The Wisdom of Solomon and the

Byzantine Reception of Origen (English

and Greek Edition) Panayiotis
Tzamalikos
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-wisdom-of-solomon-and-the-byzantine-reception-
of-origen-english-and-greek-edition-panayiotis-tzamalikos/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

THE WISDOM OF SOLOMON 2023rd Edition Solomon

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-wisdom-of-solomon-2023rd-
edition-solomon/

The Limits of Exactitude in Greek Roman and Byzantine

Literature and Textual Transmission 1st Edition Franco
Montanari And Antonios Rengakos

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-limits-of-exactitude-in-greek-
roman-and-byzantine-literature-and-textual-transmission-1st-
edition-franco-montanari-and-antonios-rengakos/

Debating with the Eumenides Aspects of the Reception of

Greek Tragedy in Modern Greece 1st Edition Vayos Liapis

https://ebookmeta.com/product/debating-with-the-eumenides-
aspects-of-the-reception-of-greek-tragedy-in-modern-greece-1st-
edition-vayos-liapis/

Sex Symbolists and the Greek Body Bloomsbury Studies in

Classical Reception 1st Edition Warren

https://ebookmeta.com/product/sex-symbolists-and-the-greek-body-
bloomsbury-studies-in-classical-reception-1st-edition-warren/
Wisdom from Rome Reading Roman Society and European
Education in the Distichs of Cato Trends in Classics
Pathways of Reception 8 1st Edition Serena Connolly

https://ebookmeta.com/product/wisdom-from-rome-reading-roman-
society-and-european-education-in-the-distichs-of-cato-trends-in-
classics-pathways-of-reception-8-1st-edition-serena-connolly/

The Text of Acts of the Apostles in the Writings of

Origen 1st Edition S. N. Helton

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-text-of-acts-of-the-apostles-
in-the-writings-of-origen-1st-edition-s-n-helton/

The Sayings and Wisdom of Imam Ali Fadhlalla Haeri

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-sayings-and-wisdom-of-imam-ali-
fadhlalla-haeri/

Wit and Wisdom of the Italian Renaissance Charles

Speroni

https://ebookmeta.com/product/wit-and-wisdom-of-the-italian-
renaissance-charles-speroni/

Secular Magic and the Moving Image Mediated Forms and

Modes of Reception Max Sexton

https://ebookmeta.com/product/secular-magic-and-the-moving-image-
mediated-forms-and-modes-of-reception-max-sexton/
 The Wisdom of Solomon
and the Byzantine Reception
ofOrigen
This is a critical edition of a newly discovered Greek manuscript: a full com-
mentary fr om Codex 199, Metochi on of the Holy Sepulchre, Constantinople,
entitled 'Wi sdom of Solomon - an interpretation of Solomon's Book of Wis-
dom, by Ori gen , as they sat The book includes critica l apparat us, commen-
tary, an d English translation .

The Intro duction acquaints readers with the tex t, as well as its late Byzantine
context. In th e manu scrip t both the Biblical tex t (quoted lemma aft er lemma)
and the commentary are presented in full, which makes the document a valu-
able one fo r Old Testament scholars, since it contai ns not only the full com-
mentary, but also the entire text of the Book of Wi sdom, which at points has
some interesti ng variations from all extant co dices of the Septuagint.

Intri gui ngly, Origen's name is on the r ubric, but as auth or Panayiotis Tzama-
likos demonstrates, the most likely author is Nikephorus Gregoras. Study of
Gregoras' predecessors, architects of the Palaelogean Enlightenment such as
George Acropolites, Theodore Metochites, and George Pachymeres, as well as
Gregoras' contemporary John Kyparissiotes, sheds furt her light on how Chris-
tian an d Greek thought were received and interpreted in the East.

Thi s book mar ks a majo r contribution to the fi eld of Greek and Byzantine phil-
oso phical exeges is, and will be valuable for postgraduate classes on patristics,
Biblical exegesis, and Byzantine and Greek phil osophy.

Panayiotis Tzamalikos, MSc, MPhil, PhD, is Professor of Philosophy at

the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. He has written 17 books, as well as
numerous articles. These include studies on Origen , ancient G reek ph ilosophy,
the newly discovered Cassian the Sabaite, and four cri tical editions of previ-
ously un known Greek texts.

www.peterlang.com

Cover im age : Paris psa lter (BNF lvIS Gr<'!c 139),

folio 7v David ent re la Sagi'Sse ella Prophetie
(Wikim<'!dia Comm ons)
The Wisdom ofSolomon and the
Byzantine Reception of Origen
 Panayiotis Tzamalikos

The Wisdom o/Solomon and

the Byzantine Reception
ofOrigen

PETER LANG
New York· Berlin· Brussels· Lausanne· Oxford
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Control Number: 2022019720

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek.

The German National Library lists this publication in the German
National Bibliography; detailed bibliographic data is available
on the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de.

Cover design by Peter Lang Group AG

ISBN 978-1-4331-9469-6 (hacdback)

ISBN 978-1-4331-9470-2 (,book)
ISBN 978-1-4331-9471-9 (,pub)
DOl 1O.3726/bI9287

© 2023 Panayiotis Tzamalikos

Published by Peter Lang Publishing Inc. , New York, USA
info@peterlang.com - www.peterlang.com

All rights reserved.

All parts of this publication are protected by copyright.
Any utilization outside the strict limits of the copyright law, without the permission of the
publisher, is forbidden and liable to prosecution.
This applies in particular to reproductions , translations, microfilming, and storage and
processing in electronic retrieval systems.

This publication has been peer reviewed.

 For my beloved wift
Eleni
my thirty-year-long escorting angel
Contents

Preface ix
Abbreviations xiii

Introduction 1
Hebrew and Greek 'Wisdom' 1
The Codex 6
The Owner, Demetrius Protocanonarch of the Great Church
(Haghia Sophia) 13
Origen in the Palaeologean Enlightenment 21
The Belated Byzantine Enlightenment: Pachymeres and
Gregoras, Two Antipodal Personalities 46
Nikephorus Gregoras 83
Identification of Authorship 98

Greek Text 137

Translation 371

Appendix: Origen, Maximus Confessor, and Neoplatonism 557

viii I Contents

Bibliography 603
Index ofAncient and Medieval Names 659
Index ofModern Names 675
 Preface

This is a commentary written during the period of the so-called Byzantine

Enlightenment, when a keen interest in the old Hellenic lore made a distinctive
mark - the same heritage which, during Byzantium's period of acme, was exor-
cised as a daemon.
This 'Enlightenment' was the era when a flurry of commentaries on works
of Archaic, Classical and Late Antiquity appeared: scholia on Homer, Hesiod,
Aristotle (but less on Plato), the three great tragedians, Aristophanes, as well as
on Lucian of Samosata, Hermogenes, and others.
The present codex contains the entire text of the Book of Wisdom along
the commentary, without lacunae or missing points at all. The pattern is that of
Origen's having taken his cue from Alexander of Aphrodisias (notably, the latter's
commentaries on Aristotle's Metaphysics) Prior Analytics) Topics) On Sense and
Perceptible Things, Meteorologics, On the Soul, etc.): a short pericope of the prime
treatise is quoted and then a comment follows; a next pericope is likewise copied
and commented upon, and so Oll.

As a matter of fact, there are several points of the present commentary that
can be associated with Origen's pen, since there are distinctive versions of specific
biblical terms that correspond to the scriptural text Origen used, as indeed there
x I Prefoce
are variations of the text of the Book of Wisdom which, to biblical scholars, will
appear novel, and sometimes intriguing.
Nevertheless, the commentary in its extant form is definitely much later: the
vocabulary (especially flowery neologisms) is heavily drawn from that of Pseudo-
Dionysius the Areopagite (therefore, occasionally, from Proclus, too). The author
makes his own contribution to the use of bombastic nouns and epithets, since
it was a characteristic of the later Byzantine period to prefix nouns and epithets
with prepositions, especially in relation to God, which add emphasis but in fact
mean nothing new: to speak of God (8.6,) and styling Him tJ7r.pS.o, adds noth-
ing. Likewise, when the commentator speaks of God and styles Him {)7r~prXTIHpO~
instead of 'infinite' (,"napo,), the addition of the preposition tm<p adds to gran-
diloquence, but otherwise this is redundant. Similar cases of this kind abound
throughout this text.
The author was a man who evidently wrote this commentary not in order to
do theology (although at several points he does not refrain from doing so, too)
as to edify, which becomes evident at specific expressive points, especially by the
end of his commentary.
A study of this betrays the pen of Nikephorus Gregoras writing during
a period of hot combative debate between the proponents of the so-called
Hesychasm and its opponents. Scholars of both sides wrote extensive treatises or
pamphlets, or delivered sermons, most of which naturally were polemical ones.
As it always happens in such cases, so also the Palamist and anti-Palamist
parties used common stock of terminology, which means that philological anal-
ysis alone could not suffice to determine authorship of this commentary. This is
why it took also a study of the historical context and circumstances, and none-
theless critical consideration of some personal remarks by the author, which are
illuminating indeed.
To Gregoras, Solomon was not just a king: he was a wise king, and a prophet
for that matter. The exegesis of the Book of Wisdom not only expounds what
happened to the Egyptians because, due to their unwise king, they tormented
and chased the people of God before and during their Exodus and march
towards the Land of Promise: it also admonishes the man who was king when
Gregoras' wrote this commentary, namely, John VI Cantacuzenus, that the Book
of Wisdom caveats that this ruler could incur severe punishment for persecuting
and incarcerating a man of God such as Gregoras himself, whose only crime was
that he maintained an infallible perception of Christian doctrine against the her-
esy of Gregory Palamas. This is the hub around which almost all of the author's
analyses cluster.
 Prefoce I xi
Once again, my collaboration with Dr. Philip Dunshea, the erudite scholar
and Editor of this series, has been sheer delight to me. Besides, my cooperation
with Production Manager Jackie Pavlovic has resulted in a decent presentation of
the text, for which I am grateful to them both.
 Ab breviations

Origen
eels Contra Ce!sum
commlCor Fragmenta ex Commentariis in Epistulam i ad Corinthios
commEph Fragmenta ex Commentariis in Epistulam ad Ephesios
commGen Fragmenta ex Commentariis in Genesim
comm]ohn Commentarii in Evangelium Joannis
commMatt Commentarium in Evangelium Matthaei
commRom Fragmenta ex Commentariis in Epistulam ad Romanos
commSerMatt Commentariorum Series in Matthaeum
dear De Oratione
excPs Excerpta in Psaimos
exhMar Exhortatio ad Martyrium
expProv Expositio in Proverbia
fr]ohn Fragmenta in Evangelium Joannis
frLam Fragmenta in Lamentationes
frMatt Fragmenta in Matthaeum
frProv Fragmenta in Proverbia
frPs Fragmenta in Psaimos
homier In ]eremiam (homiliae 1-20)
xiv I Abbreviations
homLuc Homiliae in Lucam
homPs Homiliae in Psalmos
Princ De Principiis
schLuc Scholia in Lucam
schMatt Scholia in Matthaeum
selDeut Selecta in Deuteronomium
selEz Selecta in Ezechielem
selGen Selecta in Genesim
selPs Selecta in Psalmos

Other Authors
adnotArist Gennadius Scholarius, Adnotationes in Aristotelis Opera Diversa
commAnalPost John Philoponus, In Aristotelis Analytica Posteriora Commentaria
Eustratius ofNicaea, I nAristotelisAnalyticaPosteriora Commentaria
commAnim John Philoponus, In Aristotelis Libros De Anima Commentaria
Simplicius, In Aristotelis Libros De Anima Commentaria
commCael Simplicius, In Aristotelis Quattuor Libros De Caelo Commentaria
George Pachymeres, In Aristotelis De Caelo Commentarium (Iiberiil)
commCateg Arethas of Caesarea, Scholia in Aristotelis Categorias
Ammonius ofAlexandria, InAristotelis Categorias Commentarium
Dexippus, In Aristotelis Categorias Commentarium
Simplicius, In Aristotelis Categorias Commentarium
Elias of Alexandria, In Aristotelis Categorias Commentarium
John Philoponus, In Aristotelis Categorias Commentarium
Hermias of Alexandria, In Aristotelis Categorias Commentarium
Porphyry, In Aristotelis Categorias Expositio per Interrogationem et
Responsionem
commEthNicom Eustratius of Nicaea, In Aristotelis Ethica Nicomachea vi
Commentaria
George Pachymeres, I nAristo telis Eth icaNicomachea Co mmentaria
(Iiber xl)
commEucl Proclus, In Primum Euclidis Elementorum Librum Commentarii
commMetaph Alexander of Aphrodisias, In Aristotelis Metaphysica Commentaria
Syrian us, In Aristotelis Metaphysica Commentaria
Asclepius of Tralles, In Aristotelis Metaphysicorum Libros
Commentaria
 Abbreviations I xv

George Pachymeres, In Aristotelis Metaphysicam Commentarium

(liber x)
commMeteor Alexander of Aphrodisias In Aristotelis Meteorologicorum Libros
Commentaria
John Philoponus, In Aristotelis Meteorologicorum Librum Primum
Commentarium
George Pachymeres, In Aristotelis Meteorologicorum Commentarium
commPhys Michael Psellus, In Aristotelis Physicorum Libros Commentarium
John Philoponus, In Aristotelis Physicorum Libros Commentaria
Simplicius, In Aristotelis Physicorum Libros Commentaria
commRep Proclus, In Platonis Rem Publicam Commentarii
commTim Porphyry, In Platonis Timaeum Commentaria (jragmenta)
Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum Commentaria
Curatio Theodoret, Graecarum Affictionum Curatio
HE Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica
Theodoret, Historia Ecclesiastica
Gelasius of Cyzicus, Historia Ecc/esiastica
Sozomenus, Historia Ecclesiastica
Socrates Scholastic us, Historia Ecc/esiastica
Nikephorus Callistus Xanthopulus, Historia Ecclesiastica
Meletius, bishop of Athens, Historia Ecc/esiastica
Opuscula i Michael Psellus, Opuscula Logica, Physica, Allegorica, Alia
Opuscula ii MichaelPsellus, OpusculaPsychologica, Theologica, Daemonologica
paraphrPhys Themistius, In Aristotelis Physica Paraphrasis
Princ Damascius, De Principiis
vttae Diogenes Laertius, Vitae Philosophorum
ACO E. Schwartz, Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum
GCS Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei
Jahrhunderte
PG J. P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca (volume/page/line)
PL P. Migne, Patrologia Latina (volume/page/line)
ACO Concilia Oecumenica
SVF Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta (volume, page, verse)
COT Panayiotis Tzamalikos, Origen: Cosmology and Ontology of Time
PHE Panayiotis Tzamalikos, Origen: Philosophy of History and
Eschatology
RCR Panayiotis T zamalikos, The Real Cassian Revisited
xvi I Abbreviations

NDGF Panayiotis Tzamalikos, A Newly Discovered Greek Father

Scholia Panayiotis Tzamalikos, An Ancient Commentary on the Book of
Revelation
Anaxagoras Panayiotis Tzamalikos, Anaxagoras) Origen) and Neoplatonism -
The Legacy ofAnaxagoras to Classical and Late Antiquity

Psalms are numbered after LXX

 Introduction

Hebrew and Creek 'Wisdom'

The Hebrew word :J1JJ1n, which in Greek is rendered 'wisdom', was a polyse-
mous one: it may suggest either dexterous craftsmanship or a political opinion
or ability of fine discrimination. Nonetheless, it may mean cunningness or guile-
fulness or possession of the art of magic. The Hebrew 'wise' men are first and
foremost interested in questions of order and duties to be observed throughout
one's life. Sometimes, they attempt to consider an individual's fate, yet not by
means of philosophical contemplation according to the Hellenic paradigm, but
by mustering and considering sundry instances of experience. The aim is not to
change the world root and branch, but to instruct people how they should behave
amidst the present real situation of the world, so as to effectuate for themselves
a righteous and happy life. Since it is always possible for 'wisdom' to be used to
either virtuous or evil purposes, prophets sometimes spoke of that scornfully.l
Nevertheless, to Hebrew sages, the real wisdom comes from God and true wis-
dom is but piousness. 2

Cf. Isaiah, 5:21; 29:14; J er. 8:9.

