Acts of Saint Demetrius the Martyr

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.

§ VII. How preeminent the cult of the Saint is at Thessalonica, from ancient monuments does not appear, [and] what indeed is the antiquity of it.

73. From the extraordinary ecclesiastical veneration and cult of St. Demetrius at Thessalonica, which that most often praised and hereafter to be praised Archbishop of this city, John, enjoyed during the seventh century, one may reasonably conjecture that he did not inappropriately confer upon the Saint the titles commonly given to those who are honored as saints, by which that writer of the Book of Miracles to be published so frequently adorns him with most honorable titles, and those merely such as are used for those who are worshipped as saints. But lest we should have to rely on conjectures alone in this matter, the writer himself provides for it. For the encomium, already cited more than once and begun with these two words, *Memorian iustorum*, which he spoke to the Thessalonians concerning St. Demetrius, indicates that he spoke at that time, when his festive day was being celebrated, right at the beginning of the said encomium, starting thus: *Memorian iustorum cum encomiis celebrare, Salomon suasit*, that is, "Solomon advised keeping the memory of the saints with encomia." Furthermore, regarding the burning of the ciborium or altar canopy, which he relates in Book 1, chapter 12 of the Book of Miracles, he declares that it occurred some time before he committed it to writing, on the selfsame sacred day of St. Demetrius, which he says was wont to be celebrated annually on the 26th of October, and he adds [to this] in the same place, from which it is understood that the festival of the Saint at that time lasted for more than just one day at Thessalonica; so indeed, there can be no doubt that St. John of Thessalonica, [living] in the seventh century, or even, as I shall presently show in the notes to chapter VI, when said fire occurred in the sixth or the beginning of the following century, was influenced by a clearly notable ecclesiastical cult ^B.

74. But was the Saint not also beginning to be honored in his native city before the sixth century? Before I state my opinion on this matter, it will be helpful to have prefaced a few things. The sacred church [shrine] to St. Demetrius at Thessalonica—when his sacred body had lain for some time under the earth—had been built by Leontius, prefect of Illyricum, at that very place where it had been committed to the earth, as both the Passion of the Saint, [the] Anastasian and the Photian, testify. The words of the latter of these pieces, which does not differ in substance from the former, pertinent to this matter, are these: "But a certain Leontius, a pious man, having afterward attained the prefecture by which he administered Illyricum, purifying the place where the relics of the holy martyr reposed, and enlarging it, raised a temple in that place to the martyr, a common propitiatory and refuge, not for Thessalonica alone, but for all the neighboring people." But, so that we may accurately define the time when this was likely done, in the Theodosian Code, with Gothofred’s Commentaries published at Lyon in 1665, vol. VI, page 363, Leontius, who was prefect of Illyricum in the year 412 and 413, is mentioned. Wherefore, since another Leontius, prefect of Illyricum, to whom what is narrated in the cited words of Photius can apply, might be deemed to have existed from the beginning of the fifth century—for it is highly probable that this shrine had been erected at Thessalonica for our Saint from that time, even if, meanwhile, perhaps that Leontius is different from the Leontius of the Theodosian Code, yet not mentioned in any ancient monuments, having administered the office of prefect of Illyricum later, which is not entirely certain. But however that may be, as for the sacred shrine to Demetrius—and indeed one of no small size—lest anyone perhaps conclude from the Anastasian Life of the Saint, in which it is called only an Oratory, that it was a small building, rather than a clearly distinguished temple, [one which] John, Archbishop of Thessalonica had himself, as I showed above, flourished in the seventh century—it is beyond doubt that it belonged to that age, as is evident from those things which this writer records.

75. For in the panegyric which he prefixes to the miracles narrated by himself (see number 4), in the discourse concerning the first, which has already been mentioned, in the codex formerly of the Mazarine library, so often praised, on page 17 verso and following, he speaks thus: *Audiamus igitur, si placet, cum animi attentione simul et compunctione primum illud miraculum, quod vestrum multos, qui in tota Macedonia in peranteque civitate (ita Græci scriptores Constantinopolim passim appellant) notissimum est, omniumque ore, e patribus per filios evidenter spectataque martyris (Demetrii videlicet) miraculi patratione audita, in præsens usque tempus celebratur, non ignorare existimo.* In the narrative of this same miracle, which he relates in Book 1, chapter 4 of the Book of Miracles, and which he entitles in Greek *περὶ τοῦ ἀπελπισθέντος ἐπάρχου*, concerning the prefect despairing of health, namely Marianus, he makes mention in more than one place of the clearly distinguished temple which stood sacred to St. Demetrius at Thessalonica while the miracle was being performed, when narrated by that Prefect Marianus. Wherefore, since that miracle occurred long before his own age, as the words of John, Archbishop of Thessalonica, just recited, very clearly show, it is a consequence that, already before this time and thus before the eighth century, in which this writer lived, a huge temple sacred to St. Demetrius had already been built at Thessalonica.

76. But, you will say, the miracle performed in the case of the Prefect Marianus through the patronage of St. Demetrius is also narrated by Anastasius the Librarian in *Analecta veterum*, vol. I, page 71 and two following [pages], and then, when that happened, the distinguished Thessalonian...

^A church had not yet been built for the holy Demetrius, he points out not obscurely. I confess, it is so. For Anastasius in the cited passage writes thus: "With these words, Marianus was immediately seized by sleep from pain and sadness; while he slept, the blessed Demetrius appeared to him, saying: 'Rise and command your servants to carry you to the house of Demetrius; for there, with God’s help, you will receive health.' And when, waking up, he inquired of those standing around about the house of the martyr Demetrius, someone said: 'There is a very lowly house near the stadium, in which they say lies Demetrius, who was long ago killed by spears by order of the Emperor Maximian.' Then he: 'Carry me there, because it was said to me in a vision that I could receive healing there.' Then the servants carried their master where they had been ordered, and he ordered them to place him simply on the pavement. And as he lay, he was suddenly seized by sleep, and behold, the blessed Demetrius appeared to him again, saying: 'By me you can be healed, but fear, lest by chance after your health you entangle yourself in the cares of this world.' But Marianus: 'You know, Lord, that I have never done this, nor do I desire to do it.' And he: 'Christ heals you, who raises up those who are crushed.' And waking up, Marianus began to tell of the vision, and when he had reached this point, where the martyr said, 'Christ heals you, who raises up those who are crushed,' he rose up healthy, giving thanks to God with all who were there." Now, while he calls this house—in which our Saint's body lay hidden, and to which Marianus had been brought and recovered his health through his patronage—a "very lowly" house, and [implies] there did not exist at that time in Thessalonica any other house sacred to the martyr Demetrius than that in which the Saint's body lay hidden, the narration transcribed here, in which, moreover, as long as it is, there is clearly nothing that provides grounds to suspect anything else, indicates quite openly ^B that a distinguished temple sacred to Demetrius had not yet been built at that time in Thessalonica.

77. Indeed, John himself, the Archbishop of Thessalonica,- who first committed this miracle to writing in his book of *Published Miracles*, ch. 1—when he recounts how the attendants brought the same Marianus to be restored to health in the Thessalonian temple of Saint Demetrius, by whose patronage the Saint had appeared to him in a dream, calls it *πάνσεπτον ναόν*, that is, a "most venerable temple," and soon, in the following part, to which I add the Latin translation, he joins these words: *‘Ο δὲ εἰσελθὼν, καὶ ἰδὼν τὴν εὐπρέπειαν τοῦ οἴκου καὶ τὴν ἐν αὐτῷ πνευματικὴν εὐωδίαν, τὴν τρέφουσαν τὰς ψυχὰς τῶν πιστῶν, ὡς ὁ παράδεισος τοῦ Θεοῦ, εἶπε τοῖς βαστάζουσιν αὐτὸν οἰκέταις, Ρίψατέ με πλωτὸν εἰς τὸ ἔδαφος.* “But he (namely Marianus), when he had entered (Demetrius’s temple), and noticed the ornament of the house and its spiritual fragrance, which, like the paradise of God, nourishes the souls of the faithful, he said to the household servants who were carrying him: 'Lay me down on the bare pavement.'” Furthermore, in the temple of Demetrius, to which Marianus was brought by his servants to be restored to health, ^C he writes that a ciborium—that is (refer to this word in Ducange’s *Glossary*), built up into a vaulted shape—under which the body of the holy Demetrius was believed to lie hidden, stood there as a covering for the altar made of silver. For who would believe that either the Thessalonian church containing the holy relics of Demetrius, to which Marianus was brought, would have been a valuable ornament of this kind, or that John of Thessalonica would have spoken of it so magnificently as he does in what is said, if it had been merely a lowly, nay, a very lowly house, as is hinted by Anastasius to have existed? But now, since these things are so, there is no doubt that at the time when the miracle was performed for Marianus, a distinguished temple sacred to the holy Demetrius already existed in Thessalonica.

78. Moreover, this is confirmed—in whatever way—by John Stauracius, the Thessalonian chartophylax, who, as I have taught above, flourished at a certain time. For he also included the miracle performed on Marianus in his own above-mentioned work on the miracles of Saint Demetrius, and in the same place in our codex marked ms. 193, he calls the temple of Saint Demetrius, to which Marianus was brought to be restored to health, *ἀνάκτορον*, a royal house or basilica. Nor let the authority of Anastasius the Librarian trouble us much in these matters. For the interpretation by which he converted into Latin from the Greek language what pertains to Saint Demetrius in Mabillon’s *Veterum analectorum*, vol. I, page 65 and following pages, does not seem to be free from fault ^D either through the carelessness or ignorance of the writer himself, or through the defect of the Greek exemplar from which he worked. I provide proof with one or two examples. The anonymous author, who arranged the Life or Passion of our Saint, which we will publish in the second place, having narrated the martyrdom of Demetrius, affirms that he was buried by certain Christians under heaped-up earth, and then adds: *Οὐδενὶ δὲ μετὰ ταῦτα φροντὶς ἐγένετο μετενεγκεῖν τὸ σῶμα τοῦ ἁγίου, ἀλλ’ ἔμενεν ἐπὶ σχήματος.* To these Greek words, the following in Mabillon’s *Analecta*, cited vol. I, page 70, in the Life or Passion of our Saint, rendered into Latin by Anastasius, correspond: "But it was not a care for anyone after this to transfer the body of the Saint, but it remained under a sign." But truly, since it is clear from the context of the sense that here only the body of the Saint, which had been buried under heaped-up earth, is signified to have remained buried under this, I think the word *terra* or *humo* (“earth” or “soil”) should be substituted for the last word that occurs in the recited words of Anastasius. The word *σχήματος*, which perhaps cannot be unfittingly rendered in Latin by the word *signum* (“sign”), is placed in the words of the anonymous biographer just recited. But because of the reason already stated, which is repeated from the context of the meaning, I believe it was written down through the carelessness or inattention of the copyists wrongly in that place for the word *χώματος*, which signifies soil or even a mound; so that, although the error lies here, it is nevertheless to be ascribed not to Anastasius, but to the Greek from which, as to

the text intended to adorn his version, this writer used, and it should be attributed to the scribe.

79. But now even that which in all likelihood, for this very reason, is a flaw occurring in the Latin version, must be noted. John, Archbishop of Thessalonica, in his *Miracles of the Venerable Demetrius*, book 1, chapter 3, recounts a vision in which Saint Demetrius, about to bring relief to the city of Thessalonica, then suffering greatly from famine, showed himself to a certain upright man on the island of Chios, and he then adds: *Now he, having arisen and journeyed to the shrine of the triumphant martyr Isidore, being obliged to learn more accurately from the locals who Demetrius was, etc.* To these Greek words, as cited frequently in Mabillon’s *Analecta*, vol. 1, page 81, the following words of Anastasius respond: *“Who (namely the man to whom Saint Demetrius had appeared on the island of Chios) rising up, proceeded to the church of the saints Victor and Isidore, wishing to learn from the rustics who this man was, who had surely appeared to him, and who was Demetrius.”* Therefore, the church to which the upright man betook himself—so that he might understand, from the locals, who Demetrius was, he to whom the Saint had appeared on the island of Chios—was, according to the interpretation of Anastasius, sacred to two saints, namely Victor and Isidore. But from the matters recently recited, and from the fact that what is found regarding that church in Anastasius is originally derived from the Greek words of John of Thessalonica, it is evident that the church to which the upright man betook himself—to whom Saint Demetrius had appeared—was not ^B sacred to two, but to only one saint, Isidore. For the word *καλλίνικος* (“victorious”) which occurs in the Greek words of John of Thessalonica just recited, is by no means, as Anastasius supposed, a proper Latin noun referring to Victor, the Saint’s proper name, but is merely an adjective describing the holy martyr Isidore, meaning in Greek the same as it does in Latin, “adorned with beautiful victories,” as is well known to those skilled in the Greek language.

80. Whatever, therefore, Anastasius may assert in his narration of the miracle by which Marianus was restored to health, there is no doubt that even then, when that was being performed, and consequently long before the age of John of Thessalonica, there existed in Thessalonica a clearly distinguished temple sacred to Saint Demetrius, on account of all the things I have already brought forward. And from this it follows further that there should likewise be no doubt that the Saint had long before that time been honored in Thessalonica with clear and distinguished veneration. Indeed, since, from the things said above, it is very likely that a distinguished temple consecrated to his name existed there from as early as the sixth century, it appears most likely that he was even then—or at the very latest before the sixth century—worshiped in that city with an annual festival on his birthday, especially since it is very likely that he was considered by the Thessalonians to be their primary patron from that century onward, as I shall teach in the notes to be subjoined to book 1, chapter 2 of the *Miracles*.

