the early church. 1891. by Patrologia Latina, Graeca et Orientalis

Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1. by Patrologia Latina, Graeca et Orientalis

Quote. Gérard Vallée, ‘A study in Anti-Gnostic polemics: Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Epiphanius’, Introduction. 1981.

Out of the large number of heresiologists who wrote during the first centuries, why concentrate on the Adversus haereses of Irenaeus, the Elenchos of Hippolytus, and the Panarion of Epiphanius? The answer, in a nutshell, is that these works are available ; they are typical ; and they each took on ‘all the heresies’ of their own day.

They are available – that is, they survived. Justin wrote a Syntagma dealing also with all heresies and so did Hippolytus. Unfortunately, both are lost, and efforts to reconstruct them have obviously not succeeded in giving them back to us in their entirety. At best we might identify generically the heresies they refuted and infer something of the influence of these now lost works on the history of heresiology. It is not possible, however, to gain a clear idea of the arguments they used to counter their opponents.

Second, the Adversus haereses, the Elenchos, and the Panarion are typical representatives of the literary genre called ‘heresiology’. These works offer us excellent illustrations of what heresiology was in three successive centuries, and they allow us to follow the development of heresiology in that period. Moreover, they had a decisive and lasting influence on the fixing of the style of Christian polemics. (Their respective sources or their interdependence are not of primary concern here, although at times it will be useful to indicate the probable source of their ideas ; but our main interest is in the authors themselves. Each is seen as representing one major moment in the heresiological tradition).

Third, all three did battle with all heresies they knew, not only with particular heresies. This distinguishes them from heresiologists like Tertullian, Theophilus of Antioch, or Origen who took aim at one or another chosen target (Marcion or the Valentinians).

After Epiphanius heresiology betrays a depletion of energies. Pseudo-Tertullian, Filastrius of Brescia, Theodoret of Cyrus, also writing against all heresies, rely primarily for their information on Hippolytus’s Syntagma. Filastrius and Theodoret do not directly depend on Epiphanius ; they rather parallel him, and do not expand our knowledge of early heresies. The same may be said of Augustine ; he knew the ‘Anakephalaioseis’ of the Panarion and it is on them that he based his information in his De haeresibus. After Epiphanius no fresh knowledge of ancient heresies can be expected. New methods of dealing with heretics will indeed be developed. (But a study of these methods would include medieval heresiology up to the Reformation, which is beyond the scope of the present study. We are interested here in understanding the methods of dealing with ancient heresies).

Gérard Vallée, ‘A study in Anti-Gnostic polemics: Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Epiphanius’, Introduction; in “Studies in Christianity and Judaism: 1”, pp. 4-6. Canadian Corporation for Studies in Religion, 1981.

Quote. Robert M. Grant. ‘Early Christians and Animals’, Ch. 4, “Alexandrians and the Phisiologus”, 3: Clement. 1999.

The primary work of Clement of Alexandria, in eight books, was his Stromateis or Miscellanies. Like Aelian, he used a good source (an epitome of Aristotle’s History of Animals by Aristophanes of Byzantium), but added a good deal of erudite nonsense. As an Alexandrian, Clement is naturally concerned with Egyptian matters. He refers to “the gods of Egypt such as cats and weasels,” as well as “cat or crocodile or native snake.” On a literary level he analyzes Egyptian writing as epistolographic (= demotic) or hieratic or hieroglyphic. There are two kinds of hieroglyphs, literal and symbolical, while the symbolical in turn is divided into three: (1) literal by imitation (the sun is a circle, the moon looks like a moon), (2) figurative, and (3) allegorical using enigmas. He illustrates the third type by stars depicted as snakes because of their oblique orbits, the sun as a beetle because it fashions a ball of ox-dung and rolls it before its face. Later he discusses the symbolical meanings of animals in the hieroglyphs. Some Egyptians show the sun on a ship, others on a crocodile; they mean that the sun generates time, or else that the crocodile symbolizes time. On the sacred Pylon at Diospolis there was a boy, the symbol of generation, and an old man, decay. A hawk was the symbol of God, a fish of hatred, while the crocodile can mean shamelessness. Taken together, the symbols mean this: “You who are born and die, God hates shamelessness.” (This last account is close to Plutarch, except that he locates the carving in the temple of Athena at Sais and identifies the shameless animal as the hippopotamus.) In addition, the lion symbolizes strength and vigor; the ox, agriculture and nourishment; the horse, courage and boldness; the sphinx, strength with understanding, for it has the body of a lion, the face of a man. A man symbolizes intelligence, memory, power, and art. In the processions of the gods they carry gold images: two dogs, one hawk, and one ibis. The dogs symbolize two hemispheres; the hawk the sun, the ibis the moon; or else the dogs are the tropics, the hawk the equinoctial line, and the ibis the ecliptic. The errors in this exegesis are comparable only to those in the Hieroglyphics of Horapollo, who wrote several centuries after Clement, but relied on similar sources. Both authors took the symbols seriously but did not know what they meant.