2 Exodus, 31:3; 35:31; Job, 28:28; Psalms 36:30; 48:4; 89:12; 110:10; Provo 1:7; 1:29; 2:2; 2:6; 3:5; 3:13;
9:10; et passim; Ecclesiastes, 12:13; Job, 28:20; Ecclesiasticus, 1:4; 1:20; etc.
2 I I ntroductio n
In reality, the only wise one is God, whose ineffable wisdom one can see in
the Creation, yet it is not always possible to decipher this. 3 And when Solomon
promised to bring wisdom to light,4 he meant the manifestation of this into the
world, not God's wisdom per se. 5
In Job, 28, Wisdom is represented as a presence which is distinct from
God, who is the sole one who knows where she is hidden. In Ecclesiasticus, 24,
Wisdom is sent forth down to Israel from the mouth of God. In Solomon's Book
of Wisdom, 7:22-8:1, Wisdom is the breath of the almighty God and pure reflec-
tion of his light.
In the prologue to the book of Proverbs (1-9), as well as in other biblical
texts, the divine Wisdom appears as personified. In such texts, the Wisdom is
a person 6 created by God prior to the world;? she participates in God's creative
act,S and is sent by God down to earth in order to reveal the secrets of the divine
will to men. Nevertheless, similar adumbrations were used also in relation to the
Spirit,' as well as for the Logos ofGod.lO
The difference between the Hebrew and Hellenic mindset is all too obvi-
ous: to Greeks, the meaning of 'wisdom' was clear, and once Xenocrates for-
mulated its definition crisply and sententiously, this came to be proverbialY
Christian authors repeated this definition of wisdom verbatim, tooY

3 Job, 28:38-39; Ecclesiasticus, 1:3; 18:6; Wis. 7:21; 9:16; 24:28.

4 Wis. 6:9-12; 6:22.
5 Wis. 9:13-16.
6 Cf. Provo 1:20-33; 8:1-9 &18; Wis. 7:24-27; 10:4; Ecclesiasticus, 24:1-22.
7 Provo 8:22-25; Ecclesiasticus, 1:4; 24:9.
8 Provo 8:26-31; Wis. 9:2&9; 14:2.
9 Wis. 1:6; 7:2; 9:17; 7:22; Psalms of Solomon, 17:37; Isaiah, 11:2; 63:10-11; Daniel (Greek tr.), 5:12; 6:4.
10 Gen. 1:3 ff; Psalm 32:6; Wis. 9:1; 18:23; Ecclesiasticus, 48:3; 2 Kings, 13:20&32; 3 Kings, 16:1;
21:35; 4 Kings, 9:36; etc.
11 Xenocrates, Fragmenta, fr. 259, apud Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis, 2.5.24: wisdom is thorough
knowledge of the primal causes and of the intelligible essence (imcr-r~ft1'] -rCr... 7rpw-rw... ctt-rtw... Kctt -r~;
",o1']-r~; ovcrtct;). Likewise, in Clement, op. cit. 1.5.30.1. So did Arius Didymus, Liber De Philosophorum
Sectis, p. 98, apudStobaeus, Anthologium, 2.7.25: croifltct... ;~ -r~ ... imcr-r~ftYJV -rW... 7rpw-rwv ctt-rtw.... Philo,
De Congressu Eruditionis Gratia, 79: croifltct;~ imcr-r~ft1'] edw... Kctt it... epW7rt... w... Kctt -rW... -rov-rw... ctt-rtw....
This was combination with the Stoic definition of wisdom defined as 'thorough knowledge of divine
and human things'. Chrysippus, frs. 35 &36 & 1017; Posidonius, frs. 25la; 25lc; but the Stoics did not
speak about knowledge ofcauses. Photius reported this as a definition having been quoted by an anon-
ymous author. Bibliotheca, Cod. 249, p. 440b. Alexander of Aphrodisias, commMetaph, p. 8: 7ritn~;
yap -rYJv crOifltct... -rW... itpxw", Kctt -rw... ctt-rtw... iflctcrt... d ... ctt yvwcrt..., Kctt croiflo; b -roV-rw... imcr-r~ftw.... Likewise,
op. cit. pp. 15; 175; 186. Asclepius ofTralles, commMetaph, pp. 3; 141. Anonymous, Commentarium
in Hermogenis Librum IIipi Tra-riwv, p. 696.
12 Basil of Caesarea, Homilia in Principium Proverbiorum, PG.31.389.33-35; but his last phrase is a loan
from Origen. Cf. Basil: '0 oVv im-r~-rctfti... w; e~oAoyW'" lyvw croifltct.... Origen, expProv, PG.17.161.30-
31: Kctt e~oAoyW'" ;i -rt; im-r~-rctfti... w; lyvw cro¥ct .... Sec the same text in Didymus, Commentarii in
 Introduction I3
However, the only author who considered Wisdom in both the sense appear-
ing in Solomon and the Hellenic one was Origen.

We will reply to this that, whether wisdom is thorough knowledge of divine

and human things and of their causes, or (as the divine teaching defines it) 'a
breath of the power of God, and a pure effluence of the glory of the Almighty'
and 'the brightness of the everlasting light and unspotted mirror of the power
of God and image of His goodness',13 no [sc. non-Christian] wise person would
disown what is said by a Christian who is cognisant of the Christian doctrine,
nor would he be led astray or impeded by it. 14

The Greek definition of wisdom that Origen uses (which includes 'knowl-
edge of causes') was not actually the Stoic one, since the latter did not include
'knowledge of causes'.15 In fact, Origen quoted from 4 Mace. 1.16, which had
been used by both Philo!6 and Clement of Alexandria l ? Subsequently, Origen,18
as well as later authors, used this, too. 19
Nevertheless, Origen availed himself also of the definition which did not
include reference to 'knowledge of causes', which doxographers reported as
having been a Stoic one. 20 Stobaeus wrote that this was also a definition by the
Pythagorean Archytas,21 whereas Albinus claimed that this was a Platonic one. 22

Ecclesiasten (7-8.8), Cod. p. 226. John of Damascus, Sacra Parallela, PG.96.360.40-41. Prochorus
Cydones (fourteenth century), De Lumine Thaborico, section 20.
13 Wis. 7:25-26.
14 Origen, Cels, 111.72 (partially, in Philocalia, 18.20).
15 50 Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus, 2.2.25.3; Stromateis, 4.26.163.4; 6.16.133.5; 6.16.138.5.
16 Philo, De Congressu Eruditionis Gratia, 79: cr0<flta ;~ i7ncrT"~fl1'] 9dw)! Kat Ct)!9pwm)!w)! Kat T"W)! T"OVT"W)!
atT"tw)!.
17 Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis, 1.5.30.1; in op. cit. 2.5.21.1, Clement explicilty cites Xenocrates'
On Prudence (IIip! <J;pov1-r<w~) as the source of this definition.
18 Basil of Caesarea, Homilia in Principium Proverbiorum, PG.31.389.32-33 Pseudo-Basil of Caesarea
(forsan, Cassian the 5abaite), Enarratio in Prophetam /saiam, 5.176. Didymus, Commentarii in
Ecclesiasten (1.1-8), Cod. p. 34; Commentarii in Ecclesiasten (7-8.8), Cod. p. 226. Procopius of
Gaza, Commentarii in /saiam, p. 1924. Olympiodorus, the deacon of Alexandria, Commentarii in
Ecclesiasten, PG.93.492.55-56. John of Damascus, Sacra Parallela, PG.96.360.40-41. Constantine
Porphyrogenitus, De Virtutibus et Vitiis, v. 1, p. 116.
19 Eusebius, De Laudibus Constantini, prologue.2. Gregory of Nazianzus, De Filio (orat. 30), 20;
Apologetica (orat. 2), PG.35.460.11-13. John Chrysostom, Expositiones in Psalmos, PG.55.289.56-58
(ref. to 'the heathen'). Himerius (Greek sophist and rhetorician, c. 315AD - c. 386AD), Declamationes
et Orationes, oration 3, line 141.
20 Origen, homJer, homily 8.2;frProv, PG.13.17.45-46. 50 Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus, 2.2.25.3;
Stromateis, 4.26.163.4; 6.16.133.5; 6.16.138.5.
21 5tobaeus, Anthologium, 3.1.113 (Pseudo-Archytas, Fragmenta, p. 11).
22 Albinus, Epitome Doctrinae Platonicae (.JIBMXaAlxJd 1.1.
4 I I ntroductio n
In any event, to Greeks, the definition of 'wisdom' was clear-cut and its
conceptual content was uncontroversial. It is noteworthy, however, that George
Pachymeres embraced a definition of wisdom which was not the traditional (Stoic
or Platonic) one: he defined wisdom as 'the thorough knowledge of the truth
which is inherent in beings' (O"o~(a €O"Tt> €7rlo"T~~~ T~, €> ToI, oVo-" "A~e.(a,). 23
Although he endorsed the ancient thesis that true knowledge applies to immate-
rial entities par excellence (rolIXU'TIX.1~ 'Ta. KUplW~ o-V'TIX, W-V KIX'Ta. [1~'T0X~-V KlXt 'Ta. 'Tfj.1~
O-V'TIX A4)'0-V'TlXl, 'TIXU'TIX U ~[o"l 'Ta. &UAIX' ... Tw-v )'OU-V 'TOLOU'TW-V €~lXlp4'Tw~ €7n0"'T~[1Y]
€0"'Tt-v ~ O"OCPllX, O"u[1~~~Y]K6'Tw~.1~ KlXt 'TW-V [1H~X6-v'Tw-V WJ'TW-V, 0 €O"'Tl O"w[1a'Tw-v), never-
theless, he professed that 'wisdom applies to both species', namely, to immaterial
and material ones alike ('TW-V &plX .1UO ~[.1W-V 'TOU'TW-V €7n0"'T~[1Y]-v -v0[1lO"'T40-v 'T~-V O"OCPllX-V
~1-vlXl).24 It could be argued that this definition is not essentially different from
the traditional Greek one. What is important, however, is that the designation
Pachymeres employed was verbatim the same as that which had been proposed by
the mathematician Nicomachus of Gerasa as being one introduced by Pythagoras
himself25 Naturally, Iamblichus had copied this to the letter. 26
It is noteworthy, nevertheless, that, after Iamblichus, almost the only one
who too up this definition to the letter was George Pachymeres. 'Almost' sim-
ply means that this appears also in an anonymous commentary on Aristotle's
Sophisticos Elenchos, 27 wherefore to surmise that Pachymeres was the writer of that
would be only natural to do.
It was not unexpected that Pachymeres embraced that formula, given the
importance he attached to knowledge of Mathematics in order to grasp truth.
Interestingly, when he expounds his conviction once again, and says that 'without
knowledge of Mathematics it is impossible to make out the kinds of Being; there-
fore, it is impossible also to discover the truth which is inherent in beings, which
is in fact wisdom itself' In order to undergird this, he says that he quotes from
Plotinus having extolled the importance of Mathematics pending study of truth:

23 G eorge Pachymeres, Quadrivium, 1.2; commAfetaph, 1.1.

24 Quadrivium, 1.2.
25 Nicomachus, IntroductioArithmetica, 1.1.2; 1.2.3; 1.3.3.
26 lamblichus, De VIta Pythagorica, 29.159; Protrepticus, p. 115; In Nicomachi Arithmeticam
Introductionem, p. 6.
27 Anonymous, In Aristotelis Sophisticos Elenchos Paraphrasis, section 2. The only other author who
embraced this formula (a good 150 years after Pachymeres) was Gennadius Scholarius. Qjtaestiones et
Responsiones De Divinitate Domini Nostri }esu Christi, p. 460.
 Introduction I5
For it is necessary to teach the youth Mathematics, so that they should get
accustomed to the incorporeal nature CTIctpct60TSOV ya.p TOr~ 'VSOl~ Ta. fLct8~fLctTct',
<f'1ITL'V') TIAWTr'VO~, 'TrpO~ ITtrVS8llTfLo'V T~~ alTwfLaTOU <fUITSW~').28

This is certainly what Plotinus maintained, but the phrase Pachymeres

quoted was but a paraphrase of Plotinus' text, which propounded knowledge of
Mathematics by 'the philosopher, who is by nature fitted out and winged' (a hint
to Plato, Phaedrus, 246cl), not knowledge of Mathematics by the youth 29
This specific paraphrase by memory had been introduced by Ammonius
of Alexandria,30 and thereafter was repeated tralatitiously by John Philoponus,
David of Alexandria, and John Pachymeres,31 plus an anonymous commentator
of Plato, who could have been Pachymeres himself.32 In those authors, the alleged
(inaccurate) quotation from Plotinus is remarkably identicaP3
I should have thought that Pachymeres took this up from Philo po nus (as
indeed he could have availed himself of Philoponus' arguments against the idea
of non-eternity of the world). Besides, a text formerly known as one by Pseudo-
Philoponus, has turned out to be Pachymeres'.34
Contrast to this, in the Bible, the various references to Wisdom/Logos/
Spirit of God are unsystematic and unclear, since it is not always easy to make
out whether particular instances are either philological/poetical illustrations or
echoes of ancient religious beliefs or a new revelation. In any event, pertinent
Biblical instances were taken up by the Christian authors of the New Testament
and applied to the person of Jesus, or were explained as prefigurations of the
Second Trinitarian Person. Particularly, in the gospel ofJohn, the Logos of God

28 George Pachymeres, Quadrivium, 1.1, lines 93--96: Oh &pct -rCrY ftcte1']ftlhw... &... w 6vvct-rO ... -ra -rov
o...-ro; d61'] aKpt~werctt, OU6 &pct -r~ ... h -rot; overt... aA~e~tct... ~Up~t... , ~; i7ner-r~ft1'] ero'fltct. Pachymeres made
references to Plotinus also in his commMetaph, 4.5; and commEthNicom, 5.5.
29 Cf. Plotinus, Enneades, 1.3.3: '0 6~ 'fltAOero'flo; -r~ ... 'floow t-rotfto; ov-ro; Kctt oto... iTr-r~pwfti... o; ... Ta ft~...
6~ ftcte~ftct-rct 60-riav TrpO; erv... ~eterfto... Kct-rct... o~er~w; Kctt Trter-r~w; aerwfta-rov.
30 Ammonius of Alexandria, In Porphyrii Isagogen, p. 12.
31 John Philoponus, commCateg, p. 6; In Nicomachi Arithmeticam Introductionem (lib. 1), sections 1 &
27. David of Alexandria, Prolegomena Philosophiae, p. 59. George Pachymeres, Qytadrivium, 1.1,
lines 93-96.
32 Anonymous, Scholia in Platonem, comm. on Respublica, 498b.
33 I should add two more commentators, who (in the paraphrased text of Plotinus) wrote 60-rio ... instead
of Trctpct60-rio.... Asclcpius ofTralles, commAfetaph, p. 151. Olympiodorus of Alexandria, Prolegomena,
p. 10. Finally, the author of the spurious, Pseudo-Galen, De Partibus Philosophiae, section 8, wrote: Kctt
b ITAWTi... o; 6~ 61']AOt -rov-ro Aiyw... Trctpa60-r~ -rOt; ... iot; -ra ftcte~ftct-rct TrpO; ervv~eterft0'" -r~; aerwfta-rov 'floo~w;.
And the spurious Pseudo-David (or Pseudo-Elias), In Porphyrii Isagogen Commentarium, Praxis 18,
p. 35: Kctt TraAt... ITAwn... o; lA~y~, M-r~ -ra ftcte~ftWfct -rOt; ... iot; TrpO; ervv~et(Tft0'" -r~; aerwfta-rov 'flver~w;.
34 Stefan Alexandru, Aristotle'sMetaphysics Lambda: Annotated Critical Edition, Lciden, 2014, pp. 73-74.
Also, S. Alexandru, 'A new manuscript of Pseudo-Philoponus' Commentary on Aristotle's Metaphysics
containing a hitherto unknown ascription of the work', Phronesis, 44, 1999, pp. 347-352.
6 I I ntroductio n
is described by means of the characteristics of Wisdom, and Paul was based
on expressions of the Old Testament in order to determine that Jesus is 'God's
Wisdom' (1 Cor. 1:24).
No author other than Origen did ever make more of these scriptural refer-
ences: he wrote scores of pages in order to explain the opening of John's gospel,
and identify the Son of God as the personal Logos and Wisdom. Following him,
nearly all of the subsequent Christian authors followed this interpretation suit.

The Codex

Codex 199 was unearthed by A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus in the year 1886 in the

Metochion of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem at Constantinople. However, this
was not actually one codex: it comprised five different and irrelevant documents
written on paper, which had been compounded at some moment by an unknown
hand, and later this unified volume was transferred to the National Library of
Athens.
Given that Gregoras used to write his own name and titles in the header
(sometimes styling himself 'monk', sometimes 'philosopher', sometimes adding
no self-designation), the arising question is this: once he cared to point out the
authorship of his works, why is it that the same does not happen with the present
commentary? To this, the answer is that this should have been the last part of a
larger work by Gregoras (which he himself styled ~(~AO\ at the end of the commen-
tary). This was somehow dislodged as a separate document by someone (probably,
a monk), who cared about Christian commentaries and texts rather than ones on
Classical Greek philosophy. This 'someone' was Demetrius Protocanonarch who
sought to rescue Gregoras' books immediately after the latter's death. It seems
that Demetrius was anxious to collect works written during the Late Byzantine
Enlightenment: I have come upon another manuscript of the same lot (namely,
of the Holy Sepulchre of Constantinople, Codex 354), in which (demonstrably
in the same handwriting, colour of ink, thickness of letters), as that which he
wrote on the present codex 199: Demetrius wrote on the first folio (14r, just above
the header of the work), '[This is a property of] Demetrius, Protocanonarch of
the Great Church', i.e. of the Haghia Sophia' (L'l~~~Tp(OV TIpwToKa>oWtpxOv T~\
M.y"A~\ 'EKKA~(J'(a\). Given Demetrius' intellectual concerns, the title of that
work is hardly surprising: it was one written by Nikephorus Blemmydes, and
entitled N[K~~6pov ~o>axov Kat 7rp.(J'~VT.pOV, TOV BA.~~U()OV\, IJzpi El!rarwrlx~;
'E7(ITO(l~; BI~Alov.
 Introduction I7
The present commentary as a separate 'little book' (~l~A(O-Y) came to be
possessed by Demetrius Protocanonarch shortly after Gregoras' death, pre-
sumably during the riots that surrounded that event. 35 Following the fall of
Constantinople to the Ottomans in 1453 and conversion of the church of Hagia
Sophia to a mosque by Mehmed the Conqueror, the books preserved in that
'Great Church' (M.y"A~ 'EKKA~cr(a) (either all or some of them) were transferred
to the 'territory' of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem in Constantinople, namely, the
Metochion of the Holy Sepulchre. They remained therein for some centuries,
until A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus set out to catalogue them with the help of the
superior of the Metochion, archimandrite Damian of Samos, who moved the
codices from the despicable place and condition in which they were stored by that
time, and moved them to a much larger room, he constructed brand new shelves,
and then asked Papadopoulos-Kerameus to begin with his job. He worked on
that from 1886 to 1892 -since 1883 he had set out to compose an inventory of
Greek manuscripts belonging to schools, churches, and monasteries, at the behest
of the Greek Literary Club of Constantinople (1881). The condition in which
he found those manuscripts was nothing short of decay, some of them were not
numbered at all, and his own description of the situation he was faced with is
distressing, to say the least.
Papadopoulos-Kerameus explained that he catalogued and re-numbered 447
out of 846 codices that he found in the Metochion. Of them, 824 were already
numbered. Codex 199 was formerly Codex 494. The conscientious scholar com-
posed tables providing correspondence of old with new codex-numbers.
Meantime, it seems that some sort of putting those books in order had been
attempted two centuries after the ransack of the imperial capital: concerning the
document of the Commentary on Wisdom, this happened in 1630, as a hand of
that time wrote at the end of that (folio 54v). No matter who did so, that later
'librarian' styled this ~l~A(O-Y, and wrote 'in the year 1630' using Arabic numer-
icals, which are never used throughout this commentary, such as the marginal
citations of the passages of Wisdom that are commented upon. However, the
indication '1630' does not mean that the present manuscript was written in the
seventeenth century, as Papadopoulos-Kerameus took it: instead, this was much
earlier, and '1630' only suggests the date this came to be the possession of its
latest owner.

