Letters 7-11 of Aeneas of Gaza

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Let’s carry on reading the letters of Aeneas of Gaza.  Here are five more.

7. To Diodorus Scholasticus.

The excellent Herodotus reconciled us through the power of his musical art, an art surpassing that of Orpheus and Thamyris. Now, finally, we actually know one another, as if we had previously been fighting a battle in the dark: and there is now lasting peace.  Come, let us set up a mixing-bowl, as befits a time of peace, and pour libations, among the gods to Hermes, and among men to Herodotus, for they are the ones who finally resolved the discord between us. In honouring them, we shall banish Comedy, with all its attendant vices, from our correspondence.  For Comedy runs about impudently exposing the secrets of closest friends. Instead we shall make room for what safeguards every friendship: persuasion, grace, mutual pleasure, applause, and praise. With these, let us compose a nobler spectacle, forbidding Comedy to cause the slightest annoyance

[This letter, and letter 22, suggest that Aeneas and Diodorus had been fierce enemies, exchanging polemics and even personal attacks.  The two have been reconciled by a mutual friend, Herodotus (not the historian).  Witty personal attacks were part of the Greek Old Comedy – hence the introduction of Comedy – and were known as ὀνομαστὶ κωμῳδεῖν. Diodorus was a pupil of Procopius of Gaza, and accompanied him to Egypt, then settled in Caesarea as a lawyer.  As many as sixteen letters of Procopius are addressed to him and often concern recommendations and gifts sent by him to the master.]

8. To Zosimus the Premier.

I am well aware that your voyage has come to a happy conclusion. For, in truth, you did not set sail in order to engage in piracy, as the mighty leaders of old once did, nor for the sake of commerce, like most people today.  Rather, you travelled out of a longing for cherished people and places.  So it is fitting to say that Zeus, the guardian of friendship, was your companion on the voyage. And so, may the city be as favourable to you as the sea was, and, having received the love of friends, return to friends.

[From the papyri we learn that the πρωτεύων was the leading magistrate, official or citizen of a city, presumably Gaza; or Egyptian nome.  One papyrus uses πρωτεύοντι Ἡρακλεοπολίτου for the leading citizen or magistrate of Herakeopolis.  The letter is intended to flatter this important personage, suggesting that the voyage could never have gone wrong since Zeus Philios accompanied him.]

9. To the Sophist Sopater.

I praise the spirit of the excellent Constantine but pity his fate.  For, to be truly happy, he should have enjoyed only a single city, his home city. Instead, since fortune did not grant this, he has seen the cities of many men and he wanders about in order to earn a living, forced to glorify poverty while practicing a poetic art that originated not in Greece but in Italy. And thus he declaims in a heavy and baroque style. Having arrived here with this craft, he appealed to me to help him, and now I appeal to you. You, too, will surely guide him to a successful outcome by commending him to others.

[A reluctant and somewhat hostile letter of recommendation on behalf of a visitor from the now barbarous Latin world.  We do not know whether the addressee is the Sopater who is the author of an Ἐκλογαὶ διαφόρων (Photius, Bibl. cod. 161), of biographies (Cramer, An. Par. I 389), of Διαιρέσεις ζητημάτων and of scholia to Hermogenes (Walz, Rhet. gr. IV, V, VIII).]  At all events Aeneas simply hands his guest over to Sopater who must find friends for him.

10. To the Sophist Zosimus.

If the excellent Paul were young and a poet, he would still be worthy of honour.  As it is, he is both a poet and an old man, and both of these qualities require someone who knows how to render them their deserved tribute. You wish to be foremost among those who do this, and rightly so. Here, then, is someone to whom you can do a good turn.

[Also a letter of recommendation.  When you are young, it is enough to be famous.  When you are old, you need material help too.  The addressee cannot be the same as the Zosimus of letter 7.  Letter 151 of Procopius of Gaza is also addressed to a Zosimus, who, after being his pupil, has now dedicated himself to the study of law.  The Suda mentions a Zosimus of Ascalon, a sophist, who lived in the time of the emperor Anastasius and wrote an alphabetical lexicon and commentaries on Demosthenes and Lysias. But Aeneas was older than Procopius and so could hardly have had a pupil of Procopius – a young man – as an authoritative friend.  It is possible that the Suda erroneously fused together information concerning two sophists named Zosimus, one native of Gaza put to death by the emperor Zeno (473-491), the other of Ascalon lived under Anastasius I (491-518). In all probability this second Zosimus was Aeneas’ friend.]

11. To Marinianus, of a consular family.

The excellent Ponton has surpassed the others in my school through his unflagging zeal, a quality that greatly aids the acquisition of learning.  He has undoubtedly mastered the techniques of rhetorical oratory and added to them a multifaceted knowledge of the law.  Yet he is not sated by these labours. Indeed, he has set out for your city like a skilled athlete heading to Olympia, superbly prepared for the contest.  For if you inspire him, I prophesy that the young man will emerge an Olympic champion! May you brilliantly organize the games and offer prizes, not for boxing or wrestling, but for the art of eloquence and for wisdom. I greet the most illustrious Victor, the illustrious Stephen, and the most accomplished John, as well as your families and my friends.

[The addressee is clearly an influential person.  A Marinianus was praefectus praetorio Italiae, Illyrici et Africae and then consul ordinarius in 423; another was bishop of Synnada in Phrygia; another was outright bishop of Gaza and took part in the Council of Ephesus in 449: to him John Chrysostom addresses epistle 128 (Migne PG 52, 638). It is clear, therefore, that this is a very influential Gazan family. The personal name Pontus is known from a Latin inscription.]

New publication: Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s Commentary on Genesis – in English

Posted on by Roger Pearse

A kind correspondent draws my attention to an interesting new publication, of an English translation of Ibn al-Tayyib’s “Commentary on Genesis”.  The bible commentaries of this Christian Arabic writer (d. 1043) are very little known, and it is wonderful to have this new volume, of 160 pages.  The translators are Deirdre Dempsey, Safwat Marzouk and Stephen J. Davis, and the price is a very reasonable $35.  The Fordham Press website for it is here, and it’s on Amazon.com here.

From the blurb:

The first English-language translation of a major biblical commentary written in Arabic by a seminal figure in the history of Christianity in the Middle East.