When Clement attacked anthropomorphists who held that God literally enjoys smelling the smoke of sacrifices (Gen. 8:21), he turned to natural history for analogies. Do insects breathe or not? Clement marshalled a scientific account of breathing, to combat the idea that God breathes. Aristotle (On Respiration) had argued that insects do not breathe because when centipedes are cut up the parts stay alive, and flies and bees can swim in liquid for a long time. On the other hand, in his History of Animals he noted that all insects die if covered with oil, a point suggesting that they do breathe. Clement deals with the question by defining terms. Plants are nourished from the density of the air, while hibernating bears are nourished from the exhalation arising from their own bodies. Demons ventilate internally (diapneitai). Fish inhale (empneitai) through the dilation of their gills. Insects circumspire (peripneitai) through pressure of membranes on the waist. Finally, there are creatures that inhale (anapnei) by rhythmic beats corresponding to the counter-dilation (anti-diastole) of the lungs against the chest. A little later, Clement notes that land animals and birds inhale as human beings do, though fish breathe the air infused into the water at the creation. Theophilus too had remarked on this infusion.

Clement dealt with diet from points of view both moral and philosophical. He quoted Paul as saying, “It is good not to eat meat or drink wine” (shortened from Romans 14:21), in agreement with the Pythagoreans – for whose opinions he quotes the Stoic Musonius Rufus: “meat, though appropriate for wild animals, darkens the soul.” He adds, however, that he who eats meat sparingly does not sin. In his view the best diet consists of bulbs, olives, herbs, milk, cheese, fruits, and “all kinds of cooked food without sauces.” (The list comes from Plato through Plutarch.) But Clement is willing to include meat, preferably roasted, not boiled. He cites the frugal disciples, who offered the risen Lord “a piece of broiled fish, which he ate before them” (Luke 24:42–43).

In a later work Clement reflects deeper concerns. Christians can abstain from meat on reasonable grounds, not the Pythagorean dream about the transmigration of souls. One might abstain because animal meat has “already been assimilated to the souls of irrational creatures.” In addition, wine and meat harm the mind, as (the Pythagorean) Androcydes said. Similarly one of the late second-century Sayings of Sextus, authoritative for both Clement and Origen, claims that though abstinence is more rational, eating animate beings is really a matter of indifference.

Egyptian priests in their purifications abstain from meat and fish, for “such food makes the flesh flabby.” Elsewhere Clement lists a few fishes “venerated” at various places: one kind at Syene, another at Elephantine, yet another at Oxyrhynchus. This kind of information reflects the interests of the age, not those of Christians generally save for the literary-minded author himself.

He also tells how some Phoenician Syrians “venerate” fishes, while Porphyry mentions Syrians in general, as well as initiates into the mysteries at Eleusis. The Christian apologist Athenagoras says Syrians “venerate” fish because of the mythical Derceto (who had a fish’s tail). “Venerate” again means “not eat.”

Clement identifies the serpent with the devil but usually, after Philo, relates his work to pleasure. He adds that the serpent is now the cause of idol-worship, and acts like barbarians who bind their captives to corpses. The simile comes from the Exhortation of Aristotle, but Clement obviously makes it his own.

