Supplement

that to those who had brought many martyrs to Christ through his teachings and exhortations. For Maximianus, greatly troubled by his zeal for piety, and filled with anger and rage, first attempted to turn his soul away from the confession ^A of faith with many tortures, thinking he would surely succeed. But when he grew weary of punishing, he brought the death of the sword upon the athlete. One may take up his history and go through all of it word for word.

XXXVII. By these, as if by certain stars, Nicomedia is illuminated, shining with something great, charming, and sweet, and it prides itself more in them than in gold and gems and the brightness and elegance of pearls. They are twenty thousand in number, and ^B they are distinguished in the choir of martyrs by their multitude and beauty. Their memory is celebrated one day after the Nativity of Christ, before the feast of the Innocents; as those were offered to God who took on flesh by the sword, so were they by fire—to whom was also added the admirable Glycerius, and the most holy Zeno and Theophilus, and further, with Mardonius, the blessed Dorotheus, Indes, and Peter, together with Mygdonius, and the three virgins, Agape, I say, and Theophila, and Domna, who was the most beautiful and most venerable of all, to the glory of Christ our true God, to whom is due all honor and adoration, now and always, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.

SUPPLEMENTUM

That we may fulfill the promise which we gave in the previous volume, col. 1031, in place of an index we subjoin the Acts of the martyr Demetrius, most celebrated among the Greeks, illustrated with the commentaries of Cornelius Byeus, a Bollandist associate. EDITOR.

ON SAINT DEMETRIUS THE MARTYR

CORNELIUS BYE'S PRELIMINARY COMMENTARY

§ I. Multiplicia, quæ de S. Demetrio reperiuntur scripta, præcipue Græca, recensentur.

1. That this holy martyr, whom they call Megalomartyr, that is, the great martyr, and whom the Greeks everywhere decorate with many most honorable titles, which are to be mentioned below in their proper place, was plainly enjoyed among them both in singular veneration and in the fame of his name, is shown more than enough by the mere multiplicity of the ancient writings of various kinds in Greek — namely, homilies, ^C panegyrical orations, and other little works — which are found today in the small chests of libraries, and some of which have even reached our hands, in which either St. Demetrius himself is celebrated, or the martyrdom which he underwent is set forth, or finally, the miracles which he performed in great number are related. To make this clear, and that I may at once inform the studious reader, inside this commentary (in which not a few of these will have to be weighed or at least put to some use), what and what sort of literary monuments concerning the Saint survive today, I shall review in this present § all those scripts, each and every one, of which I have been able to acquire any knowledge whatever, intending then, in the following §, to set forth which of these ought to be published, and also to add which ones either openly show, or at least make it easy to collect, how great and—especially those which I shall say should be committed to print—how powerful they are in either fidelity or authority. From the little works or lucubrations ^D

^A of which the saint himself or the miracles which he performed are celebrated, I take my beginning.

2. Leo Allatius enumerates such ten diverse writings ^B, of which the first has as author Philotheus, the Patriarch of Constantinople; the second, Demetrius Chrysoloras; the third, fourth, and seventh, Leo the Emperor, surnamed the Wise; the fifth, an anonymous author; the sixth, John Stauracius, the chartophylax of Thessalonica; the eighth, John, Archbishop of Thessalonica; the ninth, Gregory the deacon; and finally the tenth, Nicolaus Cabasilas; see pages 85, 94, 96, 97, 102, 103, 105, and 107. Fabricius, in his *Bibliotheca Graeca*, adds to these yet other lucubrations of the same kind, besides those which he himself enumerated in the same place (vol. VI, p. 521 et seq., and vol. IX, p. 71 et seq.), the first of which was composed by Gregory Palamas, Archbishop of Thessalonica, the second by Nicetas, likewise Archbishop of Thessalonica, and the third and fourth by anonymous authors, from the latter of the two volumes just mentioned, page likewise just cited et seq. And truly, Leo Allatius and Fabricius agree well enough in assigning the authors of the lucubrations which both enumerate; but then both incorrectly ascribe to an anonymous author the third of the last four lucubrations, which Fabricius alone lists, beginning with *Μαριανός τις ἀνὴρ ὢν τῷ γένει*, as well as the fifth of the previous ten lucubrations, which are mentioned by both him and Allatius, beginning *Καιρὸς δὲ λοιπόν*, because each constitutes only a partial fragment of the eighth of those same ten lucubrations, which has John of Thessalonica as its author, beginning with the words *Παντὸς ἔργου τε καὶ λόγου*.

3. Perhaps it will be of importance, regarding the one which begins with the words, *Ἔφη ὁ σωτήριος λόγος*, the third of those same ten preceding lucubrations, which both lauded writers attribute to Emperor Leo the Wise—whether it truly has this author—to call into doubt the MS 4517, which occurs in the second volume of the collection of manuscript codices of the Royal Library of Paris, published in the year 1740. This is entirely regarding Saint Demetrius, a parchment codex of, as it appears, the XII century, or rather the index provided therein of the lucubrations contained in this volume, formerly the Mazarin codex; for here it has it thus: “In which (the parchment Greek codex, formerly Mazarin) are contained: 1. Martyrdom of Demetrius. It begins: *Μαξιμιανὸς, ὁ καὶ Ἑρκούλιος*. 2. His Life and miracles, by John, Archbishop of Thessalonica. 3. Homily of the same John, when the house in the palace was consecrated to Saint Demetrius. It begins: *Ἔφη ὁ σωτήριος λόγος*. 4. History of the miracles performed by Saint Demetrius. It begins: *Ἄλλοι μὲν ἄλλα τῶν τοῦ μεγαλομάρτυρος*. 5. Homily of John, Archbishop of Thessalonica, in praise of Saint Demetrius. It begins: *Μνήμην δικαίων (read δικαίων) μετ’ ἐγκωμίων*. 6. Homily by Joseph, Archbishop of Thessalonica, in praise of Demetrius, unpublished. It begins: *Φαιδρὰ μὲν οὖν ἡ πανήγυρις*. The end is desired.” But these items, which ^C from these words, *Ἔφη ὁ σωτήριος λόγος*, begins, although ascribed by Allatius and Fabricius to the Emperor Leo, this lucubration is clearly attributed here to John, Archbishop of Thessalonica.

4. However, there is more than one error in the provided list; for the lucubration which in this codex immediately follows the martyrdom of the Saint, and which is mentioned in the second place, is none other than the eighth of the ten lucubrations listed above. It does not contain the life of Saint Demetrius together with his miracles, as is indicated in the list, but instead—as I learned by examining the aforementioned codex, formerly Mazarin, now Royal—contains only a panegyric which takes the place of a preface, before the miracles, in praise of God and Saint Demetrius; with absolutely nothing brought forward regarding details or facts or incidents pertaining to his life and martyrdom, thus forming a eulogy. Then, however, the same lucubration, which bears this title at the head: *Τοῦ ἁγίου Ἰωάννου ἀρχιεπισκόπου Θεσσαλονίκης ὕμνος εἰς Θεὸν καὶ τὴν πανένδοξον ἀθλοφόρον Δημήτριον ἐν μερικῇ διηγήσει τῶν θαυμάτων* (“Laudation of Saint John, Archbishop of Thessalonica, to God and the most glorious victor Demetrius, with a particular narration of miracles”), ^D covers the entire space in the cited codex, formerly Mazarin, where a leaf or two has subsequently been excised—of pages, however, which did not happen to be numbered until this was done—the series is not interrupted. It exists between the beginning with these words, *Μαξιμιανὸς, ὁ καὶ Ἑρκούλιος* (the martyrdom of Saint Demetrius and the homily remembered in the third place in the quoted index), and runs from page 12 to page 206; most certainly, contrary to what the said index requires, it does not occupy that space, or, which comes to the same thing, does not extend itself to that homily.

5. For, as will be clear to the one examining the codex itself, from page 135, where it terminates, up to page 206, it still has two other subjects: one, stripped of both title and name of author at the beginning, exposes six diverse miracles of Saint Demetrius from page 135 up to 205; the other, stripped not only of title and author's name, but also of what pertains to an exhortation to celebrate the feast of Saint Demetrius with spiritual rather than bodily joy, is contained from page 205 up to page 206, and then finally follows the homily regarding whose author we are disputing here. But now, since it is so, and it has the following title: *Τοῦ αὐτοῦ ὁμιλία, ὅτε τῷ ἀοιδίμῳ τῷ εὐσεβείας ἀγωνιστῇ, καὶ τὰ οὐράνια περιπολούντι ἀνάκτορα Δημητρίῳ ὁ οἶκος ἐν τοῖς βασιλείοις ἐνεφάνθη* (“Homily of the same, when the house was consecrated in the palace to the celebrated champion of piety Demetrius, who traverses the heavenly palaces”), is prefixed to it, there was certainly no reason why he, who in the list of the little works—

which runs only from page 206 to page 208—compiled the index, should ascribe that brief little work to John, Archbishop of Thessalonica. Indeed, since the same little work, as is clear from the title it bears, is undoubtedly composed by the same author by whom the little work that precedes it was also composed, and there is nothing at all to prevent one from attributing it to Leo the Wise, being as it is devoid of the author’s name in the aforementioned codex, it seems to me highly probable, if not certain, that it was also adorned by this illustrious writer, to whom it is ascribed by Allatius and Fabricius—so much so that in the list already mentioned several times, it is erroneously marked under the name of John, Archbishop of Thessalonica. ^B

6. But even if this be so, in that same list, the piece which follows it, beginning with the words “’Αλλοι μὲν ἄλλα” and extending from page 208 to page 226, is a lucubration of an anonymous author concerning the miracles of Saint Demetrius; it is immediately followed by a homily, or rather, as it is inscribed in the title it carries, a context in praise of Saint Demetrius, which runs from page 226 to the verso of page 247, and is correctly ascribed to John, Archbishop of Thessalonica, as is that other encomium of the Saint by Joseph, also Archbishop of Thessalonica, which is subjoined to the aforementioned encomium and which, being mutilated at the end, extends only from the verso of page 247 to the verso of page 253 of the codex—which has been mentioned very often, and from which some pages have been excised—that we have here mentioned at the last. And thus we have to add to those listed above three other works from this same codex, which celebrate either the Saint himself or the miracles performed by him, and which remained to be enumerated here. It is the next step that we should now also review the little works in which the life or martyrdom of Saint Demetrius is set forth. Allatius, in his *De Simeonum scriptis*, lists two different ones, both of which he titles the martyrdom of Saint Demetrius, at pages 123 and 126. The first, which he refers to as being among the Lives of the saints not written by the Metaphrast, has these words for its beginning: “Ὅτε βασιλεὺς ἐν τῇ Θεσσαλονικέων διῆγε πόλει”; the second, however, which he classifies among the Acts or Lives composed by the Metaphrast, has as its beginning the following: “Εἶχε μὲν τὰ Ῥωμαίων σκῆπτρα Μαξιμιανὸς ὁ Ἑρκούλιος.” ^C

