[GREEK COLUMN] ...spiritual warfare, if you truly desire it, yet strictly according to the measure of our strength, and not with such compulsion and heavy mandates; for we know that we fall far short of what is demanded and what will be given. Or, if we are already worn out by such service and are disorganized, grant us a letter of release. And if you provide anything at that time for sustenance, let it not be reckoned as a wage, so that heavy services might be demanded of us in return, not so much because of need, as we suspect, or out of spite, but as a repayment for labors and toils formerly endured over long years. At any rate, let also a war-worn old age—which in honorable men is cherished on account of what has been achieved—not be sought out by your holiness for the A future as if we were being conscripted; so let your holiness not seek further to pass judgment upon this spiritual conduct. Order is good, prayer is good, piety is good, and each of the good things is good. But what are these to us who are tossed by waves due to the cooling of love, as the Lord said? So long as the boat is kept afloat, then the sailor and the helmsman must hasten toward the salvation of the one tossed by the waves; but when the sea has overcome it with waves and calamities, the effort is in vain. How we have arrived at our present state, our own huts will testify. At least we intend to report these things to our holy lord and emperor. And if his holy majesty discerns that we must suffer such things, perhaps we shall endure it even against our will; for to those who are unworthy of life and honor, even death is not unwelcome. But if we should be treated with any philanthropy, B thanks be to God, and thanks also to his majesty. Chapter of the accounts. How the Amogavaroi and the Turks passed by, and how they reached Cassandreia. [P. 453] But these things to such an extent [serve] for a moderate demonstration of the things that befell those of the Church.
[LATIN COLUMN] ...to God, and then we shall render what is due to the benevolent humanity of the prince. We gather the sum of what has been said herein: if you recognize us as sons of the Church having a right to share in the maternal inheritance, take care that the necessities are provided for us for the endurance and continuation of this spiritual warfare—in which we have long since been inscribed—but do not burden us further with arbitrary additional requirements. Do not impose more than we can bear; do not crush and depress our nobility into a shameful state of servile bondage by harsh commands and by lording it over us with a haughty expression. For we know well that the stipends that will be given will by no means correspond in due proportion to those things which we declare ourselves ready to provide; yet you should be content with these. But if you do not desire the continued labor of soldiers already weakened by age in these sacred camps, then let us go, provide a letter of discharge, and grant a good dismissal to those who have served out their time. If you add anything to those you are dismissing for us to live upon, let it not be accounted as a wage, from which the right might hang for you to demand the burden of further service from us, nor [afford] a pretext for you to think you may harshly impose upon us again services that are inappropriate—pertaining not so much to public need, as we think, as to our own indignity. But if you accompany those who are leaving with some gift, let it be a grateful remuneration of long-standing labors: for even a peace-weary old age, after a life of honorable military service, is considered by the judgment of lenient leaders to be deserving of an honorarium, in remembrance of struggles long since endured. ... We rightly spend the necessary care upon our bodies. Do not, therefore, desire to force us, who are creeping upon the earth with worldly concerns, to conform in all things to your institution of an austere life, which is sublime and far exceeds the measure of human nature; and when you weigh our cases in your absence according to these severe judgments, do not condemn us for negligence before you have taken into account the necessity [of our situation]. For be persuaded of this: we shall use, in the future as before, the necessary remission, however much we might expect to be punished by you for that reason thereafter. Therefore, if it is certain to you that you will have no compassion for our infirmity as you have heretofore, now draw the sword of judicial censure against crimes not yet committed; and let your holiness seek no other reason for condemning us now for the things which we will soon, inevitably, commit. Order is beautiful, prayer is good, religion is honest, and there is nothing among good things that is not commendable. But what are these to us, who are agitated by the fluctuations of a solicitous and needy life, because, as the Lord said, charity has grown cold? As long as the skiff floats, neither depressed nor broken, it is surely fitting that the sailor and the helmsman should be diligent and strive as much as they are able to secure the salvation of the one in danger. When the sea has overwhelmed the ship with waves, when life is already oppressed by miseries and absorbed into the deep, all contentiousness of those striving to save what has already perished would be foolish. To what extremity of evils and to what total indigence we have now finally come, our utterly emptied huts will testify, from which we are about to carry to our holy lord the emperor the last remains of poverty-stricken household goods, consumed by long famine, as a specimen of misery below which there is nothing. But if indeed his sacred majesty, having understood to what straits we have been reduced, judges us worthy to suffer such things after having weighed everything, we shall acquiesce in spirit—however much nature may resist—and we shall take in good part the lot that has fallen to us, the worst possible; for to those who are judged unworthy of life and honor, even death is not to be refused. But if, having shown some mercy, he sees fit to indulge us, let thanks first... [P. 453] ...Cassandreia into one another. It has seemed worth the effort to describe these things, that there might be even a small specimen of the hardships which were then suffered by the ecclesiastics under patriarch Athanasius. But for us, this course is now in the harbor, and other tasks call us: history...
A of those things we had undertaken to write—having arrived at an end—is now completed. Indeed, if we are to gird ourselves for another narrative of events, we hope—not despairing of obtaining our desire from divine goodness—that a happier and at least less mournful subject for our writing will be suggested to us than what has occurred thus far. And at this juncture of affairs, a certain change for the better was hoped for in the public fortune. If that should happen, we shall not withdraw our hand, but will promptly comply with the wishes of those who call us B back to the task, once begun, of committing to memory, to the measure of our ability, those things which we have seen that are not unworthy of being known by posterity. For it would be ignoble, and not consistent, that after we have voluntarily endured the weariness of consigning to record in these books such bitter things for the world, calamitous for the Roman Empire, and mournful for this city of ours and the Church, we should then refuse to touch upon more prosperous matters when they happen, even if not invited. May God, who easily can, change this tragic scene C and, by the turning of the wheel, at last bring back better times; we shall not delay to hasten to announce prosperous things to posterity—an abundance of which, one might augur, will not always be lacking to this age, from the persevering hope and long-suffering faith of the Emperor, whose spirit, not broken by adversities, confidently expects a change in the public lot, and strives with all his might to procure it, never sleeping, but struggling with all the effort of a noble virtue against D the hostile events encroaching upon us. At this time, certainly, some things were celebrated in reports as sufficiently joyful in contrast to the sadness of the past. For, on this side, about thirty thousand Tochari sent by Charmpantane to the Emperor’s aid had begun to cause a great fear—greater, indeed, than could have been reasonably hoped—among the Persians who were ravaging through Asia; and [those who were] struck by this not only restrained themselves from attempting new incursions and assaults, but also abandoned many places they had previously invaded and all the fortresses of the *Romans* they had occupied, hiding themselves within the inaccessible fastnesses of Mount Olympus, guarded by narrow passes and steep crags on every side. From the Western continent, it was reported that the Amogbari, having abandoned what they held, were crossing the Maritza river, with the intention of retreating through the regions beyond that river as quickly as they could into their own lands, as was heard; but as they themselves said, with the purpose of invading the city of Atho, situated on the mountain of the same name in Macedonia, if only they might happen to penetrate the dangers of the passes through which the journey there is necessary. And such were the things reported by rumor. However, they moved their camp from Aenos, and Romofortus with the Turks, Mpyrigerius with Pharenda Tzimes, and Gidas—though hostile to each other—nonetheless joined their forces and arrived at Cassandria in a common retinue. Having sat down there, because of the hatred they secretly harbored for one another, they turned their minds to devising plots against those they suspected, until their dissension erupted into open violence, and the factions engaged in public battle. For Romofortus, with his Turks, was nursing a hostile anger—not even well-concealed—against Mpyrigerius, Pharenda Tzimes, and Gidas; and they, in turn, did not sufficiently hide their desire to oppress Romofortus by surrounding him with traps. Understanding this, he decided to trust the outcome of the gamble of Mars and, in a perilous crisis of secret deceits, thought it better to be done with it once and for all by openly engaging in battle. This, too, succeeded according to his wish: he drove into his adversaries and won a full victory, so that Mpyrigerius fell in that battle, and Pharenda Tzimes was first ignominiously captured, then later released as a free man by Romofortus. Pharenda Tzimes, having despaired of the whole affair, like a wanderer and a captive, deserted to the Domestic at Xanthia; and this, having been barely known, was preserved. Those who had fallen into the hands of the others in the war, however, fell upon Romofortus, and thus he departed for Thessaly. But these things, as is pleasing to God, let them be carried forth.
A genteos with five excellent stoles. That the August Roman emperors were accustomed to honor those whom they pleased with precious garments is reported in the history of Alexander Severus by Lampridius, and of Probus by Flavius Vopiscus. That this custom once flourished in the Constantinopolitan court of the Oriental Caesars, besides what these passages of Pachymeres indicate, may also be understood from the practice of the Turks reigning there today; it is confirmed that they use such gifts of garments, as they are commonly called, in the receptions of legates or distinguished persons. Pachymeres, therefore, by writing that Andrew and Mpyrigerius were honored by Andronicus with *allagais*, means that they were adorned not once with gifts of precious and beautiful garments. I had written thus far when I happened to fall upon a passage of the Vatican paraphrast, by which it is declared that he held the same opinion as I concerning the power of the word *allaga*, since he expresses those words of Pachymeres, p. 5.12, *Tois men nauarchois ta ton anabolon, hos eiphon, pros basileos [P. 460] philotimoteron metemphiasto*, as follows: *The Genoese navarchs are honored by the emperor with allagais of bright garments*. So he; in which I do not rashly suspect that he indeed took the word *allagon* itself from these passages of Pachymeres which we are now treating, but that he strove to demonstrate what it meant in his judgment by the addition of the exegetical *bright garments*. Let it not be omitted in the end, that from this perhaps a more plausible derivation of the word *allagion* may be drawn than the one we hesitated to propose in our former Glossary. For what if we think *allagia* were called colleges or bodies of soldiers using *allag*, that is, a garment? Which fellowship could easily coalesce among armed men of the same nation. Certainly, that this was fitting specifically for the emperor’s *allagion* mentioned by name by Acropolita, or the *taxis*, which the same author puts as a synonym for that, will be thought most likely from the current use of designating, by a certain type of color, a distinguished habit, or a peculiar chlamys, certain ranks of soldiers addicted to the prince by that very name and by a singular choice. After all these things were written, I noticed another passage of our author pertaining to this, which see on p. 81.
*Allelendeta*, p. 93. Thus, the Barberini codex says best of all, while the Allatian writes *allellendekta*, but the Vatican *allellendota*, the latter more erroneously, the former closer to the truth. It is known that *deon* sounds like bound and connected, from *deo*, I bind. *Allellendeton* is therefore a mutual bond, so that it is equivalent to *alleloka* placed shortly before, a most fitting notion for the sense of the passage, as the sharp-eyed reader will immediately see.
*Amageireutoi*, p. 88. Who were called by this name in this passage, since it was necessary to divine in the silence of the writers, nothing occurs that I would say is more plausible than what I put in the interpretation, namely that those were so called who, after they had proven long service, were discharged B and moved to more specious offices, just as this Nicolaus to a bishopric, although he could seem to have been purged first by monastic profession, so that he might not bring hands sordid from the kitchen to the altars, and he brought a name taken from it, Neophytus, more honestly to the Prusensis cathedra. But although there is no indication of a kitchen of the Palace in the Greek origins, the thing itself nevertheless suggests to a prudent man the conjecture that such a sense ought to be understood, by the very fact that a kitchen is mentioned. For unless such a vile office by itself received some splendor from the principal house, it would be too obsolete and obscure to be correctly displayed in a public record. Besides the favor of princes, without which this Neophytus would not have been promoted to the bishopric of an illustrious city, it is easy to estimate that no other grace breathed upon him than the recommendation of secret service once spent on those reigning. The analogy is appropriate, that one who obtained a good mission from the services to be rendered to the emperor by the kitchen staff is called *amageireutos*, just as one who has obtained a good mission from the military is called *astrateutos*.
[P. 461] *Amogabaroi*, p. 393. This is the first mention, as far as I remember, in this history of the Amogabars, whom our author elsewhere, namely p. 416, thinks were so called because they drew their origin from the Avars or Avari, that is to say, from the northern peoples of Asia having their seats around the Caucasus. But that suspicion of the historian is plainly improbable: for what could the Hamaxobian Avars of Scythian genus have in common with these Catalans who set out from Sicily, whither they had previously passed from Spain? It could have seemed more plausible that these derived their name from a promontory of Tarraconensian Spain, which Ptolemy writes was called *Auarum*. I find in Mariana, bk. XII, c. 17, *Of the affairs of Spain*, that veteran soldiers of the Moorish race were called *Almogaraves* there. I believe that many of these, having been mixed with the Catalans sent as a subsidy to wage war in Sicily by his brother, the king of Aragon, and, peace having been made in the Sicilian war, came to Constantinople under the leader Rogerius Brundusinus, whom our author calls Rontzerius. And so, with the same license with which Pachymeres deforms Frederick into Theuderichus C and Rogerius into Rontzerius, he may have stammered in the case of the *Amogabari*, thus naming them instead of *Almogaravi*. That word has no doubt the character of the Arabic language familiar to the Moors. And so, the derivation of this word that the most learned man, and one most dear to me, Dominicus Magrius, suggests from the use of the native Maltese idiom and domestic knowledge is pleasing. He says that the Africans are called *Algharbi* in Malta, which word sounds "Western," because from the West, Malta looks toward Africa. But the particle *mo* is inserted between the first and second syllable of the word *Algharbi*, equivalent to the Latin preposition *ex*, as often as it is necessary to designate someone who has set out from Africa or another Western region: for such is the D [meaning thereof in that place].
Nor is it unbelievable that such an etymology for this name also took root in Spain; for it is certain that all the Moors crossed from Africa into Iberia, and from these Western parts extended their dominion, whence they could rightly be called *Almogharbi* there, or—the word having been distorted into a popular sound—*Almogabari*, or, as Mariana writes, *Almogaraves*, meaning Moorish soldiers coming from Africa and the Western regions. After I had written these things, I saw what our Peter d'Outremannus, in the notes to chapter 3 of his book on the ruin of the Greeks, relates regarding the word *Amogabari*. His words do not suggest that anything should be changed in what I have put forth above. Nevertheless, I thought I should indicate the passage to the diligent reader, so that if it seems appropriate to him, he may approach it and choose from all the options according to his own judgment what he finds more convincing.
B *Amphidromia*, p. 282. For it is not likely—and [the etymology] is a matter of custom for the author—that this passage, which anyone looking at the Greek will discover, is obscure, if I am not mistaken. To me, at any rate, it caused no little difficulty, insofar as, having weighed everything, I have extracted the meaning that the interpretation conveys. Moreover, the *archaiologia* is to be noted here in the word *amphidromia*, which our author borrows from his Hesychius, who writes thus: "Amphidromia is a day observed for children, on which they carried the infant running in a circle around the hearth, and set upon it (one should perhaps correct it to 'placed upon it') a name, and friends and relatives sent gifts." Suidas is somewhat more distinct, making this noun feminine singular; he says: "Amphidromia is the fifth day they observe for infants, on which those who have assisted with the midwifery cleanse their hands, carry the infant running around the hearth, and relatives send gifts, for the most part octopods and cuttlefish, and on the tenth day they give the name." C From this it appears that Pachymeres has endeavored to adapt the ancient ceremony to Christian rites; and perhaps he wished by this word to express the festival of baptism [P. 462]. I, however, leaving the divination of such matters to the conjecture of the learned reader, have been content to express the fifth day from birth, and to report that I have cited Suidas to teach that *amphidromia* is designated by synonyms which agree with it.
*Anagogos*, p. 537. The notion of the word *anagogos* which is used here must be recovered from Hesychius, in whom we read: "Anagogos: a rude, untaught person, one who has not received proper upbringing."
*Anaxagoreia chremata*, p. 150. "All things were turning and confounding themselves for the sake of the supposed precision, according to the *Anaxagoreia chremata* (Anaxagorean matters)." Thus two excellent codices, B and A, concordantly. The Vatican interpolator, according to his custom of skipping over obscurities, D has only: "And all things were turning and confounding themselves for the sake of the supposed precision."
Commentary
. Pachymeres intended in writing these things to follow the beginning of the famous work on the nature of things written by Anaxagoras, recited by Diogenes Laertius in his Life using these words: "All things were together; then Mind coming, arranged them in order."*Aposkiptein*. It is fair that mention should be made here of this word, which is nowhere else found in the collections of so many diligent word-collectors, and is among the less common items in this census; the passive infinitive of which our author uses when he writes thus, p. [661]: "before they were dashed against the wall of the city." It concerns huts of rustics torn away by a flood and swept off by a torrent. This word, which is generally written *skipto*, or sometimes written with a *pi*, has no obscure traces left in the words derived from it, *skipon*, which Hesychius explains as "a crutch, a staff," and *skorpion*, which the Latins snatched up long ago, calling it *scipionem*, a staff. And in fact the word itself, but increased with a *mu*, *skimpto*, is found more frequently mentioned in Hesychius: for in him is read *skimpei, it becomes angry, it leans, it falls upon*, and *skimpsai*, to be embedded, to be brought near; lastly, to pass over other things, *skimpthei, it will approach, it will draw near*. A "Good," says someone, "but the prefix *apo-* in *skimpthesthai* reverses the meaning to the opposite." To this I respond by readily confessing that *apo-* in the composition of words or nouns is indeed generally privative. Thus *apothesein* is "to shed leaves," *apaxios* is "unworthy," and there are six hundred similar cases everywhere. Among which it is pleasant to mention in passing the word *apartitokos*, most elegantly composed by the author of a most beautiful epigram described by the erudite Octavius Falconerio from a marble base recently unearthed and edited with his most learned notes. That base once supported a statue of Aesculapius, representing him as a newborn infant. Whence the first distich reads thus:
*The image of the child most fair of the divine* *Paian, the son of the unwed mother.*
*Apartitokon*, that is, one who has recently given birth—Nicomedes, the writer of the epigram, could not truly call the mother of the newborn Aesculapius this, since he knew she had never given birth, not being ignorant of the most common and most constantly believed fable, by which—whoever the mother of Aesculapius may eventually have been (for some claim he was born of Coronis, others of Arsinoe)—she is asserted to have died before she brought him forth, but the living boy Aesculapius was extracted from her womb, which was immediately cut open. Wherefore he is deservedly called "son of a mother who did not undergo childbirth," since she only conceived and formed him in her womb [P. 463], but never brought him forth into the light, death having anticipated the birth. There is, therefore, without doubt a power of negation in the composition *apo-*; but not always.
A For in the following lines the poet will say that Achilles *apomēnisas* (ceased his wrath), which is to say, laid aside his wrath; but here, when he says that he lay in the ships *apomēnisas* against Agamemnon, he signifies the persistence of the wrath. For the preposition *apo-* lies idle, just as when someone says *apomnēmoneuein charitos* (to call to mind a favor), from which comes also the word *apomnēmoneuma* (a memoir). And thus also *apantan* (to meet) is indifferent regarding *antan* (to meet).
I apply the teaching of this master to my own matter, saying that in this word of ours the *apo-* is empty, and the compound is of the same value as the simple form, unless the composition adds an emphasis of greater force, as when *piptein* signifies only "to fall," *aposkimptein* is "to fall heavily," that is, as we have translated it, "to be dashed against."
*Harmatophylakion*, p. 135. In an old arsenal. Whence are confirmed those things in the former Glossary which we noted concerning the notion of the word *harma* among the later Greeks; to which I add the testimony of the old Glossaries of Law, where it is read: *Harma* among the Greeks signifies a yoke of oxen, but among the Romans it signifies a *karoucha* (carriage) and a weapon.
*Augusteonos aulaia*, p. 196. He speaks of the gathering of an immense multitude that had filled the forum or square contiguous to the propylaea of the Temple of Saint Sophia, out of zeal to see the ceremony of the coronation of Michael B by his father Andronikos, whereby he was assumed as colleague in the empire. He says that the crowd gathered for such an occasion was *aulaia*, crowded with tightly packed bodies and artfully squeezing themselves together, which phrase both words are to be explained. Let us begin with the former. There seems to be no doubt that the forum is the same as that which Codinus teaches was called *Augustaion* by Constantine, when previously it was called *Strategion*. The words of Codinus are: "In the place called the *Strategion*, where military magistrates once used to receive their honors, he placed his own statue upon a stone column... and called the place *Augustaion*." Thus Codinus, according to the edition of Georgios Douzas in the year 1596. Meursius [p. 464], however, recites the same place differently, as it appears, under the word *Augusteion*, reporting from Codinus's *Origins of Constantinople* that this forum was called *Augusteona* C as derived from the name of the Emperor Augustus, being previously called *Gousteion* [sic], this *opsopōlion* (provision market) having been renamed *Augusteion*. It is from the same *opsopōlion* of which Procopius has this to say in Book I, *De Aedificiis*, c. 2: "There happens to be a square from/by the senate house, which the Byzantines call the Augustaion."
This is, from the interpretation of Maltretus: For the senate house is the forum, called by the Byzantines *Augustaion*. That this forum existed, as the narrative of Pachymeres demands, near the temple of Saint Sophia, is persuaded by those things which Petrus Gillius writes in *Topogr. Constantin.*, lib. II, c. 17, in these words: "Procopius declares that the forum which the Constantinopolitans call the *Augustaion* was situated before the imperial palaces and surrounded by columns. Now it has not only lost its name, but the forum itself does not even exist, almost entirely built over. The palaces have long since been destroyed. Nevertheless, that the *Augustaion* was where the fountain now is, not far from the corner of Saint Sophia verging to the West, I gather from the stylobate of the column of Justinian that existed a little while ago—which was removed by the Turks—which Procopius hands down that Justinian raised in the Augustaion forum, and Zonaras notes in the courtyard before the church of Saint Sophia." Suidas adds that Justinian, when he had founded the temple of Saint Sophia, had purged the courtyard and paved it with marble, and it was called formerly the *Augustaion* forum. Thus far Gillius. D Suidas, under the word *Augustaion*, mentions it. But he seems to be treating of a place in old Rome so called, namely, the Forum of Augustus. His words are: "It seems he wishes to signify that Constantine, striving to make the new Rome he was founding similar in all things to the old, created in Byzantium a likeness of the Augustan forum, of which he had long since seen the memory in ancient Rome, under the same name, and that he called the place—previously called the *Strategion*—the *Augustaion*, having erected there a statue of his mother Augusta." And hence perhaps the reason should be sought why Codinus and Procopius write this Constantinopolitan forum *Augustaion* with an *alpha*, but Suidas write the forum of ancient Rome with an *epsilon*, namely, because this took its appellation from the Emperor Augustus, from which according to analogy it should have been formed *augusteion*, but that one was denominated from Augusta Helena, and should have been written with an *alpha*. Be that as it may, that there were placed in this great forum of Constantinople by the Great Constantine, besides his own statue, also the statue of another, his mother Helena, Codinus also mentions in the place indicated above, in which it seems that in the succession of time it happened that first he honored his mother with her image erected there and the place named from her, and later wished that a sign also referring to himself should exist there. Furthermore, with the lapse of time it prevailed that the place previously called *Augustaion* was later, in the age of Pachymeres, vulgarly vociferated *Augusteon*, from...
the established state of the words of its own language, in which we collect it.
It remains to see what he calls *aulaias*. *Aulaia* is the curtain of the stage: the proscenium, the veil placed before the eyes of those acting in mimes. Besides this notion, Hesychius also adds another to this word, when he writes: *Aulala* living in it. Let us therefore inquire what *aula* may be; which word Zonaras and Suidas, cited above by Petrus Gyllius, use in the mention of this very place. Athenaeus (book 5 *Deipnosophistae*, p. 189, Commelin edition, 1597), being most accurately versed in the meditation of Aristarchus' verse, how rightly it may be believed concerning any recent scholar, however diligent. The illustrator of Athenaeus could have more elegantly blamed his interpreter, in that for the sake of translating the verse of Aristarchus into Latin, he used the Latin word *atrium* as equivalent to the Greek *aulé*. For the *atrium*, as Famianus Nardinius eruditely demonstrates in his *Roma antiqua*, had among the ancient Latins the notion of a place *hypaithros* (open to the air) and blowable by gusts of wind without the obstruction of walls, signifying of course a part of buildings protected on every side by the sides of walls and a ceiling imposed overhead. Whence Ausonius in *Mosella* fits a paneled ceiling to the *atrium*; and Apuleius, in describing the *atrium* of the royal Psyche, says its highest paneled ceilings, carved with citron wood and ivory 665, were supported by golden columns. But the use among the ancients also shows that a roof was attributed to the *atrium*. For there, according to Pliny (book 35, c. 2), Polybius (book 6), Juvenal (Satire 8), and others, images of ancestors were kept, which it is not likely were left in a place exposed to the injuries of the air. According to Servius on the first *Aeneid*, dining was done in the *atria*, to which a place under the open sky is, especially at night, inept. In the same place, according to the same Servius on the eleventh *Aeneid*, the senate was sometimes held. There, as Corippus teaches (book 1, *De laudibus Justini Minoris*), messengers of foreign nations were admitted by the emperors. Finally, there, as is evident from the concordant testimony of the evangelists Marcus, Luke, and John, a fire was kindled; whence Isidore also thinks the etymon of the word is to be sought, judging the *atrium* to be so named as if *atrum* (black) from fire and smoke. None of these things would comfortably occur in an open and gusty place. But these things are by the way. Let us return to the circle of our institution, and let us define what Pachymeres wished to designate with the word *aulais* in this place we are treating. Indeed, I do not doubt that he derived *aulais* from *aulē*, having already understood the expressed notion, and that he studied to indicate the area of the Augustaion forum under the open sky, namely the space outside the lateral porticoes on this side and that, in the middle pure and widely vacant, which the dense multitude would then fill.
664 Furthermore, the word *aulē* does not harmonize with buildings: for an open place swept by the wind is called *aulē*. The annotator of Athenaeus notes this passage, with a censure, if I am not mistaken, little worthy of his other critical acumen. He writes thus (book 5, c. 3): "These things Athenaeus: but how light are these things?... for what can one understand by *aulein* and palace?" And a little later: "On the contrary, we affirm that Homer called the *aulē* of Zeus the palace of Zeus. For we observe the most ancient poet to speak thus," [P. 465] "and which primarily makes to the point, the supreme imitator of Homer, Aeschylus, whose is that line in *Prometheus Bound*: 'As many as walk the *aulē* of Zeus'." So far Casaubon, whom I truly wonder to cite that very thing as an argument which uniquely cuts his case. Is it so, truly? From the fact that Homer and Aeschylus mention the *aulē* of Zeus, does it follow that they assigned to Jove another habitation than such as Athenaeus contends is expressed by the word *aulē*—unroofed and blowable by gusts of air? Or rather, from the nature of Jove, who is the Aether itself—according to that line of Ennius: *Behold this sublime, shining, which all invoke Jove*—from the nature of Jove, I say, let any prudent reader of Homer and Aeschylus understand that such a lodging is assigned to him as he himself is: without the sides of walls, without the summit of a roof, open on every side and blowable by winds. Who, reading in Virgil of "the aged homes of birds," or of Aristaeus admitted "within the currents of the Peneus river," and now wondering at the home of his mother and "watery realms," would submit to his mind buildings constructed of stone and cement for human use, with paneled ceilings, and not rather think the word "home" should be accepted in both places in accordance with the conditions of the things of which there is mention—birds in the branches of trees, Nymphs living under the waters? Indeed, I suspect from that, rather, that places which are simply open stretches of land, uncovered from above, are called *hyppaithra* (under the open sky), situated under the "cold Jove," because it is commonly thought that the habitation of Jove himself is of such a kind. Therefore, I see nothing in what is brought forward by Casaubon that moves me to deny faith to the ancient grammarian who taught the true meaning of the word *aulē*, who, as is likely, had a perception of the native property of the words of his own language, in which we collect it.
[P. 466] *Autoproskoptes*, p. 645. He acts regarding Patriarch Athanasius with the moroseness customary and innate to him, having no thought of offending everyone without distinction. The origin and notion of this word is to be divined, for I have not read it elsewhere. But from whence should I think more verisimilarly that it is drawn than from the word *proskopē* (stumbling block) of ecclesiastical use, most known from the epistles of Paul? (I Cor. c. 6): *Mēdemian en mēdeni didontes proskopēn* (giving no stumbling block in anything). From which the same holy apostle forms the appellative elsewhere, *aproskopos*. (I Cor. 10:32): *Aproskopoi ginesthe kai Ioudaiois kai Hellēsi kai tē Ekklēsia tou Theou* (Become without stumbling block both to Jews and Greeks and to the Church of God). That, therefore, Pachymeres means Athanasius not only did not take care, as he ought to have, lest he, while his action was aiming at something else, might also strike and offend even with good intent.
Blachicon*, p. 106. What Pachymeres writes here about the Blachic people A corresponds with what Anna Comnena had previously written in the *Alexiad* about the Vlachs: "The common dialect knows how to call these people Vlachs." It would be useful to see what we previously noted in our Glossary appended to the first edition of the *Alexiad* concerning them.
*Boēdromiōn*. Although Pachymeres always indicates the month of April by this word elsewhere, nevertheless, because of the reasons I adduced in Book II, Observation 6, n. 9, it must necessarily be said that on page 524 he designated the month of March by this name. Nor is it new for him 666 to vary in the nomenclature of the months: see what we note in this same Glossary under the words *Lēnaiōn* and *Maimaktēriōn*.
*Boutza*, p. 399. One asks what *boutza* means in this passage. I think it is the same as *boutzai* or *boutzia*, terms long ago explained by Meursius, namely, round wooden wine barrels, of which those emptied of liquor and covered with earth were frequently used in sudden entrenchments; which the Gauls today call *barricades*, because they call wine barrels *barricas*, or, as they usually write, *barriques*. In Italian, such barrels are called *botte*, a word approaching more closely the sound of *butzi*, the meaning of which it retains and is perhaps its origin.
*Glykys ankōn*, p. 44. In the explanation of this proverb, the grammarians disagree, having committed themselves to contrary opinions. Zenobius, cent. 2, n. 92, and the Anonymous Vatican, cent. 1, n. 55, and Eustathius [p. 467] at *Iliad* x, p. 791 (Rome ed.), argue that it is said by antiphrasis about a troublesome matter. Suidas judges to the contrary, cent. 4, n. 94, for he writes thus: "*Glykys ankōn* is not a proverb used by antiphrasis. But he who wishes to say [this], uses the sweet customs of Plato the comic poet in *Phaon*. An old man is subject to him, loving a flute-player, to whom he gave a golden wreath... O sweet elbow." Pachymeres, approaching with his easy nature of gratifiying anyone with anything, expressed the Bishop of Cyzicus's mind with this formula.
*Deixis*, p. 524. I looked for a long time at what *deixis* might be in this passage. Neither the common notion of "showing" or "ostentation," B nor the special sense that Plutarch notes (*Convivial Questions* 8, qu. 15), teaching that a certain species or part of an *orchēsis* (dance) is so called, has any relevance here. At one time I suspected that *deixis* was called a certain suburban field at Adrianopolis, in which Emperor Michael was then residing, having his army—as is usually done—stationed in the suburban camps, in a place called *deixis*, to which he might have chanced to go when the arrival of the Caesar was announced. Nor would the use of the preposition *ana* be out of place, which often equates to the Latin *per* and denotes the place through which one goes. Thus Homer has (*Odyssey* ξ): "*chōron an’ hylēenta*," through a wooded place, and elsewhere *ana straton*, through the army. Testimonies of other classical writers are readily available. But I did not dare to fix an opinion on mere conjecture until authority taught me that a place so named existed near Adrianopolis. One thing presented itself which I might follow not implausibly—to recognize in the usage of this word here something from the military discipline of later times. Indeed, the Franks, who had served for a long time in Asia for the sake of the holy war, call *montres* even today—as if you were to say "ostensions" (displays)—the census of the soldiers, such as are held by the supreme leader himself, king or emperor, on the occasion of paying each man his stipend, by which, of course, each soldier called by name shows C and exhibits himself. It is manifest, however, if one wishes to render the French word *montre* with a Greek term, that nothing more suitable would be found 667 by the name *deixis*. However, the matter itself fits the narrative most aptly, so that it might be said that the emperor went out from the city into the nearby camp for the sake of the military census and the payment of stipends, and was found there when the arrival of the new Caesar was announced to him.
*Defendeuein*, p. 175. *Defendeuein* is clearly put for "to protect, to shield, to defend." Nor does this verb pass from Latin into Hellas for the first time now. The Glosses of the Basilics explain *defendeuetai* as *echouseuetai*, *ekdikeitai*. But this is a judicial defense of patrons or advocates excusing the accused, or repelling by refutation the crimes objected against them by those [prosecutors]. Magis has here made the word *defēnsōre* clear in the same glosses: in this manner: "Those who follow after the *kourtōras*, that is, the champions, for their defense." Our author uses this verb elsewhere, namely: "...it was necessary to defend the houses of the Italians." For it was necessary for the emperor to defend the houses of the Italians, that is, to keep them safe from injury, and to vindicate them if anything had been done against them contrary to justice. He is dealing with the houses of the Genoese living in Galata by permission of the emperor; when the Venetians had destroyed them with fire, many were compelled by the emperor to repair the damage.
[p. 468] *Diakinēsimos*, p. 50. "For on the Monday of the week after the resurrection, which they also call *diakinēsimos*." It was read in the manuscript erroneously, I think, *tēs gar deuteras*, as if it referred to D *hebdomados*. Which deviates from the truth: for he does not remember any "second week," but the second day of the week of Pascha, which day follows immediately after the day of the Lord's resurrection, so that in *deutera* one understands "day," and while he calls [it] *tēn anastasimon*, he does not sub-understand "week," but "day" or "feast," that is, Easter Sunday itself, which the Vatican paraphrast calls *kyriakēn* in this passage, the day, clearly, which the Lord made. For the Greeks call the week that begins from the day immediately following Easter day *tēn diakinēsimon*, just as they also call the one that begins the day after the octave of Easter the *hebdomada tou Thōma* (Week of Thomas), which they also...
mention in this history of ours, book VI, ch. 13. Indeed, Jacobus Goar, O.P., in his *Euchologion*, p. 933, rightly translates these words, *tē pemptē tēs diakinēsimou*, as "the fifth feria after Easter." But just as *pemptē* here indicates the feria, so *deutera* does not indicate the week, as I have noted, but the day of the week, namely Monday, on which the edict mentioned here was promulgated. From these, I trust, the necessity of the emendation of this passage made by me will appear. It would remain to examine the diversity of the spelling of the word *diakinēsimos*, which some write as *diakinēsimos*, and some even as *diakenēsimos*. We adhere constantly to our manuscripts, spelling it as we present it. And we deem that this is sufficient for now; for there is neither time nor is it of such importance to struggle with the reason for such an appellation or the etymology of the word.
B *Diasōstai*, p. 307. It treats of the Alan Noga, who, after being dismissed, offered himself of his own accord to Andronikos, who accepted them as if they had been sent by God, granting them command of military affairs and adding them to the place of the Roman cohorts, to such an extent that, having selected those of that race who seemed likely to apply themselves to horsemanship, he took away the horses from his own cavalrymen and assigned them to them, subjecting the Romans themselves to the service of these barbarians. For since it had long been customary in the Eastern cavalry service that certain footmen should be present in battles with the cataphract cavalry, who, if they should by chance happen to be wounded or in danger due to some other cause, would assist and save them, he ordered the Romans to serve in this capacity for them. Our author calls this kind of equestrian attendant in this place *diasōstas*, as if he were to say "preservers." Maurice, cited by Rigaltius in his *Glossary*, had called them *depotatous* or *diapotatous*, describing their duty immediately as follows: "Those who follow the rank and who take up and care for those who have become wounded in battle." The very learned Rigaltius here appends various passages from the *Constitutions* of Leo regarding this type of auxiliary force, teaching much. In one of these, from *Constit.* 3, §15, it is said that these attendants and helpers of the horsemen, once called deputati, were accustomed to be called *scribōnes* in the time of the Emperor Leo. In another, from *Constit.* 12, §52, I note this gloss: "Those who are called *depotatous*, that is, the caretakers of those soldiers who are being wounded." Leo subsequently prescribes there certain things regarding the number and selection of these deputati, ordering them to be constituted at every sign (in Greek, *bandon*, meaning a company or wing of cavalry serving under a single standard, such as the French call *cornettes*), eight or ten from the order of deputati, swift and brisk, without arms, who ought to follow the companies they serve at an interval of one hundred feet, so that in battles they may pick up the wounded, refresh them, and carry them to a safe place. Then he orders that one coin be paid to them for every soldier saved; § truly, the same Leo orders that for the use of these deputati, a double stirrup be added to the left side of the military horses' saddles, so that by using one of these, the deputatus, as often as there is need to help a soldier in danger, may be assisted in mounting the horse. The words of Leo are: "It is fitting that the depotatos have two stirrups on the left part of the saddle." Finally, he adds that the same deputati ought also to "carry water in flasks for the wounded who often faint," carrying water in bottles, from which they might revive the wounded who are often suffering from a swoon due to the pain of their wounds or the loss of blood. I observe in passing, from what has been related so far, that these *deputati* in the time of the Emperor Leo, as he himself testifies, were called *scribōnes*, which is a word of similar notion to *actuarius*, which sufficiently indicates that they also were of the class of *actuarii*, who, as we showed under that word in our first *Glossary*, once followed the Roman camps. And that, as we said there, physicians, surgeons, and *nosokomoi* were all likewise reckoned under that name, the same Emperor Leo confirms in *Const.* 3, §15, when he clearly attributes the duties of physicians to these *depotatous*, writing of them thus: "Who, following the line of battle, take up those who have become wounded in battle as physicians and care [for them]." C The reason why, therefore, our author, or some other, should have changed the term *depotatōn*, which was the usual one, into *diasōstōn*—because the former would have been of foreign origin, while he truly changes it to Greek, as is his wont with the names of months and on similar occasions (for even the *skalas* that the Emperor Leo spoke of in the passage just described, designating stirrups, Pachymeres, Vol. I, p. 411, preferred to call *klimakas*)—or because perhaps such usage had gained ground at that time, so that those who had been called *depotatoi* were commonly heard as *diasōstai*. However, that these *diasōstai* were accustomed, at least in the time of Pachymeres, to be armed and to perform military service in safely conducting travelers through dangerous roads, is taught to us by a passage from p. 429 of this history, where it is reported that Rontzerios, the Great Duke, when he was sending a certain Cannaburius from Magnesia to Constantinople, commanded Nostongos, the prefect of the province there, to give him *diasōstas* from his own forces as companions, by whose safe guard he might travel that route securely: "He sends to Nostongos, charging him to provide the one sent with *diasōstai* from the military." And the historian soon adds that Nostongos, showing an abundant desire to gratify the Great Duke, did more than was asked: for he himself went with his own Praetorians to perform that duty, and conducted Cannaburius into the city. *Didamboulos*, p. 186. What is said in this place, *didamboulon*, "two-counseled," is for me to be investigated all the more diligently, as the opinions of the most learned men published thus far regarding the notion of this word deviate from the truth, even from this very testimony of our historian.
A Our most learned Jacobus Pontanus, in the Latin version which he published without the Greek context—the interpretation of the Chronicle of Georgius Phrantzis, the Protovestiarios, lib. III, cap. 49, page 197, Ingolstadt, 1604—referring to the rite by which the Patriarch of Constantinople was accustomed to enter into possession of his dignity, among other things has this: "According to these [rites], the patriarch descended with lamps toward the *diabambula* or atrium." So it stands there. Rightly, moreover, as I believe, Meursius in his Glossary on the word *dibambulo*, and Matthaeus Martinius copying the words themselves from him in his *Lexicon Philologicum* on the word *Monobambulum*, thought that *dibambula* should be rewritten as *dibambulo* in that passage of Phrantzis. [P. 470] But it is not correct, as I judge, that they accepted that gloss, or atrium, as the true explanation of that word. For both write thus: "Monobambulum, a simple, more private chamber of the palace, in which the clergy intended to elect a new patriarch gathered." Codinus mentions it: "The second ostiarius holding the *monobambulum*." Before this there was another [chamber], into which all who wished to know whom the clergy had chosen as patriarch gathered indiscriminately; and that was called the *dibambulum*. So say both; and they confirm this continuously by citing the passage of Phrantzis (or rather of Pontanus) which I described above. But that both are mistaken in this, anyone will not deny who notes how ridiculously it would be said by Codinus: "The second ostiarius holding the *monobambulum*," that is, "holding the *monobambulum* by hand," if the *monobambulum* were an atrium—which, indeed, no one can hold by hand (for this is what holding/κρατεῖν means). Whence it is manifest from the mind of Codinus that the *monobambulum* was some object capable of being carried by hand. And by parity of argument, the same must be determined concerning the *dibambulo*, that, both by the reason of the common etymology and by the series of the narration of Phrantzis itself, it must have been a portable object of the same form and type. And, to return to my subject, this passage of Pachymeres demonstrates this, one might say, most evidently. For what plausible sense, I ask, could these words of our author have—"the patriarch, having received the pastoral staff from the emperor, is honored also with a *dibambulo*"—if the *dibambulum* were an outer atrium? What, therefore, did Pachymeres wish to signify here by the word *dibambulo*? B It is without doubt the same as that which he expressed more clearly elsewhere, while reporting (vol. I, p. 112) how the bishops were anxious because Arsenius, having fled his own accord from the patriarchate into a monastery, refused when asked to give a written abdication, so that, if they had something equivalent to a written cession, they might take back from him the *bakteria* (staff) and the *lampadouchon* (candelabrum), reasoning that if he rendered back those things through which he had been invested with the patriarchate, he would by that very act sufficiently indicate that he was renouncing the see, and would give the synod free license to proceed to the election of a new patriarch. Here, it is necessary to repeat something from ecclesiastical monuments regarding the ancient form of the inauguration of bishops. And first, I advise the reader regarding the custom of the Latin Church, as in many C others, so in this, it has differed from the Greek usages. Saint Bernard says in his *Sermon on the Lord's Supper*: "Investitures are various, according to those things concerning which we are invested. For example, a canon is invested by the book, an abbot by the staff, a bishop by the staff and ring at the same time." So he says. The Greek Church indeed used two symbols in conjunction when conferring the episcopal dignity on those chosen as pastors and spouses of the churches, which would similarly correspond to the two mentioned titles of pastor and spouse. But while the Greeks agreed with the Latins at least in the first [symbol], in the latter they preferred the lamp, usually carried before the spouses and most appropriate for the nuptial ceremony according to the evangelical parable and the use of Oriental nations, over the ring, which the Western Church, however, preferred to use for this purpose, perhaps because it was more consonant with the popular custom of the European nations as a sign of the conjugal bond. Whatever, moreover, may have been the custom of the Latins regarding this, that the Asian bishops indeed began their dignity by the carrying of a lamp, besides what I have noted elsewhere in my *Observations*, vol. I, p. 638, is also supported by the passage of Codinus in his *De Officiis* c. 1 in the sixth Pentad, where, treating of the ordinations of bishops accustomed to be celebrated by the patriarch (for his own words, "for the ordinations," indicate that, explaining what the first and second ostiarius each performed of his own ministry in that ceremony), he writes thus: "The first ostiarius holding the doors..., the second holding the *monobambulum*"; that is to say, the first ostiarius, during the time the patriarch, or other bishops by his permission, were consecrating a new bishop within the presbytery or *bema*, held the doors of the *solea* by hand, so that he might immediately open them once the inauguration had been perfected inside with the customary rites. For then the new prelate was to be brought forth and shown to the people. But because he had to come forth from the *bema* preceded by a lamp, the second ostiarius stood ready to carry this before him, "holding the *monabambulum*," or, as another reading has it, "the *monobambulum*," [P. 471] "holding by hand the portable object in which one lamp was inserted; for *monabambulum* is *mona ampulla* (a single ampulla)." But what an *ampulla* is, those words of Aetius in book VIII teach: "Having filled a glass *ampulla* with oil, etc." Therefore, an *ampulla* is a lamp, and a *monabambulum* is a portable instrument in which one lamp was set. But when the Patriarch of Constantinople was inaugurated, anyone who is sufficiently prudent understands that some particular honor must have been held for him above the bishops. Naturally, as this [patriarch] was coming forth to the people, it was not a *monabambulum* or *monobambulum* that was carried before him, but what our author here teaches us: a *dibambulum*. Let us see what Codinus teaches us concerning this word. In his book *De Officiis*, c. 10 on the feasts, while he explains how the procession was organized by which the emperor was accustomed to come to celebrate Christ's Nativity and be admitted into the church, he says that a "lampadarius" stood ready with a golden *dibambulum* in his hand. The words are
A *lampadarius* holding the golden *dibambulum*. What else is this, indeed, but that it was necessary for him to precede the Augustus as he was about to make his procession through the temple? But if, as we have seen, the *monobambulum* was a carriage holding a single inserted lamp, what remains but that we understand the *dibambulum* to have been either a twin-wicked lantern, such as Petronius mentions in the recently published Tragurian fragment, or some other bifurcated instrument having twin burning lamps on two branches extended on either side?
Balsamon very fittingly reminds us regarding this matter that it was customary for a double lamp to be carried before the emperor when he entered the church during solemnities; and that the attendant who carried this double lamp was also called a *lampadarius*. Therefore, what is called a golden *dibambulum* in Codinus is, according to Balsamon, a vessel distinguished by a twin lamp. Wherefore, in view of these authors, I am certainly not afraid to charge the Latin Phrantzes with error, as he explains *dibambula* as occurring throughout the atrium. Would that one might have the means to inspect the original text. I have sought for it long and carefully, but in vain. I trust, however, that if it exists anywhere in the Greek, no mention whatever of an atrium is to be found in the text B. And as for the fact that Phrantzes used *dibambula* in the plural, I believe he intended to signify the twin arms of the candelabrum, each of which held its own lamp. For who could deny that this meaning fits these words very aptly when mentioning "lamps" alongside "dibambula"?
It could be argued against these points, based on the aforementioned Balsamon, that it was a singular prerogative of the emperor to process through the church with two lamps going before him, a privilege that was not granted to the patriarch, nor even to the empress herself. For Balsamon records that regarding these, it was customary for only single lamps to be carried before them. To this, my response is twofold. First: not all things that are legitimately granted to certain magistrates at the initial commencement of their office are likewise granted in the daily conduct of life. How many ceremonies are employed when emperors, kings, and other princes are inaugurated, which it would be wrong to repeat beyond that day? Thus, it may have been the established practice for the patriarchs of Constantinople to be honored with a *dibambulum* only at their initial ordination, while for the rest of their lives, when they processed through the church, nothing but a *monobambulum* preceded them, just as we see many bishops today granted the honor of the umbrella upon their first entry into their cities, which is denied to them thereafter. The second [reason]: there is a sufficiently large difference between the age of Balsamon and that of Pachymeres. For Balsamon is nearly a hundred years older than Pachymeres. During that interval, it is known that many things changed regarding the prerogatives and honors of ecclesiastical and secular magistrates. Whence it is easy to believe that [it was granted] by the schismatic emperors, who were ambitiously striving to elevate their own Constantinian throne to the envy and even the degradation of the First Roman one, that during that span of time, whereas previously the patriarchs were honored by the leading of a single lamp, from then on, a twin-wicked lantern C (which was previously a privilege reserved only for the Augusti) was brought into the church before them, both by the initial usurpation of power and thereafter. Let the fair reader choose, then, which he prefers: whether in the age of Balsamon, the patriarchs of Constantinople D were also using the *dibambulum* at their first consecration, and used only the *monobambulum* during the rest of their processions through the church, even on great solemnities; or whether, while Balsamon was writing, neither was granted to them—or both, or at least the former—having been conceded to the prelates by their princes before this history was published by Pachymeres. The prior response is confirmed by what Balsamon says: that for bishops beyond the patriarch and a few who were exceptionally honored, such as the archbishops of Cyprus and Bulgaria, the honor of having a single lamp carried before them in a procession through the church was denied even on solemn days; yet that they were honored with this, at least at their initial inauguration, can hardly be doubted, given what was said above. Why, then, should it not be said regarding the patriarch also, that the *dibambulum* was granted at his initial inauguration, but only a *monobambulum* in the remaining ceremonies? It remains for us to inquire into the veracity of the terms *monobambulum* and *dibambulum*. I believe, indeed, that they are derived from the Latin term *obambulus*, and that the name, like the thing itself, migrated to the court of New Rome from the Old. to the court, I say, not to the church. For I know that the leading of lamps before bishops was a custom in Asia from apostolic times. It is necessary to admit that the fire was carried before the Augusti at Rome before it was carried at Constantinople, since by the age of Commodus it was a custom at Rome for fire to be borne before the Augusti. Herodian, book 1: "Lucilla was the eldest of all the sisters of Commodus. She had previously been married to the Emperor Lucius... but when it happened that Lucius died, while the symbols of the empire remained with Lucilla, his father gave her to Pompeianus. Nevertheless, Commodus preserved the honors for his sister; for she sat upon the imperial throne in the theaters, and the fire was carried before her." Herodian teaches that while the Augusti were ruling at Rome, long before Constantine, fire was carried before them and their wives wherever they walked; and (to mention this incidentally) he is the only one who teaches it, lest we be surprised that some things that were once most common in usage are found noted by only a single author, and for that reason, because they were well known at the time, were not explicitly written down by the authors. Thus, it is certain that a certain honor called the *bisellium* was once in use and held in high regard (which is likely to have consisted in the precedence of a twin seat [or "double chair"] granted exceptionally to some individuals), as is evidenced by one inscription on a Pisan marble, recently transcribed and published by the most learned man Chimentelli, with other monuments of antiquity remaining silent on the matter. Whence, if Pachymeres is the first and only one to have committed to memory this leading of a twin lamp before the patriarch of Constantinople, which we are discussing under the term *dibambulum*, a prudent reader need not be surprised or suspicious.
I believe indeed that the minister who carried light before the rulers at Rome was commonly called an *obambulum*, and that the instrument or vessel which he used for carrying the fire was assigned that same appellation by popular usage; and when the seat of empire was transferred by Constantine from Old Rome to the New, the same name, of Latin origin, was inscribed in Greek letters. And because eventually, perhaps, degrees were devised in the sharing of this honor, so that a single torch or lamp was carried before some, and a double one before others, this distinction was explained by terms composed in the Greek fashion, so that an instrument bearing a single lamp was called a *monobambulum*, and one having two was called a *dibambulum*. Someone might say that *dibambulum* could more conveniently be seen as derived from *dibampulum* via *ampulla*, with the p softened into a b. But if this were the case, *monobambulum* ought to have been formed by analogy. Let us therefore recognize in the word *monobambulum* the true Latin origin for both *monobambulum* and *dibambulum*, namely the word *obambulum*. I have offered these conjectures of mine concerning the *dibambulum*—as I am accustomed to mistrust my own judgment—to be discussed with other learned men, and particularly with the most scholarly A and my very dear friend Domenico Magrio, theologian of the church of Viterbo; who approved the matter so highly that he immediately revised in accordance with my opinion—moving away from the views of Meursius and Martinius—the passage regarding the notion of the word *dibambulum* which he had previously written in his *Onomasticum ecclesiasticum* (already published in two editions) and which he had decided to include in the third edition, on which the press is now laboring [P. 473].
Thus far I had written on these matters, when by chance the Greek History of the Council of Florence fell into my hands, by the author whom the recent editor calls Sylvester Sguropulus: others prefer to call him Syropulus. In this book I found a clear confirmation of my conjecture concerning the *dibambulum*, which it would be a dereliction of duty to pass over in silence. That writer narrates (c. 17, sect. 3, p. 62) that when the patriarch of Constantinople was on the verge of his desired voyage to Italy to celebrate the council there and establish concord between the Churches, he wished—despite the opposition of Syropulus and certain others who were hardened in schism and the hatred of the Latins—to carry with him all the sacred vessels of the holy Great Church: "The patriarch ordered that the sacred vessels of the most holy Great Church be prepared, though we were displeased," etc. On that occasion, when those sacred vessels were being inventoried for packing, those which had suffered any damage through age or long use were repaired and restored; and while the craftsmen were working on them, it happened that three *ripidia* were brought to them. Creygton wrongly translates these as *pyxides* [caskets]. For that word signifies *ventilabra* [fans], or, as the ancient author of the Life of St. Peter of Cavensis writes in Henschenius (March 4, c. 4), *flabella*. I shall set down his words here, because they indicate the use of the *ripidia* in the sacred rite: "When Terentius in the church of St. John was neglecting his service, he struck a lamp and spilled oil upon the altar." These were indeed *ripidia*, thin plates extended into the shapes of wings, which were moved by the ministers around the body of Christ while it stood on the altar. Such instruments were three, cast from precious metal, but because they were dented or stained and therefore required repair, they were by no means restored to their former shape as others were, but were instead melted down into a single *dibambulum*. "Instead of being laid B to rest and prepared, as the others were... they were refashioned into a *dibambulum*, the form of the six-winged ones having flown away or been expelled, so to speak, from them." That is, the form of the Cherubim equipped with six wings, depicted on the previous objects, had flown away or, so to speak, been expelled. Behold, therefore, from the account of Syropulus, three silver plates chased with the images of Cherubim, melted down into one *dibambulum*.
It remains to see what the *dibambulum* was finally thought to be, or rather, what it was certainly known to be, and what the same Syropulus had enough knowledge to hint at, based on the general information of that time. This is understood from a certain dire omen he drew from it, which he explains immediately in these words: "And instead of being placed C on the holy table as a sacred offering, and the lamp-bearer being carried here and there, 675 and being set down and cast aside as it happened, he said this was a prelude to the as-yet-impending subversion of the pure and unadulterated dogma of the Church." These words mean: from this melting down of three silver fans, chased with the forms of Cherubim, into one *dibambulum*, it came about that that material lost the honor it had previously been deemed worthy of—that of sitting upon the sacred table and from there displaying a majestic appearance to those who venerated it—and was relegated to a much baser use, namely, becoming a candelabrum to be carried hither and thither and habitually set down or cast anywhere at all. And this matter Syropulus, who would never have wished the business of the reconciliation of the Greek and Latin Churches to be undertaken, nor did he admit that it was successfully concluded, seized upon as an omen of the soon-to-follow perversion of the pure and sincere dogma of the Church; such as occurred, D with the unanimous consent of the East and the West, in the holy Council of Florence, regarding the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, which this writer, persistent in heresy and schism, does not fear to characterize rashly and blasphemously. That impious divination of his, however, brings me this advantage: that it appears manifestly from it that the *dibambulum* is nothing other than a lamp-bearer (*lampadouchon*), an instrument for carrying lamps that was accustomed to be carried in processions before the patriarch, of the sort that he, being about to go to Italy, saw to it should be prepared with the most imposing bulk and form possible to impress the Latins, as we understand from this; whence the material that had sufficed for the three altar vessels was spent on this one object. And Joseph, patriarch of Constantinople, did indeed carry his *dibambulum*, thus cast and hammered, to Florence, and that...
A formal and solemn approach to the pope, B as he wished, and to see him, and that he might appoint a day on which he would accept that this be done. C Then the patriarch signified that he wished to visit the pope himself, asking that he assign a day for the audience. A little later, when the appointed day had arrived, Syropulus says that the patriarch, among other things which he provided for the commendation of the pomp of his procession towards the pope’s palace, had ordered that the *dibambulum* and the *dicanicium* be carried before him: "He ordered that they carry the *dibambulum* and the *dicanicium* before him." The *dicanicium* is something similar to those staves or silver poles in the shape of maces (which are commonly called maces) which we see carried before the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church while they walk in procession; of which sort the *Chronicon Constantinopolitanum* makes mention as being customary for Greek patriarchs, in these words: "He gave him with his own hands a valuable *dicanicium*, that is, a silver staff plated with gold." Syropulus, continuing his account, reports that there was a controversy for the patriarch concerning the precedence of the *dibambulum* and the *dicanicium*, the great chartophylax saying to him "that here these things have no business going first, and if you decree it, they should be left behind." This has no relevance to what is being described here; wherefore, if it seems good to him, let them be left behind. However, as the patriarch contended, it was eventually agreed that the precedence of the *dibambulum* only should be omitted. "Nevertheless he set aside the *dibambulum*." The carrying of the bifid chandelier, as being too alien to the custom received in Italy, or for some other reason, was voluntarily remitted by the patriarch, with the *dibambulum* left at home. Could the meaning of the *dibambulum* I previously provided be established more clearly? Yet Creygton, the interpreter, attempts to snatch this support of Syropulus from me: with what success, it remains only to see. In the first of the indicated passages, c. 17, sect. 3, p. 62, he translates those words "and the three little boxes were converted into a *dibambulum*" as follows: "But these... three pyxides resulted in one, but the same and double ampulla." Furthermore, he teaches in his notes to that place that a *dibambulum* comes from the Latin word *ampulla*, and that it signifies a two-nozzled flask with a double mouth or spout gaping at the top. But he should have added what use such a vessel had, or for what reason the instrument, prepared so meticulously in that shape for a patriarch about to go to Italy—even with three sacred vessels from the altar melted into it—was intended; he is content to condemn the Jesuit Gretser for an error, because in his book of Commentaries on Codinus, 3, c. 1, p. 217, he confuses the *dibambulum* with a lamp. But this is falsely imputed to Gretser. For he only says there that it had not displeased him at another time to call the golden pole upon which a lamp was placed a *dibambulum*, but that he is of a different mind now. And even if he had not changed his opinion, it could not be said that he confused the *dibambulum* with a lamp. For a lamp is one thing, and a pole carrying a lamp is another. But if the pole is understood to be bifid, extending two branches as it were, each of which has at the top a socket suitable for receiving a lamp, Gretser would have expressed the true form of the *dibambulum*; and if he had heard his own Syropulus, Creygton, he should have perceived the same thing. For thus he would not labor in guessing why he makes mention of a "lamp-holder," a device adapted for carrying lamps, in v. 35, placing that word as a synonym for D *dibambulum*. But nothing is more wonderful than that Creygton, forgetful of all these things, while in c. 24, sect. 4, p. 99, he translates *dibambulum* again where it is mentioned by his Syropulus, calls it a summer butterfly. And in his Notes p. 18, pointing to this passage, he writes thus: "*Dibambulum* in this place without any doubt signifies a shaded veil... for that veil, while it wards off shadow, is spread over the top of the head from a longer pole, represents a curved and arched vault, while it is brought back again to the pole [forming] a rotund little flask or ampulla." In these matters, I do not ask why it is called a sunshade, or, as Creygton speaks, a summer butterfly, to ward off shadow, when such an instrument is actually prepared for warding off the sun and for making shade. I ask that Creygton take the trouble to explain again and again by what method the metal of the three pyxides could have been melted into a single summer butterfly or sunshade. But let all these things be committed to the fair and learned reader: meanwhile, we proceed to other things that call us.
*Diōria*, p. 389. It might seem that *diōria* here signifies the space of two hours, just as *trihōrion* (a word used by the poet Ausonius) indicates three hours: but it is not so. For the old glossaries universally expound *diōria* as an interval, a space. And Suidas: *diōria*, a delay, which he proves by citing immediately a passage from a certain historian, as it appears: "To defer the siege and to provide a *diōria* of consultation for the seditious." But when it seemed that the siege of the city should be remitted and a space for deliberating should be given to the seditious. Therefore, in this remaining history, our author also uses *diōria* several times for a delay and space, in which there is a cessation or deliberation, as on page 497: "He placed the matters concerning him in *diōria*." The holy Abbot Nilus also uses this word in an epistle according to our edition 150, p. 159 (in the later and far fuller Allatian [edition] it is 213, l. 1, p. 396, inscribed to Rodominus, whereas in the archetype from which I transcribed it, the Medicean codex, I had read long ago and published it as Rhoddnymos). There, therefore, the holy Father makes the unrepentant sinner at the supreme judgment say these things: "Woe is me, how I have willfully squandered the *diōria* of the past time!" Hei mihi, quod volens passus sum effluere in vanum spatium transacti temporis ad poenitentiam concessum!