^A Furthermore, the Thessalonian temple of the Saint included among its ornaments not only the ciborium, or the canopy of the altar, which I have already mentioned above as being crafted from silver, but perhaps also a throne constructed of the same metal. This sacred edifice certainly makes it credible that this ornament existed as early as the sixth century, or at least from the beginning of the following one, as the *Miracles*, book 1, chapter 6, gives us to believe. For there John, Archbishop of Thessalonica, supplies the miraculous account concerning Saint Demetrius, which pertains to the age of the Archbishop of Thessalonica under the Emperor Maurice, taken from the living in the year 602. He makes mention of the silver throne which, during the lifetime of this archbishop, existed in the church of Demetrius in Thessalonica. And these ornaments, indeed, with which the church of the Saint—and perhaps, for reasons to be stated below, the tomb itself was adorned—were held by the Thessalonians in a care and exceptional veneration, which they had long ago testified to; and which they will show forth even more fully, as I presently set forth.

81. It happened that, just as John of Thessalonica reports in the place cited just above, the ciborium, or canopy of the altar—which had been drawn up into a peaked structure, and under which, as many believed, the Saint’s body lay hidden—was set alight during the night, and the silver from which it was, as I have said, crafted, perished for the most part, melted by the intense heat of the fire. Eusebius, the Archbishop of Thessalonica, whom I just praised, struck by this unexpected occurrence, immediately began to think seriously about constructing a new ciborium, a matter in which his ^C exceptional veneration for the Saint shone forth; and when he saw that, for this purpose, he lacked the necessary material, after a portion of the silver from which the burned ciborium had been crafted was lost, he began to think of destroying that throne—which I have just mentioned, and which was considered more necessary as a piece of furniture than as a silver object—and of using the silver from it for the construction of the new ciborium, in the belief that the ciborium contained the holy relics of the Saint. However, to prevent this from happening, Saint Demetrius himself, through a priest to whom he appeared once, twice, and a third time, obstructed Archbishop Eusebius, declaring that this was not his will. Nor indeed was it necessary that the aforementioned throne be destroyed so that a new ciborium could be crafted. For the citizens of Thessalonica, even without being warned, brought an abundance of silver to their archbishop so that a new ciborium might be built. The words of John of Thessalonica, in which this last point is explained in the place cited above, being contracted into a summary by Anastasius the Librarian—as they exist in Mabillon’s *Veterum Analectorum*, vol. 1, p. 77—I present here. They are as follows: “While they were still (the priest to whom Saint Demetrius had shown himself, and Archbishop Eusebius) speaking about these things with one another, ^D

the doorkeeper arrived, saying: “Holy Prelate, the wealthy Mennas stands before your door, desiring to speak with you.” He says to him: “Let him come.” Coming in, the aforementioned Mennas offered him 75 pounds of silver to assist in the building. And then there came John, that is, the sweetness of the poor, offering him forty pounds of silver; and the other citizens coming, as they were able, offered so that the ciborium might be rebuilt. Thus the work so often mentioned was constructed through the merits of the holy martyr.

82. And so indeed the Thessalonians, as if [compelled] to ^A, made manifest their veneration by gathering liberally with the gifts they offered for the ciborium, wherein the holy relics of Saint Demetrius were reverently covered, and by striving in every way toward this. And if anyone, in order to judge better of this—what and how great that work was, and of what figure and magnificence—should perhaps wish to know, let them read the first chapter of the tenth book of the *Miracles* (to be published), and he will find enough to satisfy his desire. For there, in the narrative concerning the appearance which occurred when Phocas the tyrant was removed from the living in the year 610, while he was holding the reins of the Eastern Empire, the silver [work] that was believed to contain the holy body of Saint Demetrius in the Thessalonian church is elegantly described; and [it is described] in such a way that, when Phocas [ruled] shortly after Maurice—under whom the aforementioned Eusebius, Archbishop of Thessalonica, sat and presided over the Eastern Empire—it is not more probable, not to say undoubtedly, that it was built by this very Archbishop of Thessalonica, as we have already seen. But this work, which was replaced by another after being burned, was very likely from the same century mentioned above or the sixth. For the anonymous author, who continues the account of the miracles of Saint Demetrius of Thessalonica in book 2, chapter 3 of the *Miracles* (to be published), reports that the church of Saint Demetrius of Thessalonica was consumed by flames, and he hints not obscurely that this happened not long after the death of John, Archbishop of Thessalonica, who likely died before the year 690. Now, since this is so, there is no doubt that the ciborium which Eusebius, the Archbishop of Thessalonica mentioned above, had built, was burned at that time.

83. But even if at that time, or as the seventh century was waning, not only this work but also the church of Thessalonica, in which, as already mentioned, the body of our Saint was contained, was consumed by flames, the Thessalonians did not for that reason seem to have remitted anything of their veneration toward him. For, as the same anonymous writer teaches in the place cited, in place of the burned temple they built another, even more magnificent [one], which still existed in his own time, and which they constructed while their citizens, or rather the Thessalonians, were once again being aided in a singular way by Saint Demetrius. By which matter, they verified their veneration toward the Saint no less than [they had] ornamented his ancient house, made testimony to such faith. Nothing surely, even as the old [temple]—built by Leontius—was replaced ^B by a new sacred building, or any other that was substituted for it after that had also fallen, or was destroyed by fire or otherwise, was it not entirely famous and celebrated among the Greeks, and that chiefly because of the preservation and worship in it, from which a liquor, salutary for the healing of diseases, continuously dripped [from] the body of the holy martyr. I shall treat in the following section of the ancients concerning Demetrius's body and the liquor that drips from it, which is salutary for the healing of diseases; my purpose now is only to teach the reader things that are worthy of note, beyond what has already been brought forward concerning the holy temple of Thessalonica, and other things sacred to him, which are not far removed from Thessalonica. And first, indeed, John Kameneates of Thessalonica, concerning the Thessalonian [temple]—what happened at the beginning of the tenth century, in his *History of Byzantium* after Theophanes, page 326 and following—testifies that it shone most brightly with the solemnity and the celebration of the annual feast of Demetrius, which was accustomed to be performed in it before that destruction of the divine office.

84. Hither, the writer provides the following words in the same place: “For the temples (that are seen there) are very great and magnificent, beautiful with varied ornament, standing out and exposed through the middle of the city (of Thessalonica, of course), as common propitiatory places of the Divine; but first and foremost among them, that of the divine and supersubstantial Word of Wisdom, the Source of all things, and also of the ever-Virgin immaculate Mother of God; and not least ^C (whom I mentioned above) of that most glorious and renowned victor, the martyr Demetrius, where he performed his divine struggles and bore away the palm of victory; these, of course, as the solemnities of the feasts recurred throughout the circle of the year, bringing together the entire multitude, brought unspeakable joy and spiritual gladness to those who gathered. For in these, the ranks of priests individually filled the catalog of the clergy, by whose labors the mystic worship and sacred things are performed; also the choir of readers, who show diligence in singing the chants, and ring out the verses responsively, and with movements of their hands arrange the sounds of the modulations and constitute a certain great and worthily ^D spectacular chorus; then, soothing the eyes of the spectators with the shining form of their vestments, and delighting the hearing with the artful lyre of the Psalms. What, indeed, was the fabled Orpheus, or the Homeric muse, or the ravings of the Sirens, digested with the lies of fictions, if you consider these chants, so that there is no true reason for praise, but false rumors, seducing the human race and enslaving them to error? In vain, therefore, do the Greeks (or rather the *Hellenes*—for this word signifies both an ethnic person and a Greek, and in Greek is held to mean “ethnic”) boast with crepitating mouths, who lack the true knowledge of things and fight against themselves with empty speeches; but for us, the Godhead is true, and we frequent the same whom we sing with the service of praise.”

85. ^A And not only the Thessalonian temple of the Saint was famous before the destruction of the city in which it is situated—which, as was mentioned before, is described by John Kaminiates—for its exceptionally solemn divine services, and for the annual festival of Demetrios, which reached its greatest heights, as may be understood from the words of Kaminiates already cited, when the procession was performed with great brilliance, but it was also, like the ancient one built by Leontios and consumed by flames, the common propitiatory and refuge of our Saint, to which both other faithful and, most especially, the Thessalonians, used to ^B recur not infrequently to implore the aid of the Saint in their necessities. How true this is—even if only from John Kaminiates, when he reports to memory what the Thessalonians and others did while the Agarenes, in the year 904, threatened Thessalonica and the city itself was shortly thereafter captured and destroyed by them—is evidenced by the words provided in the work cited above, which exists in the *Byzantine History* after Theophanes, page 335. The words are these: “Distracted and wavering with various thoughts, for the remaining days we strove ourselves for what was left to us wretches; so that we might truly pray with vows, in a way that no one could describe, to the bowels of divine mercy and the patronages of the saints. For, coming to the aforementioned temple of the most glorious martyr Demetrios, which is splendid with remarkable beauty, all the inhabitants of the city, and strangers from various nations, of every rank and age, gathered in a mournful choir and, raising an outcry to the martyr, we begged that he be our patron against the impending threat of destruction and slaughter by the barbarians. You have shown, noble martyr, your prompt and ardent assistance in your defense in many dangers that have often beset your city, and you have preserved it immune and safe from all harm and destruction caused by the guile of your adversaries. Show now, most merciful one, your immense care for us; and let not the barbarian and foreign nations, who do not know God, boast against us.”

86. “For thou hast given this house, which the whole world possesses as a new infirmary and a prepared refuge, to be profaned by impure and impious men who mock our faith and despise our worship and religion: and they charge us with this one crime, that we are pious toward God; and they threaten us with premature death and destruction. For although we are worthy of countless deserved punishments for the sins we have committed on earth, and are subject to this very devastation and disaster that is bearing down upon us, yet we know of no other God than Him who crowned you, in whose grace you also performed your divine contests, and whom you glorified with a matching passion: whose gift of many miracles you have attained, and who is for us a firm wall and an ^C unshaken support and a source of light to whom we daily pour out prayers to you, asking for what is in our interest. Look therefore now also upon the lack of counsel and spirit of this people and their misplaced hopes, and, hearing our prayer, stand by your intercession as a liberator for us, your servants, and snatch us from the expected destruction, so that the children of the bondwoman Hagar may not boast against us, nor say, ‘Where is their defender?’ For you yourself see, most benevolent one, that we have placed the sum of our hope not in spears, but in your powerful intercession, who we hope will again be masters of your providence and care.” These vows, with the anguish of our souls, offering to the martyr night and day and watering the floor of the temple with tears, we carried on while suspended in the expectation of the enemy, seeing our sin stand—no differently than a solid wall—in opposition, and rendering the martyr’s intercession void, lest it reconcile the divine kindness to us by its own power.

87. Furthermore, the city of Thessalonica, after it had been captured by the Agarenes in the year 904, as I have already taught, these did not hold for very long in their power; for in less than an entire month, as is understood from John Kaminiates, the destruction which immediately followed the capture had been completed, when they took it upon themselves to abandon it, and in fact did abandon it. And then, indeed, the most famous city immediately began to be restored, nor does it seem doubtful that at the same time the temple of Demetrios, which had been profaned by the barbarians, was restored to its former glory through the labors of those who loved the Saint. Be that as it may, this sacred building was, no less than before, frequented by the faithful recurring to the aid of the Saint. It is possible to gather this from a public document inserted among the letters of Innocent III, published in Paris in 1682 by Stephen Baluze, letter 84 of the 15th book; which, therefore, since it also teaches other matters pertaining to the Saint and his Thessalonian temple, I transcribe in full here. But so that what is translated in it may be more easily understood, a few things must be prefaced before I do so. The Latins, having brought Thessalonica under their power at the beginning of the thirteenth century at Constantinople, also conquered Thessalonica; then, however, the Thessalonian temple of Saint Demetrios was granted to the Hierosolymite canons regular of the Holy Sepulcher. But between them and the Archbishop of Thessalonica, who contended that a certain right belonged to him over the church of Saint Demetrios ^D and the goods pertaining to it, a dispute soon arose, which was finally settled by the conditions expressed in the instrument cited above, which they sent to the Pontiff for approval, and which he approved in the aforementioned epistle 84. Behold now that [document]: “To the most holy Father and lord Innocent, by the grace of God Supreme Pontiff of the sacrosanct and universal Church, G., minister of the Thessalonian Church, though unworthy, [presents] himself at your feet with filial obedience. Since, on account of the schis-

-^Amatic disobedience, the vengeance of the highest King had scourged the land of the Greeks with the scourge of correction, and had through His secret and inestimable counsel brought it back into the hands of the Latins, many religious men coming from diverse parts have obtained diverse benefits both through the lord cardinals and through princes and barons and other faithful men.