Abū-l-Faraj ibn al-Ṭayyib (d. 1043) spent his adult life in Baghdad, where he served as a priest in the Church of the East around the turn of the first millenium. He was a polymath—a physician, philosopher, and theologian—and part of an illustrious line of teachers dedicated to the transmission of scientific knowledge from Greek into Syriac and then later into Arabic. He authored commentaries on Aristotle, Galen, and Hippocrates, as well as original treatises on the Trinity, science and miracles, Christian law, and the resurrection. His major works of biblical interpretation included a complete commentary on the Bible, entitled The Paradise of Christianity. The first part of it, his Commentary on Genesis, is translated here into English for the first time and accompanied by a critical introduction to Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s life and writings; the form, method, and content of his biblical interpretation; and his theology of creation and the divine Word.

I seem to have started writing about Ibn al-Tayyib in 2009, so it is delightful to see something appearing!  Stephen J. Davis seems to be the man pushing things along.  I hope the volume is a success!

Letters 1-6 of Aeneas of Gaza

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Twenty-five letters of the early sixth century sophist Aeneas of Gaza have been preserved, scattered across a mass of manuscripts.  Let’s read the first six in the collection, using the Positano edition and Italian translation of 1961, thanks to the wonders of Google Translate and Deepseek.[ref]Lidia Massa Positano, Enea di Gaza: Epistole, 2nd ed., Naples (1961).[/ref]  The notes are abbreviated from Positano.

1. To John.

If the book were yours and I desired it, it would rightly have been already in my hands, for some time: that is how friendship is made. But now the owner of the book is me; and yet you do not give it to me. Oh no, by Zeus the protector of friendship, may this not happen to me because it is a book; in reality it is all that I have; and such possession seems to me worthy of greater consideration than the talents of Croesus.

Certainly, one man loves the hoe [he is a farmer], and one has a passion for dogs [he is a hunter], another delights in the bow, another takes pleasure in horses: for me, it is books and discourses. But the very thing that brings most pleasure to its owner is what brings most pain when taken from him.

So if you return the book to me, I will convinced that it is imprinted upon your mind.  But if not, it will look as if you do not care about its contents, but rather about appearing to be its owner. But why do I say this?  Certainly not in order to get pain from something that so often brought me joy.

[The letter is only intelligible if John is a rather wealthier man than Aeneas.  The name John is very common; note that letter 14 is directed to a priest John, and another John is greeted in letter 11.  Procopius of Gaza refers in letter 103 to a John who returns books swiftly, and addresses letters 5, 12, 33, 55, 95, 154 and 156 to him; but we cannot be sure the two are the same.]

2. To Cassus.

In his old age, Laertes no longer wished to be king or rule over peoples; instead, he wanted to be a gardener and tend to trees. It seems to me that you have emulated him; otherwise, you would not have left the city and your own people to spend such a long time in the countryside conversing with plants. You ought, however, to have kept in mind not Laertes, but Socrates and the Socratic precepts, where he, discoursing with elegance and gravity, maintains that fields and trees are not disposed to teach anything, whereas the men of the city are.  Listen to him instead: hold the fields in low regard, for it is unlikely that farmers there reap the fruit of wisdom; remember, rather, those familiar, customary discussions where one can learn and teach knowledge and, most importantly, bring joy to friends.

[The addressee was probably “Cassius”, but it is given as “Cassus” in the manuscripts, and Κάσσος does exist as a name, because it appears in the Suda.]

3. To the Priest Alphius.

The opposite has happened. Anastasius is at peace, while you are making war.  That course of action is not fitting for you, nor is it honourable. Shall I tell you how the conflict came about? Cornelius occupied Anastasius’s farm while the latter was away.  Upon his return, the owner wanted to reclaim the land, while the farmer, for his part, wished to become the owner.  And not for free either, for he had actually negotiated a price. They came to an agreement; a purchase contract was drawn up, and Cornelius was already preparing to hand over the money for the farm.

Then you swooped in unexpectedly and prevented the transaction, claiming ownership of the land yourself. Hence the anger and the conflict. If you are in the wrong, settle the dispute even before you come to us. If, however, there is only the appearance of wrongdoing rather than the reality, come and answer to the judges as soon as possible. For I would not want friends to be unjust, nor even merely to seem so.

[Anastasius inclines towards a reconciliation; Alphius, on the other hand, a priest, has assumed a litigious attitude. Both are friends of Aeneas.  It’s possible that Alphius has invoked an ecclesiastical privilege over the land. Anastasius is very likely the Anastasius whom Procopius mentions as his relative in one of his letters addressed to Gessius the physician, who is also a friend of Aeneas (ep. 68).]

4. To the Sophist Zoneus.

May the excellent Epiphanius enjoy great happiness, because he filled us with joy.  Indeed, in calling you a fine orator, he admired your character more than your eloquence. For—and this is the essential point—you proved yourself a sincere friend.  He would often turn to me in jest, and this in your name; because you had instructed him to do so. You know what he is like: a man who cultivates every grace. To tell the truth, he was sometimes even a nuisance to me with his constant delivery of greetings on your behalf.  But you are to blame.  Had you sent me even a brief note, just to exchange a few words, I would have received it with pleasure.

[The name of the addressee is corrupt in the manuscripts.  A Zoneus is mentioned in Letter 107 by Procopius of Gaza, and it seems to be the same person. It is uncertain whether this is the same orator who wrote, according to the Suda lexicon both ἐρωτικαὶ ἐπιστολαὶ καὶ ἀγροικικαί and a treatise Περὶ τῶν σχημάτων. A short work Περὶ τῶν κατὰ λόγον καὶ κατὰ λέξιν has come down to us under the name of Zoneus, but the attribution is perhaps due to the 16th century forger Constantine Palaeocappa. It has also been thought that the letters attributed to Aristaenetus are instead by Zoneus. For Epiphanius see letter 12, addressed to him.]

5. To Ulpia.

May the wicked, whoever they may have been, perish miserably for the damage that they inflicted upon your household.  By the gods, I cannot express how deeply distressed I was by it.  Yet, fortunately, a source of comfort has presented itself to me, albeit belatedly, and I felt it was right to share it with you, so that the misfortune will not have been entirely in vain.