7. And this latter work, which was first translated into Latin by Lipomanus and inserted into the sixth volume of the Lives he donated in Latinity, for the day of October 26, sacred to Saint Demetrius among the Greeks, was later brought by Surius into the collection of Lives he compiled—with no change at all introduced to the interpretation of Lipomanus—for the day of October 8th, dedicated to the same Saint among the Latins, and was finally reviewed against the Greek exemplar of the Medicean library of His Most Christian Majesty, and published in both Greek and Latin, set apart in a separate volume, which one copy exists with me, which our Bollandus, at the request and expense of Laurentius Cocchus, had printed by the Meursiani in 1635. But as regards the former, I think it is that very one which, rendered into Latin by Anastasius the Librarian and subsequently inserted into many manuscripts and other books, begins with these words: *Cum imperator Maximianus in Thessalonicensium degeret civitate.* Such is the opinion, that this is the one and same beginning for both. Nor does it matter that it is written in Greek as *Maximianus* in Allatius, and in Latin as *Maximianus* in Anastasius. For besides the fact that in Greek *Maximianus* is often written for *Maximianus* or vice-versa, Fabricius in *Bibliotheca Graeca* vol. IX, page 72, praises a manuscript existing in the Coislinian library, which was rendered back to the Greek exemplar—which was produced for Anastasius the Librarian—in which it is not *Maximianus* (in Greek), but *Maximianus* that is uttered. Nor is this name written otherwise in the Greek text, which agrees in substance and in almost all circumstances with the Anastasian lucubration, although the words are different, as is the other *Passion of Demetrius*, exhibited by Photius in codex 255 of his *Bibliotheca*. Moreover, in all the Latin versions that I have been able to see, the copy of the *Life* translated by Anastasius is written as *Maximianus*, not *Maximinus*. ^D

8. But enough of this matter. Besides the two, or rather three, Greek Lives or Passions already numbered—namely, the one I just mentioned as being exhibited by Photius—another Greek one, likewise beginning with these words, “Μαξιμιανὸς ὁ καὶ Ἑρκούλιος ὑποτάξας Γότθους,” is praised in the *Bibliotheca Graeca*, vol. IX, by Fabricius, who in that same place also reviews the two former ones already mentioned from Allatius (at page 72), and the same is exhibited entire in the formerly Mazarin codex, cited often above, from page 1 to the verso of page 10, as well as in our codex signed ms. 193 from page 38 to page 42. Furthermore, in order to spare brevity, I pass over in silence the shorter eulogies of the Saint, which are only in the course of the commentary, if they contain anything worthy of note, whether they be to be transcribed or at least to be commemorated. To the Greek Lives of Demetrius already enumerated, one must still add a longer Latin Life, or rather a paraphrase of the Greek Life (the former) and of another (the latter), which I reviewed in the second place. It was introduced into the *Legenda* of the patron saints of Poland, Hungary, Bohemia, Moravia, Prussia, and Silesia, compiled around the year 1470 by John Longinus (alias Duglossius), as a manuscript annotation prefixed to it shows, and finally printed at Cracow in the year 1511. It was also exhibited in summary by Pelbartus of Temeswar, who flourished in the order of the Friars Minor as the fifteenth century was waning, in the second part of his *Pomerium Sermonum de Sanctis*, in sermon 79. And thus I have now reviewed the writings concerning Saint Demetrius that I had determined to review here; but what credence each deserves, and at the same time which of them are to be published, I shall set forth in the following section, which takes its beginning from the Lives or Passions.

Pars II

§ II. Which of the writings reviewed in the preceding section should be published, and with what degree of credence and authority each holds weight.

9. The lucubration reviewed last in the preceding section is indeed a work by a strictly more recent author—whether this be Duglossius himself in the meantime or, as I suspect is more probable, someone else distinct from him. It was written at an early stage and is adorned with various fabrications not to be found elsewhere—or rather, it is based on no sufficiently ancient monument at all, and is of very precarious credit. Consequently, although it must sometimes be cited and partly described in this commentary, especially when it provides material for refutation, it does not deserve to be reprinted in its entirety, and in fact, it will not be reprinted. ^A As for the Greek Lives or Passions which are ascribed to Metaphrastes by Allatius in the passage cited above, and which are indeed the fruit of that writer, they are held in very low regard by all who are truly skilled in the art of criticism. Both that version which was translated from Greek into Latin by Anastasius the Librarian, and the other provided by Photius in his *Library* (cited in the codex), are far preferred to it—and certainly not without cause. For, apart from the fact that they are entirely opposed to the sanctity of the Christian faith (as will be clearly demonstrated when we discourse on this topic below) and attribute prodigies to Saint Demetrius and a certain youth named Nestor, whom it even proposes as a martyr, it also contains wonders which, even if one would not judge them merely on the grounds that they are wonders, ^B yet they find little favor among critics, even the less severe ones, unless they are known to have been handed down or derived from authors or monuments that are either contemporary or near-contemporary—which, as far as the accounts in the Metaphrastic Life or Passion (which is our subject here) are concerned, they certainly do not have. For Tillemont, in Volume V of his *Memoirs*, page 149, correctly states that improbabilites have been mixed into the Metaphrastic Passion or Acts of the Saint. But does the same author correctly maintain that these were fabricated in the tenth century by Metaphrastes himself or by another writer preceding him?

10. But it seems differently to me. For as far as Metaphrastes is specifically concerned, he did not insert new prodigies or unlikely additions into the Acts of the Saints which he polished with his own style—as our predecessors have long since learned by experience, and as we ourselves learn daily from the same teacher—but merely transcribed and adopted what he found already committed to writing by others. That these improbable things occurring in the Metaphrastic Life of the Saint were not fabricated ^C by any other writer of the tenth century, but appear to have been so, I shall now show: John, Archbishop of Thessalonica, who, as I shall demonstrate below, flourished in the seventh century, in the aforementioned panegyric (which he wrote on the miracles of Saint Demetrius in the preface to the work—which was often lauded [by others] and once belonged to the Mazarin collection), speaks as follows: «But to make mention of all His wonders which He performed is not easy, but even impossible. For you know what is written in the hymn of His most blessed struggle: that the efficacy of the martyr has become renowned through His words, powers, signs, healings, and graces.» And these Latin words sound thus: «But it is not easy, nor even possible, to remember all the miracles which he (that is, Saint Demetrius) performed. For you know, as befits the effectiveness of the martyr’s virtues, his signs, healings, and graces, made famous in common speech, what is written in the praise of his most blessed Passion. I did not, therefore, propose to recount those very many and more ancient things.»

11. It follows, then, as is evident from the text, that the lucubration of John, Archbishop of Thessalonica, from the seventh century, already reviewed a considerable number of miracles performed under the patronage of Saint Demetrius. But what if this is the very same work whose beginning is: *Maximian, who was also Herculeus, having subdued the Goths*, the Greek Life or Passion of Saint Demetrius mentioned above and written by an anonymous author? That certainly does not seem to me to be at all unlikely. For this Life or Passion also contains not a few miracles. Moreover, the words in the text now provided, in which John, Archbishop of Thessalonica, speaks about the fame of the miracles performed by Saint Demetrius, are almost the same as those used in this sermon, so that the sermon seems to have been influenced by John, Archbishop of Thessalonica. The actual words of the same Life or Passion which pertain to this matter—so that the studious reader, by comparing these facts with the recited words of John of Thessalonica, may be able to judge the matter—I transcribe here, with the Latin translation appended. They are as follows: «Signs and many healings having occurred in that place, and divine graces flowing to those approaching it with faith... the efficacy of the martyr and wonder-worker having become renowned throughout all Macedonia and Thessaly... Leontius... a certain man... seized by an incurable disease... immediately attained health.» «After many signs and healings had been performed in the place (where, of course, the Saint had been buried), and the divine graces had been most frequently bestowed upon those who approached him with faith... the efficacy of the martyr who works miracles had become famous throughout all Macedonia and Thessaly... Leontius... a certain man... seized by an incurable disease... immediately obtained health (being placed, of course, above the tomb of the Saint).» ^D These Greek words, *the martyr and wonder-worker having become renowned*, are especially to be noted and compared with the words recited above, to which the Greek words of John of Thessalonica also correspond.

^A nor should you yet think that the anonymous lucubration, concerning which I am discussing here, served as a light for him—as if he had clearly explained all the other miracles recounted by Metaphrastes, and not merely obscurely; if he had possessed this as a light for himself, he would have indicated it, but he would have explained it just as clearly, no differently than that other author. But since he certainly does not do this, the anonymous author did not take Metaphrastes as his guide; rather, the latter took the former—as I have already said—as his light, and from him, having understood it with a freer interpretation, he determined the miracle wherein he reports that Leontius crossed the Danube, and thus built it up.

14. And so it follows from what has already been said that Metaphrastes himself certainly did not fabricate the prodigies and improbable events that he reports in the Life of the Saint which he compiled, but most likely received them from the aforementioned anonymous author, who records all these same things—if you except the one already mentioned—in the Acts of Demetrius which he composed. But since this is the case, were all those prodigies and improbable events first invented by this later writer? Before I state my opinion on this matter, I must preface some remarks concerning the aforementioned Greek Life or Passion of the Saint, which was translated into the Latin language by Anastasius the Librarian. This work—which already existed in a somewhat abstruse form in the *Speculum historiale* of Vincent of Beauvais (bk. XII, ch. 158) and in volume I of Mombritius’s *Vitae*—Mabillon finally brought into volume I of his *Veterum Analectorum*, complete with the Prologue which Anastasius prefixed to it and with the miracles added at the end. Our codex exhibits the same text, as does the manuscript formerly belonging to Cornelius Duyn, ^B and the manuscript signed as number 84, alongside two others—one taken from the codex of Rubéa-Vallis and the other from the codex of Saint Maximin of Trier—which exist in our collection of manuscripts; yet the latter of these lacks both the miracles and the Prologue of Anastasius (or rather, the dedication made to Emperor Charles), and, if you except the miracle concerning Marianus, they are destitute of the summaries provided by the author of Beauvais and Mombritius.

15. Furthermore, Anastasius the Librarian—of whom one may see more in volume I of Mabillon’s *Veterum Analectorum*, preface, p. 96—can be seen to have transmitted the aforementioned Life or Passion of the Saint, which he rendered into Latin, to Emperor Charles, as the Prologue prefixed to that same Life makes certain. Therefore, since the Emperor Charles the Bald—to whom that same Anastasius ^C sent the Life of Saint Dionysius the Areopagite, which he had rendered into Latin in the year 876 (see Pagi in his *Critica*, ad annum 876, num. 12)—was first crowned with the imperial diadem in Rome in the year 875 and departed this life in 877, it does not appear that this work was translated by Anastasius into the Latin language any later than that very year; and certainly, since this writer departed from the living before the year 882 (as Muratori shows in the preface to the third volume of his *Scriptores rerum Italicarum*), the Life composed by Metaphrastes, a writer of merely the tenth century, is surpassed by it in antiquity. Nor, indeed, ^D does it seem that the anonymous author, had he had the lucubration of this writer before his eyes and composed his own from it, would have failed to record that prominent and most especially memorable miracle. Nor is it any reason to urge that the miracle, at least in the crossing of the Ister by Leontius, is indicated by the anonymous author: for even if it is so, nothing is found here whence you could conclude that Metaphrastes was enlightened by the anonymous author—or, conversely, the latter by the former—in his own lucubration.

15. As the anonymous author provides the text that facilitates this, I here exhibit it in Latin. After he narrated that the Danube, when Leontius approached it, had overflowed its banks to such an extent that it could not even be crossed by ships, and that Saint Demetrius, appearing to him in his sleep, had commanded Leontius nevertheless to cross it without hesitation, he soon adds regarding Leontius: "Therefore, in the morning, having boarded the chariot, holding in his hands the reliquary (in which, clearly, the sacred relics of Saint Demetrius were contained), he crossed the river unharmed;" by which words, indeed, it is determined that the miracle reported by Metaphrastes—even if this writer most likely drew it from those words—is by no means indicated to have taken place during the crossing of the Ister by Leontius. For what if Leontius crossed the Danube unharmed, not as it happened to the Israelites crossing the Red Sea—receding on the right and on the left—but only, as occurred for Christ and Peter in Matthew, chapter 14, by not sinking? For even if the miracle did indeed take place and was clearly significant, perhaps the anonymous author did not wish to indicate anything else. Yet let us grant for a moment that the very miracle which Metaphrastes narrates is indicated by the recited words of the anonymous author, that surely...