88. ^B Among these, the canons of the Holy Sepulcher have in whatever way managed to obtain the church of Saint Demetrius of Thessalonica, which they have possessed with much labor until my enthronement, and, to tell the truth, they have possessed it as something very necessary to that land. Indeed, although the aforementioned church of Saint Demetrius is known to pertain to my jurisdiction, yet on account of the reverence for the Lord’s Sepulcher, where the redemption of the human race was wrought, and for whose aid the army of the crusaders is said to have acquired the land of Romania, lest the said canons be utterly defrauded of their hope and labors, and that every question and controversy—such as has arisen between me and them concerning this matter, which could not easily be resolved in the present time by judicial order due to the perplexity of the cause—might be more easily allayed by peace and equity, especially since in the aforementioned church, decorated by the body of such a great martyr, the canons regular can serve more honorably than seculars, relying on the counsel of prudent men—namely, the Bishop of Thermopylae, the Bishop-elect of Serres, the Elect of Philippi, and Master R., Elect of Citrus—it seemed to me, as far as in me lies, both useful and honorable that the aforementioned canons of the Holy Sepulcher should receive, for the service of the often-mentioned church, such a portion of all the possessions, profits, fruits, revenues, legacies, and alms—in whatever just way they pertain to the said church of Saint Demetrius, as may be legally proved by instruments or by suitable witnesses or by other just means, and moreover of all those things which at any time have been conferred upon the Archbishops of Thessalonica in the name of the aforesaid church of Saint Demetrius, or shall be conferred in the future, as may be legally proved as stated above—as the canons of the holy metropolitan church of Saint Sophia of Thessalonica receive from the possessions of the same, when it shall happen to be ordered. ^C And they shall enjoin that they will in no way persuade anyone in a will or otherwise that they should contribute to the canons themselves rather than to the church, to the prejudice and detriment of the Archbishop, as much as concerns the necessary roofs or the lighting of the church and the proper care of the tomb, to be done by the community pro rata. Furthermore, the prior who shall be delegated for the time being to the aforementioned church of Saint Demetrius by the Patriarch of Jerusalem and his chapter shall be bound to show obedience and reverence to me and to my successors canonically entering; moreover, all our rights and liberty being fully reserved to the mother church of Thessalonica and to me and my successors in the said church, just as in other churches of this kind; saving the obedience due to the lord Patriarch of Jerusalem and his chapter in all things to that same prior and to the canons and other religious persons dwelling therein.

90. ^D Therefore, since the ordinances of churches which cannot be made by inferior prelates ought to be reserved to the Roman Church, which by the Lord’s disposal is the mother and mistress of all churches, I have decided to transmit this composition or disposition, which I did not presume to make or confirm by myself, to your Holiness, beseeching your paternity with bent knees of the mind, intently and earnestly, that for the sake of God and out of reverence for the Lord’s Sepulcher, and by the intervention of my prayers, if it shall seem competent and honorable to your Holiness, you may deign to make it by your authority or to complete it as begun, and that you may strengthen it by the aforesaid authority, so that it may have greater firmness. Consider these words, in the manner in which the said instrument is worded, and you will see that at that time, or at the beginning of the thirteenth century when it was given, the temple of Saint Demetrius of Thessalonica was accustomed to be frequented not rarely by the faithful who came to it to honor his tomb with offered gifts. Nor will you learn this only from that charter, but also other things which pertain to our Saint himself, or to the Thessalonian temple dedicated to him, and it is indubitable that [the church] was frequented, even by the Greeks—schismatics though they were—not rarely, so that they might implore the aid of Demetrius in their needs. And it is a sign of no small doubt that this was still practiced by the Thessalonians specifically in the fifteenth century, since in the study on Thessalonica as captured by the Turks in the year 1429, inserted by Leo Allatius in his *Symmicta*, published at Cologne in the year 1655 by Barthold Nihusius, Joannes Anagnosta, a contemporary writer and an eyewitness of almost all the things which he describes, relates in number 10 that the Thessalonians fled to the aid of Saint Demetrius when the Turks were already threatening their city, and also those things which, just as the *Analecta* will teach those who subject themselves to the miracles, Demetrius Chrysolo-

as, a writer of the fifteenth century, also commemorates the oil or ointment that even in his own age miraculously flowed from the tomb of Saint Demetrius. Nor is there any reason for anyone to doubt—at least not since the year 1429—that this most celebrated temple of our Saint in this city ceased to be frequented by the Thessalonians and other Greeks, solely on the grounds that in that year Thessalonica was captured and sacked by the Turks. For at that time, as John Anagnostes testifies in his cited work, number 18, only two temples were taken from the Christians, one of which was sacred to the Mother of God and the other to the Forerunner of the Lord. But you will perhaps ask if it did not happen that about two or three years later the temple dedicated to Demetrius was also seized from the Christians by the Turks? It certainly seems so. For although at that time, by order of their emperor Amurath II, they occupied almost all the temples of the Christians, as the same Anagnostes teaches in number 20, yet four of these were still left to them; and among these it appears that the temple of Saint Demetrius existed. ^A

92. For Dukes, a nephew of Michael Ducas, coming from the imperial Ducas family, who himself flourished in the fifteenth century and who was therefore able to have an excellent grasp of the matter, writes as follows in his *Byzantine History* which he composed, chapter 29: "The most important monasteries, whose fame was celebrated everywhere, which the religion (of Mahomet, of course, of Amurath) turned into temples, beyond the notable church of the martyr Demetrius, he consecrated. For although he entered that temple and sacrificed a ram with his own hands, and prayed to God, he later ordered it to be restored to the Christians. But the ornamentation of the sepulcher and the martyr's memorial, whatever there was of the temple and the sanctuaries, the Turks stole, leaving only the bare walls." But this writer, so as not to be said to contradict John Anagnostes—who reports, as I have already shown, that only two temples were taken from the Christians shortly after the capture of Thessalonica—ought to be understood as speaking of the monasteries which, besides the sacred church of Saint Demetrius, Amurath consecrated to his own religion about two or three years after the capture of Thessalonica. Since this is so, it is clear that the Thessalonian temple of Demetrius was not then taken from the Christians; and therefore, the Thessalonians and others, most probably, continued to frequent that sacred place just as they had before. But is it still intact for them to do so today? That the Thessalonian temple of Saint Demetrius has now been converted into a mosque or Turkish shrine, Martiniere informs us in his *Geographical Dictionary*, while also stating (in a few words) how famous it was, under the name *Salonicki*, as Thessalonica is called, from the historical and geographical monuments of Coronelli and from the *Itinerary* written by Paul Lucas. And although I am not able to find anywhere when this event took place, it is not placed in doubt; wherefore there is no reason to doubt that it was built long ago for Saint ^B Thessalonica, and that the veneration of the Saint among the Thessalonians did not die out, as will become clear from what I am now about to say. Among the churches taken from them by the Turks, there existed the metropolitan or primary basilica of the eternal Wisdom of God, which, as you will easily understand from the words of John Cameniata given in number 84, and others contained in the public instrument transcribed above in number 88, was consecrated; in the place of this, the Thessalonians, as it seems, built another metropolitan or primary church, and this—which is proof that their veneration for our Saint had not entirely died out—they consecrated to Saint Demetrius. Certainly, Lequien, with whom other writers agree, affirms in *Oriens Christianus*, volume II, column 27, that the primary church in Thessalonica is now consecrated in the name of Saint Demetrius; and there is no doubt that this sacred edifice is distinct from the ancient one mentioned above, since the latter has now, according to what has been said, been converted into a Turkish shrine. But to proceed at last to another matter that remains to be mentioned here, there also existed—and this is a further sign of the singular veneration of the Thessalonians for Saint Demetrius—another sacred building, not indeed in Thessalonica, but not far from this city, as the fourth chapter of the third book of the *Miracles* makes credible, although the time when this was done is not expressed. And indeed, as regards the fountain whose waters those who washed themselves, having invoked Saint Demetrius, would not infrequently recover lost health (see the cited place, *Miracles to be published*), it was built and was accustomed to be frequented much by the Christians while they still possessed things in Thessalonica; but whether this pious custom has now been totally abrogated, the sacred place perhaps having been occupied by the Turks as well, I do not know for certain. ^C

§ VIII. When the miraculous ointment first began to flow from the tomb or body of the Saint, and what else is to be believed regarding this sacred pledge.

94. That the miraculous ointment has flowed from the tomb of Saint Demetrius at Thessalonica in ancient times, by a stupendous miracle ascribed to the merits of Saint Demetrius, there is no doubt. For this is attested to by not a few writers, who, because they either saw the thing with their own eyes or certainly heard it from trustworthy witnesses, ought not to be suspected by us here. But from what time that miracle first began is not equally certain, nor is the time when the body of our Saint, at which this prodigy occurs, happened to be uncovered. I have therefore decided to examine these two topics in this present §, as well as several other things that pertain to that sacred pledge and which it is appropriate for readers to be taught. But before I do this, it is my pleasure to bring forward here the leading ancient writers who speak of the prodigious ointment of Saint Demetrius, which is beneficial for healing diseases, beginning with the more ancient ones. ^D

^A John Cameniata, who flourished in the tenth century and described the siege, the capture, and the destruction of the city of Thessalonica by the Hagarenes in the year 904 (page 184 of the Cologne edition, published in 1653), calls Saint Demetrius "myroblyte," thereby not obscurely signifying that the ointment, which is called *myron* in Greek, oozed or flowed from his body or at least from his tomb.

95. John Scylitzes, who flourished in the eleventh century, expressly affirms that oil or ointment flowed from the sepulcher of Saint Demetrius in Michael the Paphlagonian’s time. Anna Comnena, who flourished in the twelfth century and transmitted to posterity the deeds of her father, Alexius Comnenus, in the work she wove together and entitled the *Alexiad*, is no less clear; in book II, page 60 of that same work, she writes: "In which (city of Thessalonica, of course) the illustrious temple in the name of the great martyr Demetrius is to be visited: where the ointment flowing from his venerable shrine performs daily healings in those who approach him with faith." Nicetas Choniates, who departed this life in the year 1205, in the *Annals* written by himself, graphically describing the crimes of the Sicilians at Thessalonica when they captured this city in the year 1185, reveals at the same time that from the sepulcher of Saint Demetrius an ointment or oil had flowed in great abundance; it is manifest. For thus he has in the same place, in *Andronicus Comnenus*, book 1, number 9: "Nor were they moved by the miracles wrought by them through whom Christ rewards them, in whose limbs they themselves had held honor; so that the ointment which boils up from the monument of the most renowned martyr, they poured into pots and cauldrons, pouring it onto their shoes, and misused it for other services for which oil is used, rashly and wickedly. Truly, however, as it came forth from an inexhaustible fountain, or rather poured out from an abyss, it flowed more abundantly, and surged in a new manner, so that the barbarians themselves wondered at this one thing, and stood amazed at the grace divinely granted to the martyr."

96. John Cantacuzenus, who, after abdicating the reins of empire in the year 1355, spent his old age writing the history of events achieved by himself and others, in his own arrangement of this work, book 1, chapter 53, and likewise in book III, chapter 9, honors and adorns Saint Demetrius with the title *myroblytos*, that is, *myroblyta*, or an ointment-dripping [saint], while making mention of his temple or repository in Thessalonica. Others of the Greeks besides the aforementioned John Cameniata do the same, yet in such a way that there are others among them who, although they do not indeed call him *myroblytos* or *myroblyta*, they nevertheless do so with *myrobletos*, which amounts to the same thing, or with a title signifying the emission of oil or ointment, affecting their nomenclature from the Greek words *myron*, oil or ointment, and *ballein*, to send or to emit. Moreover, as I have added another writer above to those already lauded, ^A who spoke most profusely about the ointment or oil which prodigiously dripped from the body or tomb of Saint Demetrius, I will add John Anagnosta, a Greek writer of the fifteenth century already praised above, who committed to writing the destruction of his native Thessalonica, which had been besieged and captured by the Turks in the year 1429. In a short work which he composed to describe that mournful event, at which he himself had been present—which is published in the latter volume of Leo Allatius’s *Symmicta*, page 355 et seqq., although he had already adorned Saint Demetrius with the title of *myroblytos*, that is, *myroblyta*, or dripping ointment, in the same work on page 327—he records in the interpretation of Leo Allatius: "What, furthermore, would you say of the *myrothecium* (that is, the ointment-casket) of our trophy-bearer and martyr (Demetrius)?"

97. "Neither did they preserve that from the excess of fury, those who had raged against us like untamed beasts; yet for the same reason, not for the reason that other sepulchers built by us have been opened and cast down, and the remains of corpses lying in them dispersed over the earth: for in those, the Turks found money deposited by the citizens, the reason for which has already been told, and for that reason they almost all opened and overturned them; but this one [they attacked] for a double reason, both on account of the gold and silver and precious stones and gems surrounding it, and on account of the divine ointment providing health. For some despoiled it only for the sake of the ornament; others, envying us the abundance of ointments and wishing to deprive us of the health that follows from them, so that in the future no such medicine would be available to us when there was need. Therefore, having cast down the marble slabs laid over it, they exhausted the ointments with no small effort, and attempted to extract the martyr's sacred and divine body. They thought, indeed, to attain their purpose and to reduce us to a lack of the inexhaustible ointments. Nevertheless, the lust they had rashly proposed to themselves did not have an end. And so, for many days, the ointment was drained with both hands, and to some it seemed clearly ridiculous; but those who were wiser than the others were concerned to carry it to their homeland, and to handle it with reverence and religion. For they had heard from experts that it was much more effective than the medicinal drugs themselves for any diseases whatsoever. Nevertheless, they could neither dry up nor exhaust the fountain of ointments, although they strove ^B contentiously and for a long time; and deservedly so... for human efforts do not exhaust what God bestows upon those worthy, just as they are not subject to the same limits."

98. And these I have deemed it principal to produce here as testimonies of writers concerning the ointment or oil which dripped from the body or tomb of the Saint; but there is no one, I suppose,

^A who would be so bold as to assert that this began to produce such prodigies by the flowing of unguents or oil from the holy body or tomb. For since John Kaminiates, as I have already shown, flourished in the tenth century, and he certainly testified that the holy Myrobletes [Oil-flower] was already so named, and that in the same tenth century the unguent or oil was dripping from the tomb of the holy Demetrius, it is not to be doubted; but whether the title was not applied to him for the first time, and whether the author, as he appeared to flourish then, attributed it to the Saint—that the oil or unguent was even then dripping ^B prodigiously from his body or tomb from the ninth or even the eighth century, I would not easily believe. But can the beginning of this miracle be established? It can indeed, and it also ought, if one trusts the labors of John Stauracius, which are of such a character as I described above, regarding the miracles wrought by the holy Demetrius. For the Greek writer, whose words, along with the context, I have translated into a Latin version in our codex †195, page 73, writes as follows: "The great Emperor Justinian summons us concerning the holy Demetrius. He did not calculate how to possess the scepter of the empire in any other way, unless he might have something of the Demetrian relics accompanying him, or rather acting as his vanguard."