*Enklēteuein*, p. 370. Whether *enklēteuein* is found in another Greek author, let those say who...
have read me more diligently. For me, although it has not occurred elsewhere, its meaning was not in doubt, recalling as I do that an *enklēton dikēn* is called a lawsuit concerning whose judgment an appeal has been made, and the forum in which the dispute is discussed upon appeal is an *enklēton dikastērion*.
*Ekphansis*, p. 113. These words are referred to from the volume of Gregory of Cyprus, Patriarch of Constantinople: "But if in the most theological Damascene the term *proboleus* is found in arguments, the word does not wish to indicate the procession of the Spirit purely into being, but into eternal *ekphansis*." Since the word *ekphansis* is repeated often in these few verses, our codex expresses it only once with *n* added, writing it otherwise as *ekphasis*. Hence I was afraid of correcting so many places on the evidence of one, had I not noticed that the Vatican codex writes *ekphansin* consistently. From this I understood that it was truly written so by Pachymeres, according to the custom adopted by others, even if *ekphasis* is also read sometimes. But it would be of greater moment to examine the notion of this word. I see that it is commonly declared by the greatest theologians who render Greek into Latin that *ekphansin*, *ekphantorian*, and *ekphantorikon pneuma* signify "enunciation." I do not blame them. Yet, I believed I had a right to derive this noun from *ekphainō*, insofar as it sounds "to shine forth," so that *ekphansis* is correctly translated as "shining forth." This, if I am not mistaken, results in a meaning better suited to the subject matter of the passage.
[P. 476] 678 *Enikanōthē*, p. 103. I took the notion of this verb, which is quite rare in the books I have seen, from the Vatican paraphrase, which renders this whole passage as follows: "He gifted one hundred and fifty gold pieces to them." Thus he joins what the author had distinguished, mentioning one hundred gold pieces provided to Veccus, and fifty to the Meliteniotes. Insofar as he simply subordinates the meaning of giving to the word *enikanōthē*, I adhere to the lack of a better authority; yet I suspect meanwhile that this word, used by Pachymeres, points to the assignment of an annual sum of money equaling those masses of wealth for the two exiles as sustenance and for the other requirements of life; as if he meant to say that, since the emperor had determined nothing regarding the maintenance to be provided to the two captives, he then saw to it that annual pensions were assigned to them from the treasury through the Alexandrian Patriarch and the Logothete: one hundred gold pieces to Veccus, and fifty to the Meliteniotes.
*Ennatizein*, p. 519. The best codex, the Barberinus, has *ennatizein* in its context, but the same one suggests a better reading in the margin, *ennaticein* [sic], for which the Vatican exhibits *ennatizein*. We have compared this with other manuscripts so that we might double the *n*. For since this verb, as we shall soon show, is formed from *ennatē*, which is more frequently written with a double *n*, we have judged it more correct to say *ennatizein* than *enatizein*. Although it does not escape us that the spelling *enatē* for *ennatē* is defended as correct not only by Eustathius on *Iliad* δ, p. 293 (Rom. ed.), but is also recommended on *Iliad* θ, p. 712, as being used by scholars well-versed in the classics, they provide room for a witty transposition of letters, by which *enaton* is changed to *neaton*: for surely when designated as *neaton*, since it is the last in the simple numbers, *neaton* is the same thing, for this word sounds "the final." But this subtlety, which separates the word from its origin, does not please me at all. For if *neaton* is said, as it were, as *neaton*, this numeral noun will no longer be derived from its number *ennea*; which seems absurd. Be that as it may, having been written by Pachymeres as *ennatizein* with a double *n*, I do not rashly surmise—as I think—based on the scripture of the context and the Vatican codex; and I believe that this verb was used in monasteries to indicate the refection of the body only once a day, and not before the ninth hour from sunrise; a custom that was once practiced only on days sacred to religious fasting. But now Patriarch Athanasius ordered it to be done daily, *monophagian di’ etous exakriboumenos*. No wonder, since he considered it to pertain to the necessary observance of the monastic institute to eat no more than once a day throughout the entire year, and that not before the third hour after midday, the ninth from sunrise, he ordered it to be done thus in the monasteries daily. *Hōs kai ennatizein aei*, that is, so that it might always follow from this that the monks break their fast only at the ninth hour, even on Sundays and Paschal days. For the legitimate hour of refection in the coenobia was long ago nine, which I could demonstrate with many testimonies of the ancients, had not our 679 Rosweidus anticipated that labor in his *Onomasticon* on the *Vitas Patrum*, under the word "nona hora"; see him. In confirmation of what has been said so far, our same author here further down, p. 618, as if explaining what he had meant by *ennatizein* earlier, says that Athanasius compelled the monks to perform *monophagian* *kat’ ennatas di’ etous askōn*: the monks to fast daily throughout the whole year, eating only once a day, and that not before the ninth hour (*).
[P. 477] *Exagōnia*, p. 284. Even though grammarians commonly think *exagōnia* should be said as if *exō agōnos*, which are "outside the contest," they have no bearing on the cause... [The rest of the column discusses the monastic diet].
Latins call *subseciva* ("surplus pieces"), segments that exceed the proper measurement in the partitioning of fields. For since land surveying is done by lines intersecting each other at right angles, it often happened in fields that some space remained outside the angle, *exō gōnias* ("outside the angle"), which the Greeks, as I said, call *exagōnion* and the Latins *subsecivum*. Often by these terms both languages indicate, in a figurative sense, things that are accessory and not primarily intended, but which are added to the primary parts as a surplus, just as those surplus parts of a field were added to the boundaries of neighboring farmers. The Greeks call them *paregōnia* differently, in which the term *proürgion* denotes what is primarily intended, a term our author also uses. A
*Exantēs* (p. 265). I know that *exantēs* is commonly thought to be derived as if from *exō atēs*, "without harm," safe, and unharmed. Examples of this usage are found in Plato’s *Phaedo*. But that interpretation would not fit the sense of the passage here, which uses these words. For the Bulgarians did not call Michael, the son of the former Emperor Constantine, to the throne because they thought that now was the time for him to begin his enterprise with hopes of success, while the power of the Tocharoi, who were dominant on the Bulgarian border, stood against the family of Constantine undiminished; rather, they mean to signify that the latter was now weak and less formidable than before, by which they believed an occasion not to be spurned was offered for restoring Michael to the possession of his paternal kingdom. B Nor does this second notion of the word depart from its origin and true meaning. For *exantēs*, by the force of its etymology, properly signifies one who begins to emerge from a grave injury and to be *exō atēs* ("outside of harm"). Therefore, it is a prayer for those suffering from fever and in danger from a serious illness, expressed in the verse which the author of the *Etymologicum* cites: "O Zeus, may I emerge *exantē* from this disease," that is, escape the danger of this illness. Furthermore, he is said to be "healthy" whose fever, by abating or ceasing entirely, leaves hope of recovering health. Because sleep is sometimes a sign in those with acute fever, the disciples, hearing Christ say that the languishing Lazarus was sleeping, say (John xi, 12): "Lord, if he sleeps, he will be saved (*sōthēsetai*)." Therefore, when Hippocrates calls someone *exantēs*, and Galen interprets it as "healthy," I would think it should be understood that he intends to say [the patient is] free from pain and fever: for such people are said to be "hale," even if they are not yet restored to the full strength of their original vigor, but still feel the weakness of forces diminished by illness. And perhaps Pachymeres, in writing this, had in mind the glosses of Hesychius, where he had read: *Exantēs*, "one who is outside of the disease." But he who has just emerged from an illness is, of course, still weak and feeble, such as the resources of the Bulgarians’ neighbors, the Tocharoi, might have appeared at that time, seeing as, a little before the civil war among them—led by Tuctai on one side and Noga on the other—they had clashed to the point of total destruction, and had subsequently suffered the most bitter devastation of their entire region, with very few of them following the fleeing Tzacames into Bulgaria, and having recently been oppressed there by the prevailing Osphentistblabos. C
One doubt remains: why Pachymeres writes *exantē* in the second case? For it cannot be accepted in the first instance, as it is soon filled out with three associated feminine genitives: *phaneisēs Tocharikēs exousias*. Should an error be acknowledged here, and *exantous* be rewritten, against the authority of the best codices, B and A? For the Vatican manuscript omitted this as usual. Or should we rather believe that this dative case is derived by our author from the feminine nominative *exantē*? A conclusion I fear analogy and correct grammatical reasoning would not permit.
*Epitumbion* (p. 66). He deals with Nicander of Larissa ridiculing Andronicus, who was once Bishop of Sardis, later a monk, but who returned to high positions due to ambition; cast out by a sudden reversal of fortune, he owed a mockery to many whom he had provoked, especially to that Nicander, by whose agency he was driven from his bishopric. In order to reproach Andronicus for his ambitious eruption from the monastic state, he cast a "monastic *epitumbion*" at him, with the man himself immediately rejecting it. I do not find this word elsewhere, but this very passage clearly teaches that it was the specific term for the head covering of monks; whence I have rendered it in Latin as *cuculla* (cowl), and soon, in the repetition of the same matter, I have used the word *caputium* (hood) as a synonym for *cuculla* in ecclesiastical writers. It could appear that the monastic cowl was called *epitumbion* because, as the garment itself is as if the sepulcher of the monk, the cowl exists as if it were the crown and pinnacle of the tomb. D
*Eskammatismenos* (p. 115). What *eskammatismenos* might be in this passage is less surprising for being unknown to me, having found such a word nowhere else, since not even the Vatican paraphrast was able to discern the meaning of this word, as is apparent from what he does. The author here puts three, where quite clearly he mentions two: Moschamparis, the ex-chartophylax, and the Bishop of Quinqueecclesia. For after having named the *eskammatismenos chartophylax*, soon explaining who he was and for what reason he was called *eskammatismenos*, he inserts a parenthesis which teaches that Moschamparis had died in the office of chartophylax before these events which he was preparing to narrate transpired—indicating by this very fact that *eskammatismenos chartophylax* here is placed by him in place of "ex-chartophylax" or a dismissed chartophylax. What *skamma* is and what *ta eskammena* are is unknown to no one who is not entirely a stranger to the reading of Greek books. But what more plausible thing can we imagine here than that Pachymeres either invented...
A a word unknown to the author, or inserted into his history a word common in the vulgar Byzantine tongue? Moreover, a double reason can be thought of for such a notion being assigned to this participle *eskammatismenos* in this place. The first is that the ecclesiastical archive, for the custody of which the chartophylax was appointed, is credible to have been kept in a place surrounded by enclosures. But enclosures (*septa*) are called *eskammena* or *scamma*, a place surrounded by a trench and rampart; whence one is called *skammatistheis* or *eskammatismenos* who has exited the enclosure of the ecclesiastical archive, having lost by right the status of presiding there once the office of chartophylax was lost. Furthermore, *scamma* is more properly the place of a contest. Jerome to Pammachius: "Why, having omitted the things over which the battle is, do you linger in strange and far-off disputes, wandering away from the *scamma* and the place of the contest, while a curious superstition caught an omen from the words?" Thus the holy doctor; from which it is clear that in its most common meaning, *scamma* [P. 479] is called the enclosure within which the athletes contend, which the French call *champ-clos*. From this is drawn the other reason why the chartophylax could be called *eskammatismenos* by Pachymeres. For he had joined himself with Veccus in that famous colloquy (Lib. I, c. 35), arguing against him, but with unhappy success: for the things he said were so effectively refuted by Veccus that they were rejected by the patriarch himself, for whom B Moschampar was then serving. Wherefore, because it seemed fitting for vanquished athletes and those driven from the enclosure to be called *eskammatismenos* or cast out from the *scamma*, our author adapted the word to Moschampar.
To place the "Yoke of the Gospel," p. 146. He deals with the ordination of Athanasius, Patriarch of Constantinople, in which it must be asked, for the understanding of this passage, what it is to "place the yoke of the holy Gospel." The rites of the ordination of bishops among the Greeks teach us this, which exists in the *Euchologion*, p. 302, where it is expressly handed down that once the Trisagion is completed, the celebrating bishop ascends to the ledge of the holy table, and there the one to be ordained is offered to him by the three bishops present, at the right hand of the celebrant; but on the left stands the chartophylax, who offers the celebrant the parchment in which it is written: C *By the suffrage and approval of the God-beloved bishops and most holy presbyters, Divine Grace, which always heals the infirm and completes what is lacking, promotes N., the God-beloved presbyter, to be bishop of this God-protected city. [P. 481] Let us therefore pray for him, that the grace of the All-Holy Spirit may come upon him.* When the celebrant has received this parchment, the archdeacon declares a hearing, shouting *Proschōmen*, "Let us attend." Immediately the celebrant proclaims what is written on the parchment in a voice legible to all. After which, as if by a precept of prayer, those who are within the chancel of the presbytery and those who are outside, as well as those ordained, equally shout, *Kyrie, eleison*, "Lord, have mercy." Then the celebrant unfolds the volume of the Gospel and, thus opened, places it upon the head and neck of him who is being ordained, while the other bishops also assist him in this: *The high priest unfolds the Gospel, and places it upon the head and neck of the one being ordained, and the other high priests also touch it.* Behold what it is to "place the yoke of the holy Gospel," which our author here mentions—that the rite of ordination performs that part in which the holy codex of the Gospel is unfolded and placed over the head and neck of the one being ordained in the manner of a yoke, *zygos*. Moreover, in the opening of the codex, was the word either found in an author unknown to us or did he insert it into his history as it was then common in the vulgar use of the Byzantine tongue? An example of this vanity [is what] Pachymeres records here, as it happened at the ordination of Athanasius.
*Themelion*, p. 306. What Pachymeres calls *themelion proton* in this place, he immediately explains through the words *prote basis*. It is, therefore, in his view D the first process of the lunation from the synod, that is, the *noumēnia* (new moon) and the true beginning of the lunar month. But it is not without purpose that this is noted, because generally in months such as the Roman ones, which are solar, it happens that the full moon and the new moon pertain to different months. We shall show, however, in the third book of these *Observations*, where we will provide the calculations of this lunar defect, that it occurred on the 14th of January in the year of Christ 1302. Whence it is a consequence that the *noumēnia* which preceded this ecliptic full moon occurred on the very Kalends of January. For full moons occur on the 14th day of the moon. Our author here wished to express [p. 685] the monthly course of the moon by a certain allegory of a building. For because the beginning of a substruction is the foundation—called *themelion* in Greek—he thought that this name could rightly be transferred to signify the beginning of the movement by which the moon immediately sets itself in motion from the point of conjunction with the sun toward a new cycle. Perhaps, however, the author used a certain *kyriologia* (literal sense) for the word *mēn* (month), so that by it he might indicate the whole thirty-day space—or whatever it might exceed—which is usually called "thirty" in common speech, and here he may have properly understood the Kalends themselves or the first day of the month; so that when he said "in the month of Lenaion the first foundation stood of the month," he wished to indicate what I said, namely that the lunar month in that year began simultaneously with the civil one, and that the first day of the lunar period began on the very first day of January. Which is found to be most true from astronomical tables today.
*Iktar*, p. 43. Again, p. 455. Hesychius explains *iktar* as *engys*, near. Eustathius teaches the same on *Odyssey* IV, and both cite the proverb used in Plato’s *Republic* IX, *oud' iktar ballei*, about an unlucky shooter who not only does not hit but does not even come near. To this notion of this word [P. 482] considered in these places of Pachymeres, accommodating my own interpretation to both, the target
A of excellence is satisfied. I will add by the way what comes to mind, that the etymon of the Latin word *instar* seems to be sought from no other source than this Greek word *iktar*. *Iktar* is, as Hesychius notes, from *iknesthai*, which means "to arrive," from which origin it is accommodated to signify an imitation or expression of a form, which has almost arrived at and stands very close to the true likeness of the archetype, so that it may rightly be held as its *instar* (likeness). Grammarians, and among them most recently the very accurate Vossius, struggle in vain, if I am not mistaken, in drawing out—with the Muses unwilling—an etymology for this word from the verb *instare*. We have from that which I will subjoin even the letter 'n' from *ikneomai*. But the 'k' (kappa) can easily be believed to have been removed for the sake of euphony or softened into 's' in the Latin word *instar*. Thus I thought: let others judge too, B whose opinions I am subject to and shall willingly stand by.
Before I stop, I advise that Pachymeres uses this word a third time, namely on p. 290: *iktar axion krinousa to synallagma*, concerning the August mother of the Despot John, the marriage of this one with the daughter of Chumnos the prefect of the canicleus, although Andronicus, the father of the Despot, desired it, it being unequal to the dignity of his son. But another passage occurs on p. 502: *To men hosaper etoun didonai, oud' iktar ballon oumenoun edokimaze*. It means that it did not even occur to the emperor to give payments to the Catalans who were asking for them—not even in the very first thought—as much money as they had demanded. See also p. 480.
*Iknos hagios*, p. 80. In the common sense *iknos* is a furnace, or also a dung-heap and a receptacle for filth. Hence in sacred buildings the place into which things C sacred but useless due to decay are thrown to be consumed, among the Greeks, as our author teaches here, is called *iknos*. I remember reading elsewhere that it is called *dexamenē*. The Latins call it a *piscina* (cistern).
*Ichnolatēs*. I am placing this word back into the Glossary from before, lest the reader miss what Claudius Maltretus contributed there from his own hand to illustrate that matter, reading what I had written, which is worth more than gold. "Texeira," he says, "a Portuguese in his *History of Persia*, l. 1, c. 35, mentions a certain king called Resere Anuxiron. He is, of course, Chosroes Anusuran of your Simeon Seth. Texeira adds that in the time of this king two philosophical books were brought from India into Persia, one of which was called *Celilah*, the other *Vuademana*. One book, indeed, he divided into two, for the double name of the two interlocutors of the first dissertation. *Celilah*, according to Schindler, p. 861, means 'crown' in Arabic; in the word *vuademana*, the first 'va' is the conjunction 'and'. The second syllable 'va' is the word 'ra', 'entering', or whatever is derived from it. The remaining three syllables, 'demana', seem to be from 'dama', he noted; hence, D with the addition of the heemantic 'Nun', the noun is formed signifying 'observer of footsteps' (*ichnolatēs*), namely, your trailer. Simeon Seth says at the beginning of the first Prologue that Chosroes Anusuran was the son of David." [alt-version omitted] My Procopius asserts that he was the son of Cabades. Allow me to suspect that the copyists of Seth's book erroneously put *Dabio* for *Cabades*: for in the whole history of the Persian kings no one is found called David. I think also that they erred in the name *Perzoes* by the displacement of letters, since *Perozes* is the correct spelling: for this name is found as used among the Persians. Wherefore I think that Ammianus Marcellinus, lib. xix, should also be corrected, when he writes *Pirosen* instead of *Perozen*, as I suspect. I would read and [P. 483] interpret the whole passage thus, by the leave of the most learned Valesius: *Persis Saporem et Xahan-xa et Perozen appellantibus, regum regem, et dissipatorem*, supply 'of the enemies'; from the Hebrew *y parats*. Whence *Baal peratsim* is called the place where the Lord divided the enemies of David (II Sam. v, 20). These are Maltretus's words, to which I add what friends from Florence write, namely that there, in the most famous Medicean library of the Grand Duke, is preserved a Greek copy of this same book, with an indication of the time when it was translated from the barbaric language into Greek. For it is asserted that this was done by the order of Alexius Comnenus, who, it is certain, held the Eastern Empire from the year of Christ 1080 to 1118. Nor does the age of Simeon Seth conflict with this chronology, since the most illustrious Leo Allatius in his *Diatriba de Simeonum scriptis*, p. 181, testifies that he flourished under the Emperor Michael Ducas; since his reign lasted from the year of Christ 1071 to 1078, Seth, at that time in his prime, could easily have extended his life for many years thereafter and consequently have lived for a long time under Alexius Comnenus.
*Kaballarikai timai*, p. 498. He treats of the counts of the Mpyrigerii Tentzae, some of whom he teaches were endowed with equestrian honors by the emperor. He means, I think, the equestrian dignity conferred honorably upon them by Andronicus Augustus with specific formulas and public ceremony. Which we read as very frequently done by kings in the histories of later ages, for instance when they bind the spurs with their own hand onto the nobles dear to them, or throw a collar around the neck, an honorary insignia of equestrian dignity.
*Kakē kai kakēn epilyein*, p. 128. *Mēd' epilyein tēn kakēn*. So both the Barberini and Allatian codices, which the Vatican omits. In this place the word *kakēn* is to be noted, especially with the accent on the first syllable, therefore far different from the feminine of the adjective *kakos*, which is always written *kakē* with a grave on the last syllable. Nor is this difference unknown to the ancients. Hesychius narrates a certain passage of an unnamed author, in which these words were seen, *tēs emēs kakēs*, adding the word *kakouchias* as a synonym for the word *kakēs* (rewrite as *kakouchias*). Eustathius also in his *Excurse* to the *Iliad* v, to that verse 634, *Ē o' emē lōbēsasthe, kakai kynes*, acknowledges the word *kakē* as different from *kakē*, noting thus: *Kakē* for not only vice, according to those around Plato, but also harm. Finally, the ancient grammarian, the author of the pamphlet whose title is: *Hosai lexeis pros diaphoron sēmainomenon diaphoron dechontai tonon*, among the words per
747 P. POSSINI OBSERVATIONUM LIB. I.
with the diversity of accents, it signifies what is changing, A *kákē*, a word sounding differently than *kakē*. It remains now to establish what notion Pachymeres attributes to this word in this place. I have elsewhere observed that he depends on Hesychius. But Hesychius, as I have just noted, explains *kakē* by *kakouchia*. However, even if we learn from this same Hesychius what the force of this word is for him. *Kakouchia*, he says, is weakness, negligence, lack of care. Therefore, for Hesychius, *kakouchia* is not any infirmity, but one that is uncured and neglected. What, then, do the bishops of Ephesus and Cyzicus mean here, denying that the Orthodox Gregory Cyprius must be declared [orthodox] before he has undergone trial, and saying that to do otherwise would be *lyein tēn kakēn*, to resolve an uncured wound? This, I think, is what they mean: that to act thus would be as foolishly done as if an unskilled surgeon were to resolve the bandages of a deep wound that had not yet closed or been healed by the formation of a scar, and were to dismiss it as entirely cured and rashly boast of it. This sense is supported by those two proverbial expressions which they immediately append: *alla keuthontas alla bazein* ("hiding one thing, and babbling another") and *oikonomountas anoikonomēta* ("managing the unmanageable," excusing the inexcusable), which easily merge into the same meaning according to the nature of the subject matter.
*Kampos mainomenou*, p. 314. The Latins have written the Latin name *Campus* with their own letters for the same notion. Meursius provides examples. Nor does it seem doubtful that this concerns a certain field and plain, perhaps interior to the Roman dominion and distant from the border, yet into which the barbarians had penetrated by running freely. What this place properly was among the Eastern regions of the empire, and why it was called *kampos mainomenou* ("the plain of the madman"), I have not yet discovered, although I have found in the acts of Saint Platon of Ancyra, the martyr, written in very elegant Greek—which are preserved in manuscript in the Vatican Library—that there was a place near Ancyra which was called *Kampos*, in which the holy body of that martyr was buried by Christians, where he had also consummated his martyrdom after his head was cut off. For these things are read there: "Having taken the precious and holy body of the blessed Platon, the Christians laid it in that same place, which is called Kampos."
*Kanikleion*, p. 193. What the *kanikleion* was does not appear to be sufficiently explained anywhere. I fear, however, that I cannot believe Pontanus, who says it was a citadel and monastery in Constantinople, in his notes to ch. 14, book 1 of the history of Cantacuzenus, where, concerning this same Nicephorus Chumnus, whom Pachymeres here says was placed in charge of the *kanikleion* by the Emperor, and whom he had previously (p. 164) said was created *mystikos* by the same [emperor] after being a *quaestor*, Cantacuzenus writes in agreement with us: "And Nicephorus Chumnus, who was in charge of the *kanikleion*, a wise man and admirable in prudence, and enjoying much favor and honor from the Emperor." And there was [also] B at the head [of this office] Nicephorus Chumnus, a man wise and admirable in prudence, and who was in high favor with the Emperor and held in high esteem by him. I do not recall reading that there was a citadel in Constantinople called *kanikleion*. Zonaras mentions its monastery in passing in [his history of] Alexius Comnenus, while he says that the Comnenus brothers, once the city was captured, now feeling secure, had called their mother and wives from the monastery of the *kanikleion* into the palace. The words of Zonaras are: "Now being in safety, the Comneni also sent for their mother and their wives from the monastery of the *kanikleion* to the palace." Yet, that monastery, to which Botaniates had transferred the women of the Comneni after dragging them from the church of Saint Sophia, where they had fled under the right of asylum, as the same Zonaras soon says, Anna Comnena reporting the same thing in book 1, p. 54, calls it *gynaikeian monēn tōn Petriōn* ("the women’s monastery of the Petria"), which she also says was situated near the Ferrea Gate, *tēn agchou tēs Sidēras diakeimenēn*. I suspect the *kanikleion* were the buildings in which public writings were kept, and where imperial diplomas were dispatched, just as the Chancery Palace is visited in Rome; and that the monastery of the Petria was properly called such from the vicinity of this public and well-known house, and was denominated by Zonaras [in this way], but that the prefect was called *kanikleios*, whom we call the Chancellor, to whom the custody of the royal archives and the expedition of imperial charters was committed—an office already ample and celebrated for its splendor in all courts. I have Radevicus as an authority, Book 1, *De gestis Friderici imperatoris*, ch. 47: "One," he says, "of the servants of the palace, the *caniclinus* [chancellor] indeed, whom we can call the chancellor." So he says, better, I think, than Gunther, who perhaps following the convenience of the meter, interprets *caniclinus* as chamberlain.
C 689 Concerning the use of the Greek cognomen. This was the *caniclinus*. To us, the same can be a chamberlain.
Spelman holds the same opinion in his *Archaeologus*, under the word *Cancellarius* and *Caniclinus*. Nicetas seems to confirm the same in Book 11, in [his history of] Alexius, while he writes about the office of the prefect of the *kanikleion* [P. 485], that it was considered to be of the highest power under the emperor or next to the emperor. His words are: "Thinking that, under the king, the office of the *kanikleion* possessed all power." To whom this would be more appropriate than the office of the great chancellor, as we speak, I do not see; for he who exercises this is, as it were, the mind and hand of the prince. *Kanikleiona*, in one word, the *canicleonem*, he affirms that the man performing this office was called by Gregentius. For, acting concerning a certain Herba, who was approved by and dear to the emperor, and who had also received him from the sacred font, he says that he was co-opted into the senate by the Augustus who favored him, and made a *hypecclesiona* [a title of honor], as, he adds, the Romans call a patrician and a *canicleonem*. "He made him a senator, having made him a *hypecclesiona*, whom the Romans address as patrician and *kanikleiona*."
A nor did he know. For the king of the Chinese, whom Kaan conquered [p. 486] and drove to make away with himself, is handed down as having been named Altun-Chan. Since these things are so, Pachymeres, as well as many other writers, have conflated the single appellation *Chan* and *Kaan*, which they think is peculiar to the princes of the Tartars, although it is, in my judgment, more probable that the word *Kaan* was proper to the Mongol race, while *Chan* was customary to be attributed to the Chinese at least, and to the Prester-Johnites, and perhaps also to other dynasts of the tribes of interior Asia.
*Κάραβος*, p. 211. Hesychius says that *κάραβος* is called a *πύλη* (gate) by the Macedonians. This matches this place alone out of the many meanings of this word, provided we think that the objects signified are, according to the nature of the thing, the outlets of a swamp, or canals dug in certain places and protected on both sides by high-fixed stakes to collect the water. Philanthropenus is narrated here to have first bound together with strong ropes the tops of these protruding stakes, then to have laid across them transverse planks, then to have used this platform as a foundation for raising towers from which he might assault a fortress. It did not escape me, when I was writing this, that *κάραβος* also signifies a ship. For elsewhere I have similarly interpreted this word used by Pachymeres. Nevertheless, it seemed less likely to me that this word was used in this passage by our historian in that common sense, because swimming vessels, however much they might be tied together, would be, I should think, an insufficiently solid foundation for supporting heavy siege machines, as the narrative there requires. Yet because there is no lack of examples of *ἐλεπόλεων* (helepoleis), of siege towers, and of engines of that kind, placed on ships in the assault of coastal fortresses; if to some more prudent reader a simpler and more obvious exposition of his text should seem preferable, let him have that interpretation, reconstructed in this way, for these Greek words of Pachymeres on page 211: *Ἐπισχὼν τοὺς τῆς λίμνης καράβους συνδεῖ σχοίνοις, καὶ ξύλα μέγιστα ἐνιεὶς ἐπ' ἐκείνων κατασκευάζεται μέσυνας*; let these be substituted in the Latin version: *Arreptas, quæ in stagno repertæ sunt, cymbas funibus colligat; et lignis super eas constratis maximis, turres in eo tabulato, et machinas construit.* And I frankly confess that this opinion now seems more probable to me; especially from the fact that Pachymeres immediately adds *τὰ δ᾽ ἄλλα πλοῖα πληρώσας*. For this mention of other ships sufficiently indicates that he thought the *καράβους*, which he had mentioned a little before, were of the same genus of *πλοίων* or sea-going vessels.
*Κάνις*, p. 456. Concerning the word *Κάνις*, or, as our author writes elsewhere, *Κάννης*, I said some things in the previous Glossary. To these I now have things to add. I observed in the Arabic Chronicle of Abulpharagius, from which I shall arrange below in chapter 7 of this third book of Observations the entire chronology of the Mongol Tocharic empire, insofar as it pertains to the illustration of Pachymerian history—I observed, I say, that there was a double word of similar sound in use among Oriental peoples to indicate supreme power, of which the one was common to the Tocharites with the Prester-Johnites and the Chinese, while the other was proper to the Mongols. These words are *Chan* and *Kaan*. The former is read to have been borne by the one who was the last to preside over that empire which was called Prester John’s, from the destruction of which the Mongol empire arose. For Abulpharagius relates that that last John was called by the proper name Ung-Chan. He who killed him and occupied his throne, first called Tamuiinus, then with the name Gingiz newly added, added the nomenclature of *Chan* as an index of the kingdom, being called Ginhiz-Chanes. His son and heir, first called Ogtai, received the name *Kaan* at the commencement of his reign, which he also made illustrious by his deeds and most famous victories. Thence I think it happened that some of his descendants used that name as an insignia of the kingdom. I say "some": for not all, since his son Cayuchus, who succeeded this Kaan directly, did not append *Kaanis* but *Chanis* to his name as a mark of the empire, and was constantly called Cayuch-chan. The first who, upon Cayucho's death, succeeded him, Munkakaus, assumed not the epithet of *Chan* but of *Kaan*. Upon Munkakao’s death, and with the succession being uncertain because of the civil wars of Kublai and Aribuga, candidates for the empire, for eighteen years, Hulacu, brother of Munkakaus, sent long before by him to preside in his place over the Western tracts of the empire, although he was never rightly elected or inaugurated emperor, nor did he seem to hold the true right of the Mongol kingdom, yet because he functioned with such power *de facto*, he is sometimes called Hulacu Il Chan by Abulpharagius. But when this man died, after Abakam, son of Hulacu, was placed upon the Mongol throne by the legitimate suffrage of the people, he always calls that man Abaka-l Chan or Abakam Chanen, so that he recognizes as certain the emphasis of *autokratoric* monarchy in the word *Chan*. Cazanen, then, whom Pachymeres celebrates as a boastful emulator of the few illustrious ancient princes, I should easily believe preferred the title of *Kaan*, the second of his race and a far more famous monarch, rather than *Chan*, which is vulgar even among the not-most-praiseworthy kings of his own race and is used moreover among other peoples.
*Καρπός*, p. 146. The word *καρπός* is placed here in a notion such as I have never observed elsewhere, indicating a page of a leaf, a popular metaphor, surely, like that by which in common parlance in France a ream of paper is wont to be called *une main de papier*. *Καρπός* is the joint of the arm with the hand, *ἄρθρον χειρὸς καὶ βραχίονος*, as Aristotle says (11 *De part. animal.*). It appears, however,
A to mean the entire palm or middle flat part of the concave hand, which is also called *καρπός*. For Homer, in the *Iliad*, describing the dance of youths with maidens holding hands together, seems to use *καρπός* in such a sense, when he writes:
"There youths and maidens, sought with many gifts, Danced, holding hands upon the *karpos*."
For if one person held the hand of another by the *karpos*, as he says, he certainly does not mean the joint of the arm, but the palm and the flat of the hand, which is usually held and grasped by those pulling each other while dancing. The flat of a page has a certain resemblance to an extended palm, so that there is a foundation for the metaphor, which was perhaps then common in vernacular speech, even if it is found more rarely in books. I had sometimes thought that *καρπός* here could be translated as *article* or *chapter*, namely the first paragraph that meets the eye when a book is opened, which can sometimes be from the middle or bottom of the page. But that cannot be said in this place. For our author sufficiently indicates an omen concerning what he is handling, which is accustomed to be captured from the words occurring at the head or the beginning of the page. Otherwise, not everyone would have agreed in perceiving a bad omen from those same words: for it could have happened that the three bishops, who were cooperating with the celebrant in that opening and placing of the book of the Gospels, would not all have cast their eyes upon the same part of the page. These reasons moved me to interpret *καρπός* in this place as B *page*.
*Κάστρον*. To the things I long ago noted in the Glossary, vol. I, p. 571, regarding *κάστρον* or *εἱρκτὴ λήθης*, the castle or prison of oblivion, I will add here what Father Claudius Maltretus of the Society of Jesus suggested in the most gracious letter he sent to me after reading those notes. "For a long time (he says) I had noted these things on chapter 5, book I of Procopius, *De bello Persico* [p. 692], concerning the castle of oblivion: Leontius and Metaphrastes make mention of this fortress in the *Life of St. John the Almsgiver* in Bollandus, Jan. vol. I, p. 508 and 525; Cedrenus [Ed. Reg. p. 346], the author of the *Miscellanea*, book XV, p. 510, Theophanes p. 220, Agathias book V, [Ed. Reg. p. 158] deal with the same. More accurately than the rest, Theophylact Simocatta, whose words I shall more conveniently render at the end of this chapter. The Greeks appear to have had a similar castle under the Emperor Andronikos the Elder, to whom Nicephorus Gregoras, book IX, p. 208, Ed. Basil., says the option was given whether he would prefer to don the monastic habit or undergo some other misfortune; these last words hinted at either slaughter, says Gregoras, or exile, or *βιαίαν ἀπαγωγὴν εἰς τὸ τῆς λήθης φρούριον*, a violent abduction into the castle of oblivion. Leunclavius, in his *Pandectae historiae Turcicae*, p. 445 [Ed. Reg.], n. 128, conjectures from Gregoras that this castle was situated on the Bosphorus. But Gregoras nowhere determines its location. Regarding the Persian castle called *of oblivion*, after I showed the tragic history of Arsaces narrated by Procopius, I showed that it refers to the same C words of my Procopius: that Arsaces was thrust into the castle of oblivion; take here the words of Theophylact Simocatta, which I promised above to render, from book III, chapter 5: *Φρούριον (Γιλιγέρδων ὄνομα αὐτῷ) ἐνδοτέρω τῆς Μηδικῆς ᾠκοδόμηται ἐν χώρᾳ ἐπιλεγομένη Βιζακοῦ, οὐ πόρρω Βενδοσαβείρων τῆς πόλεως. Πρόσεστι δὲ τούτῳ καί τις εἱρκτή. Λήθην δὲ ὀνομάζουσι ταύτην οἱ βάρβαροι.* [A fortress (called Giligerdon) has been built deep within Media in a land called Bizakou, not far from the city of Bendosabira. A prison was also attached to this. The barbarians call this 'Lethe' (Oblivion).] From this, Ammianus Marcellinus seems to mislead us when he says that Arsaces was exterminated into the castle of Agabana. But this, by my own judgment, is the name of that prison combined with an article. He will approach closest to the truth who writes *Hagoba-nas* or *Hagoba-nasa*. For *Gob*, and in Chaldean *goba* or *gubba*, which occurs so often in Daniel chapter 6, signifies a pit and a lake. Now, by both words, the interpreters of the Holy Scriptures designate a prison well enclosed and fortified with very high walls. The prison into which Joseph was cast is called a pit, Wisd. X, 15, by the LXX *λάκκος*, and Gen. XLI, 14, *ὀχύρωμα* (fortress). This is the power of the Chaldean name N7 or N7. However, the other, derived from the word *nsh* (to forget), signifies oblivion. I also think I have discovered the origin of the name *Giligerdon* in what Simocatta adds, that this fortress was dedicated to guarding those captured in war, whom the king wished to be kept more strictly. I derive *Gili* or *geli* from the word *gel* which means a captive led away. And *gerd*, if I am not mistaken, is the same as *geder*, in Latin *septum* (enclosure), from the word D *gadar*, whence the name *Gades*, and *Γάδειρα*, which Hesychius interprets as *περίφραγμα* (enclosure). Avienus subscribes to this, v. 914, when he says:
"For even the barbarian tongue uses the name Gades here: For the Phoenician calls the place Gadir, enclosed on all sides."
From that transmarine source, I believe the French words *garde*, 693 *garder*, to have flowed, with the letters slightly transposed, as happens in the final part of the name *giligerd*, which, if my conjecture does not deceive me, signifies an enclosure of captives. These are the very words of our Maltretus, and the learned reader will not regret having taken this opportunity to see a specimen of his most learned, though not yet published, notes on Procopius, which long ago appeared from the Royal Press with his accurate and elegant translation.
*Καταφλᾶν*, page 240. I do not remember having read this word anywhere else. However, I understood what it meant from the fact that Hesychius explains the word *φλᾶν* as *μαλάσσειν πληγαῖς*, to subdue with blows. Eustathius, on that verse [P. 488] of *Iliad* A, *Καὶ καρτίστοι ἐμάχοντο... φησὶν ἀρεσκώοις*, contends that it is an Attic dialect permutation of *θ* into *φ*, and that according to this *φὴρ* is said for *θήρ*, *φλάω* for *θλάω*. If this is accepted, it is already clear what *θλάω* is, namely to break through and to shatter. Wherefore *καταφλᾶν*, placed here by our author, will strengthen this notion by a certain force through the addition of a preposition, so that it must be understood as a vehement and most intense blow, such as that of a massive millstone fired by an engine, or as it is today, when old...
A ballistae, with large bronze tubes, fire a iron globe by the force of lightning. The Vatican paraphrast, as if fearing the contagion of a word unknown to him, crossed out the entire sentence in which it was inserted, and absorbed into a conscious silence the entire indication of the ballista and the millstones exploded by it, as he is commonly accustomed to do.
Κατατροποῦμαι, p. 528. It treats of the great *primicerius* who, by order of Augustus Michael, was attacking the Catalans who held Gallipoli, not without some success in the second battle, in which he routed and put them to flight. This verb *katatropoumai* is found nowhere else than in Suidas. But Suidas does not express its meaning, only noting that it is combined with the accusative. From this passage of Pachymeres, we have the active meaning, and it is correctly said in Greek that *katatropousthai tinas* means to rout and put some to flight.
Κερασβόλοι κύαμοι, pag. 519. It treats of Athanasius the patriarch, a man of immense and inexorable harshness. He compares him to beans grown from those which, when they were cast into the earth by the sower, touched a bull's horn; for such were said to grow so hard that they could not be softened for food by any cooking. Theophrastus, lib. iv, c. 14, mentions this as an ancient and famous fable, refuting it as a frivolous superstition with these words: "As for what the many say, that what is *kerasbolon* (horn-struck) becomes *ateramnon* (hard to cook), that is perhaps very foolish; for a stone, against which seeds often strike, is harder, and even if it does not strike the stone, and one does not plow with oxen, it becomes *ateramnon* no less." But as for the common saying, why does that which has touched a horn become impossible to cook? One must see whether it ought to be rejected as vain and nonsensical. For a stone, against which seeds often strike while they are being cast into the ground by hand, is harder than a horn. And we see that those which have not hit a horn, and where not even the labor of oxen has been applied to sowing them, nonetheless grow up impossible to cook. As for the rest, the same man acknowledges the common metaphor derived from this for designating men of a stubborn nature by the term *kerasbolon*. "For it was clear," he says, "that those who believed that the seeds which fell upon the horns of oxen produced a fruit that was hard and difficult to cook, thus dubbed the stubborn and hard man, by metaphor, *kerasbolon* and *ateramona*." It is clear, therefore, that those who believed that the seeds which fell on the horns of oxen yielded a fruit that was hard and difficult to cook, used the word to describe a man who was stubborn and intractable as *ateramona* and *kerasbolon*. So Plutarch. See also Pliny and Suidas confirming these same things; for we already have a sufficient number of testimonies.
B Though they argue that they cannot be softened by fire, so they remain untouched by the force of law, however strong. It seems that Pachymeres had this passage of Plato in mind when writing these things. But Plutarch illustrates this whole matter more fully, discussing this topic almost as if *ex professo* in *Quaestiones Convivales*, Book 7, Q. 2; and establishing the fact as true according to common opinion, he invents a cause that is by no means superstitious. He says, namely, that legumes or seeds which, as is usually said, while they are thrown onto the ground hit the horns of the plowing oxen, are not affected by malign quality from that contact, whereby it would follow that what grows from them is hard to cook, but rather that, rebounding from that blow, they fall elsewhere than where the hand of the sower intended—namely, into the furrow, where they would immediately be covered by earth; but now, cast rashly onto the surface of the field, they are left exposed to the cold and other injuries of the air, whence they pullulate only late and with difficulty, and fruits of a poorer nature and stubborn to cooking.
C 695 Κλοβός. Ἐπιφερόμενος — ἀδελφὸν ἐν κλοβῷ — p. 165. So the codices B and A. The Vatican has only *epiferomenos kai tous katakritous desmious ton adelphon kai ton Strategopoulon*, omitting the word *klo-*, as it is accustomed to omit other things it does not understand; in which it not only mutilates the author's sentence, but corrupts and perverts it, making Pachymeres appear to affirm that which it is more apparent he wished studiously to deny, namely, that Constantine Porphyrogenitus was bound by his brother the Augustus; whereas the historian intends to pose a distinction between them of such a kind that while Strategopulus was led away in fetters, Constantine, out of reverence for his birth, was indeed free of chains, but was carried in a latticed enclosure or cage, as if in a portable prison. We must next consider the word *klobos*, which some write *kloudon*, others *klobon*. This our author correctly interprets as *eirkten phoretēn*, defining it as a portable prison. It is, indeed, as the ancient glosses teach, *klobos* a cage; whence comes the diminutive *klobion*, cited by the scholiast of Oppian among fishing implements. Therefore, it appears that a certain vehicle or cell, or a latticed sedan-chair, is signified here by the word *klobos*.
A and who were obstinately sticking to their position, were popularly called *koikoi monachoi*, being celebrated by them with praise and commendation as confessors, using the Latin word *caeci* [blind], as many other words at that time were frequent in the usage of the Greek populace and expressed in Greek letters; so that perhaps it should be read there as *kaikoi*, or according to the spelling common to many Latins, *koikoi*, which will be closer to *kokkoi*. For "caecum" [blind] is written with the diphthong *ae* by many Latins—corresponding to the Greek word *typhlon*—in not a few books today, not to mention the majority, even those written by hand in antiquity. On this occasion, I will not fear to say that this is perhaps a more correct spelling, as it is more accommodating to the etymology. I see the most accurate grammarians twisting themselves greatly in investigating the origin of the word *caecus*. Isidore, Perottus, and Decembrius, cited by Vossius in his most accurate *Etymologicum*, writing "caecum" with an *ae*, assume it is said from "carendo" [lacking] or "capiendo" [being caught], because it is lacking or caught in its eyes; which, as something far-fetched, no reader with a slightly sharper nose will fail to reject. Martinius, after he proposed that "caecum" seemed to be formed from the Greek *kaiein* [to burn], just as *typhlon* [is formed] from *typho* [I kindle] (with which the Greek etymologist by no means agrees), then much more prudently admits that the origin of *caecus* is clearly blind and hidden. But what if we write "caecum" with an *ae*, and derive the true sense of the word so written from the Greek *koein*, which is *noein* [to think/perceive], so that it is *koikos*, C the same as *noikos*, one who sees only with the keenness of the mind, lacking the intuition of the eyes? Indeed, Eustathius in his *Parekbsois* on the *Iliad* E, p. 736, Rom. ed., interpreting the comic word *koalemos*, says "that is, in *koein*, that is, wandering in *noein* [thinking]." Therefore *koein* is *noein*; so that the first Latins who came from Greece might have been able to call one 697 deprived of the light of the eyes *koikon* (blind), as if to console the calamity of a man deprived of the chief of bodily senses; by which type of solace the great Anthony once comforted the blind Didymus, as it is written, denying that it should be a burden to him that he was destitute of the corporeal instrument of seeing—which a common man shares with gnats and the lowest of insects—when he excelled with a mind emulating the keen intelligence of the immortal minds, especially since the more gifted and sharper-witted are usually proven by experience to be more capable in the operations of the mind when they are lacking the light of the eyes; whence they say that Democritus, in order to philosophize more happily, voluntarily deprived himself of the sense of sight. But this is too much beyond our topic. For I only wished to signify this: whether the Latin word *caecus* is written with *ae* or *coecus* is written with *oe*, and whatever its origin may be, it seems probable to me that certain monks everywhere, celebrated as being deprived of sight, were called *kaikoi* or *koikoi monachoi* by the Constantinopolitan populace—from the frequent association and commerce of the Latins, who transferred many words into their own language—and that this vulgar word expressed...
the blind, for that is how the Latins refer to them. And note here, too, the abuse in spelling, while *caelum* is written in Greek as *cailon*, as if from the Latin *caelum*, whereas it should have been written in Latin as *caelum*. For it is clearly from the Greek *koilon*, "hollow"; so do not be moved if, as we have advised, the custom of writing *caecus* has become prevalent, when it is more correctly *caecus*.
B *Kouboukleisios*, p. 480. He deals with the honor accorded to the body of a certain monk, found incorrupt after a long time, whom he calls *kouboukleisios*—that is, from that class of those who, for the sake of a more exquisite religious life, remained perpetually enclosed in a cell. Since there is very frequent mention of such persons in ecclesiastical histories, I can profit by demonstrating that such existed by collecting examples that I come across here and there. I merely say that those whom the Latins call "recluses" are here called by Pachymeres *kouboukleisioi*, as if "closed in a cubicle"; for the later Greeks, using a word borrowed from the Latins, called it *kouboukleion*, as Meursius long ago observed.
We understand that these same persons were called *egkleistoi* from the letter of the holy abbot Nilus, Book II, 96, in the recent edition of Leo Allatius, the all-renowned. It is inscribed TO PHILUMENUS THE RECLUSE. It ought to have been read in the manuscript archetype, unless it is a printer's error; but I would dare to bet that *egkleistō* was written by Nilus. For he is clearly dealing with a man who lived as a voluntary recluse; and he reproaches him for living in a manner not very consistent with such a profession. I shall transcribe only some words that clearly prove this. It begins: "Well done for the trophies of your virtue according to your withdrawal. Well done for the trophies of your virtue. Very well done for your vain, theatrical, and affected conduct according to your reclusion." You see in these lines a clear mention of *anachōrēsis*, a withdrawal from the company of men, and of *diagōgē kat' egkleismon*, a lifestyle containing itself within an enclosure. But he scolds this man because from the little window of the cubicle in which he remained enclosed, and through the bars placed over it, he was heard very eagerly and talkatively brawling while engaged in business, and even reviling with anger, sometimes thrusting his hands through the bars to rabidly strike those who happened by, like a bear out of a cage. These are the words: "Of those zealously trading in the market, C and of those weaving the myriad lawsuits and various disputes in the Praetorium, you do not seem to differ, devising all manner of business, shouting with anger and gnashing your teeth, reviling and mocking and abusing from the cage D those who pass by, and sometimes even your own brothers, striking them." Shortly after, he introduces him lamenting on account of the cruelty and bitterness of this wild man, whom he kept enclosed as if in an animal park. Then he addresses him: "Tell me, I pray, what have you gained, being locked up in a little house? What good have you done your own soul, hiding your body within narrow walls?" These things leave no doubt that this letter was inscribed to Philumenus the Recluse.
Furthermore, that a very large number of these persons enclosed in cells existed long ago among the Byzantine Greeks, we understand from the fact that the anonymous author of the Life of Saint Mary the Younger in Vatican codex 800, who indicates that he lived under Basil the Macedonian around the year of Christ 875, divides the entire genus of monks into two almost most-well-known and numerous species, writing thus concerning Saint Mary the Younger: "He provided for the monks, both those enclosing themselves in caves and those in little houses, the things needed for their want." To this pertains what Saint Theodore the Studite writes about Saint Plato the monk in his very elegant funeral oration, not yet published, near the end: "A rule-abiding hesychast with hesychasts, a rule-abiding teacher with teachers, and not only a recluse with recluses, but also a submissive one, which is even venerable." Where you clearly see *egkleistoi* listed among the species of monks. In which, incidentally, the diversity of tone is to be noted—which we wish to be recast as more emended from the one we have used—by writing *egkleiston* with an acute on the antepenultimate.
*Koumounion*, p. 539. I know the word *koumounion* is used in the Council of Florence for that which in French is called *communauté*, signifying the assembly of all the orders and citizens of a city and of any republic. Since all such universal collections cannot intervene in meetings at the same time, they designate certain men to be present in their stead. And these are called in the acts of the Florentine Council the *topotērētai* of the *koumounia*. In this place, the word seems to signify a certain number of councilors chosen by the votes of the people, who, for a prescribed period of time, are meant to preside over the administration of the republic. For our author says that Andronicus, offended at the Genoese because they had caused a certain man to be unjustly punished, had excluded them from the city and had removed from sight a legate or magistrate of theirs, accustomed to be in his retinue, though he could not yet judge the man himself or ask for him to be judged by the Genoese, because he was reserving his judgment for the new *communio*, that is, for the college of magistrates elected for the administration of the government. Indeed, this new council or college of prefects, already designated for the government, was soon to enter upon the possession of the administration.
A *Kontopino-ordinaton*, p. 193. He treats of the body of the *protovestiarios* who died in Constantinople, which was carried to Nicaea because he had the right of burial there, owing to the fact that it was his wife’s dowry property, she being the patroness of that monastery, which her own ancestors or she herself had founded in whole or in part. This seems to be what is meant here by *ktētorikon dikaion apo tēs syzygou*. *Ktētores*, according to Hesychius, are *ktistai*, builders or, as we say in common parlance, founders; hence the right which pertains to founders from the building or founding may rightly be called *ktētorikon dikaion*. In ecclesiastical usage, moreover, among other honors that pertain to the founders of a church, monastery, or any sacred place, is the right of burial in those places.
*Lepas*, p. 55. This proverb was used by him in the previous volume and explained by us there in the Glossary; Pachymeres uses it here all the more aptly and elegantly because that monastery of the Prodromos, which Theodorus Cyzicenus could hardly bear to be reft from—resisting those who were forcibly trying to take him away—was nicknamed *Petra*. For it is, as it would appear, the same as that which is called on p. 44, *monē tou Prodromou tēs Petras*, the Monastery of the Prodromos of the Petra.
*Lichnos*, p. 19. *Lichnos*, commonly a litter, seems here to refer to a type of sedan chair or palanquin in which an aged, decrepit man might be carried, in other words, a *gestatorium*, a word used by Suetonius in his *Claudius*: "He was accustomed to play in his litter."
*Lēnaiōn*, p. 506. "Of the same year—they say *Hekatombaiona*." And below: "The month of *Lēnaiōn* was the first foundation of the month." In these passages, you have Pachymeres, having followed the authority of the interpreters of Hesiod while composing a poem among them, calling January *Lēnaiōn*, as if that month were so named by the Athenians, whereas in reality, according to a more accurate opinion, as he thinks, Romans named it January, while it is called *Hekatombaion* by the Athenians. I have long since, in my *Observations* on the first part of the Pachymerian History, l. I, c. 1, demonstrated that this opinion of our historian is both unique to him and false, unless he only means that the first month of the Attic year is called *Hekatombaion*, just as the first month of the Roman year is called January. For this is indeed very true. But it is very false that January corresponds to *Hekatombaion*, in such a way that when indicating times, one of those words can be used as the equivalent of the other, which Pachymeres does constantly, but uniquely and erroneously. Here it is only to be seen who those are B whom he mentions here, *exēgētai tou Askraiotou poiētou*, the interpreters of the Ascraean poet. We have Hesiod purely in Greek, with purely Greek scholia, published at Venice in the year of Christ 1537, by the work of Victor Trincavelius, on folio 68 of whose book, regarding that verse of the poet: "During the month of *Lēnaiōn* and all the days of the ox-slaying," Moschopulus annotates thus: "Regarding the month of *Lēnaiōn*, which is January."
Proclus, another scholiast, disputing various matters concerning the terms for the months, inclines to the same view. Finally, on folio 73, John Tzetzes writes distinctly: "*Lēnaiōna* is January, as he is called *Lēnaios* among the Ionians." We see from this whom Pachymeres implies: namely, Moschopulus, Proclus, and John Tzetzes. What does he mean when he mentions that he "composed in their style"? Does he mean that when he was a boy, he frequented their school and rendered back to those masters as a scholastic exercise the verses he cites about the lunar eclipse, and that he adhered to their opinion in these matters? Or rather, when he was privately reading Hesiod and using their scholia, and in the meantime the impulse arose in him to meditate on a poem in imitation of the poet whom he was commenting upon, he did not wish, given the obvious subject of a lunar eclipse, to depart from the opinion of the Hesiodic scholiasts, however little it had been proven to him? I think one could suspect either, if it were certain that Moschopulus, Proclus, and Tzetzes all lived at the same time and that Pachymeres could have attended their lectures in a school. But so that we might not entangle ourselves in an unnecessary disquisition, we shall rather take the second path, unless someone would prefer to suspect that Pachymeres, whichever masters he may have attended for letters, because they, as interpreters of Hesiod, followed the opinion of those famous men in explaining that poet, had adopted it for the sake of the argument and perfunctorily in verses written according to their dicta.
C *Logariastēs tēs aulēs*, [p. 494], p. 296. He also brings forward as a witness, of those being spoken of, the then *logariastēs* of the palace, Angelos. Soon he says he was *ophiqikiō tetimēmenos*, honored with an office, that is, distinguished by an honorary magistracy. His function Codinus, c. 5, n. 84, expresses in these words: "The *logariastēs* of the palace calculates all those found in the palace who are fugitives, whether any of his *roga* is missing, or whether he has rendered service for which he has been paid." This is, as interpreted by our own Gretser: The palace *logariastes* counts and computes all the soldiers who earn stipends in the palace; and he inspects whether any of them is lacking his stipend, or whether he has fully satisfied [the requirement] for the stipend he received. Codinus mentions this office often elsewhere. There was also another *logariastes* of the palace mentioned more than once to him, as c. 2, n. 40; the former is distinguished from the latter by the addition of the word "palace." What is written by Codinus, c. 5, n. 61, concerning the *logariastēs* of the palace, "He now holds no function," easily squares with these times or those slightly later in which Codinus is thought to have lived, under Cantacuzenus or with him, that is, in the principate of Andronicus the Younger—this Andronicus, whose history Pachymeres relates in this work, the nephew and at one time colleague [of the elder]. For since from those things which our author often complained of above regarding the neglected payment of the pensions decreed for soldiers, which Codinus and others call *rogai*, it is understood that the practice was gradually introduced under Andronicus the Elder that what was set for the soldiers was first paid late and not in its entirety, and then...
the function of the palace *logariastes*, if it was his duty, as has been said, to see that these payments were disbursed in full according to the work performed, no longer held. The name and honor of this magistracy might, however, have been retained, which our author indicates here, even if already then, perhaps—if Codinus, whose age is uncertain, wrote under Andronicus the Elder—his ministry A had ceased.
*Mammakythos*. "Second thoughts and the reminders of learned friends suggest here something that I had previously noted regarding this word. There occurs to me then by chance, as I read Tzetzes' explanation of this word in his *Chiliad* 4, these verses:
*The same as the 'blito-mammakys' signifies 'mammakythos',* *That is, a foolish one, concealing both the 'mamma' and the* [181, 762] *bread.* *Fool, he says quite plainly, conceal your 'mamma'.*
Regarding the origin of the word indicated here, *mammakythos* from *mamma*, Phavorinus writes in his Lexicon: "'Mammakythoi' instead of 'mammothreptoi'." Henry Stephanus, in his *Thesaurus*, thinks that *mammothreptoi* are called boys who are reared too softly and indulgently, such as those who are nurtured more tenderly by a grandmother in the manner of old people B towards their grandchildren. Since, as they are wont to be, such boys are lazy and pleasure-seeking, he thinks that the stigma of dissolution and profligacy, which the Latins in ancient usage attached to the word *nepos*, became attached to the word *mammothreptos*. So he says: in whose opinion, the word *mammothreptos* contains no indication of stupidity or dullness of mind, but only of luxury, and thus would not be equivalent to *mammakys*, as Phavorinus teaches; to whom, however, I believe it is safer to credit the explanation of the origins of his own language than to so much later a grammarian, however accurate, as Stephanus. Much better, therefore, is that explanation of the word *mammothreptos* which the saintly Augustine suggests, in sermon 2, on Psalm 30, regarding these words: *But I have trusted in thee, O Lord.* If you attend, he says, to a man still, and you seek to imitate him and hang upon him, you still wish to be nurtured with milk and you become a *mammothreptos*, as children are called who suck for a long time, which is not becoming. It is also known by experience, the cause of which physicians assign, that children who are not weaned in time grow up dull and stupid, and are described by Aristophanes in *Frogs*, fol. 123, p. 2, ed. Greek, Florence, 1525: *abelteroteroi*, *kechynotes*, *mammakythoi*, foolishly gaping and letting saliva flow from their mouths C, which is cited as a sign of madness in 1 Samuel ch. 21, 13. The French today point out such people in common parlance, by a word expressing those who gap: *badaux*. But enough of these.
*Maimakterion*, p. 382. Beware of thinking, as has been indicated in other places of this history in our previous Glossary, that this is called June. The character of the day of the week clearly contradicts this. For it is most certain that the year in which the events related here took place was 1304 of Christ, which without any controversy counted 25 for the cycle of the sun; but because it was a leap year, it had a double index for the Dominical letter, E and D, of which the former was in use until the 28th day of February, and the latter for the remaining time thereafter. If, therefore, Pachymeres had intended June in this place, it would have been necessary in the calendar to mark the letter B, the index of the sixth day of the week, by the side of the twenty-first day, when D designates the first day of the week. But on the contrary, as is clearly seen, the letter D, the character of the Dominical day itself, marks the twenty-first day of June. Therefore, this is not a discussion about June. Whoever the author of the Vatican paraphrase is, he saw this. For although elsewhere he always renders *Maimakterion* as June, thus, contrary to custom, he paraphrases this place: "On the day, indeed, the first Friday of the month of July," etc. Furthermore, he was more clever here in sniffing out the equivocal notion of the word *Maimakterion* than he was fortunate in distinguishing the one true one among many. For the character does not suit the month of July such that the 21st day is marked by the letter B. This note is proper to the sixth or August month, and indeed, uniquely so among all the months of the year. Whence it does not seem to be doubted that what our author is accustomed to call D *Poseideon* elsewhere, he has called *Maimakterion* in this place. Indeed, he himself implies that he is not speaking here from his own opinion, but from another, while he does not call this month *Maimakterion* absolutely, but him who is so called according to the Athenians; just as the same author, p. 306, writes of January, which he himself, as we showed in ch. 1, 1 of the Observations of the former volume, judges should be called *Hekatombaion*, and that *Lenaion* is called by some according to the Athenians, not rightly in his own judgment, although he himself sometimes had followed their authority. Something similar is to be understood here, even if the author, according to his custom, obscures and halves the facts clearly, and does not indicate them, but appears to say absolutely that August is *Maimakterion* for the Athenians, even though it appears sufficiently that he did not believe it to be entirely so. For if he thought so, he would not have so often indicated June by the word *Maimakterion* elsewhere and August by *Poseidon*.
