- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
The quest for Anchiton
- The quest for Anchiton
-
RE: The quest for Anchiton
Anton > 25-10-2018, 06:16 PM
,Quote:Even if we consider the possibility that the appearance of asbestos could lead it to be confused with some sort of wood, there is a problem with assuming that the phrase means the altar was made of asbestos.
Exactly so!
Quote:the most fascinating use of asbestos during the period was as a magical cross sold by traveling merchants. The crosses, cut from asbestos, looked like very old, worn wood and were advertised by merchants as "true crosses" made directly from the wood of the cross upon which Jesus Christ of Nazareth died. To illustrate the magical cross's powers, the merchants would throw the wood into a fire where it would remain undamaged.
That's most interesting, JKP! Where do you quote this from? Was it just a cheap trick to fool illiterate people, or this would pass with learned scholars as well?! And was there any specific name for this "wood" used by those merchants?
Quote:You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
But that says nothing of wood! It says "genus fossilis" and, better still (in the margin) - "lapis"
Quote:If "antichiton" must be the two words "anti chiton" is really can mean "instead of linen" " or "as a substitute for flax", then the word combination in Latin "lino simile" is quite close to it.
Greek "chiton" is not linen or fabric. It is "clothes". As to "lino simile", I don't think it's worth any serious analysis, because it's too obvious a scripting or/and printing error from "ligno". The context leaves absolutely no place for "lino". Who would think that the altar would be made of fabric??
Quote:I always thought that "an-" looks oddly in the word. So, it is or distorted or "anchi-" is a root.
Not quite, in my opinion. Remember that we don't deal with the Greek original in this case. The original traced so far (let alone the Septuagint which says "asepton", and this obviously is not linguistically connected with "anchiton") is "amiton", and it is what looks like Latin transliteration of a possibly Greek word, the latter being unknown to us. The later occurrences of "a***ton" are also Latin. And even when they are given in Greek in the margin, they are quite probably just re-renderings of the Latin rendering back into Greek.
That is why I mentioned the morphological approach in my earlier post. Here's what I mean. I see no reason to suggest apriori that anchiton is a distorted "antichiton". This is pure speculation, and this only complicates matters, because it introduces the prefix "anti" without it being there. Without compication, let us suppose that the prefix is "a-", which is generically "non-". (In the course of last few days I saw a nice example in one of those books that we discuss of several key Greek words (inportant for theological discourse) which begin with "a-", i.e., "non-". Amianton was one of those. If I see it again, I'll quote it specifically). So, let us separate the "a-" prefix, and we are left with "nchton". This does not look very nice, but remember that we deal with a Latinized rendering. What's essential is that the Greek root in question would begin with "n" in that case. I would prefer "aniketon", as already suggested by somebody in the forum, which would mean "invincible", and then it would transform from "aniketon" through "anicheton" (kappa to hi) and finally into "anchiton" (being somewhat easier to pronounce) in its Latin version. -
RE: The quest for Anchiton
Anton > 25-10-2018, 07:41 PM
The 9th c manuscript of St Jerome upon Ezekiel is Cod. Sang 117 and 118, available at e-codices.ch.
Most probably it's 118, because chapter 41 is toward the end of Ezekiel.
I find difficulty in locating the exact place, because the MS lacks any rubrication, it appears
-
RE: The quest for Anchiton
-JKP- > 25-10-2018, 08:41 PM
ἀμίαντος/ἀμίαντον (amiantos/amianton) - clean, pure, unpolluted, undefiled
ἀμίαντος λίθος (amiantos lithos (stone/mineral)) asbestos (Aristotle, Pliny) -
RE: The quest for Anchiton
Searcher > 25-10-2018, 08:58 PM
Anton:
Quote:Quote:You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
But that says nothing of wood! It says "genus fossilis" and, better still (in the margin) - "lapis"
Yes, actually it was called "linum vivum" (living flax) by Pliny the Elder (AD 23-79), obviously because of its fibrous stucture. The text of Basil of Caesarea (329-379) who lived almost in the same time (a little earlier) as Saint Jerom (347-420), contains description, similar to that that Hieronimus gives concerning the rest.
(English)
...a stone called Amianton, which is of that nature, that in the fyer it becometh as bright as a fierye coale, and taken out, is cleerer then at the casting in, and can not be anye waye stayned or defiled. For their bodyes were not only as golde purged, but more then golde, not so much as dissolued, & came purer out, then they were cast into the fornace...
Quote:Greek "chiton" is not linen or fabric. It is "clothes". As to "lino simile", I don't think it's worth any serious analysis, because it's too obvious a scripting or/and printing error from "ligno". The context leaves absolutely no place for "lino". Who would think that the altar would be made of fabric??