Since Clement knew something of zoology he could question animal lore, either tacitly or explicitly. In his Miscellanies he paraphrases much of the letter of “the apostle Clement,” but not the section about the phoenix, a bird he mentions elsewhere only as an Egyptian astrological symbol. Presumably he did not accept the story. When he commented on Barnabas, whom he regarded as an apostle, he relied on Aristotle for questioning the story about the hyena, though without naming either the apostle or the philosopher. He agreed with Barnabas that Moses spoke allegorically but rejected his ideas about what he meant. “I do not agree with this exegesis of what was said symbolically.” Closer to Aristotle than to Barnabas, Clement says the hare really has a bifurcated uterus. And as for the weasel, the Hellenistic Jewish Epistle of Aristeas said that the weasel conceives through the ear and gives birth through the mouth; Plutarch states that “many suppose and say that the weasel conceives through the ear and gives birth through the mouth.” Harnack and others thought Zeno of Verona was expressing a like thought when he said that “Christ enters Mary through the ear.” They did not notice that Zeno was simply giving allegorical exegesis of the angel’s speaking a word to her, just as when he said that the devil crept into Eve through her ear. This was not Barnabas’ notion. The author of the Clementine Recognitions rather sensibly supposed that these unusual habits prove that the Creator specifically chose the usual modes of conception and birth as norms. The Physiologus, as usual, went back to gossip, claiming that the hyena is androgynous, alternating sexes, while the weasel conceives through the mouth and gives birth through the ears. The latter statement simply reverses Aristeas’ notion.

Robert M. Grant. ‘Early Christians and Animals’, Ch. 4, “Alexandrians and the Phisiologus”, 3: Clement, pp. 46.48. Routledge, 1999.

Vizmanos. Las vírgenes cristianas de la iglesia primitiva : estudio histórico-ideológico seguido de una antología de tratados patrísticos sobre la virginidad. 1949.

Las vírgenes cristianas de la iglesia primitiva : estudio histórico-ideológico seguido de una antología de tratados patrísticos sobre la virginidad (1949)

Author: Vizmanos, Francisco de B
Subject: Virginity; Christian literature, Early
Publisher: Madrid : La Editoral Católica
Language: Spanish
Call number: BV4647.C5 V46 1949
Digitizing sponsor: Princeton Theological Seminary Library
Book contributor: Princeton Theological Seminary Library
Collection: Princeton; americana

NOTE: Please be aware that this item may have legal restrictions in some countries. If possible, verify your current legislation about Copyright’ laws, to determinate if this item may be accessed from your country.

Vizmanos. Las vírgenes cristianas de la iglesia primitiva : estudio histórico-ideológico seguido de una ant… by Patrologia Latina, Graeca et Orientalis

Porcel. La doctrina monástica de San Gregorio Magno y la “Regula monachorum”. 1950.

La doctrina monástica de San Gregorio Magno y la “Regula monachorum” (1950)

Author: Porcel, Olegario Maria, 1914-
Subject: Gregory I, Pope, ca. 540-604; Benedict, Saint, Abbot of Monte Cassino; Monasticism and religious orders
Publisher: [Madrid] : Instituto “Enrique Florez,” Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, [1950]
Language: Spanish
Call number: BX1076 .P67 1950
Digitizing sponsor: Princeton Theological Seminary Library
Book contributor: Princeton Theological Seminary Library
Collection: Princeton; americana

Porcel. La doctrina monástica de San Gregorio Magno y la "Regula monachorum". 1950. by Patrologia Latina, Graeca et Orientalis

Quote. Kato. Jerome’s Understanding of Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament. 2013.

Jerome is well known as one of the greatest Church Fathers who studied Hebrew and biblical exegesis under his Jewish teachers in Bethlehem and translated the Old Testament from the original Hebrew text into Latin. This image of Jerome, however, can easily change when we examine the history of research related to him.