*Markoutzas*. What I suspected in the previous Glossary should be read as *markoutzas*, vol. 1, p. 282, is confirmed by our Maltret, from whose letters given to me I describe these things: "In the word *Marmoutzas* I prefer *t* since the copies that write *markoutzas* [favor the] origin of the word thus written, which is Arabic, favoring the meaning indicated there by Pachymeres. For *mar* in Arabic sounds 'man', and *kutzi* 'far', or 'a stranger come from afar'."
*Mesiteuontes*, p. 208. From many places of this history, and of writers contemporary with Pachymeres, it is to be observed once, for the understanding of this and other places, that at that time in Constantinople those were accustomed to be called *mesiteuontes* who, being powerful in grace and reputation among the princes...
were the principal instruments of the entire administration, managing almost all things by themselves or through their influence and intervention. Certain European courts today call ministers of this kind *par excellence* and antonomastically by that name, and their function is simply "ministry." Such was, under Andronicus, the focus of this history, first Theodorus Muzalo (Bk. I, ch. 1 and 2), then Chumnus, prefect of the inkstand (Bk. II, last chapter); it seems Cantacuzenus and Phrantzes call them *mesizontas*, regarding whom see what our Pontanus notes in his Prolegomena to Phrantzes. Regarding what I write here, I wish that what I noted in the previous Glossary under the word *mesazōn* be reconsidered. I add this also, from which what I have said so far is not a little confirmed, that those who were promoted to this principal ministry were accustomed to be said to be "established in the middle," as can be seen in this author of ours in the title of ch. 32, Bk. II, where *to meson* is the name of this office; which I rendered in Latin there as "the primary care of principal affairs."
*Mepé*. Regarding the *Mepe* of Iberia mentioned in the Glossary, Vol. I, p. 216, our Claudius Maltretus admonishes thus: "What if we suspect the prince of Iberia called *Mepe* comes from Pachymeres, by the addition of the *mu* before the *pi*, which was common to Greeks of the later age? For thus they write *mpilla* for *palla*, *mbarounia* for *baronia*, *mbasla* for *bassa*, *mpotesta* for *potestas*, and many other things according to Meursius. The *dynasta* of the Iberians could therefore be called by them *ma pekeh* and contracted to *pe*, which word indicates a leader and prince, and by Pachymeres—due to the solemn habit of these people to use the *mu* preposition—be named *Mpe*, whence by the error of a copyist it has flowed into *Mepe*."
*Monokellikon*, p. 390. What is meant at this point by *monokellikon*, I would more willingly learn than attempt to teach. For to one searching for a long time, little occurs that would satisfy. The thing itself persuades those weighing the whole passage that this *monokellikon* pertains to the nature of *pronoiai*, of pensions or annual stipends provided from the treasury; [D in margin for 704] which the historian reports at this point to have been committed by the emperor—at a very grave time for the republic—to be remitted by those having the right to gather them and be transferred for hiring new soldiers, adding however that the *monokellikon* was excepted, which remained safe for the possessors. What else should I suspect than that part of the pensions so called was precisely necessary for daily sustenance, from which the pensioners A certainly ought not to be deprived? *Kella*, from the Latin *cella*, not rarely signifies a larder, a storehouse of daily food. Why, therefore, should *monokellikon* not be understood as the allowance distributed to each of the stipendiaries from the treasury for food? Besides, these pensions usually abounded for ornaments and less necessary expenses. I have often read in Cicero in the *Verrines* that it was the custom for grain to be given to the Roman magistrates sent from the province to govern it, or money from which to buy it—that is, I think, from which they might arrange a daily table for themselves and their family. Therefore, he received pensions and transmitted them to posterity.
*Mogouloi*, p. 620, and p. 637. Whom most Latins call Tartars, Greeks everywhere and Arabs [call] Tatars, Pachymeres called Tocharans (having followed Pliny, who lists them among the Scythian peoples; not far differing from Strabo, who in Book XI calls them Tachari), being the same as our historian already said, Vol. I, p. 314, that they themselves were accustomed to call themselves Mogulians. Gregory Abulpharagius consistently calls them Mogulians in his most accurate Chronicle written in Arabic around the same time, or not much earlier than Pachymeres was commenting on this history. Indeed, Aytom, a writer of the same age, in ch. 16 of his *Oriental History*, which exists in Latin, mentions them called *Mogli*. This name Lenclavius indicates properly designated several distinct peoples (seven are numbered by Aytom) counted under the common appellation of the Tocharan or Tartar race, just as we see happens among the Goths, Ostrogoths, and Visigoths, so that they were distinguished from one another by an adjunct. For, as that writer says, the *Sumogli* were called the dwellers by the Tatar river, which word signifies "aquatic Mogulians" in their own language; and thus others were distinguished by other differences to notice. Furthermore, of this peculiar species of Tocharans, which gathered the general nomenclature of the Tocharan or Tartar race under the word Mogulians, the specific property was that empire which from the year of Christ 1202 for a hundred and some years flourished widely through Asia and part of Northern Europe with great successes in victories; of which, because our author often makes mention, we give a brief specimen ch. 7, Bk. III of these Observations. Gingizchan, namely, the author of that empire, traced his lineage from B that part of the Tocharans, as Abulpharagius hints, which was known by the peculiar appellation of Mogulians. Certainly, which the same [author] affirms most clearly, by the concordant election of the Mogulians and by obedience unanimously deferred, the same Gingizchan received his C own and, if I may say so, original power, and transmitted it to posterity. It is not incredible that these peoples dwelt in a region anciently called Megala, which Pliny places in the confines of Media near Elymais (Bk. VI, Nat. Hist., ch. 26), where one may suspect some mutation has crept in, such as almost always intervenes in translation from one language into another regarding the names of foreigners. Mogola indeed or Mugula, the Greeks being accustomed to draw everything back to their own origins and idioms (as we see in *Byrsa* for *Bosra*, in *Axinos* and *Euxinos* for *Ascenez*, and in six hundred other cases), could have been deformed into *Megala*, which from these, as with many other things, Pliny may have taken. I indeed think the greatest and most powerful empire today, the Mogul empire, is a survivor of that Mogola
appellation. For they say that it was founded by Babur, a great-grandson of Tamerlane. That Tamerlane boasted not in vain that he was descended from ancient Mogul princes, it is quite likely. For even though the Turkish historians, especially those who flatter the Ottoman princes, have written that he was of the basest stock, born of a shepherd father in the mountains of Sogdiana, in order to defame the memory of him who had defeated and captured Bayezid in war and held him in dire custody until his *death, A nonetheless the Arab Alhacen, who is said to have been his constant companion on all expeditions and who is therefore rightly believed to have known his affairs better than others, testifies in the life he wrote of him that when he began to be famous for his stupendous deeds [P. 498] around the year of Christ 1390, he did not emerge into such prominence from private and sordid fortune, but from an ancestral principality of Samarkand, which he had received by hereditary right: for he was indeed sprung from the royal blood of the Tatars, that is, the Moguls. Bizarus, hinting at this, in book IX, admits that some have recorded that Tamerlane was a son (that is, one of the descendants) of the great Khan of the Tatars; and the Arab historians Alianabius and Ahmedus, lauded by Edward Pococke in the *Supplement to the Chronicle of Abulpharagius*, p. 5, expressly affirm that Tamerlane traced his descent from Genghis Khan, the first founder of the Mogul empire. Moreover, although, as Chalcondyles, chapter 5, teaches, after Tamerlane's death (which occurred in the year of Christ 1402) his vast empire fell apart in a short time due to the unhappiness or imprudence of his successors. Yet it is handed down by recent chronologists that the aforementioned Babur, C grandson of Tamerlane, son of Sadruchi or Paiauguris, obtained an hereditary dynasty among the Moguls, a Scythian tribe; and from there, having gathered neighboring forces, first defeated the Parthians or Patans, and from there by fortunate progress went on to establish and transmit that Mogul empire which flourishes today 706 to his descendants, having become fond of that name, as it is easy to suspect, primarily because it recalled to the present the formerly illustrious power of the Mogul princes, the great ancestors of those Genghis-khanid kings, repeated from ancient memory. These things regarding the term 'Mogul' attributed to the Tocharians by Pachymeres I have thought worth mentioning here; which I believe the fair-minded reader will judge to be not a little useful for illustrating this passage of our historian.
*Na*, p. 341. "The oath," in a common way, "was uttered thus: 'May I have the mercy of God, nor am I among you, unless it happened so.'" But when it was doubted whether this was truly an oath, the patriarch John Cosmas himself, who had spoken these things, being asked what he meant, replied in this manner, p. 350: "What I uttered out of grief for my brethren, I did not say as if I were considering it an oath, but simply from habit I speak this way, 'May I...'"
*Nà*, p. 766. And he had brought forward similar things before. The words in his common usage: *Νὰ ἔχω τὸ ἔλεος τοῦ Θεοῦ, νὰ εἰμὶ δοῦλος τοῦ Θεοῦ, νὰ ἀποθάνω ἐν μετανοίᾳ*. In these, *vá* does not appear to be used in the sense currently common in the vernacular idiom of the Greeks (for the lexicographers of this corrupted Greek language explain *vá* as *loú*, *en*, *ecce*), but it seems rather to be placed in a certain peculiar usage by John Cosmas for *vaí*, "yes," "indeed," "certainly." B But those who believed that he had sworn by these words seem to have understood *vá* as *vý*; for *vý*, as is known, is an adverb of swearing in the ancient Greek language. It could also appear that Cosmas, in some of the recited formulas, for instance that one, *νὰ ἀποθάνω ἐν μετανοίᾳ*, had placed *νά* for *εἴθε*, "would that."
*Néa*, p. 145. I suspected here that *νέαν* was being said, as is usual, by abbreviation, with the word *πύλην* implied. But I was deterred, because Petrus Gyllius, when he lists the gates of the city of Constantinople, L. I, c. 20, nowhere mentions any gate which was called *νέα*, "new." One might also imply another feminine substantive, such as *μονή* or *ἀγορά*, "monastery" or "forum": but since I have not read elsewhere that a *μονήν* or *ἀγορὰν νέαν* was called "new" in Constantinople, not daring to guess, in the translation I have retained the name *Néan* itself, as a proper name of a known place, until something more certain occurs to seek.
[P. 499] *Ξενῶν*, p. 283. It seems that here *συνήθη νομίσματα* refers to the alms usually suggested by the emperor to the patriarch, so that he might spend them on the comforts of guests; and our author teaches here on this occasion that the expense of approximately one thousand gold pieces was accustomed to be imputed to the accounts of the patriarch. I will not omit to warn that this passage appears not to be rightly understood by the Vatican paraphrast, while he expresses it thus: *Καὶ τὰ συνήθη τοῦ ξενῶνος νομίσματα πέμπων· ἐποίει γὰρ κατ᾽ ἔτος βασιλεὺς ἐλεημοσύνην κρυφίως, εἰδότος τοῦ πατριάρχου*, 707 *εἰς χιλιάδας πολλάς ποτουμένην*. He who compares these with the context of the author will easily note the discrepancies.
*Οἰκονομίαι*, p. 163. He deals with ecclesiastical [revenues] vexed by the monk Sabas, into whose *oikonomias* he had encroached by withholding and demanding back the income, as if they had forfeited by the crime of treason their legal right to receive them, regarding which he said they had incurred, already holding them as convicted and condemned. From these it seems to be gathered that *oikonomias* here are called what we commonly call prebends or benefices, the various rights of receiving portions from the revenues of the Church, pertaining to certain clerics or priests by reason of the functions or ministries entrusted to them. So I opined. Yet, lest I prejudice anything, I have retained the word *Economies* itself in translating.
*Ὁδηγοί*, p. 85. He deals with the chest in which the body of Arsenius was buried; which, a little before, he called a *κιβώτιον*, and said it was placed *παρὰ τὰ δεξιά τοῦ βήματος*, at the right of the altar; here, however, he says, on the third day of every week, with the people gathering in the customary way
A to revere this little chest—that is, in my opinion, it used to be opened slightly so that the bones stored within might be visible to the gazes of the onlookers through the slits or gratings, but not for them to handle. But first of all, it must be inquired what these "Hodegoi" are called, and who this popular cult of theirs on Tuesdays is. I am forced to grope in the dark, as I have found nothing concerning them in Greek books. After everything has been examined long and attentively, I see nothing more plausible than that the people of Constantinople were accustomed to go to venerate the holy angels on Tuesdays. For I gather that these are designated by the term "Hodegoi" from the liturgy of Chrysostom, in which the deacon, with raised voice, declares thus: *Αγγελον εἰρήνης, πιστὸν ὁδηγόν, φύλακα τῶν ψυχῶν καὶ σωμάτων ἡμῶν, παρὰ τοῦ Κυρίου αἰτησώμεθα.* "Let us ask of the Lord an angel of peace, a faithful guide, a guardian of our souls and bodies." B To this place, Cabasilas adds a note, c. 34: *Εὐχόμεθα περὶ τοῦ φύλακος ἀγγέλου οὐχ ἵνα ἡμῖν τότε δοθῇ (δέδοται γὰρ ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἑκάστῳ τῶν πιστῶν ἄγγελος), ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα ἐνεργὸς ᾗ καὶ τὰ αὐτοῦ ποιῇ καὶ φρουρῇ, καὶ πρὸς τὴν εὐθεῖαν ὁδὸν ἡμᾶς ὁδηγῇ.* "We pray for the guardian angel, not that he may then be given to us (for an angel is given to each of the faithful from the beginning), but that he may be active and perform the tasks of his office, and stand guard, and guide us on the straight path." So it is there; from which it is evident how frequent the designation of guardian angels by the word *ὁδηγῶν* (guides) was among the Greeks. And there is also that custom of the ancient Church, very well known from present experience, that Tuesday of every week should be assigned to the cult of the angels. I think, therefore, that the people of Constantinople were accustomed to assemble on Tuesdays for the veneration of the angels. But to what place? Pachymeres indicates here that this assembly took place at the right side of the great altar in the church of Hagia Sophia; for there, as he said, the bier or casket of the bones of Arsenius, formerly patriarch, had been placed, which he says was accustomed to be left open on the occasion of this assembly on such a day. It would not be a vain conjecture, I think, that this place was chosen where it was believed the angels resided most especially, from the fact that in Luke 1:11, the angel is said to have appeared to Zechariah "standing at the right side of the altar of incense," whence devotion might lead one to this as a legitimate station for the angels, declared by the sacred oracles, and as it were a fixed post for the people who venerate the angels. To this pertains the statement of Hilary, in his last canon on Matthew, affirming that by the tearing of the veil, which occurred at the death of Christ, is signified the departure of the angels from the guard of the synagogue and the Jewish rites, over which they stood watch, stationed near the veil of the temple—that is, near the altar of incense, which was placed intimately near the veil that covered the Holy of Holies, as is best known. The words of Hilary are: "The honor of the veil is removed with the guard of the protecting angel." It remains for me to give the reader the reason for an emendation necessary by conjecture. In two manuscripts it was written A *πρὸς τὴν τῶν Ὁδηγῶν*; which reading is truly intricate. For to what does this *τὴν* pertain, or what thing does it indicate, when no noun suitable to the gender occurs to it before or after stated? Writers of books of this sort of old were accustomed to paint certain words with compendious marks. Many such are seen in this work of both, where *ν* is used everywhere for *ἄνθρωπος*, *οὐνός* for *οὐρανός*, to omit six hundred similar things. I would think, therefore, that here *τὴν* is written in a compendious manner for *τὴν*, a word already fitting the sense not unsuitably according to what has just been explained. Another passage of our author confirms this below, p. 302, where he points to the people and the emperor himself being accustomed to go on Tuesdays *προσκυνήσεως ἕνεκα* for the sake of veneration to the monastery of the Hodegoi. His words are these: *Εἶτ᾽ ἐκεῖθεν ἐπὶ τρίτῃ τῆς ἑβδομάδος ἦν καὶ γ᾽ ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἐκ πολλοῦ τῷ βασιλεῖ ἦν, τῇ Ὁδηγῶν μονῇ κατὰ ταύτην τὴν ἡμέραν παραβάλλειν προσκυνήσεως ἕνεκα.* From which you see that on Tuesdays the emperor, according to the popular custom, was accustomed to come to the church of the monastery of the Hodegoi, to which, as may be suspected, that name had adhered from the fact that the special remembrance of the *τῶν ὁδηγῶν*—that is, according to the things said before, the guardian angels—was celebrated there.
*Ὄντωσις* p. 248. *Ἡ Θεοῦ ἀγαθότης ἀρχή τις γενομένη τοῖς μὴ οὖσιν εἰς ὄντωσιν.* Thus the B and A codices; V skips this whole clause. *Ὄντωσις* here appears to be what Pachymeres calls *ὕπαρξιν*, existence, or as the schools say, "subsistence." Examples are missing, which I have seen of this word being used by others. But if our author had not read it elsewhere, he surely had seen those things written by St. Dionysius in his book *On the Divine Names*, c. 5, concerning God: *ἀρχὴ καὶ μέτρον αἰώνων, καὶ χρόνων ὀντώτης.* Which words the same Pachymeres has explained at length in his paraphrase on that passage. Therefore, when he had found the name *ὀντώτης* there as if derived from the verb *ὀντόω*, 709 from the participle *ὤν*, *ὄντος*, he thought he could produce the word *ὄντωσις* by like analogy, which he placed here.
*Ὀρθοδοξία*, p. 281. *Ἡ δ' ἦν ἡ τῆς ὀρθοδοξίας ἡμέρα.* That this was the first Sunday of Lent, Philotheus clearly teaches, in his homily on the first Sunday of Lent, writing thus: *Τῇ Κυριακῇ ταύτῃ καὶ πρώτῃ τῶν νηστειῶν ἡ τοῦ Χριστοῦ Ἐκκλησία ἑορτάζειν παρέλαβε τὴν ὀρθοδοξίαν, ἤτοι τὴν ἀναστήλωσιν τῶν σεπτῶν καὶ ἁγίων εἰκόνων γενομένην παρὰ Μιχαήλ βασιλέως καὶ Θεοδώρας τῆς τούτου μητρὸς τῆς μακαρίας βασιλίδος, καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου Μεθοδίου πατριάρχου τῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως.* "On this first Sunday of Lent, the Church of Christ received the tradition to celebrate Orthodoxy, that is, the restoration of the venerable and holy icons which took place under the Emperor Michael and Theodora his mother, the blessed empress, and the holy Methodius, Patriarch of Constantinople." That on this Sunday Codinus, 1. *De Offic.*, intimates is accustomed to be recited while the emperor stands by, the synodicon, seems to signify a formula of faith or
A anathematisms against heresies decreed by synods. Consistently with which, Pachymeres writes, p. 32, that Patriarch John Veccus had added certain anathematisms to those which were accustomed to be recited on the Sunday of Orthodoxy. From which we understand that this was not necessarily a synodical decree or canon of an ecumenical synod, but that sanctions established in the ordinary synods of each patriarch could come under that name.
Παραθεωρεῖσθαι, p. 618.
He treats of those who, forced against their will by the harsh commands of Patriarch Athanasius to fast, were eating secretly; whence it resulted that because they had eaten in the dead of night, they stood before the sacrifices on the next day satiated and indigested; in which there was an irreverence condemned by ancient discipline. Therefore, our author here calls B παραθεωρεῖσθαι μυστικὰς θυσίας, that the reverence due the mystical sacrifice according to ancient custom is violated by the attendance of those not fasting from midnight. The verb θεωρεῖν and θεωρεῖσθαι was once dedicated to sacred things, expressing the chaste performance of ceremonies and the viewing of the mysteries prepared with religious rites. Hence in Plato's epistle, οἱ θεωροῦντες ἐν Δελφοῖς are ministers attending to the worship of Apollo according to the rites customary there, and performing the various functions proper to his religion, especially for those consulting the oracle. Whence Thucydides, I. v, θεωρεῖν κατὰ πάτρια, that is, I believe, to perform sacred C offices according to the rites handed down from ancestors, he joins with θύειν and μαντεύεσθαι, to sacrifice and to consult the oracle or to deliver what is received. For I do not agree with the scholiast who explains the word θεωρεῖν in that passage as θεωροὺς πέμπειν; about which there is no room here for discussing at greater length. Furthermore, when by unworthy men or those not initiated by legitimate apparatus, ἐποπτεία (a viewing of the mysteries) or any religious duty is performed—not as it is fitting, with the established rite neglected—the sacred rites are said to be D παραθεωρεῖσθαι, despised and as it were defiled. Thus Hesychius explains παρεθεωροῦντο as καταφρονοῦντο (they were despised). Where, although he seems to look to a passage in Acts 6:1, nevertheless it can justly be extended more broadly; and not without reason has it been adapted here by Pachymeres to the irreverence with which religion is violated. For there is no doubt that it is a contempt of divine majesty to neglect the observances prescribed by God Himself in His worship. Wherefore Paul, as if they were despising the Church of God, rebukes the Corinthians, καταφρονοῦντας, 1 Cor. 11:22, because they were eating in it as if in a profane place: "Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the Church of God?" But what if we suspect that our Pachymeres, when he had read in his great Apollo, Hesychius, at the passage I just described, that παραθεωρεῖσθαι and καταφρονοῦνται were compared as equivalent, and simultaneously had in mind the aforementioned passage of Paul, [P. 502] complaining of the despisers of the Church by their eating, with the irreverence by which—having presumed to eat food in the dead of night—clerics or monks were not fasting as they stood before the altars while sacrifice was being offered, he used παραθεωρεῖσθαι, that is, καταφρονεῖσθαι, to express that the sacred oblations were being despised and contemned?Παρυποστάσεις, p. 144.
Ὡς εἴπερ εὑρεθείεν τῶν ἀγαθῶν ἀπουσίαις. Writing these things, the author was without doubt thinking of that dictum of St. Dionysius the Areopagite, *De Divinis Nominibus*, c. 4, p. 217, ed. Lansel, Paris, 1615: Διὸ οὔτε ὑπόστασιν ἔχει τὸ κακόν, ἀλλὰ παρυπόστασιν. It signifies, since evil is nothing else than a privation of the good, that by this term "evil" is not signified the true existence or subsistence of any thing, but a "quasi-existence" or "quasi-subsistence," only by way of a manner of speaking expressing in a positive form a thing that is merely privative. Whence the same, our Pachymeres, in his paraphrase on that passage of Dionysius, p. 124 of the same edition, 711 brings forward the reason why Dionysius denies that evil has ὑπόστασιν (subsistence): Ἡ στέρησις γὰρ οὐκ ἔστιν ὑπόστασις. Whence he infers that it cannot have any power: Τὸ δὲ μὴ ὑφιστάμενον ποίαν ἕξει τὴν δύναμιν; He refutes himself, therefore; and since he calls evil παρυποστάσεις, "vicarious-subsistences," so to speak, ἐκ τῆς τῶν ἀγαθῶν ἀπουσίας, he declares with those very words which are read not long after in his paraphrase: "Οτι τότε ἡ στέρησις παρυφίσταται, ὅτε τὸ ἀγαθὸν ἀπέρχεται," that is, "Because then the privation quasi-subsists, when the good (of which it is the privation) departs." Whence it is nothing solid, but the shape of a solid expressed. As when someone says "darkness," he seems to say something positive, but in reality he says nothing except the absence of the positive thing, light.Πεισμονή, p. 120.
He says that the Cyprian patriarch, because he was unwilling to recognize and correct the error discovered in his tome, was accused before the emperor not only of πεισμονή, that is, of being persuaded into an error against the faith, but also of αἱρέσεως, that is, of contumacy in the error shown to be persistent. Whence it appears that the word πεισμονή had this meaning in ecclesiastical usage.A subject to the notion, so that it might designate the adherence of a wrongly persuaded mind to a false dogma; which was not yet considered heresy, unless after being admonished, he who had erred refused to obey those warning him and to revoke the perverted opinion, wrapping himself in his own pertinacity.
Peleus, p. 142. Whoever looks into this deeply will feel that the word *pelagos* (sea) signifies something else in this place than its common and obvious notion. I find it explained in Hesychius as *pelagizein* (approaching), *plesiazein* (drawing near), *pelagous* (*pelas*, near), *engys* (close), *pelazein* (to approach), *pelas*. The proverb says: "Peleus, having received the sword because of his chastity, and a shield from God." "Peleus thinks much." No, "He thinks more of the sword than Peleus." They say this was made by Hephaestus, and given to Peleus as a gift because of his chastity, by using which he succeeded in everything, both in battles and in hunts.
Pontogephyra (Sea-bridge), the Justinian quintuplicate bridge. *Pontogephyra*, *pontogephyra*. "Triple bridge concerning the structures." This great river, which they now call the Sangarius, flowing down with a violent current, and having an abyss in its midst, and being as wide as the sea, has survived...
On those things which I noted in the previous Glossary regarding this word, I shall here add certain things suggested by friends as a supplement to my own lack of knowledge. The Reverend Father Joannes Fayonus, S.J., having seen the published Pachymeres, wrote to me that it seemed to him that Pachymeres, writing these things about the chastity of Veccus, had in mind the passage of Aristophanes in the *Clouds*, p. 112, ed. Basil.: "And he also married Thetis because Peleus was chaste." In these words the scholiast records those things which assert praise for the signal chastity of Peleus, among other things this: "Astydamea, the wife of Acastus, having fallen in love with Peleus, and not having persuaded him through his chastity to join with her, falsely accuses him to Acastus, (saying) that he attempted to violate the chastity of Hippolyte... [he received] a sword forged by Hephaestus, and thus escaped the danger." A short time before, the same scholiast had related the same history from another author, who calls her Hippolyte, the wife of Acastus, who would more truly be called Phaedra, to whom the like, attempting to lure the most chaste Peleus to adultery, as Phaedra did Hippolytus, and having been unable to persuade him, just as Phaedra to Hippolytus, so Astydamea or Hippolyte (brought an accusation) against Peleus for his own attempted lack of chastity before her husband: he acted too credulously; whence Peleus, exposed unarmed by Acastus to wild beasts, by a happier fate than Hippolytus, received a sword divinely forged by Vulcan, by the help of which he escaped the danger. Suidas relates the same matter somewhat differently under the word *Atalante*. Thus far our Fayonus, opportunely recalling to memory things which I had read elsewhere in the *Clouds* of Aristophanes but which had thoroughly slipped from my mind. I rejoice, however, that this opportunity, such as it is, has been offered to me to testify to my veneration and gratitude toward a man most excellent and most learned, and once most friendly to me, whom, while I write these things, I hear has migrated to a better life, in a long life commended by every example of the virtues. To these, Claudius Maltretus adds the annotation of Eustathius on *Iliad* 15, 195. This adage is mentioned by Suidas in two places, s. v. *mega phronei* (he thinks great things) and s. v. *Peleus*. In the former place he writes thus: "The proverb says, 'Peleus, as he had received the sword because of his chastity, and a shield from God.'" Erasmus refers to the mention of this adage from Zenobius in Anacreon and in Pindar. I have found nothing relevant to this in the editions of Anacreon available today. Pindar, in *Nemean* Ode 4, mentions the sword of Peleus and the slanders against him by Hippolyte. His scholiast on that passage writes things worthy to be read. Catullus, toward the end of the epithalamion of Peleus and Thetis, attributes a gift of the chaste homes to Peleus, while he says: "The gods, before their divine piety was spurned, were wont to visit the chaste homes." These are from Claudius Maltretus.
p. 350. So the best Barberini codex has it there, though it has marked in the margin another reading of this last word, which is also corrupt, but approaching the truth insofar as it removed the error of the two erring syllables. For Pachymeres undoubtedly wrote... To demonstrate this, I first posit that Justinian by no means imposed a quintuplicate bridge upon the Sangarius river, namely raised on five, as it were, storeys, a kind of bridge which is triple and of ancient and wondrous work, still existing today over the Gardon river in Gallia Narbonensis, a few miles from the city of Ucetia. For if the most diligent recorder of all the buildings of that emperor had done this, Procopius would not have omitted it in his own work on this subject. He, however, has only these things in the fifth book, chapter 3: "This great river, which they now call the Sangarius, flowing down with a violent current, and having an abyss in its midst, and being as wide as the sea, has survived as a bridge untouched by all, from which men have been born, and binding a multitude of boats and fastening them together in a stack there, the foot-soldiers dare to be ferried across, just as the army of the Medes once did for fear of Xerxes across the Hellespont. But even this does not happen to them without danger; for often, having gathered the boats together with the bonds and then having let them slip, it thereafter obstructed the crossing for those coming this way. But King Justinian has recently entrusted a bridge to be built upon it, and, having begun the work already, he spends much effort upon it." Which I well know he will complete not much later, inferring that God indeed assists him in all his works. These are his (Procopius') words, which sound thus in Latin from the most accurate and elegant interpretation of Claudius Mal-
- A treti our own: A great river, which today they call the Sangarius, most violent in its course in the middle, very deep and sea-like in breadth, has never, since men were born, undergone a bridge: but foot soldiers dare to cross it by connecting many skiffs and using them as a bridge of sorts, as once the army of the Medes crossed the Hellespont, fearing the indignation of Xerxes. But the affair is not free from danger: for often the river, having swept away all the skiffs together with their fastenings, denies passage to the travelers. Now the Emperor Justinian has undertaken to place a bridge over it and is applying himself sharply to the work, without a doubt to be finished in a short time; and I conjecture this from the fact that God moves His hand to all his undertakings. Therefore, Justinian began to build a bridge over the Sangarius when Procopius published his commentaries about his building projects, which he later completed. And that work was called a *pontogephyra* (a bridge-of-the-sea/main). For since the simple term *gephyra*, even if by origin, if we believe Eustathius, seems to sound something solid made of stone and mortar layered over damp places (for so he notes from Herodian on the Iliad: *Properly, gephyra is earth upon water*, Herodian says), it is nevertheless quite frequently used to express a movable structure of planks, by which one crosses from the shore into a ship or from a ship to the shore: those huge masses of stone, by which the banks of great rivers become passable for travelers, seem, by way of distinction, to be called not simply *gephyrae*, but properly *pontogephyrae*. Mauritius hints at this in *Strategicon*, book 11, ch. 21, concerning the placing of a bridge upon rivers, in so far as it pertains to the imperial care of the commander of the army, instructing in these words: *If there is a need to build a bridge, that is, to make a pontogephyra, it is necessary to start from one's own bank [to lay] those things upon it, that is, to lash together large boats, or to board them over, with everything in readiness*. B Behold, the master of soldiers, or rather of the imperial art, instructs here that, where a river is met which the rationale of war suggests not only to cross with an army but also to preserve a free path through it for retreat, it will be necessary to bridge it with a solid mass, which he says is to be called a *pontogephyra* rather than a *gephyra* (which is something extemporaneous), and that one should begin both the preparation of the work and the work itself from the bank that the emperor holds with his army, not from the opposite one. Nor should it trouble anyone against these things that the name of a bridge seems to fit rivers badly, which alone generally suffer bridges. For besides the fact that there are certain rivers, as Procopius speaks of the aforementioned Sangarius, *broadening like the sea, sea-like in breadth and similar to the "pontos"*, the term *pontos* does not seem to shrink from designating any wider [waters] by origin, since, as Eustathius admonishes on the Iliad 2, *pontos* is said as if *potos*, from being blown upon by the winds. He says the name *pontos* is derived from the verb *pneo*, to blow, because the air blows over the sea. And who does not see that this also fits rivers of a somewhat larger channel? Wherefore the logic of the name would not be repugnant for them also to be sprinkled with the appellation of a bridge, C just as Ausonius in *Mosella* rightly calls his Garonne a sea-river. And one might perhaps not wrongly conjecture that this notion of *pontogephyra*, which is much older than the age of Mauritius and Pachymeres, comes from the most ancient use among the Latins of the word *pons* for *gephyra*; which word can be seen to be derived from *pontogephyra*. I would embrace these things, which I have brought forward with timid suspicion, more boldly if (which neither happened, nor do I hope for) I had obtained suitable testimonies of the ancient authors of the Greek language, by which it might be established even then, before the Latin speech was produced from Greek origins, that the word *pontogephyra* was in use in Greece, so that the very ancient Latin word *pons* could be thought to be derived from it. Meanwhile, therefore, sticking to the vulgar truths of those who believe *pons* is said as if *pens*, by a contraction of the word, *hanging*, because it hangs over from above with a space empty underneath, I think the word *pontogephyra* was used by the Greeks only of a later age, to whom it was customary to express most of the more common words of the Roman Latium in their own letters and to insert them into writings. Of whose custom we have seen not a few examples in this very writer of ours, representing the manner of speaking which was then current, not to mention so many others whose words of this kind are so many times listed in Greco-barbarian Lexicons and Glossaries. Therefore, both Mauritius, the author of the *Strategica*, and our author here, might have spoken of a *pontogephyra* according to the usage of the popular language of the time, with a mention mixed in of *pons*—a Latin word—together with the ancient Greek *gephyra*, so that it might be more easily understood what they were expressing to a populace now bilingual and accustomed to variegating their native ancient language with Latin words inserted by much mixing of the Italians. Finally, I will oppose here from Livy certain things for the reader not uselessly to be compared with those our author writes in this place (which we have set out to illustrate here) concerning the situation of these places, the nature of the Sangarius river, and the necessity of placing a bridge upon it, in book 7 of the 4th decade, where he describes the expedition of the consul Cneius Manlius against the Gallo-Greeks. Thus Livy has it: *When he had arrived at the Sangarius river (Manlius the consul with the Roman army), he decided to build a bridge, because there was nowhere a crossing by ford. The Sangarius flows from Mount Adoreus through Phrygia, mixes with the Thymbres river toward Bithynia; from there, now greater by its twin waters, it is carried through Bithynia and pours itself into the Propontis, not so much memorable for its size as because it offers a huge quantity of fish to those dwelling nearby*. So he. D [P. 506] *Poseidon*, p. 268. What I warned about in the previous Glossary, that the name of the month of August of Pachymeres is missing in the first six books of this *History*, was a mnemonic error, as I will soon say. Certainly in this place, by the word *Poseideon*, the month of August is clearly expressed, called Sextilis by the Latins. This is demonstrated not only by how continuously the author uses it, a sign of the time of the year in which the sun declines from the summer solstice to the equinoctial, but the paraphrase clearly expresses it, writing there thus: *But then on the twenty-ninth of the month of August*. Our author had also mentioned this month in vol. I, p. 493, although I, through oblivion, as I have already confessed, vol. I, p.
692, had written that the Pachymerian name nowhere appeared in that volume. For he writes there as follows: "Then on the sixteenth of Poseideon, after the feast of the Theotokos." And there both of the best codices inscribe in the margin "August," and the Vatican alone admits this name into the text. And it demonstrates the same thing sufficiently, even if other indices were lacking, because he says that this sixteenth day, which he mentions, dawned the day after the feast of the Mother of God, namely the greatest feast of all of Mary, the Mother of God, which is so called by antonomasia without any addition; namely, her assumption into heaven, which the Greeks, along with the Latins, celebrate on the fifteenth day of the month of August. Yet there is a place where Pachymeres, somehow failing himself, and following an opinion of another, as I suspect, rather than his own, calls the month August not Poseideon, but Maimakterion according to the Athenians, p. 382. On which place, see what we noted in this very Glossary under the word Maimakterion, and in Book 1 of these Observations, ch. 4, n. 5.
B *Pronoiai*, p. 209. *Pronoiai* are called here pensions, which are paid from the public treasury either as wages for present work or as a reward for past service to those who deserve it or who are emeritus; such as we hear today being called by the Italians and French *provisioni*, "provisions." We should have already noted this in the first volume of the Glossary; for our author more often used this word in the History of Michael with that meaning, which is not found in classical authors. I will place here one example from many as a specimen, p. 16: "By *pronoiai* from these, they gifted the more illustrious and those whose spirit was daring with imperial rank."
*Proskomizon*, p. 616. Against my interpretation of this passage, by which I interpreted *proskomizon* as the celebrating priest, I see standing a grave prejudice of a man certainly very learned and whom I have always held in very high esteem, both for his own merit and that of his order: Jacques Goar. For he, in his notes to the liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom, discussing this very passage which Pachymeres here hints at, referring to the fact that in the solemn liturgy at that time, because the Alexandrian, Antiochene, and Hierosolymitan patriarchs were struck from the sacred diptychs, only Athanasios of Constantinople was remembered among the sacred things as *proskomizon* together with the offerer, he understands by *proskomizon* the one who brought the hosts and oblations into the church, and he distinguishes him from the celebrating priest. But I, indeed, contend that the priest laboring at the sacred rites is designated here by the word *proskomizon*, and I specifically deny that it follows from this that he was accustomed to be called by the deacon "the one who brought the loaves into the church from which the oblations would be made." And I think both of these are proven quite clearly from the very words of the sacred liturgy which Goar explains, namely these: "The deacon, standing at the door, says [the prayer] of the most holy metropolitan, such-and-such," namely the bishop of the church in which the sacred rite was being done, such as the patriarch was at Constantinople. Soon he adds: "And for the most devout priest, such-and-such, who is *proskomizon* [offering] these holy gifts."
*Prochoseis*, p. 269. This is referred to *erga ton andron*, the works of the men, namely the crops gathered in the granaries, which he says were snatched away and scattered by the flood *tais prochosesi*, with the heaps themselves, namely of the sheaves of the crops (for it was summer, in the month of August therefore) standing in the granaries, which the rushing waters, by scattering, would have ruined. Elegant in this place is the epitome of the Vatican codex, which contracts so many words of Pachymeres into these few: "The heaps and the threshing floors for them, with their fruits, were carried away." In these, the word *themonia* corresponds to *prochoseis*; and they are, according to Hesychius, *themonia*: "Threshing floors" (here 'area' is used for crops by a synecdoche of content for container, as in that book of Tertullian, *Ad Scapulam*: "Just as when they shouted against the areae of our burials under the governor Hilarianus, there may be no areae, their areae did not exist: for they did not bring in their harvests"). For the sake of a clearer explanation, therefore, *autois karpois* was added. For not only was the ground itself swept away, but what stood upon it—the heaps of ears and bundles of crops—which are called *prochoseis* here in our text, or the piles of grain threshed from them.
*Phesidia*, p. 29. Little sentiments, a diminutive of *phasis*. So Gregory of Nyssa, orat. 12, *lexidia*. His words are: "He begins with the clatter of little words, satirizing with the expressions."
*Skaramagkion*, p. 504. I do not repeat the many things that Meursius teaches about the *scaramangium* or *scaramancium*, a senatorial garment of high honor; nor do I describe here other places of our author mentioning this type of cloak. I only observe, from this place (since I have nowhere hitherto read what the peculiar shape of this garment was), that it seems to have been like a cloak, large and deep, with a hood sewn on at the top, and that it was made of thicker cloth, not simple, so that it would easily remain open. For in such a figure, it would have been appropriate for the aforementioned mockery here. Namely, the *Myrigerii* boys, at his command, before those sent by the emperor, used the body of that ankle-length cloak as a rope, by which, from the edge of the ship to the water...
they lowered the hood into the sea and, having filled it with water, lifted it up just like a bucket or pail. The Vatican epitomizer, expressing this, thus paraphrases the passage: *And he threw the scaramangion into the sea in mockery*, and he let the *scaramangion* down into the sea in mockery. Here it seems to imply that the hood particularly, being capable of holding liquid like a bucket, which was attached to the top of the *scaramangion*, is by special right called the *scaramangion*, as its principal part: for that alone, being hollow and wide, and thus suitable for drawing water, must be thought to have been lowered into the water from the edge of the ship. A *Skordiniasthai*, p. 329. Clearly all the codices write this word, which I do not recall reading anywhere else. I find only in Hesychius: *Skordina(sthai)* (I think it should be read *skordinasthai*) means to stretch the limbs against the natural manner, with a yawn, as is the habit of those who are waking from sleep when, being in a yawning fit, they stretch out their hands. So says he; from which, or from the common source of older writers, Pachymeres has without doubt drawn his *skordiniasthai* in this place, also noting the extension of the hands, which Melecus is said to have instituted here as a sign of imminent slaughter. Martial in his epigram suggests the cruelty of a certain *quaestor* of the 8th book.
*Spoudaiotribein*, p. 384. I have not found the verb *spoudaiotribein* elsewhere. But partly from the origins of the word, and partly from the context of the passage, I have guessed what it might mean in this place, just as I have done elsewhere in *elpidokopein*, *elpideia-*, and similar ones.
*Staseidion*, p. 146. It is a stool or small enclosure in which priests or other ministers, or even laymen, would rest either sitting or leaning while standing, while they were engaged in sacred rites in the temple. We have an image of this thing that is familiar in our own temples, where there is a choir of canons or monks. For there we see seats arranged in a large number around, formed in such a way that one can sometimes rest completely sitting in them, and other times can relieve the labor of standing—by reclining the elbows here and there and by the bulk of the body leaning upon the back of the little station—without indecency, for those who are free for long psalmody. B There is, however, among these seats one that is more handsome and higher for the place of the president, which our author here specifically indicates, although by the common name of *staseidion*, just as Philotheus, the Patriarch of Constantinople, in his booklet inscribed
*The Order of the Sacred Service*
, where he writes thus: *Then the deacon departs and censes the holy icon which is at the staseidion of the presiding officer and the presiding officer himself*, which P. Goar translates thus: *Then the deacon departs, and censes the holy icon placed upon the higher seat and the superior himself*. Therefore the *staseidion* of which our author here makes mention was the seat in which Patriarch Athanasius stood, while the ceremony of hisordination or consecration
was being performed. It was, however, without doubt the seat of the president of the place,*staseidion tou proestōtos*
, always fixed in a certain place, to which in the great temple of St. Sophia certain windows would correspond from above; from the outcome of which, if it happened, in a otherwise calm sky and with no wind blowing, the Greeks would draw an omen whether the patriarch who was being ordained was destined to remain in the power he was then receiving until death, or whether he was to be cast out alive.*Staurotēres*, p. 332. In the manuscript it was once read *en staurotēris hussas*. But the word *hussas* was indeed placed in the margin, which I have accepted as being more correct. The word *staurotēresin* is manifestly corrupt and I have reformed it by conjecture into *staurotēresin*; the origin of which, however, seems to correspond to a meaning appropriate to this place, however much I might not yet have found this word in any other Greek writer. They are, says Hesychius, *stauro i*... stakes driven firmly in, poles, and all C upright timbers, from the Greek word *hestanai* (to stand), *staurous*, from standing in the air. Hence *staurōma*, a wall or palisade, common in Thucydides, Book 1, 7, and *staurōsis* for a fortification or palisade placed by the same Thucydides elsewhere in the same book; which in book 6 he called *staurōma*, writing thus: *They fixed a staurōma beside the ships*. And in Xenophon, Book 1 of the *Hellenica*: *They made a staurōma and a trench*. Whence it is credible that the *staurōtēres* mentioned by Pachymeres are fixed timbers, and as is usual for the firmness of work, woven crosswise, with sharpened pieces placed on the top against the enemies, where they might approach, to be driven back with spears armed with iron, which he calls *hussous*. Appian in his fragment on the *Celtic* war: *But the spears were not like a javelin... and the Romans call them hussous*; half of the timber square, and the other half of square iron, and this too made of soft iron, without the point. D He signifies by these words that these spears were to be thrown at the enemy; such a supply as it was necessary to have ready for sudden use disposed upon the wall. These kinds of javelins or spears, our author says, were taken away from the enemies by those who approached the fortification while the guards were sleeping.
*Stēlē*, p. 614. I fear lest anyone, preoccupied with common notions, might write to me here saying that I have not exchanged the Greek word *stēlē* with the Latin *column* or *statue*. But, I ask, what convenient meaning would the *column* or *statue* of three Germans make, or the *column* or *statue* representing Michael Palaeologus, in the veil contextured with golden threads, in the likeness and style of the ancient Constantine? Or is it not sufficiently evident that *stēlē* in the first place is a painting with the images of the three patriarchs who are called Germans, and in the latter, the effigy of Michael Palaeologus formed in that habit, in the text of a veil, which was accustomed to be attributed to the great Constantine? Surely *stēlē* is from *staō* and *histēmi*, a verbal noun generally indicating whatever stands and is prominent in...
and signifies something placed in view; hence cippi [tombstones] as monuments, and whatever crests or marble tablets set in sight and inscribed with letters, are most frequently found termed stelae. Therefore, one must be careful that the species does not impose itself upon the reader as the genus, if he is accustomed to understand by the name of stelae those cippi and small columns erected on the tops of sepulchral mounds or monuments of that kind. Those are indeed stelae, but not alone; for this word pertains more broadly, denoting also tablets and cloths marked with figures and set in plain view. A
*Syndosia*, p. 293. Although I do not recall reading *syndosias* in ancient authors, I nevertheless believe that Pachymeres—whose manuscripts all equally exhibit this word in this passage—used it in the sense of a gift, as if derived from *syndidomi*, "I bestow." This verb, according to the ancient usage of the Latins, contains a peculiar force of indicating vicious profusions upon the unworthy. Cicero, *Philippic* II: "Entire shops were bestowed upon the most worthless." Nor is this meaning alien to the mind of this passage. For since the patriarch was criticizing an agreement between the emperor and the crab [an official], on the occasion of which our author previously mentioned that many most precious gifts had been magnificently given by the Augustus to the same and his companions, he could easily have added to the complaint regarding the avarice of the tax-collectors a related rebuke of the treasury exhausted by ambitious profusions. B
*Sphakelos*, p. 245. What our author writes here as *sphakelos* seems to be the same as what he indicated in Vol. I, p. 511, by the word *phakellos*, meaning a bundle or a small package, or a small bundle of papers. We have praised in the previous Glossary Synesius using *phakellon* in the same sense. I find in Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Bk. VII, *sphakellous phryganon* used for bundles of twigs. Pachymeres here exhibits the same word in the neuter gender and with a single lambda in an equal meaning.
*Sphendonai*, p. 66. These seem to be called *sphendonai* here, referring to strips hanging from the pontifical hat, intertwined among themselves in the manner of a sling, in a fashion also used today by the Latins.
*Sphragis*, p. 42. I have translated *sphragida* here as "benediction." For I understood it as the sign of the cross expressed by the hand by Patriarch Joseph over the individual treated here, Georgios, with the pronunciation of a certain formula of words by which he had been duly sent to perform the office of the first palace preacher (for this is what *protopapas* means). Since, however, bishops do not bestow such a benediction except upon those approved by them, and of whose right faith, sufficient erudition, and upright morals they are certain, Andronicus therefore thought that this Georgios would be seen as grateful and commendable to the sectaries of Joseph—whom Joseph himself, by blessing him well as he was about to preach, would have declared a good, learned, and orthodox man. Here the reader should be cautioned in passing not to be deceived when reading in Meursius that a summons to the patriarchate is called a *sphragida*. D
And he also guesses it as double, *mikran kai megalen*, "small and great," as if the former were the designation and the latter the confirmation. *Anteros polys.* Nor did he understand Codinus, whom he praises as a firm foundation; for he means nothing else than that the bishops who ordain and consecrate the patriarch cross him twice in that function, of which benedictions the former is accustomed to be called "small," the latter "great." These same benedictions were called *menymata*, as the same Meursius observed under the word *menymat*; for *menymat* is a sign, and *kat' exochen* [preeminently] the sign of the cross formed on the person being blessed. *Menyma* is called a sign, but not, as he dreams there, a "summons." C
*Ta tetelesmena*, p. 77. As to what is meant here by *epaletheuein tois tetelesmenois*, after much thinking I could find nothing else than what I expressed by interpreting it: namely, that something must have transpired whereby the sacred symbols, having been consecrated and changed by sacramental words into the body of Christ, could rightly be called *ta tetelesmena* in a sense other than that used in the churches—namely, because they had been finished and corrupted from their species into a new form by an alteration of their accidents. For *to telein* sounds not only in usage "to perform, to perfect, to sacrifice," but also, from its origin, "to finish, to consume." Hence the passive *ta tetelesmena*, which was used among the Greeks as if it were a proper appellation for the Eucharistic species kept from the sacrifice, could then convene in another sense for the symbols of Christ's body thus putrefied and transfigured into an inform species: in so far as it sounds, from the, as I said, native meaning of the root from which this verb germinates, further "consumed," "corrupted," changed from their former ceased form into another new one. These things could be said, however plausibly: I think, nevertheless, that Pachymeres, while writing these things, had something else in view. Mindful, namely, of Hesychius, because he had read in him *tetelesmenon to hoion pragma telesthynai, e goun plerothenai, e kai memiasmenon*, he wished here to hint that the meaning indicated there, where *tetelesmenon memiasmenon* means "polluted and contaminated," was not unknown to him [thereby 721].
*Tera*, p. 394. The Latin name "terra" is placed here in Greek letters, but written with a single rho: *tera*. It seems, however, that the historian retained this word because it was a vulgar form of speech in those times, so that princes of regions possessed by others, claiming the right for themselves, took the title for the sake of distinction from those possessing "without land" (*choris teras t' oun ges*), and were called such: for example, King of Jerusalem or Emperor of Constantinople—such as he is declared here by the Pope to be the brother of the Sicilian King, by dotal right, namely, joined into a spouse from the daughter of Baldwin, who formerly had reigned in Constantinople, but "without land," that is, aside from the possession of that empire, held, clearly, by Andronicus.
*Tzangratores*, p. 414. We understand that during these times there were in frequent use among the Byzantine Greeks certain bows of a peculiar form accepted from the Latins, which they called *tzangra* or *tzangrous*, when
A from other places in the writers of that age, and also from this passage of Cantacuzenus, Bk. I, ch. 36, p. 108, Reg. ed.: *of the bows called Latin, which shoot arrows*. Those who used bows of this kind were called *tzangroi* by Pachymeres, I suppose from the *kratein* (holding) of the *tzangra*, because the *tzangris* of Latin form are held by the hand. Nicetas had likewise written this term earlier in *Manuel Comnenus*, Bk. I, 11, in these words cited by Meursius: *And having fenced themselves, as they could, [with] walls [with] archers and tzangratores*. The same Nicetas in *Alexius*, [Bk.] I, calls soldiers of the same kind *tzangro-toxotai*. Furthermore, that they had their own *stratopedarch*, as Pachymeres teaches here, is confirmed by Codinus, who twice makes mention of his *stratopedarch*. But in both places it is a copyist’s error, *tzangratoron* [written] for *tzangratoron*, says Meursius, or rather for *tzangratoron* [as the author] was writing. In translating this word, I should not have used the terms *arbalista* or *sagittarii*, which would not express the peculiar form of the weapons of this class. I therefore kept it as a proper name commonly used at that time.
*Tribé*, p. 641. The common meaning of the word *tribé* is twofold; for it denotes both use gained by exercise and delay or hesitation among classical authors; both which Hesychius expressed briefly, when he explains *tribé* as *diatribé* or *slowness*. But here our author uses this word in the plural number in a peculiar sense, if I am not mistaken, for a truce. For the meaning of the passage seems to be this, that the emperor, being entirely intent on suppressing the enemies by whom he was more annoyingly pressed at close proximity, had meanwhile granted a kind of truce to the Persians who were raiding through the eastern tracts of the empire, doing nothing against them until he could heal the closer and more imminent evil, *en tachyni*. I suspect, therefore, that this word *tribé* was in popular use among the Byzantine Greeks to signify what the Latins called a truce. And I derive its argument from the modern C French word *trêves*, having the same meaning, which I think was brought back to their homeland by the Franks on the occasion of the holy expeditions [Crusades], having spent time there.
*Hyperpyron*, p. 646. The donation of six hyperpyra is worthily highlighted, if, as I heard from a Greek man of most trustworthy character, an *hyperpyron* is a silver coin equivalent to four *asprα*. However, since, as the same man reported, *aspra* are worth no more than six copper *minuta* or *quatrinis*, as they are commonly called here in Rome, fifty of which equal in price a Roman *Julius* or denarius, it is understood that an *hyperpyron* weighs in at twenty-four *quatrinis*, that is, it does not even reach in valuation a Roman half-*Julius*, which they call a *grossus*; for that contains twenty-five *quatrinis*. You will have long since learned from Meursius that this name of Greek currency was used by other writers: but as to how much it is worth, if you think it worth believing in the matter of the popular usage of the Greeks, from a man born and raised in Greece from whom we have drawn [our information], you will learn it, reader, from this recitation of his testimony.
*Phamousos*, p. 245. I long ago noted this in regard to those words of Anna Comnena, Bk. 13 of *The Alexiad*, p. 377: *Writing something famous, they cast it at the king’s [feet]*, and [noted] that this word of Latin pedigree had been granted to the city of Byzantine Greece already from the times of Alexius Comnenus; which makes it the less surprising that Pachymeres, much later, uses it in this place, as from the common local usage of speaking, saying *phamous* and *tomous* or *phamous* words, [having] borrowed the name *famoso* [infamous/famous] from the Italians.
*Phialé of the church*, p. 22. *Phialé*, as the most learned Jacob Goar, O.P., observed in his notes to the *diataxis* of the *hierodiakonia*, p. 25 of his *Euchologion*, was a font in the churches of the Greeks in the *aulé* of the narthex, in the open area of the narthex, the last part of the sacred edifice, pouring out waters for the use of those wishing to enter for washing. B It is gathered, moreover, from Balsamon on Canon 76 of the Sixth Synod, that the area itself in which the fountain is, is also called *phialé* by a common synecdoche. For he enumerates *phialai* among the other parts of divine temples, and by the consensus of many he reports that all [these areas], being in some way open to the air, are encompassed by the common name of *pronaos*. The *phialé* of the church is, therefore, either the fountain placed before the doors of the sacred edifice, or indeed the area itself stretched out before the doors of the temple, in which, under the open sky, the fountain conducts cascading waters through pipes into a basin. That the Latins also imitated this custom is demonstrated by the passage in Paulinus, Epistle 33: *In the vestibule*, he says, *a canopy adorned and shaded by a solid bronze dome crowns the fountain, which serves the hands and mouths of us [the faithful] by spitting forth streams, surrounding the cascading waters not without a mystical aspect with four columns*. Concerning the ancient custom of washing hands outside the church before entering, see Epistle 24 of St. Nilus, Bk. 1, Roman ed., Barberini press, p. 9.
723 *Phyllokrinein*, p. 145. *They scrutinized the explanation precisely*. Thus the excellent Barberini codex, which this edition professes to follow primarily, expresses this passage most clearly. Therefore I have considered the other reading of Allatius, who reads *epilokrinein* for *ephyllokrinein*, to be secondary, especially since the Vatican [codex] is silent, as it omits this clause, even though I freely admit its meaning is more fleet. For *philokrinein* is a known word, also conveniently fitting the sense of the passage. But since I know that Pachymeres often shuns the obvious and eagerly seeks out more obsolete words, I judge that he preferred to use the rare word here, and [as] the most emended of all codices suggests, he wrote *ephyllokrinein*, to indicate that the individual leaves of the dissertation written by Veccus had been inspected most attentively by the readers. Our author uses this word again, p. 148, where he writes thus concerning the most hateful accusers of the patriarch Athanasius: *And they so much scrutinized these things and pruned them with punishments, that not only did the indifferent fear and tremble at their oversight, but even he who seemed most attentive*. Here, similarly, the Barberini codex writes *ephyllokrinein* most clearly, [while] Allatius persists in his *epilokrinein*, and the Vatican codex expresses the passage thus: *And...*
A *these things*... to investigate them to such an extent. The author seems to wish that all these [people] had been [engaged] in the careful acquisition of knowledge regarding books of accusations, however trifling, [and] in greedily scrutinizing papers of such a kind. A different place of ours confirms what has been said thus far, p. 357: *But the king, however, having set it as his goal to acquire them, scrutinized nothing regarding these matters.* He did not wish to scrutinize or inquire into these matters with too much curiosity.
*Choas thalasses*, p. 279. This passage presented a puzzle to me, as I did not readily have at hand what these were or to what they referred—*choas*, or rather, as I shall presently show, *choeis thalasses*. I shall propose what I have conjectured. It seems the author has alluded to a proverb taken from the Holy B Scriptures concerning a matter that one would not at all care to indicate to anyone, [in the same way] as [the question of] how many jars or measures of water God contains in the sea. Above all, it must be established that the word *choas* in the accusative plural signifies a certain measure of liquid. This is taught by the scholiast of Aristophanes regarding the passage spoken in that poet’s comedy *Clouds*: "It holds six *choes*." Where he notes: "*Choeus* is a type of measure by which they measure wine; it is also declined *choeos, peleos*, as also in *Knights*: 'But bring me wine quickly, *choa*.'" And here, the *choas*, if it is circumflexed, [P. 514] is from this *choeus* by poetic license; for he ought to have said *choes*, just as *hippēs*. Similarly, Eustathius on *Odyssey* 1: "*Choeus* is also a certain measure." See also him on *Iliad* 10, on *Iliad* 18, and on *Odyssey* 20. It is credible that Pachymeres took this word from here, [being] a man most well-versed in the scholia of the ancient poets, as he also particularly indicates himself, p. 306. Therefore, he understood *choas* as "measures."
It seems, moreover, that the author, when writing these things, had in mind those passages of the Holy Scriptures C in which God, among those things which are most known to Him but most undiscoverable to men, counts the measure of the sea—namely, the number of jars or metretes by which the immensity of its waves is defined. Ecclesiasticus 1:2: *The sand of the sea, and the drops of rain, and the days of the world, who hath numbered?* In Greek: *ammos thalasson*. Even though the obvious sense is probable—concerning the sum of the grains of sand, most difficult to find because of [their] infinity, which is greater than any calculation—nevertheless, from a comparison with the place D of the other [book], 1 Kings 4:29: *And God gave Solomon greatness of heart as the sand that is on the seashore*, in Greek, *kai chuma kardias hos he ammos he para ten thalassan*, where *ammos* is placed in the singular for a vessel, so to speak, or the bed of the sea lying everywhere in the sand, to which vessel—and not to the sand taken grain by grain—the *chuma*, or latitude, corresponds, which is attributed to it in that place. Wherefore, in this pair of ours, we can accept the same *ammou* and the name of "sand" for the most capacious bed of the entire sea; in which, when it is a matter of number, [it is] the most common synecdoche of the container for the contained, just as when wine is called a "cup," it is to be understood that it is a matter of the measure of its liquid, so that to say: "Who has numbered the sand?" is to say: "Who holds the number of the amphorae or pitchers of water by which the entire capacity of the sea is filled?" And just as in that beginning of Ecclesiasticus God shows that this knowledge of the measures which fill the Ocean element is reserved for Himself, so in Job ch. 28:23, He warns that He denies this knowledge to men and holds it as His own: *God understands the way thereof (wisdom) and He knows her place. For He beholdeth the ends of the world, and looketh on all things that are under heaven; who made a weight for the winds, and weighed the waters by measure.* In the Greek, Pachymeres had read for these last words *hudatos metra hoti epoiesen*, "when He made the measures of the water." Behold, He attributes the measures of the water to the singular knowledge of God. Similarly, also in the same book of Job, ch. 38, while magnificently expressing what God is able to do and knows, [and] what men cannot and are ignorant of, v. 16 is placed: *Hast thou entered into the depths of the sea, and walked in the lowest parts of the abyss?* Which, however much they do not explicitly mention the number of the measures of the water, nevertheless have an emphasis through the presence of one who, as it were, inspects and curiously examines the interior of the knowledge. Hence it seems a proverbial formula became prevalent among the Greeks concerning things hidden from someone, that they are as unknown to him as the number of the amphorae of liquid by which the sea is filled; which God alone wishes to know and does not deign to communicate to men, just as the emperor did not think to communicate to the patriarch his plan concerning cementing the Serbian alliance by marriage.