First of all, I don't assert that "anchiton" is distorted word from "amianton" or "antichiton". I expressed a few thoughts or ways about anchiton and antichiton, how I could explain existing of these rare words. Of course, at first glance, they seem to be Greek, but as you can read, the word chiton has semitic origin. The example of Akheton clearly shows how it can be derived from arabilc "al-qutun". Aramaic keton (arabic kittan) means "flax" or "linen", the word "cotton" is derived from that. So, if I would think that "anchiton" is distorted word, I'd pay attention to "al-qutun" at first.
As for the "lino simile", look at the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.... where the author Andreas Lucas de Arcones considered and compared amianton of different authors, including Hieronimus, Plinius, Basilius and Valerius Maximus. Lignum, linum and lapis are all mentioned.
Quote:The original traced so far (let alone the Septuagint which says "asepton", and this obviously is not linguistically connected with "anchiton") is "amiton", and it is what looks like Latin transliteration of a possibly Greek word, the latter being unknown to us.
All scholars write that Jerome wrote "amianton", not "amiton". So, as that quote belongs exactly to Saint Jerome, I'm inclined to believe them. Amiton is rather one of erroneus words that we saw. It seems no one believed to Jerome, as you do, because, first of all, there was a great confusion as for the amianton, as for the asbestos in medieval times, moreover, they likely were inclined to think that it must be wood (sacred wood Shittim). Maybe, they thought that Jerome made a mistake, maybe, they transliterated it incorrectly, I don't know.
Quote:I would prefer "aniketon", as already suggested by somebody in the forum, which would mean "invincible", and then it would transform from "aniketon" through "anicheton" (kappa to hi) and finally into "anchiton" (being somewhat easier to pronounce) in its Latin version.
Yes, it was suggested by me. And I must confess, I like it, too.
I didn't write it, but the Greek word anichetos (aniketos, anikitos, etc. - invincible) had a synonym adamastos (ironclad) which both have some similarity to asbestos (unquenchable) by the meaning.
Incredible, but both "speculations" fit the legends.
-
RE: The quest for Anchiton
MarcoP > 25-10-2018, 09:04 PM
BNF Lat 12155 contains Jerome's Commentary on Ezekiel. It was written in the second half of the VIII Century at the Saint-Pierre de Corbie Abbey. The not-too-friendly script is described as Minuscule "ab" de Corbie: "a" resembles an "u" or an "ie" ligature; "o" looks like an uncial "d"; "r" looks like "s" (see "arserit"); "t" sometimes has a loop on the left, other times ("et") it looks like a Greek gamma.
The "wood" here is called "amia'ton", where the apostrophe appears to be a "macron" corresponding to the missing "n". The passage is at You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. -
RE: The quest for Anchiton
Searcher > 25-10-2018, 09:19 PM
Koen:
Quote:I agree, Searcher. If the word is "anchiton", then odds are it's a corrupted version of "anti-chiton/cheton...". Still, both words anchiton and antichiton are excessively rare, so it would be weird to see one lost in the VM. But on the other hand, probably lots of weird things wandered into the VM.
I even have an impression that antichiton and anchiton is just some kind of play of words. But it is just a thought.
Quote:(It's funny that one of the few google hits for "antichiton" are on some other forum by one Yulia
Oh, yes, not so many people take an interest in these words
)
-
RE: The quest for Anchiton
Searcher > 25-10-2018, 09:52 PM
To the point, "xylon asepton" means just "incorruptible wood".
[font=Calibri, sans-serif]καὶ ποιήσεις θυσιαστήριον θυμιάματος ἐκ ξύλων ἀσήπτων· καὶ ποιήσεις αὐτὸ[/font]
And thou shalt make the altar of incense of incorruptible wood. (Exodus 30:1 Brenton)
[font=Times New Roman][font=Calibri, sans-serif][font=Calibri, sans-serif]καὶ ποιήσεις σκυτάλας ἐκ ξύλων ἀσήπτων καὶ καταχρυσώσεις αὐτὰς χρυσίῳ.[/font]
And thou shalt make the staves of incorruptible wood, and shalt gild them with gold. (Exodus 30:5 Brenton)[/font][/font] -
RE: The quest for Anchiton
Anton > 25-10-2018, 10:29 PM
Quote:The example of Akheton clearly shows how it can be derived from arabilc "al-qutun". Aramaic keton (arabic kittan) means "flax" or "linen", the word "cotton" is derived from that. So, if I would think that "anchiton" is distorted word, I'd pay attention to "al-qutun" at first.
