Steven Avery
Administrator
This is elsewhere here, but was pulled out for this post.
It needs some footnotes?
CARM
https://forums.carm.org/threads/the...e-to-st-catherines-in-1859.17362/post-1382008
Here is a Luciano Canfora section rough google translated from Italian to English. It touches on various issues, including the one above about John Newton.
Il viaggio di Artemidoro (2011)
by Luciano Canfora
https://books.google.com/books?id=f5A8FING5iEC&pg=PA305
134 Chatzephotis, in the biographical notes on Simonidis, 325 makes him die in the monastery of San Saba in the Obituary of the Times in London on October 20, 1890, but he dies in Albania in October of that year, but suggests that he could also do not actually be dead. In 1907 he returned to talk a lot about Simonidis and some of his old English companions somewhat amazed. Two facts occurred in that year, in two distant scenarios, but in a sense convergent from the point of view of results. In London, at Longmans, Green & Co., a volume is published, Literary Forgeries, written by a 60-year-old polygraph educated at Eton and Oxford, James Anson Farrer, who devotes a large and well-documented chapter to Simonidis. The intent, quite evident, of the author is to refute almost all the accusations against Simonidis as a forger. As in a lawyer's plaidoyer, Farrer nullifies the arguments of the Royal Society (essentially of Madden) against the papyri of the Mayer collection and in various cases formulates pertinent critiques; it even reverses the prevailing view on the Sinaitic affair and tries to argue that it may indeed have been a prodigious work by Simonidis. He had been trying for a long time to stop talking, to forget it, and having already fished it made a sensation, but even more astonished the tone. Especially since, with those pages, Farrer went into a field that was unusual for him. John Eliot Hodgkin (who was the curator of the Mayer collection) writes to John Newton (March 22, 1907) and judges Farrer's book "dispassionate, impartial". 326 It is the same Hodgkin whom, in March 1864, from Paris, Simonidis wrote telling his own discoveries of Greek codices and advocating every possible initiative in the dispute over the Sinaitic. Speaking in the year 1900 on the popular "Notes and Queries" magazine, Hodgkin found a way, starting from a pretext, to mention with honor Simonidis claiming its truthfulness (July 21, 1900). In 1907, in his letter to Newton, he also declared, in the first sentences, that he had helped Farrer in his work, that he had passed on materials ("letters etc."). In the background «Simonidis» kept in the Gennadios Library of Athens 327 there is a letter from Farrer to Hodgkin, written while Farrer was involved in writing the Simonides chapter of the Forgeries.
Dear Hodgkin, I am leaving you all the cards I took the other day except the curious traces that seem to come from the Shepherd of Hermas. I am anxious to compare them to the British Museum with the Tischendorf facsimile of the same writing, located at the end of its codex. I expect his volume of lithographed letters to contain a treatise by Simonidis on the religious art of Mount Athos. A letter, which I found, by Alessandro Sturtza (at least I think he is indicated with the letters A.S.S.) is dated by Odessa, 14 April 1852, and thanks for sending this book. If this is the case, it must be assumed that the other letters were also actually lithographed on that date.
135 The arrangement of the cards is almost right, which I hope will facilitate the reference to them, for future use, if necessary. His J.A. Farrer P.S. There is an internal proof, p. 9, line 17, of the genuineness of the work. The word was omitted by Simonidis, and added by the author of the title page. See its Λ completely different from Simonidis' λ. It is a very instructive document on the high degree of collaboration between the two. John Newton is the son of that Charles Newton who, over the years, had copied the epigraphs of Priene, shortly after the journey that Pullan had made in that area on behalf of the "Society of Amateurs"; 328 years earlier Simonidis himself had traveled the same areas of Caria to copy epigraphs and collect antiquities of all kinds. 329 John Newton, who was eighty-four years old in 1907, knew Simonidis well in the 1860s; now he speaks of it with detachment:
"That I know all the people involved are dead. Mayer, Tregelles, Tischendorf have long since died. Simonidis also, that I know; and if he is alive of what I doubt because he has not made a sign? " 330 Considerable the margin of doubt still subsistent around the never well ascertained disappearance of Simonidis. Ironically, Newton rejects the incitement coming from Hodgkin (and from the book by Farrer) to reopen the question of the controversial papyrus of the Mayer collection. "What at the time struck me immediately," he writes, "is the ease with which Simonidis found papyruses in the Mayer collection, while the scholars in the field in Egypt and Palestine thought to find modest frustules." 331 However, "to enter that Museum" Newton writes, "I would have paid, but you were forty years to write to me, and now it's too late. I am eighty-four years old, I am afflicted by rheumatism etc. ».