Now indeed you will believe more firmly that, while gold, silver, and splendid garments are eagerly sought after by the many, they are insecure and unstable possessions, even for their actual owners, because anyone who wants to can steal them.  Culture and wisdom, on the other hand, may be objects of ridicule for fools, but they are a secure and steadfast possession that cannot be taken away: a treasure, in short, that is proof against theft.   Cling on to these things instead, and in future you will need neither walls nor weapons nor a troop of guards to protect your wealth.

[This and the following letter are letters addressed separately to Ulpia and Pampus to console them for a theft. The central theme of this letter, that culture and wisdom are the only secure possession, is a recurring motif in rhetoric.]

6. To the Grammarian Pampus.

The joy of receiving your letter was overshadowed by the pain I felt at the news of the theft.  This troubled me no less than if I had suffered it myself. Let this statement not seem incredible: for if friends share possessions, do they not share losses too. But why do I grieve so? Undoubtedly he who is superior to gain is also above loss.  In this, we find comfort. I should like to know from you if I am right.

Coming back to life

Posted on by admin

Apologies for the outage.  I did indeed have to move host – twice in fact.  Nixihost was great until I tried to upload my site and found the upload speed was 50 kilobytes per second.  My internet connection upload runs as 81 megabytes a second.  So that was impossible.  Clearly they have sold too many websites for their capacity.  But they were nice people.  The web hosting trade seems every bit as wild west as it was 20 years ago, and it’s quite a minefield.  Let’s see how it goes with the new host (upload speed in megabytes, thankfully).

Update: I’ll update this post as things get fixed.

The Tertullian Project website is back, mostly, at tertullian.org.  I did remove some PDF books that are on Archive.org, just to keep bandwidth down.

The Mithras site is now up.

I have decided to retire the QuickLatin software and site.  I still use it myself, of course.

The old Syriac Wiki site (link to archive.org) has been lost in the move, unfortunately.  I did back up the database, but I find that I am unable to import it to a current version of the software.  Nor do I know what version it was running on.  The only bit I regret is that material that I had in a private area, on Attis. Oh well.

This blog is up, as you can see; but I’m not sure whether comments are getting through to my email yet.  Time will tell.  The Twitter and OpenGraph cards have been added.

There’s bound to be something outstanding, but I don’t know of anything.

Taking offline tertullian.org and roger-pearse.com

Posted on by Roger Pearse

My apologies, but both roger-pearse.com and tertullian.org will probably go off-line shortly for about a week.  My web host, Pair Networks, has just presented me with an $85 bill for “over usage” last month.  Unfortunately there is no indication of why this occurred, nor any warning that it was occurring.  Nor can I get in contact with anybody with authority to help until Monday.

It is likely that I will have to move hosts, hence the outage.  In the mean time I will block access to the sites.  My apologies.  Everything will reappear eventually.

The little that is known about Demetrius of Cyzicus… part 2

Posted on by Roger Pearse

In my previous post about this obscure 11th century Byzantine bishop, I gave the 1959 entry by Beck.  This drew upon and abbreviated the old  French (1912!) DHGE (Dictionary of Ecclesiastical History and Geography) article.

Many volumes of the DHGE are online somewhere.  I know this because I have a directory full of volumes.  But I was unable to find a link now.  Since it is out of copyright, but inaccessible, I thought that I would make it available here.  I will put the original French in a footnote.[ref]5. DEMETRIUS DE CYZIQUE. — Rien n’oblige à admettre l’existence de deux Démétrius de Cyzique ni à distinguer le polémiste du canoniste; il faut s’en tenir à Lequien, Oriens Christianus, 11, 758. Le seul argument énoncé par L. Petit, dans le D. T. C., en faveur de l’existence du premier, au Xe s., est l’adresse qui précède l’opuscule sur les jacobites, écrit à la demande de Constantin Porphyrogénète (P. G., cxxvii, 879-902). Or ce Porphyrogénète ne s’identifie pas nécessairement avec Constantin VII (944-59); son petit-fils, frère et successeur de Basile II, Constantin VIII (1025-28), avait bien plus de raisons de consulter un ecclésiastique sur les jacobites que son grand-père, suffisamment érudit. D’autre part, sous le règne effectif de Constantin VII, il n’y a pas de place pour un Démétrius sur le siège de Cyzique, occupé sans interruption par Théodore. En effet, avant 946, date de la mort d’Anastase d’Héraclée (Theoph. Cont., éd. Bonn, 439; S. Runciman, Romanus Lecapenus, 235), Théodore de Cyzique, en compagnie d’Anastase, est membre d’une commission chargée d’enquéter sur Alexandre de Nicée : ms. Patm. 706, fol. 104. En 956, le méme Théodore se signale par son opposition à Polyeucte et, en 959, Constantin Porphyrogénète vient le voir A l’Olympe peu avant de mourir (Cedrenus, II, 335, 337).

Petit semble avoir révisé son opinion catégorique exposée à l’article Démétrius, car à l’article Isaac l’Arménien (D. T. C., viii, 13), il attribue l’exposé des erreurs arméniennes au métropolite vivant sous Alexis Studite (1025-46). En tout cas il faut bien distinguer cet opuscule De Jacobitis et Chatzizariis de la Narratio de rebus Armeniae, dont G. Garitte vient d’élucider les origines : ce qui est certain c’est que celle-ci n’a rien à voir avec Démétrius de Cyzique, sinon accidentellement par la faute des copistes et surtout des éditeurs postérieurs à Combefis. Aux mss. du De Jacobitis indiqués par L. Petit: Athous 927, 3666, 3758, 4501, Palatinus 356, Scorialensis R I 15, Constantinopolitanus S. Sepulcri 391, Mosquensis 319 et 323, il faut ajouter Parisinus 1315 (prototype de l’éditeur), Angelicus 30, Atheniensis Bibl. nat., 2972, Lesbiensis Leim. 7; et la liste n’est sans doute pas complète.