99. ^C The letters and demands of his were brought to the ears of the Thessalonians, a part of the holy and venerable remains was requested. The city is perplexed by the request, and is vexed by the situation; yet they yield to the entreaties of the emperor as those who have come with sincere faith. And so, those who were sent for the purpose of preparing the holy sarcophagus and were otherwise engaged, for how could such an immense flood of myrrh escape the scrutiny of the holy treasury? They applied their whole hands to it, and perhaps a finger or an arm, or some other part of the holy body, they snatched away with as much speed as they could, so that the abyss of myrrh gushing forth from the martyr might ^D not overwhelm them.

"Justinian the Great Emperor calls for us. Even here he judged that the scepter of the empire would not be secure, unless he could take with him the relics of Demetrius, or rather, unless he could obtain them for his battle. Therefore, the Thessalonian city receives the letters and the demands, which it could hear, from the one claiming the martyrs. The whole city resists and bears it with difficulty; but eventually, by the request of the emperor, as though they were yielding to sincere faith, they are swayed and approach; those who gather to the left side of the martyr's shrine begin the work; for indeed, who could inquire into the treasure of the martyr, such being the abundance of the unguents? They applied their own hands to it, and perchance a finger or an arm, or any other part of the martyr's body, they snatched away with such speed as they were able, lest they be overwhelmed before the duty assigned them was fulfilled," does not record. And yet it seems that a place for this prodigious spring already existed even then, so that a later age would think that the unguent, which was equally or even more salutary for the healing of diseases than that which was affected by the miracle only for a pleasant odor, was sent to Justinian in the place of the requested relics. It follows, certainly, that the place where the sacred body of the holy Demetrius lay, in the church dedicated to him in Thessalonica, could not but have been most well-known, if from it, or if you prefer, from the Saint, which it enclosed, the body continually dripped a great quantity of unguent.

100. What, therefore, should be determined regarding John Stauracius, since he was from the time of the Emperor Justinian I, who is adorned by some with the title of 'Great,' and who died in the sixth century, in the year 65, he who reports that the unguent or oil was already dripping from the tomb or rather the body of the Saint, and indeed in great abundance, as has been recounted in those words? Indeed, there are those who think that even then, from the body of Demetrius, the unguent or a small or great quantity was dripping—a matter very dubious, to say the least. For John, the Archbishop of Thessalonica, in book 1 of the *Miracles*, chapter 5, brings forward the epistle to the Emperor Maurice, in which he demands a portion of the relics of the holy Demetrius; and to Eusebius, who was archbishop at the end of the sixth century, a letter was written, which he previously had requested of the Emperor Justinian, and for which the portion of the relics of the holy Demetrius had been requested, yet that request was obstructed by the miracle soon to be mentioned, and thus he excuses himself from fulfilling the request of Maurice. Truly, even if at that time they believed that the earth of the place, where the holy body was thought to be buried, contained the sacred relics, and that it had been excavated, Eusebius commemorates it in the said letter, but does not mention even a word of any unguent or oil, which at that place and at that time, from the body of the Saint, would have been dripping. But it seems very unlikely that a matter of this kind, to such an extent, if the sepulcher of the Saint had been famous, would not have been mentioned, if that place had already possessed it, which would not have been done in the praised epistle, in which he brings forward not a few things about that sepulcher, or rather, about the place where the sacred body of the Saint was thought to be reposing.

101. Moreover, those who were searching for the body of the Saint and began to dig the earth, and were compelled to desist from the work because fire and earth burst forth upon them prodigiously, the same Eusebius reports in the said epistle, and he adds that the earth, which had smelled ineffably fragrant, had been drawn from the fire, and that Justinian, who had received it and the body of the Saint itself with joy, had been sent it in place of the requested relics; but he does not remember that the unguent or oil, and the holy body or tomb which dripped prodigiously, was sent to Justinian in the same way, which is what the same John Stauracius claims had been in demand.

102. It is, however, certain in the first place that, because Eusebius, Archbishop of Thessaloniki, had narrated in an epistle already cited more than once that an attempt had been made by certain people to seek out the body of Demetrius, it resulted—not in the place where the holy body of the Saint lay, but where ^A it was thought to lie—in the fact that, later on, because not even to John, the most often cited Archbishop of Thessaloniki above, who nevertheless flourished after Eusebius, was the determined place where the Saint lay known within the church, in the sacred city named after him, as that very writer of the first book of the Miracles, chapter 5, bears witness. His words, from which it will emerge more clearly that at the same time the burial place or location where he lay hidden in his church in Thessaloniki was not known, even with Eusebius, the Archbishop occupying the Thessalonian see, I transcribe here from the Greek into Latin. They are as follows: "Since, however, always, and especially during the time of idolatry, those who worshipped this city, beloved by God, were careful and most constant lovers of the martyrs, for fear lest the bodies of those crowned by martyrdom might be surrendered to the fury of the idolaters, they hid them secretly and mysteriously in the earth, so that even up to the present time, of those who underwent martyrdom here, there is known not a single one, except the sacred burial place of the most celebrated and holy virgin Matrona, in which they were deposited." ^B

103. But now, since even up to the age of John of Thessaloniki, the determined place in his church where our Saint lay hidden was entirely unknown—as the recited words of this writer make certain—how can it be known with certainty by what reason, either then or even before that, a healing unguent or oil for the curing of diseases could have dripped from his tomb or body? Or perhaps it was by tradition, begun from the very age of John of Thessaloniki or even earlier, or from documents, either written or otherwise, by those who had flourished in that same age of John of Thessaloniki or even earlier, or who had heard the matter from their elders and transmitted it to posterity? But by what tradition or documents can it be considered certain that the unguent, which from the age of John of Thessaloniki or even earlier is held to have dripped from the body of Saint Demetrius, could have had its origin at that time, if the determined location where that sacred pledge lay hidden was completely unknown, just as John of Thessaloniki shows it to have been? For it appears very difficult to me to grasp, and consequently it appears that I cannot bring myself to believe that the oil or unguent, salutary for the curing of diseases, dripped from the Saint’s tomb or body, or even before that, up to the age of John of Thessaloniki or even before that. ^C

104. But truly, you will say, John of Thessaloniki in the first book of his Miracles provides these things, from which it appears that it had dripped from our body even from the age of this writer, nay, even before that. For in the same place, chapter 1, near the end, he introduces Marianus, who, as is clear from what was said above, flourished long before John of Thessaloniki, speaking to Saint Demetrius, or rather imploring his aid for the recovery of health: "Pour out upon me the healing that is given to you," and a little later: "Pour out upon me your mercy and your compassionate healings." To these, in the fourth chapter of the same book of Miracles, he writes as follows about Demetrius at the beginning: "But this victorious martyr is not honored by the healings of bodies alone, but also," etc. I confess that John of Thessaloniki mentions these things in the cited places; however, from the texts adduced, it does not seem to be concluded that, already from the age of John of Thessaloniki or even before it, an unguent or oil, salutary for the healing of diseases, had dripped from the body or tomb of Saint Demetrius. Since the Greek word *iama* signifies not only a medicine, but also the effect of the medicine or the healing, the first of the three witnesses adduced is translated into the Latin language in this way: "Pour out upon me the healing grace granted to you by him," the second thus: "Pour out upon me your mercy, and your compassionate healings," and finally the third thus: "But that martyr, adorned with beautiful victories, abounds not only in the healings of bodies, but also," etc. ^D

105. Nor, although we may grant for the moment that the Greek word *iama* in the cited texts signifies what the Latin word *medicamen* or remedy does, will it be a necessary consequence that John of Thessaloniki intended to indicate the miracle of the unguent or oil dripping from the Saint’s tomb. For why, through "medicines," both in the two earlier texts and in the later one, might he not have understood the very intercession of Saint Demetrius, or rather his aid, or the assistance granted to the needy by the patronage of the Saint? By either of these ways already designated, or at least by another, whereby the miracle of the unguent dripping from the Saint’s body is not proved, it is clear from the fact that this writer, since he did not know the place in his own church of Thessaloniki where our Saint lay hidden, also did not know that the unguent had dripped from his body, and therefore not only did he not make mention of this miracle in the adduced texts, but he could not even have done so. And thus, everything I have said having been weighed, surely not yet up to the age of John of Thessaloniki, let alone before it, the unguent

^A or oil flowed from the Saint’s tomb, or from his body—it seems very likely, not to say undoubted. But at what time, then, shall we determine this wonder to have first begun? We saw above that the temple of Demetrius in Thessaloniki was consumed by flames not long after the death of John of Thessaloniki, or as the seventh century was ending, and that another was built in its place. What if, therefore, when this new building was being erected and the earth was being dug up in various places for this purpose, the sacred body of Demetrius was first found or detected, and at the same time the oil or unguent, salutary for the healing of diseases, began to flow from it?

106. It does not seem to me entirely unlikely, though for this reason I would not dare to hold it for certain, because the anonymous author, who continued the dissertation of John of Thessaloniki on the miracles of Demetrius, and who flourished, as I taught above, either as the eighth century was ending or the ninth was beginning, makes no mention anywhere in the miracles performed under the patronage of our Saint, which he narrates, of an unguent flowing prodigiously from his tomb or body. Indeed, in book II, chapter 3, of his own dissertation or published Miracles, he calls the temple of the Saint *iamatophoron* (healer-bearing); but since the word *iamata* can signify healing just as much as a remedy, as I have taught above, it cannot be argued for certain that he meant to make obscure mention of an unguent flowing prodigiously from the tomb of the Saint merely from the epithet *iamatophoron* given to the church of Saint Demetrius by the aforementioned anonymous writer, since it is known that the word signifies both healing and the remedy or cure that brings it. Since this is so, even if it is likely that the oil began to flow prodigiously from the Saint's tomb from the beginning of the eighth century or even as the seventh was ending, it is nonetheless by no means certain and undoubted. Hence, furthermore, and from other things I have discussed above from John Kaminiates, it follows that while it is certain that the unguent, or oil, salutary for the healing of disease, flowed prodigiously from either the body or the tomb of Saint Demetrius from the ninth century, perhaps it flowed only from the eighth or seventh. And let this suffice for having discussed this great and continuous miracle; now, because frequent mention of the body of Demetrius has been made in the present passage, it is fitting to set forth a few things that remain to be said about it, so that things which are in some way connected are not treated separately.

107. And first of all, that the place, ^B where it lay hidden in the church dedicated to the Saint in Thessaloniki, had been unknown for a long time, and was not discovered before the seventh century was ending or the beginning of the next, is evident from the testimony of John of Thessaloniki alone, transcribed here in number 102. But truly, you might say, according to the Metaphrastic Passion of the Saint, Leontius, the prefect at the beginning of the fifth century (as appears from what was said above), having already built a church to Saint Demetrius in that city, and intending to seek Sirmium, had decided to receive a portion of the sacred body of the martyr, and was turned away from this purpose by the Saint appearing to him in a dream. I confess, it is so. However, it cannot be certain from this that the exact place where our Saint’s holy body lay was known to Leontius; for besides the fact that that plan of Leontius is not mentioned in the Anastasian and Photian Acts of the Saint, Leontius could have had the intention, even if he did not yet know the place where the sacred relic lay, of hoping that it would be found by himself once he had made an excavation. However that may be, one must stand by John of Thessaloniki rather than the Metaphrast and the anonymous author—from whom the latter took his own material—the biographer of Demetrius, and consequently, whatever these others may write, I am led to believe that the body was not discovered before the seventh century was ending or the beginning of the next. And that was done then, at least probably, but certainly—as it is easy to gather from what was said above—no later than the ninth century.

108. But further, to proceed to another matter, did this sacred relic always remain thereafter among the Thessalonians in the church sacred to the Saint? In the *Life of Saint Lietbertus*, Bishop of Cambrai and Arras, on June 23, the day on which he is honored, and published in our work, chapter 5, where the journey of this bishop to Jerusalem is described, his author ^C Radulphus records for memory thus: «Having set out (namely, Lietbertus) for Dalmatia, and having traveled through those places where formerly Diocletian, by building baths, had brought various tortures of death upon the martyrs of Christ, he turned his course toward Isauria. Passing by, he arrived at Corinth, and there, hearing that the body of the holy Demetrius, famous among martyrs, was resting, he sought his tomb, and with the whole affection of his mind sought divine aid through his merits.» Saint Lietbertus, Bishop of Cambrai and Arras, flourished in the eleventh century, for he was removed from the living in the year 1076, as can be seen in our work under the said day of June; wherefore, if Radulphus reports truly in the words recited, and intended the whole body of Saint Demetrius to be understood, it is necessary that it no longer rested at Thessaloniki in the eleventh century, but was translated thence either in this very century or even earlier to Corinth, where Saint Lietbertus visited it. But our Henschenius, in his annotations to the recited words of Radulphus, suspecting some ignorance in this author—who, moreover, incorrectly records in his memory (for he did not perform it there, but in Rome) that Diocletian, intent on wearing out the martyrs with labor, built the baths in Dalmatia—concerning the places indicated in the text transcribed here, whether the body of Saint Demetrius had been ^D

^A translated to Corinth, as I promised for this day, the 8th of October, will be clear. In Paris, in the small church which is said to be dedicated to Saint Dionysius in the Passu, and situated after the church sacred to the most holy Mother of God, some hold that certain sacred relics of Saint Demetrius are preserved, as Baillet affirms in volume III of his *Lives*, col. 115; but since this writer speaks there only in a doubting manner about this matter, and brings forward nothing, if you except the cult offered to Demetrius there, by which he might establish it, it remains for me, in order to show that it is in some way likely that the relics of Saint Demetrius were communicated to other churches after the eleventh century or even sooner, to have recourse to other arguments. That the bodies of six saints—namely, the martyrs Theodore, Demetrius, and George, and the confessors Florus, Basil, and Solomon, king of Hungary—were discovered in the year 1653 under the particular altar of the cathedral church of Pula in Istria, is proven in our volume VII of September in the historical account of the Blessed Solomon, hermit and formerly king of Hungary, on page 848, from authentic documents; and on the following page there is also brought forward a public instrument, from which it is certain that those six bodies were deposited under that altar by Lord Michael Ursini, Bishop of Pula, in the year 1487.