Gustave Bardy suggested that while Jerome claimed that his Jewish teachers had taught him their exegesis, he, in fact, had plagiarized it from Greek predecessors such as Origen and Eusebius. Jerome, who mastered Greek while living in Syria and Asia Minor, spent a lot of time reading the works of Origen and Eusebius and translated some of them into Latin. According to Bardy, Jerome learned Jewish interpretations of the Bible from their works but pretended to have learned them from his Jewish teachers in order to boast about his knowledge of Hebrew. Moreover, Pierre Nautin considered Jerome’s linguistic competence in Hebrew to be quite low. According to Nautin, Jerome knew so little Hebrew that he had no choice but to depend on his Greek predecessors. Nautin was generally sceptical about Jerome’s statements. For instance, he concluded that Jerome’s correspondence with Pope Damasus I was a complete fiction created to lend authority to his own remarks. In addition, Nautin believed that the Latin Bible which Jerome claimed to have translated from the original Hebrew text was no more than a second-hand translation from the Hexaplaric (recension of the) LXX.

On the other hand, especially from the viewpoint of the Jewish studies, Jay Braverman and Benjamin Kedar-Kopfstein noted that Jerome was deeply indebted to his Jewish teachers for his exegesis. Further, contrary to Nautin’s view, they estimated Jerome’s competence in Hebrew to be high. Kedar-Kopfstein, for instance, indicated that some interpretations of rabbinic literature and medieval Jewish exegetes were reflected in the passages of the Vulgate, which Jerome seemed to have mistranslated. In other words, it was not Jerome’s low competence in Hebrew but his rather close relationship with Jewish teachers of the time that made passages different in the Vulgate from what they were in the Masoretic text. Furthermore, scholars of Biblical studies, such as Edmund F. Sutcliffe and James Barr, tried to restore the ancient pronunciations of Hebrew words as they were before the Masoretic text by using Jerome’s Latin transliteration. They obviously could not have conducted their research without being convinced of Jerome’s competence in Hebrew.

Following the history of research on Jerome, we are confronted by two questions. First, were all of Jerome’s exegeses plagiarized from his Greek predecessors? Second, what was Jerome’s competence in Hebrew? To answer these questions we first need to consider Jerome’s understanding of Old Testament quotations in the New Testament (hereafter Quot.). When passages of the Old Testament are quoted in the New Testament, the wordings of some differ from those of the LXX which was the Old Testament for Christians in antiquity. Regarding these passages, Jerome claimed that their sources were not the LXX but the original Hebrew text. According to him, whenever the Evangelists and Paul quoted any passages of the Old Testament, they always chose the Hebrew text and translated it into Greek. If this assertion is correct and is based on an accurate knowledge of Hebrew, Jerome’s originality of exegesis and his competence in Hebrew is likely to be confirmed. Accordingly, we will analyse seven texts of Jerome (See section II), especially his Ep. 57, or Liber de optimo genere interpretandi, written c.395. In these texts, Jerome provides examples which indicate that the source of the Quot. was not the LXX but the Hebrew text.

Teppei Kato. ‘Jerome’s Understanding of Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament‘, in Vigiliae Christianae 67, pp. 289-292. Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2013.

Grützmacher. Hieronymus : eine biographische Studie zur alten Kirchengeschichte. 1901.

Hieronymus : eine biographische Studie zur alten Kirchengeschichte (August 1901)

Author: Grützmacher, Georg, 1866-
Volumes: 3
Subject: Jerome, Saint, d. 419 or 20; Church history
Publisher: Leipzig : Dieterich
Possible copyright status: NOT_IN_COPYRIGHT
Language: German
Call number: AEQ-0286
Digitizing sponsor: msn
Book contributor: Robarts – University of Toronto
Collection: robarts; toronto

Grützmacher. Hieronymus : eine biographische Studie zur alten Kirchengeschichte. 1901. Volume 1. by Patrologia Latina, Graeca et Orientalis

Grützmacher. Hieronymus : eine biographische Studie zur alten Kirchengeschichte. 1901. Volume 2. by Patrologia Latina, Graeca et Orientalis

Grützmacher. Hieronymus : eine biographische Studie zur alten Kirchengeschichte. 1901. Volume 3. by Patrologia Latina, Graeca et Orientalis

Fabricius. Bibliotheca latina mediæ et infimæ aetatis, cum supplemento Christiani Schoettgenii. 1754.