35 See pp. 127-128; cf. pp. 110; 116-117.

8 I I ntroductio n
Moreover, the same hand deleted the commentator's concluding phrase (in
red ink), crv> 8.0 OJ".
T<p~a .n~~.> ~". ~ ~(~AOI ('with God's help, this is how
this book has been concluded'), by drawing a double deleting line with his black-
ink pen on that.
As odd as it seems on the face of it, this can be explained: the belated 'librar-
ian' of 1630 composed that which thereafter remained as one Codex, and he
numbered it 494 (which Kerameus re-numbered 199). In that conjugation, the
present commentary was not the 'end of the codex': it was only the second leaflet
out of a total of five ones.
Therefore, whereas the commentator made a concluding note characterising
his entire workpiece ~(~AOI' the later librarian, who added his own words, styled
this just a ~l~A(O>.
The difference is significant and all too clear: A ~(~AOI ('bible') is a large
composition comprising several particular 'books' or 'documents' (~[~A(IX). For
example, when Patriarch Dositheus II (who died in Constantinople in 1707) con-
cluded the twelfth (and last) book of his History of the Patriarchate ofJerusalem
(L1W&Xd~I~AO;, published in 1715), he wrote, 'hereby the twelfth out of twelve
books (~l~A(W» is finished, which marks the end of the entire bible (TO T~I ~(~AOV
'T4AO~), i.e. of his entire twelve-volume History. 36
Accordingly, the present commentator wrote that the end of his commentary
marks the end of an entire 'bible' (~(~AO~), whereas, to the later owner of that sin-
gle document, this particular commentary (presumably, part of the initial ~(~AOI)
was simply 'one book' (~[~A(O-Y). Therefore, this was not about the entire Codex
199, which has been preserved as a coalescence of heterogeneous documents, but
about the Commentary on Solomon's Book of Wisdom only.
On the lower margin offirst page of the manuscript (folio 3r), there is the note,
Kat TOVTO crv> &MOlI L'l~~~Tp(OV TOV TIpwToKa>oWtpxOv ('this, beside other ones,
[belongs to] Demetrius the Protocanonarch [first lead singer]'). Furthermore, on
the bottom of the last page of the text (folio 54v), the new owner of that, namely,
Demetrius the Protocanonarch (as if carrying on with the commentator's phrase,
'with God's help, this is how this large book has been concluded') wrote, 'and
now' (>v> ,,<); then, the Genitive L'l~f1~Tp(OV follows with some garnishing draw-
ing. The phrase, 'and now this belongs to Demetrius' is but a continuation of the

36 Dositheus II, L1wBfXdplpAo~, book 12, p. 212 (upon finishing his twelfth and last book, dating this,
April of the year 1689): Eo..1']'fl~ -ripflct ~ ova; TrpO; -rOt; OiKct -rCr... ~t~AtW"', 'flipoW'ct Kctt -ro -r~; ~t~AOV -riAO;,
e~0 o~ M~ct -r0 TptCT1']At'll' Cf. op. cit. book 4, p. 492: dA1']'fl~ -riPflct Kctt -rhctp-ro... ~t~AtO"', i.e. the 'fourth
book' (-rhct[Yfo", ~t~AtO"') was only one of the twelve-volume 'bible' (~t~AO;).
 Introduction I9
deleted phrase, crv,8<0 OJ"< T<p~a <rA~f<' ~,,< ~ ~(~AO'. This ,,< ('and now')
'v,
clearly informs that the present commentary on Wisdom had ended up the prop-
erty of Demetrius the Protocanonarch.
Presumably, Demetrius had a penchant for collecting books written by eru-
dite people, since I have come upon his name in Codex 354 of the same collec-
tion (Metochion of the Holy Sepulchre, Constantinople), which contains extracts
from Aristotle's On Heaven (folia 252-257): on folio 252, this Demetrius con-
firms that this was his own book, which he had written from scratch, and 'it never
belonged to anyone else' (L'.~~~Tp(OV Kat Kat oV"<7ron n,o" folio 252), which is
a phrase he did not write about the manuscript of the present commentary. At
the end of this, he added, 'This also belongs to Demetrius' (L'.~~~Tp(OV Kat TO"<,
folio 256v). This codex is likewise but a commingled one comprising miscella-
neous diverse sections from various manuscripts, since another segment of this
had a different owner, and the indication is, 'This, along with others, belongs to
Dionysius' (L'.lOWcr(OV Kat TO"< crv,
&Mol" folio 157r).
Now, concerning the present Codex 199, between those two points signed
by Demetrius the Protocanonarch, a later' librarian' of the Metochion, presum-
ably during cataloguing and categorising the manuscripts of the library (clum-
sily, to be sure), after having deleted the commentator's concluding phrase, wrote
that this book was so found in the year 1630 (hOVTO TO ~l~A(O' <hal Inl 1630).
However, he made the listing not in Greek numericals, as it happens with all the
references throughout the manuscript, but in Arabic ones.
This interfering addition attests to a hardly literate person, presumably, a
monk. For one thing, he wrote the word with rough breathing on the initial epsi-
lon, which is a flagrant mistake on the grounds of elementary grammar.
Moreover, the foregoing term €'TOU'TO~, -Yj, -0, (instead of olho~, IXtJ'TYj, 'TOU'To)
is an extreme barbarism, which appeared in the later Byzantine uneducated com-
moners (this abounds at hundreds of points in solacing narratives, which circu-
lated in low-classes, such as the fictitious History ofAlexander the Great) Digenes
Acritas) The Trojan War) The Chronicon ofMoreas, etc. as well as in insignificant
later authors seeking to comfort those that had been enslaved to the Ottomans
after the fall of Byzantium). Those were sad times of decay, when Greek language
had collapsed altogether and was replete with all sorts of barbarisms.
Besides, this instance of declined quality oflanguage appeared in some Acts
of the Mount Athos monasteries written by unschooled simpletons, such as the
Acts of the Monastery ofIviron (bis), the Acts of the Monastery of Cutlumusion,
and the Acts of the Monastery of Chilandarion (Document 166, line 23;
Document 169, line 59). I should note particularly the Acts of the Monastery of
10 I I ntroductio n
Chilandarion, since in the present commentary on Wisdom, other instances of
peculiar vocabulary used in that milieu make a conspicuous mark. 3?
A comparison of the additional notes on the bottom of folio 3r by Demetrius
Protocanonarch and that on top of folio 54v by the anonymous monk makes it
clear that these were written by different hands.
For one thing, on folio 3r, Demetrius correctly wrote 'TOU'TO, whereas
on folio 54v the word is the later and barbarous €'TOU'TO. Anyway, Demetrius
Protocanonarch was as erudite a person as to represent the 'Great Church' of
Haghia Sophia (in effect, the Patriarch himself) and sign up for official contracts
that were worth a lot of money. 38
For another, the handwriting of the monk of 1630 and that of Demetrius is
strikingly different: taf (f), omicron (0), lamda (A), eta (~), alpha (a), iota (,), defi-
nitely signify two different hands.
Thirdly, the handwriting on the bottom margin of 3r and that on the bot-
tom of 54r is the same, which is anyway signed by 'Demetrius Protocanonarch'
himself
Beyond that, the commentator's expression 'T4pfliX ~o.i'ypH at the end of a
treatise was not a usual one, since the customary phrase was 'T4p[11X KIX'T~(Ay]cpH,
and normally this referred to one's termination oflife,39 although not always so: it
would mean someone reaching the end of a road (e.g. an athlete) etc. 40
I know of only two cases41 in which an author wrote 'T4p[11X ~o.y]CPH at the end
of a treatise. One, Patriarch Dositheus II, as above.
The other appears in the anonymous commentary on Aristophanes' Plutus
as a concluding note. 42 But it is from the same collection of comments on
Aristophanes' Plutu5 that we procure stunning information: George Pachymeres

37 See p. 200 and pp. 330-331, endnote cxlii, on the term ~U60ft~KO ... -rct (instead of ~~60ft~Konct)
(Acta Monasterii Chilandar [1320 - 1768J, Document 53, line 41), and endnote cclvii, on the
peculiar ethctn... Kct-r~Kp(e1'] (instead of the correct ect... c'm<[l Kct-r~Kp(e1']), (Acta Monasterii Chilandarii,
Document 140).
38 See pp. 20-21.
39 Theodoret, HE, p. 64; 123; Historia Religiosa (= Philotheus), vita 24.3; et passim; Gdasius of Cyzicus,
HE, 3.6.2. Choricius of Gaza (rhetor, sophist, sixth century), Opera, opus 1.2.61. Peter of Argos
(bishop, ninth-tenth century), Encomium ad sanctam Annam, section 2; John Zonaras, Epitome
Historiarum, p. 585.
40 Cf. Theodoret, De Providentia Orationes Decem, PG.83.720.52-53. Peter of Argos, op. cit. section 13.
41 Prior to these, in reference to concluding composition of a treatise, see Neophytus Inclusus,
Commentarius in Psalmos, chapter 4, Psalm 63: 'Hft~i; 6~ XptCTT"OV xc'tpm Kctt nV6~ nv AOYOV -ro -riPftct
Kct-r~tA1']'fl0-r~;.
42 Anonymous, Scholia in Aristophanem, Scholia in Plutum (M. Chantry): TD.o; 6pc'tftctn; A.ptcrn'flc't... ov;
IIAov7ov. EO,1']'fl~ -ripftct mOii70~ A.ptcr-ro'flc't... ov;.
 Introduction I 11

himself was also a commentator of Aristophanes, and had written a commentary

on Plutus, too. 43
The expression rrtrv e~0 recurs in George Pachymeres. 44 Patriarch Dositheus
in his L10&xd~I~J..O; also used this almost at a dozen of points. This would be
not particularly important, were it for Pachymeres not to have been one of
Dositheus' most favourite authors, whom he mentions at no less than thirty-
nine points. Actually, every now and then, he makes accurate references to
Pachymeres' works, he expounds his Trinitarian theological views, he uses exten-
sively Pachymeres' historical books, and defends his orthodoxy.45 Of particular
importance is Dositheus' report that Patriarch Athanasius III of Alexandria
(1276-1316) was the man 'who gave Pachymeres permission to write the para-
phrase (TI]> 7rap"~pa(m) on [Pseudo-Dionysiusl the Areopagite.'46 1he phrase is
illuminating, although it only confirms what is known from Pachymeres' rest
of work: the way for him to compose exegeses on Christian authorities of old
was writing paraphrases of their works. Contrast to this, Gregoras followed the
blueprint of Origen (which was Alexander of Aphrodisias' one) and quoted short
passages from the original followed by his own comments on that. This is the case
with the present commentary, too - which is one of the reasons banning the case
of Pachymeres having been the author of this.
Whereas Pachymeres' commentaries on Aristotle are paraphrases of his own,
Gregoras (as, for example, he did in his commentary on Synesius' treatise On
Dreams) followed the foregoing pattern. Thus, Gregoras' commentaries con-
tained both the original text that was commented upon, as well as his own exe-
geses. This is exactly what happens in the present commentary on the Wisdom
of Solomon. The author's quotations provide a significant version of the biblical
text, which contains some novel philological variants that deserve to be studied
by Old Testament scholars.
Codex 199 is written on paper (dimensions: 19,5 x 14,3 cm) in a single col-
umn. The author is parsimonious with space (i.e. paper), whereby his writing is

43 Anonymous, Scholia in Aristophanem, Scholia in Plutum (M. Chantry) commenting on verse 372,
attributed this to Pachymeres by name (rov ITctxvftipt]), explaining the verb ~p7rctKct; that Aristophanes
used in that verse.
44 Cf. George Pachymeres, Historia (ZvyrpcbplXai '!-r70p!CO), pp. 211; 465; 474; Q}tadrivium (or, ZVv7ayr:a
Tf-r-rdpwv Ma$r;r:d7WV), 1.15 (twice in two consecutive lines); Declamationes XIII, declamatio 1, lines
17; 117; declamatio 2, line 468; declamatio 6, line 71; Historia Brevis, 2.30; 12.2.
45 Cf. Dositheus II, LlwBadpIPlor;, book 4, p. 393; book 5, p. 145; book 8, pp. 446; 451; etc.
46 Dositheus, op. cit. book, 9, pp. 31-32: ov-ro; icrrh b im-rpitct; -r0 r~wpr('ll ITctxvftip~t TrOt~crctt -r~ ...
TrctPc'tiflPctcrt... d; -ro... Ap~o7rctr(-rt] ....
12 I Introduction
extremely 'compressed', which calls for attentive reading in order to point out
terms and expressions that belong either to the Book of Wisdom or to other
books of the Bible -that is why I have used different fonts for either of those kinds
of points.
The first component (folia 1-2) contains a text by Cyril of Alexandria com-
menting on prophet Obadiah. Extracts from the same commentary appear also
in the second issue (folia 56-58). Therefore, it becomes immediately evident that
the Commentary on Solomon's Book of Wisdom (folia 3-54) was inadvertently
inserted between the two sections that contained Cyril of Alexandria's commen-
tary on prophet Obadiah.
The fourth piece (folia 59-66) contains (1) Questions and Answers concern-
ing hieratic activity (it begins with' how should the priest bathe himself pending
celebrating liturgy'); (2) a text by 'the most wise Galen on the four elements of
Time', etc. The fifth issue contains two leaflets: (1) 'Consolation to those that are
in grief' by a certain arch-chanter named Manuel Sabius; (2) An unattributed
alphabet; (3) a narrative by monk Maximus of Mazaris 'on spirit,'; (4) a 'Latin
Liturgy translated by the Cretan Marcus Mousourus'. The sixth issue contains a
'Life of Clement Bishop of Rome, pupil of Peter the Apostle'.
The commentary on Solomon's Wisdom was included therein uncritically,
and my suggestion is that, no matter who did this accumulation, he had no idea
of who the man that had written this text was, namely, Nikephorus Gregoras.
In the first place, and given the philological nature of the text, one would be
tempted to surmise George Pachymeres as the author of the manuscript. Actually,
the text of Wisdom is written as partial rubrics in red ink, whereas the commen-
tary is in black. On this, I should remind that, at least during and after the elev-
enth century, all of the [Byzantine] emperors used to write their edicts and sign
them in red ink, which was a fact several authors cared to mention solemnll7 -
and Solomon was a king, too.