111. Since, however, the martyr Demetrius, mentioned in those documents, is joined with two other most famous martyrs—namely, Theodore on the 7th of February and George on the 23rd of April—who are honored with an ecclesiastical cult, and both of these, as the things we have discoursed upon regarding those two days demonstrate, are wont to be considered patrons or protectors ^B of Christians in war, no differently than our own saint, the Thessalonican martyr Demetrius, it seems quite likely that the discourse in the cited monuments is made concerning no other Saint Demetrius the martyr than this one of ours. Since this is so, it seems equally likely that the holy relics of our Saint are preserved at Pula in Istria, or at least were preserved there at the time noted in the aforementioned documents. But shall we say that this is the entire body of the Saint, or only a part of it? Since it happens not rarely, nay, most frequently, that relics which constitute only a part of the body of any Saint are designated by the name of the body, even in authentic documents, and since it has been possible to find nowhere anything to persuade us that the entire body of our Saint was ever removed elsewhere ^C from Thessalonica, it seems more likely that those who drew up the above-mentioned documents took a part of the body of Saint Demetrius, mentioned there—or, as it appears likely from what has been said, our own Saint—for his entire body. Furthermore, the same must be said regarding Gelenius, who in his *Cologne Supplication*, Supplement number 4, page 164, attributes the body of Saint Demetrius to the Benedictine monastery of Siegburg; for the same reason, if by chance there is talk there of our Saint, it must be said, as also of whatever other writers or documents there may be, in which the body of our Saint is ascribed to some determined sacred place. ^D

§ IX. How remarkable was the veneration of the Saint at Constantinople, and by the Emperors of the East themselves, and how ancient it is.

112. How remarkable was the veneration of the Saint at Constantinople, and how it was formerly held in affection by the Emperors of the East themselves, and in their court, becomes evident even from the ceremonies of the Byzantine court alone; not the least of which is set forth in the books published at Leipzig in the year 1731. For in book 1, chapter 21 of these, the author explains that the Emperors, with the court, were accustomed to honor the annual feast of Saint Demetrius with a solemn procession instituted for this church. I shall therefore transcribe the whole of it here. It is thus: "On the day before the Lord's Day, the provosts indicate that the entire senate should come forth the following day with ^A the *alloximis*; but in the morning, around the second hour, they order the provosts to enter. This being done, with a few chamberlains, the Pope (the *papas* in Greek, or [*pappas*], as Cangius notes under the word *pappas*), the palace guard, and the *hetaeriarch* depart, and bring the Patriarch with the metropolitans and the rest of his officials. He enters through the portico of the *trichonchos* (the three-conched hall), which is near the *pantheon*, and sits down. The provosts having entered, report his arrival to the Emperor, who rises, enters the chamber of Saint Theodore, puts on his tunics, and having gone out beyond the veil of that chamber, stands there. Meanwhile, the provosts bring the Patriarch, whom the Emperors kiss the most, and for a little while they sit with him in the golden triclinium; and when everything is arranged, the provosts enter, and report the request to the Emperors, who immediately rise with the Patriarch, and having gone out with the customary rite through the *tripeton*, the *Lausiacum* (hall), the *Justinianum* (hall), the *scyla* (staircase), and passing through the outer ^B porticos of the *Marciani*, they make for the oratory of Saint Peter, which is situated there."

113. It must be known that, as the Lords proceed with the Patriarch from the golden triclinium, before its silver doors the eunuch *protopatharii*, the *logothete* of the public courses, the *protototarii*, and the highest ministers of the golden triclinium stand near the clock. Furthermore, all those who come out from the bronze door to the *Lausiacum* hall, receive and accompany the lords, with the *manclavitæ* and chamberlains. Inside the *scyla*, or at the extreme end of the *Justinianum* triclinium, the magisters, proconsuls, and officials are present, and as they pass by, they bow to the ground and adore the lords. They, however, as was noted above, go to Saint Peter's, where the Patriarch enters the sanctuary, and after the solemn prayers have been performed, the chanters begin the *troparium*. The Patriarch then ^C proceeds from the sanctuary, holding the holy Gospel in his hand, to the imperial doors of that same oratory, with the subdeacon carrying the processional cross before him. The Lords receive candles from the provosts, and having knelt three times, they pray to God; then they kiss the Gospel and the cross, and while the deacon censes, the Emperor, having knelt before the Patriarch, departs from the temple. It should also be noted that from the procession proceeding from Saint Peter's, the choir sings a *troparium* of the martyr, which Leo, a most wise and excellent Emperor, composed, up to the words: *Latens natus es* (Hidden you were born); and upon the entry into the golden triclinium, they recite the *troparium* of the dedication, namely: *Grace to you, Christ God, glory of the apostles*.

114. The Emperor, having then departed from where he had gone, proceeds through the middle of the golden triclinium, and goes out with a procession through the eastern ^D gates, while in the meantime the magisters, proconsuls, patricians, and officials, and the region of the temple of Saint Demetrius, stand on the left side, and the chamberlains stand in the eastern part of the *Solarium* with the Patriarch in the atrium of the temple, and after the solemn rites of the dedication have been performed, the entrance is made. The Patriarch enters the sanctuary, the Lords pass through the middle of the church, and as they go out, they stand in the *tetraseron* (four-pillared hall), which is there, to listen to the reading of the Gospel. Afterwards, they proceed through the silver *Macron* (long hall) or the oblong portico, and they put on their tunics; having entered the golden triclinium, they hold a council, and shortly thereafter dinner is given. On this day, they invite the Patriarch, the metropolitans, and whoever else they wish, to the banquet. For with great solemnity, the feast of Saint Demetrius was celebrated annually by the Emperors of Constantinople in their court, as described here, with the ceremonies performed in the golden triclinium or in the palace, during the commemoration of the Saint, as he proceeds to the church of Saint Demetrius.

115. But what was that church of Saint Demetrius? Codinus, in *On the Offices of the Church and Court of Constantinople*, chapter 15, writes of it in this way: "In memory of Saint Demetrius, the Emperor built the venerable monastery of the Palaeologi, which is known by the name of the aforementioned martyr." That the Palaeologi Monastery, to which they were accustomed to go annually on the 26th of October, was consecrated to Saint Demetrius, Pachymeres also mentions in his second volume, book iv, chapter 12. I hardly doubt that the church of this Palaeologi monastery is one and the same with the church mentioned just now in the Byzantine court ceremonies, which Bardas Caesar is first said to have built, and to which the monastery was later added. The matter shines forth more clearly in what is to be said.

In Banduri, *Empire of the East*, volume 1, an anonymous writer concerning the *Antiquities*, or as others call them, the *Origins of Constantinople*, who, as the praised Banduri teaches in the preface to that volume, flourished in the middle of the twelfth century, having compiled works mostly unpublished before, and having premised them himself, writes in volume 2, no. 68: "The church of Saint Demetrius, which stands above the walls, was built by Bardas Caesar, the uncle of Michael, whom he killed near Saint Mamas, having already been made Caesar, while he was undertaking an expedition to the East together with Michael, having been cut limb from limb in the sight of Michael, who had been born of his own sister. For he was the brother..."

of the Empress Theodora, who was the mother of Michael. Bardas Caesar was killed at the order of the Emperor Michael of this name the third, in the year 867; and consequently the sacred building, which the anonymous writer described above teaches us by the cited words that he had built for Saint Demetrius, must have been built in the ninth century, when about half of it had already passed. And that it stood in that very corner of the city of Constantinople where the Acropolis is located, on the eastern side of the same city—as is understood from Du Cange in *Constantinopolis Christiana*, book 1, page 44 et seq.—must undoubtedly be a fact, as is evident even from the fact that Ducas calls that place ^A *Magni Demetrii Acropolim* [the Acropolis of the Great Demetrius], the name having been accepted from the nearby temple of Saint Demetrius, in the history composed by him, chapters 38 and 39.

116. But a very intricate and difficult question arises. For Constantine Porphyrogenitus, in *Basil the Macedonian*, chapter 54, where he lists some sacred buildings restored by this emperor, includes also the building sacred to Saint Demetrius in the following words: "He also rebuilt, as they were suffering from age, the sacred buildings of Saint Anna in the Deuteron and of the holy martyr of Christ, Demetrius." Du Cange, however, calls into doubt in *Constantinopolis Christiana*, book IV, page 122, whether this sacred building—which Scylitzes also records on page 588 as having been restored by Basil the Macedonian—is one and the same with the one we mentioned above from the anonymous writer of the antiquities, or *Origins*, of Constantinople; and indeed not without reason. For, just as that writer correctly notes in this place, Cantacuzenus in his *History*, which he compiled, book III, chapters 6 and 9, posits that the building sacred to Saint Demetrius was located within the very palace, or imperial residence, of the emperors of Constantinople. In the former place he writes thus: *Καὶ πρὸς τῷ ναῷ τοῦ μεγαλομάρτυρος γενόμενοι Δημητρίου, ὃς τῶν βασιλείων ᾠκοδόμητο ἐντός* ["And when they were near the temple of the great martyr Demetrius, which had been built within the palace"]; and in the latter he provides the following words: *Καὶ πρὸς τὸν ἐν Βασιλείοις τοῦ Μυροβλύτου τοῦ μάρτυρος γενόμενος ναόν* ["And when he had come to the temple of the Myroblyte martyr, situated in the palace"]. But now, if the sacred building of our Saint mentioned here by Cantacuzenus was different from the building sacred to the same, which existed in that very place where the Acropolis is, there was indeed reason for Du Cange to call into doubt whether Basil the Macedonian restored this one or that one.

117. But let us examine the matter. Anna Comnena, *Alexiad*, book XII, page 361, mentions a sacred building existing in the imperial palace of Constantinople, which, although it was designated by many—or rather, as the Greek words sound, by the common people—by the name of the great martyr Demetrius, had nevertheless been erected in the name of the Mother of God. Soon, however, the aforementioned Scylitzes and ^B Constantine Porphyrogenitus—the former on the page just cited, the latter in *Basil the Macedonian*, chapter 55—record that the building for the most holy Mother of God was constructed in the palace by him; wherefore it is necessary that this one—unless perhaps one wishes to suppose that two buildings dedicated to the same Mother of God were in the palace, which seems little likely—is the very one which, although as Anna Comnena teaches from what has been said, it existed in the palace as sacred to the Theotokos, nevertheless was designated by the common people by the name of Demetrius; and it must be the same as the sacred building of the Saint which Cantacuzenus places in the palace, unless perhaps one wishes to suppose, contrary to what seems likely, that two buildings distinguished by the name of Saint Demetrius existed in the palace. Furthermore, the aforementioned Scylitzes and Constantine Porphyrogenitus, who, as I have just shown, record that the building for the Mother of God was built in the palace by Basil the Macedonian, also record that shortly before doing so, the building sacred to Saint Demetrius was restored by this same prince. Wherefore, since they most manifestly distinguish this from that—which, as I have also shown, was accustomed to be designated by the name of Saint Demetrius by the common people—it is a corollary from all that has been said that the building sacred to Saint Demetrius, which they write was restored by Basil the Macedonian, was situated outside the palace, and consequently was distinct from the building sacred to Saint Demetrius which Cantacuzenus places in the palace. But you will say that the oration or homily, mentioned more than once above and beginning with these words, "*Εφη ὁ σωτήριος λόγος*" [The saving word says], which I have attributed in § 21 of this Commentary to Leo the Wise, Emperor of the East, was delivered by him at the time that the building for Saint Demetrius was consecrated in the imperial residence or palace, as the title prefixed to it, being composed as the words cited in number 5, gives credence.