^A Photius, who flourished in the ninth century, hints at the beginning that he did not compose it, but brought it into his own library already composed by another, is of perhaps equal antiquity. Furthermore, regarding this shorter Life of the Saint written by an anonymous person, and two others already mentioned above—of which the one was composed by an anonymous author and the other by Metaphrastes,—because they are not overly long, and because the one which the anonymous author composed has not yet been published in print, and because I believe it will not be unpleasant for the studious reader, who will be able to conveniently examine what we have taught above concerning the genesis of both, I shall append it here in both Greek and Latin: the former, indeed, taken from our manuscript number 193 in the Greek, which is noted as having been taken from the Vatican Library manuscript number 821, and which I myself have converted from the Greek language into Latin; the latter, however, from the previously mentioned edition of our Bollandus, or rather from the Medicean library of the most Christian king, by which code this was adorned, having been collated with the editions of Lipomanus and Surius. And so, in the manner in which the lives of the Saint might be of value, and which of these should be placed under this commentary, I have already set forth; and although, as I have warned, I intend to reprint the shorter Passion or Life of the Saint, translated into Latin by Anastasius the Librarian, from the edition of Mabillon, I shall nevertheless add—as a supplement to the two others, which I have already said are to be edited—the miracles, just as they are in that Life closely annexed to this one, not from their editor Mabillon or the translator Anastasius, but from the very Greek sources from which they originally flowed.

18. What these are, I explain. In the manuscript formerly called the Mazarin, mentioned very often above, three diverse works exist concerning the miracles performed by Saint Demetrius, of which the first was elaborated by John, Archbishop of Thessalonica; the second by an anonymous person who continued this work; and finally the third by another anonymous person, who, just as it is indicated in the very title which this one bears, committed to writing the miracles performed by Saint Demetrius in diverse times and places. Indeed, that the individual miracles that Anastasius the Librarian rendered into Latin and Mabillon published were originally drawn from the miracles occurring either in the work of John of Thessalonica or in that of the first anonymous author, ^D hardly seems to be in doubt, since these are merely summaries of those to which they correspond, and John of Thessalonica and this anonymous continuator excel in antiquity, as you will understand from what is to be said below. Therefore, I shall add the miracles provided in Mabillon by Anastasius the Librarian from those two writers to the end of the three Lives or Passions to be edited, in such a way that their works, or rather the miracles contained therein, all of them, together with the work of the anonymous author who, as I have said, committed to writing the miracles performed by Saint Demetrius in diverse times and places, may be [published] in print

This I shall provide in Greek and Latin—since, to my knowledge, they have not hitherto been edited—and it is by the industry of Archbishop John ^A that this stands forth. To ensure I conform to our custom, I shall distinguish the entire work into as many diverse books as there are compositions, which themselves shall be divided into chapters and numbered; and I shall illustrate them with annotations, added to the end of each chapter where I judge it suitable and necessary.

19. But since for the short time during which the Mazarine codex, so often praised above, was at hand, it was permitted to me to transcribe from it only some of the miracles contained in those three compositions, either in their entirety or else contracted into a summary together with a few fragments of other narratives, I must further explain how I intend to arrange that edition. I shall, therefore, furnish the miracles which we possess in their integrity from the Mazarine codex in their complete form. I shall do the same regarding the fragments which exist transcribed in our possession from the same codex; yet, I shall do so in such a way that whatever is missing from them, owing to the gaps marked by the punctuation, or what is absent from the rest of the narrative—which, as I have already indicated, we possess in summary—I shall clarify for the reader in the Annotations. As for the other miracles contained in the three compositions mentioned above, concerning one of them [I refer] to Combefis, who, in his *Historia Byzantina* after the historians of Theophanes, page 314 ^B and the following two, cites it from the Mazarine codex—praised so often above—in the vulgarized version; the others, however, I possess from our manuscript 193, in which they are recorded, part in their entirety, with the name of the author (who is John of Thessalonica) suppressed, as is noted; and, in part, they are contracted into a summary by John Stauracius, to be praised below in the oration, and are taken, as is marked in the margin, from the manuscripts of Leo Allatius.

20. Furthermore, to inform the reader of the extent to which these miracles contributed to my edition, I shall quote Combefis, who, in the Preface to the work soon to be cited on page 344, which he prefixes to the account of the destruction of Thessalonica by the Hagarenes in the year 904 by John Cameniates, speaks after having first adduced several other points: «There was another matter which occurred in Thessalonica, a city second in rank, under the eyes of the Empire during those times and those which preceded it, and it was by the Imperial power itself, under Justinian the Great and the Emperor Maurice, that so great a city, in her Demetrius, I put forward, and subsequently other [miracles] produced in later times by another author, by means of which the city, though besieged not once—the Chagan himself, a foe most terrifying to Maurice himself, attacking with every effort and abundance of reinforcements—was liberated ^C by divine aid rather than human, by the manifest miracles of the great Demetrius of that kind, so that even the most stubborn and incredulous could not easily refuse belief; regarding which matter the example of the most holy man...» even if there is no lack on either side of stratagems and glorious deeds of war—which perhaps, given the opportunity, I will bring forward along with all others, as well as the final capture of that same city, excellently described by John Anagnostes—that I should not stray beyond the boundary, I have imposed a law upon myself: to offer a foretaste of the chapter from the aforementioned volume (the Mazarine codex, namely, which pertains entirely to Saint Demetrius) which touches at the extreme limit upon this very history of the conquered city of Thessalonica. But why did Demetrius, having protected his city from such great and many enemies, allow it to be plundered once and again by the enemies of Christ, and finally allow it to fall under their firm possession and jurisdiction? These are the deep judgments of God, of which we too must rightly stand in fear. Truly, as Combefis hints here, these things, narrated by John, Archbishop of Thessalonica, and by the anonymous author before him—whom we have already praised and who continued this work of Saint Demetrius, at least for the greater part—are indeed ^D miracles; and some matters also occur in them which, inasmuch as they attest that Saint Demetrius liberated Thessalonica, his birthplace, from the siege of the Avars, Sclavenes, and other barbarians, serve in some way to illustrate the history of these peoples, or the affairs transacted between the Greeks and them; these [miracles], even if the others, which are sought from the glory of the Saint, were lacking, would have hardly allowed me, at the public light in which they have hitherto been wanting, to grant them [the light they require], even if meanwhile they contain some things less illustrious mixed in. But as regards the titles of the holy and most holy man with which Combefis adorns John, Archbishop of Thessalonica, in the transcribed passage, I find this prelate not inscribed in any sacred calendars at all, nor honored by an ecclesiastical cult either by the Greeks or the Latins. And whereas I know it was a custom once accepted that all bishops, both those deceased and those still living, were called "saints" by way of an honorary title, and even this John of Thessalonica, whose titles in the codex formerly of Mazarine are prefixed to his compositions, is more than once graced with the title "saint"—yet, since Combefis does not seem to have observed that custom there, I would not dare to attribute to John of Thessalonica the title of "holy and most holy man" after the example of the aforementioned most holy man.

22. Furthermore, even if this is the case, this writer is highly commended for the probity of his life, so that indeed, in narrating those things that took place in his age, and which he himself saw or learned from trustworthy men to whom they were known above all, he deserves full credit. And so, although he did not have verified every single miracle he reports as performed by the virtue of Saint Demetrius, he nevertheless had verified the majority of them. Hear him, who himself mentions more than once above, what he promised concerning the miracles narrated by him in a panegyric oration...

and the re-establishment of his speech, which he is now about to announce. “For it is a small thing to take away the transgressions of men,” as the all-holy Virgin also tells you. “Forgive, and it shall be forgiven you.” ^A Give, and it shall be given to you. For the one who forgives his neighbor, shall be forgiven his transgressions. And as we are commanded to follow Christ, so we must be guided by these gospel truths. Therefore, the same Lord in the parables, by which he showed us what we are, and how we display ourselves to one another—the parable of the King who commanded his servants to give an account of ten thousand talents—when he was brought to him, and he had nothing, he commanded that he be sold, and his wife, and his children, and all he had, and payment to be made. But the same Lord, when the servant fell down and worshipped him, was moved to pity and compassion, for he let the servant go, and forgave him the debt. But after that, the servant went out and found one of his fellow-servants who owed him an hundred pence, and he laid hands on him, and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest. And his fellow-servant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. But he would not, but went and cast him into prison, until he should pay the debt. For if ye forgive men their ^B transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you; but if ye forgive not men their transgressions, neither will your Father forgive your transgressions.” But let us return to the subject. “But when you fast, be not as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance; for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast.” Here in the Gospels, and also in the Pharisees, and in the Hypocrites, they are called such; and he also added the reason. “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites.” For these, by pretending to have virtues they did not possess, and by practicing justice in appearance, but in reality showing themselves to be full of hypocrisy, they sought to deceive those who look upon them from the outside, and in this way they assumed a guise of holiness. One finds many such people even in the Christian life, who, by making no change in themselves, choose to seem just rather than to be so; and even if they are seen by all to be unjust, they choose to appear otherwise. ^C Truly it has been said, that those who believe themselves to be righteous, disfigure their faces. But those who are, truly, the virtues shape the human being, the gentle one, the long-suffering one, the one free from divine wrath, the man, the just one—

^A In the codex formerly of Mazarin, page 17, immediately after the words recited in number 10 regarding the miracles which he is about to entrust to writing, is the text of the apostle: “What we have heard,”—that is, from those who had learned by experience or had learned by diligent investigation—“and what we ourselves have seen with our eyes, what we have beheld, and our hands have handled, these things with his help we shall announce to you.”

^B Regarding the second question, whether John of Thessalonica deserves credence, and also about the time in which he flourished: I will state that the fifth book of the Miracles, chapter 5, of Eusebius, Archbishop of Thessalonica, who occupied that chair under the Emperor Maurice, makes mention of this; and in the following chapter he affirms that he heard the miracle, which he narrates there, from the aforementioned Archbishop and therefore the said Eusebius. Wherefore, since Eusebius, Archbishop of Thessalonica under the Emperor Maurice, is not known to be any other than the one who, in the eighteenth order, occupied that see and concluded his life certainly before the year 649, as his successor, Paul the Heretic, administered the church of Thessalonica until that year—as can be seen in Pagi’s *Critica* and Le Quien’s *Oriens Christianus*, Vol. II, col. 40—it is absolutely necessary that John, later himself Archbishop of Thessalonica, who spoke from the words of that Eusebius and wrote the miracles of Saint Demetrius, flourished in the seventh century. He cannot be anyone other than the John, Archbishop of Thessalonica, who subscribed to the Sixth General Council, celebrated at Constantinople in the year 681, as found in the collections of councils by Labbe and Hardouin.

^C Now, as has been said, he continued the work of the anonymous writer, and further, the work of another anonymous writer, who committed to writing the deeds and miracles of Saint Demetrius at various times, are to be evaluated with some consideration of both time and credibility. The former, whose work, as I have already noted, constitutes the second book of Miracles, in chapter 4 narrates a miracle which, as I shall show in the Notes to be added to it, occurred toward the end of the eighth century, so that he surely flourished no earlier than when that century was drawing to a close. Nor does his age seem to be deferrable beyond the ninth century: for the last of the miracles, which Anastasius the Librarian—who, as I taught above, was taken from the living before the year 882—narrates in his *Veterum Analectorum*, Vol. I (as found in Mabillon), seems to have been committed to writing first of all, or at least before Anastasius; and this, which—

^A—is the first of those appended to the end of this Commentary, page 10, may leave room for some to doubt whether that published lucubration is the work, since (as I have already said) he was very likely led to this conclusion because he had read his History edited in the *Notes* on Acropolita, and had mentioned only in passing the matter of this work. Certainly, as for that short opusculum, I have not yet discovered that it has been published in type; a fact which here suffices. Its author flourished very likely in the thirteenth century. For not only do almost all those works which John of Thessalonica, archbishop, and two anonymous writers have handed down in print, as I have said, relate the memory and report the miracles, but also other things, as if to commit to writing whatever miracles concerning Saint Demetrius had been performed up to his own time, his intention seems to have been fulfilled. Therefore, since he records miracles altogether later than the thirteenth century, it is highly probable that he flourished in this very same century, and that what he narrates was committed to writing, as is uncertain.