Dans les sources historiques, Démétrius apparaît pour la première fois en janv. 1028, au synode présidé par Alexis Studite (Grumel, Regestes, n. 835). Avant la fin de 1029, Romain Argyre lui confère le titre de syncelle ainsi qu’à deux autres métropolites. En 1030, il assiste au synode tenu contre les jacobites de Méli-tène (Regestes, n. 839), dont le tome est confirmé en 1032 (Regestes, n. 840). En 1037, il figure parmi les opposants au patriarche Alexis (Regestes, n. 842). Après cela, il n’y a plus trace de lui dans les sources. On connaît cependant un poème de Christophore Mitylenaios (Gedichte, éd. Kurtz [Teubner], 13), adressé à Démétrius de Cyzique pour le consoler de sa podagre. Démétrius survécut à son patriarche, décédé en 1046, mais en 1054 (Regestes, n. 869), c’est Théophane qui est métropolite de Cyzique.

Citons pour mémoire une chronique perdue de Démétrius de Cyzique, connue par le seul témoignage de Skylitzès; on n’a aucune raison de penser que l’auteur diffère de notre métropolite.

Les oeuvres éditées se trouvent dans P. G., CXIX, 1097-1120 : il s’agit de deux consultations canoniques sur les empêchements de mariage.

Les oeuvres inédites se rencontrent dans deux mss., Vatic. gr. 712 et Ambrosianus 682 (Q 76 sup.), indépendants l’un de l’autre; seul l’Ambrosianus porte dans le titre le nom de Démétrius. Deux discours sont communs aux deux témoins : Δίκαιον ἡν ἡμᾶς τοῖς θεῖοις: s’adressant aux « empereurs », Démétrius, au nom des anciens canons, prétend interdire au patriarche de Constantinople de consacrer les évêques d’une autre éparchie et même les métropolites dont le sacre est réservé aux évêques de sa province. Δέσποτα ἡμῶν… οὐ τὸ ἴδιον θέλημα: discours à un empereur qui prétendait casser les sentences synodiques dans une missive où il écrivait : « Quiconque s’oppose à un écrit impérial, qu’il soit puni comme Démétrius sacrilège. » L’Ambrosianus a en propre un troisième discours : Ἐπειδή τινες ὡς οἴονται, contre ceux qui disent qu’on ne peut démissionner (de l’épiscopat). Le Vaticanus en a deux autres : Εδει μὲν ἡμᾶς ὧ παναγιώτατε δέσποτα : discours prononcé devant le patriarche contre ceux qui affirment que les synodes ne doivent pas avoir lieu chaque année à Constantinople mais dans les éparchies; Τίς λαλήσει τὰς δυναστείασ: discours devant l’empereur pour demander une loi précise concernant les degrés de parenté par rapport au mariage.

Ces opuscules sont essentiellement des dissertations canoniques et il n’est pas possible d’en fixer la date à première vue. Seul le discours 4, Vatic. 712, fol. 182v0-92, contient une donnée historique précise; l’orateur cite plusieurs exemples de synodes constantinopolitains, deux de Photius, le synode d’union (Nicolas), le synode qui rétablit Euthyme dans les diptyques sous Polyeucte, le synode de Sisinius, puis deux synodes du patriarche Antoine « que certains d’entre nous ont vu, ceux qui ont été admis par lui aux rangs du clergé » (fol. 190v°). Cette remarque suppose un certain éloignement dans le temps : ce serait peu avant 1054. D’autre part, dans ce discours, Démétrius prend une position assez contraire à celle qu’il soutient dans le premier où il demande une restriction de la juridiction patriarcale. On peut supposer que le premier est dirigé contre Alexis, avec la connivence d’un empereur (Michel IV?). Sous Cérulaire, Démétrius, âgé et assagi par sa podagre, semble avoir pris le parti du patriarche et soutenu ses prétentions jugées naguère anticanoniques. On peut voir aussi un rapport entre le discours sur le mariage et un acte de 1051-52 (Regestes, n. 858).

Il y a lieu de se demander si un autre discours, de tendance assez semblable à celle du premier, n’appartient pas au même métropolite. Il est contenu dans le Scorial. R I 15, fol. 24v°-47 : Καὶ πᾶσι μὲν ἄλλοις ἀρμόζειν et propose un retour à la discipline ancienne, c.-à-d. antérieure aux empiétements des patriarches de Constantinople.

Un ms. du xvıe s., Meteor. S. Stephani (cf.Νέος Ἑλληνομνήμων, xxi, 1927, p. 326), indique Démétrius de Cyzique comme auteur d’un opuscule sur le jeüne; c’est une erreur d’attribution, car ce texte, qui a été aussi attribué au patriarche Nicolas, est de Jean l’Oxite (cf. Échos d’Orient, xxxιι, 1933, p. 287-89).

En plus des ouvrages qui ont dû être cités au cours de l’article, voir : J. Croce, E. Hermann, Textus selecti ex operibus commentatorum byzantinorum juris ecclesiastici, Rome, 1939, p. 11-12; ils distinguent deux Démétrius. — Codices Vaticani Graeci, ΙΙΙ, recension R. Devreesse : le rédacteur rapproche le premier discours de l’époque d’Alexis Commène. — G. Garitte, La « Narratio de rebus Armeniae », Louvain, 1952, surtout 386-97. — V. Grumel, Les métropolites syncelles, dans (Revue des) Études Byzantines, 111, 1945, p. 94-95. — K. Krumbacher, Gesch. der byzant. Literatur; voir index où trois Démétrius de Cyzique sont distingués.[/ref]

Here is what ChatGPT gives us for it.

    *    *    *    *

DEMETRIUS OF CYZICUS. — There is no reason to believe in two Demetriuses of Cyzicus, or to distinguish the polemicist from the canonist; instead we should adhere to Lequien, Oriens Christianus, II, 758. The only argument advanced by L. Petit, in the Dictionnaire de théologie catholique (D. T. C.), in favour of the existence of the former, in the tenth century, is the address preceding the short treatise on the Jacobites, written at the request of Constantine Porphyrogenitus (P. G., cxxvii, 879–902). Now, this Porphyrogenitus cannot necessarily be identified with Constantine VII (944–59); his grandson, brother and successor of Basil II, Constantine VIII (1025–28), had far more reason to consult a churchman about the Jacobites than did his grandfather, who was sufficiently learned. Moreover, during the effective reign of Constantine VII, there is no place for a Demetrius on the see of Cyzicus, which was occupied continuously by Theodore. Indeed, before 946, the date of the death of Anastasius of Heraclea (Theoph. Cont., ed. Bonn, 439; S. Runciman, Romanus Lecapenus, 235), Theodore of Cyzicus, together with Anastasius, was a member of a commission charged with investigating Alexander of Nicaea: ms. Patm. 706, fol. 104. In 956, the same Theodore is noted for his opposition to Polyeuctus and, in 959, Constantine Porphyrogenitus came to visit him at Olympus shortly before his death (Cedrenus, II, 335, 337).