In short, the attempt Hodgkin-Farrer to reopen the Simonidis case in 1907 seems to have run aground after this response. However, a rather unusual phenomenon deserves attention: the simultaneous publication in England and in Germany, just in Leipzig, of the book by Farrer, which is translated to the publisher Thomas di Lipsia edited by F.J. Kleemeier with the title Literarische Fälschungen. However, these publications did not remain without effect, if the Farrer's reviewer in the "Gentleman s Magazine", vol. 302 (January-June 1907, p 327), concludes that all in all the judgment on Simonidis should be reconsidered and rebalanced. And even the anonymous reviewer in "The Academy" (March 9, 1907, p. 235) concludes the long account of Farrer's volume with a eulogy of the "profound erudition" of Simonidis and with a sibillino non liquet on the Sinaitic question. Farrer should be remembered here he had gone to see the papyrus of Simonidis, and had described the Mayer collection kept in Liverpool, when he was preparing his essay. And he had noticed an important detail, which he signaled with scrupulous
136 precision: "There are," wrote "in the collection, three still unrolled papyrus, worn and fragile, similar to huge cigars: who knows what precious secrets of antiquity contain!". 332 It signaled that at Liverpool in the Museum, in the Mayer collection, there were still three unpublished works of large Simonidis. (We already notice here, but we will return soon to this point, that a hundred years after those three big papyri have disappeared!) 333
===============================
And I am trying to interest a Bible friend fluent in Italian to help out with Luciano Canfora material in general. Including more follow-up correspondence with the Italian band.
It needs some footnotes?
CARM
https://forums.carm.org/threads/the...e-to-st-catherines-in-1859.17362/post-1382008
Here is a Luciano Canfora section rough google translated from Italian to English. It touches on various issues, including the one above about John Newton.
Il viaggio di Artemidoro (2011)
by Luciano Canfora
https://books.google.com/books?id=f5A8FING5iEC&pg=PA305
134 Chatzephotis, in the biographical notes on Simonidis, 325 makes him die in the monastery of San Saba in the Obituary of the Times in London on October 20, 1890, but he dies in Albania in October of that year, but suggests that he could also do not actually be dead. In 1907 he returned to talk a lot about Simonidis and some of his old English companions somewhat amazed. Two facts occurred in that year, in two distant scenarios, but in a sense convergent from the point of view of results. In London, at Longmans, Green & Co., a volume is published, Literary Forgeries, written by a 60-year-old polygraph educated at Eton and Oxford, James Anson Farrer, who devotes a large and well-documented chapter to Simonidis. The intent, quite evident, of the author is to refute almost all the accusations against Simonidis as a forger. As in a lawyer's plaidoyer, Farrer nullifies the arguments of the Royal Society (essentially of Madden) against the papyri of the Mayer collection and in various cases formulates pertinent critiques; it even reverses the prevailing view on the Sinaitic affair and tries to argue that it may indeed have been a prodigious work by Simonidis. He had been trying for a long time to stop talking, to forget it, and having already fished it made a sensation, but even more astonished the tone. Especially since, with those pages, Farrer went into a field that was unusual for him. John Eliot Hodgkin (who was the curator of the Mayer collection) writes to John Newton (March 22, 1907) and judges Farrer's book "dispassionate, impartial". 326 It is the same Hodgkin whom, in March 1864, from Paris, Simonidis wrote telling his own discoveries of Greek codices and advocating every possible initiative in the dispute over the Sinaitic. Speaking in the year 1900 on the popular "Notes and Queries" magazine, Hodgkin found a way, starting from a pretext, to mention with honor Simonidis claiming its truthfulness (July 21, 1900). In 1907, in his letter to Newton, he also declared, in the first sentences, that he had helped Farrer in his work, that he had passed on materials ("letters etc."). In the background «Simonidis» kept in the Gennadios Library of Athens 327 there is a letter from Farrer to Hodgkin, written while Farrer was involved in writing the Simonides chapter of the Forgeries.