Bibliotheca latina mediæ et infimæ aetatis, cum supplemento Christiani Schoettgenii. Editio prima italica a p. Joanne Dominico Mansi … e MSS. editisque codicibus correcta, illustrata, aucta .. (1754)

Author: Fabricius, Johann Albert, 1668-1736; Cavagna Sangiuliani di Gualdana, Antonio, conte, 1843-1913, former owner. IU-R; Schöttgen, Christian, 1687-1751; Mansi, Giovan Domenico, 1692-1769
Volumes: 6
Subject: Latin literature, Medieval and modern; Literature, Medieval
Publisher: Patavii, apud Joannem Manfrè
Language: Latin
Call number: 3086930
Digitizing sponsor: University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
Book contributor: University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
Collection: university_of_illinois_urbana-champaign; americana

Fabricius. Bibliotheca latina mediæ et infimæ aetatis, cum supplemento Christiani Schoettgenii. 1754. Voume… by Patrologia Latina, Graeca et Orientalis

Fabricius. Bibliotheca latina mediæ et infimæ aetatis, cum supplemento Christiani Schoettgenii. 1754. Voume… by Patrologia Latina, Graeca et Orientalis

Fabricius. Bibliotheca latina mediæ et infimæ aetatis, cum supplemento Christiani Schoettgenii. 1754. Voume… by Patrologia Latina, Graeca et Orientalis

Clementina, hoc est, B. Clementis Romani … Opera, quae quidem in hunc vsq[ue] diem à varijs auctoribus collecta, conuersa, emendatáq[ue] latinè exstant, omnia. 1570.

Clementina, hoc est, B. Clementis Romani … Opera, quae quidem in hunc vsq[ue] diem à varijs auctoribus collecta, conuersa, emendatáq[ue] latinè exstant, omnia : cum noua praefatione de veris falsisq[ue] B. Clementis scriptis, postremaq[ue] eorundem fideli emendatione, ac diligenti argumentorum difficiliumq[ue] locorum explanatione D. Lamberti Gruteri Venradii…

Autoría : Iglesia Católica. Papa (90-100 : Clemente I) Gruterus, Lambertus
Colaborador: Clemente I, Papa, Santo
Birckmann, Johann
Fecha de publicación: 1570
Cobertura Geográfica: Alemania-Colonia
Editorial : Coloniae Agrippinae : apud Ioannem Birckmannum
Descrípción física : [46], 565, [1] p. ; Fol.
Nota : Marca tip. en port. y al fin
Inic. grab.
Apostillas marginales
Colofón
Enc. Perg.
Sign.: *-**6, ***-****4, A-Z6, Aa-Zz6, Aaa6, Bbb4
Citado en: CCPB000005641-3
Palabras clave: Padres de la Iglesia
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10481/9748
Derechos : Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 License
Aparece en las colecciones: Siglo XVI

Clementina, hoc est, B. Clementis Romani … Opera, quae quidem in hunc vsq[ue] diem à varijs auctoribus co… by Patrologia Latina, Graeca et Orientalis

Sabatier. Bibliorum Sacrorum latinae versiones antiguae : seu, Vetus italica. 1743.

Bibliorum Sacrorum latinae versiones antiguae : seu, Vetus italica, et caeterae quaecunque in codicibus mss. & antiquorum libris reperiri potuerunt : quae cum Vulgata latina, & cum textu graeco comparantur … Operâ & studio … Petri Sabatier .. (1743)

Author: Sabatier, Pierre, 1682-1742La Rue, Vincent de, d. 1762
Volume: Vols. 3
Subject: Bible
Publisher: Remis : Apud Reginaldum Florentain
Language: Latin
Call number: SCF
Digitizing sponsor: Princeton Theological Seminary Library
Book contributor: Princeton Theological Seminary Library
Collection: Princetonamericana

 

Sabatier. Bibliorum Sacrorum latinae versiones antiguae : seu, Vetus italica. 1743. Volume 1. by Patrologia Latina, Graeca et Orientalis

 

Sabatier. Bibliorum Sacrorum latinae versiones antiguae : seu, Vetus italica. 1743. Volume 2. by Patrologia Latina, Graeca et Orientalis

x

Sabatier. Bibliorum Sacrorum latinae versiones antiguae : seu, Vetus italica. 1751. Volume 3. by Patrologia Latina, Graeca et Orientalis