118. But now, since Leo the Wise is the son of Basil the Macedonian, and succeeded this father of his—by whose desire he had been crowned emperor as early as the year 870—in the year 886, it seems most likely that the building sacred to Saint Demetrius, in whose consecration he delivered the mentioned oration or homily, is the very one which Porphyrogenitus and Scylitzes, in the places cited above, record as having been restored by his father, Basil the Macedonian, and consequently that this is none other than the one which is established in the palace or imperial residence by the words cited above from Cantacuzenus. Thus, it can be argued against the opinion by which we established, from the things already said, that the sacred building of Saint Demetrius, restored by Basil the Macedonian, was outside the palace. Truly, the writer who prefixed the title to the said homily or oration in the manuscript once in the Mazarin library, which appears to have been written in the twelfth century, perhaps noted that it was delivered when the building for Saint Demetrius was being consecrated in the palace, because at the time he was writing the aforementioned manuscript, or in the twelfth century, that sacred building was accustomed to be distinguished solely by the name of Saint Demetrius. Furthermore, in order to reconcile this with the writer of the title in question, Anna Comnena—who likewise flourished in the twelfth century and notes that that sacred building, though accustomed to be designated by the common people by the name of Demetrius, was dedicated to the most holy Mother of God—

and hence, that the author of the title, intent upon transcribing only the lucubrations prepared by him concerning this Saint (see no. 3), might have made mention of it as if it were sacred to Saint Demetrius, while omitting the name of the Mother of God, which he perhaps perceived at that time was used by only a few to designate that sacred place. Whatever may be argued from the title which the oration or homily cited in the Mazarine codex bears, it remains certain that this was not the sacred building of Saint Demetrius which Scylitzes and Porphyrogenitus record as having been restored by Basil the Macedonian, but another, which had been built within the palace to the Mother of God and which, as Anna Comnena affirms, the common people nevertheless persisted in distinguishing by the name of Saint Demetrius. Thus, it remains clear that the sacred building of Saint Demetrius which Basil the Macedonian restored was situated outside the palace, and for this reason is distinguished from the sacred building of the Saint which Cantacuzenus posits to have been in the palace.

119. But what, then, is the sacred building of Saint Demetrius that is distinguished both from the building mentioned by Cantacuzenus and from that which was restored by Basil the Macedonian? It is none other, as it appears, than the one which was built by Bardas Caesar in the place where the Acropolis stood, as we have already shown. For this building, no less than the other, existed outside the palace, as what is now to be said will show. It is clear that the church of Saint Demetrius, which the emperors were accustomed to visit annually on the feast day of this Saint, as I have shown above, was situated outside the palace, even from the words alone in which their path to that sacred place—customarily taken with great solemnity—is described and which I transcribed above from the book of the ceremonies of the Constantinopolitan court. For it is asserted that the emperors, in order to visit that temple of Saint Demetrius, were accustomed to go out from the gates of their palace. Now, since these transcriptions provide proof that the palace gates existed on the eastern side of the city, and that the church of Saint Demetrius built by Bardas Caesar was also located there, it appears most likely that this sacred place is the same as the church which the emperors visited with solemn supplicatory rites every year on the 26th of October, and that it, therefore, like the other, was situated outside the palace. Furthermore, since it is recorded by Codinus in the words cited above that the emperors of the East were accustomed to go every year on this sacred day—that is, the 26th of October—to the monastery distinguished by the name of Saint Demetrius, and since the same emperors—as the words transcribed above from the ceremonies of the Constantinopolitan court provide proof—were accustomed to proceed with solemn supplicatory rites to the said temple of this Saint, which was situated outside the palace gates, on the feast day of Saint Demetrius, it seems hardly open to doubt that both Codinus and the aforementioned Ceremonies, or rather the book written on these matters, are speaking of the same sacred place.

120. Since this is so, and since the temple which the emperors were accustomed to visit on the feast day of the Saint, ^A furthermore, seems—unlike the sacred building situated in the palace or its precincts—to have had attached to it, as is understood from the words of Codinus, a monastery (the church of which was built by Bardas Caesar, and which, as I have already shown, was not distinct from this temple but situated outside the palace), it must be stated that this was the case. Now, since the church of the Saint which Basil the Macedonian restored was likewise situated outside the palace, as I showed above, it appears most likely that it was not a different sacred building of Demetrius than the one which had been built by Bardas Caesar, but that it was the one built by Bardas Caesar that was restored by Basil the Macedonian. Nor may you object that the buildings of Saint Demetrius, which Basil the Macedonian restored, are called "ruinous" in the edition of Leo Allatius, and "suffering from old age" in the other text which Combefis provided after Theophanes among the Byzantine historians; for these denominations could not apply to the sacred buildings of Saint Demetrius built by Bardas Caesar, seeing that—as I showed above—they had been erected only about the year 850, and in the time of Basil the Macedonian, which had elapsed not yet fifty years after the same buildings were erected, this could hardly be consistent. For even if this were so, in the Greek text of both Scylitzes and Porphyrogenitus, if the Greek words in which this is conceived are accurately explained, it is held only that Basil ^B the Macedonian either made the buildings of Saint Demetrius new from old ones, or founded new ones in the place of the old. And these are the things which I have thought necessary to bring forward in order to show both that the church of Saint Demetrius which Basil the Macedonian restored and the one which was accustomed to be visited by the emperors with solemn rite on the feast of Saint Demetrius annually, are distinct from the sacred building of Saint Demetrius which Cantacuzenus posits to have been in the palace. Moreover, Du Cange, to turn the conversation to another matter, in *Constantinopolis Christiana*, lib. IV, page 122, seems to incline to the view that the monastery which was added to the temple built by Bardas Caesar received its name from Andronicus the Younger, who was of the lineage of the Palaeologi, by whom it was built or restored. For he writes about that monastery in the same place: "I would believe it was perhaps either built or renovated by Andronicus the Younger, who from boyhood honored Saint Demetrius with the highest veneration, on account of the aid primarily granted to him by this divine Saint during the Thessalonian expedition, as Cantacuzenus narrates, lib. I, cap. 53."

121. This, indeed, which Du Cange affirms here, in the place cited. Cantacuzenus narrates—or rather, he adds in the same place regarding Andronicus, when he had already occupied Thessalonica—that Andronicus had been miraculously healed without delay from an inveterate and dangerous wound which he had received in his foot, when he had decided to anoint it with ointment flowing from the tomb of Saint Demetrius, thus recording for memory: "The arrangements which pertained to the custody of the (Thessalonian) citadel, the emperor, at the holy house of the martyr Demetrius"

^A processed, at the same time to venerate him (since he honored him from childhood more than other martyrs, and placed more hope in him than in others, and loved him intensely) and at the same time to render thanks to him for the happiness offered (in occupying Thessalonica, to be sure). Having performed both, since he could not be cured of a wound in the conflict with the Persians by the physicians who had tried many remedies in vain for fourteen months; but because he was little by little wasting away and was being tormented by intolerable pains, he prepared to smear himself with the holy unction of the Saint, reflecting thus with himself, that what human art and study could not do, that God could grant for the sake of his holy martyrs. Once the bandages were removed and the foot laid bare, that cloth was taken which is placed upon the wounds (O what care and providence God has for honoring his martyrs!) and it appeared outside the wound; but the foot was so healthy that no trace of the wound or of any scar remained, and it would remain unknown whether he had ever been wounded at all. Having seen this miracle, the emperor exulted more than upon the acquisition of Thessalonica, and he gave greater and more fervent thanks for this benefit; and the whole city, having understood the work that was so admirable to him, chanted many praises to God and to Demetrius, by whom he had been healed.

122. So far Cantacuzenus. However, although not perhaps the benefit which Du Cange mentions, but another, bestowed upon Andronicus the Younger by Saint Demetrius, is handed down in the recited words, yet the monastery, which was said to be of the Palaiologoi, may have received its name from the emperor himself as being sprung from the Palaiologos family, which appears to me quite doubtful. For since from boyhood, as the transcribed words of Cantacuzenus attest, he had been a prince who stood out in veneration of Saint Demetrius, together with his dedication to other martyrs, it can easily happen that this peculiar affection for the Saint was instilled into him by his parents, who perhaps had drawn it from their ancestors. Since this is so, it can also easily happen that it was built long before the age of Andronicus the Younger or the fourteenth century, among these whom, as one can see in Du Cange in the *Familiae Augustae Byzantinae*, page 230 and following, it excelled in wealth and authority; and that our Saint's monastery, named for that reason for the Palaiologoi, although it may have been restored in the meantime, cannot be indubitably affirmed or denied by any foundation. Be that as it may, it is manifest from all that has already been said that our Saint existed in great veneration among the emperors of the East themselves, and was honored by them with quite distinct devotion. But from what time those princes began to honor Demetrius in this way? What was mentioned above at the beginning of this section, and subsequently regarding the work on the ceremonies of the Byzantine court, ^B either removed by Constantine Porphyrogenitus in the year 959 from the living, or, as it appears more likely, by Constantine the Second, the grandson of Porphyrogenitus, who surrendered the reins of the Eastern Empire to death in the year 1028—having held them to him in the year 1025—the proofs in the Preface, which has that prefixed to it, clearly evince that it was commended by letters; wherefore it is indubitable that it began to obtain, certainly no later than the tenth century or the beginning of the following one, the custom in Constantinople that the emperors should venerate Saint Demetrius annually, betaking themselves to the temple sacred to him in the Acropolitan corner of the city for ceremonies expressed by the words of the numbers 112 and the two following, recited from that work on the 26th of October.

123. That this custom, since it was from around the middle of the ninth century, as those things I have brought forward above clearly show, the aforementioned temple of the Saint was built, and perhaps it already obtained from that same ninth century. It appears almost indubitable that Demetrius, in this very century and the following one, and even sooner, was held in great veneration, and was honored by the emperors of the East themselves in Constantinople by the usual homage paid to the saints. But I will treat of this matter after I have brought forward some things that prove the veneration of the Saint by those emperors who were later than the tenth century. Glycas in his *Annals*, published at Basel in 1572, part IV, regarding Michael, emperor of the East, the fourth of this name, when he was suffering most severely from an adverse illness toward the end of his life, writes thus: "Michael, when he was being harassed worse day by day by an evil spirit, sent two gold coins to each of the priests and one to the monks in every region and island, though with vain effort, because the evil was increasing and the disease of dropsy was approaching. For this reason, the emperor set out for Thessalonica and lived there, and was assiduously occupied at the sepulcher of the excellent martyr and victor of contests, Demetrius, so that he might be freed from that evil." Zonaras and Cedrenus also record the same of the same emperor for memory, the former indeed in his *Compendium of Historiography*, page 744, the latter in his *Annals*, vol. II, page 239; but when this emperor, whom, or rather while he still held the reins of empire—the Thessalonians had gained a signal victory over the Bulgarians through the help or patronage of Saint Demetrius, as Cedrenus relates in the work cited, page 748, in the words to be recited in the *Analecta*, which I will subjoin to the three books of miracles to be published—exchanged life for death in the forty-first year of the eleventh century, the fact that he was continually reverting to the help of Saint Demetrius, so as to be freed from that most grievous disease, is an argument that our Saint was in great veneration in that century among the emperors themselves, or at least among Michael, the fourth of this name.

124. Nor does it appear likely that it was relaxed in the three following centuries. And first indeed, insofar as it pertains to the twelfth century...

the 1166 Novella is proof that the Emperor Emmanuel Comnenus, who governed from the year 1180, decreed that during a portion of the festival of Demetrius he should abstain from legal proceedings, in veneration of this Saint. ^A But as regards the fourteenth century (for nothing occurs in the thirteenth century that I can mention by name), that Demetrius was honored then even by the Emperors of the East themselves is evident both from those things related earlier regarding Andronicus the Younger, who finished his life in the year 1341, and from the words of George Codinus transcribed here above, by which this writer of the fourteenth century teaches that, in his age and therefore in the fourteenth century, the Emperors were accustomed to betake themselves at their solemn rite of supplication with their court every year on the 26th of October to the monastery of Saint Demetrius, or the church sacred to this saint, to which the monastery, called by the Palaeologi, was annexed, being dedicated to the cult of our Saint.

I now proceed to those things which show that the veneration, customarily paid to saints, had been exhibited to the Saint even before the eleventh century. Pelerin, in his *Miscellanies of Various Coins*, published at Paris in the year 1765, lib. 1, at page 222, shows a plate, among various others, in which various coins are represented, the twelfth in order, whose coin, distinguished by the numerical note 13, displays on the obverse side the Emperor Constantine, and on the reverse side Saint Demetrius, having his name inscribed on it, not Δημήτριος, but according to the custom then introduced among the Greeks, where Eta was wont to be pronounced like Iota, and it displays him with a spear inserted into his right hand, because he consummated his martyrdom pierced by spears; but he adds that there is reason for us to think that the emperor who caused that coin to be struck is none other than Constantine VI, who, together with his mother Irene, restored the cult of images, which had been abrogated by Constantine Copronymus and Leo the Isaurian, his predecessors.

125. Such is the opinion of that writer; although, as he himself confesses shortly after, the opinion which is expressed here is by no means certain, it nevertheless appears probable enough; and hence ^B it is likely that even from the eighth century—an age when Constantine VI and his mother Irene were already flourishing—the Saint was in supreme veneration among the Constantinopolitan Emperors, if, however, you exclude the Iconoclasts. And these are the things which I have found worthy of mention regarding the veneration which the Saint had among the Constantinopolitan Emperors in the eighth century. But as regards the century next following, or the ninth, it is certain that even then Demetrius was not held in slight veneration at Constantinople, or among the Emperors of the East themselves; the temple built for him there in about the year 850 by Bardas Caesar, as I showed above, is a very strong argument for this. I come to the tenth century. The Saint was held in great esteem and veneration by John Zemisces, who ruled the Eastern Empire from the year 969 until the year 975.

It appears plausible that this was also true, but before I prove this, some things must be premised, lest anyone by chance be led into error concerning the amount of veneration paid to the Saint by that Emperor. Cedrenus in his *Compendium of History* records that victory over the Russians was achieved by the same Emperor with Saint Theodore, leader and martyr, helping him; I transcribe these words, which he uses, because although they do not strictly pertain to our Saint, they nevertheless conduce to an understanding of the matter being discussed here, and of the veneration which Zemisces had for the Saint.