Petit seems to have revised the categorical opinion he expressed in the article Demetrius, for in the article Isaac the Armenian (D. T. C., viii, 13), he attributes the exposition of the Armenian errors to the metropolitan living under Alexis Studites (1025–46). In any case, this short treatise De Jacobitis et Chatzizariis must be clearly distinguished from the Narratio de rebus Armeniae, whose origins G. Garitte has recently elucidated: what is certain is that the latter has nothing to do with Demetrius of Cyzicus, except accidentally through the fault of copyists and, above all, editors after Combefis. To the manuscripts of the De Jacobitis indicated by L. Petit — Athous 927, 3666, 3758, 4501, Palatinus 356, Scorialensis R I 15, Constantinopolitanus S. Sepulcri 391, Mosquensis 319 and 323 — must be added Parisinus 1315 (the editor’s prototype), Angelicus 30, Atheniensis Bibl. nat. 2972, Lesbiensis Leim. 7; and the list is doubtless not complete.

In the historical sources, Demetrius appears for the first time in January 1028, at the synod presided over by Alexis Studites (Grumel, Regestes, no. 835). Before the end of 1029, Romanos Argyros conferred upon him the title of syncellus, as he did upon two other metropolitans. In 1030, he attended the synod held against the Jacobites of Melitene (Regestes, no. 839), whose tome was confirmed in 1032 (Regestes, no. 840). In 1037, he appears among the opponents of Patriarch Alexis (Regestes, no. 842). After this, there is no further trace of him in the sources. We do, however, know of a poem by Christopher of Mytilene (Gedichte, ed. Kurtz [Teubner], 13), addressed to Demetrius of Cyzicus to console him for his gout. Demetrius survived his patriarch, who died in 1046, but in 1054 (Regestes, no. 869), it is Theophanes who is metropolitan of Cyzicus.

For the record, we may mention a lost chronicle by Demetrius of Cyzicus, known only from the testimony of Scylitzes; there is no reason to think that its author was different from our metropolitan.

The published works are found in P. G., CXIX, 1097–1120: they consist of two canonical consultations concerning impediments to marriage.

The unpublished works are found in two manuscripts, Vatic. gr. 712 and Ambrosianus 682 (Q 76 sup.), independent of one another; only the Ambrosianus gives the name of Demetrius in the title. Two discourses are common to both witnesses:

Δίκαιον ἦν ἡμᾶς τοῖς θείοις (It is right to follow the divine canons): addressing the “emperors,” Demetrius, invoking the ancient canons, claims to prohibit the patriarch of Constantinople from consecrating bishops of another eparchy and even metropolitans whose consecration is reserved to the bishops of his own province.

Δέσποτα ἡμῶν… οὐ τὸ ἴδιον θέλημα (Our master… should not follow his own will): a discourse addressed to an emperor who was attempting to overturn synodal judgments, in a letter in which he had written: “Whoever opposes an imperial document, let him be punished like the sacrilegious.”

The Ambrosianus has a third discourse of its own: Ἐπειδή τινες ὡς οἴονται (Since certain people suppose…), directed against those who say that one cannot resign from the episcopate.

The Vaticanus has two more:

Ἔδει μὲν ἡμᾶς ὦ παναγιώτατε δέσποτα (It was indeed incumbent upon us, O most holy master): a discourse delivered before the patriarch against those who maintain that synods should not be held every year at Constantinople but in the eparchies;

Τίς λαλήσει τὰς δυναστείας (Who shall declare the mighty acts?): a discourse before the emperor requesting a precise law concerning degrees of kinship in relation to marriage.

These short works are essentially canonical dissertations, and it is not possible to establish their date at first sight. Only discourse 4, Vatic. 712, fols. 182v–192, contains a precise historical datum. The speaker cites several examples of Constantinopolitan synods: two under Photius, the synod of union (Nicholas), the synod that restored Euthymius to the diptychs under Polyeuctus, the synod of Sisinnius, and then two synods of Patriarch Antony, “which some of us have seen, those who were admitted by him to the ranks of the clergy” (fol. 190v). This remark presupposes a certain lapse of time: the speech would therefore date from shortly before 1054.

On the other hand, in this discourse Demetrius takes a position fairly contrary to that which he maintains in the first, where he calls for a restriction of patriarchal jurisdiction. One may suppose that the first was directed against Alexis, with the connivance of an emperor (Michael IV?). Under Cerularius, Demetrius, now elderly and chastened by his gout, seems to have taken the patriarch’s side and supported claims that he had formerly judged to be contrary to the canons. A connection may also be seen between the speech on marriage and a document of 1051–52 (Regestes, no. 858).

It is worth asking whether another speech, of a tendency quite similar to that of the first, does not also belong to the same metropolitan. It is contained in Scorial. R I 15, fols. 24v–47: Καὶ πᾶσι μὲν ἄλλοις ἁρμόζειν (And while it is fitting for all others), and advocates a return to the ancient discipline, that is, to the discipline preceding the encroachments of the patriarchs of Constantinople.

A sixteenth-century manuscript, Meteor. S. Stephani (cf. Νέος Ἑλληνομνήμων, xxi, 1927, p. 326), indicates Demetrius of Cyzicus as the author of a short treatise on fasting; this is an erroneous attribution, for this text, which has also been attributed to Patriarch Nicholas, is by John the Oxite (cf. Échos d’Orient, xxxii, 1933, pp. 287–89).