47 Cf. Nikephorus Gregoras, Historia Romana, v. 1, p. 109. George Pachymeres, Historia (A. Failler-
V. Laurent), pp. 79; 415; Historia Brevis, 1.17; 4.29. Gregory Paiamas, Orationes Apologeticae, oration
5.8. John VI Cantacuzenus, Historiae, v. 1, pp. 116; 369; v. 2, p. 516. Ephraem ofAenus (in Thrace,
thirteenth-fourteenth century), Historia Chronica, lines 4791; 8524; 8562. The indication, 'written
in red ink by the King' appears at scores of points in the imperial Novellae and in various royal
chrysobulla signed by Byzantine emperors, as well as in dozens of Acts of monasteries. Earlier, Anna
Comnena, Alexias, 2.8.4; 3.4.6; 6.8.3; 13.12.3. Nicetas Choniates, Historia, pp. 529; 599. George
Acropolites, Historia in Brevius Redacta, section 26.
 Introduction I 13

The Owner, Demetrius Protocanonarch of the Creat

Church (Haghia Sophia)

In anno mundi 6748 (that is, 1239 AD), an hieromonk called Matthew Perdicarios
donated a 'parental monastery' to three monks, whom he regarded as 'genuine
children' of his. The contract was read and signed at the Monastery of Laura, and,
as usual, this was signed by a number of witnesses (in this case, nine). Some of
them had come from Constantinople: one of them was 'the senior presbyter John
of Blachernae'48 self-styled f1FyaAo><itT~\, which designates a man who 'holds a
certain office in the Great Church'.49 Another was a senior chanter 'of the Great
Church' (&PXw> TW> KO>TaKlm).
Among them, there was a certain John Plades, who signed 'the Haghiosophite
and Megalonaites Domesticus' (6 ,"ylOcrO~lT~\ Kat ~.yaAo>ah~\ ()O~.crT[KO\).50 In
short, 'Haghiosophite' was but a title attached to (and proudly used by) those
who were either chanters or held any office whatsoever at the church of Haghia
Sophia. This Haghiosophite John Plades was a chanter of the Haghia Sophia in
Constantinople, and had been granted the title domestikos, which (among the
other senses of this term, as different as meaning either a chief military com-
mander or a humble servant of a household), was one bestowed on singers as well
as on minor officers of the Church.
If one argued that this was about the church of Haghi a Sophia in Thessaloniki,
facts would ban such an interpretation: this contract of 'donation' was signed in
1239. But Thessaloniki had been conquered by the Crusaders (fourth Crusade)
in 1204; it was taken back by the Despotat of Epirus in 1224, and became the
Cathedral only in 1246. Actually, in that city there were other churches that were
more famous. 51

48 Blachernae was the famous suburb in the northwestern section of Constantinople.

49 G eorge Pachymeres spoke oftheM~rc'tA1'] -rov e~ov iKxA1']crta. Cf. LvyypaifllKat 'I-rr0p!Ci/ (from the library
of Michael Palaeologus), pp. 45; 441; 603; 655; Op. cit. (from the books of Andronicus Palaeologus),
pp. 20; 47; 376; 643; Historia Brevis,4.8; 4.14; 5.2; 5.9; 5.18; 6.12; 7.9; 7.31; 10.32; 11.3; 12.21; 13.37.
He used similar yet no less clear designations. History (A. Failler - V. Laurent), p. 413 (-rov 9dov Kat
ft~rc'tAOV -r~fti"ov; -r~; -rov e~ov Abyov LOiflta;); History (I. Bekker), p. 85 (-ro ftira Kat l~po" -rift~"o; -r~;
-rov e~ov LOiflta;); op. cit. p. 254 (-rov ft~rc'tAOV "aov -r~; -rov e~ov Arta; Lo<pia;); Historia Brevis, 3.46
(-r0 -r0 ft~rc'tA'll"~0 -r0 -r~; Arta; -rov e~ov LOiflta;); op. cit. 4.29 (-rov 9dov Kat ft~rc'tAov"aov -r~; -rov e~ov
A6rov LOiflta;); op. cit. 7.30 (-rov ft~raAov "aov -r~; -rov e~ov LOiflta;); op. cit. 9.15 (-rov ft~raAov "aov
-r~; -rov e~ov Arta; LOiflta;); Progymnasmata, chapter 10, p. 578 (-ro -rov e~ov -rift~"o; ~ LOiflta). So did
Nikephorus Gregoras, always meaning the Haghia Sophia. Historia Romana, v. 1, p. 128; v. 2, p. 789.
50 Acta Monasterii Lavrae, Donatio Matthaei Perdicarii Hieromonachi, Document 1, line 66.
51 See infra, pp. 16; 20.
14 I Introduction
Besides, 'Haghiosophite' was a designation exclusive to the chanters of the
Great Church, namely, the Haghia Sophia at Constantinople.
In the tenth century, Constantine Porphyrogenitus told apart the 'Apostolites
and Haghiosophite chanters' (01 Ii. yahal, ot T< anocrTo):[T'" Kat aylOcro~iTal),
meaning those of the famous churches of the Saint Apostles and of the Haghia
Sophia.52
In the twelfth century, George Tornices, a remarkable writer and
Metropolitan of Ephesus (1155-1157), who had taught at the school for chanters
at Constantinople, wrote about 'the insolent behaviour of the Haghiosophites
against' himself (TIl> a>alli~ TOj) ay<»oj)\ nA~80v\ TW> AylOcrO~lTW> Ka8' ~flw>
6Pfl~».53 Quite evidently, they fancied themselves as a sort of noble cast, somehow
men of consequence, and had grown arrogant therefore.
Later, the highly erudite Classicist and bishop, Eustathius of Thessaloniki,
wrote of certain people who, 'at some time, arrived in the great Thessaloniki', and
among the names that he cited he included a certain 'wise citizen of the great city
[Sc. Constantinople], a deacon, namely the Haghiosophite Michael, a protekdikos'
(,npo\ Ii. cro~O\ fl<yaAonoA(T~\, A<V(T~\ aylOcro~(T~\ Mlxa~A npwTiKlilKO\)54
Later still Michael Choniates (or Acominatus, c. 1140-1220) wrote a letter
to four persons that he addressed by their names, yet adding, 'and to the rest of
the Haghiosophites' (Kat Toi\ Aomoi\ AylOcro~(Tal\), in which he was lavish of
commendation for this excellent choir (p.ouo-ono)..cp xop0), comparing them with
the Muses chanting opposite god Apollo, and with the Sphaerus of Empedocles,
but this new 'Sphaerus' was more stable, since, in that, there was always Love and
harmony and never Strife «>t Kocrfl'" €fl0lila ~lA(a\ cr~alpovfli>", TOj) €fln<lioKA«OV
nOAv flo>lflwnpo>,).55
Therefore, the designation 'Haghiosophite' had become legendary and ended
up a sort of nobility in its own right. Consequently, when, in the aforementioned
contract, the 'Haghiosophite' John Plades signed also ~<yaAo>ah~\, there can be
no doubt that he took pride at dignifying himself with his office as a chanter at
the church of Haghia Sophia in Constantinople.

52 See Constantine Porphyrogenitus, making the distinction, ol ;~ tc'thctt, ot T"~ c'trrocnoA:tT"ctt Kctt
c'tytoCTo'fliT"ctt. De Cerimoniis aulae Byzantinae, pp. 577; 583; 585; 589; 591; 597. In all of these cases,
he speaks of the two groups of chanters CHighiosophites and Apostolites'), namely, those of Hag hi a
Sophia and of the church of the Saint Apostles as being the most famous ones.
53 Georges Tornikes, Epistulae, epistle 7, p. 209.
54 Eustathius ofThessaloniki, Exegesis in Canonem Iambicum Pentecostalem, Proem, section 1.
55 Michael Choniates, Epistulae, v. 2, p. 112.
 Introduction I 15
This point is important when discussion comes to Demetrius the
Protocanonarch, who is not much known. From the Acts of Mount Athos mon-
asteries, we know that he was a native of the Greek village of Amorion, a village
now at the border of Greece and Turkey in Thrace, two kilometres from the bank
of the river Evros, which forms the border with Turkey. Amorion is situated seven
kilometres southwest ofDidymoteichon, Greece, and twenty-one kilometres west
of Uzunk6prii, Turkey.
For one thing, we find Protocanonarch Demetrius, also self-styled
[1~)'IXAO-ycif'TY]~, being contemporary with another Demetrius, namely,
Diabasemeres, and there is evidence that both of them sat around the same table
upon confirming and signing official contracts in at least two monasteries of
Mount Athos. We have three such contracts, signed by both of them at the mon-
asteries of Xenophon and Chilandarion at Athos in the years 1308, 1309, and
1313. 56 This makes Diabasemeres' dates important in order to date the present
codex-owner, Demetrius the Protocanonarch.
Diabasemeres signed up to contracts stricken in the years 1303; 1320; 1322,
1324, 1326; 1327; 1331, 1333; 1334; 1338; 1347.57 Whereas in the beginning
(1303) he designated himself simply 'a member of clergy',58 subsequently he
became 'clergyman and taboullarios [registrar]' (until 1317), then, 'oikonomos
[administrator] and taboullarios', later, in 1326, also skevojjlax ('sacristan'), while
during the years 1320-1347, he added the dignifying 'Megalonaites' ('an officer
of the Great Church') to the rest of his other titles.

56 Acta Monasterii Xenophontis, Venditio Domus in Asomatis Thessalonicae (anno 1308), signing along
with Demetrius Diabasemeres, lines 80-91. Likewise, op. cit. (anno 1309), (lines 81-87). In this
contract, the dominant figure was Demetrius the Protocanonarch and Megalonaites (lines 15-16;
44; 81; 90): Trctpow1c.t -rov ~vAct~ov; ft~yctAo"Vcthov Trpw-roxct"Vo"Vc'tpxov xvpov l!..1"]ft1"]-rplov -rov A.ft0ptc't-rov.
Diabasemeres simply signed up to this only at the end of the document. The two D emetrii co-signed
also the contract as in theActa Monasterii Chilandarii, Testamentum Theodori Carabae (anno 1313),
p.219.
57 Acta Monasterii Xenophontis, Donatio Monasterii Theotoci Thessalonicae (anno 1323), p. 166. Id.
Donatio vineae Monodendrii (anno 1347), lines 51-57. Acta Monasterii Chilandarii, documents 84,
85; 94; 106; 112; 117; 123; 125; 126. Also in the Acta Monasterii Vatopedii, Diploma Nicetae Baragii
(anno 1320), lines 28-40. Id. Diploma Constantini Clobae (anno 1322), lines 44-45. Id. Diploma
De Venditione Domus (anno 1328), lines 70-74. Acta Monasterii Dochciarii, Diploma De Donatione
(anno 1312), lines 18-24. Id. Donatio agrorum in Hermeleia (anno 1313), line 13. Acta Monasterii
Iviron, Actum Demetrii Diabasemerae (anno 1323), line 72.
58 Acta Monasterii Lavrae, Donatio Mariae Angelinae (anno 1303), lines 118-119 (simply 'a clergy-
man'): in the Ada of the monastery, Document 29, it is stated that 'Demetrius Diabasimeres, a clergy-
man, wrote this contract with his own hand in the year 1303, at the behest of the great skevofYlax and
taboullarios of the Metropolis ofThessaloniki, John Perdicarios.'
16 I Introduction
In all of the foregoing documents, including those signed by the
Protocanonarch and [1~)'cD\o-ycif'TY]~ Demetrius Amoriates, the dating used was
anno mundi, not anno Domini.
This was natural to happen, but it should be borne to mind since it confirms
that the date 1630 on folio 54v of the present commentary is a much later one,
added by a different hand.
Although Demetrius Diabasemeres is somewhat better known to scholar-
ship 59 compared with Demetrius Amoriates,60 both of them have been recognised
as figures that made their mark in the later Byzantium. Demetrius Diabasemeres
(cleric, taboullarios, scribe) being styled ~.yaAo><it.,.~\ has been associated with
various churches ofThessaloniki (Theotokos-Acheiropoietos, or Saint Demetrius,
or Haghia Sophia, or the Asomaton Church - Rotonda)." However, I have shown
that the term ~.yaAovah~\ simply and clearly suggested the Great Church of
Haghia Sophia in Constantinople." Obviously, both Demetrii and ~.yaAovaha[
(the Protocanonarch Demetrius Amoriates and Demetrius Diabasemeres) used
to travel from Constantinople to Mount Athos whenever necessary in order to
secure the validity of the legal acts that involved various monasteries.
Nevertheless, there can be no comparison between the difference of status
held by either of those persons: Demetrius Diabasemeres retained the lofty office
of oikonomos and tabou!!arios,63 whereas Protocanonarch Demetrius remained in
that office for a lifetime, yet he came to be as pride of this as to sign (in the present

59 SeeMedievalProsopography, vols. 9-10, Medieval Institute Publications, Western Michigan University,

1988, p. 48: "scribes: Demetrius in 1240, George in 1265, and John in 1314-28.121. From the family
of the Diabasemeres, Demetrius is attested in 1304 as scribe of an ecclesiastical taboullarios (he later
became a notary himself)." Jahrbuch der osterreichischen Byzantinistik, Verlag der Osterrcichischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1996, v. 46, p. 430: "Note that the 1324 donation act was not signed
by other witnesses except by the scribe, the skevophylax Demetrius Diabasemeres, himself, although
signatures are announced at the end of the document. Scratches visible on the next two lines after his
signature create suspicions about what really took place."
60 See references to Protocanonarch Demetrius Amoriates Megalonaites and Demetrius Diabasemeres
Megalonaites, in Hilmar Schmuck, Griechischer Biographischer Index [Greek Biographical Index],
Miinchen, 2003, pp. 40; 270.
61 See ChristofRudolfKraus, Kleriker im spaten Byzanz, Wiesbaden, 2007, pp. 127-131.
62 Cf. Donald MacGillivray Nicol, The Byzantine Family oJKantakouzenos (Cantacuzenus), Washington
D.C. 1968, p. 152: 'In the year 1338 John, as Grand Domestic, issued an order (graphe) to the oikono-
mos and taboullarios Demetrius Diabasemeres to investigate a complaint lodged by the monks of
Chilandarii Monastery.'
63 See Demetrius Diabasemeres signing 'Megalonaites oikonomos and taboularios', in the Acta
Monasterii Chilandarii, Document 117 (anno 1341), lines 145-146 & 164; Document 123 (anno
1333), lines 79 & 93; Document 125 (anno 1334), lines 83 & 88; Document 126 (anno 1333), line 48;
Document 129 (anno 1338), line 77. Acta Monasterii Xenophontis, Acta, Document 28 (anno 1347),
lines 51 & 56.
 Introduction I 17

folio 54v) in the pompous and garnished manner of handwriting that was nor-
mally used by dignitaries of the highest rank, such as bishops, even emperors.
'Protocanonarch Demetrius' signed using this title in documents along with
Diabasemeres, at times when the latter was a dignitary of a fairly high rank,64
whereas Protocanonarch Demetrius was simply a chanter holding one of the low-
est offices of the Patriarchate. 65
The office of oikonomos belonged to the first 'group of five' (,,<na,) of the
Byzantine oJficia. That of skevofylax belonged to the same group, but it was ranked
third whereas oikonomos was the first in order. Contrast to this, protocanonarch
was the third office of those in the eighth 'group of five' (,,<na,), after which the
ninth 'group of five' was the last and lowest in order. 66
To put it more accurately, the protocanonarch was not actually a chanter: he
was an assistant of the chanters, and his duty was to read and recite verses of
psalmody, which were immediately sung by the chanters; then, he recited the
next verses, and chanters sang them forthwith, and so on. In this way, chanters
did not have to read the books in front of them, and the congregation could grasp
the poetic content of a troparion, which was difficult to make out when the chant
was long and sung in a very slow rhythm.
This shows that, whereas Demetrius Diabasemeres would have been born in
c. 1285, Protocanonarch Demetrius was presumably younger, possibly born in
c. 1290. In any case, Protocanonarch Demetrius would have been alive upon the
death of Nikephorus Gregoras, in 1360.

64 Study of the Acts of the Athos monasteries shows that, in 1303, Diabasemeres was simply a 'clergy-
man' and held no other office. In 1308, he was 'clergyman' of the Great Church (Haghia Sophia).
Subsequently, Diabasemeres was clergyman and taboullarios in 1313 and 1315. In 1322, 1323, 1324,
1325, 1326, 1332, he signed Megalonaites taboullarios and skevophylax. In 1333, 1334, 1337, 1347, he
signed also as oikonomos. But in contracts of 1337, he signed only clergyman and taboullarios. During
the years 1340-1342, he signed Megalonaites skevophylax and taboullarios. However, in documents of
1333, 1334, 1338, and 1347, he signedMegalonaites oikonomos and taboullarios. That was quite a career
indeed.
65 Acta Monasterii Vatopedii, Acta, Document 30 (anno 1313), line 168 (a document written by a certain
'clergyman George Pyrrhus, at the behest of clergyman and taboullarios Demetrius Diabasemeres', who
signed, too); Acta Monasterii Xenophontis, Aaa, Document 8 (anno 1308, along with clergyman and
taboullarios Demetrius Diabasemeres, who had composed the entire document), line 90; Document 9
(anno 1308, signing along with clergyman and taboullarios Demetrius Diabasemeres, who only super-
vised the two signatories, one of them being 'Protocanonarch D em etrius'), lines 15 &44. Op. cit. line
81 (anno 1308, Protocanonarch Demetrius signing along with clergyman and taboullarios Demetrius
Diabasemeres).
66 Pseudo-Codinus, De Officiis, p. 6. He placed protocanonarch in the eighth m; ...-rc't;, out of a total of
nine. Loc. cit. See also, Officia Ecclesiastica (R.P.J. Goar), 10.2 (p. 226): the office of oikonomos was
the supreme one 'of the rulers of the Church', whereas protocanonarch belonged to the lowly class of
'readers' (awtyvwcr-rctt) and it was the lowest one in the list comprising the seven offices of that group.
18 I Introduction
Moreover, in Codex 303 of the Holy Sepulchre at Constantinople (compris-
ing manuscripts written in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries), a text 'On the
building of Haghia Sophia' (entitled IJzpl T~; oiJ(o(fo(l~; T~; dr"vrdT~; Toii ewii
MzrdA~; EJ(J(A~!Tla;) begins thus: Tairnp TI]v TOV e.OV M.y"A~v'EKKA~criav, TI]v vvv
6vo~ai;o~.v~v Ayiav Lo~iav, 7rPWTOV ~.v "v~yap.v 6 ~.ya\ KwvcrTaVTIVO\, ... etc.
This is why, in another manuscript of the same lot, we come upon another text
written by Demetrius the Protocanonarch, now styling himself 'Protocanonarch
of the Great Church', that is, of Haghia Sophia."
Nevertheless, Diabasemeres, while still a young man and novice clergyman,
could have been a native ofThessaloniki before moving to Constantinople, as the
contract of the year 1303 shows, which he composed as a notary 'at the urging
of the great skevojjlax and taboullarios of the Metropolis of Thessaloniki, [the
deacon] John Perdikarios'.68 It should be recalled that we saw above a hieromonk
called Matthew Perdicarios donating a 'parental monastery' to three monks.
It should be noted that the expression 'the Great Church' (~ f1.y"A~ €KKA~cria)
was just another designation for the church of Haghia Sophia, and it was never
applied to the church of the Holy Apostles, as incorrectly has been sometimes
asserted. To any Byzantine, the meaning of this expression alone as to which
church it pointed to, was taken for granted and needed no further explanation.
Nevertheless, a series of authors speaking of 'the great church' felt it necessary
to flesh out, hence, in addition they also spelled out the name of the particu-
lar sanctuary, namely, the Haghia Sophia69 Pseudo-Codinus relates that it was
Justinian's wife, empress Theodora, that began to build the church of the Holy