27. Although, furthermore, I should speak now about the trustworthiness of the writer, in recounting those matters which are far removed from the age in which they were performed, he possesses a certain and indubitable authority, above all since he disagrees with John, the archbishop of Thessalonica, and other older writers, as ^B has happened before, he does not deserve it by his own authority alone; and yet, there is no reason why, in those things which even in his own age or less remotely have come to pass, his trustworthiness should be denied, unless a reason sought from elsewhere suggests it, especially if the things which he mentions are of the sort—as indeed they are—that, concerning the ointment of Saint Demetrius, whether from his tomb or from his body, he reports as having been able to be clearly perceived. I come now to the Chrysologoi of Demetrius. This writer, who, just as I have explained in the added part of the *History of Ecclesiastical Writers* [in the Appendix, page 71], William Cave teaches, flourished around the year 1430, besides others partly recounted there by Cave, also wrote in the Greek idiom about Saint Demetrius. This short lucubration, which is presented in its entirety in the Medicean library of Saint Lawrence, in the tenth pluteus, manuscript 13 fol. 41, comprises two parts, of which the one explains the encomium of the holy martyr and his adjuncts, and the other treats of the wonderful thing which drips from his tomb, or the ointment. The latter, which is nothing other than what the author very well inquired into and very likely held for certain, he provides, and it therefore deserves a place among the *Analecta*, to be published as I have said, and we have it transcribed from the said Medicean manuscript. ^C The former, however, does not; nor, indeed, since the age in which the author flourished is observed, could he add any weight whatever to the things which he commemorates concerning Demetrius, and we long for it greatly.

28. And thus, not only those which are complete, but even those which are only partially concerned with Saint Demetrius or his miracles, are to be published at the end of this Commentary, as I have already set forth. It remains that I bring forth some further things from other lucubrations which may be, in some way, of use in the course of this Commentary, or at any rate are enumerated among those mentioned above concerning Saint Demetrius from various libraries or authors. Of the oration that is to be attributed to Leo the Wise, as I have shown above—the beginning of which is, *Ἐπὶ τῇ σωτηρίῳ*—some part, transcribed from the former Mazarin manuscript, exists with us; and this, together with the title which that short lucubration bears, will be of some use in the course of our Commentary, as will also the one begun with these words, *Μνήμην δικαίων*, which John, the often-praised archbishop of Thessalonica, also composed as an eulogy of Saint Demetrius, of which some fragments also exist with us, likewise transcribed from the same former Mazarin manuscript. In addition, in our manuscript 193, an extensive work, which is ascribed to Gregory the deacon and referendary, the *Encomium of the Saint* is presented, not just in part, but in its entirety from page 100 to page 106. But this lucubration can be of no use at all, and therefore does not deserve to be published. For besides the fact that it sets forth the Metaphrastic *Life or Passion* of the Saint merely in an encomiastic manner, the author invokes at the end Saint Demetrius against the Hagarenes, who had laid waste to Thessalonica, which they had captured, and had polluted it with the blood of its citizens. Therefore, since Thessalonica was not captured by the Hagarenes earlier than the year 904, it is most probable that he flourished in the tenth century, and certainly no earlier; so that, whatever he may commemorate about Saint Demetrius, it adds no weight at all to the Metaphrastic assertions concerning this.

29. Furthermore, as for the two already mentioned above—the one of which (see Fabricius in his *Bibliotheca Graeca*, Vol. IX, page 71 et seq.) begins with the following, *Θαυμαστὸς ὁ Θεός*, ^D and the other with these, *Οὐδὲν οὕτω*—the orations of the Emperor Leo concerning Demetrius, and others about which I have proposed to say a few things here, namely, the lucubrations of other writers, i.e., of Philotheus, Patriarch of Constantinople, and the four following archbishops of Thessalonica: Joseph, Gregory Palamas, Nicholas Cabasilas, and Nicetas—these opuscula are not to be published, nor do we even have them in part, nor do I know if they are much to be desired. For unless, perhaps—which may easily be otherwise meanwhile—they might supply something concerning the cult of the Saint, or about the wonderful thing that drips from his tomb or body in Thessalonica, as ointment or oil, the authors themselves, when one considers the age in which they flourished, do not seem at all suitable for illuminating matters which concern our Saint. So that the matter may become manifest, I subjoin the time around which each of them flourished. Leo the Wise governed the reins of the Eastern Empire from the year 870 to the year 951; Philotheus was raised to the See of Constantinople in the year 1354 (see the chronological *History of the Patriarchs of Constantinople*, prefixed to Vol. I of our work), and departed from the living around the year 1376. Gregory Palamas, and of this one...

successor Nicholas Cabasilas in the fourteenth century, as can be seen in Le Quien in *Oriens Christianus*, Vol. II, and in Cave in *Scriptorum ecclesiasticorum Historia*, occupied the see of Thessalonica. As far as Nicetas is concerned, there were two archbishops of Thessalonica by the name of Nicetas, of whom one, as Le Quien himself teaches, flourished in the twelfth century, the other at a later date.

§ III. The Saint’s courage in preaching the faith of Christ, and what is told concerning his family and native land, is to be evaluated.

50. That our Saint was born of an illustrious and senatorial family is a claim found in his second *Passio* (or Life), which was edited by an anonymous author, and which does not differ much from that famous account of his lineage, which is edited in the third place, and which begins as follows: “As for his parents, he was of distinguished and most eminent lineage, tracing his own ancestry back to the ancient Macedonians.” Furthermore, that Demetrius was born of a senatorial family is praised and contextually related in his Latin *Vita*, no. 8, by Duglossius, who not only asserts this, but also discloses the names of his parents, from whom he was descended. The words by which he does this are these: “Whose (namely, Demetrius’) parents were adorned not only with the Christian faith, but also were nobly born from an illustrious lineage of senators; his father was named Adrian, his mother, the most blessed Theogona.” ^B But, in truth, all those—whether Greek or Latin—who follow the *Vita* of Duglossius, if one were to examine carefully what Pelbartus Themeswariensis says in his own work, no. 8, find that they wrap the names of the parents of whom Demetrius is said to have been born in the deepest silence. Since such is the case, and since this first Duglossian account is far removed by many centuries from the events narrated, and [the author] has drawn what he relates and what is absent from older monuments, who can place faith in him? For my part, I think that either another writer, whom he had before him as one illuminating the subject, invented the names at his own discretion.

31. By no means does the favor shown to the Saint’s illustrious lineage—which is asserted not only in his Duglossian *Vita*, but also in the Metaphrastic version and another which precedes the Metaphrastic by an anonymous author—convince me. For in neither the Anastasian nor the Photian *Life* or *Passio* of Demetrius does one find any word or even an obscure intimation that he was born of an illustrious or noble family. Wherefore, since not only the Duglossian and the Metaphrastic versions, but also the anonymous biographer who precedes these, depend on the age in which they flourished, ^C as for the indubitable faith that they seek to claim for their assertions about the Saint, I do not believe it to be deservedly given; indeed, he truly is our Saint, as he is asserted by these—without any sufficiently ancient testimony from a writer or monument—to have been born of an illustrious family; this can be doubted, or rather, I fear that whatever is found in the accounts of his life handed down by the aforementioned biographers to be recorded as a memory of his illustrious ancestry, should properly be attributed to the inventions of their own ingenuity, which should be attributed with all doubt to what is recorded in the Duglossian Life or *Passio* in the following words: “For he was (namely, Demetrius)... a scepter-bearing emperor and Duke of Bellademon (“Bellademensis,” I know not whether the author is referring to Belgrade, as in Pelbartus, it is not clearly expressed) and of Lacedaemon and a consul of the imperial court.”

52. Nor do I think that these accounts—which are completely devoid of any testimony from antiquity—are merely the fruit of a license to invent, but also that those things which are read in the same Duglossian *Vita* concerning the Saint’s native place are likewise [invented]. For they have this: “Born in Pannonia, the most blessed boy Demetrius... in the city of Sirmium.” But who, in truth, would think it safe to believe this Duglossius, who calls Demetrius a Pannonian by nation and a Sirmiumian by fatherland, ^D without the authority or testimony of an older writer? Verily, whatever is asserted by that author concerning the nationality of our Saint—who was led astray by a preposterous love for his own native soil—I consider to be foreign to the Saint, a later invention, and I believe it is confirmed in no ancient monument or writer, but especially because both the Life with the Metaphrastic one, and that written by the anonymous one, who both very clearly make Demetrius a Thessalonian, are in open conflict. Nor can I, for the reason that the anonymous Metaphrast who precedes this one here, was not held to be a biographer of the Saint of such great authority that he could make it certain that the Saint was neither from Pannonia nor born in Sirmium. Although this is the case, and although it is not only in his *Vita*—which Photius and Anastasius the Librarian bring forward—that the fatherland of the Saint is noted, they still indicate that the Saint was a Thessalonian, as the anonymous writer who sent these into literature in the *Book of Miracles*, ch. 1, 2, and 4, does not obscurely reveal.

33. For in the former place, where he narrates the siege of the Thessalonians by the barbarians, with the Saint Demetrius acting on their behalf, he speaks of the Saint as *philopatrin*, that is, a lover of his fatherland, designating Thessalonica. In the second, however, and the third, he relates that aid was provided by Demetrius in like manner, calling this one *sosipatrin*, that is, a savior of his fatherland, Thessalonica, yet again. Furthermore, John, Archbishop of Thessalonica, who flourished in the seventh century, and who is much older than Photius and Anastasius the Librarian, teaches not obscurely in the following words of his own *Encomium* on the righteous one, which I have mentioned more than once, that the holy Demetrius was born in Thessalonica: “For in this discourse concerning the benefits exhibited by the Saint to Thessalonica,” he speaks as follows in the Mazarin codex, p. 227: “The Word, therefore, will proceed; For the eulogy and...”

the sole concern of the martyr—and how could one better praise him, or by enumerating the helps and providence he exercised toward his fatherland, if even to attempt such a task is incomprehensible? For these exceed the snowflakes of heaven in number, and the stars in brilliance. For what could one say first, and what, if overlooked, would not diminish the greatest things? Shall I state the bond of love and the concord of his city, and the accomplishment he alone has frequented?” ^A Which Greek words I render into Latin in this manner: “Whither, then, shall speech turn itself? To the praise—and that alone—of the martyr: and in what manner might one praise him more fittingly than by enumerating the aids and cares he has afforded his fatherland, even though to labor at such an incomprehensible thing is a task? For they surpass in number the rain-showers of the sky, and in splendor the stars. For what indeed should one call first, and what, even if neglected, would not detract from the greatest things? Shall I call it the continuous bond of charity and concord of the city, and his own, and indeed his sole, benefit?” ^B There is, moreover, among the writers, both Latin and Greek, not one at all, distinct from Duglossius and Pelbartus, who states that the Saint—if speaking only of his birth—was a Thessalonian; having weighed all these things, I am brought to the conviction that Demetrius was truly born in the city of Thessalonica.