126. They have this: "That battle also divinely brought help to the Romans: for a storm arising from the South fell upon the faces of the Scythians and hindered them, so that they could not act at their own pleasure; and a man on a white horse was seen by the entire Roman army, who entered the battle as a leader and threw the ranks of the enemy into confusion, a man known neither before nor after. They said that it was Theodore, one of the most beautiful of the martyrs who have achieved victories. Indeed, this Emperor was accustomed to use these as his constant advocates and standard-bearers against the enemy, and the day on which this battle was fought was a feast day for the memory of that Theodore, the leader of the army. But a certain venerable woman at Constantinople performed a sign of faith, for it appeared as a divine vision. For on the day before this, she had appeared in her sleep to the Mother of God, and heard her saying to a certain soldier: 'Lord Theodore, that man of mine and yours ^C John is in danger; hasten to bring him help'; and she had narrated this dream at first light to her neighbors. Truly, the Scythians were routed in that battle, and when they felt themselves shut off from the gates by Bardas, they were scattered in flight across the field, and innumerable men perished, partly trampled by each other, partly cut down by the Romans, and almost all were wounded. The Emperor, referring his thanks for the help provided to the martyr Theodore, demolished to its foundations the temple in which he was buried, and built another most magnificent one, and gave it property bearing ample revenues, and named the city in which it was, Euchaneia Theodori-polis." Our Bollandus also recounts these words of Cedrenus in his *Commentary*, in the *Acts of Saint Theodore, Leader and Martyr*, preceding the day of February 7, on which he is honored, and then, after some things have been interposed, subjoins in num. 28: "What we reported above from Cedrenus, that Zemisces was always accustomed [to have], as advocates and standard-bearers against the enemy, the holy martyrs—whom they call 'πρόμαχοι and πρόβολοι' [champions and defenders], decorated with beautiful victories—the fact that the rite of the *flammula* [small banners] which Codinus mentions in chapter 6 might perhaps be derived from this; or, if it is more ancient, it certainly confirms the piety of that most religious emperor."

127. Codinus says that the liturgy is performed, or even only Vespers on a Saturday or Lord's Day [is] chanted, [and] those nobles who are the masters of ceremonies carry small banners, or φλάμουλα. There are

among these was the first archistrategos, or the image of Saint Michael; the second, an octapodion, having many divine images of the sacred pontiffs; the third, a cross having the images of the four great martyrs Demetrius, Procopius, and both of the Theodores; the fourth, representing the holy knight George; the fifth, the Draconteum; the sixth, showing the effigy of the emperor seated on a horse. They are all in pairs, that is, twelve in total. From this, one might believe that among the holy martyrs, celebrated for their beautiful victories, to whom John Tzimisces was accustomed to turn for auspices and as leaders against the enemy—as "champions and protectors"—Cedrenus, according to the words recited, reports that Saint Demetrius is also to be reckoned; but the matter is otherwise. For Bollandus wants those holy martyrs whom Tzimisces used in war as his auspices, and not others, to be those whom Cedrenus, on whose authority he leans, designated; but he commemorates only the two martyr Theodores, namely those two more famous ones, of whom one is usually distinguished by the title of recruit, the other of general, as having been employed by Tzimisces for auspices and as leaders in war.

In order that the matter may be made manifest, the Greek text regarding this, which has not been accurately rendered into Latin, I translate here together with another Latin interpretation adorned by me. It reads thus: "And to all the Roman army, performing the role of champion on horseback, scattering and throwing into disorder the enemy’s phalanxes—a man previously unknown to anyone, whom they said was one of the gallantly victorious Theodores. For the Emperor was always using them as champions and protectors against the enemies; for it also happened that this struggle was joined on that same day on which we are accustomed to celebrate the memory of the general." So far the Greek words of Cedrenus; and now, the strict Latin interpretation that should be adapted to them: "A certain man had also been seen by the entire Roman army, on a white horse in front of the first rank, putting to flight and disturbing the lines of the enemy, a person not known to anyone before or after these events, whom they said was one of the Theodores, adorned with beautiful victories." For they said that it is always with these as auspices and leaders against the enemy that the emperor was accustomed to act, and it happened, moreover, on that very day on which we are accustomed to celebrate the festival of the leader (namely, one of the two of whom I have just spoken, the Theodores), that this battle was joined. Consider these words, and you will easily understand that only the holy martyrs Theodore, whom John Tzimisces used as auspices and leaders against the enemy, are being mentioned by Cedrenus, and therefore also by Bollandus. Truly, although this is so, our holy martyr Demetrius cannot be numbered among those martyrs whom John Tzimisces used as auspices and leaders against the enemy according to the words of Cedrenus, nor moreover can he be numbered among them by Bollandus, though it is clear beyond doubt that Demetrius was held in great veneration by the ancient protectors of the Constantinopolitan empire, and that this was the case even from the tenth century, if the use of those standards or banners was first introduced by John Tzimisces, or even earlier, if it had already been established before the age of this prince and only confirmed by him. That the one or the other was the case, and therefore that Demetrius was held in great veneration by John Tzimisces, seems probable to me, as it also appeared to Bollandus.

129. And I yield to this opinion the more readily because the Saint was considered a "symmachos," or assistant in wars, by the emperors of Constantinople long before even the ninth century or the age of John Tzimisces, the emperor of Constantinople, and for this reason he existed in great veneration among them, as you may infer from the fact that Maurice, who was emperor as the sixth century waned and the next began, requested from Eusebius, the archbishop of Thessaloniki, a portion of the body of Saint Demetrius so that he might experience his help in wars; and likewise Justinian I, who also flourished in the sixth century, before Maurice, did the same, as the fifth chapter of the first book of the published Miracles bears witness. Nor do we have this only from this source, but also that Justinian, when a part of the earth, which had miraculously absorbed an ineffable fragrance from the fire erupting from the Saint's tomb, had been sent to him (see no. 101) in place of the requested relics, received it with the greatest joy, no differently than the body of the Saint itself; which is a sign of no small doubt that he was held in the highest veneration by that emperor.

X. Ecclesiastical cult rendered to the Saint among the Latins and other nations for a long time already.

130. Leontius, prefect of Illyricum in the fifth century, as I said above, and verisimilarly in the beginning of his prefecture, who had built a church distinguished from the aforementioned for Saint Demetrius in Thessaloniki, had gone from that city to Sirmium, a very famous city of Illyricum, and indeed since the age of Constantine the Great the metropolis of all Illyricum—before it had been divided into Eastern and Western Illyricum—and the seat of the praetorian prefect, and had also erected another church there to the Saint, in which he had deposited the relics of the same that he had brought with him from Thessaloniki, namely the chlamys, still marked with the blood of the martyr, and the orarium, or at least a part of it; Metaphrastes and along with him the anonymous author, whom he had here as his shining light, our Saint’s biographer, report this to memory at the end of the passions of Demetrius that he composed. But whether these two occasions

^A be as remote in time as they are from the truth—for both the one and the other [historian] was very likely absent from the matters in question—is a point that can be safely used to build faith? The Acts of the Saint’s church, whether Photian or Anastasian, and the church that Leontius built for our Saint Demetrius at Sirmium, are nowhere mentioned; yet there is nothing that might supply grounds to suspect that the account of the Metaphrast and his predecessor, who shines before him on this matter, is false. Therefore, since there is nothing that persuades me to deny faith to these two biographers of our Saint, and nothing appears from elsewhere to the contrary, I am led to believe that the church was in fact built for our Saint at Sirmium by the Illyrian prefect Leontius.

131. I am the more inclined to believe this because it is known that, at least by the eleventh century, a church sacred to Saint Demetrius existed at Sirmium, as evidenced by John Cinnamus, who flourished in that century and included the deeds of John and Manuel, who at that time governed the reins of the Constantinopolitan Empire, in his six books of History, published in Paris by the benefit of the press in 1670. For that writer, in book five, number 12, near the end of the work he compiled, records the following for memory: “The Hungarian nation often harassed the borders of the Romans (for thus everyone who was under the Emperors of the East is habitually called by Greek historians), and shortly before Alexius Comnenus began to rule, they captured Sirmium and, having stormed many Transistran cities, reached as far as Naissus. There, falling upon the bier of the holy martyr (namely, Procopius), they took away the whole body—for they thought it to be unburied, I believe—except for a single hand that had been removed; they went away, and having returned to Sirmium, they deposited it in the temple of the martyr Demetrius, which had formerly been built by him who governed the Illyrian prefecture. The emperor (namely, Emmanuel Comnenus) took it up, having been found there (in Sirmium, of course), and, as we have said, he restored the rest of the body to it.” Since the emperor Emmanuel Comnenus, who took the hand—which the Hungarians had formerly taken from the body of the holy martyr Procopius and deposited in the temple of the martyr Demetrius at Sirmium—and found it in that city and restored it to the remainder of that Saint’s body, is reported by Cinnamus as having died in the year 1180, and Alexius Comnenus, the second of this name, succeeded him only then, it is necessary that the emperor of that name mentioned first by Cinnamus—that is, the one under whom, before he had yet taken up the reins of the Eastern Empire, the Hungarians captured Sirmium and deposited the hand of the holy martyr Procopius in the church of the holy Demetrius—was the first of that name.

132. Therefore, since he began to rule in the year 1081, it follows that by the eleventh century a church sacred to Saint Demetrius certainly existed at Sirmium; a fact which is also an argument of some significance that the accounts given by the Metaphrast and the anonymous writer who precedes him—our Saint’s biographer—concerning the church built for Saint Demetrius by the Illyrian prefect Leontius at Sirmium are consonant with the truth.

^B Cangius, nevertheless, in his Annotations on the transcript of Cinnamus, seems to speak of the same matter—concerning which the Metaphrast and the anonymous writer who shines before him appear to speak—as will become evident from what is to be said below; from which [Annotations] one might perhaps doubt whether Leontius ever built a church sacred to Saint Demetrius at Sirmium. For he writes in the same place: “As for the temple of St. Demetrius mentioned here, it seems to be the one from which the town of St. Demetrius, situated on the banks of the Sava, took its name; it is today called St. Demeter, not far from ancient Sirmium. But that Cinnamus says that this temple exists in Sirmium, I think should be taken to mean the Sirmium territory; for ‘Sirmium’ is not once said to be the same to this writer. Indeed, Bonfinius (Dec. V, Book IV) mentions the town of Saint Demetrius in the extreme.” But if one must agree with Cangius, and the temple of Saint Demetrius, which Cinnamus mentions in the recited words, was situated not in the Sirmium city itself, but in the territory adjacent to it, it was a town which was equally situated in this place or not far from Sirmium, and which is called St. Demeter today, [and] he made of it [a] name afterwards. But these things do not please me at all; for although Cangius adds the proof that Cinnamus, in his statements, uses *Sirmium* only for the territory adjacent to this city, yet in the transcribed text it does not seem probable that the word was taken by him in that place, where he speaks of the relics of the holy martyr Procopius deposited in the sacred temple of Saint Demetrius there, having been returned by the Hungarians to Sirmium.

133. For in the same text, he says that the Hungarians, shortly before Alexius Comnenus assumed the reins of the Eastern Empire, not only captured many Transistran cities, but also captured Sirmium, and he undoubtedly uses this word not to signify the territory adjacent to Sirmium, but this very city itself; meanwhile, since this is so, and since writers are not in the habit of using one and the same word for matters that are entirely different—without providing any clear indication that they are doing so—within such a brief text, such as the one transcribed here above from Cinnamus, it appears very probable, not to say certain, that this writer also, in the place where he speaks of the relics of Saint Procopius deposited by the Hungarians in the temple of Saint Demetrius at Sirmium, uses the word *Sirmium* not to denote the Sirmium territory, but this very city itself. Furthermore, Cinnamus explicitly relates that the church dedicated to Saint Demetrius, of which he speaks in the text transcribed above, was built by him who governed the Illyrian prefecture, and he therefore makes mention of the same sacred church dedicated to Saint Demetrius which the Metaphrast and the anonymous writer—who shines before him, our Saint’s biographer—declare that Leontius, the Illyrian prefect, built for the Saint; these two writers, however, place it not in the territory that is adjacent to Sirmium, but in this very city. For besides the fact that Leontius, when

he had arrived, had built a temple there to our holy martyr, they clearly show that they do not know of calling the Sirmians' field by the name of Sirmium; they teach that this temple was situated near the church of Saint Anastasia, and it hardly seems plausible that in the Sirmium field or in some rural area at the time of Leontius, the Illyrian prefect, or in the fifth century, these temples existed, of which one was consecrated to Saint Demetrius and the other to the martyr Saint Anastasia. Nor is there any reason to object that the temple which was sacred to the martyr Anastasia existed in Sirmium, as only the Metaphrast and an anonymous writer ^A, who preceded him and was the biographer of our Saint, assert; for even if this were so, one must nevertheless agree with these two writers in this matter, or indeed it is apparent from this, that the relics of Saint Anastasia in the fifth century, or at the time when the church was built by Leontius near the other one which was sacred to Saint Anastasia, were in Sirmium, as the same writers relate, and that they existed in that city, just as it appears to posterity from those things which Theodorus Lector, book II, page 568 of the edition adorned by Valesius, records ^B.