67 Codex 354 of the Holy Sepulchre at Constantinople, folio 14r: 1l1']!L1']-rptOV ITpw-roKa... avc'tpxov -r~;
M~yc'tA1']; 'ExxAr]crta;.
68 Acta Monasterii Lavrae, Donatio Mariae Angelinae (anno 1303), lines 118-119. On Perdikarios' being
a deacon, see op. cit. lines 133-134.
69 Novdlae et Chrysobulla imperatorum post Justinianum, Novellae Constitutiones Variae, novdlae
30; cf. 33; 34. Procopius of Caesarea, De Aedificiis, 1.1.21-78; particularly, 1.1.66. Paul Silentiarius,
Descriptio Sanctae Sophiae, in title. John Moschus, Fragmenta e Prato Spirituale (cod. Marcianus.
gr. 11,21), chapter 12. ~vcr~~~;;~ W... imx6crft1']cr~ -ra; iKxA1']crta; -ra; ntcr9dcra; VITO 'Iovcr-rt... taw6, -r~ ...
-r~ ft~yc'tAl'J" iKxA1']crta... [Sc. the Haghia Sophia] Kat -rov; c'tytOV; AITOcr-rOAOV; Kat &Ma; ixxA1']crta; Kat
ft0 ... acr-r~ptct. Ignatius Diaconus (eighth-ninth century), Vita Nicephori, p. 139. George Monachus,
Chronicon, p. 627; Chronicon Breve, PG.llO.776.39-40. Symeon Metaphrastes, Vita Pauli Confessoris,
col. 889 (cf. Photius, Bibliotheca, Cod. 257, p. 474a). Basilica, Ecloga Basilicorum, 5.2.2; 5.2.6; 5.3.17.
Patria Constantinopoleos, LlI1r'7-rI~ 7«pl 7~~ Arfa~ Z0'ffa~, in title; IIapa-r7d-rfl~ ZVV70f<OI Xpovlxaf,
section 11. Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Administrando Imperio, chapter 13; De Cerimoniis Aulae
Byzantinae, p. 550. Theophanes Continuatus, Chronographia, p. 207. Vitae Andreae Sali, Vita Sancti
AndreaeSali (sub auctore Nicephoro), section 36, lines 3980 &4393; Appendices VttaeSanctiAndreae
Sali, Appendix 6, line 155. George Cedrenus, Compendium Historiarum, v. 2, p. 237. John Zonaras,
Epitome Historiarum, p. 573. Eustathius of Thessaloniki, De Capta Thessalonica, p. 22. Acacius the
Sabaite, Commentarius in Andreae Cretensis canonem, 9.253. Nikephorus Callistus Xanthopulus, HE,
 Introduction I 19

Apostles 'four years after that of the Haghia Sophia had began', in the site of
an ancient church that had been built by emperor Constantine and his mother
Helen, as Haghia Sophia was built on the ruins of the church that had been built
by Constantius II (r. 337-361), and was consecrated in 360 by the Arian bishop
Eudoxius of Antioch?O Actually, on this, there was a rivalry between the couple,
and Justinian, who never realised that he was but an ephemeral despot, was eager
to finish his own 'great church' before that of the Holy Apostles was complete 71
The term cqlOo-Ocp('TY]~ was certainly a later coinage, and appears also in a
chrysoboullon ('decree having a golden seal set to it') by emperor Michael VIII
Palaeologus concerning donation of a wide piece of land to the 'great church',
and determining that, henceforth, this should be 'an Haghiosophite estate' (Kat ~
xwpa TWV AylOcrO~lTwv <crTl xwpa)72 Likewise, the term 'Megalonaites' ('an officer
of the Great Church') proudly attached to one's name was coined also during the
later period of the Byzantine times. Diabasemeres' name appears at 49 points,
of which 28 style him 'Megalonaites' ('an officer of the Great Church'), in the
Acts of the Athos monasteries of Chilandarion, Vatopedium, Iviron, Xenophon,
Lavra, Docheiarium, with Chilanadarion outnumbering them all (19 points).
The name, 'Protocanonarch Demetrius Amoriates', appears at five points in three
documents of the monasteries of Chilandarion and Xenophon. Not much later
(yet later still), similar designations were appointed by a few other clerics of the
Haghia Sophia carrying out missions at Athos,?3 but such self-aggrandising titles

9.9 (lines 64-65); 9.46 (line 79); Joseph Bryennius, Epistufae xxx, epistle 30. Ducas of Lesbos (per-
haps, Michael Ducas, fifteenth century), Historia Turcobyzantina, 40.2.
70 Socrates Scholasticus, HE, 2.43. Theodore Anagnostes, Epitome Historiae Tripartitae, 2.65.
George Monachus, Chronicon, p. 627. Photius, Bibliotheca, Cod. 257, p. 475b. Pseudo-Codinus,
Patria Constantinopoleos, 4.32. John Zonaras, Epitome Historiarum, p. 156. Nikephorus Callistus
Xanthopulus, HE, 9.9. Synodicon Vetus, 41. Chronicon Paschale, p. 544. Cf. Ignatius Diaconus
(eighth-ninth century), VIta Nicephori. He explained in title that Ignatius himself was 'a deacon and
skevofylax of the Great Church, that is, the Haghia Sophia'. So the Acts of synods, styling this 'most
holy Great Church, the Haghia Sophia'. ACQ, Concilium Universale Nicaenum Secundum (787),
Concilii Actiones 1- VII, Document 1, pp. 36; 600; Document 2, pp. 112; 818; Document 3, p. 222;
Document 4, p. 282; Document 5, p. 532.
71 Pseudo-Codinus, Patria Constantinopoleos, 2.96; 4.31-32 (distinguishing the 'great church' from that
of the Holy Apostles).
72 Novellae et Chrysobulla Imperatorum post Justinianum, Novelfae Constitutiones Variae, novella 30,
line 175. Michael VIII Palaeologus (1223-1282) reigned as the co-emperor of the Empire of Nicaea
from 1259 to 1261, and as Byzantine Emperor from 1261 until his death.
73 John Achrades ('protocanonarch and megalonaites'), Acta Monasterii Vatopedii, Diploma De
Venditione Domus (anno 1326), line 14. Theodore Patetas ('megalonaites and bibliophylax' [keeper
of books]), Acta Monasterii Xenophontis, Donatio terrae ab Eudocia Comnenoutzici (anno 1363),
pp. 212; 213. Michael Sarantinus ('megalonaites, oikonomos, and taboullarios'), Acta Monasterii
Iviron, Actum Donationis Joannis Ducae Masgidae (anno 1323), lines 61-62 & 74; Venditio Georgii
Butzini (anno 1325), lines 72 & 80. The chief-priest John Blachernites (i.e. of the church ofBlachernae
20 I Introduction
did not win the day, since, in terms of historical time, the fall of Byzantium was
imminent. In any event, the title 'Protocanonarch' would have been used only
before the fall of Constantinople in 1453, since after that, the conqueror Mehmet
II turned this into a mosque.
In conclusion, we have indisputable facts concerning the owner of the present
codex, Demetrius the Protocanonarch (,first lead chanter').

1. He was from Amorion, a village located closer to Constantinople than to

Thessaloniki. Demetrius was never styled a 'scribe': he always appears under
the titles he used himself, namely, 'Protocanonarch' and 'Megalonaites',
that is, an official of the Great Church, vis. the Haghia Sophia,?4 or indeed
'Demetrius Amoriates, Protocanonarch and Megalonaites'J5
2. He was ~.yaAo><it.,.~\, that is, he held an office in the church of Haghia
Sophia at Constantinople (since ~.yaAovat.,.~\ means ,"ylOcro~(.,.~\), namely,
he was 7rpw",oKavov,"px~\.
3. He was a contemporary with Demetrius Diabasemeres, with whom he
was personally acquainted, and both of them signed as dignitaries official
contracts at Mount Athos.
4. The present codex was found at Constantinople, namely, at the Metochion
of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem, and later was transferred to the
National Library of Athens.
5. Gregoras died in 1360 (born c. 1295, Heraclea ofPontus). The owner of
the present manuscript, Demetrius Protocanonarch, was active76 in the

in Constantinople), Acta Monasterii Lavrae, Donatio Matthaei Perdicarii hieromonachi (anno 1239),
line 60. The 'Haghiosophite and megalonaites John Plades' appears in the same contract, line 66.
74 See also, Hilmark Schmuck, Griechischer Biographischer Index (Greek Biographical Index),
Munchen, 2003, pp. 40; 356-357. Mirjana L:ivojinovic, Vassiliki Kravari, Christophe Giros,
Actes de Chilandar: Des origines a 1313, 998, p. 310. Christof Rudolf Kraus, Kleriker im spdten
Byzanz: Anagnosten, Hypodiakone, Diakone und Priester 1261-1453. Mainzer Veroffent lichungen
zur Byzantinistik. Wiesbaden, 2007, v. 9, p. 127, erroneously associating the title with churches of
Thessaloniki. The same mistake was made by Denise Papachryssamhou, Actes de Xinophon, Mone
Xenophontos (Athos, Greece), edition diplomatique, Mone Xenophontos (Athos, Greece), v. 1,
1986, p. 257. Contrast to this, see Filip Van Tricht, The Latin Renovatio of Byzantium: The Empire
of Constantinople (1204-1228), 2011, p. 126: 'A number of witnesses mentioned in the document
are clerics attached to the Great Church (megalonaites), which in our view refers to the patriarchal
church of Saint-Sophia in the capital, and not to the church of Saint-Demetrius or some other church
in Thessaloniki, as Lemerle suggests. Furthermore, none of the family names of the witnesses men-
tioned in the documents can be linked with certainty and/or exclusively with mid-thirteenth century
Thessaloniki.'
75 Acta Monasterii Chilandarii, Acta, Document 30 (anno 1313), line 168. Acta Monasterii X enophontis,
Acta, Document 8 (anno 1308), line 90; Document 9 (anno 1309), lines 16 & 44 & 81.
76 See supra, p. 15 and notes 56, 57.
 Introduction I 21
year 1347, which means he was a slightly older contemporary of Gregoras.
This means that the present unattributed manuscript, entitled 'written by
Origen, as they say', came to be possessed by Demetrius, who added this
to his own collection of manuscripts 'among other ones', as he himself
noted on the first page of that.
6. No doubt, the commentary was written at Constantinople. Along with
entertaining the characteristic vocabulary of Pseudo-Dionysius the
Areopagite (Gregoras appealed to, and quoted from, that obscure figure
abundantly), the commentator uses also characteristic locution which was
typical of Athos Monasteries - and that late Byzantine period was the
heyday of Athos monastic communities. 77

Little wonder that this document was found among the manuscripts of the
Metochion of the Holy Sepulchre at Constantinople, then, a later hand haphazardly
coalesced this with another four irrelevant manuscripts in the year 1630, and the
desultory amalgam was numbered Codex 494, which Kerameus re-numbered 199.

Origen in the Palaeologean Enlightenment

Why was it that the present commentator set out to perpetuate a commentary
supposedly written by Origen?
After centuries of darkness and blind regurgitated obloquy against Origen
without any reading (let alone perusal) of his works, in the Palaeologean times
and shortly before that, there are indications and testimonies that remarkable
intellectuals did read, cited, and quoted Origen's works. This means that the
superstitious trepidation of Justinian's synod, which had anathematised Origen,
had considerably abated. The anemophilous repetition of the list of absurd anath-
ematising clauses against Origen was no longer seen as an indisputable oracle.
Theodore Metochites (1270-1332), the Byzantine statesman, polymath,
author, philosopher, patron of the arts, and personal adviser (~<cn,i;wv) to
emperor Andronikus II Palaeologus from 1305 to 1328, wrote of 'Origen and
Panaetius and Clement [of Alexandria]', styling them 'men of our Christian lot'

77 See for example, the term ;tKcttO'"f~ptct p. 222, and endnote clxxxvii. This was used by monks only.
Likewise, the expression Trpo9qw&p.~"'Ot Trpo9vpw; (folio 34r, p. 242), which is obviously a pleonasm,
but its recurrent usage always appears in texts written in monasteries (see endnote clxxxii). Likewise,
writing pctyxct... dct instead of pct/yct ... dct (p. 274, folio 45r); see endnote cclxxxviii. Also, ~vxctptcr-rdct
(folio 45v, p. 276), which is a rare alternative to ~vxctptcr-r(ct, but this spelling was applied in Acts of
monasteries (see endnote ccxciv).
22 I Introduction
(T~\ ~~.T.pa\ Xp[crna>lK~\ aVA~\) along with Gregory Thaumaturgus and
Eusebius, while mentioning Philo, Claudius Ptolemy, and Theon of Alexandria
in high admiration, toO.?8
The Byzantine astronomer, historian, and theologian Nikephorus Gregoras
(1295-1360) styled Origen 'the wise one'?9 and with no qualms whatsoever he
stood up against the centuries-long obloquy against him. Moreover, he said
what was historically obvious: whereas synods had branded certain intellectuals
'heretics', nevertheless, they made use of their books in order to defend ortho-
doxy: referring to the Novatian Bishop Sisinnius (c. 400), Gregoras wrote that
prelates used his works in order to argue against Arianism, and continues thus:

Even if we set aside most of Origen's books, we do not in the least set aside
Origen himself. And most certainly, unerring witnesses to my assertion are
his battles and refutations against the cursed Celsus, as also are the rest of his
numerous books, which expound exegeses on the holy scriptures that have been
embraced by the industrious holy Fathers. 80

Thus, on the one hand, Gregoras ostensibly conceded taking distances from
'Origen's books', whereby he pretended compliance with the centuries-long
entrenched shameful habit of damning Origen out of hand without having read a
single word of his books, while, on the other, he forthwith declared that Origen's
Contra Celsum was perfectly orthodox, and that 'the industrious holy Fathers'
of old had availed themselves of Origen's 'numerous books'! If numerous books
had been availed of by the holy Fathers, how could it be possible for 'most of
Origen's books' to be set aside? But of course, Gregoras used just one more rhe-
torical scheme in order to say that Origen was simply and plainly orthodox, even
though those who parroted the scum about him being a heretic fell short of one
substantial quality: they were not as 'industrious' as 'the holy Fathers' - since his
detractors had not read a single word of his, and simply anemophilously mim-
icked old froth.
This was a real turning point, given that Nikephorus Blemmydes, the prede-
cessor of enlightened scholars that lived shortly before and during the Palaeologean
era, in his one and only reference to Origen, had made a freakish claim: whereas

78 Theodore M etochites, rvwf-<lXixi Zr;f-<fI@(rfl~, 17.2.

79 Nikephorus Gregoras, Explicatio in Librum 5ynesii De Insomniis, p. 13.
80 Nikephorus Gregoras, Historia Romana, v. 2 , p. 925: Ked 'Dptyi...Y]... ;' itTrocr~tOfl~"'Ot -rw... y~ ~(~AW'" -ra;
TrAdcr-rov; ~KtcrT itTrocr~tOfl~9' ctlhov. Metp-rvp~; -rw... A~yofli... w... fletAct -rot ittw;~i; ctl Kct-ra KiAcrov -rov
Kct-rctpet-rov fletXctt Kctt itynpp~cr~t; Kctt -raM' OTrocrct -roi; 9dot; Trct-rPetcrt 'fltAOTrO... ~crctcrt TrpocrdAY]Tr-rctt ~t~A(ct
iKd... ov -rW... -r~; 9dct; ypct'fl~; i~Y]yY]-rtKW"'.
 Introduction I 23
Origen abundantly had spoken of 'the soul of Jesus' (tvx~ ToD ']~(J"OD),8! or of
'soul of Christ'S2 and of 'Jesus Christ the Logos having a soul' (",a ']~(J"oD XP'(J"TOD
ToD €~¥XOv AoyoV),83 he had explained its precise relation to the Logos of God,84 as
well as its generation from the Body of Logos, from which all souls stem. 85 However,
Blemmydes uncritically claimed that 'Origen, along with the Arians, postulated that
the incarnated Lord did not assume any animated soul whatsoever, since his divinity
sufficed instead of having any soul at all'86 He added this phrase to the preceding
one, which (yet Blemmydes did not say so) was but a quotation from the Neo-
Chalcedonian Theodore of Raithus (sixth-seventh century) objurgating Apollinaris
of Laodicea for having said that Jesus had not a human soul 87 Theodore (in title,
expounding the .d6ga A7tolllvaplov) did not mention Origen at all: he only claimed
that the doctrine about Jesus having simply flesh was an Arian one, and Apollinaris
had replaced Jesus' human nature with the Logos.88
The council of Ephesus (431) had indeed convicted Apollinaris of Laodicea89
on that score as a Monophysite,9o and took pains to confirm that Jesus had a
soup! At a single point quoting a text by Theophilus of Alexandria, that synod
treated Origen as a heretic,92 because of Theophilus'93 allegations 'addressed to
those who upheld Origen's views', and concluded with arguing that God the