34. John, Archbishop of Thessalonica, teaches that he was not only born there, but also educated there, in other words which I append, translated in the once-Mazarin codex, p. 227. “He was born,” he says, “among us, the ones remaining of him, boundlessly. For we were nurtured in the same place as he, not by the efficiency of any similarity.” Which words I render into Latin thus: “The martyr (Demetrius, to wit) was educated among us (the Thessalonians, of course) completely different from him in nature. For we were brought up in the same place as him, not by an effect of similarity.” Three Lives or Passions to be published, and others which Photius brought into the Library, do not state that the Saint was educated in Thessalonica; nor do they remember the place where he happened to be educated. Indeed, the two older Lives, namely the Photian and the Anastasian, do not make even a slight mention of the very education which the Saint received. Nor should it seem strange to anyone that the authors of those two little works, when the occasion upon which Demetrius underwent his martyrdom was narrated, immediately leaped to the telling of this very thing, omitting other things which they could have commemorated concerning the Saint. Therefore, I believe John of Thessalonica (referring to the words of his provided just above) when he asserts that Demetrius was educated at Thessalonica; especially because it appears most likely that this writer learned even this from an older monument, and that the Saint was educated in the place which fell to him as his birthplace, and which, as I have already taught, was Thessalonica.

35. Duglossius, or whoever else it be who produces what ^C he brings forth on the memory of the Saint, in that work in which he states that Demetrius was born at Sirmium, as he wishes, and also educated at Sirmium, seems to have been of that opinion, yet he believed that he later applied his efforts to dialectic and rhetoric in the city of Thessalonica. For after he asserted that the Saint was born at Sirmium through the words recited above, he supports this by his own judgment—with only a few things added, such as what his parents’ names were—and subjoins: “Most glorious... Demetrius was delivered to liberal studies, and, being full of the Holy Spirit, endowed with knowledge of human and divine Scripture, he entered the city of Thessalonica, where he became a keen dialectician and a most eloquent rhetorician.” Thus he. But the things which he conveys in these words, beyond the fact that they appear to stand in opposition to John of Thessalonica, rest upon no evidence of antiquity at all, and thus are to be held in very low esteem—not to say anything worse—especially because the author, as is clear from what has already been said, is of shaky faith. Nor is that of much more value, where it is stated that, after the Saint had reached the age of manhood, he was moved to military arts and the proconsulship of Greece, to which he was afterwards raised by the Emperor Maximian, an office which the Metaphrast, as well as the anonymous author who preceded this biographer of Demetrius, asserted; both are removed from the age of the Saint, and deliver this without the testimony of an older writer, which they might have used to establish it as certain and undoubted. But indeed, in book 1, chapter 3, of the Miracles to be published, Demetrius is described as appearing clothed in a chlamys, no differently than a consul; and in chapter 6 of book II of the same Miracles, it is narrated that he appeared in military attire to be seen by Stephen, the African bishop, who had been captured by the Slavs; and in the same way, as those things which occur in the latter place additionally demonstrate, they provide faith that he was exhibited, represented, in the image which depicted him in the Demetrian temple at Thessalonica.

36. I confess, it is so, and there are, moreover, in the same Miracles to be published, other places where it is similarly handed down, or at least somehow hinted, that Demetrius appeared in military garb. But the Saints do not always appear under the clothing or habit, designating the office or dignity which they had while they were yet among the living, but they appear from time to time under another, if they perceive this one to be more suitable for their own counsel. That there is no need to resort to another whereby to prove this, the published miracles of the Saint themselves suffice. For in book 1, chapter 1 of these, which treats of Marianus, prefect of Illyricum, who was healed of an incurable disease by the Saint, it is narrated that the Saint gave himself to be seen in a dream to Marianus not under his own appearance, but under the guise of friend whom he held closely united to him in intimacy at Constantinople. Since, therefore, it is clear from this that Saints can appear even under a form or guise different from that which they had in life, why could they not also do so under clothing or a habit not expressing the office or dignity which they had while they were survivors among the living, and not even do so at times? Besides, as to what

^A has been handed down regarding the image which exhibited the Saint in the temple at Thessalonica dedicated to him dressed in a military habit, it pertains to the ninth century, in which—as you will understand from the Annotations to be appended to the sixth chapter of the second book of the aforementioned Miracles—that image existed in that place. It shows that the military status of Demetrius was believed in, but it does not prove that he was in fact a soldier. Therefore, whatever may be found in memory regarding the habit, or how the Saint appeared, or how he was depicted, nevertheless whatever is said by the Metaphrast and by the anonymous author who preceded him, whether concerning the Saint's consular dignity or his commitment to the art of war, is altogether uncertain. But one must speak otherwise regarding what is reported by the same authors concerning the fearless zeal of the Saint in preaching the faith of Christ, and the not insignificant fruit of his labor, with many having been converted to Christ.

37. For not only do the two older Lives or Passions of the Saint, namely the Photian and the Anastasian, support this, but so also does the encomium of John, Archbishop of Thessalonica, which I have already cited quite often, beginning with these words: "Our Saint..." And the words of the Anastasian Life which pertain to this, number 1, are these: "Among them (the Christians) was the blessed Demetrius, showing himself without any fear, who from his youth had performed good works and had taught others. For he taught how divine Wisdom had descended to earth from heaven, so that it might vivify, by its own blood, man who had been dead in sin. When he preached these and many other things, etc." The Photian one, however, says: "This martyr of Christ, Demetrius, a herald and teacher of piety, imitated the wanderings and struggles of the apostles, and led the city of Thessalonica, having been withdrawn from the darkness of error, to the light of doctrine." These two Lives or Passions of the Saint surely do not obscurely favor the assertion of the Metaphrast and the anonymous author who preceded him concerning Saint Demetrius, yet in such a way that the latter openly declares that the entire city of Thessalonica was converted to Christ—which the former of those lives does not do. And indeed, even if Demetrius did not lead his whole native city from error to Christ, it is nonetheless implied quite clearly by the now frequently cited John of Thessalonica that he produced much fruit in it, with not a few being imbued with the truth of the faith. His Greek words, which pertain to the present task—however quite long—I have nevertheless included here, because almost everything that we have described concerning the Saint from the former Mazarin codex is to be published in print after the Latin version has been attached.

38. Thus, the aforementioned encomium of Saint Demetrius in the Mazarin codex, page 227 and following, contains the following: "But he, having received this teaching and apostolic grace, let us see what compensation he offered to God... The purity of his teaching is shown by the grace of God. For that this shepherd of Christ, whom God has appointed, pulled out from their very roots the Jewish and Hellenic and every other heresy ^B inimical to God—whose accomplishment is this, after God, if not that of the teacher of the city?.... But as the adversary, pressed by piety, armed his scandals more forcefully in the times of the martyr, so this God-given protector, companion, and teacher of the Thessalonians (for it is necessary for me, as my discourse has reached this point, to mention also a wonderful story which I have heard from the fathers) filled the city with orthodoxy and covered the gainsayers ^C ... And what is the story? Seek... from those who clearly distinguish divine things, whence the reputation concerning this city-loving and God-fearing martyr grew to such an extent that, as it was magnified, the envious one was provoked even against the one who was then tyrannizing here; and it was said that it was not so much from the bodies healed by prayer, as from the souls purified by teaching. The memory of the righteous, removing those souls held in the stench and darkness of the pit of idolatry, introduces Christ, our true God, the fragrant offering of the heavenly composition, into their hearts. For while the healing of bodies manifested the gift of God (even if such gifts also declare no small progress in virtue for those who receive them), the souls of those being converted to piety manifest the steady and unentangled nature of his teaching and the labor of his fearless preaching ^D not only in that region, but they reveal the magnitude of his virtue to those everywhere." And now, the Latin interpretation which I have adapted to these words of John of Thessalonica: "But let us see what recompense he himself (Demetrius, that is) rendered to God, having received that apostolic grace apt for teaching.... The purity of his teaching appears manifest through the gift of God. For that it has been rooted out from the fold of Christ—because it is guarded by God—all Jewish, ethnic, or any other heresy inimical to God, whose benefit is this, other than that of the master of the city (Demetrius, of course) after God?..... For during the times of the martyr, the enemy, pressed to straits, strongly armed scandals against the religion; where at last this one (Demetrius, surely) was placed by God as a shepherd, a patron of the Thessalonians, a disciple and a master of preachi

ACTS OF THE HOLY MARTYR DEMETRIUS

^A his intent to bring to a successful conclusion, he betakes himself to the holy Demetrius, whom he knew, and of whose power to perform miracles he had heard, and explains to him what he has in mind, and earnestly begs him to stand by him with his prayers. "Demetrius," as Metaphrastes says, "as if he himself had asked and had not been asked, almost forestalls his petition in the fulfilling of it, and having quickly imposed upon him that which is in Christ, the sign placed both on his forehead and on his heart, he dismisses him, saying: 'Both you shall conquer Lyæus, and you shall be a martyr of Christ.'" Nestor, strengthened by these words of the Saint, immediately leaps into the stadium and openly offers himself for the single combat with Lyæus, while everyone admires his audacity.

42. The emperor, thinking that the young man, driven by poverty alone, had undertaken this desperate plan, offers himself to him of his own accord, having sent for him, and exhorts him not to hazard himself in a fight against a man to whom he was far inferior in strength. But Nestor, having rejected the money, declared that he sought uniquely the glory of overcoming Lyæus. The fight, therefore, with the emperor's consent, is begun with Lyæus, and, having invoked the God of Demetrius, he strikes him on the spot with a blow to the heart and fells him dead to the ground. The emperor, being angry and sad at this, and attributing the matter to magic, questions Nestor about this; and he replies that no Christian uses magic, and that he had gained the victory over Lyæus with the help of the God of Demetrius and of all Christians. When the emperor had heard this, he orders Nestor to be killed with the sword at that very moment when he had killed Lyæus, and so, says Metaphrastes, "Nestor is sent to Christ, whom he loved, and from whom he was to receive the crowns of double victory." Such things are here presented in summary which, in the Metaphrastic Life of the Saint, and other works of an anonymous author from which these, as appears from what has been adduced above, have sprung, are recounted concerning the young man by the name of Nestor, in part also attributed to the holy Demetrius in the narrative, [which is] woven together in Metaphrastes and other works of the anonymous author which have shone forth for this one, I have examined.

43. But hear he who in Tillemont, vol. V of the *Ecclesiastical Memoirs*, page 689, receives that narrative, also presented there by him in summary: "It is difficult," he says (in French words, rendered by me into Latin), "in that fabulous narrative, in which that which is most horrible and opposed to the Gospel is held up for a Saint, to find anything more apt to cause offense and more unworthy of a Christian man. We call it 'fabulous' because it is such in its circumstances which are most worthy of note. For Photius and Anastasius speak of Nestor’s contest against Lyæus; but they carefully abstain from asserting that the Christian Nestor [did so], or from mingling in that contest, namely, the holy Demetrius. Nay, they do not even assert that Maximian ordered the death to be brought upon Nestor, but only that he did not give him the prizes promised to victorious gladiators. It is therefore evident that all the rest was added to the truth, and this, in all likelihood, after the ninth century, by men historically and doctrinally ignorant of the Gospel." So far he.

^A And, indeed, not without reason. However, that those things which were added to the truth reported by Photius and Anastasius after the ninth century should be deemed certain does not appear to me at all evident. For the same things also occur in the Life, to be published in the second place, which has an anonymous author, and which in all likelihood—or indeed perhaps even earlier—is older than the ninth century, or perhaps even the seventh or eighth. Nor is there anything you could reply, as these are not commemorated by John of Thessalonica, a writer of the seventh century, who has been frequently praised above and will be praised below. For since he does not even relate the substance of the martyrdom endured by the Saint, it is not surprising that he remained silent about those things which could be considered merely as appendages to it.