In addition to the works that cited in the course of the article, see:

J. Croce, E. Hermann, Textus selecti ex operibus commentatorum byzantinorum juris ecclesiastici, Rome, 1939, pp. 11–12; they distinguish two Demetriuses.
— Codices Vaticani Graeci, III, recension by R. Devreesse: the editor dates the first speech to the period of Alexios Komnenos.
— G. Garitte, La « Narratio de rebus Armeniae », Louvain, 1952, especially pp. 386–97.
— V. Grumel, Les métropolites syncelles, in (Revue des) Études Byzantines, III, 1945, pp. 94–95.
— K. Krumbacher, Gesch. der byzant. Literatur; see the index, where three Demetriuses of Cyzicus are distinguished.

    *    *    *    *

A few thoughts on this elderly article.  The 19th century claims about two or more authors of the same name are not important now.

First a bibliographical point, which confused me initially.  “Regestes” means V. Grumel, Les Regestes des actes du Patriarcat de Constantinople, fasc 3. (1932).

The lost history is worth a bit more discussion.  In his introduction, Scylitzes mentions a lost Chronicle “of his own times and a little before” by Demetrius of Cyzicus, who is presumably our author.[ref]the CFHB 5 edition (1973) p.4, l.30.[/ref]  This is translated by John Skyzilites: A Synopsis of Byzantine History, 811-1057, tr. John Wortley, CUP 2010, p.4:

Theodore Daphnopates, Niketas the Paphlagonian, Joseph Genesios and Manuel, these two of Constantinople, Nikephoros the deacon from Phrygia, Leo from Asia, Theodore, bishop of Side and his nephew of the same name who presided over the church of Sebasteia, Demetrios, bishop of Kyzikos and the monk John the Lydian – these all set themselves their own goals: maybe the glorification of an emperor, the censure of a patriarch, or to extol a friend – each attains his own ends under the guise of writing history and everyone of them falls far short of the mentality of those godly men of whom we spoke. For in composing a rambling account of his own times (and a little before) as though he was writing history, one of them writes a favourable account, another a critical one, while a third writes whatever he pleases and a fourth sets down what he is ordered to write. Each composes his own ‘history’ and they differ so much from each other in describing the same events that they plunge their audience into dizziness and confusion.

Setting aside this dismissal of rival authors, we learn that the work covered the times of Demetrius himself, and a period beforehand.

We can also expand on the mention of Romanus III Argyrus.  Cedrenus records that before the end of 1029, Romanos III Argyros (1028-1034) conferred the title of Syncellus upon him and two other metropolitans, and that Romanos had thought well of Demetrius even before he became emperor.[ref]Cedrenus, Bonn edition (1839), vol. 2, p.486 lines-16, 487 line 8; from V. Grumel, Titulature de Métropolites Byzantins. I.  Les métropolites syncelles, in (Revue des) Études Byzantines 3, 1945, pp. 92-114: p.94-5 n.14: “He also made three metropolitans into syncelli: Cyriacus of Ephesus, as being a kinsman of the patriarch; Demetrius of Cyzicus, whom he had greatly loved even before he became emperor; …”.[/ref]

The De Jacobitis et Chatzizariis was first edited by F. Combefis, in his two volume Novum Auctarium Graeco-Latinae Bibliothecae Patrum,  volume 2, column 261 f., and his text has been reprinted ever since.  Those looking for this volume online need to know that volume 2 of the book, (the Tomus Alter Historicis et Dogmaticus) of the 1648 edition is uniquely titled, and therefore catalogued, under the name of its core treatise: Historia Haeresis Monothelitarum sanctaeque in eam sextae synodi actorum vindiciae.  It may be found online here.  If you go to column 261, you will find that it is anonymous, but under the correct title, with parallel Latin translation and marginal notes.  Only at the end does Combefis include a note attributing it to Demetrius of Cyzicus.

Let’s end with a screen-grab of that page:

How the successors of Basil II squandered his power – an incident

Posted on by Roger Pearse

T. H. Benner’s thesis, Die Syrisch-Jakobitische Kirche under Byzantiner Herrschaft im 10. und 11. Jahrhundert, contains a translation into German of both the Greek text of Demetrius of Cyzicus against the Armenian Jacobites, and of an Arabic version of the same text.  I fear that the pseudo-theological noodling is something that I will not turn into English, particularly as the statements about Armenian beliefs are largely false.  But Dr B.’s introduction caught my eye.

12.3. The Treatise of Demetrios of Cyzicus on Jacobite and Armenian Doctrine of Faith and Liturgy.

Constantine VIII, the younger brother of Basil II, ascended the throne on December 16, 1025. Only now, as an old man, did he emerge from the shadow of his immensely powerful brother. He commissioned Demetrios, the Metropolitan of Cyzicus, to compose a treatise on Jacobite and Armenian theology and religious practice.  This was a sign of the impending changes in imperial religious policy, which under Basil II had consisted in the tacit toleration of heretical groups.

Whereas up to 1025 the Melkite episcopate had been able to take action against Jacobites and Armenians only in isolated instances (at Antioch and Sebasteia in 986), since reasons of state forbade unsettling the endangered eastern provinces unduly, a shift in the balance of power between emperor and episcopate took place over the following few years—to the emperor’s disadvantage, although he himself drove this development forward. The increase in ecclesiastical power since the accession of Alexios, the former abbot of the Stoudios Monastery, who became patriarch on the very day of Basil II’s death, December 15, 1025, manifested itself in the fact that it became possible to persuade the emperor to enforce the state’s legislation against heretics, which had never been repealed. This development was to come fully into effect under Constantine’s successor, Romanos III Argyros.

Demetrios’s treatise, which was preceded by an earlier work that the metropolitan now excerpted, pursued the aim of proving the Jacobite and Armenian churches heretical in two respects: in their doctrine and in their religious practice. It becomes clear that, five hundred years after the great Christological controversies, knowledge of the Monophysite churches had greatly diminished. The metropolitan attributes to them a Monophysite theology that the Jacobites themselves had rejected for centuries.