81 Origen, Cels, 1.60; 1.66; 11.9; 11.11; 111.32; IV.18; Y.39; VII.17; commJohn, XIX.16.101; XXXII.18.223;
XXXII.32.392; frJohn, fro 88; exhMar, 41; commMatt, 13.26; 16.8; 16.21; 16.28; jrPs, & selPs,
PG.12.1189.51-52, on Psalm 9:18; homPs, homilies 2.3; 29.5.
82 frPs, on Psalm 108:19.
83 commMatt, 10.14; cf. commJohn, XIX.8.45; Cels, 11.9; III.81; V.4; V1.17; etc.
84 Origen, Cels, Y.39; V1.47; commJohn, XIX.22.145 & 148; Commentarii in Romanos (III5-V7J (P.
Cairo 88748 + cod. Vat. gr. 762), pp. 158; 160;jrPs, on Psalm 91:1-2; selPs, PG.12.1421.3-5.
85 Origen, commJohn, XX.19.162.
86 Nikephorus Blemmydes, De Theologia, section 10: -rCrv yap apwt... Crv 1bfvxo", Trct... -raTrctCTl A~y&v-rW'" -r~ ...
-rov Kvptov crapKct, wcrctv-rw; Kctt b 'Dptyi... Y]; ft~ lft'fvxo", a... ~tAy]'fli... ctt crapKct -rO... Kvpwv w; -r~; e~o-rY]-ro;
apxowY]; awt 'fvx~;.
87 Theodore of Raith us, Praeparatio, chapter 4, p. 187 (also, quoted by Suda, letter alpha, entry 3398): -rW...
yap Ap~tct... w... &'fvxo", Trct... -raTrctcrt A~y&v-rW'" -r~ ... -rov Kvptov crapKct, ctv-ro; b ATrOMt... aptO; l'flY] on crapKct
ft~... ift'fvxwfti...Y]... 'fvXfi sw-rtKfi a... D.ct~~... b dpto;, ... 00 ;~ -ro... ~fth~po ... ov Trpocr~Kct-rO.
88 Theodore of Raith us, op. cit. chapter 7, p. 190: crctpd;;~ ovX (mAW; (-rov-ro yap ap~tct ... tx6 ...), aMa crctpKO;
ift'fvxwfti... Y];, Kctt ovxt ift'fvxwfti... Y]; fto ... o... (TraAt... yap ATrOMt... ctptOV Kctt -rov-ro), aM' ift'fvxwfti... Y]; 'fvxfi
... o~pi.i Kctt AoytKfi.
89 Apollinaris, bishop of Syrian Laodicea (d. 390), was a younger contemporary of Athanasius and an
early supporter of Athanasius concerning the inclusion of the homoousion at Nicaea.
90 ACO, Concilium Universale Ephesenum anno 431, tome 1.1.6, p. 142 (Apollinaris); so also in general
on pp. 143; 149; 159; tome 1.5.1, p. 231.
91 Op. cit. tome 1.1.1, pp. 15; 22; 26; 28; 38; 45; 52-59; 103; et passim.
92 Cf. ACO, Concilium Universale Ephesenum anno 431, tome 1.1.5, p. 68.
93 Edward Gibbon described Theophilus as 'the perpetual enemy of peace and virtue, a bold, bad man,
whose hands were alternately polluted with gold and with blood.' The Decline and Fall of the Roman
Empire, New York, 1983, v. 2, p. 57.
24 I Introduction
Logos 'did not assume a lifeless body; instead, he had a rational soul'.94 Contrast
to these, Nikephorus Callistus Xanthopulus, propounding what was abundantly
obvious in Origen's texts, as well already attested by Socrates Scholasticus,95
reported the plain fact, namely, that 'Origen, throughout his works, proclaims
that the incarnated Logos had a soul'.%
Quite evidently, Blemmydes had never read any of Origen's works. But the
least he should have done (which he did not) was to read the foregoing reports.
Instead, Blemmydes quoted a phrase of Theodore of Raithus, and added out of
himself, 'likewise, Origen claimed that the Lord did not assume an animated
flesh, since his divinity sufficed instead of having a soul'??
On this score, Blemmydes' incredible claim is a case of 'Late Byzantine
Enlightenment' having not dawned yet. As erudite as he was and praised by both
his student Pachymeres and the student of that student, Nikephorus Gregoras,
he lived too early (1197-1272) to adjust himself to reasoning strictly on the basis
of texts he had actually read. The claim he made about Origen was but an echo
of arrant bigotry that had been perpetuated during the darkness of previous
centuries.
The Byzantine Enlightenment had to wait for yet a short while more in order
to grow light. Blemmydes will be only remembered as the teacher who studied
and subsequently taught his pupil George Acropolites (and descendants such as
Pachymeres, and then Gregoras), Medicine, Philosophy, Theology, Mathematics,
Astronomy, Logic, and Rhetoric.
However, pending the age of Palaelogean Enlightenment, Blemmydes
should have attended to a principle not too later crisply formulated by Vincent
of Lerins: although the holy tradition has a dynamic rather than static character,
its typical and fundamental feature is that this is determined by 'everything that

94 The following proposition was ascribed to Cyril of Alexandria, Florilegium Cyrillianum, pp. 117,
178, 179, 184, and then (with insignificant phrasal variations) was quoted in the Doctrina Patrum,
p. 169: wcr7r~p yc'tp iCT'"n... h 9~0-rY]-rt -riA~tO; b ix e~ov ITct-rpo; Aoyo;, ov-rw xctt i ... 1t...9pw7rO-rY]-rt -riA~tO;
xct-rc't y~ -rO... -r~; 1t...9pw7ro-rY]n; AOyO ..., oux 1bfvxo... crwftct Act~W"', hl'vXWfLi...o... ;~ ftUMO>! tvxfi AoytXfi.
This is an excerpt from ACQ, Concilium Universale Ephesenum anno 431, tome 1.1.5, p. 70, quoted
later also by Photius, Bibliotheca, Codex 229, p. 250a, and Theorianus Magister, Disputatio cum
Armeniorum Catholico, PG.133.200.24-29.
95 Socrates Scholasticus, HE, 3.7: 'Dptyi... Y]; ;~ 7rct ...-rctXov fth i ... -ror; 'fl~p0fti... ot; ctunv ~t~A10t; EfttVXO'" -rO...
i... ct... 9pw7n'jcrct...-rct or;~ ....
96 Nikephorus Callistus Xanthopulus, HE, 10.14: '0 ;iy~ -r~ ... cr0'fl1ct... 7rOAV; 'Dptyi... Y]; 7rct ...-rctXov nr; ctu-rov
ypc'tftftctcrt... EfttVXO'" -ro"'It...9pw7r~crctnct Aoyo... xY]pvn6t. ftc'tAtcr-rct;~ -rov-ro crct'flw;7rctplcr-rY]crt... i ... -r0 d; -r~ ...
n ... ~crt... hc't-r'll-r°ft'll·
97 Nikephorus Blemmydes, De Theologia, section 10: wcrctv-rw; xctt b 'Dptyi... Y]; ft~ lfttvxo", 1t...~tAy]'fli...ctt
crc'tpxct -ro... KvptO>! w; -r~; e~o-rY]-ro; apxovcrY]; ant tvx~;.
 Introduction I 25
has been held everywhere, always, and by everyone' (quod ubique, quod semper,
quod ex omnibus creditum est).98
In any event, learned attitude to Origen was a rather rare commodity, since
there were also others who did not care to read his works, or had no access to
them, and were content only with the synodical claims of long past centuries,
such as John VI Cantacuzenus, who embraced them uncritically and saw Origen
as an all-out Arian,99 or Philotheus Coccinus,lOO or Matthew Blastares, who sim-
ply quoted from the acts of that sixth-century synod 1O ! that had been anemoph-
ilouslyand uncritically parroted by theologians who did not give a damn about
what Origen had really written, such as Gregory Palamas. 102
Such attitudes call to mind Thucydides' remark concerning the Athenians.

For people [Sc. Athenians] embrace from each other hearsay on things that
happened in the past (ra.~ c(.)coa.~ TCrv Trpoysys'V'1tdvw'V), without caring to cor-
roborate them (a~ctITC(.'VlITTW~ Trctp'aM~Aw'V 6SX0'VTctL,) even though these pertain
to their own country (Kcd ~'V 6TrlXWPlct IT<pllTl'V rD.

Thucydides continued with adducing specific examples of flagrant distor-

tion of historical truth by 'the hoi polloi of Athenians' (Ae~va(m yoDv TO 7rA~eO\)
concerning the story of tyrant Hipparchus having been slain by Harmodius and
Aristogeiton, and several popular myths that had nothing to do with truth, even
though those were about situations 'still extant and which have not yet been
thrown into oblivion by the flux of time' (nOMCt 6~ KlXt aMIX ~'T[ KlXt )lU)I O)l'T1X KlXt OU

xpav,,? "~V~(rTou~.va). Therefore, Thucydides' conclusion was the following one,

which (as so many of his brilliant remarks) is of eternal value.

98 Commonitorium Primum, cap. 2.2, PL.50.640.

99 John VI Cantacuzenus (c. 1292-1383; reign 1347-1354), Refutationes Duae Prochori Cydonii, 1.20;
1.43; Orationes Qyatuor contra Mahometem, 2.25; 4.2.
100 Philotheus Coccinus, Antirrhetici Duodecim contra Gregoram, oration 5, lines 790-794; oration 7,
lines 335-336 (whereas Origen wrote that 'God is indescribable' [8w6 -rot! itmptypit7rT"Ov], Coccinus
claimed that 'those around Origen dared to say that God is describable concerning his power, though
not concerning his essence'. However, Origen had written that God's power is incomprehensible' [T"~'"
T"~; cro<fltct; it7r~p()..1']7rT"o", 6&vctfm],frLuc,fr. 123; cf. commJohn, xiii.25.152; xix.6.37-38;frJohn,fr. 14;
cels, vi.62-64. But Coccinus wrote having in mind Justinian's' absurd claim, which modern scholars
made a 'fragment from De Principiis' (H. Gorgemanns - H. Karpp, fro 24. See Justinian, Edictum
contra Origenem, p. 70 in his Epistulam adMenam, p. 190, quoted in, and embraced by ACO, Synodus
Constantinopolitana et Hierosolymitana anno 536, tome 3, p. 190). Anyway, Coccinus declared that he
rdied on the acts of the fifth oecumenical synod (Antirrhetici Duodecim contra Gregoram, oration 8,
lines 175-176; oration 12, lines 1066-1070). See further, infra, p. 67, note 267-
101 Matthew Blastares, Collectio Alphabetica, proem, chapter 15.
102 Gregory Palamas, Orationes Antirrheticae contra Acindynum, 2.12.53.
26 I Introduction
This is how pain-free is search for truth by most men, who rather opt for
embracing reports that are ready to hand (OVTW~ aTctlct(Trwpo~ TOI~ TrOMOI~ ~
~~T'1lTl~ T~~ aA'1edct~, KctL6TrL Ta. hOlfLct fL&MOV TpSTrOvTctl).103

Had Thucydides lived to see and report the state of things that happened
from the sixth to thirteenth century concerning Origen, his expressions could
have been much harsher.
Nevertheless, opposite the innumerable throng of those who simply parroted
Justinian's self-defeating allegations about Origen, there were intellectuals who
had cared to read Origen's works, such as John Kyparissiotes (c. 1310-1379),104
and more so Demetrius Cydones (1324-1398), who quoted extensively from
Origen's commentary on Matthew,105 from De Principiis,106 from other treatises
that he did not cite,107 even from works of which we know nothing, such as the
otherwise never attested Origen's discourse IIzpi Op.iluJv.108 Nikephorus Gregoras
was one of them, too.
Whether there is truth in the proverb 'silence means consent', or not, the fact
is that there were several others who did not mention Origen at all, such as George
Acropolites and his pupil George Pachymeres, Theodore II Dukas Laskaris (1221-
1258, Emperor of Nicaea from 1254 to 1258), Maximus Planudes, Pro chorus
Cydones (Demetrius Cydones' younger brother), George Tornices, et al.
On this, the least that could be said is this: the real intention of those men
and their like was not necessarily to defend Origen; rather, they felt that, despite
their avidity for theology, they could not pass any judgement on Origen once his

103 Thucydides, Historiae, 1.20.1-1.21.1. Galen used Thucydides' phrase verbatim, in order to reprimand
certain frivolous people, 'who not only refuse to be attentive [to the truth], but also objurgate intellec-
tuals of old as being faulty; this is how they search for truth in a pain-free manner' (ov-rw; IhctActmwpw;
lxovcn Tr~Pt -r~ ... -r~; CtAt]9dct; ~~-rt](Tw). DeSectis ad Eos Qjti Introducuntur, p. 97. Later, the phrase was
proverbially used (without mentioning the name of the great Athenian historian) by authors who
censured featherbrained search for the truth. See Michael Psdlus, Opuscula ii, p. 155 (Scholium ad
Tractatum Hermeticum, 1.18), 4. Synesius ofCyrene, Calvitii Encomium, section 10. Isaac Tzetzes, De
Metris Pindaricis, p. 27. Nikephorus Gregoras, Epistulae, epistle 132; Antirrhetica Priora, oration 2.2,
p.273.
104 John Kyparissiotes, Adversus Cantacuzenum, section 28.
105 Demetrius Cydones, Translatio Qjtestionum Summae Theologicae Thomae Aquinae: De Religione
(secunda secundae lxxx-c), sections 83.17; 90.1; 90.2.
106 Demetrius Cydones, op. cit. 95.2; Translatio Qjtestionum Sum mae Theologicae Thomae Aquinae: De
amoris (secunda secundae xxiii-xxxiii), 24.12; Translatio Qjtestionum Summae Theologicae Thomae
Aquinae: De fide (secunda secundae i-xvi), 14.4;
107 Demetrius Cydones, Paraphrasis ex Romana Lingua Libri Fratris Richardi contra Mahometem,
col. 1045.
108 Demetrius Cydones, Translatio Qjtestionum Sum mae Theologicae Thomae Aquinae: De Religione
(secunda secundae lxxx-c), 95.2.
 Introduction I 27
books were not available to them, whereas others presumably felt that defending
Origen could be only a risk to the convenient social status they enjoyed.
In any case, how could possibly Origen's books have been at hand? Later
testimonies, which, thanks to gloating bigotry, were cautiously suppressed during
the dark Byzantines times, were not altogether lost.
The Council of Florence (1438-1439) vauntingly boasted that 'the fifth oec-
umenical synod, which was mainly convened against the Origenists', decided
that 'Origen's works should be burnt' and this is indeed what happened (rOo>
Dpry<>ov\ KaVe<nw»109
This can be confirmed by Marcus Eugenicus, who took part in that synod
as a delegate for the Patriarch of Alexandria. He was one of the loudest voices
therein and ended up the leader of the Orthodox opposition to the Union of
Florence. He explicitly attested that 'the fifth council denounced his [Sc. Origen'sl
works and threw them to fire' (U7rO TYj\ 7r<~7rTr]\ "7r.aoKl~"cre~ crv>oaov TI< TOUTOV
crv/yp"~~Ta Kat 7rvpt 7rap.ll6e~ ... a[1< ToDT' ,,~a>lcre~>a[ TI< TOUTOV crv/yp,,~~aTa
Kat 7rvpt aoe~>a[), but the Philocalia, 'which was composed by Gregory the
Theologian and Basil the Great, was spared', although 'this contains controversial
propositions [about the universal restoration] that were debatable at that time'Yo
Earlier, the third council of Constantinople (680-681) had confirmed that
the sixth-century Fifth Synod had not only rejected Origen's alleged doctrines,
but also threw his books to total destruction. 111
Even mere reading ofOrigen's works was proclaimed a lethal sin, which could
entail 'ending down to the bottom of Hades and to the utmost darkness'Y2The
bumptious Epiphanius of Salamis had convened a synod of the bishops of Cyprus
in order to enforce banning on reading Origen's works, and tried to impose that

109 Documenta Concilii Florentini, Latinorum Responsio ad Libellum a Graecis Exhibitum circa
Purgatorium Ignem (fifteenth century), p. 85.
110 Marcus Eugenicus, Oratio Altera De Igne Purgatorio, Document 5, pp. 128-129.
111 ACQ, Concilium Universale Constantinopolitanum tertium (680-681), Concilii Actiones I-XVIII
Document 11, p. 470: it... cttp~i 6~ Kctt iKp17rTH 7rpO; 6A~9po ... 7rPWTO-r07rW; ft~... 'Dptyi"'l1'" To... &'flpo... ct Kctt
7rCt...Tct ctVTOV -ra o... ~tPW611 KOftt~0ftct-rct Kctt 7rOAV~t60V; itcr~~dct; 7rA~Pl1 crvIYpc'tftftct-rct.
112 Anonymous, Sancti Pachomii Vita Tertia (cod. Patmensi monasterii S. Ioannis 9), p. 308: 'I60v
6tctftctp-rOpoftctt vfti... hwmo ... -rov e~ov o-rt 7ra; &... 9pw7ro; it ... ctyt... WcrKWV 'Dptyi"'l1'" Kctt 6~X0ft~ ... 0; -ra
crvIYpc'tftftct-rct ctv-rov, d; 7rV9fti... ct &60V ftD)..~t Kct-rct... -ra... · Kctt ~ KAl1po ... ofttct ctv-rov lcr-rctt -ro crxO-ro; -ro
i~w-r~pO>i. Anonymous, VIta Sancti Pachomii (cod. Ath. EN 2560), section 8: l\5)..' it~tW -ra -rov cticrxtcr-rov
'Dptyi... ov; crvIYpc'tftftct-rct Kctt HpctKAdov -rov y~yo ... o-ro; itpXt~mcrx07rov AA~~ct"'6pdct; ft~ iacrctt -rt... ct -rW...
V7rO cr~ it... ctyt... WcrMt... ~ hipw ... it... ctyt... WcrKo...-rW... itKOO~t... · imcr'flctA~ yc'tp dcrt Kctt oAi9ptct Kctt e~ov 7rOpPW
6ttcr-rW...-rct.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
long pursue, unmolested, her work of destruction, in the end the
pride of England was more deeply and bitterly wounded than our
own, while at the same time she was held responsible for the
destruction of our property. England will probably have reason to
remember the Alabama quite as long as the Americans.