134. Furthermore, as for what is said by Cangius about the site not far from the ancient town of Sirmium, which even today is called Saint Demetrius, and which received its name from the church of Saint Demetrius built there, the notes already looked at, and these regarding the site of the church of Saint Demetrius built by Leontius, the Illyrian prefect, and described by Cinnamus in the words recited above, confirm the opinion. For why not, when first a temple sacred to Saint Demetrius had been erected in Sirmium by Leontius, and another later, sacred to the same Saint of ours, which by its location adjacent to it gradually made it a town, could it have been built in the Sirmians' field? Certainly, since the town called Saint Demetrius, which is situated on the Sava, is cited above by Cangius as being mentioned in reality, and it still exists today, as it is found everywhere in modern geographic maps of Hungary and Slavonia, I am led to believe that the matter is truly so. From this, it follows that our Saint in Illyricum, which formerly ^C encompassed ancient Sirmium and the town named after Saint Demetrius, held not one but two churches consecrated to his name; and there should be no doubt that he was truly held in high esteem, if not throughout all Illyricum, then at least in Sirmium, where also, as mentioned above, the sacred relics of him which Leontius had brought thither were kept, and where he took pleasure in the town to which he gave his name, being held in ecclesiastical veneration, and Sirmium, which because of what has already been said about the church built there for him by Leontius, had already rejoiced in it from that age or the beginning of the fifth century; that this, however, long persisted there even ^D from the eleventh century at Sirmium, as I have already taught, it must be that the church of Saint Demetrius at Sirmium, built by Leontius according to what was said, was restored after that Hunnic slaughter, or—if it was nearly destroyed—was rebuilt in a new location, which thereafter, or at least another one built in its place, stood until the eleventh century.

135. Nor did the veneration of our Saint persist for long only in Sirmium, but it also spread further from there; for although, as I have already indicated, it may not have spread by chance throughout all of Illyricum, it extended with the passage of time throughout all Hungary and Slavonia, and in the territory adjacent here to Sirmium. For Demetrius is numbered by the native inhabitants of this kingdom among the patrons of Hungary, and every year, as such, he is honored by a double-rite office, just like the offices of the patron saints of the kingdom of Hungary, as printed in Vienna, Austria, in the year 1703, throughout all of Hungary on the 26th of October, which is sacred to him among the Greeks. And in the canonical hours which are set to be recited for him at that time, there are three lessons, namely the fourth, fifth, and sixth, for the most part compiled from his Metaphrastic Acts, where he has his own proper prayers, and also a proper oration, conceived in these words: “O God, who clarifies blessed Demetrius, Thy martyr, with signs of virtues, we beseech Thee, through his intercession, mercifully absolve us from all guilt, and from the evils which we deserve for them, through our Lord.” In the Mass, however, which is accustomed to be said for him at that time, and which has this introit: “In thy strength, O Lord, the just shall rejoice, etc.,” it is from the common of a single martyr, besides the oration already recited, two others, namely the secret and another which is called the post-communion, are presented to be recited, being entirely different from orations of this kind which are accustomed to be said in other Masses of the common of one or more martyrs, as the Masses of the patron saints of the kingdom of Hungary, printed at Trnava in the year 1735, teach me, regarding Saint Demetrius. And the first one, indeed, with these words: “May our offerings, O Lord, be rendered acceptable to Thee by the merits of the blessed martyr Demetrius, we beseech Thee, and may we ourselves be made a pleasing sacrifice to Thee.” The latter, however, consists of the following: “May the libation of the heavenly table purify us, we beseech Thee, O Lord, and by the intercession of blessed Demetrius, Thy martyr, may it profit us unto life everlasting.”

136. And thus, since he is honored and revered by the Hungarians as a patron, as I have just explained; now it is pleasing to offer a few things still about the time when this began to happen among them. In the Life of Blessed Margaret, a Hungarian virgin, for the 28th of January, on which day she is honored, published by us, it is narrated that Saint Demetrius, together with SS. Lawrence and Bartholomew, appeared in a dream to a certain nun who was suffering from a sharp fever, and warned her to act before the Archbishop of Esztergom regarding the conducting of an inquiry into the sanctity and miracles of the blessed Margaret, who was to be instituted; wherefore since from this, as the sanctity of this blessed virgin, who had already passed from life,

it may be seen ^A that she had been under the care of Saint Demetrios, it may seem plausible that he was held by her, while she was still among the living, in singular veneration, and that consequently his cult had prevailed in Hungary at least from the thirteenth century, when this same blessed virgin passed away. Furthermore, since it is evident from what was said above that Sirmium—where the Saint had already been venerated from the fifth century—was under the jurisdiction of the Hungarians long before the aforementioned time when the Blessed Margaret of Hungary migrated to the Lord, and that the thirteenth century had already begun, it does not seem at all unlikely to me that the cult of Saint Demetrios had already been held in ecclesiastical veneration among the Hungarians long before this. Thus I suppose that it often happened that the cult of any Saint who flourished in one city was propagated to other cities of the same kingdom within a brief space of time, and it should not seem doubtful that the cult of Saint Demetrios was propagated from Sirmium to other Hungarian cities, even if the intervening time, when this first occurred, cannot be defined quite precisely.

137. For although the Hungarians follow the rites and customs of the Roman or Latin Church, they are nevertheless accustomed to celebrate the feast of Saint Demetrios not on the 8th day of October, which is sacred to this Saint among the Latins, but on the 26th of the same month, which is dedicated to him among the Greeks; nor do they seem to have received this cult directly from the Greeks; it does not seem to have been done for any better reason than that, from those of Sirmium, who had received him from the Greeks—the rulers of their city long before the Hungarians—and had propagated the habit from Thessalonica, they accepted the custom of honoring the festival light of Saint Demetrios annually, not on the 8th but on the 26th of October. However that may be, as to whether these things can be defined with certainty, it is nevertheless certain from what I have discussed above that the cult of the Saint was propagated far and wide throughout all of Hungary. ^B Nor should it be held less certain that it had spread similarly to Bulgaria, which borders Hungary. And in fact, it is quite singular, as is related by Niketas Choniates in *Isaac Angelos*, book 1, numbers 4, 5, and 6, that in the year 1041 the Bulgarians, with an army of forty thousand soldiers led by Alusian, intended to bring the city of Thessalonica under their own power; but, terrified by the unforeseen rush of the guards through the open gates of the city, they were put to flight with a great slaughter of their own men, Saint Demetrios having been thought in the *Analecta*, which I shall subjoin to the published miracles of the Saint, and as I shall show in Cedrenus, to have gone before and fought openly for the city.

138. Furthermore, the Bulgarians, after this slaughter, were completely subdued by Michael, the fourth emperor of the East of this name, and remained peacefully annexed to the Greek empire until the time of Isaac Angelos, who began to reign in the year 1185. But this people, relying on the narrow places and many castles which it had built upon rugged rocks, then finally fell away. ^C The leaders of the defection were Peter and Asan, two brothers born of the blood of the ancient kings of Bulgaria, as the Gesta of Pope Innocent III, page 67, teach. These men, indeed, lest they seem to undertake new things without cause, met the emperor Isaac Angelos at Kypsella, from whom they foresaw that what they were about to ask would be denied, and requested that a small plot of land near the Balkan mountains be assigned to them, and that they be admitted into the Greek legions; but having suffered a refusal, as they had foreseen, they returned home and defected from the Greek emperor, and incited the populace to do the same; since, however, they found the people not sufficiently inclined to this—for they were mindful of their ancestors, who had been saved by the aid of Saint Demetrios, whom ^D this city had once received—notwithstanding that they had been goaded by the violence of the herds and the imposition of certain exactions, and were most grievously offended by the Greeks, I leave it to the words provided by the aforementioned Niketas Choniates to explain how they nevertheless were persuaded.

139. And so he has it there, no. 6: «When the Blachi (that is, the Bulgarians, or rather the part of Moesia federated with them) at first abhorred the attempt to which they were being induced by Peter and Asan because of the difficulty of the matter, the brothers, in order to remove the fear from their countrymen, built a temple in the name of the illustrious martyr Demetrios, and into it gathered many demons of both sexes, who, with bloody and furious eyes and dishevelled hair, expressed all other things in an exquisite manner, which this genus of people has as its own, and taught them in a state of fury: that it seemed good to God that the people of the Bulgarians and the Blachi, the daily yoke having been cast off, should obtain liberty, and for that cause the martyr of Christ, Demetrios, had left the metropolis of Thessalonica and the temple, and had come to them in the Roman manner to assist them in the work. Therefore, those witless men, after a little delay, and suddenly gathered in a greater spirit, were again alienated, and shouted with a clear voice as if inspired by divinity that there was no longer a place for sloth, but that they must seize arms and invade the Romans: and that those who were resisting were not to be preserved or sold, but were to be killed without mercy, and that prayers and payments were to be rejected, and they were not to be moved by any more entreaty than a diamond. The whole people, therefore, stirred by the prophets, ran to arms, and as they had initiated the beginning of the defection, they began even more to believe that God was favoring their liberty. Nor were they content to be diffused in towns and lands far from the Balkans.»

140. Truly, it is most singular, as I have already noted, to observe the deed of the Bulgarian princes, Peter and Asan, as related here by Niketas; and indeed, although in order to show that I do not approve of it, as they yielded to the counsels of Peter and Asan, it nevertheless demonstrates the veneration of the Bulgarians for the martyr, as one who was placed in such value by the Saint himself…

^A that they would have brought it to their own lands, as well as the fact that, when Peter and Asan, in order to draw their own countrymen to their side, were seeking aid, they thought to invent no other Saint for them than Demetrius, which shows that this martyr, even among the Bulgarians—when they had not yet been persuaded by Peter and Asan to take up arms against the Greeks, so that they might assert their freedom—was held in the highest veneration and held a firm cult; this appears very probable. Be that as it may, since I have no firm knowledge of who exactly he was, and thus nothing further occurs to me by which I might instruct the reader on this matter, I now turn the discourse to ecclesiastical cults paid elsewhere to our Saint.

141. Anastasius the Librarian, in the Preface which he ^B prefixed to the Passion of our Saint, which he composed for Charles the Bald (as noted in no. 14), speaks at the beginning to this prince as follows: "I have translated from Greek into Latin the sermon concerning the blessed Demetrius, the martyr of Thessalonica, his Passion and miracles, at the urging of my brethren, and especially the most learned John the Deacon, a man most renowned for the purity of his faith and the clarity of his knowledge; and this aforesaid John had in his house an oratory of this martyr of Christ of wondrous antiquity and beauty, though he did not know who this martyr was. I for my part, as I have investigated at Thessalonica, where his precious body exhales fragrance and shines with the splendor of miracles, made him known in order." This John, who was honored here by Anastasius the Librarian, was a Deacon of the Holy Roman Church, and as it appears beyond doubt, was staying at Rome; therefore, if the oratory of wondrous antiquity and beauty which he had in his own house was in reality, as this author indicates he supposed, consecrated ^C to our Saint, and was the oratory ^D mentioned in the recited words, it will be that even at Rome, and indeed earlier than the ninth century in which this same Anastasius flourished, he at least enjoyed an ecclesiastical cult. However, since two Italian martyrs, distinct by the name of Demetrius, one at Verulae and another at Ostia, are inscribed in the Roman martyrology, and Anastasius says nothing of which Demetrius he was speaking, nor from where he gathered that the one having the oratory in the house of John the Deacon was the namesake martyr of Thessalonica, and he does not lead me to it, whether it was our Demetrius or another saint of the same name, in reality existing at Rome in the ninth century or perhaps even earlier, being honored with a cult, I would not dare to assert for certain, relying only on the words of Anastasius, although in the meantime, seeing that this writer was a man not unskilled, and seems to have examined the things which he committed to writing with sufficient diligence, his account may be considered probable in some way.

142. For nearly the same reason, whether it was our Saint or another of the same name that ^A Charles, Bishop of Novara, speaks of in the first book of his studies which he titled *Novaria* (page 184) as follows: "There is honored (clearly in Novara) in the same church of Saint Julius also Demetrius the martyr on the 14th of May, and in it an altar was dedicated to him; but concerning the translation of whom I have nothing I can report," I think we should doubt that he is speaking of our Demetrius, and I rather believe he speaks of another Demetrius the martyr, if the people of Novara received the sacred body of this latter one on that day, 11 May, and hold it in the church of Saint Julius, or rather they contend that the entire body was at one time translated to them, or at least that they possess it today, or at least once did. The reason for which I think this—as I have argued that the sacred relics or body of our Saint were never moved, in any of their parts, from Thessalonica—will be easily understood by anyone who reads what I have discussed in number XI regarding the sacred relics of our Saint. Furthermore, I have no clear understanding that the church in Brittany ^B of Armorica, which is famed by the name of Saint Demetrius and is mentioned in the *Life of Saint Gildas* the Abbot which we published, on the 29th of January, the day on which it is celebrated (number 27), was dedicated to our own Demetrius. But that there is another church besides this one, built and consecrated to our Saint Demetrius, is undoubtedly the case, and here it also occurs that it should be mentioned.

143. A certain Cyprian, a bishop in Africa, ^C is mentioned (though, unhappily, with the location of his see nowhere indicated, as I noted in the second book of the *Miracles* to be published, chapter 6) as having been captured by the Slavs when he was seeking Byzantium for some business, and having fallen into harsh slavery, was set at liberty by Saint Demetrius, who appeared to him and offered himself as a guide for the road leading to Thessalonica. Having returned from there to Africa, in order to show his gratitude to his holy Savior, he built a notable temple and dedicated it to him, the holy martyr having again miraculously brought him aid. Furthermore, since the miracle, which the Saint performed for the sake of the aforementioned bishop, occurred in the ninth century or perhaps even a little earlier, as I will show in the notes to be placed under the same, it is absolutely certain that the cult of our Demetrius was propagated into Africa ^D at that time, and that it increased there with the lapse of time, which one may rightly gather from the very words by which the narrative of this miracle, summarized by Anastasius the Librarian, ends in Mabillon’s *Veterum Analectorum*, Volume I, page 95, in these following terms: "Through his prayers (that is to say, of Saint Demetrius), if any sick person should come with devotion to the same temple (which was built by the Bishop Cyprian, naturally), and should be anointed with the oil of his lamp, he will be instantly healed."

144. Therefore, regarding this church, which holds to its name...