PETRI POSSINI S. J. OBSERVATIONUM PACHYMERIANARUM LIBER SECUNDUS.
725 [P. 516] Page 12. "The Emperor, by the authority of the Church, now loses heart." This Emperor of whom it is spoken is without doubt Andronicus, whom the historian teaches in this place to have lost heart from the authority of his father and the Church, while his father was still alive, to whom he was a colleague in the empire, having been terrified by the tumult of the schismatics. From this it may be understood what a fitting punishment of defection he bore, who, having turned to schism out of fear of disturbances, had hardly a single day in his most unfortunate sovereignty free from domestic, civil, military, and ecclesiastical troubles, as will be evident from the course of this history.
Ibid. "In the place of the deceased Acropolita." Pachymeres clearly asserts here that George Acropolita, the great logothete, met his end while Michael Palaeologus was still the living Emperor; a thing which, in the preceding volume (I, v, c. 26 and 34), he had rather hinted at than explicitly affirmed; it had not convinced me, and in the notes to those chapters in Book 1 of my Observations (p. 684 and 686) I explained matters which I would now wish left unsaid. For I do not see why faith should be denied to so clear an assertion of an historian who witnessed these things present. I was led into that error by the ill-considered testimony of Demetrius Raulis, which I cite in those same notes on p. 654. But, as I now observe too late, it does not treat there of George Acropolita, but rather of George Metochita, whom Demetrius writes there was the great logothete—a thing which deceived me, and I do not understand how it could be true, since while Michael was alive, as appears from Pachymeres, George Acropolita alone served in such a dignity; which, after his death, was transferred by Michael Augustus himself to Theodorus Muzalon, just as this present passage teaches.
Page 13. "With the addition of the month then first." Concerning the signature reserved for the senior Augustus with the addition of the month, see what we noted in the former Glossary at the word μηνολογεῖν.
726 [P. 517] P. 15. "The punishment of the fustuarium." See the matter narrated in Vol. I, p. 495 sqq.
C. 3. I should admonish the reader in passing: what is transmitted in this chapter (p. 16, 17) regarding the Emperor Michael, who died in Roman communion, being denied the aid of piacular sacraments because of the hatred of the schismatics (as though he were irrevocably consigned to Tartarus, and deemed incapable of the suffrages of the Church, which are accustomed to be offered for the pious dead in the charity of God, and not for those who have died hateful to God and in their own grave sin), is sufficient to demonstrate how false is what many, especially the heterodox, have attempted to persuade—that the doctrine received in the Roman Church concerning purgatory is completely rejected by the Greeks.
P. 19. "After the thirtieth day." This seems to indicate the thirty-first day of December: for that is the day after the thirtieth. Hence, the feast of which mention is made shortly thereafter would be the octave of our Lord's Nativity and His Circumcision, beginning from the preceding evening, as is the custom. Thus, below, p. 22, it is hinted that the feast of the Theophany, or as we call it, the Epiphany, began to be celebrated on the evening of the fifth of January—as the historian writes there, that by giving candles to each one, whatever the rites of the feast required had been performed.
C. 8 and 9. What is transmitted in these two chapters—but more distinctly in 9—regarding Veccus and his opinion, stands in need of clarification, so that the appearance of ἑτεροδοξίας (heterodoxy) may be removed from them. For it would be easy for a reader who has not been forewarned, when he sees Veccus denying that the Son is the "cause"—that is, the principle—of the Spirit, or a "co-cause" or "co-principle" with the Father, and finally subjecting to anathema both those who have thought and said such things, and those who have knowingly communicated with such people as they think and speak, to accuse the man himself of prevarication in the cause he undertook of purging the suspicion of heresy from the doctrine of the Latins concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, or rather, from the perceived lapse into the error of the Greeks (condemned by the Latin Church), who say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone; from which errors, however, he was extremely far removed. It is necessary, therefore, to observe that it is taught as Catholic truth that there is but one principle of the Holy Spirit, although He proceeds from the Father through the Son (as the Greek Fathers speak) and from the Father and the Son (as the Latins, truly declaring the same thing, express it). For just as the Father communicates the divine essence and nature to the Son through generation, so He hands over to Him the principles-begetting, or the active spiration, so that, just as the same divine nature and essence in number belongs to Father and Son—though otherwise by two...
A distinct persons—so that active spiration, or the active principle of spiration, is one and the same in number in the generating Father and the generated Son. From this it follows that the Holy Spirit proceeds from a single principle, however much that single, indistinct principle subsists identified with both in the two persons. From this it also follows that, as Saint Maximus clearly states in his *Dialogue with the Anomoeans*, the Father does not produce the Holy Spirit in that He is Father (for the Spirit does not have the Father), nor does the Son produce the Holy Spirit in that He is Son (for the Son, as Son, refers only to the Father); but rather, both Father and Son produce the Spirit only insofar as each possesses It identified with himself, and exercises the one, indivisible principle of spirating, which is usually termed in the schools "active spiration."
This doctrine, transmitted by a continuous, ancient tradition from Christ and the Apostles, and clearly recognized and admitted by the Greeks themselves, is explained by the Ecumenical Council of Lyons, over which the Supreme Pontiff Gregory X presided. I cite this Decree as it is recited by Manuel Kalekas, just as it was sent there from the Greeks in their own language. For that writer, in his book *Against the Greeks*, ch. 59, has this to say: "Gregory in the catholic council assembled at Lyons. With a pious and faithful confession, we say that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one; not by two breathings or processions, but by one and the same." The holy and C sacred Roman Church, the mother and teacher of all the faithful, has from of old confessed and taught this. This is what the true and immovable judgment of the orthodox Fathers and teachers, both Latin and Greek, holds; that is: "Gregory the Tenth, in the universal synod gathered at Lyons. With a devout and faithful confession, we say that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one; not by two spirations or processions, but by one and the same." The sacrosanct Roman Church, mother and teacher of all the faithful, has hitherto professed, preached, and taught this, and firmly holds, preaches, professes, and teaches it. This is the true and unchangeable opinion of the orthodox Fathers and doctors, both Latin and Greek.
So said Gregory X there, immediately thereafter pointing out that some, through failing to observe this truth with sufficient distinction, had slipped into various heresies—namely, those two opposite ones: those who say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, and those who affirm that He proceeds from the Father and the Son as if from two principles. Both of these fall short of the right faith, swerving to the right or to the left from the one true path lying in the middle. But because the Greeks imputed to the Latins the second heresy—assigning two principles to the Holy Spirit—and the Latins in turn charged the Greeks with the former—attributing His production to the Father alone—Gregory, in order that he might clarify both sides from error or suspicion, just as it was necessary A to establish both, voluntarily condemns these opinions and proscribes them as heretical. Let us record his words here, continuous with the preceding.
"But since some, through ignorance of this ineffable truth, have slipped into various heresies, we, wishing to block every avenue to such heresies, with the consent of the sacred council, D 728 condemn and reject all those who dare to deny that the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son, or who with rash daring presume to assert that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles, and not as from one."
These things Gregory X said in the Council of Lyons. From which it appears how exactly he added those three anathemas of Veccus to the formula of faith—which is accustomed to be recited annually in the church on the Sunday of Orthodoxy—in accordance with the Catholic truth, and without any suspicion of favoring the error of the Greeks.
For when he uttered anathema against him who would assert the Son to be the cause or principle of the Spirit, and likewise against him who would say the Son is the co-cause or co-principle of that same Spirit together with the Father, he understood this of the principle *by which* (or "formally," as they speak in the schools), namely, active spiration. Since this exists as one and the same, indivisibly, in the Father and the Son, and is communicated by the former to the latter, it cannot be said to belong to the Son insofar as He is precisely the Son and stands in relative opposition to the Father and is distinguished from Him; for according to that reason of active spiration, or the reason of principle with respect to the Holy Spirit, He is not distinguished from the Father, but is one with Him, just as He is also according to the divine essence and nature which He likewise receives from Him. And for the same reason, the Son would be wrongly called a co-principle to the Father with respect to the Holy Spirit, if we are speaking of the principle *by which*, because the duality of principles indicated by the word "co-principle" would seem to exclude the most simple identity of the single active spiration subsisting in the Father and in the Son at once.
And Veccus himself sufficiently indicated that he understood it this way when, on p. 32, in response to the Greeks arguing that because he asserted with the Latins that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, it must manifestly follow that the Son should be called the principle of the Holy Spirit, or at least a co-principle together with the Father, he answers that this inference is no more correct: "The Father with the Son is the principle of the Holy Spirit; therefore there are two principles of the Holy Spirit," than that other one which is undoubtedly to be exploded by all: "The Father is perfect God, the Son is perfect God, the Holy Spirit is perfect God: therefore there are three perfect gods." So said Veccus there. Which the same
A Veccus, if we believe Pachymeres, even swore, signifying in both cases, just as the one, uniquely indistinct, individual divinity subsisting in three distinct persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—does not suffer them to be called three gods, so the one, uniquely indistinct, individual active 729 spiration existing in the Father and the Son does not allow them to be called two principles of the Holy Spirit. Those things also, which are reported by our historian to have been said at the end of p. 32, regard this same unity of active spiration, existing in the Father and the Son though they be distinct; for if anyone contends that the preposition *dia* ("through") is contained by the notion of cause, he is to be accused with justice of rashness. For he holds that when the Greek Fathers say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father *dia Ylou* ("through the Son"), they judge by that preposition *dia* ("through") the communication of the active spiration of one and the same [God] from the Father to the Son; therefore, that preposition *dia* ("through") is to be denied entirely as indicating any notion of a principle of the Holy Spirit which might belong to the Son, distinct from that which is in the Father and which the Father communicates to Him. With these things thus prefixed in general to banish from Veccus any suspicion of heresy, some other things remain to be explained by us in ch. 9.
P. 50. *Ten de kataskeuēn tēs protaseōs* ("but the proof of the proposition"). These words concern the place of Hermogenes in Book I of *De inventione*, where *kataskeue tēs protaseōs* ("proof of the proposition") is called *aitia*, the cause or reason why something is stated and affirmed. For a *protasis* ("proposition") is a proposal, an enunciation, an affirmation; and since it must have some foundation, that foundation is called *kataskeue*.
Ibid. *Pareiremenēn* ("set aside") is opposed to *keimenēn* ("laid down"). Since *keimenēn* is a proposition set down expressly, clearly, intelligibly, and in a way recognizable at first sight without interpretation (for the *keimenon*, "the text," is said to exclude glosses), it follows from the reason of the contrary that *pareirmene* is obliquely insinuated and latently adumbrated. Nor does this depart entirely from the customary notion of *pareiresthai*, which is to take away, to pilfer, to remove, and plainly to withdraw from public knowledge—that is, to hide and not to indicate except through ambages and conjectures, or even to remove entirely. Hence I have posited the disjunctive, interpreting it as either omitted or obliquely insinuated, so that the *nous* ("mind") of the obscure writer—the thought of the light-fleeing author—might not escape me, for it is advised to hedge it in on all sides so that it might not slip away anywhere.
Ibid. The historian introduces Veccus purging himself of the suspicion of accusing the Greeks or favoring the Latins. In this, he attributes something to him, perhaps according to his own sense, of such a kind that it is not without injustice to the Latins, who, both in the treatment of that former concord which was formed at the time of Michael Palaeologus at the Council of Lyons, and in the preparation for the second [concord] formed at the Council of Florence, always defended themselves as having rightly and without fault added the word *Filioque* to the Nicene Creed, whereas this Veccus here professes them to have grievously sinned in this, as if he were voluntarily acting the traitor. The words of the historian attributing such a saying to Veccus are these: *Dediōs de authis* […and so on…] *keisthai to megiston*. B And indeed, he concedes too liberally—not to say 730 unjustly and calumniously—that the Italians (that is, the Latin and Roman Church) are subject to the greatest crime because they added the word *Filioque* to the Creed. That he seemed to himself to have heard this (as senses serve the emotions), I for one—concerning the schismatic historian, while he was present at this debate of Veccus and his Greeks—would be hard pressed to believe that Veccus really spoke in that way. For that writers slip into excess by zeal and favor for their own cause, I have a present example in this very Vatican paraphrast, who, when he had read these things, described by us just now in Pachymeres, monstrously amplifying them, deformed them in this way: *All' ateōs kai monon to enklēma therapeuoi to, ou tōn Italōn oumenoun; ekeinoi gar chōris tōn allōn hōn echousin haireseōn, tō tolmēsai monon prostheinai tō symbolō tēn lexin, megalēs haireseōs eikotōs enochoi ginontai.* That is: "But let the crime be excused (Veccus says) only thus far, but not, however, for the Italians: for those men, besides other heresies by which they are held, are justly to be considered guilty of a great heresy by the sole daring of adding that one word to the Creed." Thus the schismatic interpolator, having forgotten how often he had read in the writer whom he is compiling that Veccus had left no stone unturned, and had always applied the greatest intensity to prove that the Latins were pure from every stain of heresy, so that he might thereby correctly infer that they could have been admitted by the Greeks into communion, even if perhaps they did not sufficiently purge the odium of the addition of the word to the Creed; which, if it were handled by the highest law, could not be an error against dogma, but only a sin against discipline, such as does not induce the obligation of breaking off communion. As, therefore, the anonymous epitomizer corrupted into a prejudicial opinion the history which he had written before his eyes, indulging a private emotion toward the schism, so it is allowed to suspect that Pachymeres, hearing the words of Veccus, of one who was contending that, even if an appropriate excuse for the addition of the Latins to the Creed could not be brought forward—in which he himself would not deem it necessary to fight for the cause more odiously—they were nevertheless immune from the stain of heresy, C because they surely had the Fathers of the Greeks, of the first authority, as supporters in the doctrine they were handing down concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit even from the Son. Pachymeres perverted that concession into an express condemnation of the Latins on account of the addition to the Creed. Be that as it may, I myself have shown clearly enough, in a proper dissertation on that argument which exists in Book II of my Observations on the previous volume of this History from p. 665 to p. 674, that the addition to the Creed, rightly and prudently made, is subject to no blame; and that he who wishes to blame it, whether Veccus or Pachymeres, is in vain. D
P. 52. *Kaitoi ge ta metria ge tois logois autou prosarthrōmenos*. I confess humbly that in the manuscript I read *prosarchomenos*. But the word is unknown and here.
731 in this place *aprosdionyson* [nonsensical] he may have wished to change into *prosarthrōmenos*: it is a very convenient meaning, which my interpretation expresses.
P. 54. At Veccus aliud potius quodris, etc. Let these things be noted for excusing Veccus, if at any time in these contentions, especially in the colloquy [P. 521] concerning the law with adversaries below, ch. 35 of this book, he suppressed many things pertaining to the cause, which if they were said, would have inflamed hearers rushing with prejudiced passions. For such things, even if just and true, for the sake of peace are praiseworthily sometimes suppressed in silence, as is understood from the act of St. Gregory the Pope, who, as he himself testifies, though the 5th synod was approved by him, held off from making mention of it among those who would be offended by it. The words of the holy pontiff are these, from epist. 37, lib. 1, to Constantius, Bishop of Mediolanum: "That which you wrote, that you did not wish to transmit my letter to Queen Theodelinda because the fifth synod was mentioned in it, if you believed that she could be scandalized from that, it was rightly done that you did not transmit it." Shortly after, when he added that the Constantinopolitan synod, called the fifth by many, was approved by him, he adds: "We, however, have done as you wished, so that we would make no memory of that synod."
P. 39. *Patroklos d' edozen Iōsēph*. The word *Patroklos* is used here proverbially with the meaning of "pretext." This usage is frequent in Anna Comnena, as I noted in the Glossary to her *Alexiad*, but also in other Greek writers of the later age. It draws its origin from the most famous line of Homer, *Iliad* π: "Upon which the women lamented, using Patroklos as their pretext, though each had her own griefs." Concerning which place Eustathius, cited there by me, notes that the affair passed into a proverb, so that by the word *Patroklos* could be briefly signified the simulation, by which one, striving to show that he is doing something for one reason, actually pursues another. In this usage, our author has this peculiarity, that whereas Anna continuously joins the words "Patroklos as a pretext," Pachymeres here expresses only the word "Patroklos." It should also be warned that in this, as in other words of frequent use, ancient manuscripts use a compendium. And so our manuscripts B and Δ, intact (for the Vatican copyist, curtailing these as is his wont, does not even render the meaning of the place), read *Proklos* instead of *Patroklos*.
P. 43. Why I interpret *sphragida* here as "benediction," I state the cause in the Glossary. Concerning the word *prōtatostakariou* and its notion, I add nothing to Meursius.
P. 46. *Ne qui autem in superioribus*, etc. The Vatican abridger, displaying hardly a fifth part of this chapter, deforms the whole meaning of this place, even to the contrary, against the mind of the author. For since Pachymeres clearly affirms that power was granted to no one—not even to the Catechumens—to be despised [in being barred] from the temple, with guardians placed there for this purpose to prohibit them, he nevertheless 732 says, "Upwards, all the catechumens, and the Emperor and the A archons and all the people (perhaps he wished to write *laoi* or *laïkoi*) beheld the things being performed." They watched the sacred rites from there while they were being carried out. Which *dis* [twice] *dia* [through] *pasis* [all] differs from the writer's assertion. Wherefore this abridger is to be read cautiously; nor is he to be believed without a pledge in those things which he recites under the name of Pachymeres, the author himself generally being against it.
[P. 522] P. 54. For what the codices B and Δ have—*akribōs paristōsai tēn physin*, concerning drops of blood clearly appearing upon the veils, rocks, and foliage—the Vatican has *akribōs tēn physin echaraktērizen*, with an elegant paraphrase.
P. 55. Opposite this chapter in the best codex, B, exist these things written by another hand: "Of the synod in Constantinople against those who accepted the peace and the decree and demands toward the Pope," which show that the things narrated in this chapter are of that same synod which the historian treated on p. 50 sqq. But since that is not expressed in the context, I believed that what the writer wished to be understood by the reader *kata to siōpōmenon* [according to what is passed over in silence] should be judged for the sake of clarity by a word.
[P. 55]. *Ai dellon men pisteōs*. This confession of Theodora, at the instigation of the Patriarch of CP, was issued by the Empress to rescind the acts of Michael Palaeologus for the union of the Oriental and Occidental Church. Michael having died, the schismatic clergy, with the connivance of Andronicus Palaeologus, restored the schism. Since Michael Palaeologus died on the 14th of December of the year 1282, and the Empress issued that confession after her husband had finished his life, the confession itself is to be referred to the end of the year 1282 or the beginning of the year 1283. Moreover, Theodora died on the 16th of February, the year 1284. We submit the text of the libellus, which Joannes Yriarte first published in *Codd. mss. Gr. Matrit.* p. 283, cod. LXXVII.
503. There follows (the words are Yriarte's) an exemplar of the confession concerning ecclesiastical matters, which Empress Theodora published after the death of Michael Palaeologus Comnenus, Emperor of the Greeks, her husband, who gave letters witnessing to the Catholic and Roman faith to Pope Gregory X, then presiding at the second general Council of Lyons. But since in all the commentaries on events or other writings that we have turned through, not only does no copy of such a confession exist, but not even a mention occurs, it was pleasing to transcribe it here to the letter as a unique monument of Byzantine history and most welcome to those who study it.
The copy of the confession of our mighty and holy mistress and lady concerning ecclesiastical matters; which she confirmed from the beginning by her own hand-signed cross; and below by her own seal in a golden bull bearing [the seal] and suspended by red silk.
Theodora in Christ God, faithful Augusta and Empress of the Romans, Ducaina, Comnena, the Palaeologina, not as with other achievements, which one might be able to accomplish for one's own salvation, thus to me also concerning this piety...
for A it is good to keep such things hidden and entirely unapparent, so that the Father and God who sees in secret may reward in the open. But to hide piety, which happens to be the source, origin, and mother of every virtue, is not good; rather, it is to be shown to all and made public. And this, as it seems to me, is the light of ours which the holy Gospels command to shine before men. For this reason, my Majesty has never before hesitated to present its piety toward God, nor does it hesitate now; rather, it makes it distinct and persists in believing in all things just as the Church of God has taught from above to confess and believe. God, who also searches the depths of our hearts, knows this. Let all men know, however, that there is no other mind among us than the genuine one of the Catholic and Apostolic Church. Since my Majesty thinks in this way by the grace of God, and thus makes its petition, it is entirely evident that I also turn away with my whole heart, hate, and abhor the destructive affair and action that occurred not well in the past time to the Church B and which threw it into confusion until the end, whether it was called peace, arrangement, or some other similar thing that was not truly named. And those who still praise it and attach themselves to it, I regard as enemies of the Church of God, as plotters against their own salvation, and as enemies and destroyers of those who accept them, and I cast them off as providers of the ruin of souls. For if at that time the soul-harming nature of that affair escaped notice as much as it did, yet now it does not escape the notice of my Majesty; for events themselves have taught it, and words accompanied by deeds are true and firm. Nevertheless, my Majesty, even then, by the grace of God, standing firm—I speak of the affair—was very weighed down and distressed by the unorthodoxy and novel character of the matter, and felt indignation over it, even if I did not perfectly understand how great the evil was; and in the present, I am much more indignant, clearly seeing the not-good end that befell that not-good plan. But regarding these matters, this is how it is. Since the Church of God has condemned, excommunicated, and alienated from its communion Beccos for his blasphemous dogmas, as well as the Meliteniotes and the Metochites as his like-minded followers, my Majesty also C duly regards such men as uncommunable and cast off, following the vote of the Church. Since it further pleased the same holy Church of God not to deem my master, emperor, and spouse who has passed away worthy of the customary commemorations, for the reason of the aforementioned affair and the disorder resulting from it, my Majesty, preferring the fear of God and obedience to his holy Church, accepts and submits to what has seemed good. And never will I force commemorations to be made for him, my master, emperor, and spouse, nor will I do anything else contrary to what has been enjoined upon it; for to follow and obey her, the Church of God, in all things, my Majesty wishes, thus managing its own salvation from this, and wishing to make its own piety known and manifest to all; for what it had received from the fathers from above, and has lived with until the present time, it will guard even until the end, kept by the power of the merciful God who formed it and showed it forth. It also had a golden bull hanging below from a fine silk thread, bearing on one side the most holy Theotokos holding the infant, and on the other, the standing figure of the holy Empress. I have compared the present copy with the original shown to me and, having found them equivalent, I have signed it, Φ.
[alt-version omitted]
[NOTE. This diploma, as is evident from the title and the end, was confirmed right from the beginning by a cross written by the empress's own hand, while below hung a golden bull showing on one side the purest Mother of God carrying a child, and on the other the figure of the empress herself, attached by a fine silk thread. But the copyist would have provided the readers with much more light than that golden bull potentially could have. Furthermore, as for the word *brephokratousan* (carrying an infant), and the name infant or child, and *krateo* (I hold), used in that composition by which the same purest Mother of God is described, I have never been able to find them in any Lexicons, not even in Du Cange’s Greek Glossary. Furthermore, Cardinal Bessarion composed three Monodies upon this Empress Theodora, and he also composed iambic verses for her tomb. Both are extant today in the Greek library of St. Mark in manuscript codex CCCCXXXIII, as the printed catalog of it testifies. Edit. Patr.]
P. 56. Toward the end of the chapter, Pachymeres signifies that the assent to the acts of the synod was denied by the Patriarch of Alexandria, Athanasius, however much it was sought under the threat of omitting his commemoration from the sacred diptychs. The interpolator of the Vatican text affirms the exact opposite at his own risk and without any credibility, writing clearly: "Many things being alleged back and forth, the Alexandrian finally gives his hand and carries out what was demanded." Do not believe it, for the eyewitness Pachymeres D denies it, not to say clearly.
P. 59. Why this Anna, daughter of Eulogia, niece of Andronicus, wife of the despot Michael, as is evident from vol. 1, p. 243, is found called queen (*regina*) here and elsewhere, is to be asked. Or is it that because there did not exist in Greek a feminine noun formed from the word *despota* by which the wives of despots were designated, she had obtained the use of the title of queen?
P. 65. The beginning of this chapter caused me trouble due to a certain difference in handwriting between codices and an allusion by the ancient author to a matter not very well known. The reason for all these things must be rendered here to the reader. The Allatian codex showed the place like this: The Barberini, however, [is] the best of all. But in the margin, in the region, a very ancient hand has written thus—
A Lampsacus: "To the Lampsacenes a prophecy was given, that wherever it should shine for them, there they should found a city." A flash of lightning having occurred, they saw the place and founded the city, calling it Lampsacus; and they burned the barbarians who were warring against them, having seen them by means of the lightning.
P. 77. Whatever I might think this to be B confirming the things that have happened, the impartial reader may look in the Glossary at the word "completed" before he condemns my interpretation.
Ibid. "And again from the listless," etc. The word "listless" here implies something slack, dissolute, or negligent—which he denies can be consistent with the wisdom of God, which is always intent with sharp vigilance upon the things that occur and applies its judgment to every single event.
P. 78. "He will respond to the madness," says Pindar. To boast out of season C approaches madness. For when the priest, on the Lord's Day, was about to place in the pyx the pre-sanctified holy loaves, he found that the passing of time had left a holy loaf completely rotten and decayed. And this, some of those who marvel at trifles considered to be a great omen, because the holy loaf was found in the pyx rotten. D Now this is nothing new if it had rotted. During the feast of Palms, when the Cyprian archbishop was being inaugurated, the pre-sanctified elements had been prepared according to custom; and by some chance, on the holy and great Wednesday, it was neglected to celebrate the pre-sanctified divine liturgy. Consequently, the holy loaf left behind was in the pyx until the Tyrian Sunday of the following year. On that day, when the priest at the altar was about to place new particles of consecrated bread into the holy pyx, he found in it, rotten through the delay of so much time, the holy bread which had been placed there the previous year. And this, some, marveling at trifles, considered a great prodigy. Thus far this epitomizer, whose freedom in treating the business at hand do you take as a specimen, reader; in which, if you see an inaccurate epitome, you will certainly see the not undeserved censure by our historian in this place, nor will you entirely disapprove of it, I think.
I do not hide the fact that, for me, this chapter, both in reading and interpreting, often caused weariness on account of the superstitious fear of the writer, who thought that so many mazes of anxious prefaces should be woven together for no wondrous cause, displaying a state of mind more agreeable to a superstitious old woman than to a man, especially a theologian. Wherefore, I not only forgive the Vatican epitomizer at length for cutting away the wordy tatters of ridiculous admirations from this chapter and contracting it into very few lines, but I also praise his judgment here, and for his glory I transcribe this entire epitome of his: "He who is about to speak," (he says), "some considered a great sign, because the holy loaf was found in the pyx rotten."
P. 85. Concerning the veneration of the angels on the Tuesday of every week, customarily celebrated by the Constantinopolitans with a popular gathering at the right-hand part of the altar of the temple of Holy Sophia, see what I note in the Glossary under the word "Guides."
P. 87. Irene. She was the sister of the Marquis of Montferrat in the Subalpine region; to whom also, he having later died without children, the son of Andronicus, born from this second marriage, succeeded by maternal right, as our author teaches later.
P. 93. "By all." All, of course, who were present, except Veccus and the archdeacons, their minds preoccupied by schism and error, passed judgment on the present controversy; for otherwise they never could have validly and irrefutably judged as discussed those points which Theodore Muzalo is here reported to have brought forward, which are absolutely A contradictory and mutually destructive. For he asserts two things: first, that he recognizes as true the opinion of Damascene as alleged by Veccus, by which that holy doctor affirms the Father to be the producer of the Spirit through the Word; second, that he nevertheless does not admit that the Spirit derives its origin from the Father through the Word and the Son. But it is beyond any doubt that passive origin corresponds equally to active origin; whence he who admits that assertion, that the Father produces the Spirit through the Son, cannot, without the most absurd contradiction, deny this other: the Holy Spirit is produced by the Father through the Son. How, therefore, B such a manifest failure of logic earns applause from those who are standing by, except that, by a prejudiced mind, public...
disputation demanded that the false charge against them be refuted by their own private defense, they could, I maintain, have poured out a chrestomathy of the Fathers, compiled from a long course of reading, of orthodox erudition 736, by which they might clearly demonstrate that they had learned from the Damascene what he transmits concerning the Holy Spirit’s procession from the Father through the Son, according to the more ancient doctors of the Church—namely, from Athanasius in his book *On the Nature Assumed for Humanity*, c. 4, where, treating the place of the prophet David from Ps. xxxv, 10: "For with thee is the fountain of life," he writes thus, speaking of David: [Greek: Οἶδε γὰρ παρὰ Θεῷ Πατρὶ ὄντα τὸν Υἱὸν πηγὴν τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος]. For he knew that the Son is with the Father the fountain of the Holy Spirit. From Didymus, Book ii *On the Holy Spirit*, whose Greek context Veccus could possess: we read, in the only Latin version that exists, by its author Jerome, these things regarding those words of Christ in the Gospel of John: "For he shall not speak of himself"—that is, not without the judgment of me and the Father, because he is inseparable from my will and the Father’s, because he is not from himself but from the Father and from me. For this very thing which subsists, is to him from the Father and from me. From Epiphanius in the *Ancoratus*, n. 67: Greek: Χριστὸς ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς πιστεύεται Θεὸς ἐκ Θεοῦ, καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα ἐκ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἢ παρ' ἀμφοτέρων, Christ is believed to be God of God from the Father, and the Spirit from Christ or from both. And earlier, more clearly in the same book, n. 8: Greek: Πνεῦμα Θεοῦ καὶ Πνεῦμα τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ Πνεῦμα Υἱοῦ, οὐ κατά τινα σύνθεσιν, καθάπερ ἐν ἡμῖν ψυχὴ καὶ σῶμα, ἀλλ' ἐν μέσῳ Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ, ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ τρίτον ὀνομασίᾳ. Spirit of God and Spirit of the Father and Spirit of the Son, not according to some composition, as in us are soul and body, but in the midst of the Father and the Son, from the Father and the Son, third in nomenclature; and Spirit of the Son, not by any composition, as the soul and body in us, but being in the midst between the Father and the Son, as from the Father and the Son, third by appellation. From Gregory of Nyssa, Book i, *Against Eunomius*: Greek: Ὡς συνάπτεται τῷ Πατρὶ ὁ Υἱὸς, καὶ τὸ ἐξ αὐτοῦ εἶναι ἔχων οὐχ ὑστερίζει κατὰ τὴν ὕπαρξιν, οὕτω πάλιν καὶ τοῦ Μονογενοῦς ἔχεται τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, ἐπινοίᾳ μόνῃ κατὰ τὸν τῆς αἰτίας λόγον, προθεωρουμένου τῆς τοῦ Πνεύματος ὑποστάσεως. As the Son is joined to the Father, and having his being from Him does not fall behind in existence, so again the Holy Spirit is joined to the Only-Begotten, by conceptualization alone according to the account of the cause, the hypostasis of the Spirit being looked upon beforehand; or, the Son is joined to the Father, and since he has his being from Him, he does not yet exist after him; so also the Holy Spirit is joined to the Son, who is considered first according to the account of the cause regarding the subsistence of the Spirit. From Cyril of Alexandria, Book i, *On Adoration*: Greek: Ἔστι τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Πατρὸς, καὶ μὴν καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ, τὸ οὐσιωδῶς ἐξ ἀμφοῖν εἴτ' οὖν ἐκ Πατρὸς δι' Υἱοῦ προχεόμενον Πνεῦμα. It is the Spirit of God and the Father, but also of the Son, who is poured forth substantially from both, namely from the Father through the Son. From Chrysostom in a certain Homily, Vol. V, ed. Savil. p. 674: Greek: Ὁ Σωτὴρ δείκνυσιν ἑαυτὸν πηγὴν ζωῆς, καὶ ὕδωρ ζῶν τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον. Εἰ ὁρᾶς πηγὴν ὕδατος τὸν Θεὸν, ζῶν δὲ ὕδωρ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον· πηγὴ ὕδατος ζῶντος ὁ Πατὴρ, ποταμὸς ἐκ τῆς πηγῆς προερχόμενος ὁ Υἱὸς, ὕδωρ τοῦ ποταμοῦ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον. The Savior shows himself to be the fountain of life, and the Holy Spirit to be living water. If you see God as the fountain of water, and the Holy Spirit as living water—the Father is the fountain of living water, the Son is the river proceeding from the fountain, and the Holy Spirit is the water of the river. The Savior shows himself to be the fountain of life, and the water to be
A the Holy Spirit.
737 These few examples, which we have set out here from many available for the sake of illustration—and there are without doubt many more equally eloquent ones in the same vein which the associates of Veccus could have adduced from the Fathers, since they had long been engaged with Veccus in the investigation of the theology of the Holy Spirit [P. 526] and could not have been ignorant of these matters in this field, which were very well known to Veccus himself, as is understood from his writings, which the illustrious Allatius partly published and partly read in manuscripts, and from which our Petavius transcribed many things in his work *Theological Dogmas*—these, I say, they omitted deliberately, because this was not the place for them. For the issue at hand, as I said, was whether the charge of heresy leveled against Veccus and his associates was true; it was not an inquiry into the dogma itself. And by a calumnious artifice, the adversaries of Veccus tried to evade the force of his defense by diverting the question to another matter.
C P. 95. "You do not confess the Holy Spirit to be continuous to the Father," etc. Gregory Palamas, the fierce defender of the Greek heresy, casts this same absurdity at the Latins, contending that it is taught by the Fathers that the Holy Spirit proceeds continuously and without a medium from the Father. "And indeed," he says, "it was said that the divine Spirit also [proceeds] from the Father immediately." And he wishes this to be proven by certain verses of St. Gregory the Theologian, in which the Son and the Holy Spirit are said alike to hold the second place after God the Father. But these schismatics are in vain. For according to the orthodox doctrine of the Fathers, as much Greek as Latin, both is true: that the Holy Spirit proceeds *amēsōs*, without a medium, from the Father, and that the same one is produced by the Father through the Son. Richard of Saint Victor, in *De Trinitate*, book V, chapter 6, aptly reconciles these seemingly contradictory statements by a similitude drawn from human generations. For he says: "A person proceeds from a person sometimes only immediately, sometimes only mediately, and sometimes both mediately and immediately." He then sets as an example of a process that is only immediate that of Isaac in respect to Abraham, inasmuch as Abraham begat Isaac immediately; the process that is only mediate is that of Jacob in respect to Abraham; for Jacob, father of the twelve patriarchs, was begotten mediately from Abraham, inasmuch as he had Isaac, son of Abraham, as his father, being himself the grandson of Abraham. In this second way, it is truly denied by Catholic doctors that the Holy Spirit proceeds mediately from the Father. But there is another process, at once immediate and mediate, of which Richard establishes the form in the generation of Seth from Adam and Eve. For since Eve had proceeded from Adam, having been formed from his rib, the production of Seth through Eve was to that extent mediate with respect to Adam; but because Adam none the less concurred in that generation by himself, the same process was immediate to Adam. D Those are indeed the words of Richard: "For Seth indeed proceeded from the substance of Adam immediately, in that he was from his own seed; but mediately, in that he was from the seed of Eve." He says that such, furthermore, is the process 738 of the Holy Spirit from the Father, mediate indeed in so far as he is from the Son, whom the Father begat, but at the same time immediate also, because the Son and the Father alike produce the Holy Spirit. For the Holy Spirit (these are the words of Augustine, book XV, *De Trinitate*, c. 27) does not proceed from the Father into the Son, and from the Son proceed to sanctify the creature, but proceeds from both at once, although the Father has given this to the Son, that he proceeds from him just as he does from himself. These are the words of Augustine; they clearly explain in what sense the process of the Holy Spirit is mediate and in what sense immediate to the Father.
P. 96. "But to feel that he is continuous," etc. By these words Veccus signifies that one cannot catholically say that the process of the Holy Spirit from the Father is solely immediate; for it must be said to be at once immediate and mediate. And so here, the term *prosekhōs* (immediately) is being used exclusively, that is, with the understood negation of any mediation. Yet there is some such mediation to be acknowledged by the orthodox in the process of the Holy Spirit from the Father—that which does not exclude the immediate action of the Father himself in the production of the Spirit, but only admits in it the fellowship of the Son, to whom the Father in the first place, by reason, has communicated [it] and through generation identified to him that same one and individual [procession], which he himself possesses originally—that is, not drawn from elsewhere but naturally identified to his own person—as an active spiration, in which, not only in nature and divine essence, are the Father and the Son one. Let St. Anselm be heard, elegantly explaining these things in his book, *De processione Spiritus sancti*: "It is established by irrefutable reasoning that the Holy Spirit is from the Son just as he is from the Father, and yet is not from two [different] beings, but from one. For from the fact that the Father and the Son are one, that is, from God, is also the Holy Spirit, not from that by which they are different from one another. But since the God from whom the Holy Spirit is, is the Father and the Son, therefore it is truly said that he is from the Father and the Son, who are two. The reason for which is that the active principle of the Holy Spirit, or the active spiration, is a certain power of that kind which, in order to pass into act, requires that it be identified to the two persons, one of which has proceeded from the other." Hence Richard of Saint Victor finds the cause, in *De Trinitate*, book V, c. 7, why in order the process of the Holy Spirit is posterior to the process of the Son: "Naturally," he says, "duality is prior to trinity: for the former can exist without the latter, but the latter can never exist without the former. Naturally, therefore, that process is prior, which can subsist in the duality of persons, rather than that which cannot exist without the trinity of persons." From this is understood what Veccus implies in the words described above: that the distinctive property of the process of the Son from the process of the Holy Spirit is that the Son indeed proceeds from one sole principle which is *by which and from which*—that is, from the one divine person, the Father, and through the one
A active generation incommunicable to another person, while the Holy Spirit proceeds and requires that process to go through one sole principle 739, namely, one active, indivisible spiration propagated from the Father into the Son, yet from two principles—that is, the twin persons, regarding whom when the former communicates to the latter its own power of spiration, both conspiring through one indivisible operation produce the third person, who is the Holy Spirit. And this is that account of the difference which Veccus alleges here, claiming that it prevents the Spirit from being said to proceed *continuously from the Father* (προσεχῶς ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός), which he took from Gregory of Nyssa in his epistle *To Ablabius*, whence it is helpful to propose here the whole of this passage: B *We conceive another difference for that which exists from a cause; for the one is immediately from the first, the other through the immediate.* C Of that which is from a principle, we understand again another difference. For one thing is continuously from the first, but another is through that which is continuously from the first. Whence Nyssenus immediately infers the same: *so that also the title 'monogenes' (only-begotten) undoubtedly remains upon the Son.* In this place *monogenes* does not sound the same as the Latin *unigenitum* (unbegotten/only-begotten), but, as Manuel Calecas explains it while expertly treating this very passage of Nyssa in chapter 3, it signifies that which is produced one from one. The words of Calecas are: *And the title 'monogenes' remains upon the Son undoubtedly.* For he is *only from only*, since up to this point the logic of his existence halts its property. The title of *monogenes* without doubt remains proper to the Son: for he alone is from the alone, insofar as orthodox doctrine thus establishes the property of his existence. Gregory of Nyssa could have learned this from his elder brother Basil, whose epistle to his brother Nyssenus exists, in which these words are read: *The Son, who makes known the Spirit proceeding from the Father through himself and with himself, is only-begotten, having shone forth from the unbegotten light, and has no communion regarding the property of identification with the Father or the Holy Spirit.* From all these things it is clear, according to the catholic doctrine of the Fathers, that the characteristic property of the eternal Son, by which he is distinguished both from the Father and from the Holy Spirit, is to proceed from one, or as Manuel Calecas speaks, *μόνον ἐκ μόνου*, to be produced solely from the alone. D This is the same as that which Veccus in this place says is for the Son to be *continuously from the Father*. However, the notion and property equally distinctive of the Holy Spirit is to be produced through him who is continuously from the Father; that is, to be produced by a spiration identified with the two persons and communicated from the first to the other.
[P. 528] P. 97. *We have not learned to speak thus, etc.* This is the response from the Alexandrian patriarch from his bed, truly sleepy and yawning. To whom it could rightly be replied: 10: *Are you a teacher in Israel, and you do not know these things?* 740 That he denies having learned to speak thus is his own fault, because he had not read the writings of the masters, that is, of the ancient Fathers, as he ought have done, where he would have found what Veccus was adducing. But far more ignorantly, the statement of this man is referred to below, where this schismatic defines it to be considered a heresy *τὸ συνιστᾷν θέλειν ἀσύνηθες, κἂν ἀσφαλές ᾖ*—to wish to establish something unaccustomed, even if it be secure. By which most unjust edict all the Fathers of the Church, all theologians, and all interpreters of the sacred books are confined in the dungeons of heretics. For how many of them do not bring forth something unaccustomed, especially to those who are idiots or who have been negligent in the study of sacred doctrine, just as this schismatic patriarch shows himself to be?
Ibid. *For where could it be more clearly apprehended, etc.* These are the words of the Constantinopolitan patriarch Gregory Cyprius, which show him to be no more learned or moderate than that Athanasius of Alexandria whom we just noted. Truly, indeed, if he were endowed with the erudition corresponding to the fame with which he was celebrated or the dignity in which he shone, he would not be ignorant of those things which the veterans—as we showed a little above—the teachers of the Church, with great consensus have handed down concerning the simultaneously immediate and mediate procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father; and if he were to accord that reverence to the ancient Fathers which it is right to accord to any catholic, but especially to bishops, he would never have said that it was full of nonsensical talk, when he confessed that this same opinion was affirmed by Saint Gregory of Nyssa in explicit words.
P. 98. *We confess the rashness, and we ask for pardon.* These are the words of Veccus, in which either a certain tacit irony must be recognized, or a necessary permission for a man acting in a cause of calumniously accused innocence before judges preoccupied by an incurable error. He saw the patriarch rushing about and speaking inconsistently, but with such haughtiness that it appeared he would not allow himself to be refuted. In vain, therefore, would he contend, or attempt to vindicate the orthodox doctrine of Nyssenus, which had been struck by the calumny of being nonsensical; and in the meantime he would lose the opportunity of purging himself and his own from the infamy of heresy. It is the most common practice for advocates defending guilty parties in a trial, after they have sufficiently refuted some charge that is less relevant to the matter, not indeed to acknowledge it as true, but to pass over it as not worth caring about, and to refer themselves back to the head of the cause with this or a similar kind of speech: "Be it so indeed as you wish: yet even with this conceded, it is evident that my client is outside of guilt regarding the head of the cause." The speech of Veccus has precisely such a subtext, as is clearly understood from what follows.
P. 99. *Alluding to another name.* What that other name of Georgius Moschamparis might have been, not even Leo Allatius reveals in his most accurate *Diatribe on the Georges*, though he mentions much about this. It is possible to suspect from that urban remark of Veccus, *Ψύλλα τις ἐπιψηλαφήσασα*, etc., that he was surnamed Psyllus. He recites
A this passage, p. 349 of the diatribe edited by the Georges, in a slightly different manner—both in the Greek text and in the Latin translation—of which I must here admonish the reader. For those words *ψύλλα τις* are translated *culex quispiam* (a certain gnat). I suspect a typographical error, where the printer put a 'c' instead of a 'p' in the first word, surely by a simple slip, the kind which learned men recognize in the place in Pliny [1. xix, c. 10: Napiş cultes, etc.], where the author, without doubt, must have written *pulices* (fleas), which he was describing. But the variation in the Greek is more worthy of note. For where the Barberini codex, the basis of our edition, most clearly has *οὔτ᾽ ἀνασπᾷν οὔτε κατασπᾷν ἔχει τὴν πείρινθα*, the learned Allatius, either from his own codex—which I do not have at hand—or from conjecture, reads *τὴν μίνρινθον*. I would bring forward the copy of the two Vatican codices as an arbiter of the discrepancy; but he avoided both of those words, expressing this passage thus: *ψόλλα* (he wished to write *ψύλλα*) *τις ἐπεκάθισε τῷ τῆς ἀμάξης ῥυμῷ, ἥτις οὔτε βάρος φέρει τῇ ἀμάξῃ οὔτε μὴν ἐλαφρόν τι καὶ κοῦφον*, more verbosely than was fitting for a summarizer, and not very elegantly. I had no reason to abrogate my own archetype, since this reading appears to be sound and worthy of Pachymeres, as it is apparent it was drawn from Homer, Iliad, ω: Αὐτὰρ ὅγ' υἷας ἅμαξαν εὐτροχον ἡμιονείην ὁπλίσαι ἠνώγει, πείρινθα δὲ δῆσαι ἐπ' αὐτῆς, and Odyss. ο: Καὶ τὰ μὲν ἐς πείρινθα τίθει Πεισίστρατος ἥρως. Regarding these passages, Eustathius teaches that *πείρινθα* is called the *πλινθίον* (the basket or frame) above the wagon, where loads are placed; and regarding the latter, he says: *Εἴη δ' ἂν πείρινθα καὶ ἡ πρὸ τούτου ῥηθεῖσά που ὑπερτερία ἐπὶ τῆς κατὰ τὴν Ναυσικάαν ἁμάξης, ὅπερ οἱ ὕστερον ἐσχάραν καλοῦσιν*. From which we have that *πείρινθα* is called a locator, or a chest, or a certain box of square shape accustomed to be placed on carts for the sake of taking up things that are to be carried—called by others *ὑπερτερία* or *ἐσχάρα*. Wherefore, I think our reading and our version are sufficiently defended. Nor does it obstruct [us] that the words *ἀνασπᾷν* and *κατασπᾷν* might appear to fit better with *μίνρινθος* (a rope) than with *πείρινθα* (the carriage box). For even if the notion of pulling is, by origin, more congruent to an instrument for the traction of ropes, the use of those words is no less frequent for signifying a depression—which happens by increasing a load—or a lifting, which happens by lessening weight. So that the sense here might be that the flea sitting on the cart pulled along with force neither adds nor takes away anything from the load, but has it as if it were not there.
P. 100. *I will and [for] you orthodoxly*, etc. It is to be believed that this is said by hyperbole, and with that confidence with which, if he knows that what he is saying cannot come to pass, he [the speaker] exposes himself to some harsh condition. Some interpreters attribute a similar sentiment to those words of Moses and Paul: *Forgive them, or else blot me out of the book* [Exod. xxxii, 32]; and: *I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren* [Rom. ix, 3].
742. One must supplement here what the historian does not expressly state: [the decision] brought against Veccus and his associates by the assembly of the defendants; and this very colloquy, followed by a condemnation of the defendants [who were] auditors, a synod was called, whose acts were duly published. Our Jacobus Sirmondus, having obtained an ancient exemplar of this B whatsoever synod it was, communicated it to Henry Spondanus, Bishop of Apamea, who exhibits the summary of it in his continuation of the Annals of Baronius to the year 1283, n. 10. It is said there that that synod was held under the Emperor Andronicus Palaeologus and Patriarch Gregory against John Veccus and his associates, Constantine Meliteniotes and George Metochites, who had been professing the dogma of the Latins concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit for eight years. The Acts of the synod express this number there, from which it is proven that it was celebrated in this year, which, as we shall demonstrate in the third book of these Observations, c. 2, is truly the eighth from the commencement of the patriarchate of Veccus and the open reception (which happened at the same time) at Constantinople of communion with the Roman Church. Then the same Acts of the pseudosynod record that John Veccus had already previously been condemned for the same reason in a certain synod of the Greeks; which it appears is the one our author mentions, p. 34. For in it they say Veccus had offered a libellus of repentance [P. 530], by which he acquiesced to his condemnation and deposition. Thus, indeed, they name the subscription of the composed libellus, which Pachymeres relates was extorted there from Veccus, by which the profession of the right faith was conjoined with the removal of suspicions, if any existed to the contrary, to which at the end they annexed an abdication of the priesthood. The pseudosynod of the Sirmondian codex adds that Veccus later returned to his former opinion. But Veccus denied this, as he had not believed that by that writing he had revoked the faith he previously championed, but had only yielded to the throne for the sake of time. There follows there the sentence of condemnation passed against Veccus and his two associates, with a refutation of the chapters of their doctrine concerning the Holy Spirit, and a repeated detestation of the reconciliation made between the Greek and Latin Churches, which they call *πεπλασμένην οἰκονομίαν καὶ εἰρήνην πολεμίαν*. Added at the end are the subscriptions, first of the emperor in red letters, *Andronicus in God faithful king and emperor Ducas Angelus Comnenus Palaeologus*, then of the patriarch, *Gregory by the mercy of God archbishop of C. P. of new Rome and ecumenical patriarch*. Subscribing from there are 42 bishops, of whom the first is John of Ephesus, and twenty-eight established in dignity from the clergy. The place of the Synod omitted in the Sirmondian codex was, as Pachymeres teaches, the Alexiac triclinium in the palace of Constantinople.
P. 109. *Sacred Hoplotheca*. This book, as far as I have been able to know up to this point, does not exist. It was a collection, as it appears, of testimonies from the Fathers, through which heresies could be impugned and convicted; and it was done with the greatest care and faithfulness; whence it commonly adhered to that work with a prejudiced, indubitable 743 authority of fidelity. From that which is recorded a little later in this place, [there was] an attached short exception of Manuel Comnenus...
prompting a certain suspicion in me, which I shall here expose at my own risk to the judgment of learned readers. What if we suppose that this miscellany of the Patristic sentences, compiled by the order of Manuel Comnenus and published in his name, was that which could serve as an arsenal for Catholic theologians to impugn the heterodox? Manuel certainly had an ancestral example for managing such things, being the grandson of the Emperor Alexius Comnenus, whose daughter, Manuel’s aunt Anna, records in the *Alexiad* (Book XV, p. 490, Reg. ed.) that he had taken care to have a work composed and edited of a similar argument and use. It will not be out of place to set down here the words of Anna according to our translation. Where she treats at length of a certain Basil, the author of the heresy which she calls that of the Bogomils, whose dogmas and deeds she says she dare not recount on account of their depravity—mindful of the modesty becoming to a woman and a princess—she immediately subjoins: “If anyone has such interest in knowing these things, he will be able to consult the book which is entitled the *Dogmatic Panoply*, written and edited by the command of my father. Its author is a monk named Zygadenus, known to my grandmother and to all holy men of God, familiar to priests and bishops. My father, the Augustus, summoned this man, who was a supreme grammarian and rhetorician, not unpracticed [in letters], and truly most learned in theology and Catholic dogma above all others, and ordered him to arrange in order into one work all the heresies, and to set against each, point by point, the refutations of the holy Fathers, and finally, after all these, to subjoin this last heresy of the Bogomils and its dogmas, just as that impious Basil had expounded them.” From this mandate of Alexius arose a huge work, divided into many books, to which even today adheres the nomenclature first devised and applied by the Emperor: that which we have called the *Dogmatic Panoply*. Thus far Anna; from whose words what person of prudence would not recognize that it would not have been abhorrent to the genius of the Comnenian house, or to the peculiar disposition of Manuel, who was accustomed to placing his own supreme [effort] in the imitation of the deeds of all types of famous men, [including] his grandfather Alexius the Augustus, to descend into the care of arranging such a commentary and imputing its publication to his own name? In this, perhaps, that prior work of Zygadenus profited him not a little; for having cut away only the descriptions of the heresies and the recitations of the absurd assertions of which they consisted, and having redistributed the testimonies of the Fathers collected by Zygadenus into a convenient order, he abridged it and, fortified by the authority of his own name, published it under the new title of B *Pano-plia*, a sacred arsenal.
Ibid. The same saint, forsooth, says so. From these words of Damascene, which are read even to this day in his text (I find them in the Basel edition of the year 1575, p. 43), not only do the ancient Greek schismatics—Macarius of Ancyra, Gregory Palamas, Joseph Bryennius, the Augustus Emanuel Palæologus, Georgius Scholasticus the monk, Matthew the monk, Maximus Margunius, Gabriel Severus of Philadelphia, Georgius Coresius, and others here and there—conclude that he denied the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, but even among more recent Latins, Joannes Gerardus Vossius admits this for a certainty in his *De historicis Græcis*, p. 281. Indeed, long before, the man of highest authority, the Angelic Doctor St. Thomas, had conceded the same in his *Summa*, Part I, quaest. 36, art. 2, where, when he had objected to himself in the third argument this very passage of Damascene, he responds thus: “To the third, it must be said that [the doctrine] that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son was first introduced by the Nestorians, as is evident in a certain symbol of the Nestorians condemned in the Ephesine synod. And this error was followed by Theodoricus (perhaps one should read Theodoritus), the Nestorian, and many after him, among whom was also Damascene. Whence one must not stand upon this in his opinion, although it is said by some that Damascene, just as he does not confess the Holy Spirit to be from the Son, so also does not deny it by the force of the words.” Thus that holy doctor. Nevertheless, even those Greeks who are orthodox and far from schism defend Damascene here against the error. Nicephorus Blemmida, in his oration to Jacob, bishop of Bulgaria, concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit; Cardinal Bessarion, in his epistle to Alexius Lascaris Philanthropenus, and in his dogmatic oration to the Oriental synod; Demetrius Cydonius, in his opusculum *On the Procession of the Holy Spirit*; Joseph of Methone and C Gregory Protosyncellus against the epistle of Mark of Ephesus; and Gennadius the Patriarch for the Council of Florence—all whom Leo Allatius praises, treating this passage most extensively and learnedly in his *De Eccl. Occid. et Orient. perpetua consensione*, L. II, c. 2. The response of most of these on behalf of Damascene almost coincides with the finally related words of St. Thomas Aquinas. They say, namely, that it does not at all follow, from the fact that Damascene writes that he does not say the Spirit is from the Son, that it is denied by him. For certain things are not said for a specific cause, which are nevertheless not denied, because Catholics sometimes fear to employ words which heretics have brought forward in a depraved sense, lest, once heard, they be thought to hold the sentiment affixed to them by condemned authors. Since therefore Eunomius, the enemy of the consubstantial Trinity, had affirmed the Holy Spirit to be from the Son—understanding it, forsooth, in that way in which he used to say the Son and the Word do not proceed from the Father consubstantially—Catholics avoided uttering such a statement simply, to which the calumny of the reprobate dogma would attach due to the widely circulated error of Eunomius. With which same caution the same Damascene avoided calling the blessed Mary *Christotokos*, although he in no way denied that she truly gave birth to Christ, only so that he might not, by using the known words of Nestorius, by which that heresiarch expressed his own blasphemous opinion, attaching two persons—D 745 the divine and the human—to Christ, so that Mary would be the mother only of the human person, from which he contended that she should be called *Christotokos*...
but not *Theotokos*. A I say, that Damascene, using the same words, might appear to the less cautious not to sufficiently avoid the contagion of the Nestorian taint, not only because he was unwilling to use them, but did not even profess to speak in this manner. Though these points may be argued plausibly, the true solution to a difficulty of this kind is that which Petavius (tom. II *Theol. dogm.*, L. VII, c. 17, n. 8) and Allatius (L. *De consens. Ecclesiarum*, c. 2, n. 10) adduce from Bessarion’s letter to Lascaris: namely, that Damascene did not say that the Holy Spirit is from the Son absolutely and without the mention of the Father being joined with it, because he feared that he might seem to acknowledge in the Son a *prokatarktiken aitian*, an original principle of the Spirit, which is abhorrent to Catholic dogma. According to this, as we showed earlier in the notes to c. 8 and 9 of Book I, the power of spiration—that is, of producing the Holy Spirit—is so present in the Son that he receives it from the Father, not as if he has it of himself, in so far as he is distinct from the Father; rather, the very same power exists most simply and equally in the Father and in the Son, communicated to the latter by the former, such that, in so far as it is in the Father, it is called *prokatarktike*, because he has it of himself and it is attributed to him by no other; but not likewise in so far as it pertains to the Son. For he drew it from elsewhere, namely from the Father, who grants to him through generation all that he has, except being the Father, and consequently also gives him the active spiration itself, existing originally in Him, by which, together with the Son, he produces the Spirit by way of one spirating principle. Therefore, since Damascene had expressly professed B that the Father is the producer, through the Son, of the manifestative Spirit (*τὸν Πατέρα προβολέα δι' Υἱοῦ τοῦ ἐκφαντορικού Πνεύματος*), he rightly refused to say "the Spirit is from the Son" (*ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τὸ Πνεῦμα*) absolutely and without the mention of the Father added to it, who, through him and with him, exercises the power of spiration granted to him from Himself. Pachymeres is therefore mistaken when he says in this place that by this testimony of Damascene the Latins, who say that the Spirit proceeds from the Son, as well as the Greeks who support them, are, as it were, transfixed by a dagger, by the building up of the equivalence of the prepositions *ex* and *per*; for this *usage* (*χρῆσις*), declared according to the true meaning of Damascene, does not in reality graze either side in the slightest.
P. 150. *Ὡς ταλαιπωρήτως ἔχοντες περὶ τὸ κακόν*. We restore this from an ancient marginal correction, whereas in the text of both codices B and A, *καλόν* was read. But whoever examines the matter deeply will manifesty perceive that *καλόν* is placed here quite against the sense of the place. And the Vatican interpolator agrees, who for those words, *ἀταλαιπωρήτως ἔχοντες περὶ τὸ καλόν*, substitutes: *Τὸ κακὸν μὴ*—
P. 169. *Πέμπει*. In both manuscripts *πέμπεν* was read. Whence a certain reader, in order to support the hanging sentence, wrote *ἔγνω* in the margin. But a more expeditious correction is the removal of the redundant letter *ν* in the word *πέμπειν*. The Vatican omits these. C
[P. 554.] P. 178. *Κατὰ τὴν περαίαν τὴν δυτικήν*. Someone might require in my interpretation that which corresponds to the word *δυτικήν*. I thought that by saying "Galata," I was explaining those two words *περαίαν* or *δυτικήν*. For if there were two transmarine suburbs at Byzantium 747, one inclining to the East and the other to the West, I find that only the latter, in which the Genoese lived, was called Galata; and it is only of this that Pachymeres treats here, concerning whom the Vatican paraphraser *before me* thought that this passage is thus rendered: *Κατὰ ἀντιπέραν τῆς πόλεως πρὸς τῷ Γαλατᾶ μέρει*. Or if two parts of one suburban area are distinguished, *ἀνατολική* and *δυτική*, I understand from the same paraphraser that only the latter, which a fire consumed, had the proper name of that *περαία δυτική* which was Galata. This I followed. If my reasoning has deceived me, let the reader forgive and correct it.
P. 114. *Perlatus tomus in manus Vecci*, etc. The work of Veccus, which is indicated here, exists, published in volume II of *Orthodoxa Græcia* from p. 215 to 286, where the author, at the very beginning, complains that this Cyprius first added heresy to the schism of the Greeks, which had already begun three hundred years ago, in this impious volume of his; thinking it lawful to exert the sting of free anger against the author of so great an evil, he calls him D *κακὸν διαπόντιον, θῆρα θαλάττιον, ἄγριον κῆτος τῆς Κύπρου ἐπαναστὰν τοῖς καθ' ἡμᾶς ἐνδεδημηκός, οὐχ ἵνα φυγάδα προφήτην ὑποδέξηται καὶ εἰς ὑπηρεσίαν Θεοῦ διασώσηται, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα Ἐκκλησίαν ὅλην καταπιὸν ἄφαντον ἀπεργάσηται*. "A malignant one carried over the sea, a wild beast of the sea, a savage whale of Cyprus, risen against those who have settled among us, not to receive a fugitive prophet and save him for the service of God, but to swallow the whole Church and render it invisible." It proceeds to argue, clearly, accurately, elegantly, and sharply, what Cyprius had written erroneously in that volume.