44. However that may be, those things which, as regards Nestor, are absent from the narrative of Photius and Anastasius, and which Tillemont rejects as fictions in the words quoted, I also deem to be fictions in reality. And first, indeed, to explain why I hold this opinion, what valid cause could there have been for Nestor to commit himself to single combat against Lyæus? The plan, they say, was to break the pride and arrogance of the latter. But who, on this account alone, could pronounce such a crime—most severely forbidden by divine law, and from which, as I shall teach below, Christians were most averse—sufficiently excused and immune from guilt? Indeed, he who first composed the eulogy of our Saint—which is extant in Peter de Natalibus, Book IX, Chapter 110—whether it be Peter himself or some other writer, seems to have reasoned far otherwise. For he alleges a cause for the single combat undertaken by Nestor against Lyæus that differs greatly from the one already mentioned. The matter will be clear to anyone examining that eulogy, in which Lyæus is always called Libeus; because this part is entirely unique and must be diligently discussed, I transcribe it here in its entirety, omitting only those things that pertain to the veneration shown to the Saint by Leontius, the prefect of Illyricum. It is conceived in these following words: "The martyr Demetrius suffered in the city of Thessalonica under the Emperor Maximian. From his youth he was a noble citizen of this city of Thessalonica, a Christian and a servant of God, and a valiant soldier, who nevertheless preached ^B Christ the Lord and converted many to the faith. Now when the emperor entered Thessalonica, hearing of Demetrius, he had him seized and sent to prison. There was at that time a giant most strong and terrible in aspect, named Libæus, who, fighting against the Christians by order of the Augustus, would restrain them with his arms and throw them to the ground, and they would immediately expire. Many others were also afflicted by the emperor with various punishments. But when Demetrius was placed in prison, he saw a scorpion near his feet, struggling to strike him with its tail, which he immediately destroyed by making the sign of the cross. To him, as he prayed, an angel immediately appeared, ^C and placed a crown upon his head. But while the emperor was planning to have Demetrius try his strength against Libæus, a certain Christian named Nestor presented himself by night to the holy Demetrius, saying that he had deliberated on undertaking this contest, and asked that the holy martyr might pray to the Lord for him. Comforted by him, on the next day he presented himself to the emperor, and asserted that he was a Christian, offering to fight with Libæus and to undertake the contest for Demetrius. But when the emperor could not deter him with entreaties, he promised gifts to the victor. Nestor, therefore, entered the duel, threw Libæus to the ground, and slew him as he lay there. The emperor, seeing this, and grieving that he had lost the giant who was the avenger of the Christians, stripped Nestor of military service for breaking his promise and ejected him from the city; he also ordered Demetrius, who had been the cause of his killing, to be put to death in prison. But the soldiers came to the prison and plunged a sword into his breast. And thus, praying, he departed with a palm to the Lord, whose body was hidden by the Christians for fear of the pagans, in which place God worked miracles, and where the sicknesses of all were healed."

46. Therefore, he who composed the eulogy or encomium of St. Demetrius, dissonant in some additional matters—which, since they do not pertain to the present undertaking, are not to be examined—from his Metaphrastic Life, recorded that Nestor committed himself to single combat against Lyæus, not to break his audacity or pride, but in order to liberate both the Christians—of whom he had already killed many—and Demetrius from the necessity of contending with such a dangerous enemy, ^D by engaging in the contest with them under the emperor's order. But be that as it may, even so, Nestor could not have committed himself to single combat against Lyæus without singable guilt. For even if any Christian should intend to kill—or indeed, as Nestor undoubtedly did here, perform the killing of—tyrants, or even merely the ministers of their cruelty, by whom the faithful suffer persecution for the sake of the faith, it is repugnant to the holiness of the Christian religion, nor is there anything that can in any way be reconciled with divine law, which forbids homicide. Furthermore, since when Lyæus was killed, other means by which the emperor might torture Christians and even deal death to them would by no means be lacking, Nestor, by assaulting Lyæus in single combat, ought to have proposed not so much to liberate the Christians from such an iniquitous enemy, as to exact vengeance for the injuries and damages which he had inflicted upon them. And that such an act, aimed at vengeance rather than liberation from evil, is contrary to divine law as well as to the holiness of the Christian religion, no one surely denies. Which being the case, indeed, that Nestor committed himself to single combat against Lyæus is a crime which cannot rightly be deemed holy and approved by Demetrius himself, as it is found both in his encomium given here and in two of the Lives or Passions.

^A

48. For my part, when I have weighed both these and the others which I brought forward above, it does not appear at all likely; and consequently, I consider that all those elements—which are supplied by Photius and Anastasius the Librarian regarding Nestor in the narrative of the Life of Demetrius in the Metaphrastic version, and which are added to the other anonymous account from which this seems to have originated—are to be regarded, along with Tillemont, as I already hinted above, as fabrications, albeit perhaps invented earlier than the ninth century (see no. 43). And hence, I would not dare to rank among the saints the man who slew Lyæus in single combat, as is handed down in all the Lives or Passions of Demetrius without exception; whether you would have it that, after he had slain Lyæus, he was put to death by the emperor’s order and suffered as a martyr, as is asserted by the Metaphrast and the anonymous author who preceded him; or whether, as is held by Photius and Anastasius—who do not even call Nestor a Christian anywhere—he did not receive the rewards promised to victorious gladiators, for the emperor was angry, and after being discharged from military service and expelled from the city, he ended his life in peace, like a confessor, as he who composed the encomium ^B transcribed here from Peter de Natalibus seems to have believed.

But you will argue that the Greeks honor Nestor with the title of

Great Martyr

49. Confess, it is true, that various sacred calendars of the Greeks rank Nestor among the saints on October 29. But what of it? All of these, as is now commonly known to scholars, often rank the unworthy among the saints as well. And as for Nicephorus Callistus, who in the fifteenth chapter of the seventh book of the Church History that he composed recounts almost the same things about Nestor as are narrated by the Metaphrast, and Baronius, who inserted Nestor into the Roman Martyrology having cited Nicephorus in his support: it is known that the former, that is, Nicephorus, often adopted fabrications and narratives of very dubious credibility and transcribed them into his History. The latter, however, that is, Baronius, seems to have looked less at how much the things narrated by the Metaphrast regarding Nestor and the deed of his approved by Demetrius are opposed to the holiness of the Christian faith, than at the credibility or authority of the Sirletian Menology, from which he took not a few saints and inserted them into the Roman Martyrology, assigning it more value than is fair. But if these things displease, what at length will you bring forward by which you might defend Baronius and the Greeks, who worship Nestor as a saint, against the authority of the Decalogue forbidding homicide and the horror that the Christians who lived in the age of Saint Demetrius had for the art of the gladiator and the single combats which were, in a way, their exercises and games? ^D Do you recur to a singular instinct of the Holy Spirit, and will you assert that Nestor and Demetrius alike were prompted by that same movement by which many holy virgins long ago are read to have brought death upon themselves—the one, indeed, having brought death to Lyæus in single combat, and the other having approved of that deed? Truly, even if we were to grant freely that there could have been room here for a singular divine instinct—which, however, seems to be able to be called into doubt—it does not seem right, however, that things performed contrary to the law of God should readily be admitted to have been performed without sin, whether for that reason or even because of an equality of reason.

one should not have recourse to invincible ignorance and the good faith of those who have admitted things that require excuse, unless it is established on all sides both regarding the truth of the fact that requires excuse, and the sanctity of the man to whom it is attributed. Although, indeed, regarding the sanctity of Demetrius, yet regarding the approval by which he is judged to have ratified the single combat to be entered into by Nestor against Lyaeus—because this is based merely on the acts in the Metaphrastic version, which, as I have taught above, are of doubtful authenticity, and on other anonymous accounts from which these derived—it is by no means established, any more than is the sanctity of Nestor, which rests on no more certain documents.

51. But if, nonetheless, someone still feels otherwise regarding this latter point because of the clearly distinguished cult with which, as has been said, Nestor is honored among the Greeks on the 27th of October, and will not change his opinion, nor be moved by what I said above regarding the ecclesiastical cult that is sometimes paid to unworthy men among the Greeks, I would want him to remember that it is easily possible that some Nestor, distinct from the Nestor who killed Lyaeus in single combat, was honored by the Greeks in ancient times, and that later, when it was not well enough known who that person was, in the lapse of time, these things that are read in the Photian and Anastasian Lives or Passions of Saint Demetrius—the Acts of the gladiator Nestor, with fictitious additions, such as are found in our Metaphrastic Life of the Saint and in the other anonymous work from which it was woven—were attached by the Greeks, who are lovers of fables, and simultaneously by those who wished in some way to explain which Nestor they were honoring. Indeed, it is possible to find not a few saints among the Latins whose sanctity is considered established, but whose Acts are clearly uncertain and sprinkled with fables. Therefore, although I would not dare to hold for a saint the Nestor who is narrated in the Photian and Anastasian Passions of Demetrius to have overcome and killed Lyaeus in single combat, still I do not affirm that the Nestor who is honored among the Greeks with a distinguished cult on October 27th must certainly be struck from the number of the saints, even if, meanwhile, I cannot say who that person was, once the Acts in which he is celebrated there have been rejected.

V. Demetrius is captured and suffers martyrdom. When this happened, and who Lupus, who is said to have been his servant, was.

52. That Saint Demetrius shone with many miracles while he was still living among the living, and yet was held in hatred by the Emperor Maximian, by whose order he was killed, not so much because of these as because of the multitude of the Gentiles whom he had led to the Christian faith, is indicated not obscurely by the words of John, Archbishop of Thessalonica, in the encomium on the same Saint, transcribed in number 38 and following. And indeed, since Maximian certainly held the Christian religion in the highest hatred, it is indicated ^A that he was displeasing to that emperor, as we have taught above, by the multitude led to the truth of the faith, which anyone can easily conceive in his mind. Nor does anyone who has committed to writing the Life or Passion of the Saint provide anything from which you could conclude the contrary. I transcribe here the words of the anonymous author alone, rendered into Latin by Anastasius the Librarian, which are relevant to this matter, and which explain the occasion upon which Demetrius was captured and brought to Maximian, and which are to be cited still further below. They hold as follows: "When the Emperor Maximian was staying in the city of the Thessalonians, being a superstitious man, he persecuted the hearers of the pious religion, and they were killed by him. Among them was the blessed Demetrius, who made manifest himself without any fear, who from youth had done good works and had taught others. For he taught how the divine Wisdom descended to earth from heaven, so that He might vivify with His own blood man, who had been dead in sin. When he was preaching these and many other things, certain ministers of the emperor, who had been deputed to capture Christians, holding Saint Demetrius, brought him to the Emperor Maximian."

53. So much for the anonymous biographer of the Saint mentioned. But what he did regarding Demetrius when he had been brought as a captive to Maximian, he does not explain; however, the Passion or Life of the Saint which exists in Photius does explain it. The words with which he does this are these: "The tyrant (Maximian, of course) was going to the spectacle of the gladiators, and the martyr, bound, is led to that stadium which was near by, by the impious ministers, as if he were a Christian in life and doctrine. He, hurrying to the spectacle, ordered the holy man to be kept in a vault near the stadium, to which a public bath was adjacent." In the Metaphrastic Life of the Saint, and the other anonymous work which is woven from it, some words held between Maximian and Saint Demetrius, back and forth, before he was included in the vault by his order, are reported. But both these and others that occur in those two lucubrations, and are absent from the Anastasian and Photian Lives of the Saint, do not merit ^B complete faith, even if they do not seem inconsistent or improbable, as they are devoid, as is sufficiently ancient (testimony), of the witness which would be required to that end. Furthermore, how finally it came to pass that the Saint, ^C whom Maximian, when he was hastening to the spectacle, had ordered to be locked for the time in the vault, received the palm of martyrdom, pierced by lances, is narrated in the Photian Life or Passion of Demetrius in these words: "With these things said, descending at once into the arena (Nestor, of course) he killed the man who by the judgment of all was considered the first, prostrate; but he obtained none of those things which had been proposed to the victors; but he filled the tyrant with intolerable pain and anger, and rising from his chair, incensed with anger, the impious one departed from there to his home. But when some reported to him the words of the martyr Demetrius, as if drunk with fury and impiety, and at the same time thinking an ill-omened sign had been offered,

that the things which are not are as if they were, and again that the things which are are as if they were not, showing [this] to demonstrate, he asked the martyr what he felt concerning God. And when the latter had replied that he confessed one God, uncreated and eternal, the Maker of all things visible and invisible, and therefore both Lord and Provider, "And I," said the heathen, "feel thus; for I am a follower of the doctrine of Socrates, not of Epicurus, and those who feel with him."