Dear Hodgkin, I am leaving you all the cards I took the other day except the curious traces that seem to come from the Shepherd of Hermas. I am anxious to compare them to the British Museum with the Tischendorf facsimile of the same writing, located at the end of its codex. I expect his volume of lithographed letters to contain a treatise by Simonidis on the religious art of Mount Athos. A letter, which I found, by Alessandro Sturtza (at least I think he is indicated with the letters A.S.S.) is dated by Odessa, 14 April 1852, and thanks for sending this book. If this is the case, it must be assumed that the other letters were also actually lithographed on that date.
135 The arrangement of the cards is almost right, which I hope will facilitate the reference to them, for future use, if necessary. His J.A. Farrer P.S. There is an internal proof, p. 9, line 17, of the genuineness of the work. The word was omitted by Simonidis, and added by the author of the title page. See its Λ completely different from Simonidis' λ. It is a very instructive document on the high degree of collaboration between the two. John Newton is the son of that Charles Newton who, over the years, had copied the epigraphs of Priene, shortly after the journey that Pullan had made in that area on behalf of the "Society of Amateurs"; 328 years earlier Simonidis himself had traveled the same areas of Caria to copy epigraphs and collect antiquities of all kinds. 329 John Newton, who was eighty-four years old in 1907, knew Simonidis well in the 1860s; now he speaks of it with detachment:
"That I know all the people involved are dead. Mayer, Tregelles, Tischendorf have long since died. Simonidis also, that I know; and if he is alive of what I doubt because he has not made a sign? " 330 Considerable the margin of doubt still subsistent around the never well ascertained disappearance of Simonidis. Ironically, Newton rejects the incitement coming from Hodgkin (and from the book by Farrer) to reopen the question of the controversial papyrus of the Mayer collection. "What at the time struck me immediately," he writes, "is the ease with which Simonidis found papyruses in the Mayer collection, while the scholars in the field in Egypt and Palestine thought to find modest frustules." 331 However, "to enter that Museum" Newton writes, "I would have paid, but you were forty years to write to me, and now it's too late. I am eighty-four years old, I am afflicted by rheumatism etc. ».
In short, the attempt Hodgkin-Farrer to reopen the Simonidis case in 1907 seems to have run aground after this response. However, a rather unusual phenomenon deserves attention: the simultaneous publication in England and in Germany, just in Leipzig, of the book by Farrer, which is translated to the publisher Thomas di Lipsia edited by F.J. Kleemeier with the title Literarische Fälschungen. However, these publications did not remain without effect, if the Farrer's reviewer in the "Gentleman s Magazine", vol. 302 (January-June 1907, p 327), concludes that all in all the judgment on Simonidis should be reconsidered and rebalanced. And even the anonymous reviewer in "The Academy" (March 9, 1907, p. 235) concludes the long account of Farrer's volume with a eulogy of the "profound erudition" of Simonidis and with a sibillino non liquet on the Sinaitic question. Farrer should be remembered here he had gone to see the papyrus of Simonidis, and had described the Mayer collection kept in Liverpool, when he was preparing his essay. And he had noticed an important detail, which he signaled with scrupulous
136 precision: "There are," wrote "in the collection, three still unrolled papyrus, worn and fragile, similar to huge cigars: who knows what precious secrets of antiquity contain!". 332 It signaled that at Liverpool in the Museum, in the Mayer collection, there were still three unpublished works of large Simonidis. (We already notice here, but we will return soon to this point, that a hundred years after those three big papyri have disappeared!) 333
===============================
And I am trying to interest a Bible friend fluent in Italian to help out with Luciano Canfora material in general. Including more follow-up correspondence with the Italian band.