I don't see offhand why "anchiton" would be derived from any Arabic source. If "chiton" is a Greek word (albeit of Semitic origin), then anything derived from the root "chiton" would be derived from Greek, not from Arabic. And the prefix "al-" is quite characteristic for borrowings from Arabic to be changed into "an-"
Quote:All scholars write that Jerome wrote "amianton", not "amiton". So, as that quote belongs exactly to Saint Jerome, I'm inclined to believe them. Amiton is rather one of erroneus words that we saw.
I don't "believe" anything, I prefer to check facts. The last time I blindly believed something was twenty years ago when I trusted a complex formula in a book of a very respected author, which resulted in the need for me to do the design of a Cassegrain antenna for the second time (which was pretty tricky a time-consuming business, because the process was only half automated for us students). When I took time to derive the formula myself and to find the error, that teached me to ever double check all essential points and not blindly take anything printed in a book, albeit a scholarly book, for its face value.
In this case I would prefer to see with my own eyes what Jerome wrote - and, since that appears sadly impossible, to consult possibly earliest representations of his words in later manuscripts, rather than trust "all scholars" in the matter where there is pretty much confusion from the very beginning. If one wishes to discuss a fact, the fact should be established in the first place. Glossa Ordinaria was compilated by scholars, not by illiterate peasants - yet they managed to mess it altogether.
Quote:BNF Lat 12155 contains Jerome's Commentary on Ezekiel.
Thx Marco, I will try to locate the respective place in the StGall MS now.
In the fragment that you post, it is most notable that we have the same scribal correction - "lini" to "ligni". And it is clearly another scribe (same as for "quod") - like one wanted to correct what he thought was wrong. And this also misses "isse".
I wonder if it might be that the intention of the author (Jerome) was to say "ligni" in the first instance and "lini" in the second indeed, i.e. to say roughly this: "it is not strange to believe all those miracles, because it is known that there is a kind of wood called "amianton" bearing resemblance to flax...
I leave it without comment how wood can ever bear resemblance to flax, but "habens" is nominative, "simulitudinem" is accusative, and "lini" is genitive - in this way "habens simulitudinem lini" would be "having likeness of flax". Otherwise the "likeness" hangs on its own, without specifying what is this likeness to.
There is however some continuation to this phrase, I'll look at that later.
(25-10-2018, 09:52 PM)Searcher Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.To the point, "xylon asepton" means just "incorruptible wood".
[font=Calibri, sans-serif]καὶ ποιήσεις θυσιαστήριον θυμιάματος ἐκ ξύλων ἀσήπτων· καὶ ποιήσεις αὐτὸ[/font]
And thou shalt make the altar of incense of incorruptible wood. (Exodus 30:1 Brenton)
[font=Times New Roman][font=Calibri, sans-serif][font=Calibri, sans-serif]καὶ ποιήσεις σκυτάλας ἐκ ξύλων ἀσήπτων καὶ καταχρυσώσεις αὐτὰς χρυσίῳ.[/font]
And thou shalt make the staves of incorruptible wood, and shalt gild them with gold. (Exodus 30:5 Brenton)[/font][/font]
Well, wood's corruption is rotting. Greek σήπω = to rot. -
RE: The quest for Anchiton
Searcher > 25-10-2018, 10:35 PM
(25-10-2018, 07:41 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The 9th c manuscript of St Jerome upon Ezekiel is Cod. Sang 117 and 118, available at e-codices.ch.
Thanks, Anton!
Most probably it's 118, because chapter 41 is toward the end of Ezekiel.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
[...AMIANTON quod ligni genus est vel lini habens similitudine...]
[...AMIANTON that is a kind of wood or something similar to flax...]
We can't be sure that "lini" is a mistake. He obviously doesn't know what this exactly is, and just relies on the earlier texts which discribe this substance. At least, it looks so. -
RE: The quest for Anchiton
Anton > 25-10-2018, 10:47 PM
Wow, great, how could you locate it that fast?
So:
1) In Jerome it is systematically "amianton" (insofar one could treat two occurrences as a system)
2) Note how in Cod. Sang 118 it is "vel lini" (not "vel ligni") without any correction!
3) The "quod" I think is inserted by another scribe (note the difference in "u")
These corrections (lini -> ligni and inserting "quod") look to me like corrections of later readers who wanted to bring this text in accordance with some later version which was probably already corrupted.
The fact that we observe this in two different and geographically diverse manuscripts is if not convincing then at least suggestive.
"Amianton" on the margin is by another scribe of course - like a matter of reference perhaps.