Ibid. *Præsertim incursabat expositionem in eo traditam*. It will be useful, if I am not mistaken, for the learned reader to see the passage of Veccus which Pachymeres indicates with these words. He will find it in Oration 1, in the volume of Cyprius, p. 227 and 228 of the second volume of *Græcia orthodoxa* edited by Leo Allatius at Rome in the year 1659.
P. 117. It is scarcely worth mentioning that Veccus is compared here, after his condemnation and ejection, to Gregory Cyprius, his persecutor, who was gravely and dangerously troublesome to him, as that Nessus the Centaur, well-known from fables [P. 533], who, while carrying off Deianira, breathed his last when pierced from afar by Hercules’ arrow, infecting a garment with his blood mixed with the venom of the Hydra, with which the tip of the arrow that wounded him had been stained, which Hercules, putting on later, perished from. That might perhaps be noted more opportunely, that it is written by Pachymeres with a single sigma, although it is written everywhere by others with a double one, and Eustathius teaches that it ought to be so in his commentary on the *Iliad* ω.
P. 186. *Ποιμαντικὴν βακτηρίαν λαβὼν παρὰ τοῦ κρατοῦντος*. The Germans wished to imitate this custom of the Oriental emperors, with which it ill agrees with the Roman Church, they too arrogating to themselves the right of investing bishops with the tradition of the pastoral staff; which had been granted by Pope Hadrian 748
A Book II, c. 4. There is recounted simultaneously the assumption of Michael into the partnership of the empire, and his solemn coronation; these, however, we shall show in Book I of these Observations, Chapter 3, to have occurred at different times, and that the latter was a full year later than the former. As for the day chosen for the ceremony, May 21st, it is seen today to be consecrated in the ecclesiastical books of the Greeks to the anniversary commemoration of the great Constantine and his mother, St. Helena. The description of the rite of the coronation of the Oriental Augusti, which Pachymeres here executes in few words, will be found sufficiently consistent with the longer one edited by B Cantacuzenus, Book I, c. 41, if anyone should compare both. I have observed one discrepancy, from which I believe myself not unlikely to confirm the conjecture just indicated regarding the distinction between the elevation to the empire and the coronation in this younger Michael; and therefore I shall explain this difference more distinctly. Cantacuzenus writes in the place cited: "When the emperor who is to be anointed has sat upon the shield, the emperor who is his father, if he survives, and the patriarch, taking hold of the front parts of the shield, while those of the remaining offices who are preeminent in rank, such as despots and sebastocrators, if they are present, or the most illustrious of the senators, taking hold of the rest, lift him up as high as possible together with the C shield, and show the emperor to the crowds surrounding him on all sides." This is as follows: When the emperor to be anointed is sitting upon the shield, the emperor his father, who is acclaimed, if he survives, and the patriarch, having grasped the anterior parts of the shield, while the other primary magistrates, namely the despots and sebastocrators, if they are present, or the most illustrious of the 748 senators, lift him up together with the shield as high as they can and show the emperor to be inaugurated to the multitude surrounding him on all sides. Thus Cantacuzenus. But our author, in the elevation of the shield, mentions no work of the senior emperor, and ascribes the entire deed solely to the magistrates D in power, not failing, as it appears, to mention Andronicus the father, if any part of his had existed in that function; just as a little further down, when he mentions the crown placed upon Michael’s head after the anointing, he distinctly warns that his father the senior Augustus crowned the already anointed Michael, with the help of the patriarch, who also held a part of the crown while it was being placed. What shall we say here? Are we to reproach Pachymeres for negligence? Or for having used a more exquisite ceremony in inaugurating the grandson Andronicus, than the father in the case of Michael, his son, whom he loved so dearly? I should judge neither of these to be likely; but I believe both the form observed in each case, and that both historians have related what they saw with the best faith. It is only to be noted that two functions were performed on the same day and with the same effort in Andronicus the Younger, namely the assumption into the empire and the coronation, but in Michael only the latter, namely the coronation, for the assumption had already preceded it in the previous year; a fact which Pachymeres, indeed, does not express distinctly here, but nevertheless insinuates elsewhere, such as in the title of c. 4, l. III, where he calls Michael, even then, when a bride began to be sought for him (which happened long before this time), Augustus the Younger, or in c. 1, where he says that the twenty-third year of Andronicus coincided with the twelfth of Michael, as we shall explain more fully elsewhere, Observations, Book III, c. 3. Moreover, it was not that Andronicus the Younger was duly assumed into the partnership of the empire by his grandfather Andronicus, but only by a tacit designation, while his father Michael was alive, as an heir to the empire revered by the people, as Andronicus the Elder himself seems to intimate not obscurely, when, as Cantacuzenus relates, Book I, c. 2, upon the death of Michael, the father of Andronicus the Younger, he forbade that he should henceforth be sworn in his name, deeming such honor to have been held by him while his father was alive, not as already an Augustus, but only as the son of an Augustus, which title he would have lost upon the death of his father. And this stood as the cause of the first discord between the grandfather and the grandson, which was finally composed when the younger Andronicus was simultaneously assumed solemnly into the partnership of the empire and crowned, which is reported by Cantacuzenus, Book I, c. 41. And this, having been prepared beforehand, is hinted at by the counsel of both, now concordant, in the arrangements for the nuptials which the Younger was to celebrate with the daughter of the Count of Savoy, whom therefore his brother (for his father had died), when he had duly betrothed her to Andronicus the Younger, now inaugurated as emperor, as he heard from the legates, did not treat as he had before, as a younger sister subordinate to him, but 749 henceforth yielded to him of his own accord, acknowledging that one as his superior and calling him lord. This Cantacuzenus explicitly relates, c. 40, that before this time the title of emperor had been bestowed upon Andronicus the Younger by name only and by presumption, without any assumption celebrated by legitimate rites, and the Senior Andronicus demonstrates this when, according to Cantacuzenus, Book I, c. 9, he calls him simply Andronicus the Palæologus and forbids him to be recognized as prince; and Andronicus the Younger himself seems to confess this, when, in the same book, c. 23, he asks his grandfather to admit him into the partnership of the empire with the right of succession. Rightly, therefore, when Andronicus the Younger was simultaneously assumed, anointed, and crowned, which Cantacuzenus reports, c. 41, the grandfather Augustus himself held the front part of the shield, raising him by the accustomed rite into the Augustan dignity, which he had not yet done: but when he was anointed and crowned, having already been previously raised to the empire by his father Michael, the shield in which he was raised was not lifted up by his father, as Pachymeres describes the matter as one who saw it.
signifies. Concerning the coins tied up in linen segments, which were scattered among the people on this occasion, and which Pachymeres mentions here, see what we noted in the Glossary of the previous volume under the word *epikompia*.
[P. 536] P. 197. Irene, daughter of the Marquis of Montferrat in Lombardy, the second wife of the Emperor Andronicus the Elder, bore him three sons: John, Theodore, and Demetrius. This is explicitly taught by Cantacuzenes in the preface to his *History*, p. 5, edition of Regensburg. When the Marquis of Montferrat, Irene’s brother, died without children, and someone among Irene’s sons had to be sent for the succession of his principality, the father destined the youngest of all, Demetrius, for this purpose, and having honored him with the title of Despot, sent him to Lombardy to claim that inheritance by maternal right. But the mother, Irene, who was then living far from her husband in Thessalonica, and who, as Pachymeres indicates somewhere rather timidly, but as Gregoras confesses much more assertively, being accustomed to follow her own reasoning in many matters, was not very wont to submit her own will to the wishes of her husband; deeming Theodore more suitable because of the prerogative of his more adult age, she vigorously sent him instead, anticipating the arrival of Demetrius. Wherefore Theodore obtained possession of the Marquisate of Montferrat, having taken as his wife the daughter of Spinulus the Genoese, a man of high standing; since he had only female offspring by her and had thus died without male issue, the people of Montferrat specifically demanded the Despot John as their prince, being the firstborn of Irene, and they eventually succeeded. Our author relates this, and that he had accommodated himself to the customs of the Italians and was pleasing to his subjects. He is said to have propagated a long line of non-schismatic princes of the Palaiologan house, in the true profession of the Catholic Roman faith. C
P. 202. *Forbidden affinity*. This was the affinity concerning which, regarding persons joined to one another in the sixth degree of consanguinity who were to be united in marriage, special permission had to be obtained from the prelates of the Church—a matter they were addressing, as the author declared in the previous chapter. And yet, as our same historian had taught in Vol. I, p. 440, a similar impediment of six degrees of consanguinity obstructing the marriage between Michael, Despot of the Western region, and Anna, daughter of the Emperor Michael, had been addressed; for those who were then presiding over the Church, at the request of the Augustus, had granted the favor, even though such present and outstanding utility for the state was not expected from that marriage as certainly appeared would follow from this one. Doubtless, the schismatics, who were now powerful, were affecting to appear more religious than the Catholics who then presided over both Church and Republic; and because Andronicus sought to appear as having renounced the concord with the Pope, which his father had piously cultivated, by this superstitious omission of a very useful alliance for the empire—due to an empty fear, as if its impediment could not be removed by the authority of the Church—he thought himself wiser than the one whom he had seen, on a similar occasion, D ask for the help of the prelates of the Church; thus the patriarch then sitting, and his assessor bishops, all of them most addicted to the schism, wished to condemn the act of John Veccus, who at that time, with the opinion of the bishops assisting him, had relaxed the ecclesiastical tie arising from the sixth degree of consanguinity—by which the Despot Michael Angelos and Anna Palaiologina, daughter of the Emperor Michael, were restrained from the right of contracting marriage—voluntarily admitting that this exceeded the power of patriarchal authority. But God allowed those who, not rarely, incite people conspiring against the Church into mutual altercations among themselves, also to infest one another with these vain scruples. [P. 537] For, a little further back in Chapter 3, Pachymeres reports that the patriarch and the bishops had bluntly refused Andronicus, who was most urgently praying for an ecclesiastical constitution whereby, under the threat of anathema, all subjects of the empire would be ordered to yield faith and obedience to Michael the Younger Augustus, as if it were alien to the maternal leniency of the Church to rage with curses against rebels; and that, in retaliation for this rebuke, Andronicus issued the same *Novella*, whereby he condemned as Simoniac the largesse of fees for episcopal ordinations, which had been customary for a long time in Constantinople, and prohibited it from being used thereafter, while in turn burning with a pretext sought to punish those who had pricked him with no more probable excuse.
To support what I have just said, I think the marginal note placed by a Greek reader in a sufficiently ancient hand in the margin of the Barberini codex pertains to this, for in the region of those words *ὥστε τὸν νέον βασιλέα γαμβρὸν ἐκείνῃ γενέσθαι* it is written thus: "*Ἵνα μὴ τοιαῦτα καὶ αὖθις συμβαίνοι, ὁ τῆς Ῥώμης ἀρχιερεὺς τὰ τοιαῦτα παραχωρεῖ*". Which, I suppose, signifies that those who then headed the Church had taken care, so that they might not appear to imitate the example provided by Veccus and other Greek bishops of the Roman communion in permitting that marriage, of which mention had been made in Vol. I, p. 440. The reason, however, why they diligently avoided this, is expressed by the following words: *Ὁ τῆς Ῥώμης ἀρχιερεὺς τοιαῦτα παραχωρεῖ*, the Roman pontiff permits such things. The author of the note indeed signifies that the Greeks, having grown accustomed to the relaxation of matrimonial impediments through their desire to condemn the use and custom of the Roman Church, acted as if Veccus had attempted this against divine law because he followed the authority of the Roman pontiff.
P. 206. *Having renounced the ancestral rite*. He deals with Maria, daughter of the King of Armenia, destined as a bride for Michael the Younger Augustus, whom he says was led to renounce the ancestral rite through the efforts and persuasions of those who were bringing her. Pachymeres hints more than once in these books of history that the Greeks and Armenians abhorred each other on account of the sharp discord concerning religion. See Vol. I, p. 429; Vol. II, p. 242, and p. 520. Moreover, the Greeks were accustomed to initiate those who would change their ancestral rite with their own as if by a certain anointing, and here you see it clearly affirmed by our historian, and later on p. 520, regarding the Armenians; and the same holds for them...
within the limits of the space intended for the Venetian conflict with the Genoese, following the agreement made with the emperor, he expresses it thus: *From the strait of Gallipolis even to the Hieron.* What he calls the *Hieron* (Holy Place), let him see for himself. Indeed, the straits at Gallipolis are not the same as the straits at Sestos and Abydos, but they are opposite each other in diameter, with the Propontis between them. [P 539] P. 242. That which manuscripts B and A contain as *for some random cause*, the Vatican codex expresses as *for some trivial cause*, meaning a cause or slight offense of no consequence.
Ibid. *King of Armenia...* Sanudo, Book 1, p. 13, ch. 2, calls this King of Armenia Haython, and says he came to Constantinople because Michael, son of Andronicus, had betrothed his sister. These things agree with Pachymeres, who previously taught that the daughter of the King of Armenia, named Maria, had married Michael. Furthermore, Sanudo explains of what nature the affair is, which Pachymeres discusses, while he says that this king lived with the Friars. Indeed, he teaches that he had taken the habit of the Order of Friars Minor of St. Francis, and lived at Constantinople as a companion of these Fathers and as a brother; whence, having seized the opportunity, Sebath, the brother of Haython, occupied the kingdom of Armenia. He also later blinded Haython, whom he had captured. But he, by a divine miracle, regained the use of his eyes and even became possessed of his kingdom; and he sent Sebath to Constantinople, asking the emperor to detain him there. These are the things in Sanudo. And from him, Spondanus, year of Christ 1294, n. 10 and 11.
P. 247. *Victory of necessity through prudence.* Thus manuscript B. The Vatican, however, *let prudence overcome the necessity of showing favor.* In order for this very obscure passage to be understood, the scripture must first be established. I think that in the word *vixa*, as it is read in manuscript B with a circumflex on the last letter, there is an error. For this is not the third person of the present indicative of *nikao*, *nika*, but the second person 753 of the present imperative. Therefore, the penultimate syllable must be accented, so that it is *vixa*, contracted from *vixae*. And some trace of this reading could be considered to be provided by the Vatican codex, as long as it accents the last letter in the word *nika*, erring in the seat of the accent, not in the accent itself. Thus, literally, these words sound: *Overcome by prudence, so that necessity may become a favor.* This is: since it is necessary by usage already accepted to grant the title of "brother" in letters to the Sultan, do not hesitate to do this willingly, overcoming doubt by consideration.
P. 250. *Which things being so, there is need of sharp deliberation, etc.* By these words is explained the agitation of mind by which the patriarch and the emperor were troubled by the writings of Athanasius, which threatened dire things—though it was a vain fear. For what could be justly feared from the anger of a man already a private individual, timidly inserted into secret papers? Yet those schismatics, who did not hesitate to invite the most dire of all anathemas upon their own heads by denying obedience to the Vicar of Christ and by tearing the Church apart, affected to appear religious even to the point of superstition, trembling there with fear where there was no fear, as
A is said in Psalm xiii, which a certain learned man rightly reproaches them for in these words, added to the margin of the codex: "Ignorant and insipid folly, which fears what for no reason at all should be feared, but neglects with secure contempt what are rightly judged far more formidable things." To these certainly applies the saying of Christ in Matthew xxiii: "Blind guides, who strain out a gnat, but swallow a camel."
P. 251. *He sought with an anxious and uncertain mind for a plan.* To this the same marginal censor [P. 540] annotates: "Not so Alexander, but he cut the Gordian knot with a sword." B
P. 266. What follows in the Greek text after these words: *but in this way, surely, Osphentisthlabos...* just as they are read here in both excellent codices, are confused in an inextricable perplexity. For our author, dark by nature, whenever he strives to compress many things into few words, wraps himself in a denser fog. The Vatican epitomizer explains this place a little more clearly. His words are as follows: [Harc Vaticanus breviator Pachymeris—] That word, which is placed twice by Pachymeres, is written in the other place as *Krouron*. We have written it *Cruni* in both places, because we find mention of the place *Cruni* among geographers, but not *Cruri*. Furthermore, the epitomizer omits that Eltimeres was the brother not only of Terteres, but also of his wife Smilizis, a matter expressly stated by Pachymeres. Then, against the authority of this man, he affirms that Radosthlabus came into the power of the emperor along with Terteres: for here he says that he defected to the emperor of his own accord: then the epitomizer asserts that the Roman nobles were exchanged by Eltimeres for Terteres and his nobles held by the emperor, whereas the author makes no mention of Bulgarian nobles being freed in this exchange, but mentions only thirteen nobles of the Terteris exchanged with the Romans, and says that the exchange was made by Osphentisthlabus, to whom Eltimeres had sent the Romans. We, not daring to change anything in the Greek text of Pachymeres, have tried to express the meaning of the place as clearly as we could, as we have been able to divine it. C
P. 268. Besides this illegitimate daughter, Andronicus had another, likewise illegitimate, named Irene, whom Gregoras mentions (l. vi), and whom he says was later given in marriage to John, Duke of the Pelasgians and Prince of the Thessalians. This could be the same one whom our author indicates below was offered as a bride to Cazan, though the marriage, as it appears, did not follow.
P. 270. That Veccus persisted most steadfastly until his final breath in the profession once issued of the correct dogma concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, and of the subjection due to the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ—beyond what our historian indicates sufficiently both here and whenever he speaks of him—is manifestly proven by his testament, written as death was imminent, while he was in prison, having endured so many years for the sake of religion at the hands of the schismatics. There followed the text of the testament which we omit here, as it already exists among the works of Veccus in volume CXL.
755-757. Someone might perhaps look for a profession of subjection to the Roman Pontiff in the testament of Veccus. But that is sufficiently hinted at, if I am not mistaken, in the subscription, where Veccus, while still holding himself to be the Constantinopolitan Archbishop (because he deemed his own deposition to be rightly null), nevertheless abstains from the title ambitiously usurped by the schismatic antistites of that see, "Ecumenical Patriarch."
P. 279. That old custom mentioned here of celebrating the commemoration of the dead with many lights is not to be referred to the mention made a little before of the beginning of February, as if that rite were observed at the beginning of that month in particular according to an old custom; but it refers to the preceding indication of the eve of Preparation, or the sixth day of the week, when by ecclesiastical usage the following Sabbath was already considered to begin, since the Greek Church used to commemorate the dead on the Sabbaths of all weeks. Gennadius the Patriarch teaches us this in his book *On Purgatory*, writing thus: "You are still unwise, and have not known that Christ's Church always prays for those who have fallen asleep, and makes a memorial for souls on every Sabbath Dalone, and on a Sabbath even twice in the year she holds a festival concerning the memorial of souls—I mean in that before Apokreo and the one before Pentecost." [P. 541-544] *And you are still without understanding, and have not known that Christ's Church always prays for those who have fallen asleep, and makes the usual memorial of souls every Sabbath. And besides, she celebrates twice in the year a festival of the commemoration of souls, namely the Sabbath preceding the Sunday of Carnival and the Sabbath before Pentecost.* So Gennadius. The year in which the journey of Andronicus to Thessalonica narrated in this place occurred, as below l. iii, c. 7,
[817] § 17. NOTE. ...shall show, was in the year of Christ 1299. Since that year, having reckoned a solar cycle of 20, corresponds to the Dominical letter D, it is understood that the Friday mentioned here at the beginning of February fell on the sixth day of February. Therefore, the commemoration of the dead begun on the evening of that day was merely weekly, and not one of the solemn panegyrics for the dead, which, as we have heard from Gennadius, are celebrated twice a year with a more exquisite ceremony: on the Saturday preceding the Sunday of A *Apokreo*—or, to speak in the common tongue, the Carnisprivium of the Greeks, which coincides with our Septuagesima Sunday—and the Saturday before Pentecost. For regarding the Saturday of Pentecost, it is sufficiently obvious how far removed it is from the month of February. But the Saturday of the Sunday of the Greek Carnisprivium, or Sexagesima—in that year where Easter fell in April—was the 21st of February, which in no way pertains to the beginning of February. For it is sufficiently known that only the first ten days of any month are designated by the Greeks by the name of the month just begun; since those that follow are attributed to the middle of the month, and the rest until the end to the month that is ending. And this very fact—namely, that this commemoration of the dead was only ordinary and weekly—is indicated by our historian, while he makes mention of those who are commemorated not as being celebrated in a festival, but [merely] as being commemorated in this place. B Furthermore, the mention made here of torches being lit, which I interpret in an ecclesiastical sense, may perhaps find someone to argue that it should be referred to a purely civil reason. Indeed, I am not unaware that such a locution generally designates the time of late evening until the darkness increases after sunset, when torches are lit within houses, especially for the necessity of seeing. But if anyone considers it more attentively, he will see that it is hardly likely that the emperor, especially in the midst of a harsh and rigid winter, would have chosen an hour to start his journey out of the city, during which, as night approached, the air would grow darker and darker. Therefore, the first part of the evening time, with the sun setting toward the third hour after midday, is to be understood. At such a time, the emperor—with his very numerous retinue—could rightly set out upon his way, with the remnants of daylight sufficient to reach the station of Dripea, distant by a few miles and suburban; for there he had an inn made ready for the following night. Therefore, when the emperor went out from the city with the sun still shining, torches were not lit for any reason of civil necessity, since twilight was still far off. Wherefore, it remains that this should be attributed to a religious ceremony, namely, that which was then already accustomed to be occupied with the afternoon commemoration of the dead, by lighting lamps throughout all the churches. C Finally, I observe that the mention made here of *paraskevês* (Friday) was not understood by the Vatican paraphrast according to the true and common notion known to the author. For he exhibits this passage thus: D *Tunc igitur paratus imperator exiit* (Then therefore the prepared emperor went out). Thus he, having transferred to the attire of the journey the description of the *paraskevê* (Friday); by which also this epitomator appears very superficial, and the suspicion is moved that he was not very skilled in Greek rites. However, this is the very place for me to gratefully confess that he was not useless to me. For certain things in this chapter, as it is described in two codices which are otherwise excellent, are set forth, or are put somewhat confusedly and in a diminished way, which the Vatican paraphrast explains more clearly and intelligibly. Wherefore, I have added something from him while interpreting; and, so that it may not be unknown to anyone who might happen to care about it, I shall transcribe his words here. Therefore, in place of those things that follow in our Greek context after the words *Iôannês de* (John, however) until the end of the chapter, the Vatican [P 545] exhibits these: *Ho de patriarches emathe ta bouleumena para tou*... (The patriarch, however, learned the things determined by...
P. 306. Enarrators of the Ascraean poet.
Indeed, in the Greek scholia existing today on Hesiod (fol. 68, Venice edition of Trincavelli, year 1537), the following annotation of Moschopoulos is read regarding those words of the poet: *Kata ton mêna de Lênaiôna, hostis esti Ianuarios* (During the month of Lenaion, which is January). 760 Below, fol. p. [post] 2, after the middle, John Tzetzes observes regarding the same place: *Mêna de Lênaiôna ton Choiak êtoi ton Ianuárion, hos Lênaios para tois Ioisi kaleitai* (But the month Lenaion [he calls] Choiak, that is, January, which is called Lenaion by the Ionians). That Pachymeres—who otherwise disagrees with them on this point—nevertheless, while composing a poem among them, as if apologizing for having expressed a sentiment of theirs which he had condemned elsewhere, indicates either that he wrote those verses while frequenting the school of one of them; or, if age or something else forbids that Pachymeres could have been a student of John Tzetzes or Moschopoulos, it could be said that that poem was written by him while he was a boy giving his effort to schoolmasters who explained Hesiod from the previously published expositions of John Tzetzes or of someone else. I have spoken about these in the Glossary. I freely admit that in these words I have supplied the syllable *an* in the verb *einai*, which alone was read in codices B and A, clearly refuted by the sense of the place.P. 321. Our author refers in these to the matter narrated in Iliad.
4, v. 93 to 154. There Pandarus is related as unobserved and, against the faith of the pledged treaty, to have shot an arrow at Me...Menelaus, which, however, only grazed the outermost skin. In this the outcome of each shooting is different. For this attempt by the Alan, with equal fraud and treachery, in reality inflicted a grave and deep wound on the vital parts of Raoul the grand domestic, to which those words of ours refer: *he strikes, and hits a vital part, not like that one* (meaning Pandarus) *inflicting a wound*: for of Pandarus’s missile Homer thus writes: *The arrow brushed the topmost outer skin of the man.* The arrow inscribed the very surface of the man's skin. But the Alan inflicted on Raoul a *kairian*—that is, another and dangerous, if not even lethal, wound.
A [P. 325] P. 325. These point to Odyssey 12, where the poet relates that Odysseus saw six of his companions snatched by Scylla to be devoured, to his great sorrow, because he could in no way aid them. Whence he says: *That was the most piteous sight I saw with my eyes* *Of all the struggles I endured, searching the paths of the sea.* Our author could not have represented with a more apt image the heart-grief of the Romans, who from the shore watched their own citizens being tortured by pirates at sea without any ability to assist.
P. 327. This may have been the city of Thymæna, which Ptolemy locates in Galatia; Arrian also mentions it in his *Periplus*. Others call it Teuthrania.
P. 338. Taken from Iliad 5, v. 449: *But he, the silver-bowed Apollo, fashioned a phantom,* *Like to Aeneas himself, and such in arms.* 761 Whence Virgil, Aeneid 10: *...but the goddess with hollowed cloud adorned* *A tenuous wraith, devoid of strength, in the likeness of Aeneas,* *A wonder to behold, with Dardanian weapons.*
B Ibid. What great synod is mentioned by these words, after which the bishops in the West are said to have failed—that is, to have ceased to be legitimate prelates of the churches, marked with the character of true ordination—is a question that may be raised not without reason. It does not seem to me to be in doubt that this concerns the eighth œcumenical synod, which is the same as the fourth of Constantinople, celebrated both at the time of and over the cause of Photius, especially regarding the controversies between Ignatius and Photius. After this, when Photius had so alienated the Greeks from the Latins with his frauds and lies that never thereafter did the whole Oriental Church truly consent with the Occidental, the celebration of œcumenical councils in the East ceased; whence the eighth was the last among those which, celebrated within the jurisdiction of the Eastern empire, held the Greeks and Latins alike in common consultation and concordant assent. The schismatic Greeks, however, invented—reflecting what Andronicus, a man most addicted to the schism and most hostile to the Roman Church, records in this place—that from that time when Photius lived and the eighth œcumenical synod was celebrated, the true succession of bishops ceased in the West. Concerning the synod fabricated by that most notorious impostor Photius, and boasted of by the Photians, which they vend under the name of the eighth, see the work published here in Rome six years ago by Leo Allatius, under this title: *De octava synodo Photiana* [On the Photian Eighth Synod].
762 P. 374. Opposite these words: *“For me,” he said, “it was necessary,” etc.*, wherein Andronicus magnificently boasts that one thing seemed necessary to him, and that it was dearer in life and spirit that what God wills should come to pass, there is read in the Barberini codex, noted in the margin: *“But, O best of men, these frequent losses would not be the will of God.”* And yet, O excellent man, these frequent losses and infestations would not indeed be the will of God. Furthermore, the hand by which these words were written seems no less ancient than the context itself; whose writing, as I have observed elsewhere, may not unworthily be believed to be equal in age to Pachymeres. Therefore, one might not improbably opine that this censorial note was added to this place by one of those clerics whom the historian now and again mentions as having suffered dire things from Athanasius after his restoration C to the throne, which he was at that very time plotting.
P. 356. It is attributed as a fault to the bishop of Marmaritzene that he ordained many together at the same time in the same sacred function of the priesthood. This is, I suppose, because for the sake of speed in the ordinations—which, as the historian had reported before, he was selling for money—he was initiating many at once by a single laying on of hands, in an intolerable error deeming it necessary for absolutely no one to apply that sacred rite individually, which he, in his haste for the sake of simoniacal gain, to ordain as many as possible in the shortest time, while seeming to offer it, having little concern for the gainful sacrilege with which he was binding himself. Therefore, *hierosyne* (priesthood) in this place signifies the major orders generally, for example the diaconate and the presbyterate; and when he says he ordained many of the same order with a single sacred ceremony—*mia telete*—he means that he was not applying the sacred rite to the seekers of the diaconate or the presbyterate individually, but to one on behalf of all, or over all in common performing the legitimate ceremony.
P. 389. *Epirrhetos*. Sometimes I suspected that it should be read *epiaratos*. But the consensus of the codices stands against it. Nor indeed is it necessary: for *epirrhetos* also conveys the meaning of vituperation and execration. Whence Eustathius on Iliad 14, p. 736 ed. Rom., explains *epirrhetos* as *katarrheseos axios*, worthy of curses.
Ibid. Here Pachymeres newly adapts *Panikos*, which is commonly wont to be attributed to a frantic terror and sudden consternation, to an attack excited beyond measure and with greater violence and by an impulse like that of a divinity. But the transition from active to passive is easy; clearly the frantic motions, which Pan leads,
A as the myths say, he aroused in his soldiers, whence they burst forth into unexpected and most violent assaults, creating fearful terror in those they attacked. Unless perhaps the term *panikon* generally indicates a superior cause of human disturbances of any kind, so that fear and boldness, if they are not spontaneous but impressed by divine power, are called *panika*.
P. 393. He whom Pachymeres names Rontzerius, it does not seem possible to be anyone other than Roger of Lauria, about whom Thomas Fazellus tells many sufficiently splendid things in his work on Sicilian affairs, book IX of the latter decade.
Ibid. Pachymeres himself rightly held what he subsequently relates about Roger to be suspect, and he did not wish to give credit to them. For they were, so far as can be understood from the Latin monuments of those times, for the most part false, concocted by Greeks who were indulging their hatred toward Roger—for example, that he had been a soldier of the religious order of the Templars. Then, having rejected the habit of that religion and impiously spurned his profession, he had turned to piracy, becoming on that account hated by the Roman pontiff and sought out by him for punishment, and similar things; of which neither a trace nor a vestige appears in his affairs, discussed at length by many others. Indeed, we find letters written to him by the Roman pontiff in the most honorable terms. Our Petrus d'Oultreman, in his special book on the destruction of the Greeks, says that this Roger was called by the Spaniards a Brundisian, but that he was of German lineage, the son of Richard Flor. Whence even Moncada calls him Flor by name.
Ibid. Pharendus Tzimes. He is indeed called by the name Ferrandus Ximenes, as Petrus d'Oultreman teaches us in the book just mentioned, citing Moncada as his authority, who also, a little further down in chapter 14, mentions the departure of Ferrandus from Cyzicus, which is mentioned by Pachymeres.
P. 394. Theuderico. The discussion here is without doubt about Frederick of Aragon, concerning whom our author stammers in the name, just as he wanders in general. For he was by race a Spaniard, not a German; and not the grandson of Manfred, but the son of Peter, king of Aragon.
Ibid. He joined Catherine to himself in marriage. When Frederick made peace with Charles, king of Naples, and confirmed it by affinity, in the year of Christ 1302, which is the matter dealt with in this place, Frederick himself—not his brother—took as his wife not Catherine but Eleonora, the daughter of Charles, as is established by the public letters of the same Frederick given at Castrum Novum in the year of Christ 1302, on the 19th day of the month of August, and described by Odericus Raynaldus in those Annals of his. But it seems Pachymeres took the occasion for this error from the fact that in the year of Christ 1295 a marriage had been brokered between this Frederick and Catherine, born of king Charles of Naples’ son and Baldwin, who had lost the Constantinopolitan empire. Boniface VIII, the Roman pontiff, vehemently urged that marriage; Odoricus cites many of his letters on that subject for that year. However, the business did not succeed, and B that Catherine later married Charles, brother of Philip, king of the French, in the year of Christ 1301. Pachymeres seems to have commemorated this same thing in an alien place, just as he had heard of it incidentally, paying little attention to whether or not it pertained to the matter of which he is now treating—namely, the peace made between Charles, king of Naples, and Frederick in the year of Christ 1302, since already in the previous year Charles, brother of the king of the French, had been called into Italy by the pontiff, so that he might assist Charles II, king of Naples, against Frederick, who was occupying Sicily, and—Boniface himself mediating—had entered into a marriage with the aforementioned Catherine, with the title of the Constantinopolitan empire [P 549] being imputed as a dowry, to which Catherine drew her right from her father. Johannes Villanius relates these things in book IX, c. 105. The most diligent Odericus Raynaldus, in the year of Christ 1301, no. 15, recites these words regarding this matter from the Jordan chronicler of those times, whose manuscript work is preserved in the Vatican Library, no. 1960: “Upon the death of the wife of Charles (brother of the king of France), he took Catherine, to whom the right of the Constantinopolitan empire was rightfully owed. Therefore, he came to an agreement with the Venetians for the recovery of the Constantinopolitan empire, and he came to Rome in 1301, and, being received honorably by Pope Boniface, he was constituted vicar and defender of the Church, etc.” Furthermore, it is quite likely that this Charles, at the time he took Catherine, assumed the title of Emperor of Constantinople, bestowed upon him by the pontiff in ordaining the imperial crown for him. At the very least, our author’s words continuously subjoined seem to hint at this: “Whom the Pope, C crowning him as an emperor without land, stirred up with the hope of recovering Constantinople, by the right which he drew, to wit, from his betrothed, the niece (or rather, granddaughter) of Baldwin.” As to why he is called here an emperor without land, see the explanation in the Glossary under the word *tera*. But all these things, as I have said, pertain to the time prior to the Sicilian peace, on the occasion of which Roger led away the Catalans, who had soldiered in Sicily, into the East, at the will of Frederick for his own cause. Concerning whom one must heed Fazellus, book IX, dec. post, p. 477: “Furthermore, Sicily, freed from the commotions of so many wars, fell into the plunderings and depredations of Catalan, Aragonese, and Sicilian soldiers. Whom Frederick, in order to cleanse the island, sent as auxiliaries against the Turks who were infesting Constantinople.”
P. 401. That the people present easily believed this, and that the historian judged it to be so in truth, will not, I think, necessarily render the matter evident and indubitable to men of more severe judgment. What, in the end, did that man, mute and deaf from the womb, affirm, after the wonderful miracle of suddenly hearing and speaking? It is indeed only what was placed a little above: that he had seen a man adorned with imperial insignia, who said that he himself was assuming the care of the city to be defended for him. Did he name this man John Batalzas? Or did he assert that the form of the vision he had seen was similar to the appearance he had witnessed? None of these things; for if Pachymeres had said anything of the sort, he would not be silent about it. Therefore, this statement expressed in this place, as well as these of Pachymeres’ own opinion, lacks a suitable foundation.
A For the image of a man adorned with imperial insignia suits John Vatatzes better than Theodore his son, the emperor also buried there at Magnesia, or, if we look for the emperors of Constantinople of praiseworthy memory and indubitable constancy in the orthodox and Catholic communion, [better] than Constantine the Great, or Marcian, or others of equal merit? For although many virtues commended John Vatatzes, yet, beyond the shared stigma of the Greek schism and the heretical error concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, shameful indulgence at an advanced age deformed him. Even his supreme admirer, Acropolita, admits this in his history (n. 52, p. 56, ed. Reg.), where he confesses that he was infamous for his love affairs, including that with a certain handmaid of Anna of Germany, the Empress, his second wife. How much more reasonably could it have been believed that the image of a man adorned with imperial insignia presented to that mute and deaf man represented the holy archangel Michael, the protector of Christians against the barbarians? The Greeks call him B *archistrategos* [chief commander] everywhere, a title sounding of "emperor," which is not inconsistent with imperial insignia.
[P 550] P. 406. At the end of this chapter, where it speaks of Michael the younger Augustus, *as a "trophy-bearer" he enters the city*, the free indignation of some reader could not contain itself from adding these things to the margin of the Barberini codex: "*A trophy-bearer is he who fled from his enemies and is the cause, due to his own cowardice, of all evils!* Does he thus 'bring back a trophy' who turns his back to the enemy, and was the cause of all evils through his own cowardice!" These things allude to the most shameful flight of Michael and the entire Roman army at the very onset of the battle, described above, c. 18.
P. 428. *He hastened to move toward Amurius.* In the Greek text of codex B, these words were answered by: *he comes to the Amorium*, next to which Amorium appears to be the name of a place into which Alisyras, defeated and wounded, had withdrawn. But beyond the fact that there is no mention of a fortress or town so named in these regions, Pachymeres himself forbids us to believe this, C affirming in c. 25 that Alisyras had withdrawn in flight to Tripoli, which city he had earlier occupied. The barbarian leader Amurius is frequently mentioned above and below in this history. Hence, the suspicion arose in me of a mistake in this writing, and that Pachymeres wrote not *pros to*, but *ton Amourion*. Since that follows from the prior reading, and contradicts Pachymeres' narrative—as I demonstrated—I thought it should be amended in the way I hinted (*).
(*) What I wrote, that no place called Amorium is found throughout the region of the eastern frontier of the Byzantine Empire, I now recall after better consideration. For I found in Theophanes (p. 291 and 292, ed. Reg.), and likewise in Leo Grammaticus (p. 454 of the same edition), a clear mention of a fortified city called Amorium, situated in those parts, of which Ptolemy also makes mention. Therefore, I confess that Pachymeres was not rightly amended by me on p. 428, where I replaced *ton Amourion* in place of *to Amorion*. And those words, *he comes to Amorium*, should have been translated simply: *he comes to Amorium*. For this does not prevent it from having been true that, as the historian says on p. 455, Alisyras withdrew to Tripoli. Namely, before he reached this final refuge, he had briefly turned aside the force of his pursuers at Amorium, which was a city faithful to him at that time.
824 P. 451. *According to a poetic style.* Pachymeres alluded to this while writing, mixing together various passages of Homer, first that from *Iliad* 20, 135: D *But a terrible flame arose from the burning sulfur,* then that from *Iliad* 21, 216: *Mightily roared the heaven-sent fire.* From this he had also taken shortly before the words *roaring shrilly* [in Greek]; for the poet continues there: *All night long both of them together, breathing [it] forth shrilly*. To which he added that final [remark] about smoke, either from his own poem or from that of another bard which does not occur to me now.
In the sixth book, Pachymeres has prefixed a peculiar prologue contrary to custom, which, however, in the codices is confused with chapter 1 without its own title. I thought it should be distinguished. Furthermore, it was necessary to labor not a little in disentangling and clearly declaring the author’s meaning here, which I am confident I have both perceived and explained sufficiently. The cause of this novelty in speaking will have been, I think, that Pachymeres returned to the work 766 at some interval after what had been written to that point; and as he set himself to that task and pondered the atrocity of the things to be narrated, he thought it well to practice with this little premonition for the reader.
[P. 551] P. 456. What Pachymeres relates subsequently concerning the praises of Cazan, harmonize sufficiently with those things which Hayton, Villani, Sanudo, and S. Antoninus recount about him, which see collected among the continuators of Baronius, Henri Spondanus and Odoric Raynaldus, to the years 1294, 1301, and 1304.
P. 457. This expedition of Cazan against the Sultan of Syria has the eyewitness testimony of Hayton, who narrates that he was present at it. He reports in his *Historical Orations*, c. 41, that Cassanus, King of the Tartars, a Christian, together with the kings of Armenia and Georgia—likewise Christians—having jointly undertaken an expedition against Melechnazerus, the Sultan of Egypt and ruler of Syria, led an army of two hundred thousand, a large part of them cavalry; and the Sultan, having encountered him at Hama, anciently called Emesa, with one hundred thousand cavalry and an infinite multitude of infantry, [Cazan] routed [him] in a huge battle and compelled [him] to flee into Egypt. And the current Hayton says this happened on the Wednesday before the feast of the Nativity of the Lord. Spondanus thinks (at the year of Christ 1300, n. 1) that this should be referred to December of the previous year of Christ, 1299, when the cycle of the sun was 20 and it had the dominical letter D, by whose evidence it is known...
vigil of Christ’s Birth was a Wednesday. We shall discuss these matters later in Book III of these Observations, c. 7, n. 19.
Ibid. Before everything, I render to the reader an account of the gap completed by me, which was gaping here in the archetypal manuscripts. For it stands there thus: *Εἰ μὴ γ’ ἐκείνῳ τὸ ἐν τῷ… τόπων ἀμμῶδες*. Between *τῷ* and *τόπων*, I deemed that these two words *πρόσω χωρεῖν* should be inserted, trusting not without verisimilitude that this place, thus completed, is not far from the true original writing.
P. 458. A These things which Pachymeres writes in this place concerning Cazane—that he was without children—do not harmonize well with what Villani (Book VII, c. 35) and, from him, Saint Antoninus (Tit. 20, c. 8, § 9) relate from the report of a certain Florentine citizen who resided for a long time in Persia. Namely, that Cassanus had as a wife the daughter of the King of Armenia, most beautiful and a Christian; and that when a son was born to him from her, so deformed that he seemed to have scarcely anything human about him, Cassanus commanded that the wife, as if caught in adultery, be burned together with the monstrous fetus which she denied was born of her. But when the woman had obtained from Cassanus that she might be permitted by him, before being handed over to the flames with the boy, to purify her soul by confession before a priest and to receive the sacred Eucharist and to baptize the son, it [at 767] happened that the boy, having been dipped in the sacred font, suddenly appeared most handsome. Moved by this, Cassanus not only revoked the hasty judgment but also openly embraced the religion of Christ. So they say; and that this was not known in Constantinople is suggested also by another argument drawn from this history. For earlier, on p. 402, our author wrote that Andronicus was informed of the power of Cazan, and, so that he might attach him to himself, took care to offer his own daughter [P. 552]—she being illegitimate—as a wife, a proposal which he also accepted kindly.
P. 459. Also Hayton (c. 45 of the *Historia Orientalis*) and Sanutus (Book III, p. 13, c. 8) expressly affirm that the successor of Cassanus was his own brother, although Bizarus, who is later than these and less worthy of faith where he dissents, writes in Book VIII of his *Rerum Persicarum* that a son succeeded Cassanus as he was dying. However, they all differ in the name of this person from Pachymeres, while they call him Carbanda or Carbaganda, whom our author here calls Carmpantam, and elsewhere Carmpantanem. Moreover, the aforementioned authors report that this brother of Cassanus was born of a Christian mother and was himself a Christian, had taken the name Nicholas in baptism, and had persevered in the true religion as long as his mother lived, but upon her death, which happened six years later, he defected to Mahometanism.
P. 464. Why the usage of the holy martyr Ignatius was read in this place is not easy to divine, because many B of his epistles are read to this effect, in which the subjection of the people to the bishop is commended as necessary. I will indicate some here. In the 1st Epistle to the Smyrneans: *Πάντες τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ ἀκολουθεῖτε ὡς Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς τῷ Πατρὶ, καὶ τῷ πρεσβυτερίῳ ὡς ἀποστόλοις… Μηδεὶς χωρὶς ἐπισκόπου τι πρασσέτω τῶν ἀνηκόντων εἰς τὴν Ἐκκλησίαν. Ἐκείνη βεβαία εὐχαριστία ἡγείσθω ἡ ὑπὸ τὸν ἐπίσκοπον οὖσα, ἢ ᾧ ἂν αὐτὸς ἐπιτρέψῃ. Ὅπου ἂν φανῇ ὁ ἐπίσκοπος, ἐκεῖ τὸ πλῆθος ἔστω, ὥσπερ ὅπου ἂν ᾖ Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς, ἐκεῖ ἡ καθολικὴ Ἐκκλησία. Οὐκ ἐξόν ἐστι χωρὶς τοῦ ἐπισκόπου οὔτε βαπτίζειν οὔτε ἀγάπην ποιεῖν, ἀλλ’ ὃ ἂν ἐκεῖνος δοκιμάσῃ, etc.* This is from the ancient Latin translation: *Nullus sine episcopo aliquid operetur eorum quæ conveniunt in Ecclesiam. Illa firma gratiarum actio reputetur, quæ sub ipso est vel quam utique ipse concesserit. Ubi utique apparet episcopus, illic multitudo sit, quemadmodum utique ubi est Christus Jesus, illic catholica Ecclesia. Non licitum est sine episcopo neque baptizare neque agapen facere, sed quod utique ille probaverit, etc.* The same, Epistle 2, to Polycarp: *Τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ προσέχετε, ἵνα καὶ ὁ Θεὸς ὑμῖν. Ἀντίψυχος ἐγὼ τῶν ὑποτασσομένων τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ*—*Episcopo attendite, ut et Deus vobis. Unanimis ego cum subjertis episcopo*. In the 2nd to the Ephesians: *Πρέπει ὑμῖν συντρέχειν τῇ τοῦ ἐπισκόπου γνώμῃ*—*Decet vos concurrere episcopi sententiæ*. Of the 4th to the Magnesians, these are among others to this purpose: *Πρέπει οὖν ἐστι μὴ μόνον καλεῖσθαι Χριστιανούς, ἀλλὰ καὶ εἶναι, ὥσπερ καί τινες ἐπίσκοπον μὲν καλοῦσιν, χωρὶς δὲ αὐτοῦ πάντα πράσσουσιν. Οἱ τοιοῦτοι δὲ οὐκ εὐσυνείδητοι* [C at 768] *μοι εἶναι φαίνονται*—*Decens igitur est non solum vocari Christianos, sed et esse, quemadmodum quidam episcopum quidem vocant, sine ipso autem omnia operantur. Tales autem non bonæ conscientiæ mihi esse videntur*. In the 6th to the Trallians it has this: *Ὅταν τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ ὑποτάσσεσθε ὡς Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ, φαίνεσθέ μοι οὐ κατὰ ἀνθρώπινον ζῶντες, ἀλλὰ κατ’ Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν*—*Cum episcopo subjecti estis ut Jesu Christo, videmini mihi non secundum homines viventes, sed secundum Jesum Christum*. Some of these, or perhaps all, or even twice as many as are read in the Ignatian epistles, I would believe Andronicus ordered to be recited here. For they contributed uniquely to the goal proposed to him of persuading the Arsenians that they should submit themselves to Patriarch Athanasius; and that he quoted some things from several of Ignatius' epistles is an argument for this: that he did not nominate any one from which he wished the words to be heard.
P. 465. Just as the schismatic emperor earlier wished to persuade [P. 553] that from the time of the great synod—that is, the eighth ecumenical (or rather, the pseudosynod concocted by the most notorious impostor Photius, which the Photians display and venerate as the eighth ecumenical)—the true succession of legitimate prelates had failed in the West, which we refuted in the notes to p. 356, so now with equal vanity he says the Roman see,
from which the corruption of Honorius was discovered and condemned, ceased to be orthodox; than which nothing—I will not say more iniquitous and calumnious, but more obtuse and foolish—could be said. For to omit the collision of these two assertions—of which he places one here, that the Roman pontiffs ceased to be orthodox in Honorius, and the other, p. 356, which he had established above, that the true succession of legitimate prelates in the West ceased only after the eighth synod, that is, two hundred years after Honorius—from which it follows that the Roman pontiffs for all those two hundred years were both legitimate pontiffs and correctly recognized as such by the Greeks themselves, even though they were not orthodox: this alone I say, it is sufficiently manifest that the lapse of Honorius, if anyone such existed, adhered in mere imprudence of fact, and pertained not at all to faith and dogma. Sergius, patriarch of Constantinople, not yet recognized as a heretic, wrote to the Roman pontiff Honorius in the year of Christ 632, that controversies were being stirred up with great tumult as to whether one or two wills and operations were to be recognized in Christ; to check these quarrels, he suggested that it seemed opportune to him A for the pontiff to impose silence equally upon both parties regarding such an altercation. Honorius did what was requested of him; and because such counsel proved harmful in its outcome to the Catholics and convenient for the heretics, his name and memory were later marked by the complaints and accusations of many, as if, by rashly trusting a deceitful heresiarch who had not yet cast off his mask, he had provided nourishment for the heresy of the Monothelites. In all this, who does not see that not even the first appearance of defection from the orthodox faith has appeared, or could even be feigned? For did he, by ordering silence for a time to those contending among themselves, condemn anything rightly asserted, or sanction anything wrongly said? Nothing of the sort. Silence, indeed, can be kept concerning a matter that is true, without any prejudice to the truth; and sometimes it is expedient for the common good. There is no call for me to say more here concerning that most celebrated controversy, which has been treated most eruditely to this day by most learned men. B
P. 477. *ἀλλά ἀκριτον αὖ*. I have necessarily restored this, since in the codices it was read corruptly as *ἀλλὰ κριτοῦ αὖ*. For besides the fact that that repetitive repetition of the name *κριτοῦ* would be insipid, the sense of the passage manifestly demands, as the following words declare, that it signifies it is necessary for the Arsenians to have a supreme judge for the decision of their controversy, such as they call *κριτὴν ἄκριτον*, a judge not subject to judgment, from whose sentence one cannot appeal, inasmuch as there is no judge above him on earth; and these schismatic flatterers are not ashamed to acknowledge the lay emperor as such, even in ecclesiastical and spiritual causes. But like lips have like lettuces. For in these intricate matters, this passage, in the Allatian codex, is written thus: *Παριδὼν ταῦτα ἕλομαί τε ὑμᾶς*. The Barberini codex has *ἕλωμα*. Neither reading coheres with what follows. I have restored *ἕλομαί τε ὑμᾶς*, with a now tolerable meaning.
P. 482. *Πλάτων ἐν Νόμοις*. This passage designated by Pachymeres exists in Plato, Book I, *De legibus*, p. 650, ed. Steph., where it reads: *Διαβάντες δὲ καὶ ὀλίγων*. What our author adds momentarily from Plato about the citizen faithful amid seditions, that is, standing bravely for the republic and aiding it with his own virtue and wisdom, is to be seen in the words which immediately precede those just described, C 770 where the Athenian interlocutor, having expressed to Cleinias the Cretan that it seems to be commended in the verses of Tyrtaeus mostly those who prove their martial fortitude in an external war against enemies of another race, and not in civil war against their own fellow citizens, resumes thus: "But we, regarding the good, say that they are far better in the greatest war..." and so on, described above, which follow continuously there. In the Latin interpretation of those words (to remark this in passing), I do not know why Serranus omitted the mention of Theognis's homeland, which is clearly set down in the Greek. Why, likewise, he did not express the opposition to the poet affected by Plato, while having earlier praised the poet Tyrtaeus, he thus opposes the poet Theognis to him, and we have as witness Theognis, a citizen of the Megarians in Sicily. But to return to Pachymeres, in this D
P. 469. *Τῶν ἀνεπιλήπτων*. Through an error of the scribe, the negation had fallen out, which, since the meaning clearly demanded it, had to be restored, *οὐκ ἀνεπιλήπτων* having been substituted. For *ἀνεπίληπτος*, as is evident, and as Hesychius distinctly warns, means irreprehensible and worthy of no reproach. Its opposite, regarding the priesthood of the present Arsenian Church, as Pachymeres teaches both in this place and elsewhere, they were asserting, namely, that the ordination of those who were then being initiated into sacred rites by the patriarch governing the Church of Constantinople was at least doubtful, if not manifestly invalid. Pachymeres therefore wrote without doubt, as we have restored from just conjecture, "There are in this speech some perobscure and *ἀσύνδετα* disconnected matters, unless, as has sometimes been done by me, by a paraphrase from the preceding and consequent matters, they are supplied by a divine-like surmise."
In its context we have necessarily amended two points. First, A what was written as Πλάτων ἐννόμως, for which has been substituted ἐν Νόμοις, in the work inscribed *Nomoi*, that is, *Laws*, expanded into 12 or rather 13 books, counting into that number, as it were, an appendix which he calls the *Epinomis*. The second point is in the words: *θρασυνομένοις μὲν, ὡς ἀδίκως, κατὰ δικαιοσύνης· θρασυνομένοις δὲ ὡς ὑβρισταῖς κατὰ σωφροσύνης*. Who does not see there that the phrase *ὡς ἀδίκως* does not rightly correspond to *τῷ ὡς ὑβρισταῖς*, to which it is opposed? Therefore it should have been written *ὡς ἀδίκοις*. I will not depart from here before I also note that *διαβάντας* (those having crossed) is used here by Plato for foreign soldiers—a term of which no trace is found in Serranus’s interpretation—because such men were generally transported into Greece by sea. For *διαβαίνειν* means to cross a river or sea. Moreover, the site of Greece was such that it was reached by sea from foreign nations. Furthermore, among this tribe of mercenary *diabantes* (crossers), these in particular were the soldiers of the great duke, brought by him from Sicily or Italy, against whom Pachymeres is so implacably angry on every occasion he discusses them. Here, he even suborns Plato's testimony against them.
[P. 555] P. 484. I believe the name Berengarius was deformed by Pachymeres into Mpyrigerius. For the Greeks of those times used to prefix *Mp* to the words of Westerners, especially those beginning with *B*. Thus we see also above, on p. 242 of our author, and in Cantacuzenus, 771 *βαιούλον* placed for *Bajulus*, as well as six hundred similar cases. It is certain that the name Berengarius was very common among the Catalans. In the collection of historians who have written about the affairs of Aragon, I find at least fifteen illustrious Catalan men mentioned who were called Berengarius; I would believe that some one of them was this very person who is the subject here, although I cannot designate with certainty which one out of all of them it is. After these lines were already written, I saw the book of our Petrus d'Outremannus, *De Excidio Græcorum*, in which I read, c. 3, p. 465, that the true and paternal name of this Mpyrigerius Tentza was Berengarius Entensa or *de Intentiis*; and that he was a Catalan by race. Phrantzes, 1. 1, c. 8, calls him Piceriotetzam, joining into one two monstrously corrupted words, Mpyrigerius Tentza. Gregoras, 1. vii, p. 103, calls this Catalan Piringerius Tentzus, closer to Pachymeres. D
P. 517. *Τοῖς τῶν κιῤῥῶν παρασήμοις*. Thus the codex; but V has *τοῖς ἐκ τῶν κιτρύνων παρασήμοις*. *Τὰ κιῤῥά* are, as is known, vestments of a yellow color, between white and red, called *melini* by some because of the honey. But the same source seems also to express *τὰ κίτρυνα* of the V codex: for that word is derived from *κίτριον*, the citron fruit, the natural color of whose rind is not far from pale yellow or golden (melinus). I doubt, however, whether it would not be written more correctly according to analogy as *τὰ κίτρηνα*.
P. 519. Regarding the beans handled by the horn, mentioned in this place, see the Glossary under the entry *Κερασβόλοι κύαμοι*.
P. 526. He strives to persuade [us] through this whole narrative that Pachymeres believed the Alans were the authors of Rontzerius’s death without the order, consent, or knowledge of Michael Augustus. Nevertheless Phrantzes, 1. 1, c. 8, explicitly affirms that Michael commanded his satellites and guards to cut down Rogerius (whom he correctly names Rontzerius). Gregoras, 1. vii, p. 102, says that that slaughter was committed by Michael's soldiers, thinking it would be pleasing to him because they knew he was angry with him. Yet the same author, shortly after, smears not only the younger but also the elder Augustus with the suspicion of this deed, writing that Rontzerius was killed by the Romans because they repented of having summoned him. For it is sufficiently clear that he was not summoned by these Romans as private individuals, but by the emperors. B P. 529. A certain Catalan. Outremannus, in *De Exc. Græc*., bk. 3, p. 466, provides the name of this Catalan, Fernandez Aones. Where he also calls his father-in-law, whom Pachymeres calls *Ραοὺλ κατύν* (we translate as Raul Crassus), Radulfus Paqueus. C P. 532. Outremannus records that in this sedition were killed Rodericus Perez de S. Cruce, Arwaldus de Moncortes, and Ferrerius de Torellas, who had been sent as legates by Berengarius to Andronicus.
772 P. 554. About sixty. He had said above that one hundred and fifty Catalans had accompanied Rontzerius going to Michael, and that the same men were captured after he was killed. Doubtless many fled in the first tumult, and many perished from the hardships of long imprisonment, so that now only sixty survived. Gregoras and Phrantzes liberally multiply these companions of Rontzerius, rounding the number to two hundred.
P. 558. The things related here about Smiltzæna, that is, the wife of Smiltza, who was the niece of the emperor Andronicus through his brother Constantine the sebastocrator, refer to the matters narrated previously by our historian in c. 18, with which, in order to be understood, they should be compared.
P. 559. Pachymeres touches upon this by way of occasion, running beyond the boundaries of his history. For towards the end of the life of the emperor Michael the Younger, who, as we shall demonstrate in the book of these Observations, III, c. 1, n. 4, died in the month of October of the year of Christ 1320, almost thirteen years after the time at which the Pachymerian History ends, this Osphentisthlabus, king of Bulgaria, took as his wife Theodora, the other daughter of the same Augustus Michael the Younger, as Gregoras explicitly testifies at the very beginning, 1. viii, p. 429—whom our author also records further down as having sought her long before, c. 27, 1. vii. Furthermore (that I may also mention this in passing), regarding the fact that Pachymeres occasionally puts an 'O' before this name, calling him Ospentisthlabum in this place and in certain others, whereas he names him Sphentisthlabum elsewhere, this favors, if I am not mistaken, the conjecture of Wolf, who in his notes to Gregoras, p. 271, suspects that the name written by the Greeks as Sphentisthlabum is accustomed to be rendered by the Pannonians and Sarmatians of today as Venceslaus.
P. 557. *Τοῦ εἰδέναι φύσει ἐλέγονται πάντες*.
πάντες*. The first five words of this passage are Aristotle’s most well-known and celebrated dictum, from the beginning of his first book of the *Metaphysics*. A However, regarding the *agapēsis* of the senses, which is mentioned continuously by Pachymeres, it does not merely signify the pleasure which I expressed in my translation regarding the experience of perceiving objects through the senses; but further, according to the proper notion of the Greek verb *agapan*, it denotes satisfaction and a near-full satiation of a man who is content and unable to desire anything more, while he enjoys the lively faculty of all his senses. Cicero declares this tranquility of human curiosity in the ready use of the senses elegantly in book II of his *Academica*, in these words: “Let us begin with the senses; their judgments are so clear and certain that, if a choice were given to our nature, and some god were to ask it B whether one would be content with sound and incorrupt senses, or demand something better, I do not see what more one could seek.” So far Tullius.
Regarding (of which the reader must be warned once here) the fact that the excellent Barberini codex begins to desert us here, gaping with frequent lacunae in the remainder of this book, and where it continues the writing at all, is sometimes irreparably corrupt. Hence, we have often had recourse to supplements stitched onto the end of it from other copies, making use of those that seemed more probable with great care and attention; and extracting even from that Vatican codex, although it is accustomed to wander freely from the author's words, where a better reading does not occur, so that we might fashion a tolerable meaning. C
P. 585. *The passes and rugged ridges of Mount Ganos were made impassable to our men, having been occupied with strong garrisons.* After these things were published, I doubted whether or not the Greek words responding to this, *καὶ τὰς μὲν δυσχωρίας τοῦ Γάνου καὶ λίαν διεφυλάττοντο*, might rather signify that the rugged ridges of Ganos were still kept by the Romans. For which reason the barbarians could only have raided the areas around Ganos. The opinion that there is a fact related later as an event, in chapter 21, favors this, where the narrow straits of Mount Ganos were penetrated by the Amogavars and the fortress situated on the ridge was captured. According to that opinion, my interpretation should be recast in this manner: *The leaders of that nation, since they did not dare to attempt the passes and rugged ridges of Mount Ganos, while they were still being strongly guarded, sent out various mixed bands from their abundant throng in every direction*, etc. I wished to indicate this, even though I still feel that the meaning I expressed in the published text is not entirely without probability. For the Amogavars could have placed the guards of the narrow straits themselves against those who were attacking from the rear, so they would not be struck down by the garrisons of the fortress of Ganos.
P. 598. From the monuments of the Genoese, I have that this Opicino Spinola is called the most powerful leader of the Ghibellines, a son-in-law of the Prince of Antioch, son of the Emperor Frederick II, as Constantius affirms, c. 258, in his histories of Sicily. Furthermore, Zurita, vol. II, c. 12, and Corius, c. 165, say that the Palaiologoi sought an affinity with the aforementioned Opicino Spinola, so that through him they might attach the Ghibellines to themselves. D That same thing is affirmed by Foglieta in his *Elogia*, and in the *Tristano Calco*, l. XIX, c. 421, who also says that on account of Opicino's power, all the cities of Italy kept their eyes fixed on him.