The bigoted and incessantly quarrelsome Byzantine clergy were not mollified by this foolish, indeed disastrous policy, and the infighting continued.  The same patriarch Alexius I  was willing to crown Michael IV as emperor, but only in return for a bribe of fifty pounds of gold[ref]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanos_III_Argyros[/ref].  But in June 1037 he was obliged to issue a statement in response to demands for his own resignation by various bishops, including Demetrius of Cyzicus.  This is summarised as follows by Grumel in Les Regestes des actes du Patriarcat de Constantinople, vol. 3 (1932), p.347, entry 842:

Warning to the metropolitans (among others Demetrius of Cyzicus, Antony of Nicomedia, and the two brother metropolitans, one of Side and the other of Ancyra), who claimed that his elevation was anticanonical and wanted to depose him in order to replace him with John, the brother of the emperor Michael IV. — He will resign on condition that all the metropolitans whom he has ordained during the eleven and a half years that he has been patriarch be deposed, and that an anathema be pronounced against the three emperors whom he has crowned.

Nothing can save a state whose leading men behave in such a way.

A few notices, a few contacts, and the problem of AI agents

Posted on by Roger Pearse

My apologies to those who have found that the Contact Form had ceased to work.  I have installed a new one.  Many thanks to the kind gentleman who told me that it was out of action – I had not known.

In the last few days, I’ve had a number of comments appear on old posts.  Some of these do not appear to be genuine, but are evidently by bots.  Or, as we now call them, AI agents.

I’m not the only one, of course.  I came across an interesting article at A London Inheritance, which, after a discussion of an old photograph, made some very relevant comments about these things, under the title of “The Blog is being Stalked by AI”.

But over the last couple of months I have noticed a new form of AI, one which sends me emails and adds comments to the blog.

This has happened to me also.  Probably it has happened to everyone posting online.  But it is an infernal nuisance.  It’s not what I am here for.

There have always been unscrupulous people online, who see an enthusiast donating his time and look for a way to take advantage of it.  At one time I used to get schoolchildren sending me emails which were little more than a “can you write my homework for me?”  Indeed I remember one such child being foolish enough to supply his father’s email address, to which I duly replied.  Little Johnny came home to an enquiring parent.  But AI has at least disposed of this.

Some people write with the unconcealed purpose of using me as a free research service for their own benefit.  But then again you get honest enquirers.  It’s tricky picking a path between the two.  I do my best.  I apologise if I get it wrong.

AI emails are definitely a curse.  I had occasion to complain to a train company recently about the disgraceful state of the toilets at the station maintained by themselves.  To my surprise I got a long email back, which seemed helpful.  I ventured to reply with a couple of simple suggestions; and I got an even longer email back, full of slightly silly reasons why some simple task was impossible.  At that I grew suspicious, and popped the email into an online AI detector.  Sure enough, the email was simply autogenerated excuses.  Very cynical.

While all this nonsense was going on, I came across a charming account on Twitter, posting excerpts from Arabic literature, and giving sources.  Here’s one:

Came across this little exchange between a 9th-century Abbasid general and his secretary about worrying over something that might never happen. His secretary had a good way of putting things into perspective.

Found this in al-Tanukhi’s 10th-century Deliverance Follows Adversity p. 101

The book is Al-Faraj baʿd al-shiddah (Deliverance Follows Adversity).  The printed text is Stories of Piety and Prayer: Deliverance Follows Adversity by al-Muhassin ibn ‘Ali al-Tanukhi, edited and translated by Julia Bray with facing Arabic text, and printed in New York in 2019.  Al-Tanukhi was from Basra and lived in the second half of the 10th century AD.

Let the demons of AI do their worst!

An English translation of Mar Zay‘a: The Saint of Jilu, out soon from Gorgias Press

Posted on by Roger Pearse

An email from David Wilmshurst, who has continued his work on texts relating to the Church of the East.  He’s got another book coming out, around the end of October, through Gorgias Press.  This contains an English translation of the hagiographical Life of Mar Zay‘a, a legendary saint of Palestine who supposedly belonged to the 4th century AD.  The book is titled “Mar Zay‘a: The Saint of Jilu”.

He writes:

Mar Zay‘a was a legendary saint of Palestine who supposedly flourished in the 4th century.  The Syriac text of his Life, probably written by a bishop or priest of Jilu in the 18th century, was published by Bedjan in 1890 in Volume 1 of his Acta Martyrum et Sanctorum.  Although it is one of the more readable saints’ lives in Bedjan’s collection, it has remained for more than a century without an English translation.

I have now produced the first English translation of this intriguing text.  It was obviously written to extol the church of Mar Zay‘a in the large village of Matha d’Mar Zay‘a in Jilu.  Besides telling a good story, it contains much interesting topographical information of the kind which delights scholars of ecclesiastical geography like me.  … I have also supplied a substantial commentary which discusses the evidence for the early settlement of the Hakkari region in southeast Turkey by Christians of the Church of the East.

The French Dominican missionary Jean-Maurice Fiey was the first scholar to discuss the early Christian history of Hakkari, in his 1964 article ‘Proto-histoire chrétienne du Hakkari turc’.  It used to be believed that there were no Christian settlements in the Hakkari region before the 1390s, when large numbers of Christians fled from the Mosul lowlands and took refuge in the Hakkari mountains to escape the depredations of Timur Leng.  Fiey argued vigorously against this view and demonstrated that there were Christians in Hakkari at least as early as the 5th century, when the region was divided between the East Syriac dioceses of Dasen and Beth Bgash.

I have been able to use a wider range of sources than Fiey had at his disposal, and the new evidence I present in this book strengthens Fiey’s contention that the Hakkari region was a vigorous site of Christian activity long before the ‘flight to the mountains’ towards the end of the 14th century.

As in my previous books, my reconstruction of the early history of Christian Hakkari draws largely upon the prosopographical and topographical evidence provided either by Syriac manuscript colophons or by references in saints’ lives (including the Life of Mar Zay‘a) and other sources.  I have also profited from my growing familiarity with the history of the Greek Orthodox and Armenian Churches to set the history of the East Syriac Christians of Hakkari in a wider regional perspective.

He’s also sent a copy of the cover:

… a rather splendid image of Mar Zay‘a slaying the Angel of Death (who looks rather like a Himalayan yeti to my eyes)!

I have suggested in my commentary that the appearance of the Angel of Death may have been inspired by the ferocious bears which used to roam the Hakkari mountains.  My partner Diyah (an Indonesian Muslim) tells me that in Islamic thought the Angel of Death is believed to appear to those about to die.  Did the Christians of the Middle East have a similar belief? I wonder.