54. The Photian Vita is sufficiently consistent with this narrative, which the Anastasian [version] supplies, nor does the Metaphrastic Life of the Saint, or that other anonymous one which, as I have taught above, seems to have flowed from it, differ much from it if you except the things narrated concerning Nestor discussed above. But now, since this is so, and no other ancient monuments are found that contradict these Lives of the Saint in this matter, we have the species of martyrdom which the Saint underwent as a known fact. But what must be pronounced about the time when it happened? If one must stand by John, the archbishop of Thessalonica, already praised so often, it certainly could not have happened before the year 314. From the writings of this author, from which I collect this, I transcribe here the Greek words of the encomium woven into this context, immediately following the words recited, so that whatever we have commanded to us by his letters, I may communicate it to the reader, along with the appended Latin version. They are as follows: “It is ^A indeed and these things [that] made him very notorious, but rather, it raised his fame, and it is rumored that this happened also in other homelands. There stood before him, they say, while he was teaching, just as the tempters, the Sadducees, [stood] before our Lord God Jesus, [so too] the glorious martyr had Greeks from Athens, and Jews from Jerusalem, and Manichaeans from Mesopotamia, and Arians from Alexandria (for long before their deposition they were stirring up the world and had become the champions of almost every heresy) ... wishing ... to learn ... or rather not to learn (for wickedness disdains the good), but to tempt and to twist the rectitude of the faith.”

55. And the Greek [scholar], being somewhat ^B peaceful, and priding himself on syllogisms, and showing things that are not as though they were, and again things that are as though they did not exist, asked the martyr how he thought about the Divine. And he replied that he confessed one God, uncreated and eternal, the Maker of all things visible and invisible, and therefore [confessed Him as] both Master and Provider. “And I,” he said, “am a Greek, thinking thus; for I am of the school of Socrates, not of Epicurus and his followers.” And so, that these things might indeed make him famous, or rather might increase his fame, it is narrated that this was done in other regions also. Just as they say that the tempters, the Sadducees, had risen against the Lord Jesus, our God... so also [they rose] against the disciple of Christ, the most glorious martyr: heathens from Athens, and Jews from Jerusalem, and Manichaeans from Mesopotamia, and Arians from Alexandria (for, for a long time before they were exterminated, these men disturbed the whole world, and were the champions of almost every heresy)... wishing to learn... or rather not to learn (for malice disdains the good), but to tempt and to pervert the rectitude of the faith. And the heathen, while somehow dissembling, as if by syllogism, [wishing to show] ^C that things which are not are as if they are, and again that [things] which are appear as if they are not, showing [this] to demonstrate, he asked the martyr what he felt concerning God, and when the latter had replied that he confessed one God, uncreated and eternal, the Creator of all things visible and invisible, and therefore also the Master and Provider. “And I,” said the heathen, “feel thus; for I am a follower of the doctrine of Socrates, not of Epicurus, and of those who feel with him.”

56. Moreover, with these words he finishes the long encomium in which he praises Saint Demetrius chiefly for his doctrine, and [includes] many other things by which the Saint, having engaged with the heathen, the Manichaean, the Jew, and the Arian, refuted each of these heterodox men and finally compelled them to yield to him; and he interweaves [the fact] that many Arians existed at that time, most luminously, as will be evident to one examining that encomium, as it indicates in more than one place. But now, since these things are so, it is necessary that the Arian heresy had already arisen and become widespread when our Saint was still alive and surviving, [a fact] which John, the archbishop of Thessalonica, has conjectured; and hence he did not believe that Saint Demetrius had been crowned with martyrdom before the year 314, as that impious sect did not receive its beginning before the year—as even he [Pagius] certainy admits—which is indeed true. But this opinion of that writer can in no way be admitted; for Demetrius underwent his martyrdom at Thessalonica, as is agreed among all. And all Macedonia, and therefore ^D also the Thessalonica situated therein, was already from the year 314, as can be seen in Tillemont, *History of the Roman Emperors*, vol. IV, p. 162, under the control of Constantine the Great, under whom certainly no one would say that the Saint suffered martyrdom, and he continued to hold it subsequently up to the year 337, to which year Demetrius’s martyrdom most certainly cannot be deferred.

57. Furthermore, Demetrius, as I shall now show, underwent martyrdom under the emperor who was named Maximianus; but no emperor by the name of Maximianus held sway in Thessalonica after the year 311, in which year Galerius Maximianus, as Pagius in his *Critica* and Tillemont in *History of the Emperors*, vol. IV, p. 116, and others constantly teach, closed his final day. For since, after all these things now said have been considered, John, the archbishop of Thessalonica, either was utterly ignorant of the true epoch of the martyrdom tolerated by Demetrius, or certainly thought it should be deferred to a later time than the truth of the matter allows, having been deceived by the tradition which he cites. But what time at last ought to be assigned to this event? His Life or Passion—both the Anastasian and the Photian—teaches that Saint Demetrius was captured and killed while the Emperor Maximianus was staying in the city of Thessalonica. The other two Lives of the Saint, namely the Metaphrastic and the other from which these flowed, composed by an anonymous author, also agree with these on this matter. But these

^A falsely assert that Maximian, under whom they place the Saint's martyrdom, was also called Herculius. For it is clear from Tillemont's *History of the Roman Emperors*, vol. IV, and from what he writes about that emperor, that Maximian Herculius never ruled in Thessalonica; and so, since the Saint certainly suffered there, it surely could not have happened under Maximian Herculius. Nor does the Greek Life of the Saint, which I praised above and which begins with these words: "While the emperor Maximian was passing his time in the city of Thessalonica," establish that it is better done under Maximinus, whether we understand the first or the second emperor of that name.

58. For Maximinus, the first of that name, very likely—as you will easily understand from what is recorded in memory regarding him—was never in Thessalonica after he had taken up the reins of the empire. Wherefore, ^B since the Saint underwent martyrdom while the one who was emperor was residing in that city, according to the testimony of absolutely all writers who deal with this matter, it truly cannot have happened under Maximinus of this name, the first. Moreover, the unanimous opinion of all scholars, which determines that Demetrius received the palm of martyrdom, having shed his blood for Christ, no later than the year 240, in which Maximinus, the first of that name, departed from the living, prevents it from being asserted. But as regards Maximinus of this name, the second, it is manifest that it no more points to him than to Maximian Herculius, that he was ever in Thessalonica, as is gathered here and there from what occurs in Tillemont, already praised more than once, in his *History of the Roman Emperors*, vol. IV, and in other writers. Wherefore, as you can easily infer from what has been said, the martyrdom of our Saint cannot be placed under him either. Furthermore, from all these things, it follows, first, that in the Greek Life or Passion of Demetrius, praised by Leo Allatius, it is not obscurely handed down that he suffered martyrdom after the Goths and Sarmatians had been defeated, when Maximian—who, however, as I have already taught, is wrongly called Herculius in those two lucubrations—had come to Thessalonica. And although Metaphrastes and the anonymous author from whom he culled his account do not deserve unquestionable faith here (as is easy to elicit from what was stated above), nevertheless, there is no reason why what they provide for the time when the Saint underwent martyrdom—in determining it more closely—should not be held as at least probable. Since, therefore, according to them, the Saint was crowned with martyrdom at that time when Maximian, having defeated the Goths and Sarmatians, came to Thessalonica, let us examine at what time he defeated the Goths and Sarmatians.

Tillemont, in ^C *History of the Emperors*, vol. IV, p. 89, recalls the war against the Sarmatians, to whom the Goths could have been joined, waged by Maximian Galerius, and the victory reported by him over them, adding that that war, of which no mention is found elsewhere than in Zonaras and Ammianus Marcellinus (whom he cites in the same place), must be fixed either in the year 305 or at the beginning of the following year. Now, since apart from the war mentioned here by Tillemont, no other war is truly known in which Galerius Maximian—being already created emperor, before which time he certainly did not order Demetrius to be killed—defeated the Goths and Sarmatians, and since we should rely on that writer as far as the time when he writes the war was waged, I believe it is probable that our Saint suffered for Christ after the war waged by Galerius Maximian against the Goths and Sarmatians, which Metaphrastes at the same time, as has been said, and the anonymous author who preceded him clearly indicate, and hence I have inscribed that year in the margin above.

59. When Maximian Galerius had departed from the living in the year 311 (and to this year, no. 15, Pagius refers in his *Critica*), the martyrdom of Demetrius cannot be delayed beyond that same year. Indeed, since the same emperor suffered from a very grave illness throughout the year 310, and he was in excellent health when he ordered the Saint to be killed, it ought most probably to be placed even before this year; how much time before, what is now to be said will sufficiently demonstrate. In the Metaphrastic Life of the Saint, and the other by the anonymous author, which ^D preceded Metaphrastes, it is handed down that our Saint was then, when Maximian, having defeated the Goths and Sarmatians, had come to Thessalonica, [martyred].

60. 61. Now let us say a few words about the day on which the Saint, having shed his blood for the Christian faith, underwent martyrdom. In the panegyric with which he is adorned in the *Menaea* for the 26th of October, the following verses are prefixed, in which there is an allusion to the kind of martyrdom he underwent, having some similarity with the passion of Christ’s side: Δημήτριον νύττουσι λόγχαι, Χριστέ μου. Ζηλοῦντα πλευρᾶς λογχονύκτου τῆς πάθους. Εἰκοστῇ μελίαι Δημήτριον ἕκτῃ ἀνεῖλον. The first two are from the version I adapted for them, and the third, from the translation into Latin adapted for it by Papebroch in the *Graeco-Moscovite Ephemerides*, sounds as follows: *Demetrium lancea confodiunt, Christe mi,* *Passionem lateris tui, lancea confossi, æmulantem.* *Vicena et sexta Demetrion hasta peremit.* Thus, the Saint is asserted in the *Menaea* to have undergone martyrdom on the twenty-sixth day of October. And although the *Menaea*, as is sufficiently known, does not deserve certain faith in such matters, I would not dare to assert that they are certainly false here. Nor is there any reason to object that Demetrius is celebrated in the Roman Martyrology, both old and new, on the 8th of October, and this

and in all others who have made mention of Demetrius, ^A I am able to confirm it firmly. Wherefore, I content myself with pronouncing that opinion—especially since the status of servant or slave, the title of martyr, and the name by which they are called are common to both these Saints, and nothing appears anywhere that counsels they ought to be distinguished with certainty—not merely plausible, but rather more plausible than the opposite, and with this I bring this [inquiry] to an end.

§ VI. The memory of the Saint in the sacred Fasti, and the ecclesiastical cult which he enjoys generally among the Greeks even today, as he once did in the past.

64. Although there are indeed not a few Saints who have borne the name of Demetrius, and they appear in the *Hieronymian* apographa—both in the larger ones edited by Florentinius and in the smaller or more concise ones which have been published by him and others—assigned to different days of the year, none among them ^B is found who is celebrated either on this day, sacred to our Saint among the Latins, or on the 26th of October, dedicated to the same among the Greeks, or who can even be safely identified as one and the same as our Demetrius by the characters by which he is distinguished. Yet, although perhaps it follows from this that our Saint is not inserted anywhere in those sacred Fasti which are held to be older than all the rest, nevertheless, the various sacred Fasti of different nations—distinct from the *Hieronymian* ones, some of which are very ancient and do not yield much in antiquity to the *Hieronymian*, while others are less ancient—show that he was considered a Saint in antiquity and is still so considered today.

