Talk:Chronograph of 354

[Untitled]
exactly the same thing - should be merged under this name Johnbod 16:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

"copies of copies"
They're all copies of copies, I think. It's my impression that no "first-generation copies" survive, hence the importance of the 17th-century Barberini ms. Are there any surviving Carolingian copies at all? --Wetman 03:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * See Schapiro note 11 for a C9 text-only copy in St Gall, plus the Leiden Aratus. See also the list of Ms on the website - the "S" or German group, & some others (for bits).  Of course these could all be 1st or 2nd generation for all we know.  Johnbod 13:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I feel that the phrasing is liable to mislead. The present wording suggests that the copies are very remote from the original.  But in fact the reverse is the case; they are probably unusually close, by comparison with most handwritten copies.  So this phrasing needs to change, and, if stated at all, needs a paragraph of qualifications. Roger Pearse 08:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Query

 * If there is no original, how does anyone from this point in time know that there was an original, and that this original dates from the fourth century? Thanks if you have information about evidence to support the existence of an original document. I would also like to know what it was made of.75.92.23.237 (talk) 20:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The texts we have give the date, don't they? There is no suggestion it was a Carolingian forgery, which would be very far-fetched. Johnbod (talk) 20:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Humour and lightheartedness
Would it be considered original research to point out the apparent lightheartedness contained in the manuscript illustrations? The interactions and gesticulations of the cupids, the eye gesturing of co-emperor Gallus (maybe the first recorded instance of this well-known gesticulation?), the simultaneous trampling and caressing of the barbarian captive in the Treveri illustration... I think even the "golden" hand of Constantius falls into this lighthearted motif. I'm not suggesting there's any all-out parody or humour involved here, but it's hard not to notice the overall lighthearted nature of the illustrations. If nothing else, it's at least something to think about...

Abvgd (talk) 13:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well it would without a source, yes. It's hard to judge these things from 3rd, 4th, ?5th ...-hand copies. Johnbod (talk) 20:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

"earliest reference to Christmas"
This needs correction. The Chronography is not the earliest reference to December 25th as Christmas. Hippolytus of Rome wrote in his Commentary on the Book of Daniel (205 AD):

"For the first advent of our Lord in the flesh, when he was born in Bethlehem, was December 25th, Wednesday, while Augustus was in his forty-second year, but from Adam, five thousand and five hundred years. He suffered in the thirty-third year, March 25th, Friday, the eighteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, while Rufus and Roubellion were Consuls." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjuro00 (talk • contribs)


 * Tom Schmidt, the source of your quote, concluded that Hippolytus did indeed write the original Greek version, in contrast with most prior scholars. Thus, this belongs in the article. However, the problem is how should it be worded. — Joe Kress (talk) 03:30, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see note 7: "The date of the Nativity of Jesus is given as December 25th in considerably earlier sources, but this is the first reference to a holiday or feast day being celebrated." I'm not sure if this applies to Christmas versus Nativity. — Joe Kress (talk) 06:20, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

"It is the earliest dated codex to have full page illustrations."
Twice this sentence has tripped me up. The "dated codex" in question no longer exists, so it isn't the earliest anything. Perhaps it was. But perhaps there were even earlier dated codices with full page illustrations that are also lost. I think it must be the earliest known such codex. Srnec (talk) 01:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure - I think we can be confident there were. Johnbod (talk) 03:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)