Ibid. *Given in marriage, his daughter.* This daughter of Opicino Spinola, having married Theodore Palaiologos, Marquis of Montferrat, was called Argentina.
Ibid. *He deals with Theodore.* I should not have translated the Greek word *apalida* as "without children," but "without male offspring": because the Italian historians affirm that a daughter named Jolante was born from the marriage of Argentina Spinola and Theodore Palaiologos, [P. 558] who later married Amadeus, Count of Savoy. He seems to have been the son of Amadeus IV, to whom he succeeded in the county upon his death, when—as if to show how much he did not repent of his affinity with the Palaiologan house—he most willingly consented to the proposed condition 774 of his sister Joanna (whom the Greeks called Anna), [who was to be] married to Andronikos the Younger, son of Michael, mentioned frequently in this work, having been adopted into the partnership of the empire, just as Kantakouzenos narrates at length, l. I, c. 40.
P. 611. *Son of Chalau Apagas*, he was not a brother, as Pachymeres himself acknowledges, vol. I, p. 175, and in this second part, p. 262, and the Arab historians attest to the same by common consent. See book III of these Observations, c. 7, n. 12. One must therefore forgive this *mnēmonikon sphalma* (memory error) of Pachymeres at this place.
P. 620. *Maria the Despoina of the Mongols, who is called [the lady/the khatun].* Similarly below, p. 637: *Maria, own sister of the King, and also thus called Despoina of the Mongols.* Andronikos Augustus had offered his own sister Maria as a bride to the successor of Kazan and the new Khan of the Tocharians [P. 559], and upon his accepting her, he had sent her with a royal retinue to Nicaea. The historian says that she was commonly called the Lady of the Mongols. For so the Mongol princes were accustomed to distinguish the primary and, before all others, noble wife from the rest, by adding the title of Lady (*Domina*) to her. Abulpharagius testifies this clearly on p. 429 of his Arabic Chronicle, dealing with Genghis Khan, the first emperor of the Mongols, whose primary and most noble wife, in Arabic *Al Chatun*—that is, *Domina*—he says was called by her own name, Ovusumin Begi. Similarly, in the others whose order he mentions as emperors of that nation, he frequently mentions the primary wife of each one, always attributing to that one the title *Chatun*, or with the article prefixed, *Al Chatun*; which title Edward Pococke, the Latin translator of his Chronicle, is accustomed to express with the word *Domina*. Maria Palaiologina, therefore, as now the primary wife of the Khan of the Mongols, was called by her Greeks by the title *Chatun*, which was attributed to her by the Mongols—rendering it into their own language as *despoina* (Lady) of the Mongols—just as Pachymeres affirms in these two places.
P. 629. That Bizya was in the Mediterranean part of Thrace, Ptolemy and Stephanus taught long ago. But [they taught that] it existed as a city, not a village...
[833] ...which the anonymous writer of the time of Basil the Macedonian—who held the Eastern Empire almost five hundred years before this our Andronicus—demonstrates in the *Life of St. Mary the Younger*, not yet published [in print], which he wrote in Greek. This is preserved in the Vatican Library, codex 800, fol. 250. There, however, after the author states that Mary had migrated with her husband from a certain village called Kamarai, where the ancestral home of her husband Nicephorus was located, to Bizya, he adds: *Ἐνταῦθα ἡ μακαρία τὸν μὲν τόπον ἤμειψεν ἀπὸ κώμης εἰς πόλιν*—"There the blessed one changed her place, indeed, from a village to a city." Which he also, not long after, calls *polyanthropon*—populous and crowded. To which fact pertains what Pachymeres says elsewhere, that many thousands of soldiers suddenly gathered from its citizens.
Ibid. *The great tzauzius there, etc.* By a very old custom, the Byzantines of the Augustan period held Bizya with a cavalry garrison and entrusted its governorship to outstanding men. For even from about the year of Christ 880, the aforementioned writer of the *Life of St. Mary the Younger* teaches that to her husband, the holy woman's [husband] Nicephorus—because he had distinguished himself in the Bulgarian war—was given as a reward the command of the *turma* having its station at Bizya. His words are these: *Τότε τοίνυν ὁ τῆς Μαρίας ἀνὴρ Νικηφόρος ἀριστεύει τοῖς Βουλγάροις μαχόμενος, καὶ ψήφῳ τῶν κρατούντων εἰς τὴν τῆς Βιζύης τοῦρμαν ἐκπέμπεται*—"Then, therefore, the husband of Mary, Nicephorus, distinguishes himself fighting against the Bulgarians, and by the vote of those in power is dispatched to the *turma* of Bizya."
P. 638. *The son of Manuel.* That this unnamed person was of the family of the Genoese Catanei who held Phocaea must be held as certain, from those things which our [author] here, A regarding Manuel Zaccaria—who first received Phocaea by the favor of Emperor Michael I Palaiologos—calls *anepsion*, that is, a nephew by a brother or sister. For although the word *anepsios* sometimes signifies a cousin, yet here it must be understood to designate one born of a brother or sister, from the fact that it is referred to *theios*, a single Greek word by which [the Greeks] indiscriminately express the Latin *patruus* (paternal uncle) and *avunculus* (maternal uncle). Wherefore, in the interpretation, I have expressed either relationship disjunctively. Certainly the Catanei and the Zaccariae were different Genoese families; B yet, as I learn from those skilled in those matters, they were so confused by frequent affinities and marriages that one and the same person could be called indiscriminately by that double name, derived hence from the father and thence from the mother, especially by foreign writers who generally care little for exactly investigating these matters.
P. 640. *Theuderichus thinking he would settle the controversies.* Regarding this affair, I find these things in d’Outreman, lib. *De exc. Graec.*, c. 3, p. 467: "Ferdinand, younger son of the King of the Balearics, sent by Frederick, King of Sicily, under whose auspices they had begun to fight, was unable to calm the Catalans in peace." So he [says]. Therefore, whom Pachymeres here calls Gidam or Materca Pharens, son of Theuderichus, it is more credible was Ferdinand of the Balearics. And perhaps, indeed, those words *Materca Pharens* were deformed from *Balearico Fernande* or *Ferdinando*.
PETRUS POSSINUS S. J.
OF PACHYMERIAN OBSERVATIONS
BOOK THREE
TREATING OF THINGS PERTAINING TO TIMES AND CHRONOLOGY
776 CAPUT I. *Regarding the number of years which this history of the affairs of Andronicus comprises. How far its end is from the beginning of the history of Cantacuzenus.*
[P 561] I. Before all else, I think it worth the effort to fix the boundaries on both sides for this history, and to define, by measuring, from what threshold it proceeds and to what limit it runs. Our author writes, p. 12, that Andronicus Palaiologos, as he took up the reins of the empire alone after his father was already dead, was twenty-four years of age; and in c. 36, the last of book VI, of this latest work, he affirms that this history ends in the forty-ninth year of the life of the same Andronicus. Whence it is inferred that the deeds of twenty-six years make up C the argument of this second volume of the Pachymerian History. For we take the years as completed for the sake of an easier calculation; that we can do this without the danger of any great detriment will be apparent from those things which we will say, in number three, about Andronicus, who was born around the beginning of the Julian year.
II. It remains to explore how many these years are in the vulgar Christian era, which terminate on both sides the space of time in which this History is concerned. The former of these, indeed, from which the beginning is derived, since it starts immediately upon the death of Michael Palaiologos Augustus, and this, as has been demonstrated in vol. 1, p. 747, occurred on the 2nd of December in the year of Christ 1282, was without doubt the same year of the vulgar era, 1282, but only in its final part, namely, for twenty days. To this year, if 777...
we add 25 shillings, it becomes the year of Christ 1307, in which current year it is necessary to fix the limit of the time A described by this history. But because in the collection of major sums, trifles are generally overlooked, I would not greatly object if someone should prefer to date the beginning of this history from the Calends of January 1283 and its end to the same Calends of the year 1308, neglecting in both cases the twenty days, which exceed the former epoch and are lacking for the perfect fullness of the latter.
III. And it is convenient for this method of reckoning that the years of the life of Andronicus square quite aptly, which our historian employs at the beginning of the space of the events narrated in this work. For as we long ago collected (Vol. I, p. 743) from those words of Nicephorus, B who affirms in his monody on the same death that he, dying on the twelfth of February, had completed his seventy-fourth year of age: *Tέταρτον μὲν ἤδη καὶ ἑβδομηκοστὸν ἔτος ἀπὸ γενέσεως αὐτῷ τελευτῶντι ἡνύετο*—"And now the seventy-fourth year from his birth was being accomplished for him at his death." But since we fixed his birth in the same place as the year of Christ 1258, we understand that he had entered his twenty-fourth year of age in the first month and a half of the year of Christ 1282, in the final month of which year, succeeding alone to the empire when his father died, he spent the last months of the twenty-fourth year of his life, about to enter his twenty-fifth not many days later; C from which time, when he had completed twenty-five years, when those things occurred in the narration of which this History of Pachymeres ends, Andronicus had almost finished his forty-ninth year of life, about to begin his fiftieth presently.
Chapter II.
Of the year of the Greeks and the era of the world. It is the first day of the week. In order that the years of the era of the Greeks be reduced to our vulgar era, by a perpetual method 5508 solid years must be subtracted from them. By such a subtraction, the year in which Michael died will be found to be the year of Christ 1321. But in these it is necessary to observe diligently the discrepancies of the beginning of the years. For the Greeks begin their years of the era of the world from September, as they do the indiction, but we from the Calends of January. D Therefore, when by the method just indicated we find the year of the Greeks 6829 to correspond to the year of Christ 1321, it must be understood that this holds true for the greater part, but not that one perfectly matches the other. For they coincide in eight months only, of which the first is January. For from this month the years of Christ begin, when already from the previous Calends of September the year of the era of the Greeks, which is believed to correspond to such a year of Christ, had begun. Unless someone notices this, in this very example which we are treating he will feel he has slipped. For behold, says Cantacuzenus, that the twelfth day of October, on which Michael died, in that year of the world 6829 was the Lord’s day. But that corresponds in no way to the year of Christ 1321. For this year is in the Julian period 6034, which number divided by 28 gives the solar cycle 14 proper to that year of Christ 1321. Furthermore, with the solar cycle 14, to which the Sunday letter D corresponds, the twelfth day of October was a Monday. Assuredly, Michael had died in the October of the preceding year of Christ 1320. For that year was marked by the solar cycle 13 and the double Sunday letter FE, because it was a leap year; from the month of March it had the letter E as the indicator of the first day of the week. This letter marks the twelfth day of October. Whence by chronological character the epoch of the death of the Emperor Michael the Younger is rendered certain, falling exactly into the October of the year of Christ 1320. From this limit, since the history of Cantacuzenus proceeds, its head, starting from the end of Pachymeres, which ends, as has been said, toward the end of the year of Christ 1307, is distant by a space of thirteen years, which does not prevent it from being said in the popular and less scrupulous manner of counting that the Cantacuzenian history follows the Pachymerian and is continued from it, just as the Thucydidean succeeds the Herodotian from the beginnings of the Peloponnesian War, which pertains to the year of the Julian period 4283, while the latter ends with the defeat of the Persians at Plataea under the leadership of Mardonius and the end of the Medic war, in the year of the Julian period 4235, with an interval between the two epochs of 58 years.
IV. And here is the place to declare what I said in passing in the preface to this whole work, which was proposed at the front of the prior part and nevertheless extends to this one. I wrote there that by this history of Pachymeres coming forward now, a certain hiatus of public memory from Nicephorus and Acropolita to Cantacuzenus is filled. Which I did not wish to be taken or sliced to the quick, as many have said, although it properly takes its beginning and immediately and continuously attaches the beginning of the Cantacuzenian History to the end of the Pachymerian. Cantacuzenus begins his narration from the death of the Emperor Michael the Second Palaeologus, whom—the nephew of the former Michael, Andronicus the Senior, son of Michael the First, father of the second—he had as his firstborn son and colleague in the empire. Cantacuzenus writes in the very first chapter of the first book that this man died in Thessalonica, "being in his forty-third year of life, in the year 6800... [omission: 829] on the twelfth of the month of October, the first day of the week."
Chapter II.
The ejection of John Veccus from the patriarchate, his exile, imprisonment, and death are assigned to their years; the time of the second patriarchate of Gregory of Cyprus is defined, and finally that of the prior patriarchate of Athanasius also. I have already demonstrated (Vol. I, p. 753) that the election to the Constantinopolitan patriarchate occurred on the 25th day of the month of May in the year of Christ 1275, but that his inauguration happened on a Sunday...A of Pentecost, which in that year fell on the second day of June. Regarding his deposition from the throne, our author tells us in the second volume of this work, p. 19, that Veccus, having observed the change of circumstances and the inclination of the new prince to restore the schism—which he could not resist—was prepared to depart of his own accord from the patriarchate, though he waited to be led away by the satellites sent by the emperor; these he willingly followed in the very same year and month in which Michael, the author of the union with the Latins and their defender until his death, had died. The historian relates in the same place that this happened the day after the Lord's Nativity. Therefore, on the 26th day of December in the year of Christ 1282, Veccus ceased to act as patriarch. Thus, Veccus remained in possession of this dignity for seven full years and as many full months. So, therefore, should those words of Gregory Cyprius regarding Veccus be understood, as described by the illustrious Leo Allatius in col. 766 of his work *de Perp. Cons.*: "For the eighth year in its misfortune was almost being accomplished for him; to such an extent did he have his foundation in the patriarchal throne with fruit that was not fair." Truly, Veccus had not quite finished his eighth year in the patriarchate, but it was in its course and the greater part had passed when he was cast out from the throne.
Ⅱ. Pachymeres teaches, p. 19, that Joseph was brought back again into the patriarchal residence on the thirtieth day of December in the same year. I showed in vol. 1, p. 732, that Joseph had withdrawn from the patriarchate on the eleventh day of January in the year of Christ 1274. Therefore, after having lived a private life for eight years, lacking twelve days, extra the patriarchal palace, he was brought back into it. There he served as patriarch for less than two full months. For our author affirms [P 564], p. 38, that he died at the beginning of March of the year 1285. But he had said in the previous chapter that he, burdened by illness and old age, had abdicated the patriarchate a little while before, of which abdication a properly formed document was produced. This act must have taken place in the month of February of the same year. Wherefore, Joseph's second patriarchate was shorter than two months, and the end of his life followed at an interval of a few days.
Ⅲ. Let us return to Veccus. In the month of January of the year 1283, he was harassed by the various calumnies of the schismatics and, as is narrated in ch. 10, was cited to a synod, and shortly thereafter was relegated to Prusa by the emperor. B Our author teaches this in ch. 11, without expressing the date: but it is gathered from the series of acts that this was done towards the beginning of February. The recall of Veccus from Prusa to the city is referred to in ch. 34 of the first book of the same author. But its timing must be conjectured. If the ancient codex from which our Sirmond had the Acts of the pseudosynod—which is reported after the colloquy in ch. 55 of this book, and in which Veccus is condemned, and whose copies of the Acts he sent to Henry Spondanus and Odoric Raynaldus, the continuators of the Annals of Baronius, as each of them testifies, the former *ad ann. Chr. 1283, n. 10*, the latter *ad an. seq. n. 48*—if that codex, I say, had been complete, we would have had the date from it, that is, the day and month, of the celebration of that synod which C was held at Prusa, from which we would understand in what month such a return of Veccus to the city occurred. But, as Spondanus observes, the title of the synod, in which its date and place had likely been noted, was in that codex for the most part obliterated.
Ⅳ. There remains, therefore, the only way of investigating the end of the exile which Veccus endured at the city of Prusa: from the series of events which our historian commemorates as having intervened between his abduction there and his return after the postliminy. These are the death of Joseph, ch. 13; the elevation to the patriarchate of George, or Gregory Cyprius, ch. 14 and 15; the journey of the emperor to the East, ch. 21; and the conventions held at Adramyttium by fire on the very Holy Saturday, the day before Easter, as is expressly said on p. 62. This was the year of Christ 1283 in the Julian period: 5996. The cycle of the sun was 4, but that of the moon was 11, which assign Easter to April 18. The day, therefore, on which the writings of the Arsenians and Anti-Arsenians, both alike schismatics, were thrown into the fire for the sake of proof and burned equally, was the seventeenth of the month of April, which must also have been a Saturday, since the year 4 of the solar cycle has C as its Sunday letter, which is seen noted in the Calendar at the following day, the eighteenth of the same April. Mentioned thereafter are the portent of bloody rain in the month of May, p. 54; the expedition of the protovestiary into the Occident tracts, ch. 25; the slaughter of the army by plague and the death of the protovestiary, the leader himself, ch. 27; the corruption discovered in the bread consecrated in the sacred pyx D on the Sunday called Tyrine, ch. 28, where, p. 79, it is explicitly handed down that that putrefied particle had been deposited there on the Wednesday of the week of the Passion in the previous year. That previous year was without doubt Christ's year 1283, in which, as we said, since Easter fell on the 18th of April, the Wednesday of the week of the Passion was the 14th of the same month. The year following this, 1284 of Christ, had 5 for the cycle of the sun and 12 for the golden number. These notes locate Easter on the ninth day of April. Wherefore, since Tyrine Sunday—the same as that which we call Quinquagesima Sunday—in that leap year coincided with the 19th of February, the month in which we saw Veccus relegated to Prusa in the previous year, it is clear that this exile of his lasted longer than a year, if indeed after that mention of the report of the corrupt consecrated bread, which the historian inserts before the narration of the recall of Veccus, following the order, as it appears, of the events that occurred, the space of several months was easily filled, to wit, the defeat of the Scythians, ch. 29; the attempt of the emperor to compose the factions of the Church, ch. 30; the carrying of the relics of Patriarch Arsenius into the city, ch. 31; [P 565] the slaughter of the Christians in Syria, or the beginning of the war waged by the Sultan of Babylon against the Latins holding Antioch, Tripoli, and Ptolemais, the final events of which are later commemorated by our author through the occupation, ch. 52; and finally, the second marriage of Emperor Andronicus, concerning which ch. 55. With all these [...]
A circumspect, we shall not appear rash if we affirm that his ordination in the church was duly performed on the fourteenth day of October. It follows that the summons of Veccus from Prusa to Byzantium happened around the month of May or June in the year of Christ 1284, and that he was condemned by the synod held at that time; the Emperor having tried in vain for a long while to win him over to his side, he was delivered into the custody of the fortress named after Saint Gregory, as Pachymeres teaches toward the end of ch. 35. These facts make me unable to agree with Henri Spondanus, when he attributes the condemnation of Veccus, under which he was cast into prison, to the year of Christ 1283.
B V. Veccus indeed remained in that custody of the fortress of Saint Gregory until his death, but not always under the same condition. For at the beginning he was treated most harshly in extreme poverty, without any provision of the necessities of life. Pachymeres indicates, in passing and in a place not strictly suitable, at the foot of the aforementioned ch. 35, when and how he received some relief from this hardship: namely, that when Athanasius—now created patriarch—was setting out for the East and crossing the strait to Helenopolis, he sent the Grand Logothete from the journey into the fortress of Saint Gregory, who bestowed one hundred gold pieces upon Veccus, and fifty upon Meliteniotes, Metochita having already previously been taken home due to illness as a companion of Veccus. Let us investigate, if we can, the time of this accomplished deed. Athanasius succeeded Gregory Cyprius in the Constantinopolitan patriarchate, nor did he succeed immediately or without an intermediate interregnum. First, therefore, it must be seen how long Gregory remained in the see, and then by what interval Athanasius followed him, and finally the time of this journey into the East. As for the first, Gregory in the written abdication of the throne, which is recited on p. 130, says that he lasted for six years and some time beyond in the possession of the patriarchate. The creation and inauguration of this man, narrated in chapters 14 and 15 of the previous book, occurred, as is intimated there, shortly after the death of Joseph, which we demonstrated in the previous chapter to have happened at the beginning of March in the year of Christ 1283. Furthermore, one is compelled to affirm that the patriarchate of Gregory began before the middle of April, because the historian on p. 48 records that already by the Monday of Holy Week, Cyprius was in full possession of the patriarchal C power. For that year, as we showed in the previous chapter, Easter was on April 18; whence the Monday of Holy Week fell on April 12. Since an earlier inauguration of Gregory must be acknowledged, if six full years and some time beyond are counted from that [date], we will find that his abdication must be assigned to the year of Christ 1289, after the middle of April. Let us assume, therefore, that the abdication of Cyprius and his withdrawal into the monastery of Aristina, narrated in ch. 10, book II, happened in the month of May or June of the aforementioned year of Christ 1289. From this, two or three months may have elapsed in the altercations and investigations reported by our historian from chapter 11 to 15, in which it is finally written that Athanasius was already elected patriarch on the 14th day of the month D of October in the church and duly ordained. Therefore, the beginning of the patriarchate of Athanasius dates from the day before the Ides of October in the year of the common era of Christ 1289.
VI. That the aforementioned transfer of Patriarch Athanasius to Helenopolis and his departure into the East were shared with Emperor Andronicus, our author teaches in this book II, ch. 48, while he narrates that the Emperor betook himself to Nymphaeum, and on that journey crossed parts of Bithynia, and there incidentally acted regarding Veccus and his associates, which he says he remembered a little earlier (namely ch. 35, book I). By which words he implies that the Grand Logothete was indeed sent to Veccus in the name of Patriarch Athanasius: but that the whole thing was done at the urging and command of the Emperor. For it was not likely that the patriarch, an austere and fierce man, would of his own accord enter into the thought of relieving Veccus and his associates, whom the man, being most devoted to schism, hated most abominably. One thing here has a certain look of an inconsistent narrative that clashes with itself, if indeed in that former place, p. 103, the historian affirms that the Grand Logothete who was sent to Veccus by Athanasius was not yet Protovestiary, but on p. 153 he clearly writes that Emperor Andronicus, having transacted with Veccus those things which we mentioned a little earlier, arrived at Nymphaeum with Muzalon brought with him, having been decorated with the new rank of Protovestiary above his ancient honor of Grand Logothete. But these things have an easy reconciliation if it be said that immediately after Muzalon, returning from the journey prescribed for him to Veccus, joined himself again to the imperial retinue, he was declared Protovestiary by the Augustus on that very journey, before he arrived at Nymphaeum. There is, therefore, no cause why we should not affirm that this relief of the hardships of Veccus pertains to the time when Andronicus brought himself from the royal city to Nymphaeum, as is narrated in book II, ch. 18. We must therefore investigate when this journey happened. Our historian narrates in the previous chapter the death of the ex-patriarch Cyprius and the instructions sent by the Augustus himself to the overseers of the funeral regarding the form of his burial, which sufficiently indicate that he was not then absent from the city; for if he were already traveling, the news of the death of Cyprius could not have been carried to him so quickly, so that in that short space which intervenes between death and funeral, he could through such frequent and successive messengers be so distinctly careful that the measure of the funeral honors of a private man was not exceeded. Therefore, Andronicus was at Constantinople when Cyprius died and was buried; and the first notable event after this will have been the departure of the same Emperor from the city, for that reason narrated soon after in the following chapter by Pachymeres. Cyprius had vacated the patriarchate, according to what we plausibly established a little earlier, around the month of June in the year of Christ 1289. After three or a little more months, on the day before the Ides of October, Athanasius was raised to the throne. In the following November, December, and January, it is likely
A that what is reported in chapter 17 of the second book occurred—namely, that the Cypriot, a man greedy for glory, while grieving at being so long neglected in retirement and solitude, began to be agitated and quieted by sickness; from which distress that malady of many days arose for him, by which he was finally consumed around about the month of March. In the April immediately following, the weather being suitable for royal expeditions, Emperor Andronicus set out from the city and finally fixed the bounds of a pleasant and circuitous journey at Nymphaeum, arriving there toward the month of June. About May, therefore, of the year of Christ 1290, the custody of Veccus was relaxed, after he had endured the hardships of poverty combined with captivity for six full years, namely from the month of May or June of the year of Christ 1284, according to the earlier definitions in point 5 of this chapter.
VII. B During this same journey into the Eastern regions, it was furthermore fitting that Andronicus should visit Dacibyza, where John, the son of Theodore Lascaris, was held in custody—he whom Michael, the father of Andronicus, had deceived with monstrous fraud, cast down from the empire, and blinded. Pachymeres narrates (book 1, chapter 36) that Andronicus went there and asked forgiveness of the blind John for the injury inflicted upon him by his father Michael, and, by means of many signs of benevolence and gifts, he coaxed from him the cession of his right to the empire. The reasoning that compels us to say this was done at that time is as follows: our author, in that chapter, explicitly asserts that after the meeting with Andronicus, John had been sent by Athanasius—who was already patriarch—the protovestiary to Veccus; he affirms that this same thing was done elsewhere on that journey on which the emperor finally betook himself to Nymphaeum, intending to stay there for a long time. Therefore, this same path was taken by Andronicus through Dacibyza. For the patriarch Athanasius did not send the protovestiary to Veccus twice. Rightly, therefore, does the historian admonish toward the end of the chapter C that he had previously touched upon these things in this place from a much later memory. Someone will say: why then does Pachymeres, at the very beginning of that chapter, p. 103, speak thus: "But it had escaped me what happened a little earlier, namely that the emperor had betaken himself from the city to Dacibyza," etc.? I answer: these things are not to be referred to the colloquy between Veccus and the patriarch Gregory, described in the whole of the preceding chapter 35, but to the incidental mention made at the end of that chapter concerning the much later relaxation of Veccus’s custody, into which he was thrown after that colloquy. Therefore, only that do the first words of chapter 36 signify: a little before Andronicus was transferred to a somewhat more tolerable condition by the protovestiary sent into the fortress by order of Emperor Andronicus during his oft-mentioned journey to the East, there occurred the approach to Dacibyza by Andronicus to John, the son of Emperor Theodore Lascaris.
VIII. The death of Veccus is narrated thereafter, p. 270, D but the historian leaves it to us to inquire in what year it happened. Let us attempt, therefore, to see if, by following the tracks of events from that continuous series in which they were done, we can surely detect how much of an interval there was from the relaxation of rigor just mentioned in Veccus’s prison to his perfect liberation from all miseries, which finally came to him through his happy death. The first certain fact is that Emperor Andronicus remained at Nymphaeum for the space of more than a year. For our author reports (p. 154) that he was there on the twenty-ninth day of the month of June, the day on which the feast of the holy apostles (that is, Peter and Paul) is celebrated, in the second year running since the emperor had his camp there: *Διετείας τρεχούσης ἐστρατοπεδευμένη τῷ βασιλεῖ*. Since, therefore, we have established with the higher number that Emperor Andronicus arrived at Nymphaeum around the beginning of June of the year of Christ 1290, that dispute between the princely ladies, which Pachymeres mentions in chapter 9, occurring on the occasion of the feast of the apostles, happened on the 29th day of June of the year of Christ 1291, when Andronicus had already begun the second year of his stay at Nymphaeum. His return from there to the city is noted on p. 165, and is assigned to the twenty-eighth day of June, namely of the year immediately following the common era of Christ, 1293, when the damages of the fire—which, as it is explicitly stated on p. 178, had burned the great Forum two years before the abdication of Athanasius—had already been repaired.
IX. Furthermore, Pachymeres expresses the time of the aforementioned abdication of Athanasius quite explicitly, when he writes on p. 177 that he had completed exactly four years in the patriarchate, so that he reckoned almost the same day, the sixteenth of October, for the beginning and the leaving of the governance of the Church. These things allude to what was written earlier on p. 146, where it is said that the fourteenth day of October was the first day of Athanasius’s patriarchate. This pertains, as I said in point 5, to the year of Christ 1289, from which four revolving years ended on the 14th of October of the year 1293. Two days later Athanasius yielded the throne, having performed the patriarchal dignity for four years in total and two days besides. The fire of the great Forum, therefore, happened toward the middle of November in the year 1291, the ruins of which were repaired so strenuously by the citizens in the space of almost eight 785 months that the emperor, returning to the city at the end of June of the year 1292, rejoiced, because, as the historian says on p. 180, notice of the fire was known to him only by the testimony of his ears, with no sensible trace of it remaining for his eyes. From this point, the things narrated by our historian, declaring events as they occurred, fill a space of almost five years up to chapter 29 of volume III. Whence, what is written on p. 270, that Veccus died toward the end of March, pertains without doubt to the year of Christ 1298. Therefore, eight years after his custody had been slightly relaxed, John Veccus, remaining nonetheless in prison because he always most steadfastly refused to assent to the emperor who was recalling him to schism, was called to heaven by God, as one may hope, for the rewards of his labors. But Meliteniotes, another of his companions, not before ten years had elapsed from then, [P. 568] was commended with equal praise for his unconquered faith in the Roman Church.
843 A And so, for the twelfth year of Michael to be the twenty-third of Andronicus, one must necessarily move it back to the preceding year, 1293 of Christ, which was the eleventh of Andronicus, for this is the epoch of the principate of Michael; and it must be admitted that before the solemn coronation, which was celebrated in the year of Christ 1294, he had already been taken by his father into the partnership of the imperial power. Nor did Pachymeres leave this entirely unsaid: for in the title of c. 4, l. III, he already calls Michael the August Junior, when his marriage is discussed long before the bringing of Maria from Armenia, whom he later married. It is therefore credible that already from the beginning of the year of Christ 1293, Michael had been assumed as colleague by his father Andronicus.
B And that indeed becomes likely from the mention of age whereby the historian indicates in passing that it was time for Andronicus not to delay any longer the communication of the imperial dignity to his son, who was already fully adult. The historian Pachymeres writes there, at the very beginning of l. III, p. 195: Ἐπεὶ δ᾽ ἀντίπαις ἦν ὁ υἱὸς Μιχαήλ ἤδη τῷ βασιλεῖ καὶ τὸν ὑπὲρ τὸν ἔφηβον ἤλαυνεν. “But since the son of the king, Michael, was already past boyhood and was advancing beyond the age of the pubescent.” Among the Greeks, *ephēboi* are called adolescents who have passed their fourteenth year. Yet it must be that by this time Michael had advanced a long interval further, since it is likely that he was born in the year of Christ 1273, or not long after. For his father Andronicus celebrated his marriage with his mother in the year of Christ 1272, according to what we established some time ago in l. I of our previous Observations, c. 8. Let us posit that Michael, the firstborn of Andronicus, was born into the light in 1274 of Christ, or—since it is hardly possible to go back any further—1275. C Therefore, when Andronicus was counting the eleventh year of his reign in the year of Christ 1293, Michael had attained at least the eighteenth year of his life. Thus, there was no reason why the father should delay his assumption as a colleague in the principate, which had been decreed long before. It appears, therefore, that at that time in the year of Christ 1293, Michael had already been raised by his father to the fellowship of the imperial throne: although, perhaps on account of the wavering status of Patriarch Athanasius, who was soon to be deposed in that year, Andronicus may have thought it best to delay the famous inauguration of the son reigning with him until such time as the new patriarch, John Cosmas, had already persisted for a few months in the full and peaceful exercise of patriarchal power, and until the day of Constantine, the founder of the Byzantine empire, celebrated for his anniversary, was expected, to render this ceremony more august. The nuptials, then, of this same Michael, the August Junior, with Maria, daughter of the king of Armenia, related by our historian in l. III, c. 5 and 6, pertain to the 16th day of January of the year of Christ 1296, as we show from the series of events in the Synopsis.
CAPUT IV.
De Joannis Cosmæ patriarchatu, et restitutione Athanasii.1. Inter Athanasil Constantinopolitani patriarchæ
patriarchæ A dejectionem from the throne and his restoration to the throne, the patriarchate of John Cosmas is interspersed, varied by many vicissitudes, through which nonetheless it endured for a sufficiently long time. To define the moments of its beginning and ending, and to measure exactly the intervals of its entire duration, is necessary for one who wishes to be skilled in the chronology of this history; yet, because of the confusion of things perversely mixed together and the uncertain affirmation of our historian in some places regarding these things, it is not to be hoped that it will be entirely obvious and easy to explain, especially for a reader who is approaching these matters for the first time and desires to be done with it, as usually happens, in passing. In order to serve this study as my office requires, I shall set forth everything of this kind here as briefly and clearly as I can.
II. Dealing with this, first of all, it occurs to us to consider what stands written by Pachymeres on p. 368: that Athanasius, when he had been expatriarch for ten years less nine months, the Emperor Andronicus approached him on the nineteenth day of January with the bishops and the people. In this assertion the historian is excellently consistent; for he had said on p. 177 that Athanasius, after he had renounced the patriarchate, was enclosed in the monastery of Cosmidion on the sixteenth day of October, when four years previously, on the fourteenth day of the same month, he had assumed possession of the patriarchate. That year in which Athanasius migrated into the monastery of Cosmidion from the patriarchate was 1293 of the era of Christ, as we have placed before the eyes in the Synopsis: the other year, however, whose January 19 convened Athanasius there by Andronicus, was undoubtedly counted as the 1304th in the same era of Christ. But since the ninth year of the private sojourn of Athanasius at the monastery of Cosmidion had been completed on October 16 of the preceding year, 1303 of Christ, and if the tenth year from such a starting point were to be fulfilled, he ought to have remained enclosed in that place until the sixteenth day of the following October, from which day the 19th of January is distant by almost nine solid months, it appears how exactly defined toward the truth the secret habitation of Athanasius in the monastery of Cosmidion was by the interval of ten years, less nine months.
III. These things, however they may be, are not uselessly noted for our purpose, yet they do not resolve the proposed question concerning the beginning and end of the patriarchate of John Cosmas, since it neither began immediately from the retreat of Athanasius into the monastery of Cosmidion, nor did it cease at the moment when Andronicus approached the same Athanasius there. But concerning the beginning, Pachymeres clearly states on p. 186 that John Cosmas was duly inaugurated as patriarch on the Kalends of January. Nor is there any doubt from the entire context of the events narrated before and after there, but that these Kalends of January were those that immediately followed after the departure of Athanasius from the patriarchate and his inclusion in the monastery B of Cosmidion, which we have seen occurred on the 16th day of October in the year of Christ 1293. Let it remain, therefore, as certain that John Cosmas began to preside over the Constantinopolitan Church with patriarchal power from the Kalends of January of the year of Christ 1294. But because when, nine years and eighteen days having elapsed from then, the Emperor Andronicus, leading the bishops, the clergy, and the people with him, approached Athanasius, Cosmas had not yet manifestly cast off the possession of the patriarchal honor, which Athanasius himself, although it was offered him then, did not admit to; and Cosmas later, the emperor himself admitting he was still the true patriarch, even as such subjected to anathema any who might plot to replace Athanasius on the throne, the true and indubitable end of the patriarchate of Cosmas must be sought elsewhere.
IV. Furthermore, it will be found nowhere else but on p. 382, where Pachymeres reports that Andronicus, cutting the knot which he could not untie, while he saw the bishops in a synod arguing without order or hope of agreement concerning the abdication of John Cosmas and the restoration of Athanasius, took with him those who favored Athanasius, and established him in possession of the patriarchate in fact and in practice, regardless of the law, while many of the bishops and John Cosmas himself protested in vain, and he indeed (although yielding to greater force, he retreated to his homeland, Sozopolis) still considered himself the patriarch. From that time, however, John Cosmas ceased to be held as patriarch by the emperor and most others; and Athanasius exercised the functions of that office (by what law or by what injustice, God knows). Moreover, we have this epoch marked with a chronological character, but because of a certain ambiguity affected by Pachymeres in the wording, it requires a declaration that is not perfunctory.
V. Our historian says, indeed, on p. 383, that the day on which Athanasius was imposed upon the throne by the Emperor Andronicus by force and hand, was the twenty-third of the month called Maemacterion by the Athenians, the twenty-first day of which that year fell on a Friday, that is, to use the manner of speaking customary to this author, on the sixth day of the week. Pachymeres elsewhere constantly calls Maemacterion the month of June, as we observed in the previous Glossary. Here, however, that he does not use the notion hitherto customary for him is indicated by the fact that he asserts it not C simply and absolutely, but "according to the Athenians" he says that the month in question is Maemacterion. Certainly it cannot be June in this place, since the series of the narrative forces one to admit that these things occurred D in the year 1304 of Christ, when the cycle of the sun was counted as 25, to which corresponds for the months following February the Dominical letter D; the twenty-first day of June was a Sunday, not a Friday. Nor does the Vatican paraphrast, after it seems he noticed this difficulty, remedy it, when, whereas he always habitually interpreted Pachymeres's Maemacterion as 'Ioúviov (June), in this place alone he rendered it 'Ioúliov (July): for neither is the twenty-first day of the month of July...
afficitur littera B in Kalendario vulgari, prout oportuerat ut feria sexta censeri posset, sed littera F, feriæ tertiæ indicem quando D feriam primam sive diem Dominicam designat. A Omnino unus in toto anno est mensis Augustus, cujus diei vicesimæ primæ littera B anno tali feriam sextam indicans ad latus appicta cernitur. Hoc igitur ipso mense contigisse oportuit memoratam, p. 384, a Pachymere promotionem Athanasii. Ac sane suadet idem ille vehemens solis flagrantis æstus, quo excoctum fuisse Andronicum dum hoc ageret Pachymeres innuit verbis illis, ὑπ' ἀέρι πυρὶ πνέοντι καὶ καιρικῷ πνίγει, sub aere ignem spirante, ac prout tali tempestate solet fieri, pene suffocante trahentes halitum. Quæ nemo non fatebitur Sextili sive Augusto mensi, sub Leonis signo et Caniculæ sidere longe omnium ardentissimo, eximie convenire. B
VI. Idem astruit ordo gestarum et a Pachymere memoratarum rerum, quæ exacte totum spatium inter diem 19 Januarii et mensis Augusti 21 complent, ut breviter demonstro. Refert historicus, quo in Athanasii repositionem in sede die 19 Januarii passim omnes abrepti fuerant, non paucos antistitum adversa ei promotioni studia monstrasse. Qua contentione durante, addit Pachymeres mox p. 376, Andronicum diebus Tyrophagiæ, qui proxime quadragenarium jejunium præcedunt, adiisse Joannem Cosmam. Fuit illo anno feria quarta C Cinerum dies undecima Februarii; unde illa profectio imperatoris ad Joannem aliquo septem dierum undecimam Februarii diem ἀμέσως præcedentium contigisse debuit. Narrat postea historicus perculsum Andronicum excommunicatione a Joanne, postquam illum ipse verum adhuc patriarcham agnoverat, in eos intentata qui Athanasium reponere in sede molirentur, multum remisisse de studio in eam restitutionem suo. Supervenit his morbus et mors Theodoræ Augustæ matris Andronici, rebus humanis 790 subtractæ feria secunda secundæ jejuniorum hebdomadæ, hoc est die Februarii decima sexta, ut p. 377 refertur; significaturque ibidem curas universas imperatoris ad curandam, dum ægrotavit, et postquam fato functa est, magnifico D ac regio funere honorandam matrem esse conversas. Post Paschales non magno inde intervallo secutas ferias aliæ urgentes domesticorum affectuum sollicitudines Andronici animum a cogitando de Athanasio averterunt, cura nimirum adornandæ profectionis Irenes suæ conjugis Thessalonicam cogitantis, et nuptiarum Joannis despotæ sui filii cum filia Chumni sui primarii ministri celebrandarum; quæ capite quinto memorantur, et facile dies a Pascha quindecim expleverint. Incidit autem illo anno Pascha in diem 29 Martii. Adulto igitur jam Aprile resumptum Ecclesiæ negotium est; et longæ ille c. 6 indicatæ institui ab episcopis deliberationes cœptæ circa excommunicationem tentatam; quibus absumptum Maium mensem et Junium non temere prudens æstimator ex historici verbis autumaverit, donec mense Julio, nihil ab iis sibi sperandum Andronicus videns ad exemptionem scrupuli quem ejus animo injecerat molestissimum inopinata illa Joannis Cosmæ comminatio excommunicationis, se vertere statuit, et longo tempore per missos varios eblandiri a Joanne ipso conatus est revocationem anathematis illius; cujus tandem voti compos est factus, in optatam ipsi sententiam [P. 572] edita declaratione remissionis ab eodem impetratæ Joanne Cosma; quam scripturam imperator accepit feria illa sexta eademque die vicesima prima mensis Augusti, supra memorata sæpius. Unde triduo post, die mensis ejusdem vicesima tertia Athanasium in sedis patriarchalis iteratam possessionem imperator induxit. En ut successio et contextus actorum illius anni eumdem nos in locum pedetentim ducit, quem procul quasi signaveramus indicio alte se ostentantis characteris chronologici, hoc est conjunctionis feriæ sextæ cum die Augusti 21; quæ conjunctio cum annum exigat cyclo solis 25 insignitum, qualis nullus isto temporum tractu alius est ab anno qui in æra Christiana numeratur quartus supra trecentesimum et millesimum, restat demonstratum anno Christi 1304, die 23 Augusti, desiisse patriarchatum Joannis Cosmæ, Athanasium autem Constantinopolitanæ Ecclesiæ præsidere iterum coepisse. Unde consequitur Joannem Cosmam a Kalendis Januariis anni Christi 1294, ad diem 23 Augusti anni Christi 1304, annis novem, septem mensibus et 22 præterea diebus, patriarchatum tenuisse.
VII. Restat hic definiendus annus eventi notabilis a nostro historico relati 1. III, c. 24, quod sine dubio ad patriarchatum Joannis Cosmæ hic a nobis chronologica ratione definitum pertinet. Refert loco laudato Pachymeres pueros quosdam, dum mense Septembri nidos columbarum in catechemeneis scrutarentur, testas 791 reperisse intra quas Athanasius patriarchio excessurus scripta quædam incluserat, prout idem narraverat, c. 22 et 23, 1. III. His sic prolatis chartis turbatum vehementer Andronicum fuisse propter memoratum illic anathema ab Athanasio intortum in adversantes sibi. Itaque allegasse certos homines ad Athanasium privatim in monasterio degentem, qui ex eo rescirent an et quo animo ista scripsisset. His eum tradidisse scriptum, quo imperatorem omni exsolvit scrupulo. Scriptum autem istud fuisse consignatum nota temporis ait, mensis Aprilis et indictionis 11 (p. 256). Igitur id contigerit anno Christi 1298, quo certissimum est indictionem 11 fuisse numeratam Græcis a Septembri anni præcedentis, Latinis a Kalendis Januariis. Illud hic occurrit incommodum, quod litteræ istæ Athanasii declaratrices mentis ejus mense demum
A Aprili post inventionem chartarum absconditarum octavo consignentur, cum tota narratio historici demonstret multo brevius spatium intercessisse inter scrupulum insertum et evulsum animo imperatoris. Omnino credo mendum hic esse in duobus alioquin optimis codicibus Pachymeris B et A diserte habentibus μηνὶ ᾿Απριλλίῳ, et apud unum Vaticanum veram hujus loci exstare lectionem. In eo enim legitur μηνὶ Σεπτεμβρίῳ Ἰνδικτιῶνος ια', hoc est, mense Septembri indictionis 11. Septembris igitur initio anni Christi 1297, quo jam Græci indictionem 11 numerare suo more occupabant, repertæ chartæ istæ fuerint, post paucos vero dies eodem mense litteræ Athanasii quas diximus conscriptæ. Fuit autem is annus Cosma patriarchatus quartus.
CHAPTER V. De lunae defectione totali Constantinopoli visa die 14 Januarii anno Christi 1302, quam describit Pachymeres I. iv, c. 15.
1. Fuit Joannis Cosma patriarchatus alia quoque conspicuus cœlesti nota, eo hic a nobis pertractanda diligentius, quod ejus consideratio speretur redundatura in non vulgare stabilimentum chronologicarum hujusce totius historiæ rationum. [P. 573] Loco modo indicato, nimirum p. 306, scribit noster historicus eodem anno cujus post æquinoctium autumnale cometa præcedente capite descriptus apparuerat, Januario currente, cum primus lunæ a novilunio progressus simul cum illo mense incepisset, eum planetam plenilunio in deliquium incidisse, prout imperatori prædixerant astronomicarum periti rationum, nempe ita ut obscurari cœperit fere tertia noctis hora, a parte disci lunaris Orientali, paulatimque per horæ spatium caligine subintrante, prorsus intra umbram luna tota absorpta, nigra perstiterit horæ triente. Post quod resumens lento progressu, a limbo cœli parti Orientali obverso, perditum lumen, tota sensim hora tenebris emergens, pura denique plenum os, ut antea, lucens ostendit. His fere verbis auctor istud phænomenum exprimit, quotus is annus ab orbe condito, qua solet interdum uti æra, numeratus fuerit tacens. Consului ego super hoc domesticum oraculum doctissimi, humanissimi mihique amicissimi patris Joannis Baptistæ Riccioli societatis nostræ, datis ad illum hinc Roma litteris circa initium Aprilis anno Christi 1667. Ad eas mutuam ejus epistolam hic describere operæ pretium duxi.
Epistola Joannis Baptistæ Riccioli soc. Jesu ad Petrum Possinum ejusdem societatis.
Reverende in Christo Pater,
Pax Christi.
Cum Pachymeres, l. iv, c. 15, narret visam Constantinopoli eclipsim lunæ totalem mense Januario, hora noctis 3, ita ut luna post horam fere tota intra umbram telluris immersa fuerit et emerBgere visa sit ab umbra post horæ trientem tandemque post horæ intervallum tota emerserit, neque vero diem neque annum exprimat, sed solum id accidisse tempore Andronici Palæologi referat, jubes me, pater doctissime et amantissime, inquirere ex mea Astronomia Reformata quoto Christianæ epochæ anno talis eclipsis contigerit; supponisque ex contextu rerum gestarum annum hujusmodi consistere inter 1298 et 1310 dictæ epochæ. Ut votis tuis obsecundarem, examinavi plenilunia Januarii omnium prædictorum annorum; et respondeo distincte per tres conclusiones; supponoque pro certo, ex mea tum Geographia tam Astronomia Reformata, Constantinopoli altitudinem poli esse graduum 42, 56, ejusque meridianum orientaliorem esse Bononiensi (cui affixæ sunt meæ tabulæ) hora 1, min. 20, 26.
1 Conclusio.
Inter annos Christi 1298 et 1310 nullus fuit, in cujus Januario fuerit plenilunium eclipticum, nisi anni 1301, 1302 et 1303.
Ratio est quia, ut lunæ eclipsis sit naturaliter possibilis, lunæ distantia a propiore nodo non debet excedere gradus 17, 20, ut docui libro V Almagesti Novi. At in pleniluniis Januarii omnium annorum ab anno 1298 ad 1310, demptis annis 1301, 1302, 1303, luna distitit a propiore nodo plus quam gradus 17, 20, ut ex prima tabella infra scripta liquet. Ergo, etc. Et ad id discernendum sufficit adhibere plenilunia media.
793 [P. 574] TABELLA. [See facsimile for table data]
IIª Conclusio.
Ex tribus pleniluniis eclipticis mensis Januarii annorum Christi 1301, 1302 et 1303 solum plenilunium anni 1302 respondet conditionibus a Pachymerere latis. Plenilunia enim annorum 1301 et 1303 Januario facta neque totalem eclipsim cum mora notabili in umbra terræ habuerunt; neque aut initium in iis aut medium eclipsis fuit circa tertiam noctis horam, sed longe pluribus horis post. At eclipsis anni 1302 Januarii die 14 fuit totalis, cum insigni mora lunæ in tenebris; et ejus
the beginning was entirely at the third hour of the night at Constantinople, as will be clear from the calculation written below; and as regards this, it corresponds exactly to the account of Pachymeres.
That Conclusion
The recovery of light after a third of an hour asserted by Pachymeres was not a true recovery of the light of the sun's rays directly illuminating the moon, since the moon remained in the earth's shadow for 1 hour, 42 minutes, 24 seconds, but because of the refracted rays of the sun it began to appear reddish, even though it was within the shadow, as usually happens in total eclipses, according to what I demonstrated in the 5th book of the *New Almagest*, ch. 5.CALCULATION
Total lunar eclipse with duration, seen at Constantinople in the year of Christ 1302, on the 14th day of January, the following night. Latitude of the pole at Constantinople. Deg. 42 56. Meridian of Constantinople is east of Bologna by 1 hour 20 min 26 sec. Equal time of full moon after noon 10 hours 37 min 52 sec. Apparent time of full moon after noon 10 hours 25 min 20 sec.Bologna, 16 April 1667. Your Reverence's servant in Christ, Giovanni Battista Riccioli.
Thus far the letter of the Rev. Father Riccioli, to which nothing can be added for a perfect understanding of the lunar eclipse mentioned by Pachymeres, unless perhaps a diagram of the same eclipse, which, at my request, was drawn by a very close friend most skilled in such things, I shall append here, with the kind permission of the Rev. Father Riccioli, so that the reader may not desire anything that is usually provided on such an occasion.
A III. The first use of this lunar eclipse is the certain indication of the year in which the comet mentioned in the preceding chapter appeared. But Pachymeres writes and counts the lunar eclipse seen in the month of January in the same year in which the comet had been seen after the autumn equinox of 796, according to the custom of the Greeks. For they began the years of the world, which era they commonly used, from the month of September. Whence there is no doubt that that new hairy star was seen in the sky during the autumn of the year of Christ 1301; indeed, from the spring months of the same year to the end of September, that prodigious drought of the sky, which the historian describes at the end of ch. 14, raged, burning up meadows and crops and plants of every kind, and also drying up perennial wells and the living springs of the most abundant fountains. Finally, that the marriage contract which the historian mentions on p. 304, between the daughter of the despot Michael and the Terters, repudiated by the King of Serbia, occurred among these events, that is, around this time, is undoubtedly to be thought to pertain to this very year of Christ 1301. And the same is confirmed by the chronological character, by which the events narrated earlier are vindicated for the previous year of Christ 1300, for Pachymeres relates on p. 302 that Patriarch John Cosmas went to Emperor Andronicus, and went with him to the monastery of the Palaiologoi
A die 25 October, which was then reckoned the third day of the week. Indeed, in the bissextile year of Christ 1300, the solar cycle has 21 [and] two dominical letters, C and B; since the latter indicates that the 23rd day of October was a Sunday that year, it demonstrates likewise that the 25th of the same month was a Tuesday. And because the rest of the events, both before and after this eclipse, are recorded in this history in almost the order in which they happened, the true time of nearly all of them could be determined from this celestial mark—a fact I could demonstrate by an easy experiment if it were worth lingering over these matters any longer. Suffice it to say that, for the comfort of the reader, we have attempted this in the last chapter of this third book of Observations, where we have brought together under one view and arranged by years most of the things described in the seven books of Pachymeres on the affairs of Andronicus. Yet among these events there is one a little more intricate, by reason of the complexity of the circumstances and the author’s ambiguous assertions, than to be left untouched by us, who profess to unravel chronological perplexities in this place. Be this, therefore, the subject of the following chapter.
CHAPTER VI. The intricate accounts of time concerning the affairs and actions of Rontzerius and the Catalans are explained.
A I. The things reported in the last books of this History concerning Rontzerius, Pharenda Tzimes, Mpyrigerius Tentza, and certain other Latin leaders, as well as the soldiers they commanded—the Catalans and Amogavars, who were first treacherous auxiliaries and then savage enemies of Andronicus and the Romans—have not been set forth clearly enough by the historian, whether because he was weary at the end of a long and laborious work or because of his indignation B at the Catalans and their leaders on account of their atrocious injuries to his own people, for he almost never records them without a display of agitation born of intense hatred, and therefore he discharges his duty of necessary distinction and explanation imperfectly. To remedy this grievance as best we can, for the sake of the studious reader, we undertake to unravel this confused pile here and to attach each such act and event to its own chronological epoch, beginning with the initial calling of Rontzerius and the Catalans from Sicily into the lands of the Eastern Empire.
II. Pachymeres narrates, book V, chapter 12, that the Emperor, finding little protection in the Roman military against the incursions of the Persians into the eastern regions of the empire, was consequently forced to look to C foreign aid, and that he gratefully accepted Pharenda Tzimes, who came of his own accord with a band of soldiers whom he had armed from among his own subjects, and furthermore invited Rontzerius by letters with ample conditions, persuaded by which he later arrived at Constantinople with a large naval force. The time of the convention initiated and stipulated by letters between Andronicus and Rontzerius is not explicitly noted by our historian, for the very reason that induced Rontzerius to this negotiation. For he says D that Rontzerius, a knight of the Temple, after the capture of Ptolemais—a most wealthy and fortified city of Phoenicia—by the Ethiopians (that is, the Saracens, under the Egyptian Sultan called Melec Seraf; which event occurred in the year of Christ 1291 on the 18th or, as others say, the 19th of May, as Spondanus accurately teaches for that year from the writers of those times), gathered a force of men beholden to him, and for some time engaged in lucrative piracy throughout those seas. Having obtained great wealth, he turned his military service for a long time, under a fixed agreement of pay [P. 578], to Frederick, who held Sicily (Pachymeres wrongly calls him Theuderichus), in the war that Frederick, as a rebel against the Church, was waging against Charles, king of Apulia. B But this war was finally ended by matrimonial conditions, by which Ecaterina, daughter of King Charles, was given to the brother of the Sicilian king; Rontzerius, no longer able to remain in Sicily because the Roman Pontiff was demanding from the Sicilian king that he be surrendered to him for punishment, openly entered, as we have said, into an agreement with Andronicus.
III. Thus Pachymeres, in the matters he mentions incidentally about foreign lands or peoples, babbles in his usual way. For he undoubtedly wished to indicate there the peace made in the year of Christ 1302 between Charles, king of Naples, and Frederick, who held power in Sicily, by which not Ecaterina but Eleonora, daughter of King Charles, was betrothed not to the brother of the Sicilian king, but to Frederick himself—a marriage as Frederick himself attests in the instrument of that agreement publicly issued by him C at the New Castle on the 19th day of the month of August, in the year of Christ 1302, indiction 15; all of which Odoricus Rainaldus recites in his Annals, whence it is manifest that from that time the treaty began to be instituted D among the absent parties—on one side Rontzerius, on the other the Emperor Andronicus—concerning the auxiliary fleet to be brought by the former to the latter. Indeed, the present state of affairs must have strongly impelled Andronicus to admit the offered aid: for in that year Michael Augustus the Younger, his son, having led all the forces of the empire with him, had turned his back shamefully to the Persians, and in a precipitate flight had shut himself up in Magnesia, where he was abandoned by his soldiers and was suffering from the extreme scarcity of all things. Andronicus the father, while wishing to assist him most of all, was prevented by insurmountable obstacles, just as Pachymeres himself had previously narrated the massive desolation of all the imperial regions throughout those eastern tracts resulting from these events, especially after the new and clear defeat of the Romans inflicted by the Persians under the leader Almane on the 27th of July near Bapheum, near Nicomedia, which is described in book IV, chapter 25. Therefore, in the last months of the year 1302 and the first months of the following year 1303, this convention was concluded by messengers going to and fro; and then, some months having been spent in the preparation of the fleet, it finally arrived at Constantinople in the month of September.
IV. In the month of September, I say, of the year of Christ 1303,
A as Pachymeres clearly attests on page 395—while he continues by adding that, promptly after the month of August had passed, on the eighth day of which an earthquake occurred by which Rhodes was overturned, Rontzerius arrived at Constantinople with the auxiliary fleet in the second indiction. His words are: "In the Gamelion that followed upon this in the second indiction, the city of Constantine saw the Latin Rontzerius." Gamelion, according to the perpetual usage of Pachymeres, is September of the second indiction; it is, without any doubt, the September from which the second indiction began to be reckoned according to the Greek custom. Now, the indictions, which we Latins begins to count from the Kalends of January, the Greeks always initiate from the fourth month backward, whence they also lead the beginning of the years of their era from the beginning of the world according to their own calculations. Whence, since we have seen above (n. 3) that Frederick signed the public letters—by which he promulgated the peace initiated by himself with Charles, King of Naples—on the 19th of August, 1302, in the 15th indiction, we must understand that this was the last year of the indiction cycle comprising fifteen years, so that in the September immediately following that August, the Greeks began to count the first indiction, while the Latins indeed delayed doing so until the first day of the following January, when the year of Christ 1303 was begun by their calculation. Again, in the month of September of this year of Christ 1303, the Greeks counted the second indiction, while for the Latins the first indiction still ran for a four-month period. Nor can any other September marked by the second indiction be found for the Greeks in this span of time, unless one were to go back fifteen years to the year of Christ 1288, or B proceed by an equal span of the following time up to the year of the Christian era 1318, in the month of September of which years, too, the *deutera epinemēsis* (second indiction) began to be counted among the Greeks. But as it is manifest that the arrival of the Rontzerian fleet at Constantinople could have belonged to neither of those years, so it ought to be held as certain that it must be assigned to the month of September of the year of Christ 1303.
V. But behold, this assertion, established by the express affirmation of Pachymeres, is overturned by the contrary testimony of the same author. He writes in this manner on page 561: "When it happened that the twenty-third year of the reign of the senior emperor and the twelfth year of the junior were being fulfilled, etc." He reports the various events which happened at that juncture of time, when the 23rd year of the reign of Andronicus and the 12th of his son Michael had been fulfilled, that is, were counted as completed, with the following years having already begun. Among other events of this kind, he soon after recounts the inclusion of the junior Augustus Michael within Didymotichum, a fortified citadel in which he was necessarily contained, because the Roman soldiers whom he commanded, broken in spirit on account of the defeats they had received, did not dare to proceed from there and confront the enemies. The historian can understand no others here as enemies than the Catalans. And he himself immediately demonstrates clearly that he is speaking of them, being persuaded by evident proofs that the Catalans could not be overcome in open warfare by the arms of his own men, and that therefore he had entered into other methods of weakening them or enticing them to terms of peace. C The defeats, therefore, which Pachymeres here mentions as having been inflicted by the Catalans upon the Roman soldiers—of the army that the junior Augustus Michael commanded in the Western region—can have been none other than those which the same author reported in Book VI, chapter 30, and in chapter 32 of the same book. In the former, he narrates the advance against the Catalans some time after the death of the Caesar Rontzerius, as far as Adrianople and Pamphylum, and that the junior Augustus Michael had sent, with the entire Roman army—a part of this under three commanders, Duca, Umpertopulo, and Bossila—against Calliopolis, where the Catalans and Amogavari had their forces: but these, having been presented with the plunder of the Roman baggage, when they had thus broken their ranks, having sent in cavalry, routed them as they were wandering in disorder, and put them to flight, with two hundred killed and the commanders themselves wounded. In the latter place, namely Book VI, chapter 32, the same historian describes at length the battle subsequently fought by Augustus Michael, having drawn up all the Roman forces in battle array, against the Catalans, with the result that the Roman army was routed, while Michael himself, fighting bravely, was in danger of his life, and at last, having been saved with difficulty by fleeing, he first retreated to Pamphylum, but a little later, according to what our same author relates next in chapter 1, Book VII, he withdrew to Didymotichum, where he was forced to contain within the walls of the fortified citadel the Roman forces, which were exhausted by fear from the defeats they had received. If that, furthermore, happened when the twenty-third year of the reign of Andronicus and the twelfth of Michael was nearing its end, or rather already had been completed, it must undoubtedly have happened in the year of Christ 1306: for then D Andronicus, for whom the first year of his reign was 1283 after the death of his father, had completed the twenty-third year of his principate and had begun the twenty-fourth, while Michael, whose first year of his reign coincided with the eleventh of his father in the year of Christ 1293, had completed the twelfth year of his principate and had begun the thirteenth.