SINKING OF THE ALABAMA BY THE KEARSARGE, OFF CHERBOURG,

FRANCE.

The successful movements of this vessel were such as to attract

the attention of Europe as well as America. Semmes, her
commander, seemed to have been adopted as a sort of English
champion, and judging from the expressions of most of the English
papers, and what Americans believed to be the effective though
quiet support of the English Government, the governing class, at
least, in Great Britain were as much pleased with the success of the
Alabama as were the people of the South. There was enough of
mystery connected with the operations to excite the imagination, and
scarcely was any phantom ship ever invested with a more unreal
character than was this modern highwayman of the sea.
She seemed to be everywhere, and yet nowhere to be found when
sought for by our ships; and some were inclined to think that our
naval officers were not very anxious to find her. The result showed
how little reason there was for such an injurious suspicion. There
could be no more difficult task than to overtake a single fast steamer
to which all seas were open, and which constantly shifted her
cruising ground. She seldom entered a port, getting coal and
provisions from captured vessels, and so could not readily be traced.
She burned or sunk the captured vessels, and then disappeared.
The public naturally magnified her size, speed and power, but the
Navy Department was well informed about her, and knew just what
sort of vessel to send in pursuit of her.
Early in 1862 Captain John A. Winslow, of the United States Navy,
was sent, in command of the steam-sloop Kearsarge, to cruise on
the coast of Europe for the Alabama and her associate vessels.
He blockaded the Florida for some time, but was forced to give her
a chance to escape, by the necessity of going for coal and stores.
He lay two months off Calais, where the Rappahannock was found,
and at last, in despair of getting to sea, the Rebel cruiser was
dismantled and laid up.
Soon after this he learned that the Alabama was at Cherbourg,
and he immediately sailed for that port, and took up a position off the
famous breakwater.
Semmes was now, for the first time, placed in a position where he
would either have to fight the Kearsarge, or submit to be blockaded
by a ship in every way a fair match for him.
If he declined battle he would be disgraced in the eyes of all
Europe. Should he succeed, his victory would have a great moral
effect, especially from the scene of action attracting general
attention. People of all nations would hear of it, and augur well for
the Confederate cause, whose attention would never be drawn by
such a combat, if it occurred on the other side of the Atlantic.
Putting a bold face upon his situation, he challenged Winslow.
Considering that his ship was somewhat larger than the Kearsarge,
that she carried one more gun, and that he had trained English
gunners, of whom much was expected; more than that, that his men
were confident, from success, and had the sympathies of most of
those about them, he had good reason to hope for success.
Winslow and his crew well knew the consequences involved in the
battle. They were indignant, as all Northerners were, at the manner
in which the Alabama had been fitted out, quite as much as at her
depredations upon our commerce, and death would have been
preferable to them, to being towed, a prize, into Cherbourg harbor.
The news of the approaching battle soon spread, and was
telegraphed in every direction. Crowds came down from Paris,
yachts collected, and bets were freely made upon the result.
The writer was in Cherbourg some time after this fight, and
photographs of the Kearsarge, her officers, her battery, and the state
of her decks after the action, were in many of the shop windows still.
The Cherburgeois seemed glad that the Alabama and her English
crew had been conquered off their town. At any rate, it was their
interest to appear so, after the event. It was rather curious that no
photographs of Semmes or his officers appeared in the windows.
At length, on Sunday morning, June 19th, 1864, the Alabama,
having made all her preparations, steamed out of Cherbourg,
accompanied by the French ironclad frigate Couronne. The morning
was a very fine one; the sea calm, and with a light haze upon the
water, not sufficient to obscure the movements of the ships. The
French frigate accompanied the Alabama only so far as to make it
certain that she would not be attacked until beyond the marine
league, or line of French jurisdiction. A small steamer bearing an
English yacht flag came out at the same time, but attracted no
particular attention.
The Alabama was first seen by the Kearsarge at about half-past
ten, and the latter immediately headed seaward, not only to avoid all
questions of jurisdiction, but to draw Semmes so far from shore that,
in case his vessel was partially disabled in the coming fight, she
could not escape by running into French waters.
The Kearsarge then cleared for action, with her guns pivoted to
starboard. Having reached a point about seven miles from shore, the
Kearsarge turned short on her heel, and steered straight for the
Alabama.
 The moment the Kearsarge came round the Alabama sheered,
presenting her starboard battery, and slowed her engine.
Winslow’s intention was to run his adversary down, if opportunity
presented, and he therefore kept on his course. When about a mile
distant the Alabama fired a broadside, which did only very trifling
damage to the Kearsarge’s rigging. Winslow now increased his
speed, intending to strike his enemy with full force, and in the next
ten minutes the Alabama fired two more broadsides. Not a shot
struck the Kearsarge, and she made no reply; but, as the vessels
were now not more than seven hundred yards apart, Captain
Winslow did not deem it prudent to expose his ship to another raking
fire, and the Kearsarge accordingly sheered and opened fire. The
ships were thus brought broadside to broadside; but it soon became
evident that Semmes did not intend to fight a close action, and
Winslow began to fear that he would make for the shore and escape.
To prevent this, Winslow kept his vessel at full speed, intending to
run under the stern of the Alabama and secure a raking position.
To avoid this the Alabama sheered, so as to keep her broadside to
the Kearsarge, and as both vessels were under a full head of steam,
they were forced into a circular movement, steaming in opposite
directions round a common centre, with the current setting them to
the westward. Had they fought on parallel lines, with the Alabama
heading inshore, she would have reached the line of French
jurisdiction, and thus escaped. But, being thus compelled to steam in
a circle, she was about five miles from the shore when, at the close
of the action, she attempted to run into Cherbourg.
The firing of the Alabama was, throughout the action, very rapid,
but also very wild. During the first eighteen minutes not a man was
injured on board the Kearsarge. Then a 68-pound Blakely shell
passed through the starboard bulwarks, about the main rigging, and
exploded on the quarter-deck, wounding three men at the after pivot-
gun, one of whom afterwards died of his wounds. This was the only
casualty among the crew of the Kearsarge during the whole
engagement.
The firing of the Kearsarge was very deliberate, and especial
pains were taken with the aiming of the two 11-inch pivot-guns. At
the distance at which they were fired, about half a mile, they were
terribly effective. One shell disabled a gun on board the Alabama,
and killed and wounded eighteen men. Another exploded in her coal-
bunker, and completely blocked the engine room. Other shells tore
great gaps in the Alabama’s sides, and it was soon evident that her
race was run. For an hour this fire was exchanged, the Kearsarge
suffering little, while almost every shot of hers struck the Alabama.
The vaunted English gunners, with their Blakely guns, did not seem
to get the range. The Kearsarge’s shell came with due deliberation,
but as certain as fate, crashing through her sides, exploding within
her or upon her decks, and sweeping away her crew, many of whom
were literally torn to pieces by the fearful missiles. She was rapidly
reduced to a wreck; her decks were strewn with the dead and
wounded, and the water was pouring in the gaps in her sides.
Semmes now made one desperate effort to escape, and suddenly
bore up for the land, and made all sail that he could. But he was too
late. The Alabama was sinking, and the water which poured into her
soon put out her fires.
One or two more shot brought down her flag. For a moment it was
uncertain whether it had been hauled down or shot away, but soon a
white flag was exposed, and the Kearsarge’s fire ceased.
In a moment more another gun was fired from the Alabama, and
this was at once returned. The Kearsarge now steamed ahead, and
was laid across the Alabama’s bows, with the intention of sinking
her, but as the white flag was still flying, the fire was reserved. Then
it was seen that the Alabama’s boats were being lowered, and an
officer came alongside, to inform Captain Winslow that the Alabama
had surrendered, and was rapidly sinking. Only two boats were in a
condition to be sent to the assistance of these people. These were
promptly lowered and manned, but before they could reach her they
saw the Alabama settle by the stern, raise her bows high in air,
shake her mizzen-mast over the side, and plunge down to the
bottom of the channel. The crew were left struggling in the water,
and the boats of the Kearsarge picked up as many as they could,
and hailed the small English yacht steamer, which had come out of
Cherbourg in the morning, giving him permission, and requesting
him to assist in saving the prisoners. Both parties saved such as
they could reach, and when no more were to be seen floating, the
Americans, to their surprise, found the yacht making off, instead of
delivering the prisoners she had picked up.

New Battleship Kearsarge.

Displacement, 11,525 tons. Speed, 16 knots. Horse-power, 10,000. Triple
screw. Length on load water line, 368 feet. Extreme breadth, 72 feet, 5
inches. Mean draught, 23 feet, 6 inches. Thickness of armor on sides, 15
inches; turrets, 17 inches; barbettes, 15 inches. Main battery, 4 13-in.
breech loading rifles, 20 6-pdr., 14 5-pdr., 6 1-pdr. rapid-fire guns, 4
Gatlings, 1 Field gun. 5 torpedo tubes. 40 officers, 480 men.

Winslow was astonished that such a thing should be done, and,

supposing some mistake, and that they were disturbed by the
catastrophe which had just occurred, did not fire into them, as he
should have done. Among the rest, this Englishman, whose name
was Lancaster, had picked up the Captain of the Alabama.
The officer of the Alabama who came to surrender himself and the
ship had permission to return, with his boat, to assist in saving life.
He went to the English yacht and escaped in her. None of them
seemed to feel any disgrace in making off in this way while the
Kearsarge was engaged in saving life. The saddest sight of all was,
that England was not ashamed of this man Lancaster, and
associated him with Semmes, in the banquets and other recognition
which the latter received in England.
It was afterwards understood that this Lancaster was a “nouveau-
riche,” who had a yacht, and who was glad to be seen and identified
with any notorious person. Many persons in England shared his
feelings, and when the Alabama was sunk, she was much regretted
by the rich men of Birmingham and Manchester, as well as by those
of the higher nobility, who would not, on any account, speak on equal
terms to those with whom they were in complete sympathy in the
matter of our war. We must also consider that the man Lancaster
had no experience in any kind of warfare, and that he probably knew
no better, and even thought he was doing a clever thing.
In his letter acknowledging Captain Winslow’s despatch
announcing the result of this action, Mr. Welles, the Secretary of the
Navy, says: “The Alabama represented the best maritime effort of the
best English workshops. Her battery was composed of the well-tried
32-pounders of fifty-seven hundred weight, of the famous 68-
pounder of the British navy, and of the only successful rifled 100-
pounder yet produced in England. The crew were generally recruited
in Great Britain, and many of them received superior training on
board her Majesty’s gunnery-ship, the Excellent. The Kearsarge is
one of the first gun-boats built at our navy yards at the
commencement of the Rebellion, and lacks the improvements of the
vessels now under construction.
* * * “The President has signified his intention to recommend that
you receive a vote of thanks, in order that you may be advanced to
the grade of Commodore. Lieutenant-Commander James S.
Thornton, the executive officer of the Kearsarge, will be
recommended to the Senate for advancement ten numbers in his
grade.” * *
Thornton was well known in the navy for his firmness, ability and
courage.
In regard to the conduct of the English yacht, the Secretary says,
“That the wretched commander * * * should have resorted to any
dishonorable means to escape after his surrender; that he should
have thrown overboard the sword that was no longer his; that before
encountering an armed antagonist the mercenary rover should have
removed the chronometers and other plunder stolen from peaceful
commerce, are not matters of surprise, for each act is characteristic
of one who has been false to his country and flag. You could not
have expected, however, that gentlemen, or those claiming to be
gentlemen, would, on such an occasion, act in bad faith, and that,
having been called upon or permitted to assist in rescuing persons
and property which had been surrendered to you, they would run
away with either.” * * * *
“The Alabama was an English-built vessel, armed and manned by
Englishmen; has never had any other than an English register; has
never sailed under any recognized national flag since she left the
shores of England; has never visited any port of North America; and
her career of devastation since she went forth from England is one
that does not entitle those of her crew who were captured to be
paroled. This Department expressly disavows that act. Extreme
caution must be exercised, so that we in no way change the
character of this English-built and English-manned, if not English-
owned, vessel, or relieve those who may be implicated in sending
forth this robber upon the seas from any responsibility to which they
may be liable for the outrages she has committed.”
The sagacity and far-sightedness of Mr. Welles in preventing the
English Government from having any technical ground for escaping
responsibility has since been triumphantly approved by the action of
the Geneva Convention, in the damages brought in against England
for the actions of this vessel. Unfortunately the English masses had
to help to pay these damages, as well as the classes which had in
every way fostered the Rebellion.
It was stated in the English newspapers that the Kearsarge was an
ironclad in disguise; and much more powerful, in every way, than the
Alabama. Let us look at the facts.
In the first place, the two vessels were much the same in size, the
Alabama being a little longer, and about one hundred tons larger.
Captain Winslow covers the whole ground in the following
statement: “The Kearsarge’s battery consists of seven guns, two 11-
inch Dahlgrens, four 32-pounders, one light rifled 28-pounder.
 “The battery of the Alabama consisted of one 100-pounder, rifled;
six 32-pounders, that is, one more gun than the Kearsarge.
“In the wake of the engines on the outside the Kearsarge had
stopped up and down her sheet chains.
“These were stopped by marline to eyebolts, which extended
some twenty feet, and this was done by the hands of the Kearsarge;
the whole was covered by light plank, to prevent dirt collecting. It
was for the purpose of protecting the engines when there was no
coal in the upper part of the bunkers, as was the case when the
action took place. The Alabama had her bunkers full, and was
equally protected. The Kearsarge went into action with a crew of one
hundred and sixty-two officers and men. The Alabama, by report of
the Deerhound’s officers, had one hundred and fifty. * * * * The action
lasted one hour and two minutes, from the first to the last shot. The
Kearsarge received twenty-eight shots above and below, thirteen
about her hull; the best shots were abaft the mainmast, two shots,
which cut the chain stops, the shell of which broke the casing of
wood covering; they were too high to damage the boilers had they
penetrated. The Kearsarge was only slightly damaged, and I
supposed the action for hot work had just commenced when it
ended.
“Such stuff as the Alabama firing when she was going down, and
all such talk, is twaddle.
“The Alabama, toward the last, hoisted sail to get away, when the
Kearsarge was laid across her bows, and would have raked her had
she not surrendered, which she had done, and was trying to get her
flags down, and showing a white flag over the stern.
“The officers of the Alabama on board the Kearsarge say that she
was a complete slaughter-house, and was completely torn to pieces.
This is all I know of the Alabama.
“Of the one hundred and sixty-three officers and men of the
Kearsarge, one hundred and fifty-two were native Americans, and
two of the remaining eleven were Englishmen.”
 MOBILE BAY. AUGUST 5, 1864.

