From Lorenzo.Smerillo@worldnet.att.net Sun Sep 10 14:50:46 2000 Received: from mxu1.u.washington.edu (mxu1.u.washington.edu [140.142.32.8]) by lists.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW00.05/8.9.3+UW99.09) with ESMTP id OAA124198 for ; Sun, 10 Sep 2000 14:50:45 -0700 Received: from mtiwmhc25.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc25.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.50]) by mxu1.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW00.02/8.9.3+UW99.09) with ESMTP id OAA28293 for ; Sun, 10 Sep 2000 14:50:45 -0700 Received: from lorenzo ([12.79.75.123]) by mtiwmhc25.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with SMTP id <20000910215040.WSYC6605.mtiwmhc25.worldnet.att.net@lorenzo> for ; Sun, 10 Sep 2000 21:50:40 +0000 Message-ID: <39BC1025.2F4D@worldnet.att.net> Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 17:50:13 -0500 From: L:Smerillo X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: CLASSICS@u.washington.edu Subject: "Dark Ages" and Comet Biela Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Germane to this thread may be perhaps the following considerations. Gregory the Great in his _Dialogi_ III 38.3 (ed. de Vogue, SC 260) says: Mox enim illa terribilia in caelo signa secuta sunt, ut hastae atque acies igneae ab aquilonis parte uiderentur. Mox effera Langobardorum gens, de uagina suae habitationes educta in nostra ceruice grassata est... [he goes on to list devastations and depopulations] concluding: Et quid in aliis mundi partibus agatur ignoro, nam hac in terra, in qua uiuimus, finem suum mundus non iam nuniat, sed ostendit. A problem with this is that one is uncertain if he is refering to the invasion of the Longobards (begin 20 May 568, when Gregory was 28) or the devastations caused by them in 591-594-- exactly at the time when the Dialogi are thought to have been compiled by him. Either way Gregory uses the vision cited above as a platform for eschatological reflection. Another thought hit me: 536 is a significant year being rather close to the 'traditional date' of the death of Benedict of Montecassino. Gregory gives an account of this and of a vision had by two monks in Dial. II 37.3: Qua scilicet die duobus de eo fratibus, uni in cella commoranti, alteri autem longius posito, reuelatio unius atque indissimilis uisionis apparuit. Viderunt namque quia strata palliis atque innumeris corusca lampadibus via recto orientis tramite ab eius cella in caelum usque tendentur. Whilst de Vogue does give a citation for a similar vision (Apoptheg. John Colobos 40, PG 65.220A: blepei hodon tina phOteinEn apo tou ouranou heOs autEs estErigmenEv vers. Lat.: uidet lucidam uiam quae a caelo ad ipsam usque prostabat) and a verbal link of paving the way with pallia (2K.9.13), echoed in Mt.21.8: Plurima autem turba struerunt uestimenta sua in uia, which has a verbal link strata > strauerunt, what I find intriguing is that the phrase 'atque innumeris corusca lampadibus' in the Dialogues has NO verbal link. To this one might add Benedict's own vision of the soul of Germanus, bishop of Capua, going up to heaven in a globe of fire (II.35.3 (in spera ignea) and retold in IV.8 (in globo igneo)). As well as the famous and much discussed vision Benedict had of 'omnis etiam mundus, uelut sub uno solis radio collectus.' Now Germanus seems to have died in 540 (again according to de Vogue, n. ad loc. with reff.). The question I would like to raise is: could this material have as its reference the celestial phenomena of 536? And if so, then would we have perhaps a piece of evidence (obviously along with others) to lower the 'traditional date' for the death of Benedict by ten years? This would seem to raise some problems with the evidence of the quotations of Pelagius' translation of the Vitae Patrum in the Regula monachorum (provided that they are present in the Regula text as the result of the work of the same holy man, Benedict, who is the subject of the legend). As a counter argument one could say that legend and text do not necessarily need to be in a strict order. Could one not have the sequence 536 (natural phenomena), 540 (death of Germanus), post 546 (death of Benedict of Montecassino) and Regula? The hagiographical material could have accummulated slightly later and around the, for lack of a better word, nugget, of the natural phenomena of 536. Displacement of memory of natural phenomena ('that very hot summer, was it three or four years ago?') is common enough. But I would wonder if 10+ years is not too long a strech? Another possiblity is that there were some natural phenonmena, perhaps associated with refraction of moonlight off dust clouds in 536 (or 540?), which may have given rise to the noctural visions (Benedict's vision of the 'sphera ignea' is at night). I would be very grateful if anyone on the list has any other thoughts on these points and would share them. TIA. regards, Lorenzo Smerillo Lector, Late Antiquity Biblioteca Nazionale Protocœnobio Sublacense (Roma) P:S: this topic was discussed at length on the Late Antiquity Disccussion Forum in 1998 (June/July). .