VI. And yet, since it cannot be reconciled that Pachymeres asserts from his witness of public memory, as most certain and seen by himself, that Rontzerius arrived at Constantinople in the month of September of the second indiction—this is now demonstrated from the series and connection of events and the intervals of time explicitly mentioned by Pachymeres. Rontzerius, having arrived in the city in the September of the second indiction, that is, in the year of Christ 1303, is magnificently received by Andronicus, is created Grand Duke, marries the niece of the emperor, and being sent to Cyzicus for winter quarters, is attacked by the Genoese upon his departure from the city. [P. 580] These events, narrated in Book V, chapter 14, easily account for the remainder of the year 1303. Therefore, around the beginning of the year of Christ 1304, the Catalans, having been received by the Cyzicenes with rich and abundant hospitality, thought of nothing less than the cause for which...
they had been sent: to go and attack the Persians who were hostile to the further provinces of the empire. A And so they remained from the spring until Arcturus, as Pachymeres writes—that is, from April to September, the month in which the star Arcturus rises eleven days before the autumn equinox. These are the words of Pliny, bk. II, c. 47. By these words, the historian signifies that they spent that entire season, which was fit for expeditions, in static camps—not so much by resting, which would have been a shameful thing in itself, as by harassing their most miserable hosts with pillaging, drunkenness, extortion, defilement, and every kind of most intolerable injustice. Pharenda Tzimes, one of the Latin leaders who was part of that army but not subject to Rontzerius, and who led soldiers properly in his own service, could not endure these crimes; he left together with them, returning to his fatherland, as Pachymeres relates, bk. V, c. 14. During that summer, the barbarian Persians acted with the greatest license throughout the entire Eastern dominion of the empire, plundering and laying everything waste; this is described at length by our author in bk. V, c. 21. For this reason, the Routzeriani—being solicited to run to the aid of the oppressed—constantly deferred their departure with various pretexts, both by others and by Marules, the imperial commander who was living at Cyzicus, mixed with some Roman troops and the Catalans. And when Marules himself, having invited Rontzerius in vain, moved against the enemies who had advanced into the vicinity and fought successfully, the booty which he and his men had taken from the Persians was extorted from him by the Catalans upon his return. Since, because of these and many such things, Rontzerius was suffering from a grave reputation at court, B he set out for the city towards the end of the year, as it seems, and easily purged himself of all things to Andronicus, who was credulous and devoted to him; he received from him a large sum of money for the pay, as he said, of the Alans—whom he also had mixed with his own men at Cyzicus—to be spent; and he promised a huge additional sum, to be paid within forty days from the collection of taxes, 801 just as was done in good faith. And so, laden with treasures, Rontzerius returned to his men around the beginning of the spring of the year 1305, as appears—that is, immediately, as the emperor hoped, to lead them against the Persians. But in the meantime, not a few of the Catalans, having packed onto ships the plunder which they had gathered by pillaging the Romans at Cyzicus and in the surrounding places, returned to their own homes without orders. From this followed an unequal division of the stipends by Rontzerius; the Italians were gifted generously, while the Alans were distributed the imperial money grudgingly. Hence, enmities arose between the two, and they were long exercised in mutual suspicions, hatreds, and quarrels. By these means, the expedition into the Persians was also deferred through various evasions during the summer of this year, as the Catalans were unwilling to leave their comfortable stationary camps, however much the emperor—whom the fact that Philadelphia was under siege by Alisyra, the Persian satrap, with strong forces was pressing most heavily—urged it; I would believe this happened towards the autumn of the year 1305.
VII. The year of Christ 1306 began, when the emperor, anxious for Philadelphia, which was already suffering from acute famine, A tested in vain via envoys and letters to move Rontzerius from Cyzicus during the first two months. In the third month, he sent his mother-in-law, Irene, widow of Asanes and his own sister, to him by a swift ship; this event, Pachymeres says on p. 421, took place when Holy Week was already captured towards the end of March—τῆς μεγάλης Ἑβδομάδος καταλαβούσης, Κρονίου μηνός λήγοντος. These items carry a certain character of this year of Christ 1306, in which Easter fell on the 3rd of April; nor can they agree with the previous one, which had Easter on the fourteenth day of April, whence the end of March could not reach Holy Week. Irene omitted nothing of art and industry to persuade Rontzerius to march against the Persians. But the Catalans were seeking pretexts for lingering in a place pleasing to them; meanwhile, insulting the Alans most haughtily, they fell upon them in a nightly sally, while they were themselves threatening one another through quarrels; whence, after a cruel battle was joined, the Alans were defeated, and the son of their leader, Georgios, was killed. But on the following day, which was the ninth of April, the Alans, rising up in turn, killed about three hundred of the Catalans. With the Alans appeased B somehow, [P. 581] in the month of May, at long last, the Rontzerian army began to move, consisting of Romans, Catalans, and Alans. These things are certain from Pachymeres, bk. IV, c. 21; in chapter 23, however, the same author mentions that the siege of Philadelphia was broken by the arrival of Rontzerius, and a battle was joined at Aulax, from which the leader of the Persians and Carmanians, Alisyras, having been wounded, looked to his own safety with a quick flight, moving himself to the camp of Amurius, the leader of his own parties. From this success, Rontzerius, widely celebrated, C extorted money most greedily from the Romans, bk. V, c. 26, depositing a part of the loot at Magnesia, which was faithful to him, as he thought, and whose occupier, Attaleiotes, he had reconciled to the emperor. But by this very man's instigation, the Magnesians rebelled against Rontzerius, and were attacked by him with all his might to no avail. The Alans fled from his camp, bk. V, c. 31. Andronicus, having sent many messengers and letters attempting in vain for a long time to tear Rontzerius away from the siege of Magnesia 802, finally persuaded him to cross to the Western region, so that there he might join his forces with the Junior Augustus Michael, who had already set out there. Therefore, he, having ravaged all the Roman regions through which he passed, finally led his troops partly to Mitylene and partly through Lampsacus to Madytos and other places of the Western continent, where the Catalans pillaged the Romans in a hostile manner. Pachymeres narrates these things in bk. VI, c. 3, which without doubt belong to October or November of the year of Christ 1306, when Andronicus had not yet completed his 24th year, nor Michael his 13th year of empire. Whence that is the latest time that it could be true what our author writes at the front of the seventh book: "It came to pass that both emperors now had their years of empire evolving—the senior indeed his twenty-third, but the junior his twelfth." For both had progressed much into the year—the former into the 24th, the latter into the 13th—but neither had finished it: for the years of both end equally at the end of December. Therefore, Pachymeres used a certain repetition while he wrote these things, and looking back from the memory which he was then treating D
A he recoiled, wishing, as I think, to mark the true beginning of the Catalan war, which, if one considers it rightly, proceeded from this time. Although Rontzerius and his soldiers still served as paid troops of the empire, they were undoubtedly plotting an open defection, certain signs of which the Genoese dwelling in Galata reported to Andronicus, as our author relates; for especially from this time, after the siege of Magnesia was abandoned, the Catalans showed no less insolence toward the Emperor and cruelty toward all the Romans than the barbarian Persian enemies themselves. And although Andronicus continued to treat them as allies, held back by cowardly fear, the other emperor, Michael, openly regarded them as the enemies they were, refusing to join them to himself even at his father's command, and showing himself prepared to rush upon them, as our author teaches in Book VI, chapters 3 and 13.
B VIII. It is indeed true that the war truly began to be waged by the Catalans against the Romans much more openly and savagely after the slaughter of Rontzerius, which occurred the following year. But from this, nothing follows except that there were, as it were, two beginnings to the Catalan War, one of which pertains to the autumn of the year of Christ 1306, and the other to the spring of the year 1307. Hence, we believe that Pachymeres, when he prepared himself to report the second, pulled back the epoch at the very threshold of Book VII from occurrences already past, and joined with it a mention of many events, some of which were of a later memory and did not pertain to the year of Andronicus completed 23, current 24, and Michael's completed 12, current 13, which was 1306 of Christ, but rather to the following year, 1307 of Christ, which Andronicus 25 and Michael 14 had entered. This, therefore, is the solution to the objection proposed above in no. 5. I concede the disadvantage argued to follow, that of moving back the arrival of Rontzerius into the city to the first indiction, if the double slaughter of the Emperor Michael by the Catalans and his subsequent inclusion within Didymoteichus were to fit into the year of Andronicus 803 23 completed, 24 started, and Michael's 12 finished, 13 begun. But I deny that this is so, and I say that this time is recorded from past memory through an C anacephalæosis; and from many events, which are bundled together there, most do not belong to that year, which was, as has often been said, 1306 of Christ, but to the following, 1307. Now let us return the other matters which pertain to Rontzerius.
IX. Our author was quite diligent in relating his promotion to the dignity of Caesar and the slaughter that followed not long after, with added notes of time, though some of these are somewhat obscure. Pachymeres reports (p. 522) that Rontzerius, having been sent for by Andronicus, donned the insignia of the Caesar's dignity and was duly acclaimed Caesar on the day that the resurrection of Lazarus was celebrated. This day in the calendar of the Greeks is the Saturday immediately preceding Palm Sunday. Furthermore, since in that year of Christ 1307, the solar cycle counting 28, the lunar cycle 15, the Sunday of the Resurrection fell a week later, Palm Sunday was, in all, the 18th day of March. Our historian adds to these in the following chapter, that is p. 524, that the new Caesar Rontzerius thought that the junior Emperor Michael, who had his camp near Adrianople, should be visited by him; and that he had therefore sent ahead to him Asanes, the brother of his wife. From him, he says, the first word of the coming D of Rontzerius was brought to Michael on the 28th day of Boedromion, "Boedromion, the eighth from the end." Boedromion is elsewhere always called by Pachymeres the month of April. But that it should not be so understood here is prohibited by what he adds on p. 525, that the Caesar was admitted by the Emperor on the fourth day after the week of Thomas. The week of Thomas is, among the Greeks, without any doubt, that which follows the octave of Easter, which we call "in albis" [Low Sunday] or "Quasi Modo"; during which the Sunday after Easter, the Greeks, like the Latins, recite among the sacred rites the passage of the Gospel from chapter XX of John, in which is narrated the doubt of Thomas the Apostle concerning the resurrection of Christ, corrected and healed by the touch of His sacred wounds, whence the name of the week of Thomas attached itself to the days following that Sunday by the custom of the Greeks. It is also manifest that the week of Thomas in that year, which, as we have shown, had Easter on March 26, could not have followed the 28th day of April. But neither could it fall in the following year of Christ 1308: for in this, Easter fell on April 14. Therefore, Pachymeres expressed something other than April by the name of Boedromion in this place. Nor is it new for him to vary the appellations of months, seeing that we have certainly detected that he has sometimes called January, which he is accustomed to call Hecatombaion, Lenaon; and that he once designated August, to which he is accustomed to adapt the nomenclature of Posideon, by the word Maemacterion, by which he is elsewhere accustomed to express June. And so, it must necessarily be understood that Boedromion is now said by Pachymeres to be March. On the 28th day of this, the third day after Easter, Michael, notified of Rontzerius's arrival, and having declared that he would receive him kindly, 804 set out on his way, and on the ninth day from this, the fourth day of the week of Thomas, the first after Easter, he was received. This was the 5th of April. On the following day, the Caesar Rontzerius, together with the Emperor Michael, was brought into the city of Adrianople with a solemn reception. But shortly after, the same Caesar, in the doorway of the chamber of the Empress whom he was going to greet, was killed by the Alans, who were revenging the slaughter of the son of George of Cyzicus committed by the Catalans, as is narrated more distinctly in Book VI, chapter 24.
[P. 583] CHAPTER VII. The matters which Pachymeres scatters in both parts of this history concerning the affairs and princes of the Mogulians, illustrated from Arabic monuments, are arranged in order of time.
I. Famous from about the one thousand two hundredth to the one thousand three hundred and fortieth year of Christ, but as some have rightly complained, recorded too perfunctorily by Greek and Latin writers, it is not easy for anyone else of these times to...
A distinguish them by a more common usage in their writings than our Pachymeres has done here. On this account, having long devoted serious labor to illustrating him, I could not, consistently with my duty, avoid attempting to bind together by some reliable chronological method the parts that he indicates here and there in a varied and confused manner, heaping up many details about the Mongols; for which, finding little assistance among Greek and Latin historians, I was forced to consult the Arabs. Among these, Gregory Abulpharagius, the Christian author of an accurate Chronicle, recently rendered from Arabic into Latin and published at London in both languages combined by Edward Pococke, a man most deserving in this field of literature, has—as I gratefully acknowledge—greatly assisted me. This chronicler lived and wrote, as can be gathered from various parts of his work, when the Palaiologan house began to rule at Constantinople, under the first emperors of that name, Michael and Andronicus the Elder, whose acts are the subject of these two volumes of Pachymerian history: he wrote, moreover, for the exact indication of deeds truly performed and for the ordering of times, as faithfully as I could explore by collation with all the best sources. Wherefore, in terms of the accuracy he provides in matters that can be refuted by the testimony of another, he seems worthy of being securely trusted in the matters he affirms alone.
B II. He, therefore, in the context of his Chronicle on p. 427, and indeed in the Latin translation on p. 280, says that in the year of the Hegira 599, the beginning of which was the 20th of September in the year of our vulgar Christian era 1202, the empire of the Moguls began, and the empire of Prestejannis, or Prester John, ceased. John was a common name for princes who formerly reigned most widely over the Asiatic Scythians, up to Mount Imaus, such that some write that seventy-two kings were at one time tributary to them. They practiced the Christian religion, but according to the heresy of Nestorius, and in wars they carried before them a double cross, one golden, the other gemmed. He who was the last to rule this empire, as Abulpharagius teaches—beyond the common name of John, properly called Ung Chan—when he set out to apprehend a certain man named Tamuiin, whom he had used for a long time, especially in wars, as a strenuous and most successful minister, but who had become hateful to him through the calumnies of rivals, he was himself defeated and slain by him, as he stood against him most fiercely. At that time, a certain man among the Moguls of great authority, affirming that God had appeared to him and declared that he had chosen Tamuiin, to whom he had decided to transfer the empire of the world and his descendants, conciliated the whole nation of the Mongols to him; by whose consent, being created emperor—as that fanatic whom I mentioned used to say—by God himself, he received the name of Gingizchan. Thus far Abulpharagius, to whom our Pachymeres is sufficiently in agreement in the first volume, c. 4, l. v, asserting that the legislator of the Tocharoi, who call themselves Mongols, had the name Tzinciscan, adding C that he had raised him from a blacksmith to the empire. He recounts at length their institutions, customs, and acts, indicating even the position of this new empire, the Caspian Gates, which place is situated on the borders of Media and Parthia.
III. Abulpharagius proceeds, reporting that in the year of the Hegira 600 Constantinople was taken by the Latins. The year of the Hegira 600 is in the era of Christ 1203, but only from the tenth day of the Julian month of September, on which day the neomenia of Muharram, the first month of the Arabs, falls. Since, however, we have demonstrated in the previous volume that Constantinople was taken by the Latins on the 12th of April of the year of Christ 1203, we are compelled to draw that epoch back by a few months, and assign it to the last quarter of the year of the Hegira 599, so that those two great transformations—the transfer of the empire from the Prestejannians to the Mongols, and the reduction of the capital of the Greek empire under the power of the Latins—might coincide in one and the same year of the Arabian era, which they call the Hegira, the five hundred and ninety-ninth. From thence, in the year of the Hegira 606, which began on the 6th of July of the year of Christ 1209, Gingizchan annexed to his empire the regions of Caracathaia, which seem to be adjacent to the Chinese kingdom of the Tartars. In the year of the Hegira 610, the beginning of which is from May 23 of the year of Christ 1213, Gingizchan, having declared war on Sultan Mohamed in revenge for the unjust slaughter of certain merchants, took the great city of Otrar by force after a siege of five months with an infinite slaughter of men, just as also in the year 617, whose Calends fall on March 8, he took the cities of Bokhara and Samarkand, which are far larger, to the latter of which, as Abulpharagius reports, Sultan Mohamed had assigned a garrison of one hundred and twenty thousand horsemen. But these having been routed in a most bloody battle, 806 Samarkand surrendered and was sacked, with thirty thousand men killed and as many led into slavery.
IV. In the year of the Hegira 618, beginning from February 25 of the year of Christ 1221, Gingizchan besieged Balkh, Talakan, and Bamiyan, the remaining most opulent and fortified cities of the Chorazan dominion, and defeated Jalalodin in battle at the Indus river, yet, admiring and praising the courage of this man, because when he had ordered him to be brought to him alive, the man, realizing from the slaughter of his own men around him why his enemies were sparing him, swam the river on horseback, and from the middle of it D swimming back, turned and shot an arrow at the Moguls. Abulpharagius says this happened in the month of Raieb, which is the seventh month in the Arabian year, asserting that from this miraculous success of Jalalodin’s bravery a proverb was born in Arabic, as it is usually said, "Live until Raieb, and you will see wonders." On this occasion, I will place here an experiment of the agreement of Abulpharagius with our chroniclers, which I have observed with pleasure. He says that in this same year of the Hegira 618, the Sultan of Egypt recovered Damietta from the Franks on Wednesday, the 19th of Raieb, after the Franks had remained in it for an entire year and eleven months. There is scarcely any other event of which there are more, and more certain, witnesses among our writers of proven faith.
A John of Vitry, Sanutus, Saint Antoninus, Nauclerus, Blondus, Aemilius, and others record with the greatest unanimity that Damiata was captured by the army of those signed with the cross on the Nones of November, 1219, and that it was returned to the sultan in 1221, on the birthday of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the eighth of September. You see how exactly Abulpharagius defines the time that Damiata was held by the Latins as one year and eleven months. Now it must be inquired whether with equal reliability he assigns A the nineteenth day of the month of Raieb to that restitution. This year 618 of the Hegira, as I have said, had the Kalends of its first month, Muharram, on the same day of the Julian era of Christ, 1221, which was reckoned as the twenty-fifth of February. Hence it is evident that the Kalends of Raieb, the seventh month of the Arabs, fell on the twenty-first of August of that year. If you count nineteen days from the 21st of August, you will reach the eighth of September. And if you wish to know on what day of the week it fell, ask what number the cycle of the sun was reckoned as in that year. It was the year of Christ 1221, of the Julian period 5934. This number, divided by 28, leaves 26, which was the sun’s cycle for this year. Now, the Dominical letter C belongs to the 26th cycle of the sun, which, since it corresponds to the fifth of September in the Julian calendar, shows that that day in that year was a Sunday, and consequently that the eighth day of the same month must necessarily have been a Wednesday, or the fourth day of the week, as Abulpharagius notes.
V. In the year of the Hegira 624, the Muharram of which began on the 22nd of December in the year of Christ 1226, Gingizkhan, the first emperor of the Mogulenses, died on the 4th day of the month of Ramadan, the ninth in order in the 807th Arabic year. This death fell in the autumn of the year of Christ 1227. Abulpharagius adds that he had reigned for about twenty-five years, which is true, since, as we have seen, he began to reign in the year of Christ 1202, 599 of the Hegira. In the year of the Hegira 626, the Muharram of which began on the 30th of November in the year of Christ 1228, an assembly being gathered of the entire Mogul nation, Ogtaï, his third son, was elected emperor by the will of Gingizkhan. Out of modesty, he refused for forty days, saying that his uncles or brothers who were born before him should be preferred to him. Finally, B by the consent of Batu, son of his eldest brother who had recently died, he allowed himself to be placed on the throne by his uncle Utacin and his elder brother Ogtaï, and he accepted the title "Kaan" imposed on him by them. In the year of the Hegira 627, whose Kalends of Muharram occupied the twentieth day of November in the Julian year of Christ 1229, the new Mogul emperor, Kaan, undertook an expedition against the king of Cathay. Now, as to what Cathaia was, he who would rather learn from this author, who is suitable, than from the silly fables of peddlers mocking the credulity of the vulgar, will no longer doubt that it is the Chinese kingdom, today most famous in Europe for the voyages of the Portuguese, and that it is the very same thing that Aiton the Armenian, Paul the Venetian, and other writers of the interior and especially of the Orient B of Asia, signified by the name Chatai. For this Abulpharagius teaches that Altun Chan, the king of Cathaia at that time, had awaited the success of this Tartar incursion in his primary city, Namcinc, or as others commonly write, Namquin, having sent an army of one hundred thousand of his strongest soldiers to keep the Mogulenses from the borders. But Altun Chan, having hoped for something far different, heard most unexpectedly that these forces had been destroyed in a bloody battle by the Kaan, who was personally leading the legions of the Mogulenses; and he was so dismayed by this that he burned his sons and wives with him in his own palace, lest he fall alive into the hands of the Mogulenses. Soon after, those who arrived subjected both Namquin and the other greatest cities of Cathaia to themselves. Moreover, it is very well known that Namquin is the name of another royal city of the empire of the Chinese, which it should not seem incredible to have been captured by the Tartars, since in this our own age we have learned by the most certain reports that a similar Tartar incursion occurred into the Chinese kingdom; and it is stated quite explicitly that this same city of Namquin was also captured and devastated, and likewise another, Pequinum, where the intercepted king of the Chinese showed his desperation by a death no less tragic than that of Altun Chan at the time. For so that he would not be a laughingstock to the victors, having first beheaded his daughter, he hanged himself from a tree in the year of Christ 1644, as is read in the history published on this matter by our own Martin Martini, who was almost an eyewitness to it, which we also heard delivered from his own mouth and that of our Father Michael Boymi while they were here in Rome. In fact, our Father Benedict Goez, sent to Goa on the 16th of January in the year of Christ 1603, clearly discovered during a three-year journey that Cathaia was nothing other than China, upon arriving at the city of Suceum, in the Chinese kingdom, toward the end of the year of Christ 1605. Finally, Abulpharagius clearly testifies to this very thing elsewhere, namely on page 351 of this same Chronicle of his.
VI. Here we shall briefly relate the rest of the deeds of the second Mogul emperor, C the more willingly because the events that occur soon after these are found to be not a little suited to illustrating this history of ours by Pachymeres. Abulpharagius records that the Kaan, having returned from the Chinese expedition, gave numerous and powerful forces, D with the mandate to undertake an expedition into the northern regions and to subjugate Sclavonia, Alania, Russia, and Bulgaria, to Batu, the son of his eldest brother who had recently died. Complying with these commands, Batu produced huge slaughters of men; for, as Abulpharagius says there, since the Kaan had ordered the soldiers setting out for this war that each one should cut off the right ear of the men whom he killed and carry it with him as a sign of the number, those who were in charge of this grim reckoning discovered, by the argument of two hundred seventy thousand right ears exhibited, that as many men had been put to death. The Arab chronicler adds that, with the affair in Sclavonia having gone well, Batu decided to attack
Constantinople, with the intention of moving into Bulgaria. But he encountered the kings of the Franks A there—that is, the leaders of the Latins who then held Constantinople—who, in frequent battles, defeated the Mogulenses and forced them to turn tail (the words are Abulpharagius’), to the extent that, having returned from these incursions, the Mogulenses never again, to this day, attacked the regions of the Greeks or the Franks. By such a narrative, it sufficiently appears that the wars and incursions of many years into the various parts of the Roman Empire of the East, attempted by the Mogulenses with varying success, are implied; whence it is no idle conjecture that this Tocharic tumult, skirting the Roman provinces from about the year of the Hegira 628 to 638—that is, from the year of Christ 1230 to 1240—troubled those who reigned in Nicaea, the Greeks Lascaris or Batatzes, and also Baldwin of that name the second, who reigned in Constantinople. Furthermore, that the Latins resisted the Tocharis more vigorously and successfully than the Greeks in that war—a fact which Pachymeres perhaps too little candidly glossed over—Abulpharagius explicitly affirms here. From this we also learn that the Greeks owed the withdrawal of the Tocharis from their borders to the fortitude of the Latins, proven by the victories won over the Mogulenses in Bulgaria; had they not been restrained by the fear of the Latins from attacking any who were [already] at war, the consternation of the Greeks at the mere mention of the Tocharic war, often and at length recalled by Pachymeres, sufficiently gives one to understand how much they were likely to have suffered. For without a doubt, what he relates in vol. I, p. 133, concerning the terror of the Nicaean emperors whenever the rumor of the Tocharis had increased, pertains to this; as also what he reports on p. 149 concerning the panic of the city of Nicaea at the rise of a groundless murmur of the incursion of 809 these [peoples]. However, the Mogulenses, repelled by fear from the Roman provinces at that time, seem to have settled in Persia; where, Pachymeres narrates at length in the same place, p. 153, they exerted their efforts while the Caliph who dominated there was defeated and oppressed, adding that the Tocharis warring in Persia were commonly called Atarii. Which name one might perhaps not rashly suspect to be derived from the name of their leader, as they called themselves Batuarii after Batu, because they served under his auspices, [and] through popular corruption by peoples of different languages, they were called Atarii.
VII. Meanwhile, following what other Mogulenses leaders were doing elsewhere, Abulpharagius relates that in the year of the Hegira 633, which begins on the 16th of September of the year of Christ 1235, the city of Carmalisa, very large and in the region of Arbela, was captured by the Mogulenses, and in the following year Arbela itself, after a siege of forty days, was taxed a great sum of money. In the year of the Hegira 635, Christ 1237, from the 24th of the month of August, the Mogulenses running into the borders of Baghdad were first defeated in battle, but later, returning with new forces, they routed the Baghdad army in a bloody battle at a place called Canekinium. In the year 639 of the Hegira, Christ 1241, from the 12th of July, the Mogulenses under the leader Jarmaguno took the city of Arzen Rum B by force. In the year of the Hegira 640, Christ 1242, on the 1st of July, the Mogulenses defeated the sultan Giatlodinus in battle, captured his cities of Sivas, Caesarea, and Azenganum, and with these evils [P. 587] forced the defeated sultan to impose tribute. In the year of the Hegira 643, Christ 1245, on May 29, Kaan, the second emperor of the Mogulenses, ceased to live, having previously designated his successor and summoned for this purpose, while he still lived, his son Cayucus; who received the news of his father’s death on the journey. The mother of Cayucus, called Turacina, who had been Chatun—that is, the lady or primary wife—of Kaan, administered the empire until the assembly of the whole nation could convene. In the year of the Hegira 644, Christ 1246, on May 19, a great congress of the princes and leaders of the Mogulenses was celebrated in the spring, says Abulpharagius—that is, I think, in the month of April of the year of Christ 1247, while 644 of the Hegira was still current. In this assembly, Cayucus, the eldest of the sons of Kaan, was declared emperor, not by the mere prerogative of age or the judgment of his father, but by the merit of his outstanding virtues and gifts, preferred over Cubanus and Siramunus, his younger brothers; and the title Cayuc-Chanis was added to him. He had two principal Christian ministers, one of whom was named Kadacus, the other Ginkai; by their favor, bishops and monks were immensely honored by Cayuc-Chan us, his mother, and his whole royal family. Whence it happened that the Christian religion grew there to such an extent, as Abulpharagius indicates by these words: “And it came to pass,” he says, “that the empire became Christian, and the peoples who gave their name to this religion, from the Franks, Russians, Syrians, and Armenians, were held in great esteem.” And they were reduced to such a point, both those of better note and the common Mogulenses and others 810 mingled with them, that while greeting one another they would say *Barechmor*, which is a composite Syriac word meaning "Bless, Lord." I think we must refer to the times of this Mogulenses emperor Cayuc-Chanis what Pachymeres relates in the first volume, chapters 3 and 4, book 5, regarding Noga, one of the leaders of the army which we said was sent by Kaan, the second emperor of the Mogulenses, into the northern tracts to subjugate them, having been placed over all by Batu, the son of his brother, by whom we have indicated earlier in n. 6 of this chapter, following Abulpharagius, that Sclavonia and Russia were occupied. But the Constantinopolitan empire having been unsuccessfully attempted by the Mogulenses C due to the fierce onslaughts against them and the victories of the Latins dominating Byzantium, Batu, abstaining from harassing not only them but also the Greeks, with the main part of his forces seems to have withdrawn first into Persia, then to his own people in the interior of the East, closest to the company of his kinsman Cayuc-Chanis, having left Noga in Sclavonia and Russia to protect what had been gained there. But the latter, as Pachymeres reports, when, having increased his forces from the indigenous youth brought over to his own customs, he thought himself sufficiently instructed to defend those rich and fertile regions under his own auspices, declared himself supreme prince from being a prefect, obedience having thereafter been denied to the Mogulenses emperors. Which contumacy he carried for a long time with impunity,
A either because they were negligent in that matter, or because they did not have sufficient soldiers to send against Nogah to subdue the rebel; whence it happened that he was strengthened in his principality by the perfidy he had sought, and flourished in power; moved by which, Michael Palaeologus, having recovered Constantinople and holding the entire Eastern empire, sought his friendship and affinity of his own accord, giving his own daughter Euphrosyne to Nogah in marriage, as our author relates at length in chapter 4, book V, of the former part, where Pachymeres insinuates that the dynasty of Nogah was gradually confirmed by long possession and frequent success in his undertakings, B partly by escaping the efforts of the old lords who sought to reclaim the fugitive by art and guile, and partly by repelling them by force. From this, it is not unreasonable to suspect that from the year of Christ 1250, when Batu, as we shall soon say, was called away for a long time from the care of the northern border by the greater affairs of the Mogul empire, Nogah began to manage his own affairs there; and continued to grow ever greater, until twelve years later, in the year of Christ about 1262, when Emperor Michael judged him to be of such a sort that his intimate affinity—by which he then made him his son-in-law—would seem to be both an honor and a protection to his own affairs.
[P. 588] VIII. In the year of the Hegira 647, the first day of which was the 16th of April in the Julian year of Christ 1249, Turacina, the beloved mother of Cayuc-Chan, having first died, he himself, from grief, changed his place on his journey toward the Eastern parts and met his fate on the ninth day of Rabia Prior, the third month in the Arabic year, that is, on the fifty-seventh day from the Kalends of Muharram, which note of number designates the eleventh day of June. With the affairs of the Mogulenses B being thrown into confusion by this unexpected event, the entire care of the empire devolved upon Batu, the eldest of the line of Genghis Khan. He, having taken the rule into his hands during the interregnum, gave his attention to convening a diet according to the custom of the nation; which matter, because of the distance of the places and the occupations of the princes in the provinces, had longer delays than usual. In this same year, rightly and consonantly with our chronologists, Abulpharagius places the first expedition of Saint Louis into Syria and Egypt, whom Fame, having tossed the sound of his name into Arabic letters, calls Redefrans. From him, he reports that Damietta was captured; then he relates other things concerning him in the same order as our historians. It was worthwhile to have pointed this out in passing as a specimen of the veracity of this Chronicle. In the year of the Hegira 648 succeeding this, whose Kalends of Muharram proceed from the fifth day of April in the year of the vulgar Christian era 1250, two years having now passed since the death of Cayuc-Chan, Batu, seeing that he had labored in vain thus far in summoning the Mogulense princes from afar and compelling them to a legitimate diet, declared Munkakau, of the line of Genghis Khan, endowed with great gifts, duly Emperor on the advice of those present and with the assent of the absent, declared by messengers and letters, with the title of Kaan added to him. Nor, however, did this take place before the spring time of the following year, of the Hegira 649, C which Arabic year began from the 26th of March in the Julian year of Christ 1251. Whence we understand that the auspices of the empire of Munkakau Kaan, fixed on the ninth day of Rabia Prior, as Abulpharagius expressly asserts, proceed exactly from the Kalends of June in the Julian year of Christ mentioned, 1251. It seems that this Munkakaus Kaan was the first to innovate something in the government of the empire, which it is in our interest to observe. For he took to himself as colleagues from among his seven brothers the two eldest, Kobla and Hulacu; the former of whom he sent to the remotest parts of the East, namely Cathaia and the Chinese provinces, to guard the border of the Mogul empire there, and he placed the latter, Hulacu, in charge of the Western tracts of the same empire—that is, the regions of Persia, Babylonia, and others bordering on the Roman empire—with supreme power, which he exercised there for many years; whence by Pachymeres, vol. I, p. 174, he is called D *Chalau* (for so he deforms the name Hulacu) *Toxarōn* prince, simply prince of the Tochari; and in Abulpharagius, p. 337, the counselors of the Caliph of Baghdad, deliberating on the manner of resisting the huge forces which Hulacu was leading, call him a most powerful king. It seems that Munkakaus Kaan descended to the decision of sharing the empire with his brothers, having been taught by experience how difficult it was for one to govern so many and such widely sprawling provinces. Indeed, in the second year of his empire, 650 of the Hegira, whose Kalends of Muharram progressed from the 14th of March in the Julian year of Christ 1252, he had scarcely survived a strong conspiracy against him by the princes of his people, after which, once it was oppressed, Abulpharagius reports that he immediately sent Kobla, the eldest of the brothers, into the parts of Cathaia, and Hulacu, the second of them, to the Western border of the Mogul empire.
IX. In the year of the Hegira 651, whose first day in the Julian year of Christ 1253 is the third of the month of March, Hulacu, or Chalau, took up the prefecture of the Western provinces of the Mogul empire committed to him in the previous year, to which he set out leading a very numerous and chosen army: for he chose two from every decade of soldiers. Munkakaus Kaan also supplied him with a huge apparatus of arms and engines with their craftsmen. He also led with him his eldest son [P. 589] (Abakam, says Abulpharagius: he is without doubt the one whom Pachymeres calls Apagam) and his primary Christian wife, by name Dukusum. All of which it is useful to recall, since they build faith in those things which Pachymeres hands down regarding Chalau. In the years of the Hegira 653 and 654, Abulpharagius lists certain deeds of Hulacu that are sufficiently conspicuous, but of little pertinence to us. Whence we advance our step to the year of the Hegira 655: for in it Abulpharagius records even too many things that concern us. This Arabic year began from the 19th of January of the year of Christ 1257, whence it is almost entirely commensurate with this. In it, Abulpharagius writes, p. 334 and following, that Theodorus, Emperor of the Greeks, was sick in the city of Nicaea; [alt-version omitted]
and that he A had harassed a certain patrician from his own retinue, Michael surnamed Palaeologus, whom he suspected of aspiring to the throne based on certain prophecies that were being circulated; and that he ordered him to be arrested in a certain fortress in the territory of Thessalonica, and to be taken to a prison by a certain Gadinus—who, however, predicted the empire for him, yet nonetheless carried out the order of Emperor Theodorus. He adds that, moved by compassion after Michael was brought to him, he released him and appointed him guardian to his small son, whom he was leaving behind, named Calo-Joannes. And shortly after his death, he was buried in the monastery of Magnesia. He adds the murder of Muzalon, the promotion of Michael Palaeologus to the empire, the sidelining of the boy Calo-Joannes, the expulsion of Arsenius the patriarch into exile by order of Michael (because he had reprimanded him for the oppression of the ward); finally, he accumulates above all the recovery of the city of Constantinople and the expulsion of the Latins from it, relating the manner of the event in which, as in those mentioned above, certain discrepancies of no great moment from the Pachymerian narrative may be easily detected and corrected by comparison with Book I, part one of this our history. One thing we must necessarily correct here: his statement that the span of time during which the city of Constantinople, having been returned to the Greeks at that time, remained in the power of the Latins, was about fifty-three years. For Georgius Acropolita, B whom we have described and whom we proved correctly enumerated the years in Book III, chapter 4, n. 3, of our former Observations, correctly affirmed that Constantinople was held by the Latins for more than fifty years; for it was captured by them on April 12, in the year of Christ 1203, and returned to the Greeks on July 25, in the year of Christ 1261. It was, of course, a deception for Abulpharagius that he gathered all these things, as he had heard them simultaneously, into one bundle in the single year of his Chronicle; if he had distinguished them, he would have been led to the year of the Hegira 659, the Kalends of Muharram of which began on the sixth day of December in the year of Christ 1260, so the greater part of that Arabic year coincides with the Julian year 1261 in our common era.
X. Let us, however, I suggest, forgive Abulpharagius for that fault of any kind of confusing four years together, which he excuses by the ignorance—scarcely avoidable in a man living as a foreigner—of Greek affairs that were not in themselves very significant, and which were transacted in places remote from commerce; especially since at that same time the minds of all were drawn toward the prodigious progress of the Mogul empire under the auspices of Hulacu, or Chalau, through inner Asia, leaving D them no space to observe other far smaller matters more distinctly. For immediately after that year of the Hegira 655, in which Abulpharagius reports that the Greek Emperor Theodorus was sick—which we have not poorly expanded in our chronology in the final chapter of the first volume of our Observations, even if we placed the first mention of Theodorus’s illness in the year of Christ 1258, corresponding to the year of the Hegira 656, because at that time it began to grow worse—we do not deny that it had grown worse earlier that year; indeed the historical sequence indicates that it happened immediately after, namely in the year of the Hegira 656, the beginning of which was the eighth day of January in the year of Christ 1258 just mentioned. In that very month of Muharram, the first of the year, Hulacu assaulted and captured with supreme force the city of Baghdad, a city by far the greatest, formerly called Babylon, the metropolis of the Caliph's kingdom. Having brought this into order, and having turned his territory into a province of the Mogul empire, he struck terror into the neighboring dynast, the lord of Mausela, and made him tributary to himself. And he ordered the dynast Astraphus, who, trusting in his most fortified citadel, refused to submit to the yoke, to be besieged by his men in that very city of his, Mihapharekinus, even though it was impregnable, to be subdued by famine. The siege lasted more than two years. Finally, in the year of the Hegira 658, Astraphus, since most of his men had been consumed by famine, surrendered and was led to Hulacu, and by his order was put to death. In that same year of the Hegira 658, which beginning on the 18th of December of the year of Christ 1259 extended until December of the year of Christ 1260, Hulacu, having constructed a bridge over the Euphrates, crossed into Syria, leading with him formidable forces of four hundred thousand, with which he took Damascus in passing and captured Aleppo after a few days' siege, with the slaughter of countless people found there. Al Naser, the lord of Aleppo, having already fled beforehand with his wives and children, was later captured and killed. Following this, when Hulacu had departed from Syria, there was left by him there, to preside over the province, Celboga, who with ten thousand cavalry was defeated in battle and killed by Kutuz, the Turcoman prefect of Egypt. In the same year, Munkakaus Kaan, the supreme emperor of the Moguls, having joined battle against the rebelling King of the Chinese, was struck by an arrow and fell. Regarding his succession, there was a struggle between his two brothers for eighteen years thereafter, with Arigbuga, the younger, eventually failing and yielding to Kublai, who was recommended not only by the prerogative of age but also by merits, and who also prevailed by arms. Through this civil dissension of such a long time, Hulacu was, as is evident, confirmed all the more securely in his absolute empire over the Western regions which he governed.
XI. Therefore, in order to recover Syria, lost by the defeat of Cetbuga, he sent a huge army of his own in the year of the Hegira 659—which began on the 6th of December in the year of Christ 1260, and consequently extended into the greater part of the year of Christ 1261—under a certain commander, Gugalcius, who, upon his first arrival, easily subdued everything up to Aleppo, killing very many of those who resisted here and there. But since he had returned to his own side too hastily, the large forces of the Egyptians coming upon them snatched Syria away from the Moguls again. It is of interest for us here to observe under whose auspices this such successful expedition of the Egyptians was undertaken; for our Pachymeres treats this not perfunctorily in Book 10, chapters 3, 4, and 5 of the first volume, relating the actions performed by Michael Palaeologus immediately after his solemn coronation.
A which he received through the ministry of Patriarch Arsenius, just as it is narrated in the same place, chap. 2; however, we demonstrate in book III of our Observations on that volume, chapters 4 and 10, that this coronation was celebrated in the year of Christ 1261, that is, in that very year which Abulpharagius is now discussing, counting it as the year of the Hegira 659. He writes, therefore, in the place just indicated, that Pachymeres was anxious about Michael establishing for himself the recently acquired empire, and that he sought to reconcile to himself those whom he saw to be most powerful among the neighboring princes. And easily seeing that at that time the prince of the Tocharoi, that is, Hulacu, whom Abulpharagius mentions frequently, and the Sultan of the Ethiopians, occupied a prominent position among the neighboring dynasts due to their wealth, he sought to win the favor of both through services and embassies. On this occasion, he mentions concerning the Sultan of the Ethiopians that he was of Cuman descent, which region is near the Euxine Sea; having been sold long ago into slavery to the Egyptian master, he transformed his servile chains into a royal diadem there through his own industry. He adds that he was a man of the greatest prudence; and because he saw that those born in Egypt were of little use for the labors of war, he had bought youths in great numbers from Scythia and other regions across the Pontus, whom he maintained with himself and then used as sturdy soldiers, a trade which Emperor Michael permitted, to the great detriment of the Christian cause: for from this, the Sultan of Egypt, having increased in wealth, expelled the Latins who were occupying Palestine. These things Pachymeres writes; which are much illustrated by a comparison with those things that Abulpharagius writes in this place. For he says B that after Kutuz the Turcoman, ruler of Egypt, had defeated and slain in battle Cetbuga, the commander of the Mogulenses in Syria, which he says happened on the 27th day of the month Ramadan in the year of the Hegira 658, which is the 3rd day of September in the year of Christ 1260, quite well knowing that the Mogulenses would not rest from seeking vengeance for that disaster, he had hastened into Egypt, so that he might prepare forces there with which to oppose them itself: but on that journey, having progressed near Gaza, he was killed by a certain man named Baibars. He adds that this Baibars, having reconciled and joined to himself the forces that had served under Kutuz, had with them entered Egypt and occupied it. He reports in the same place that this Baibars had previously been a slave of a certain great leader in Egypt, who had the name Bundokdar; whence at the beginning he was named the younger Bundokdar. But after he became Sultan of Egypt, he was surnamed by his own people Rucnodinus Al Malec Al Dhaher. Nevertheless, Abulpharagius proceeds in the following sections to call him Bundokdar, recounting his greatest successes against the Latin Christians holding Antioch and the maritime parts of Syria, whom he expelled, just as Pachymeres also laments in volume 1, book III, chapter 5, imputing the blame for their disasters in part to the imprudent avarice of Michael Palaeologus, who for a modest gain permitted Scythian slaves of tender age to be exported from Pontus into Egypt, who would then grow up there into robust soldiers, fatal to Christian interests. Whom, therefore, Pachymeres calls a slave at the C hands of the Ethiopians' Sultan, he who had expelled the Latins from Syria was, without doubt, he whom Abulpharagius teaches was called by the native name Baibars, and by the name of the master whom he had served, was titled Bundokdarem.
XII. Let us now refer to the intermitted matters of Hulacu, or Chalau, and the D Mogulenses subject to him, useful for a comparison with the events subsequently narrated by Pachymeres. Abulpharagius reports in this same manner indicated, in the year of the Hegira 659, the beginning of which was the sixth day of December of the year of Christ 1260, that a Mogulense army was sent into Syria by Hulacu, under the leadership of Samdagu, who, favoring the Christians, had besieged the city of Mausela, with Al Saleho, the prince of Syria, enclosed within it, and that the Mogulenses, coming upon the reinforcements that were arriving from Syria to the besieged, surrounded and slaughtered them in a massacre, then took Mausela, and found many in it whom they killed, and others they led away into slavery; the prince Al Saleho himself was brought to Hulacu and killed by his order. These great victories of Chalau moved Michael Palaeologus Augustus to strive with every resource to procure the benevolence of a prince so powerful and almost bordering. Therefore, as Pachymeres narrates in book III, chapter 3 of the first part, he sent ambassadors to him, who might greet him and ask for his friendship, offering his own daughter Maria as a bride. Pachymeres indicates that a reciprocal embassy had come from Chalau to Michael, by which he signified that the condition offered was pleasing to him. But the same is found expressed more distinctly in the Chronicle of Abulpharagius, p. 355, where, having narrated the death of Hulacu, of which it will be spoken soon, he writes that he had already previously sent ambassadors to Constantinople, who asked for the daughter of the ruler there as a wife for himself. It appears that these mutual embassies of Michael and Hulacu were concluded from the year 661 of the Hegira to 663, of which years the former begins from the 15th day of November of the year of Christ 1262, the latter from the 24th or 25th of October of the year of Christ 1264. Furthermore, once Michael had perceived the will of Hulacu, he strenuously ensured that his daughter Maria would be led to him with magnificent pageantry through the archimandrite of the Pantocrator monastery, named Prince, from the illustrious family of the Peloponnesian dynasts, whom Pachymeres, in the place most recently cited, says had received news of Chalau’s death on that journey, yet had not returned with the task unaccomplished, but had led the bride destined for him to his son and successor Apagam, who joined her to himself as a wife. Abulpharagius expresses these very things even more distinctly, mentioning the ambassadors of the Emperor of Constantinople, who were accompanying his daughter betrothed to Hulacu; when they had reached Caesarea, they received news of the death of Hulacu, but did not for that reason adopt the counsel of turning back; instead, they led the girl to Abakam, who had already been placed on his father Hulacu’s royal throne, who duly united her to himself as his spouse. This, without doubt, pertains to the year of the Hegira 664, the Calends of whose Muharram occupied the thirteenth day of October of the year
of Christ 1265, and because many things of great weight are massed together by Abulpharagius for this year—namely, the death of Hulacu and, after some interval, the death also of Dukusa, his Christian spouse, and then, after this, the assembly A of the Mogul princes, who, because of his prudence, competence, erudition, etc., which they perceived in him, as Abulpharagius says, elected Abaka by free suffrage as the supreme emperor of their race and immediately crowned him according to their rite—they do not seem to be easily reconcilable into the first trimester of the Arabic year. It is more likely that we should defer the auspices of Abaka's reign and his marriage to Maria to the year of Christ 1266. It must be noted here that Abaka—or, as Pachymeres calls him, Apayam—had duly received the title of supreme Khan of the Moguls, whereas his father, though powerful enough to exercise such rule, had abstained from the title. This may seem all the more marvelous as it was sufficiently known that Kublai was still living, who had succeeded the deceased Munkakao Kaan in the empire five or six years prior to this, in the year of the Hegira 659, as we reported a little above in n. 10. But because, as was stated in the same place, a civil war was kindled between them when his younger brother, Arigbuga, claimed the succession of the empire for himself, which lasted for eighteen years and consequently was prolonged for twelve or thirteen years from this date, the whole of the Mogul empire appeared B to consist in strength and authority, with the Eastern regions troubled by fraternal dissension and in the West the house long ago founded by Hulacu (who himself was also a brother of Munkakai Kaan); and the succession of the Mogul princes is traced from this point forward by the Arab chronologists, neglecting Kublai, whom Abulpharagius relates to have finally prevailed over Arigbuga, and indicates that he lived peacefully for some time in a certain semblance of absolute rule; even if others later took the title of Mogul Kaan in that extreme limit. These are men whom neither our Abulpharagius here, nor the Arab chronologists from whom the supplement of this Chronicle is compiled—Al Jannabius, Abulfeda, and Ebn Yusephus—thought worthy of even a mention. Whence, following the same Munkakao Kaan, we can continue with Abaka, counting him the fourth from Gingizchane and, absolutely, the fifth emperor of the Moguls.
XIII. Abakas-Chan (for thus Abulpharagius names him from the time he was inaugurated emperor) sent an army to recover Syria, to which he appointed as leader his own younger brother, called Kungortai, since Bundokdaro, the sultan of Egypt and Syria, had been defeated and died shortly before. The Moguls, under the leadership of Kungortai, immediately subdued everything in those parts, having easily advanced as far as Aleppo, and brought that very city into subjection; but, as they had done on other occasions, they retreated too quickly, and were therefore soon forced to return under the leadership of Munga Timuro, having been reinforced with the troops of the King of Armenia, just as is subsequently set forth there more distinctly. But I, examining more attentively the sequence of these events as they are recorded in the Chronicle, found a few things to be muddled C regarding the accounts of Abulpharagius; which, indeed, because of the faith and diligence of this author proved in other matters, I would more willingly attribute to the error of librarians creeping into the numerical signs. For it is written on page 360 of this Chronicle that Kungortai was sent into Syria in the year of the Hegira 679. The Calends of Muharram of that Arabic year fall on the third day of May in the Julian calendar in the year of Christ 1280. Immediately after, it is added that this army under the leadership of Kungortai operated in Syria in the winter of the year of the Hegira 680, which it is certain commenced on the day counted as the twenty-second of April in the year of Christ 1281. Here the first most unexpected thing occurs, namely, that an interval of nearly two years is placed between the beginning of the expedition undertaken from nearby and the deed performed by it. Abulpharagius adds that Kungortai, having traversed the whole of Syria and easily brought it under control up to Aleppo, had retreated; but when the peoples there rebelled again, another army of fifty thousand was sent to the same place by Abaka in the year of the Hegira 681, with the leadership given to Munga Timuro, his youngest brother; to whom the King of Armenia joined himself as a companion with his own troops. These two armies, joined together, encountered the Syrians and Egyptians, who were drawn up with very powerful forces, between Hama and Hems; and a sharp and bloody battle having been immediately commenced with them, the Moguls and Armenians were neither clearly the victors, nor, however, were they completely defeated. After that doubtful outcome, Munga having led the army back into Mesopotamia, he was destroyed by poison on the journey toward Nisibis. To these things, Abulpharagius continuously appends that in the same year, namely 681 of the Hegira, Abaka, after he had celebrated the festival of Easter with the Christians, D on the following day, Monday, having been received at a banquet by a certain Persian named Banham, drank poison mixed into his food by this man, from which he began to fall severely ill on the following Tuesday, and died on the contiguous Wednesday. He says that this Wednesday was the twentieth of the month of Dhul-Haiah; this is the final month of the year of the Arabs. We have here two characters: the Easter of the Christians and the fourth day of the week concurring on the 20th of Dhul-Haiah, neither of which corresponds to the year of the Hegira 681, as I most clearly demonstrate. The year of the common Christian era 1283, into whose month at least beyond the third the year of the Hegira 681 necessarily runs, began on the eleventh day of April of the preceding year 1282, when it belonged to the Julian period 5996, reckoned the cycle of the sun as 4 with the dominical letter C, and the cycle of the moon as 14. These signs indicate the Easter of the Christians on the 18th day of April, which day necessarily exceeded the limits of the year of the Hegira 681. This cannot be denied by anyone who knows, which is certain, that the Arabic year is shorter than the Julian by at least ten days. Whence it is manifest that, if the Arabic year 681 began on the 22nd day of April of the year of Christ 1282, it must have ended before the 18th day of April of the year of Christ 1283, since from the 18th day of April to the 22nd day of the same month there do not intervene ten days. See, it is clearly shown that the Easter of the Christians of the year of the Hegira 681 could not have fallen into the month of Dhul-Haiah, the last of the Arabic year.
A Next, with equal evidence, I demonstrate that the twentieth day of Dhul-Haiah in that same year of the Hegira 681 was not a Wednesday. That Arabic year was embolismic and consequently consisted of 355 days, and Dhul-Haiah, its last month, which in ordinary years is hollow, in that year was full, numbering thirty days. Let 355 be subtracted, which is the number of days in the year of the Hegira 681, from 365 starting from April 22 of the year of Christ 1282: the last of the remainders will fall on the eleventh of April of the year of Christ 1283. This is the thirtieth of Dhul-Haiah; from which, if you proceed backward by ten days, you will find the twentieth of that same Dhul-Haiah to be the first of March, which was a Thursday (the fifth day of the week), that year having the dominical letter C, and not, as Abulpharagius says, a Wednesday (the fourth day of the week).
XIV. The reader, brought by these things to admit that those two chronological characters—Easter falling in the month of Dhul-Haiah, and the fourth weekday marking the twentieth day of Dhul-Haiah—do not fit the year of the Hegira 681 at all, will perhaps ask whether they fit another. One will not have to go far: I say that both fit most aptly the preceding year, namely the Hegira 680. This year took its beginning from the 22nd day of April (Julian) in the year of Christ 1281, and ended on the tenth day of that same April in the following year of Christ 1282. It was the year of Christ 1282 of the Julian period 5995. It had a solar cycle of 5 with the dominical letter D, and a lunar cycle of 10. From these it is evident that its Easter occupied the 29th day of the Julian month of March. This day could not fail to be contained within the cycle of the Arabic month of Dhul-Haiah in the year of the Hegira 680, since that year extended from the 22nd of April of the year of Christ 1281 up to the 10th of April of the year of Christ 1282. Now, Dhul-Haiah, the last month of the Arabic year, contains the last twenty-nine days of that year, which, when counted backward from April 10, reach March 13, where they fix the neomenia of Dhul-Haiah. Therefore, the former character manifestly belongs to the year of the Hegira 680. And the latter is no less evidently adapted to the same. For the twenty-ninth day of March, which we have shown to have been the day of Easter in the year of Christ 1282, was necessarily the seventeenth of Dhul-Haiah of the Arabic month, since it began, as has been said, on March 13. Furthermore, D if you add to the 29th of March, which was Easter Sunday, three weekdays—Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday—you will discover that this last day effectively falls on the Kalends of April (Julian), on which the twentieth day of the Arabic Dhul-Haiah falls. Therefore, the twentieth of Dhul-Haiah in the year of the Hegira 680 was a Wednesday, or the fourth day of the week; which was the second chronological character marking the year in which Abaka died. Wherefore, it must be held for certain that this emperor of the Moguls ceased to live and reign not in the year of the Hegira 681, as is erroneously written in the Chronicle of Abulpharagius, but in the preceding one, the Hegira 680. Whence the two Mogul expeditions into Syria, which are said therein to have immediately preceded his death, are in this way reasonably to be arranged: that they should be terminated in the winter of the year of the Hegira 679 which began in the spring of that same year. Afterward, in the spring of the following year of the Hegira 680, with a new Syrian defection announced, Munga Timurus, the youngest brother of Abaka, moved with an army of fifty thousand Moguls, having also with him auxiliary forces of Armenians, led by the King of Armenia himself. They all, together with the Syrians and Egyptians, clashed with dubious outcome between Hama and Homs. Thence Munga Timurus, returning to Abaka, when he had reached Mesopotamia, was there extinguished by poison cunningly administered on the journey toward Nisibis, through the treachery of those who, not much later, killed Abaka himself with similar wickedness and guile: for the effects of such a double plot are correctly attributed to one and the same cause—the hatred of certain conspirators against the house of Abaka. But of these, enough and more than enough for our purpose.
XV. After Abaka died, his plotter Ahmed succeeded him, himself a son of Hulacu, but born of another mother, from whom he could not only draw a stepmotherly spirit against Abaka, but also appears to have been incited to destroy the same Abaka through hatred of the Christian religion, a devotee of which Abaka is clearly asserted to have been by Abulpharagius, while he writes that he celebrated the feast of Easter together with the Christians. All the acts of this Ahmed's principate are gathered into one long letter in commendation of the Alcoran and Mahometan superstition written to the Sultan of Egypt, which Abulpharagius recites, immediately reporting that Ahmed, long indulgent to the fury conceived against the family of Abaka, while he was striving to oppress Argun, the son of Abaka, was by him and those who favor him captured and committed to custody on Wednesday, the eleventh of Jomadi al-Awwal, of the year of the Hegira 683, which began on the 20th of March in the year of Christ 1284. Jomadi al-Awwal is the fifth month in order in the Arabic year; its Kalends, counted from March 20, fall on the sixteenth of July of that same leap year of Christ 1284, whose solar cycle was 5 and dominical letter was B A, whence it is evident that the eleventh of Jomadi al-Awwal was truly a Wednesday, for such was the day of the 26th of July, coinciding with the eleventh day of Jomadi al-Awwal. Already from that time, with Ahmed locked in prison, Argun began to rule by the consent of the Moguls, having assumed the title of Chan; for from then on, he was called Argun-Chan. Pachymeres mentions this on page 327, calling him Arganen Kanin. The princes, however, judged that Ahmed, as guilty of the murder of Abaka-Chan, could lawfully be killed; and the authors themselves were meant to be the ones who ordered it. But he refused, being satisfied to hand Ahmed over to his mother, Kungortai, and his children, who killed him in vengeance for the paternal murder on the 2nd of Jomadi al-Akhir, which day also falls on a Wednesday, as Abulpharagius says and as is truly seen, since the second day of Jomadi al-Akhir, the sixth month of the Arabs, falls on the day...
of August 1284, the sixteenth of the month, to which day the letter D is adjacent in the Roman calendar, the mark of the fourth day of the week, when, as then, the index of the first day or Sunday is the letter A. A Here ends the Chronicle of Abulpharagius, to which the Latin interpreter very usefully added a supplement extracted from Al-Jannabi, Abulfeda, Ebn Yusepho, and other Arab chronologists, from which we shall render the final times of the Mongol Empire, insofar as it contributes to our subject.
B XVI. Argun-Khan, in the year of the Hegira 690, which began on the 4th of January in the year of Christ 1291, ended his reigning and living, carried off by poison, as is believed, by the Jews, in the month of Rabia the First; this is the third month in the Arab year, and at that time it corresponded for the most part to the Julian March. To him succeeded Caichtu, or as others write, Ganiatu, who shared the same father, Abaka, with Argun-Khan. Most of the Mongols, having become hateful to their own people due to the depravity of his morals, entered into a conspiracy, the leader of which was Baidu, the son of Targihi, brother of Abaka; having pursued him as he fled, they put him to death in the year of the Hegira 694, the first of whose month of Muharram fell on the 21st of November in the year of Christ 1294; whence the month of Rabia the Second, in which Caichtu is said to have been killed, occupied the end of the Julian February and the beginning of March in the year of Christ 1295. I think that at the end of Argun-Khan’s principate, he had pondered the recovery of the northern provinces of Europe beyond Bulgaria; which, as C mentioned above in n. 6, had been subjugated under the auspices of the second Khan of the Mongol Empire to Batu; Noga, having been appointed prefect for their protection as Batu retreated toward Persia, had in the progress of time made them his own, refusing obedience to the Mongol emperor; and, as Pachymeres signifies in many places, he bore this rebellion with impunity, being strengthened in it also by an affinity with Michael I Palaiologos Augustus, having his daughter Euphrosyne as wife. I find a trace of this plan undertaken by Argun-Khan at the end of the Abulpharagian Chronicle, where it is written that Argun-Khan, having established the empire for himself, assigned a prefecture of some kingdom of his to each of his sons. The sons of Argun-Khan were Cazanes, Carmpantas, and Tuctais. Of these, Cazanes seems to have been appointed to the army and D province near where the emperor resided. For after the empire was soon occupied by Baidu, as will be told directly, he was the first to resist, as appears, by the benefit of proximity. The other two brothers of Cazanes are read to have been sent far away from their father, since Pachymeres, p. 459 of the latter part, says that Carmpantas led the army into India: he relates the same of Tuctais, in the same part, l. ii, c. 26 and 27, that he had waged a long, difficult, and hazardous war with Noga, until, when he was already an old man, he defeated and killed him in the final battle and completely destroyed his faction, with the regions of Europe beyond the Euxine Sea restored to the Mongol Empire, which Noga had alienated from it by rebellion, and he himself [presumably refers to Khutluchaim, whom I suspect to be the same as the one named by Pachymeres at the end of the just-praised c. 1, l. vi, where on p. 459 he calls him *Koutlouchaim kata ton Euxeinon archonta*, i.e., prefect of the provinces of the Mongol Empire situated by the Euxine. This was, as we said, the prefecture of Tuctais. Wherefore from this it is permitted to understand that around the fourth or fifth year of the principate of Cazanes, Tuctais had transferred himself to the retinue of his reigning brother, perhaps at his calling, so that he might observe his character, and decide whether he were worthy of being designated as successor to the empire. Which trial, succeeding little according to the wish of Tuctais, excluded him from the empire. For Pachymeres writes, in the often-indicated c. 1, l. vi, that Cazanes, consulting for the succession of the kingdom in his uncertain health, when he had noted the character of Tuctais, whom he had nearby, to be unlike his brother, had summoned Carmpantas, another brother, from India, where he was in charge of the army, and had designated him as heir to the empire, prepared for this by careful instruction. Therefore, I judge that to Tuctais, departing from the parts near the Euxine, was substituted Chutluchaim in the governance of those provinces, whom Pachymeres affirms to have functioned in such an office there when Cazanes died.]