65. And, first of all, to lead off with the enumeration of the Latin sacred Fasti: Demetrius is announced today in the small or old Roman Martyrology, which is held to be of almost the same antiquity as the Martyrology that circulates under the name of Saint Jerome, in these few words: "At Thessalonica, of Demetrius the martyr." Further, taken from this very ancient ^C Martyrology, and then from this, Usuardus and Notker—all of whom are counted among the ancients, whom we call the classics—inserted him into the Martyrologies they compiled, likewise on this eighth day of October. This also, even if it is not known meanwhile under what guide this was determined, Wandelbert did, celebrating Demetrius today in his metrical Martyrology thus: At the eighth day before the Ides, holy Demetrius, you are blessed, Having suffered for the name of Christ at the hands of wicked torturers. Among the classic or more ancient Martyrologies—from which, meanwhile, Rabanus, and perhaps the genuine Bede who stands before us prefixed to the second volume of March, and likewise the *Hieronymian* apographa, pass over Demetrius—not a few more recent hagiographers of the Latin Church have joined themselves; namely, Belinus, Maurolycus, Gelesinius, Molanus, and others. Since it would not be worth the effort to enumerate all of these here, or even to transcribe the announcements they provide, I pass them over ^D and here transcribe only the words by which the Roman Martyrology likewise celebrates Demetrius today. They are as follows: "At Thessalonica, of holy Demetrius the proconsul, who, when with many..."

directed to the faith of Christ, was pierced by lances by order of Emperor Maximian and completed his martyrdom."

66. That this concerns not only the Greeks—in whose Hagiographies you will find scarce any that does not mention Demetrius—but that the memory of our Saint is honored also among the Ethiopians, the Russians or Muscovites, the Copts, and the Syrians, is a matter to be observed. Among the Ethiopians, indeed, [it is found] in the Ethiopic Calendar as published by Job Ludolf; among the Russians or Muscovites, in the Slavo-Russian [calendar], which the most noble Baron de Sparwenfelt communicated to us, translated into Latin by himself, [and] in the Menology, in the Ephemerides of the Greco-Muscovites prefixed to our first volume, as also in the Ruthenian Calendar [edited] by Possevin, and likewise in the Ruthenian [calendar] which George David, a priest of our Society, sent to us from Moscow in the year 1688, [and] in the Synaxarion. As for what pertains to the Copts and Syrians, among them [it is found] in the Syriac or Chaldean [calendar] published in Rome in 1624, which was later rendered into Latin and exists with us in manuscript; in the Coptic [calendar] among them, which we have and which we suspect was translated into Latin by Kircher, a priest of our Society, the name of our Saint is mentioned in the manuscript calendar. And in all these enumerated sacred Fasti, the Ethiopians, Russians or Muscovites, Copts, and Syrians do not, as the Latins do, celebrate Demetrius on the 8th, but on the 26th of October, most probably—not to say indubitably—imitating the Greeks, who similarly join in honoring the Saint on that same 26th of October, just as the Latins do, in all respects in the sacred Fasti used by them.

67. But why do the Greeks specify the Saint on one day in the Fasti destined for the use of their Church, while the Latins do so on another? It happens not rarely among the Latins that Saints are honored with ecclesiastical veneration not on the days on which they exchanged their life with death, but on others which are not occupied by the veneration of other Saints. What if, therefore, the Saint was formerly inscribed in the sacred Fasti among the Latins not on the day that his death befell him, but on another day on which, being unimpeded by the veneration of another Saint, he was treated with ecclesiastical cult, and this happened to take place among the Greeks on the very day of his death, the 26th of October? Indeed, that from this it came to pass that the name of Demetrius was inserted into the sacred Fasti on the 8th of October among the Latins, but on the 26th among the Greeks, does not appear to me at all unlikely, especially since the Greeks expressly affirm in their Menaia, as I have taught above, that the Saint obtained the palm of martyrdom on the 26th of October, and perhaps even in very fact, as I have likewise taught above, he migrated to the Lord on that day. Be that as it may, the Saint is indeed, as is clear from what has been said, celebrated in the sacred Fasti of the Latins equally with those of the Greeks. But since the conversation has now turned to the ecclesiastical cult that was deferred to him, the line of argument requires that we now direct our discussion to that.

68. That I may do this more methodically, I shall treat of the ecclesiastical cult which Demetrius enjoys universally among the Greeks to this day, and which he once enjoyed, both at Thessalonica and at Constantinople, being honored and treated by the Emperors of the East themselves and their court; and I shall conclude this Commentary with an explanation of the veneration that was, or certainly was once, deferred to the Saint elsewhere than among the Greeks. The Greeks perform their office for Saint Demetrius on the 26th of October, just a brief one, as they do at other times, with the commemoration of some other saints joined to it. Whoever may wish to find how the matter stands in this way, let him examine the great printed Greek Menaia, the Typicon marked with the name of Saint Sabas, and the most recent Anthologion printed in the year 1738 for the said 26th of October. But from what time did that ecclesiastical cult begin to be deferred to Saint Demetrius by the Greeks—who, moreover, decorate him with the most honorable titles of Great Martyr and Myrobletes, as we shall say below? Since in the aforementioned ecclesiastical Office in the Menaia, the commemoration of the earthquake which occurred under Leo the Isaurian is instituted, and this emperor died in the eighth century, when it was almost half over, it certainly cannot be older than this century, and there will perhaps be some who, on that account, might not attribute to it any great antiquity compared to other things. But however that may be, it appears most probable to me that the Saint was, in fact, cultivated annually by the Greeks with an ecclesiastical office long even before the eighth century, both from those things which we are about to say below concerning his most ancient cult at Thessalonica as well as Constantinople, and especially from the singular veneration and celebrity of his name which he enjoyed among the Greeks during that century, and indeed even long before; both which prerogatives of our holy martyr I now prove.

69. Saint Theodore the Studite, who flourished at the end of the eighth century and the beginning of the next, writes thus in his *Various Works*, Vol. V, p. 208, in a letter which he sent to John the Spatharios: "Hearing of a certain divine deed done by your lordship, we marveled at your truly great faith, O man of God. For he who reported it affirms that you used the holy image of the great martyr Demetrius in place of a sponsor, and thus performed the baptism of your son, who is guarded by God. And O your confidence! I do not think that such great faith was found in Israel, not only as was said by Christ to the centurion then, but now also in you who, with faith, compete with him. He, therefore, found what he was seeking; and you yourself have obtained what you hoped for. There, the divine command [was present] instead of the bodily presence; here, a corporeal image in place of the prototype. For there, the great Word was present through words, invisibly performing his wonderful work of healing by his divinity.

^A And here, the great martyr was equally present in spirit to his image, receiving the infant. Truly, these things seem by no means acceptable to profane ears and incredulous minds, as being incredible, especially to the iconoclasts; but to your piety, manifest proofs and examples have been laid bare. For what is there that God cannot perform for those who believe? Or how is he who is represented not perceived and believed to be present in the image, in name as in reality? "For the honor of the image," as the great Basil says, "passes to the prototype." Wherefore it is manifest that it was the martyr who was receiving the infant through his own image, insofar as you believed it to be so. But oh, your magnificence, you who have obtained such and so great a sponsor, as they call him—do not think of this or that prince or potentate, or even him who is crowned with a diadem. The one whom you have found is greater and far superior.

70. "A martyr indeed most mighty, most renowned of wonderful deeds, a true friend of Christ, and a citizen of the angels: who has been and is still able to do so many and such great things on earth, that the trumpet of his miracles is celebrated in every quarter." Blessed indeed are you, most pious man, that you have found such a sponsor: thrice blessed is your son, who has been received by one endowed with such great glory and power. But may it be permitted to us, if you allow, to see this son of yours who bears the name of Saint Demetrius: so that, embracing him as his own son, and urging him on with fitting words, as we are sinners, we may transmit the account of the deeds done to others as well. For it is not fitting that beautiful things should be passed over in silence, but that they should be proposed to others as clear documents of pious faith. Indeed, the event praised here is truly singular, and the words by which it is described by Theodore the Studite argue for a deep devotion toward Saint Demetrius, both on the part of John the Spatharios—who happened to be with John the Protospatharios and the Bajulos, chosen by Irene and mentioned in the tenth year of the empress toward Theophanes—and also on the part of Theodore the Studite himself. Furthermore, since this holy writer, who (as I have already taught) flourished at the end of the eighth century and the beginning of the next, affirms through these recited words that Demetrius was always able and still is able to do so many and such great things on earth, that the trumpet of his miracles is celebrated in every quarter, he certainly provides grounds for us to think, not undeservedly, that our Saint had long flourished indeed before the eighth century with a celebrated name and the veneration arising from it among the Greeks.

71. Since this is so, it seems hardly to be doubted that he, no less than other more famous saints, was already honored at that time with an ecclesiastical office, especially since his festive light most probably happened to be celebrated annually in Thessalonica from the sixth century, or even earlier, as I shall show below. Moreover, that Demetrius was honored among the Greeks, if not before ^B the eighth century, at least before the thirteenth century, by an annual feast in which it was unlawful to hold court—at least during the time of sacred worship or the holy sacrifice of the Mass—is clear from the date of the year of the world according to the Greeks 6674, that is, 1166 of the Christian era, in the Novel of the Emperor Manuel Comnenus concerning the days on which justice should either not be administered at all or only in part, or one should abstain from the practice of law. For in this Novel, which exists in the *Jus Graeco-Romanum* published by Leunclavius at Frankfurt in 1596, page 160, and in the *Nomocanon* of Photius, seventh title, page 58 et seqq., the emperor speaks first in the following words, translated from the Greek tongue into Latin by Leunclavius: "We decree that those days shall be holidays which we shall enumerate by name in the present constitution; and that some of them shall be holidays in their entirety, so that during their entire duration, no court may be held, unless perhaps the emperor, by way of dispensation or due to necessity (as the sudden shifting of circumstances often tends to create changes more laxly), wishes to establish a court on those days as well; whereas others should be exempt from legal proceedings in part, so that they may be observed from the morning until the time of divine worship, or rather (for the Greek has λειτουργίας) of the sacrifice of the Mass, when the judges may be allowed to be intent both upon prayer and the celebration of the divine Numinis, and after the sacred rite is finished, may attend to the care of justice, and succor those who have suffered injuries according to the vigor of the laws."

72. But yet, for those cases where it is permitted to render justice after the sacred rite in this manner, let them make notes ^C and records of the time at which they were completed." Having premised these things, he first enumerates the days that are entirely holidays, on which one must abstain from rendering justice for the entire day, and then proceeds to those for which the tribunal is only partially exempt; and to these he adds the 26th of October, "because," he says, "a feast is celebrated for the great Demetrius, who flows with unguents." That Demetrius was honored by the Greeks before the thirteenth century with an annual feast, in some part of which it was necessary to abstain from rendering justice, admits no doubt. Furthermore, that one was also to abstain from servile work during part of that feast is affirmed by Baillet, vol. III of the *Lives*, col. 115, for the 8th of October. And this, indeed, although not explicitly asserted in the cited Novel of the Emperor Manuel Comnenus, appears most likely. But that writer, concerning that feast which, when compared to other entirely holiday feasts, was a primary feast of only the second class, adds these things there: "It has become so celebrated after the fact that it has been observed with no less ceremony than feasts of the first class, and it is a matter of precept to be observed for the whole day even today." So he says, citing in the margin what Smith's *Statuta Graccae Ecclesiae*, page 12, holds in his favor. However, since this work is not at hand, I am content to rely upon his own authority as far as the recited words prove, and I move to other things which concern the worship of the Saint.