This is probably the most famous image of Mar Zay’a, yet the Life which I have translated does not mention the Angel of Death (although at one point Zay’a raises a king’s son from the dead).

The little that is known about Demetrius of Cyzicus… part 1

Posted on by Roger Pearse

In my first post about Demetrius of Cyzicus (fl. ca. 1028) I wrote that the Greek work against the Jacobites etc.,…

… was composed between 1026-28 by the deeply obscure Demetrius, Metropolitan of Cyzicus. What little is known about him can apparently be found in H.G. Beck, Kirche und theologische Literatur im Byzantinischen  Reich (Munich, 1959), p.532, although I have not looked.

Well, I have now located this volume, and others, and I find that I was misled by my reference, and rather more is known.  But anyway, let’s start with the Beck paragraph, and then give a ChatGPT translation of it.

Ein Günstling des Kaisers Konstantinos VIII. und besonders des Kaisers Romanos Argyros war der Metropolit von Kyzikos, Demetrios. 1028 ist er durch seine Unterschrift unter ein Synodaldekret bezeugt. 1037 ließ er sich ohne Glück in eine Konspiration gegen den Patriarchen ein. Wahrscheinlich ist er der Verfasser einer „Ἔκθέσις κατ’ ἐπιτομὴν τοῦ τῶν Ἰακωβιτῶν δόγματος“, die er im Auftrag des Kaisers Konstantinos verfaßt haben will und ihm widmet. In addition to the Traktates you can read, you will be able to leave them in a very thick place. Mit der vieldiskutierten Narratio de rebus Armeniae hat der Traktat nichts zu tun, ebensowenig Demetrios mit der Abfassung der einem Isaak zugeschriebenen Invektiven gegen die Armenier (S. 533 u. 628). If these are the versions of literary products in which they are published, they are included in the unglücklichen bibliographischen Umständen zu verdanken.

Demetrios is also the Kanonist hervorgetreten. Wir kennen eine Μελέτη über die Verwandtschaftsgrade und einen kanonischen Bescheid über einen Sonderfall der Verwandtschaftsgrade. Fünf, vielleicht sechs Logoi über verschiedene juristische Fragen sind noch unediert.²

  • Gegen die Jakobiten: PG 127, 878–885 (unter dem Namen des Philippos Monotropos), der fehlende Anfang und Schluß: G. Ficker, Die Erlasse des Patriarchen Alexios Studites, Kiel 1911, 22–23; – die μελέτη: PG 119, 1097–1116 and Rhalles-Potles V 354–366; – Bescheid: PG 111, 1116–1120 and Rhalles-Potles V 366–368.

² Ehrhard 79, 1. 89; – DTC IV 264–265 (L. Petit); – LTK III 202 (A. Michel); – DHGE XIV 208–210 (J. Darrouzès); – G. Garitte, Narratio de rebus Armeniae, Louvain 1952 (im Kommentar ausführliche Diskussion des gesamten Zuteilungsproblems mit kritischer Sichtung der Literatur).

Running this through ChatGPT gives us:

A favourite of the emperor Constantine VIII, and especially of the emperor Romanos Argyros, was Demetrius, metropolitan of Cyzicus. In 1028 he is attested by his signature on a synodal decree. In 1037 he became involved, unsuccessfully, in a conspiracy against the patriarch.

He is probably the author of an “Abbreviated Exposition of the Doctrine of the Jacobites,” which he claims to have composed at the commission of the emperor Constantine and dedicated to him. From the conclusion of the treatise it emerges that he had already previously delivered an opinion on the same subject.  Note that the treatise has nothing to do with the much-discussed Narratio de rebus Armeniae , nor does Demetrius have anything to do with the composition of the invectives against the Armenians attributed to Isaac (pp. 533 and 628). The fact that these three different literary works were brought into connection with one another is due solely to unfortunate bibliographical circumstances.

Demetrius also distinguished himself as a canonist. We know of a Meletē (=study/treatise) on degrees of kinship, and of a canonical ruling concerning a special case involving degrees of kinship. Five, perhaps six, logoi (=discourses) concerning various legal questions are still unpublished.²

  • Against the Jacobites : PG 127, 878–885 (under the name of Philippos Monotropos); missing the beginning and ending: G. Ficker, The Decrees of Patriarch Alexios Studites , Kiel 1911, 22–23; the meletē : PG 119, 1097–1116 and Rhalles–Potles V 354–366; the canonical ruling: PG 111, 1116–1120 and Rhalles–Potles V 366–368.

² Ehrhard 79, 1. 89; DTC IV 264–265 (L. Petit); LTK III 202 (A. Michel); DHGE XIV 208–210 (J. Darrouzès); G. Garitte, Narratio de rebus Armeniae , Louvain 1952 (with a detailed discussion in the commentary of the entire problem of attribution, with a critical review of the literature).

Note that the abbreviations in the above are:

This article is a start.  It is shorter than it needs to be, as is perhaps inevitable in so wide a survey of authors.  It clearly draws upon the old DGHE article which goes into much more detail.  It is also notable for the sheer age of the material referenced, even allowing that Beck’s article itself is now seventy years old.  The vague “bibliographical circumstances” are simply the accident that the three texts all appeared one after another in one manuscript and the first editor ascribed them all to Demetrius.  

A kind commenter drew my attention to an interesting article by Zachary Chitwood in GRBS 54 (2014) (online here, pp.300-301) which manages to cover a lot of the background to Demetrius’ anti-Jacobite text in a footnote: 

The introductory and closing paragraphs of the text are printed in Ficker, Erlasse 22–23, while the rest of the text corresponds to PG 127.880–884. The text printed in PG is erroneously ascribed to “Philippus Solitarius” instead of Demetrios of Kyzikos (the likely author); see Dagron, TravMém 6 (1976) 201 n.108; Ficker, Erlasse 23; an analysis of the text and a German translation in Benner, Die syrisch-jakobitische Kirche 123–136.

Abbreviations again: TravMém = G. Dagron, Travaux et Mémoires.  Ficker = G. Ficker, Erlasse des Patriarchen von Konstantinopel Alexios Studites (Kiel 1911).  The Benner item is a thesis, from 1990, which exists in PDF but curiously is not on Academia or somewhere like that.

So we now know something.