arragut had returned to New York, after arduous

service in the Mississippi, which cannot be told
here, and had received the hearty congratulations
and hospitalities of not only public bodies, but of all
grateful citizens. He had been made Rear Admiral,
a new rank in the United States, and had been
thanked by Congress for his achievements.
But, after about four months of rest and
relaxation he was called to duty again, and early in
January, 1864, he once more hoisted his flag upon
the Hartford and sailed for the Gulf. His flag-ship
had received much needed repairs, and, on
examination, it was found that she had been struck
two hundred and forty times by shot and shell.
After a short stay at New Orleans, to settle naval matters there, he
visited Ship Island and Pensacola, the established depots for
supplies.
He was now preparing for the long desired attack on Mobile Bay
and its defences, which he had long contemplated, and was only
prevented from carrying out before by the necessity of carrying out
joint operations on the Mississippi River.
It was impossible to prevent vessels from occasionally entering
Mobile, no matter how vigilant the blockaders were. Forts Morgan,
Powell and Gaines protected the principal channels, and the light
blockade-runners would creep along the shore, under cover of the
night, under charge of experienced pilots, and soon be under the
protecting guns of the forts. Now and then some adventurous craft
would suffer for her temerity, by being captured, or driven on shore
and riddled with shot and shell; but, still, too many got in. Most of
these vessels had clearances for Matamoros, a Mexican town on the
Rio Grande.
 A steamer was captured off Mobile which was evidently a
blockade-runner. The Captain was sent on board the flag-ship, to be
interrogated by the Admiral. Farragut recognized him as an old
acquaintance, and one of the most experienced merchant captains
in the Gulf trade. The Admiral asked him what in the world he was
doing close in with Mobile, when he was three hundred miles out of
his course for Matamoros. The Captain entered into a long story
about having been swept in shore by a northeast gale. When he had
finished, Farragut smiled and said, “How could you be blown to the
northward and eastward by a northeast gale? I am very sorry for
you, but we shall have to hold you for your thundering bad
navigation.” Among the articles captured in this vessel were one
thousand copies of a caricature of General Butler, who has certainly
had notoriety conferred upon him in that way as often as any one
who ever lived.
Personal reconnoissances and skirmishes with the different forts
about Mobile occupied the Admiral for some time, and he recognized
the importance of having light draft ironclads to fight those which the
enemy were preparing.
He wrote, “I feel no apprehension about Buchanan’s raising the
blockade at Mobile, but with such a force as he has in the Bay, it
would be unwise to take in our wooden vessels, without the means
of fighting the enemy on an equal footing. By reference to the chart
you will see how small a space there is for the ships to manœuvre.”
On the 2d of March he wrote, “I saw the Mobile ram Tennessee
yesterday. She is very long, and I thought moved very slowly.”
He was most anxious to make the attack upon Mobile, as every
week’s delay rendered the work more dangerous. But he was
delayed by the necessity of awaiting ships.
In the meantime stirring work was going on inland, and the armies
grappling in the fight of giants. Farragut’s letters show that he was
keenly alive to all that was going on, although the mental strain upon
him in keeping up the blockade and in preparing for the undertaking
he had in view, was very great.
In a letter written in May he says, “We have the Southern papers
of the 17th, and yet they contain no news. All is dark with respect to
Grant and Lee. Grant has done one thing. He has gone to work
making war and doing his best, and kept newsmongers out of his
army. The only comfort I have is, that the Confederates are more
unhappy, if possible, than we are.”
“We started with few good officers of experience, but shall end
with some of the best in the world. Our fellows are beginning to
understand that war means fighting.”
To Admiral Bailey, at Key West, he writes, “I am watching
Buchanan, in the ram Tennessee. She is a formidable looking thing,
and there are four others, and three wooden gun-boats. They say he
is waiting for the two others to come out and attack me, and then
raid upon New Orleans. Let him come. I have a fine squadron to
meet him, all ready and willing. I can see his boats very industriously
laying down torpedoes, so I judge that he is quite as much afraid of
our going in as we are of his coming out.”
On June 21st he writes, “I am tired of watching Buchanan and
Page, and wish from the bottom of my heart that Buck would come
out and try his hand upon us. This question has to be settled, iron
versus wood, and there never was a better chance to settle the
question as to the sea-going qualities of ironclad ships. We are to-
day ready to try anything that comes along, be it wood or iron, in
reasonable quantities. Anything is preferable to lying on our oars.
But I shall have patience until the army has finished its campaign in
Virginia and Georgia. I hope it will be the close of the war.”
On the 6th of July, he writes, “My birth-day; sixty-three years old. I
was a little down in the mouth, because I thought we had not done
as well as we ought to, in destroying a blockade-runner that tried to
force her way by us. But Dyer, in the Glasgow, ran her on shore
under the guns of Fort Morgan, and I had been trying to get the gun-
boats to destroy her, but they did bad work, and the Rebels were at
it, night before last, trying to get her off. I determined to send a party
to board and set her on fire. Watson volunteered for the work, and I
sent him, with Tyson, Ensign Dana, Whiting, Glidden, and Pendleton,
and Master’s Mate Herrick. Jouett and McCann covered the party.
Well, as you may suppose, it was an anxious night for me; for I am
almost as fond of Watson as yourself, and interested in the others. I
thought it was to be a hand-to-hand fight, if any. I sat up till midnight,
and then thought they had found the enemy in too great force, and
had given it up; so I laid down to rest. About half an hour later the
Rebel was reported to be on fire, and I was happy, because I had
heard no firing, and I knew the surprise was perfect. And so it turned
out. The Rebels scampered off as our fellows climbed on board. The
boats returned about 2 o’clock a. m., all safe, no one hurt. I was
anxious until their return. But no one knows what my feelings are; I
am always calm and quiet.”
“I have never seen a crew come up like our’s. They are ahead of
the old set in small arms, and fully equal to them at the great guns.
They arrived here a new lot of boys and young men, and have now
fattened up, and knock the nine-inch guns about like 24-pounders, to
the astonishment of everybody.”
One more extract—for these show the man:—
On July 20th, he wrote, “The victory of the Kearsarge over the
Alabama raised me up. I would sooner have fought that fight than
any ever fought on the ocean. Only think! it was fought like a
tournament, in full view of thousands of French and English, with a
perfect confidence, on the part of all but the Union people, that we
would be whipped. People came from Paris to witness the fight.
Why, my poor little good-for-nothing Hatteras would have whipped
her (the Alabama) in fifteen minutes, but for an unlucky shot in the
boiler. She struck the Alabama two shots for one, while she floated.
But the triumph of the Kearsarge was grand. Winslow had my old
First Lieutenant of the Hartford, Thornton, in the Kearsarge. He is as
brave as a lion, and as cool as a parson. I go for Winslow’s
promotion!”
On the 31st of July all the monitors sent to Farragut had arrived,
except the Tecumseh, and she was at Pensacola, to be ready in a
day or two.
The preparations for the attack upon the Mobile defences were
now about completed, and Farragut had apprised each of his
Commanders of his plans for passing into the Bay.
Generals Canby and Granger had visited the Hartford, and in this
interview it was agreed that all the troops that could be spared
should be sent to co-operate with the fleet in the attack upon Forts
Morgan and Gaines.
 Subsequently Canby found he had not force sufficient to invest
both forts; so, at Farragut’s suggestion, he sent a body of troops to
land on Dauphin Island, near Fort Gaines. The Admiral appreciated
the assistance of the army in this case, and the responsibility of his
position. He was not the man to begin the attack without having
taken every precaution to insure success. He said he was ready to
take the offensive the moment the troops were ready to act with him;
that there was no doing anything with these forts so long as their
back doors were open. More than that, his communications had to
be kept open for supplies, which required a force of troops to cut off
all the enemy’s land communications with Mobile.
The 4th of August had been fixed as the day for the landing of the
troops and the entrance into the Bay, but the Tecumseh was not
ready. General Granger promptly landed his troops on Dauphin
Island at that date. As it turned out, all was for the best, for the
Confederates were busily engaged, during the 4th, in throwing
troops and supplies into Fort Gaines, all of which were captured a
few days afterward.
The attack was then postponed until the 5th, and Farragut wrote a
letter to his wife that night, which is a model of its kind, and shows he
fully appreciated the desperate work before him.
For it we must refer the reader to his Life, by his son, from which
this account is principally taken.
The battle of Mobile Bay was, very properly, the crowning
achievement of Farragut’s naval career, for it was the most brilliant
action in which he ever took part.
The defences of the Bay, at the time of his attack, consisted
mainly of three forts, Morgan, Gaines and Powell. Fort Morgan was
one of the old brick forts, with a wall four feet eight inches thick. It is
on the west end of a peninsula which encloses the Bay, called
Mobile Point, and forms, with Gaines, the principal defence of the
main ship channel to the Gulf. It was armed with eighty-six guns, of
various calibre, some very heavy, and in exterior batteries were
twenty-nine additional guns. The water battery had two rifled 32s,
four 10-inch Columbiads, and one 8-inch Brookes rifle. The garrison,
officers and men, numbered six hundred and forty.
 Fort Gaines is three miles northwest from Fort Morgan, at the
eastern extremity of Dauphin Island. This is also a brick fort, and
mounted thirty guns, with a garrison of forty-six officers and eight
hundred and eighteen men.
On the flats south and east of Fort Gaines innumerable piles were
driven, to obstruct the passage of vessels, and from these, two lines
of torpedoes extended towards Fort Morgan, terminating at a point a
few hundred yards from that fort, marked by a red buoy. This portion
of the passage was left open for the use of blockade-runners, and
vessels using it had to pass within easy range of the guns of the fort.
Six miles northeast of Fort Gaines is another narrow channel, only
fit for light draught vessels, called Grant’s pass. There was a redoubt
there, mounted with four very heavy guns.
Auxiliary to this land defence the iron-clad steamer Tennessee lay
about five hundred yards north of Fort Morgan. She was two
hundred and nine feet long and forty feet wide, with an iron prow
projecting two feet below the water line. Her sloping sides were
covered with armor varying in thickness from five to six inches. She
carried six rifled guns in casemate, two of which were pivot, and the
others broadside guns, throwing solid projectiles of one hundred and
ten and ninety-five pounds respectively. The ports, of which there
were ten, were so arranged that the pivot guns could be fought in
broadside, sharp on the bow, and in a direct line with her keel. Her
great defect was in the steering-gear, which was badly arranged and
much exposed. Near her were anchored three wooden gun-boats,
the Morgan, Gaines and Selma. The first carried one 63 cwt. eight-
inch gun, and five 57 cwt. 32-pounders; the Gaines, one eight-inch
Brooke rifle and five 57 cwt. 32-pounders; the Selma, three eight-
inch Paixhans and one old-fashioned heavy thirty-two, converted into
a rifle and banded at the breech, throwing a solid shot of about sixty
pounds.
Farragut had long before issued general orders in regard to the
attack, and made no secret of his intention to attack. They were as
follows:—
“Strip your vessels and prepare for the conflict. Send down all your
superfluous spars and spare rigging. Put up the splinter-nets on the
starboard side, and barricade the wheel and steers-men with sails
and hammocks. Lay chains or sand bags on the deck, over the
machinery, to resist a plunging fire. Hang the sheet chains over the
side, or make any other arrangement for security that your ingenuity
may suggest. Land your starboard boats, or lower and tow them on
the port side, and lower the port boats down to the water’s edge.
Place a leadsman and the pilot in the port quarter-boat, or the one
most convenient to the Commander.
“The vessels will run past the forts in couples, lashed side by side,
as hereinafter designated. The flag-ship will lead and steer from
Sand Island N. by E., by compass, until abreast of Fort Morgan, then
N.W., half N., until past the middle ground, then N. by W., and the
others, as designated in the drawing, will follow in due order, until
ordered to anchor; but the bow and quarter line must be preserved,
to give the chase guns a fair range, and each vessel must be kept
astern of the broadside of the next ahead; each vessel will keep a
very little on the starboard quarter of his next ahead, and when
abreast of the fort will keep directly astern, and as we pass the fort,
will take the same distance on the port quarter of the next ahead, to
enable the stern guns to fire clear of the next vessel astern.
“It will be the object of the Admiral to get as close to the fort as
possible before opening fire; the ships, however, will open fire the
moment the enemy opens upon us, with their chase and other guns,
as fast as they can be brought to bear. Use short fuses for the shell
and shrapnel, and as soon as within 300 or 400 yards, give them
grape. It is understood that heretofore we have fired too high, but
with grape-shot, it is necessary to elevate a little above the object, as
grape will dribble from the muzzle of the gun.
“If one or more of the vessels be disabled, their partners must
carry them through, if possible; but if they cannot, then the next
astern must render the required assistance; but as the Admiral
contemplates moving with the flood tide, it will only require sufficient
power to keep the crippled vessels in the channel.
“Vessels that can, must place guns upon the poop and top-gallant
forecastle, and in the tops on the starboard side. Should the enemy
fire grape, they will remove the men from the top-gallant forecastle
and the poop to the guns below, until out of grape range.
 “The howitzers must keep up a constant fire from the time they
can reach with shrapnel until out of its range.” * * * * “There are
certain black buoys placed by the enemy across the channel, from
the piles on the west side of the channel towards Fort Morgan. It
being understood that there are torpedoes and other obstructions
between the buoys, the vessels will take care to pass eastward of
the easternmost buoy, which is clear of all obstructions. The Admiral
will endeavor to remove the others before the day of attack, as he
thinks they support that which will otherwise sink, and at least to
destroy them for guides to the demons who hope to explode them.
So soon as the vessel is opposite the end of the piles, it will be best
to stop the propeller of the ship, and let her run in with her headway
and the tide, and those having side-wheel gun-boats will continue on
with the aid of their paddles, which are not likely to foul with their
drag-ropes.
D. G. Farragut,
Rear-Admiral, Commander Western Gulf Squadron.
P. S.—Carry low steam.
D. G. F.”
As has been already mentioned, Farragut had fully determined to
run into the bay, on the 4th of August, but had been prevented from
doing so by the non-arrival of the monitor Tecumseh. But on the
afternoon of the 4th she arrived, and took up her anchorage behind
Sand Island, with the others of her class—the Winnebago,
Manhattan, and Chickasaw.
On the morning of the 5th, long before daylight, all hands were
called “up hammocks,” and while the Admiral, his Fleet-Captain and
Fleet-Surgeon were having breakfast, daylight was reported, with
weather threatening rain. It was Friday, a day of bad omen for
sailors; but the clouds worked round, and the day came fair, which
was, on the other hand, a good omen. The wind was west-
southwest, too, just where the fleet wanted it, for it would blow the
smoke upon Fort Morgan.
At four o’clock the wooden ships formed in double column, lashed
securely in pairs, in the following order, the first mentioned of each
pair being the starboard vessel, or that next the fort. (The Admiral
had concluded to let another ship lead, and he was second.) Here is
the order:—

{ Brooklyn, Captain James Alden.

Octorara, Lieutenant-Commander Green.

{ Hartford (flag-ship), Fleet-Captain Drayton.

Metacomet, Lieutenant-Commander Jouett.

{ Richmond, Captain Thornton Jenkins.

Port Royal, Lieutenant-Commander Gherardi.

{ Lackawanna, Captain Marchand.

Seminole, Commander Donaldson.

{ Monongahela, Commander J. H. Strong.

Kennebec, Lieutenant-Commander McCann.

{ Ossipee, Commander Wm. E. LeRoy.

Itasca, Lieutenant-Commander George Brown.

{ Oneida, Commander Mullany.

Galena, Lieutenant-Commander Wells.
The Brooklyn was appointed to lead, because she had four chase
guns and apparatus for picking up torpedoes.
At half-past five, while at the table, still sipping his tea, the Admiral
quietly said, “Well, Drayton, we might as well get under way.”
Immediately the answering signals were shown from every vessel,
and the wooden vessels promptly took up their respective stations,
while the monitors came out from under Sand Island and formed on
the right of the wooden ships, as follows: Tecumseh, Commander T.
A. M. Craven; Manhattan, Commander J. W. A. Nicholson; (these
were single-turreted, Eastern built, or sea monitors). The
Winnebago, Commander T. A. Stevens; and the Chickasaw,
Lieutenant-Commander Perkins, followed. The two last were double-
turreted, Western built monitors, from the Mississippi river.
The leading monitor was abreast of the leading wooden ship.
The Confederate vessels took up position in single line, in
echelon, across the channel, with their port batteries bearing to rake
the advancing fleet. The ram Tennessee was a little westward of the
red buoy spoken of already, and close to the inner line of torpedoes.
 Farragut had ordered six light steamers and gun-boats to take up
a position outside, and open a flank fire on Fort Morgan, but they
could not get near enough to be of much service.
And now the attacking fleet steamed steadily in. At 6.47 the first
gun was fired by the monitor Tecumseh, and Fort Morgan at once
replied. As the wooden vessels came within shorter range Farragut
made signal for “closer order,” which was promptly obeyed, each
vessel closing up to within a few yards of the one ahead, and a little
on the starboard quarter, thus enabling such ships as had chase
guns to bring them to bear.
The battle had opened, but at that time the enemy had the
advantage, and the fleet now received a raking fire from the fort,
battery, and Confederate vessels. This they had to endure for fully
half an hour, before they could bring their batteries to bear with any
effect. At the end of that time the Brooklyn and Hartford were
enabled to open their broadsides, which soon drove the gunners of
the fort from the barbette guns and water batteries.
The scene on the poop of the flag-ship was now particularly
interesting, as all were watching eagerly the movements of the
leading monitor, Tecumseh. The Admiral stood in the port main
rigging, a few ratlines up, where he could see all about him and at
the same time communicate easily with the Metacomet, lashed
alongside. Freeman, his trusty pilot, was above him, in the top.
Captain Drayton was on the poop, with the officers of the Admiral’s
staff, while Knowles, the Signal Quartermaster, attended to the
signals. This petty officer, with the three seamen at the wheel,
McFarland, Wood and Jassin, had been in every engagement of the
ship, and steadily and coolly they now attended to their most
important duties. All these were nearly stationary. The men at the
wheel merely gave a spoke or two of helm, from time to time, in
response to a short order.
On the deck below, the gun crews were working with a will, and all
was animation and bustle.
As the smoke increased and obscured his view, the Admiral
ascended the rigging, ratline by ratline, until he was up among the
futtock shrouds, under the top. Captain Drayton, seeing him in this
position, and fearing that some slight shock might precipitate him
into the sea, ordered Knowles to take up a line, and make his
position secure. Knowles says, “I went up with a piece of lead-line,
and made it fast to one of the forward shrouds, and then took it
round the Admiral to the after shroud, making it fast there. The
Admiral said, ‘Never mind, I am all right,’ but I went ahead and
obeyed orders, for I feared he would fall overboard if anything should
carry away or he should be struck.” Here Farragut remained until the
fleet entered the bay.
Loyall Farragut gives a striking extract from the journal of one of
the Hartford’s officers, as follows: “The order was, to go slowly,
slowly; and receive the fire of Fort Morgan. * * * * The fort opened,
having allowed us to get into such short range that we apprehended
some snare; in fact, I heard the order passed for our guns to be
elevated for fourteen hundred yards some time before one was fired.
The calmness of the scene was sublime. No impatience, no irritation,
no anxiety, except for the fort to open; and after it did open full five
minutes elapsed before we answered.
“In the meantime the guns were trained as if at a target, and all the
sounds I could hear were, ‘Steady! boys, steady! Left tackle a little;
so! so!’ Then the roar of a broadside, and an eager cheer, as the
enemy were driven from their water battery. Don’t imagine they were
frightened; no man could stand under that iron shower; and the
brave fellows returned to their guns as soon as it lulled, only to be
driven away again.
“At twenty minutes past seven we had come within range of the
enemy’s gun-boats, which opened their fire upon the Hartford, and
as the Admiral told me afterward, made her their special target. First
they struck our foremast, and then lodged a shot of 120 pounds in
our mainmast. By degrees they got better elevation, and I have
saved a splinter from the hammock netting to show how they felt
their way lower. Splinters, after that, came by cords, and in size,
sometimes, were like logs of wood. No longer came the cheering cry,
‘nobody hurt yet.’ The Hartford, by some unavoidable chance, fought
the enemy’s fleet and fort together for twenty minutes by herself,
timbers crashing, and wounded pouring down—cries never to be
forgotten.”