XVIII. The continuator of the Abulpharagian Chronicle proceeds to follow the acts of Cazanes, writing that in the year 699, Cazanes, moving with an army into Syria, and [meeting] with the Sultan of Egypt, who was called Al
A Malec Al Naser Mohammedes, engaged in battle, and when he had put [the enemy] to flight, then captured Damascus; after which deeds, having left behind a prefect in Syria called Kapiak, he returned to the Oriental regions. The year of the Hegira 699 had its beginning on the 28th of September in the year of Christ 1299. But since the day on which the Sultan of Egypt is said to have been defeated in battle there is recorded as the 27th of Rabi al-Awwal, that note indicates the 22nd day of December of that same year of Christ 1299. However, the fact that the continuator of Abulpharagius adds that the day was a Wednesday does not square at all, since in that year of Christ the solar cycle 20 brought the letter D as the index of the first day, which demonstrates that the 22nd of December was a Tuesday. I would believe that an error has crept into the numbers, and that for the 27th of Rabi al-Awwal there ought to be written the 28th, which day was Wednesday, December 23rd. The foundation for my thinking so is the eyewitness testimony of the writer of those times, Aytoun. There exists a work of his titled *Oriental History*, in c. 41 of which he affirms that he was a companion of the expedition which Cassanus (for so he calls him), the Christian king of the Tartars, along with the kings of Armenia and Georgia, who were likewise Christians, undertook in Syria against Melechnaserus, the Sultan of Egypt who was ruling Syria, whom he also met nearby Hamah, called Emesa in ancient times. The Sultan was leading with him one hundred thousand horsemen with an infinite multitude of foot soldiers. Cassanus, however, had an army of two hundred thousand, a large part of whom were horse soldiers. Aytoun, who was present, asserts that the battle was joined between these armies on the Wednesday before the feast of the Nativity. This note falls most aptly on the 23rd of December, which in that year, as has been said, was a Wednesday. Aytoun adds that the Sultan was defeated in the battle and compelled to flee, and then on the 23rd day after the victory Damascus was surrendered to Cassanus, in which Cassanus left as prefect for himself over Syria, with a part of the army, a certain Saracen leader who had defected to him from the Sultan, named Capcakus; to whom he gave instructions that if the Christians should come from the West, he should hand over Syria to them. But when the princes of Europe had neglected to go there or send armies, Capcakus, looking out for his own affairs, and having obtained from the Sultan pardon for his defection, again subjected Syria to him after the Tartars were expelled. This is what Aytoun says about this expedition; how consistent these are with the things handed down by the continuator of Abulpharagius is clear from a comparison. For it is read in that writer that the Egyptians, hearing of the departure of Cazanes, returned into Syria, and with Capcakus passing over to their side, the Tartars who were in Syria left it and hastened to the East, and Damascus returned into the power of the Egyptians.
XIX. In the year of the Hegira 700, the beginning of which was the 16th of September in the year of the common Christian era 1300, Cazanes led a second expedition into Syria, says the continuator of Abulpharagius: but when he had remained for about three months in the territories of Aleppo, he withdrew again without having achieved his goal. B To this time, indeed, I would attribute what Pachymeres writes in the frequently mentioned passage about Cazanes in these words: *Devastating even Egypt itself and inflicting there no light losses upon the Arabs, he would undoubtedly have afflicted them with far many more and heavier damages, had not the insuperable difficulty of regions wide and desolate, lacking water and impassable due to sands, stood in his way to prevent him from penetrating deeper.* Thus far Pachymeres; whence it is permitted to suspect that either Cazanes himself or a part of his army, while he was meanwhile remaining at Aleppo, had attempted Egypt, but abandoned the project because of the aforementioned impediment. I also refer to this second expedition those things which the same Pachymeres had said a little earlier, namely that Cazanes, having hostilely approached Jerusalem, had been very close to capturing that great city, which the Sultan held after having seized it from the Christians. Thus he speaks far more plausibly than certain Latin writers cited by Henri Spondanus in the continuation of the *Annals of Baronius* in the year of Christ 1300, no. 1, who say that at that time Jerusalem was captured by Cassanus, and having visited the holy places with great veneration, they were restored and embellished, and granted to the Christians, Armenians, Georgians, and others gathering from Cyprus and their hiding places to dwell in. For if that had truly happened, it does not seem that Aytoun, who was living at that time, could have been ignorant of it, or would have wanted to remain silent in the history he wrote about these things; in which, however, nothing of the sort is found. In the following year of the Hegira 702 (continues the supplement of Abulpharagius) Cazanes sent forces into Syria under the command of Kotlu Sabo, or as Pachymeres calls him, Chutluchaimus; the first day of this year of the Hegira 702 was the 26th of August, 1302, in the year of our common era. From these things which Pachymeres relates concerning the long-standing illness of Cazanes, it is necessary to say that he was already sick at that time, C and being so impeded by disease from undertaking in person the necessary expedition, he had sent in his stead Chutluchaimus, to whom he trusted most; or [perhaps] he summoned him from the northern parts around the Euxine, to which we suspected a little earlier he had been prefect in the place of Tuctais, or else he still had him in his service as Atabeg, and only after his return from Syria did he assign him to that northern frontier, lest at the occasion of his death (which he sensed would follow shortly), Tuctais, whom he wished to be excluded from the empire, could draw resources from those provinces long since subject to him for the matter of Carmpantanum, who had been preferred over him in the succession, to stir up trouble. Be that as it may, we learn from suitable authors both that Chutluchaimus waged war in Syria on behalf of the already ailing Cazanes, and that Cazanes dying not long after, the same man ruled the regions around the Euxine previously held by Tuctai.
XX. Furthermore, the collector of the supplement of Abulpharagius thus briefly relates the success of this Syrian expedition of Chutluchaimus. First, ten thousand cavalry of the Mogul army were profligated by the leaders of the Egyptian forces, among whom was Abulfeda, as he himself testifies in the history he wrote about these matters, then the whole army was broken, put to flight, and destroyed.
A Hence it is credible that Chutlucharmuin, with the remnants of the forces, returned as quickly as possible to Cazanes, by whom, feeling his illness worsening because of the cause indicated above, he had been sent to the northern frontier. In the same year, 702 of the Hegira, on the 13th day of the month of Shaval, as Jannabius says, Cazanes died. Shaval is the tenth month of the Arabs, the thirteenth day of which must have fallen on the 31st of May in the year of Christ 1303, since, as has been said, the Calends of Muharram fell on the 26th of August of the previous year. From this we can certainly resolve the controversy which is agitated among certain authors, to be mentioned shortly, concerning the number of years of the reign of Cazanes. For if, as we established above in n. 17, Cazanes began to reign around the beginning of November in the year of Christ 1296, dying at the end of May in the year of Christ 1303, he certainly completed six years in the empire, and seven months besides. Therefore, the Arab chronicler Jannabius assigns more time than is just to the reign of Cazanes, when he says he reigned for eight years and about ten months. Joannes [P. 598] Villani, lib. VII, c. 15; Sanutus, lib. I, p. 13, c. 8, and Aythonus in *Historia Orientalis*, c. 45, even if they do not explicitly express the duration of the reign of Cazanes, nevertheless affirm certain things from which it follows that it exceeded the limits prescribed by us by no small amount. Indeed, the former two say he began to reign in the year of Christ 1294, and Aythonus places his death in the year of Christ 1304, from which it would have to be inferred that he had ruled the Mogul empire for more than nine full years. But concerning the true timing of the epochs of the beginning of the reign of Cazanes and of his death, I believe it is safer to trust the Arab chroniclers than either the Armenian Aythonus or the European writers Villani and Sanutus, especially since the assertion of our Pachymeres—who affirms that Cazanes died after having reigned for six years—accords with the Arab chronology; and if one speaks of completed years, this is written most accurately. Jannabius gives the name of the one who succeeded Cazanes thus: Giyathoddin Chodabandah Mohammed, son of Argun, son of Abaga. Abulfeda and Ahmed Ebn Yuseph, closer to the Carmpantan of Pachymeres, call this prince Chorbandam. After the funeral of his predecessor brother on the 23rd of Dhul-Haija, he was inaugurated with solemn ceremonies and, in place of the title Khans usually employed by his elders, he wished to be called Aliaitu, which word, according to Jannabius, signifies "great emperor." I fear there is an error in Jannabius where he places the coronation of Carmpantan on the 23rd of Dhul-Haija in the year of the Hegira 703, that is, about the fifteenth month from the death of his predecessor, which is little probable, especially since, as Pachymeres seems to signify, he was not only designated by Cazanes as the sole heir to the empire while he was still alive, but had already been sent into possession of the kingdom. That invites me to believe that Carmpantan was crowned in the same year in which Cazanes died, but about a month later, namely on the 23rd of Dhul-Haija. But since the 13th day of Shaval, the last of the life of Cazanes, corresponded to the 29th of July of the same year B of Christ 1303, Carmpantan continued his life and reign until the year of the Hegira 716, when he ceased both to live and to reign on the 27th day of the month of Ramadan. The year of the Hegira 716 began on the 26th of March in the year of Christ 1316. Whence the 27th day of the ninth month of the Arabs, Ramadan, coincides with the 13th day of December of the same year of Christ 1316. Bahadur Can was succeeded by Carmpantan, a boy of eleven years, during whose reign each of the prefects began to usurp the provinces for themselves by supreme right. Wherefore, upon his death (which occurred in the year of the Hegira 736, which began from the 21st of August in the year of Christ 1335)—upon the death of Bahadur-Chane, I say—no emperor of the Moguls was created thereafter, that great dynasty being broken into minute parts and utterly dissipated. Thus far we have given a brief synopsis of the Mogul empire; which, from the year of Christ 1202 to the year of Christ 1335, for 133 years, under eleven emperors—Gingizchane, Kaane, Cayuc-Chane, Munkakao, Abaka, Alimede, Argun-Chane, Caichte, Cazane, Carmpantane, Bahadur-Chane—was famous for great deeds performed throughout Asia.
Chapter 8. The origins of the Ottoman Empire as indicated by Pachymeres are explained more distinctly.
I. As the vast and long-enduring empire of what was commonly called the Presbyter John was destroyed by the rise of the Mogul empire, just so the Mogul empire itself in great part defected into the Ottoman, through the rebellion of this first founder of the Ottomans, whom [P. 599] our Pachymeres C names Atmanes, against Cazanes and Carmpantan; a rebellion which, remaining unpunished at first, then gradually grew strong into the likeness of a rightful kingdom, with stupendous subsequent increases, proceeding until the extinction of the Roman Empire of the East and the kingdom of the Mamalukes in Egypt, into a terror of Europe, which it threatens, even today, in its entirety. The beginnings of this new dynasty, noted only in passing by Pachymeres (who was certainly unaware into what an immense mass it would monstrously grow from these), I thought it worth the effort to examine here a little more attentively, and to fix the epochs of these origins—little noted in their beginnings, but having acquired momentum and the merit of estimation from their unexpected success—in their exact places.
II. The Ottomans, or Osmanli, trace their descent from a certain Soliman Shah, who they say, circa the year of the Hegira 611, the beginning of which was the 13th day of May in the year of Christ 1214, was in charge of a province subject to Persia which was called Mahan. He, when he despaired of being able to protect his prefecture against the power of the Moguls—who were then expanding their borders with fierce incursions in every direction under their first emperor, Gingizchane—gathered what he could of his companions and, taking with him those who from among the princes
and the people preferred seeking new habitations elsewhere to serving in their homeland, he directed his route toward Asia Minor. But while he was crossing the Euphrates at an uncertain ford, the water engulfed Soliman Shaho, and of the three sons who accompanied his flight, the two eldest, Sankur Zengi and Cun Tugdi, returned into Persia, while the third, Ortogrules, fixed his dwelling there on the banks of the Euphrates, and living there for a long time, he raised three sons, Condozum, Sarubanum, and Othman. But since they lived in a confined and inconvenient manner, having sent his son Sarubanus as an envoy to Aladinus, the satrap of Iconium, he humbly petitioned that a place be assigned to him where he might dwell with his children in the lands of his own domain. The satrap consented and allowed Ortogrules to migrate with his people to a region situated between the mountains of Tumalagius and Armenia. Karaiaptag was the name of the place, where Ortogrules settled, with such a number of his people that they filled four hundred tents set up there. Ortogrules performed his duties there energetically for many years, guarding the frontier and fighting successfully under the auspices of Aladinus, the prince of Iconium, and because of this he was greatly valued and desired by him 827 until he met his end, which occurred in the year of the Hegira 687, which began on the 6th of February in the year of Christ 1288. Othman was the heir of Ortogrules, and Aladinus, out of natural favor, allowed him to succeed his father in the principality of Karaiaptag, and as long as he remained in power, he fostered him with benefits. But when Aladinus was broken by age and diminished in resources, so that he was no longer equal to sustaining the wars of the Moguls, who were prevailing in those parts under Chalau and Apaga and subjugating everything, Othmanes began to attend to his own affairs and, under his own auspices, to break into the provinces of the Roman empire, intent not only on driving away spoils from there, but also on occupying the fortresses and cities in that region. When this undertaking had succeeded according to his wishes, and he had captured and garrisoned with his own men certain strong fortifications from which he could easily assert his perpetual dominion over the adjacent regions, then at last Othman usurped the title of Sultan, that is, of supreme prince, in the year of the Hegira 699, the Kalends of Muharram of which fell on the 28th of September in the year of Christ 1299.
III. Thus far the Arab writers relate the events concerning the origins of the Othmans; my task hereafter shall be to compare these with the scattered assertions made by Pachymeres, and to show how well they agree. At the beginning, I repeat what our historian discusses at length in the first part, Book I, from chapter 3 to 6, concerning the fortresses of the eastern frontier of the Roman domain against Persia and their importance for the protection of the empire; then concerning the care with which, after the loss of Constantinople, the reigning emperors at Nicaea consulted the welfare of the republic by stationing numerous garrisons of brave men on that frontier, with the faithful payment of generous stipends [P. 600], both by the assignment of lands in the vicinity and the grant of all plunder which they could gather from hostile territory by fierce incursions. And he suggests that for this purpose, the Byzantines employed foreigners of proven virtue and warlike experience; many of whom, he says, had acquired great wealth there, partly from spoils seized from the enemy, partly from stipends faithfully paid, and partly from the yields of the lands assigned to them, whence they became both so much more terrible to their enemies and fought more forcefully in defense of the Roman provinces, restraining the barbarians far within their own lands, either by terror or by force and arms if they dared to break through. There seems to be no doubt that the concern of the Saracen princes who had Persia or the provinces bordering that frontier under their rule was equally directed toward the opposite; among whom was Aladinus, a dynast having the seat of his empire in Iconium, which is the primary city of Lycaonia. Therefore, when we read in the Arab historians that Ortogrules was summoned by him from the region beyond the Euphrates along with his family and settled in a place between the mountains of Tumalagius and Armenia, the toparchy of which he granted to him, we must understand that this Karaiaptaga, the region attributed 828 to Ortogrules by Aladinus, was bordering those aforementioned Roman fortresses; and that sultan Aladinus opposed that cohors of Turks, who had arrived from abroad following the fortune of Ortogrules, to the militia—long established there and widely feared—of foreigners serving the Roman Augusti, which filled four hundred tents in that place. But if we investigate the time when the Arabs indicate Ortogrules and his family migrated to Karaiaptaga from the further bank of the Euphrates, we will find that it agrees closely with the principate of John Batatzes, who ruled the Greeks at Nicaea from the year 1228 to 1255, at which time he died and had his son Theodore as his successor. During those times and thereafter, when Constantinople had been recovered from the Latins and the garrisons of the Roman frontier fortresses against Persia were thriving and prevailing in both numbers and vigor, the assault of the barbarians was easily sustained by them in daily skirmishes, in which the barbarians were for the most part inferior; until, by bad counsel suggested by Chadenus, Michael Palaeologus, after he had invaded the empire and sidelined his ward John, son of Theodore Lascaris, once he saw that he had mastered Constantinople, which had been snatched from the Latins, allowed these Roman border garrisons to be harassed by fiscal calumnies and reduced to poverty, and from then on they began to diminish in spirit, strength, and number, as Pachymeres observes in the same place. It is believable that it was precisely at this time that, as the Arabs indicate, Ortogrules with his men, fighting prosperously against the Romans, earned the praise of Aladinus, under whose auspices he was fighting.
IV. Nor does Pachymeres himself hide this work of Ortogrules and his sons, performed against the Roman border garrisons, and his stationing in the vicinity from the part of the hostile Persia. Behold his words, vol. I, p. 18: "After this, when the brave men among the Persians, for whom every hope and condition of life was in arms, had mostly inclined toward the Tocharos, who had recently occupied the empire of the Persians..."
those to whom Soliman-Shah, the father of Ortogrul, was compelled to submit, and because of which he had abandoned the province and fled. Pachymeres adds immediately that the garrisoned troops of the Roman fortresses, although they had been deprived of their fields and despoiled of a portion of their plunder by the imprudent avarice of Michael I Palaiologos, the Emperor, had indeed refrained from raiding the enemies' borders—which formerly they had done quite usefully—yet they had held the fortresses committed to them with firm loyalty as long as the annual stipends necessary for their sustenance were provided to them from the treasury. But that these payments ceased to be supplied to them after the death of Michael, while Andronikos alone reigned, our author asserts clearly [P. 601] in vol. II, p. 268, where he writes that another 829 source of the enervation of the empire was the parsimony in fully paying the stipends, which had once been established for the fortress garrisons situated on the border as a wage for military service, and which were so necessary there for common protection. These were now being provided with malice, due to the greed of the prefects of the public treasury, to whose profits was added what was being withheld from the miserable soldiers—as the price of their sweat and blood—by artful pretexts of delay on the day of payment. So he says there; and in many places below he signifies that not only through the calumnious frauds of fiscal officials, but by the very edict and express command of the Emperor Andronikos, the stipends and retainers of that kind had been subverted. From this it necessarily happened that the guarding of the fortresses was neglected, and some of them fell into the power of the soldiers who held stations contrary to the Roman border on the side of Persia. At one time, the blessed Alexios Philanthropenos sustained that ruin and collapse in that region through his military command, around the year of Christ 1295, the 13th of Andronikos, having been sent there with a powerful army, as Pachymeres narrates at length, lib. III, vol. II, c. 9. But after he rebelled and was suppressed by Libadarios, and the Persians who had served under him were poorly punished and returned home—both to exact vengeance for the slaughter and in confidence of the lack of any sufficiently powerful Roman force to oppose them—once Philanthropenos (the only one they had feared) was removed, having now gained control of all the fortresses, they flooded the regions subject to the empire with great license. Pachymeres records this, lib. III, vol. II, c. 14, and it seems to have begun from the year of Christ 1297, the 15th of the reign of Andronikos; yet it lasted without intermission, and indeed with increasingly atrocious augmentations of woes, even up to the end of this History, as is understood from the most frequent complaints and lamentations of our historian concerning this matter, scattered through almost all the subsequent books of this work.
V. From these things it is clear how consistently the annals of the Arabs refer to the memory of our A history. What we have written above, that Ortogrul, the father of Othman, died in the year of the Hegira 687, which partially coincides with the year of Christ 1288, is notable for his military successes regarding the Roman militia of the Persian border, which had indeed already begun to weaken greatly by that time, sixteen years after the recovery of Constantinople from the Latins. Wherefore, Othman, succeeding his father Ortogrul, already held some places taken from the hand of the Romans, to which, after he had added more and greater territories to the paternal Karaiaptage through the continuous good fortune of many years, he finally did not hesitate to usurp the name of Sultan—that is, Supreme Prince—hoping he would be able to maintain it. It is our task, which we shall endeavor to accomplish, having compared B the testimonies of the Arab chronologers and our Pachymeres, to establish the true order of time for this first and, as it were, fundamental epoch of the Ottoman Empire. Pachymeres reports, p. 327, that Atman grew powerful in wealth after there had gathered to him a band of very strong and fierce 830 men from Paphlagonia, and that he had defeated in battle the Roman commander Muzalon, who had tried to resist him near Nicomedia, the metropolis of Bithynia, which he then held as though it were a besieged city, as the lord of the field. Pachymeres clearly states that this happened around Bapheus, near Nicomedia, on the twenty-seventh day of the month of July: from the series of events, we affirm this to have likely been the year of Christ 1299; and I would suspect that what our author narrates on p. 415 occurred in the following year, 1300, namely, that certain Roman forces, led by a certain Suros, who had been sent by the Emperor to protect that province, were gathered by Atman and destroyed with a great slaughter; from which, the victor Atman advanced and, attacking Belocoma (the words are those of Pachymeres), captured it by force and killed all he found there. And he, having gained possession of that fortress with its immense wealth, was henceforth regarded as very rich. Indeed, he used the fortifications of that fortress, valid in their location and art, for the safekeeping of the wealth he had sought, and he had vast treasures securely stored and at hand, from which he could defray the expenses of war and principality. A great part of these calamities redounded upon Prusa, thus stripped of the possession of its land and reduced within the circuit of its walls, etc. [P. 602] Such is Pachymeres; these things indicate clearly enough the change that occurred in Atman at this time, as if from a private condition to a sovereign status. Let us now hear the Arabs. They affirm with great consensus that Othman assumed the name of Sultan, or supreme lord, from being a toparch of Karaiaptage and a simple satrap C in the year of the Hegira 699. This year, when the Kalends of Muharram fell on the 28th of September in the Julian year of Christ 1299; and though the conquest of Belocoma, which we have mentioned from Pachymeres, seems to have pertained to the summer months, it is left to be understood that Atman’s reign—now openly usurping the term of empire without any dissimulation—began in the year of Christ 1300, and this in Bithynia at the city of Prusa, which shortly thereafter, Pachymeres hints, was subject to him in the name of a tributary peace, but in reality by surrender and full subjection, when he writes thus on p. 597: "Prusa itself, subdued by immense calamities, bought off the Persians for an enormous price paid in gold." D
A
VI. However, I do not adduce this as if I thought that Prusa was already fully in Atman’s possession at the beginning of his reign, since some say it was completely subjugated only toward the end of his life by his son and successor, Urchan. Yet, as he held that city surrounded by fortresses possessed by him on every side, and also held it as a tributary at will, he bore with equanimity his exclusion from entering it, certain in the hope that, as things now stood, it would eventually be laid open to him and his own. He was therefore applying himself to asserting for himself the control of the fields and that province—namely, the whole of Bithynia—which he was achieving by occupying and holding with a very strong garrison those primary fortresses upon which the health and security of the great cities depended B, 831 just as we saw him do at Belocoma, in which he found the keys to Prusa; just as he seemed to have subjugated Nicaea to himself, having captured it and sat down in its very strong fortification, Tricoccia. Regarding this, it is worth hearing our Pachymeres here, p. 637, writing in this manner: "Around Nicaea, matters were in a truly bad state, with Atman doing and bearing everything there." And a little later: "Thus, Atman believed that the army was hostile to those arriving." So far Pachymeres, from whose narrative—recalling in a three-fold manner the deeds of Atman: the defeat of Muzalon at Nicomedia, the capture of Belocoma at Prusa, and the storming of Tricoccia at Nicaea—it is manifest that he held the whole of Bithynia in his power; although those three primary cities of that province were not fully possessed, they were at least surrounded on all sides, and thus, by a slow siege, while meanwhile wasting them at will and fining them of money, he was finally and most certainly bringing them under absolute and entire dominion. This did not, indeed, happen to Atman himself. But his heir and son, Urchan—whom Cantacuzenus, book 1, ch. 9, describing the state in which his father had left it in dying, calls the satrap of Eastern Bithynia—shortly showed himself the prince of all Bithynia, with Prusa, Nicomedia, and Nicaea clearly subdued, after Andronicus the Younger, rushing in to bring aid to the latter when it was in danger, was repulsed and retreated, wounded in the thigh. Cantacuzenus mentions this battle and wound [P. 603], book 2, ch. 7, but C he dissimulates the surrender of Nicaea that followed not very honestly, which Gregoras, book 9, and Phrantzes, ch. 2, book 1, admit quite candidly, not to mention those who state the same thing clearly—the Arab historians, among whom all agree that Iznicmid and Iznik (this is how they name Nicomedia and Nicaea) were captured by Urchan, the son of Othman, after his father’s death. But as for Brusia (thus they call Prusa), some of them say it was surrendered to Othman while he was still alive, others that it was surrendered to Urchan after he had died. All, however, with great consensus report that Othman finished his life in the year of the Hegira 726, the beginning of which was December 8 of the year of Christ 1525, such that the death of Othman appears to be deferred to the year of Christ 1526.
VII. Thus far concerning these things, allow me by the kindness D of the reader, in place of a supplement, to add a consideration of two ancient oracles, which it can be believed not without reason were fulfilled by these events; this will perhaps be the less foreign to this place because one of them is involved with certain chronological calculations, supporting the numbers we have set down here, posited with a correct count. The ancient writer Zosimus, in his Histories, book 2, recites this prediction of the Erythraean or Epirotic Sibyl:
Δὴ τότε Βιθυνῶν γαῖαν λύκοι οἰκήσουσι Ζηνὸς ἐπιφροσύναιαι· ταχὺ δ' ἐπιβήσεται ἀρχὴ 'Ανδράσιν, οἳ Βύζαντος ἕδος καταναιετάωσι.
832 Then wolves shall inhabit the land of the Bithynians by Divine counsel; but the lordship of these shall quickly come to the men who dwell in the settlement of Byzantium.
The fulfillment of this prophecy Zosimus tries to adapt to the age of Constantine and the restoration and amplification of Byzantium wrought by him. How correctly, he himself may see; for it does not appear sufficiently what this mention of wolves inhabiting Bithynia has in common with the adornment of the Byzantine city. Let us say, if it be permitted to speak more fittingly and with the outward appearance of truth, that by the Sibyl, beloved by the divine spirit, it was announced so long before in these words that the Ottoman empire would arise, founded in Bithynia by greedy marauders endowed with lupine voracity and cruelty, to which, not long after, the power and splendor of the ruling Byzantine city would have to succumb, destined thereafter to bear the heaviest and most disgraceful yoke of barbaric servitude. The Byzantines, as a punishment for their impious and obstinate schism—continued from the times of Photius right up to that point, against the Roman Church, the mother of all—had suffered servitude while the Latins were holding Constantinople for fifty-eight years; from which they seemed to have prospered, while they, liberated from it, acknowledged the primacy of the Roman pontiff. But when Michael, the author of that unity, was dead, his son Andronicus, by the worst counsel, rescinding what his father had healthily established, again contumaciously broke off from the see of Peter. Immediately, by the providence of the avenging God, the Ottoman tyranny began to be prepared and gradually to grow in Bithynia, by which the Byzantines, whipped by dire calamities continuously, since they would by no means come to their senses, but rather grew more and more hardened in heresy and schism, were finally subjected by force to one of the successors of Atman, Mahomet II, in the year of Christ 1453, enduring for two hundred years and more [as long as they fluctuate] a captivity more wretched than the Babylonian one of the Jews, because they expect no Cyrus to release them, confirming by their immense grief the Sibylline oracle which we have recalled.
VIII. We have another prediction concerning these things, which is minutely free from any suspicion of fiction, since it is read most clearly in a sacred and canonical book, the Apocalypse of St. John. In that prophecy of the New Testament, encompassing the principal events of those things which, from the resurrection of Christ and the first foundation of the Church, have happened pertaining to the kingdom of God up to this very day,
A after the persecutions of the emperors [P. 604] have been shadowed forth from the 12th to the 20th chapter, in this present passage is described by the symbol of the binding of Satan that time in which Constantine, having defeated and slain Licinius and being fully powerful in the Roman Empire, strove to adorn the Christian religion with most liberal and, as it were, triumphal edicts. These edicts are recited by Eusebius, Book II, *On the Life of Constantine*, from chapter 25 to 833 in the Rescript to Eusebius, described in chapter 45, in which it is ordered that churches of Christians be built everywhere at public expense; a distinct mention is made of the dragon, whom John here records as being bound. For thus does Constantine speak there: *“Now that liberty has been restored, and that dragon has been cast out from the administration of public affairs by the providence of God the greatest and by our own ministry.”* These things happened around the year of Christ 320. Thence, for a thousand years, the Christian religion remained in full possession of free peace within the Roman Empire, namely, up to the year of Christ 1320, at which time, as we have seen, the Ottomans founded an empire destructive to the Christian religion, which was to propagate the foulest superstition of Muhammad in almost the whole world, from which no less a detriment was brought to the kingdom of God than was once brought by the flourishing and deep-rooted idolatry of the kings. Added to this, around the same time, was the emergence of the Wycliffite heresy, subsequently propagated into John Hus, Luther, Calvin, and others. Finally, around the same time, seeds were sown for a long schism after the death of Gregory XI for over sixty years, which was most perniciously to consume the authority of the Roman See, by which the health of the ecclesiastical monarchy had stood until then. These three evils, emerging simultaneously in the thousandth year after the peace given by Constantine, are designated by the holy seer through the solution of the previously bound Satan. That this indeed pertains properly to our own subject is corroborated by the fact that the Ottoman Turks are considered by all to be of Scythian origin. Now the Scythians are undoubtedly believed to have been propagated from Magog, the second son of Japheth, mentioned in Gen. x, 4. Furthermore, this same Magog was also called Gog by apocope; having occupied Lydia with colonies, he was called Gyges in Greek literature. Hence Pliny, Bk. V, c. 23, testifies that the city Hierapolis in Syria was so called by the Syrians after Magog, surely because that city, as Lucian teaches in his book *On the Syrian Goddess*, was founded by Deucalion, the son of Prometheus or of Magog or Gog, the progenitor of the Scythians. The things which John adds to this regarding the deeds of Gog and Magog bear a great similarity to the accounts of the deeds of the Ottoman princes. First, he speaks of them being gathered for battle, the number of whom is as the sand of the sea, indicating the extremely numerous armies of these people. He also adds, *“and they ascended upon the breadth of the earth.”* Europe, in its Greek origin, is a name derived from *εὗρος*, breadth, and *ὄψ*, land; for this B is derived from the word Cybele, whom we see among the ancients to be the same as Tellus and the Great Mother. Whence Virgil, in the 6th book of the *Aeneid*, calls the destitute dead who lack burial ground in that verse: *This whole throng which you see is the destitute and unburied crowd;* And Ausonius, in *Mosella*, concerning the bones of the unburied lying on the surface of the field: 834 *And the destitute bands lie unmourned over the fields.* Therefore, the crossing of the Ottomans into Europe is hinted at by these words. It is reported to have happened first by the Arabs in the year of the Hegira 758, which almost entirely coincides with the year of Christ 1357, since it began on the 25th day of December in the year of Christ 1356. For then, at the command of D Urkhan, his son Suleiman, having joined logs together, transported troops into Greece, and in the following year took the city of Gallipoli. These are the words of the continuator of the Abul-pharagian Chronicle. But that it is said to have been an ascent from Asia into Europe, namely the northern part, to Gallipoli, correctly squares with its natural position: for Maro truly wrote: *As the world rises steeply towards Scythia and the Riphaean peaks,* etc.
He proceeds [P. 605] the holy seer, adding concerning Gog and Magog, that is, the Ottoman Turks: *“And I had encompassed the camp of the saints.”* In the Greek originals, the word *παρεμβολή* (encampment) corresponds to the word *castra* (camp), designating a particular place. I take the "camp of the saints" to mean the Holy Land and Jerusalem, sought after and for so long possessed by so many Christian sacred expeditions and warlike deeds. Ottoman power has encompassed this *ἐκύκλευσεν*, with Egypt on one side, greater Asia on another, and Phoenicia and Cyprus occupied, so that now it cannot even be approached by private individuals for the sake of religion, unless the passage is bought from them. The final deed of the Ottomans, St. John expresses in these words: *“And they will take the beloved city.”* What can this be understood as other than Constantinople, taken by Muhammad II in the year of Christ 1455, and held by his successors to this day as the primary seat of the Ottoman Empire? He calls it "beloved," because its founder, Constantine, loved it, not as a fatherland in which he was born, but because of its natural situation and the excellences of its climate and soil, he chose and loved it above all others, placing the seat of the Roman Empire within it and transferring the splendor of old Rome to it with the name of New Rome. Thus, both the prophecy of the Sibyl and that of St. John denounce the destruction of the city of Constantinople by the house of the Ottomans; but the latter does this better than the former, in that it distinctly reveals the time of the rising Ottoman power, namely, the thousandth year from the peace given to the Churches by Constantine.
There is nothing else, I think, remaining of the chronological work concerning Pachymeres' *History*, except that we propose to the reader in a table the matters recorded in this second part, just as we did in the former, assigned to their respective years and expanded; to which task we dedicate the present final chapter of the work.
835 CHAPTER IX. Chronological synopsis of the principal events recorded in this second volume of Pachymeres' history, assigned to their specific years.
Andronicus, succeeding upon the death of Emperor Michael on December 11, begins to rule alone, Bk. I, ch. 1. He sends the Tochari, who had been summoned by his father, into Triballia, ibid. Being spontaneously inclined toward the abrogation of the accord of the Churches—Latin and Greek—which had been initiated by the zeal of his father Michael, and furthermore urged by the counsels of his aunt Eulogia and the Grand Logothete Theodore Muzalon to the same end, he seeks pardon for having consented to it, Bk. I, ch. 2. He removes John Veccus from the patriarchate and substitutes Joseph, who had long since been deposed, Bk. I, ch. 3, 4, 5. A Ecclesiastics and laymen who had agreed to the union of the Churches are subjected to many penances and are finally, with difficulty, received back into communion, ch. 6 and 7. Veccus and other authors of the union are accused in a synod, ch. 8. Veccus, being condemned, is relegated to Prusa, ch. 10 and 11. The Arsenian faction thrives again, ch. 12.
[P. 606] Joseph dies in the month of March, ch. 15. George Cyprius, who took the name of Gregory in the monastic life, is created patriarch toward the beginning of April, ch. 15, and see this observation, Bk. III, ch. 2, n. 5. In the month of April, the star of Saturn appears during the day, ch. 16. Prelates who had consented to the peace of the Churches are condemned and deposed from their rank, ch. 17. In the month of May, blood falls from the sky, ch. 18. Empress Theodora is forced to renounce her obedience to the Pope, ch. 19. B 836 Condemnation is demanded of Athanasius, Patriarch of Alexandria, regarding the acts concerning the union of the Churches, ibid. A league is formed between Emperor Andronicus and Terteres, whom he recognizes as the legitimate king of Bulgaria, ch. 20. The Emperor strives to reconcile the sects of the Josephites and Arsenians, ch. 21. A compact of agreement having been entered into between them, such that both sides should throw the documents containing their respective claims into the fire, and that those should be recognized as superior whose writings did not burn, the memorials of both were consumed by the flame alike. This happened on Holy Saturday, the eve of Easter, March 25, in the presence of the Emperor, ch. 22, and see this observation, Bk. III, ch. 2, n. 4. Struck by this result, the Arsenians, although they had promised to obey Patriarch Gregory, immediately renege on the pact, ibid. Andronicus, formerly Bishop of Sardis, having been held in great favor by the Emperor, is accused of high treason and cast out most ignominiously, ch. 23. Cotanitza, a monk who had been a brigand, flees to Prusa, ch. 24. C Tarchaniota the Protovestiarius is sent by the Emperor with an army into the Western regions, ch. 25. The Roman fleet is neglected through very poor counsel and is gradually abolished, ch. 26.
Consecrated bread in the sacred pyx is found corrupted and utterly putrefied in the Great Church at Constantinople on the Sunday called Tyrophagy by the Greeks and Quinquagesima by the Latins, February 23, Bk. I, ch. 28, and see this observation. An image of the Mother of God, painted on the wall of a private house in Constantinople, sheds tears for many days, ch. 30. In the house of Charsias, in the same Constantinople, blood flowed copiously from an effigy of the holy martyr George, ibid. 837 The remains of Patriarch Arsenius, who had died long before, are brought back into the city with solemn pomp, ch. 31. [P. 607] The Sultan of Babylon wars against the Christians occupying Syria, ch. 32. Emperor Andronicus, now a widower, takes as his second wife Irene, daughter of the Marquis of Montferrat, ch. 33. D Veccus, summoned from Prusa, meets with the schismatics in the Alexiac Triclinium and gives an account of his faith and actions; nevertheless, condemned by his enemies, he is deported with two of his archdeacon companions to the fortress of St. Gregory, where, lacking any provision for his sustenance, they are kept in most rigorous confinement for six whole years, ch. 34 and 35. See furthermore ch. 2 of this book, Observations III, n. 6. Due to the neglect and weakness of the Roman fleet, the license of pirates increases, and dwellers on the coast are ordered to migrate to the interior, ch. 37. As Scythians inhabiting the Danube threaten an incursion into Thrace and Macedonia, the corpse of Emperor Michael is transferred to Selymbria from Allage, so that it might not later have to be ransomed if seized by them, ibid. The Vlachs, so that they might not join the Scythians, are forced to cross over from the Western continent to the Eastern. Ibid., p. 66, Possinus edition. Martinus IV, Supreme Pontiff, dies at Perugia on the 28th of March, that is, 21
A March. He was succeeded by James, cardinal deacon of the Savelli family, who was crowned at Rome on the 16th of the Kalends of May, and named Honorius IV.
The Curopalates Umpertopulus defeats and puts to flight the Scythians residing along the Danube in battle; as a reward for this well-performed feat, he is created Great Papias, c. 29.
Dispute arises among churchmen regarding the testimonies of the Fathers cited by Veccus during his hearing in the synodical colloquy; many murmured that they were not well satisfied by these, L. II, c. 1, p. 73 et 74.
838 Many of the Vlachs, in the year following, were compelled to cross from the Western continent into the Eastern, since their infants and flocks were not accustomed to that climate, as was testified by the frequent deaths of both kinds, and they bought back their return to their previous abodes from the emperor with B money; L. I, c. ult., p. 66.
To settle the scruples of many concerning the allegations of Veccus, the task of writing a Tome is given to Patriarch Gregory, L. I, c. 4, p. 74.
Honorius IV dies at Rome on the day of the Lord's Supper, which was April 3rd, as Spondanus and Rainaldus correctly observe. For in this year, which counted the cycle of the sun as 8, the moon as 15, and had E as the Sunday letter, Easter fell on April 6th. The see remained vacant from the Lord's Supper of this year until February 22nd of the following year, a period of almost eleven months.
On the day of the Chair of St. Peter, February 22nd, F. Hieronymus of the Order of St. Francis, cardinal of Palestrina, is created pontiff at Rome, named Nicholas IV.
The Tome, which had begun to be written by Patriarch Gregory in the previous year, is published and read publicly in the church, L. II, c. 1, p. 74.
Many of the clergy refuse to subscribe to it, p. 75. Because of this, they are variously vexed, ibid., and p. 76.
Athanasius, Patriarch of Alexandria, residing at Constantinople, is vehemently, though fruitlessly, urged to subscribe to the Tome of Gregory, L. II, c. 5, p. 81.
Arsenius, Patriarch of Antioch, is condemned at Constantinople and struck from the sacred diptychs, because it was heard that he had consented in the matter of the Church with the King of Armenia, ibid.
839 Veccus, in prison, writes against the Tome of Gregory: and his book, read at Constantinople, casts a scruple into the minds of many, exposing the defects of the Tome, L. II, c. 2, p. 76 et 77.
The Tome is accused by the bishop of Quinquecclesiae [Five Churches] and the ex-chartophylax Moschompares; others also rise up against it, c. 3, p. 77 et 78.
The scandal of the prelates against Gregory flares up on the occasion of a commentary published by Mark, his disciple, with his own approval, c. 4, p. 79.
Because the emperor judges that the Tome ought to be corrected, Gregory refuses to do so, p. 80.
Gregory, feeling himself unequal to bearing the envy, withdraws from the patriarchate, c. 6, p. 82.
Finally, he abdicates the patriarchate around the month of June, after having spent six years and a little more in that dignity, c. 9, p. 87 et 88; L. III of Observations, c. 2.
The Tome of Gregory is corrected by having the exposition of the opinion of St. John Damascene removed from it, c. 11, p. 99.
Athanasius, a monk from Mount Ganos, is chosen and inaugurated patriarch on October 14th, c. 13, p. 97 et 98.
Gregory, the former patriarch, dies, c. 17, p. 102.
Emperor Andronicus betakes himself from the city to the fortress of the Nicetiatae at Dacibyza, where John, the son and heir of Theodore the Augustus, once blinded by Michael, the father of Andronicus, was being guarded; and having been greeted by him with officiousness and gifted liberally, he wheedles from him the cession of his right to the empire, L. I, c. 56, p. 64.
Then the same Andronicus, through Patriarch Athanasius, whom he was taking as a companion, takes care to send Theodore Muzalon to Veccus and his associates who were being guarded in the fortress of St. Gregory, who relieved their poverty, L. I, c. 35, p. 63, and c. 36, p. 64; furthermore, L. I, c. 17, p. 102.
840 Andronicus admits Veccus and his associates, led out of prison, with kindness, striving with that courtesy to prepare them to embrace the schism. For this purpose, he also addressed them again at Lopadium, L. I, c. 36, p. 64 et 65; but as the discussion did not succeed, they are left in prison, as is understood from c. 29, L. III.
The emperor, having conferred on Theodore Muzalon the dignity of Grand Logothete of the Protovestiary, arrives at Nymphaeum towards the end of May, L. I, c. 18. And he lingers there for a space of more than a year, as is understood from the following chapter. See also c. 2, L. III of these Observations, n. 7.
Constantinus Porphyrogenitus, the emperor's brother, falls from the grace of the Augustus at Nymphaeum and is treated harshly and with contempt by him, L. II, c. 49, p. 105 et seq.
Constantinus Porphyrogenitus, accused of having designs on the empire, is handed over to custody in the month of March of this year along with Strategopulus, L. II, c. 19, p. 108.
At Constantinople, around the middle of November, the Great Forum is consumed by a fire that broke out by chance, L. II, c. 25.
A In restoring the ruins of this fire, the citizens set to work strenuously, ibid. Athanasius, patriarch of Alexandria, not bearing the injuries inflicted upon him by Athanasius of Constantinople, withdraws to Rhodes, L. II, c. 5.
Around this time, Melec Masur, son of the sultan Azatin, after the death of his father, having ruled Thymæne beyond the Euxine Sea and the surrounding regions with the help of Argan, Khan of the Tocharians, but then being afflicted with great disasters by Amurius, a satrap of the Tocharians aided by strong forces, flees as a suppliant to the Emperor Andronicus with his wife and children. But not finding him at Constantinople, and his wife being left behind in the city, he is led to Nymphæum by the emperor's prothieracarius, Abrainpax, upon the emperor's summons, feeling offended on the journey at being observed by his escort more curiously than suited his dignity. At Adramyttium, separating himself from his retinue by night, he flees to the Persians, and with their help attacks Amurius, L. IV, c. 25.
His daughter, detained in the city as a hostage, is educated there, L. VII, c. 22.
[P 610] This year, the Emperor Andronicus, fearing that the daughter born to him might not be viable—as he had experienced several times before the unhappy birthing of his wife in regard to females—sought to protect her from such danger by a superstitious ceremony, naming her Simonis because of the occasion of the event narrated, L. II, c. 32.
Nicolaus IV, the Roman pontiff, dies at Rome around the feast of Easter, which in that leap year—the 13th cycle of the sun and the 1st of the indiction—fell on the 6th of April, having begun the fifth year of his pontificate on the 22nd of February, about six weeks into it. B The see remained vacant for a long time.
The Emperor Andronicus returns to Constantinople, bringing his brother Constantine with him in a latticed litter, and thus enters the city on the 28th of June, L. II, c. 20.
Great envy flaring up against the patriarch Athanasius on account of his fierce rigor and the savage excesses of his ministers committed against all, the clergy, severing themselves from him for this cause, are gravely incensed, ibid.
The emperor begins to substitute Nicephorus Chumnus for Theodorus Muzalon, who was lying ill with a long sickness, in the primary care of the principal affairs, ibid.
The emperor betroths the daughter of Muzalon to his own brother Theodorus; but these betrothals being dissolved because of a defect discovered in the girl—she being pregnant from an incestuous union—he nevertheless designates her as a bride for his own son, Constantine, L. II, c. 36.
The same man, sending the hieromonach Sophonias to Apulia to negotiate the marriage of his son Michael with the granddaughter of Baldwin, former emperor, born of the daughter of Charles, King of Apulia, refused to give him letters to the pope, C so as not to be forced to call him "most holy Father" in these, L. III, c. 5.
However, Andronicus himself, later writing to the sultan of Babylon, does not hesitate to call him "brother," at the prompting of the bishops, especially Theoleptus of Philadelphia—who also affirmed that evil demons are called "brothers" of the Church in the Song of Songs, based on a certain testimony of Gregory of Nyssa—for which he was bitterly rebuked by Nicetas of Dyrrhachium, but excused and defended by the emperor in a sermon properly delivered on this argument, L. III, c. 5 and 23.
Around this time, Tuctais kills Noga, who was defeated in battle; and soon takes the wife of the Emperor Andronicus, whom he had previously betrothed to himself, as his own illegitimate wife, L. III, c. 28. C. 21.
The bishops, themselves also vexed by Sabas and other ministers of the patriarch Athanasius, join openly with the clergy whom the emperor had treated unkindly because they were separating themselves from Athanasius; and first they admonish the patriarch concerning the excesses of his men, then they separate themselves from the communion of one who is negligent in satisfying them. [P 641] Finally, through envoys to the emperor, they gravely warn him not to favor such highly inappropriate actions, L. II, c. 21.
With this year, Pachymeres begins the reign of Michael the Younger, Augustus, comparing the 12th year of this reign with the 23rd of the former, L. VI, c. 21. From this it appears that Michael was declared co-emperor this year, even though he was not crowned by the new patriarch until the following day, the 21st of May. Athanasius, having given his resignation of the patriarchate in writing, withdraws to a monastery on the 16th of October, having held the patriarchal dignity for four years and two additional days, L. II, from c. 22 to 25.
Melec Masur, prevailing with the aid of the Persians against the old enemy Amurius, D kills him cruelly in front of his son Ale, as he came as a suppliant to him, L. IV, c. 25.
Athanasius, patriarch of Alexandria, returns from Rhodes to Constantinople, L. III, c. 5.
Nicephorus Angelus, the despot, ruler of the Western tracts, dies, L. III, c. 4.
On the Kalends of January, the first day of this year, Cosmas, who was also called John, having been duly elected beforehand, is consecrated patriarch of Constantinople, L. II, c. 28.
Tzaca, son of Noga, invades the kingdom of Bulgaria, with Tertere fleeing, L. III, c. 26.
CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE
A Under the beginning of March, the Emperor celebrates a council in the Alexiac triclinium, in which he explains the grounds for condemning his brother, the Despot Constantine, and Strategopoulos, and wins the approval of the majority (ch. 29). A certain man, usurping the name of Lachanas, who had long since been killed by Nogai, is thrown into chains by the Emperor (ch. 30). Theodore Muzalon, the Protovestiarios, dies (ch. 31). He is succeeded in the primary charge of major affairs by Nicephorus Choumnos, the prefect of the Kanikleion (ch. 32). On the 5th day of July, Peter of Morrone, having gathered the cardinals at Perugia, is elected Roman Pontiff; he, reluctantly accepting the honor, is crowned at L'Aquila in the Vestini region on the 4th before the Kalends of September, and receives the name Celestine V. But soon, on the day before the Ides or on the Ides of December, the same man, in a public assembly of cardinals at Naples, abdicated the pontificate, having read a written formula of resignation. In his place, Benedict, Cardinal Caetani, was elected on the spot, who assumed the name Boniface. 844 Pope Boniface is crowned at Rome in the basilica of St. Peter on the 17th before the Kalends of February.
B Andronicus makes arrangements for his son Michael, already assumed as a colleague in the empire the previous year, to be solemnly crowned on the 21st of May [P. 612] in the temple of Hagia Sophia, through the ministry of Patriarch John (bk. III, ch. 1). Ales Amurius, named for his father, kills Melecus, his father's slayer, after defeating him in single combat (bk. IV, ch. 25). John, the firstborn son of Emperor Andronicus by his second wife, Irene, is created Despot by his father and his brother, the new Augustus, Michael (bk. III, ch. 2). When the Patriarch and the bishops, upon the request of the Augusti, had refused to carry out an ecclesiastical constitution by which those who denied obedience to the young Augustus Michael would be subjected to curses and anathema, Emperor Andronicus, in retaliation for this refusal, promulgated a Novella in which he condemned as simoniacal and prohibited for the future the distributions of *sportulae* that were customarily made by a bishop to his suffragans and ordainers at his consecration (bk. III, ch. 3). The marriage of the Augustus Michael with Ithamare, daughter of the late Despot Nicephorus Angelus—which had been sought by the girl's mother, Anna, and which would have been useful to the empire—is rejected because of the sixth degree of consanguinity between the intended spouses (bk. III, ch. 4). The Venetians and Genoese harass each other in Constantinople, engaged in implacable hatreds (bk. III, ch. 15).
C Michael Augustus the Younger celebrates his marriage on the 16th of January with great splendor, taking as wife Maria, the daughter of the King of Armenia, who had arrived at Constantinople a short time before (bk. III, ch. 5 and 6). A new effort by the Emperor to reconcile the Arsenites to the Church is in vain. 845 The island colony of Crete is in desperate straits against the Latins who are attacking it fiercely; forces summoned from there are set against the Persians invading Asia. Alexius Philanthropenos is declared Duke of Asia Minor by the Emperors; for a time he conducts affairs there well and prosperously against the Persians who are violating the Roman border (bk. III, ch. 9). Osphentisthlabus, son of Terteris, king of Bulgaria, who had been pushed from his kingdom, gradually grows in power; he kills Tzacas, whom he had captured by deceit, and casts Joachim, the Patriarch of the Bulgarians, to his death from a precipice (bk. III, ch. 26). Radosthlabus, the Sebastocrator of Bulgaria, having been ejected from there by Osphentisthlabus, flees to the Emperor (ibid.). Ales Amurius, having become famous for avenging his father's murder, gathers troops and first infests the Roman border with robberies without an open declaration of war; then, through a sudden event in the month of March, as the river Sangaris changed its bed, he strips the Roman garrisons of their fortress there, leaving them exposed to the enemy, protected no longer by the unfordable river, and forces them to flee. [P. 613] Crossing over into the interior, he now hostily harasses the Romans with less shame, spurred on in this by emulation of Atmanis, another satrap, who was successfully raiding the areas near Nicaea (bk. IV, ch. 25). Muzalon, a Roman general, is captured by Atmanis but soon released (ibid.). On the Kalends of June, a huge and most destructive earthquake shakes Constantinople and its surrounding provinces. It lasted with varying intensity until the end of July. Its damages are recorded (bk. III, ch. 16). On that occasion, Emperor Andronicus, in supplication to appease God, leads a procession with the people and delivers a long sermon. Soon after, he seeks to correct the corruptions of the courts by means of a constitution issued under a golden bull (ibid., ch. 16 and 17). The Venetians, with 75 warships, arrive at Constantinople, hostile to the Genoese who 846 were living there; on Sunday, the 2nd of July, they enter Galata, and, not finding the Genoese there, they set fire to their houses and attack the city itself in various places. And, having discovered that the Romans were fighting on behalf of the Genoese, they returned to Galata and furthermore consumed the houses located there belonging to the Romans with flames (ch. 18). The Emperor sent Nicephorus, the Bishop of Crete, who was to remonstrate about these things,
and he sent it to Venice. In the meantime, he imposed a fine of eighty thousand coins upon the Venetians living in the city as reparation for the damage caused by their citizens, having seized all their property as a pledge for that sum (Bk. III, ch. 19).
In the month of December, the Genoese—having initiated hostilities from the bailo—slaughtered the Venetians living in Constantinople; all the leading men among the Venetian residents were killed in that massacre. The lower classes among them and the practitioners of mechanical arts, having first hidden away to escape death, later secretly departed for Venice. On account of this, Emperor Andronicus sent the monk Maximus Planudes and the director of the orphanage, Leo, to Aquileia, for the sake of clearing himself before the Venetian senate.
Alexius Philanthropenus rebels, and shortly thereafter, having been captured by the protovestiarios Libadarius, he is blinded towards the end of December (Bk. III, chs. 10 and 11). When the news of his success was strenuously brought to the city at the very end of the year, the Emperor offered solemn thanks to God and the Mother of God (Bk. III, ch. 13).
Emperor Andronicus, having secretly obtained a libelous pamphlet in which he was accused of many things, held a long oration before the bishops, clergy, monks, and the assembled people, in which he labored solicitously to clear himself of all the charges made against him (Bk. III, ch. 22).
A In this year in the month of September, when by the custom of the Greeks the eleventh indiction was beginning—which the Latins only began on the Kalends of January of the following year, 1298 of Christ—writings were found composed and hidden by Athanasius before he stepped down from the patriarchate, in which he hurled anathemas against those who opposed him. When the patriarch and the emperor were disturbed by the reading of these, the ex-patriarch Athanasius himself in a meeting gave a new writing in which he amended or revoked those former ones (Bk. III, ch. 24).
John Tarchaniota is sent with an army to strengthen the frontier of the empire against the threats and incursions of the Tocharians, Triballians, Serbs, and Persians; in which business he acted prudently and strenuously (Bk. III, ch. 25).
Michael, the son of the former king of Bulgaria Constantine and of Maria, the cousin of Andronicus, is sent by the latter to recover his paternal kingdom: but because the faction of Osphentisthlabus was prevailing, he is excluded from Trnovo and wanders about (Bk. III, ch. 26).
A flood causing ruin from a violent and long rain, falling on the 29th of August, seems to have occurred in this year, as narrated (Bk. III, ch. 27).
John, the prince of the Lazi, dies, and his son Alexius succeeds him. He intends to place his mother Eudocia, who had gone to her brother Emperor Andronicus after her husband's death, with the Kral of Serbia (Bk. III, ch. 30).
John Veccus, once patriarch, dies in prison at the castle of St. Gregory, towards the end of March (Bk. III, ch. 29).
Eudocia, being certain of remaining in widowhood, refuses marriage to the Kral of Serbia. Cast down by this hope, Emperor Andronicus, since he considered it necessary to bind the Kral to himself by an intimate blood-tie, offers his own daughter Simonis, not much older than six years of age, to him as a bride (Bk. III, ch. 31).
Theophano, the sister of Maria, wife of Michael the younger Augustus, called Theodora in memory of the mother of Andronicus designated so B, is betrothed to the son of the sebastokrator John, also called John (Bk. III, ch. 6). But she dies before the wedding (Bk. IV, ch. 5).
The Persians, irritated by the slaughter of their men who had clung to the rebel Philanthropenus, devastate all the Eastern regions with savage raids (Bk. III, ch. 11).
The greatest and most rigid winter of all that men could remember raged in the first months of this year. Whence it happened that the journey to Thessalonica already destined for the Emperor was necessarily delayed (Bk. III, ch. 33).
C Finally, at the beginning of February, on the day of the Parasceve, that is Friday—which ought to have begun in that year, with the cycle of the sun being 20 and having the Sunday index letter D—on the sixth day of that month, towards evening, Emperor Andronicus left the city and betook himself to Dripea, from where he prepared the remainder of his journey, having tarried there for a while (Bk. IV, ch. 1).
Patriarch John, wishing to dissuade Andronicus from the marriage of Simonis with the Kral, proceeds to Dripea; but the Emperor, knowing for what purpose he was coming, requested through messengers that he stop at Selybria (ibid.).
Eluded by Andronicus at Selybria, and not permitted to discuss what he wished regarding the marriage of Simonis, John determines to remain there while the Emperor departed, and not to return to the city until he had returned from Thessalonica (Bk. IV, ch. 2).
At Thessalonica, Emperor Andronicus sends Radostlabus with Roman troops into Bulgaria, from where he had been driven out by Osphentisthlabus. Eltimeres, fighting for Osphentisthlabus, captures Radostlabus having been defeated in battle, and sends him back to his wife blinded (ibid.).
Osphentisthlabus redeems his father Terteren, who was held in custody by Emperor Andronicus, by an exchange of Roman commanders captured by Eltimeres; yet he does not return the kingdom of Bulgaria, but assigns D him a city where he may live as a private citizen (ibid.).
A 849 The Emperor, having concluded a treaty of affinity with the Kral of Serbia, receives from him Cotanitzas, a defector and the previous husband of the Kral’s daughter, Terter’s daughter; and in turn, he consigns his own daughter Simonis as a bride to the Kral—a little girl barely eight years old to a man nearly fifty and already the husband of many wives—to be kept, namely, intact until she reached a marriageable age (although Gregoras, book VII, writes that the defloration of the young girl, through the intemperate impatience of waiting, rendered her thereafter unable to bear children), l. IV, c. 4 and 5.
The embassy of the Venetians meets Emperor Andronicus at Thessalonica, requesting the remission of the fine imposed upon the Venetians who were tenants in the city of Constantinople, and the release of the pledge of goods previously made on account of the fire at Galata; but he obtained nothing of it, l. IV, c. 6.
Emperor Andronicus tries in vain to arrange a marriage for Alexios, a prince of the Lazoi, his nephew on his sister's side and his ward by his father's will, with the daughter of the *praefectus canicleo*; and to annul through his legal authority as guardian a previous marriage contracted by the same Alexios without the influence of his mother or uncle with a certain daughter of one of the leading Iberians, l. IV, c. 7.
Repulsed from this, he attempts in vain to betroth the same daughter of the *praefectus canicleo* to his own son, the Despot John, with the mother of the youth, Empress Irene, opposing it, ibid.
B [P. 616] On the 22nd of November, Emperor Andronicus, having returned from Thessaly, enters the city of Constantinople with a solemn reception, l. IV, c. 8.
Atman the Persian satrap, also called Ottoman, the founder of the house ruling today among the Turks, grows in power, having added to himself numerous troops of ferocious brigands from Paphlagonia, l. IV, c. 25.
850 Patriarch John, due to the pain of the harmful and shameful affinity (as he thought) with the Kral of Serbia, which Andronicus had entered into without his counsel, lives in the Pammakaristos monastery as if a private individual, l. IV, c. 8.
The Emperor, after he had tried to appease him in vain through many sent by him, finally visited him himself on the Calends of February late at night; and he fully satisfies him regarding the three heads of complaints against him, and persuades him to return to the patriarchal residence and resume the governance of the Church, l. IV, c. 9.
After the Easter holidays, Emperor Andronicus openly revoked the judgment passed by himself against John of Ephesus, and declared him innocent of the crime for which he had been falsely accused, deposed from the throne, and placed under custody, l. IV, c. 10.
Nevertheless, Patriarch John, along with the bishops of Philadelphia and Smyrna, resist the restoration of John of Ephesus, ibid.
Offended by the quarrels that arose from this, Patriarch John withdraws again from the patriarchate to the Pammakaristos monastery, ibid.
Against him, the prelates offer a written complaint full of grievances to the Emperor, l. IV, c. 11.
Patriarch John, approaching the Emperor of his own accord on the 25th of October, a Tuesday, in the year (counting by the solar cycle 21, with the Dominical letter C. B.), resumes the functions of the patriarchate according to his wish, which he claimed was commanded to him by an angel, l. IV, c. 12.
Despot Michael marries the daughter of Terter, who had been repudiated by the Kral of Serbia, l. IV, c. 18.
This year, around the autumn equinox, the sun having entered Virgo, a comet appears in Constantinople, described by Pachymeres, l. IV, c. 14.
An unusual drought had preceded the appearance of the comet, from which the perennial springs dried up: whence the fruits of the earth and the grain crops perished entirely, with frequent dry and stormy winds making the air scarcely breathable, ibid.
The Alans, who had served as soldiers under Noga, to the number of sixteen thousand, defect to the sides of the Emperor, l. IV, c. 16.
Sent into Asia, they harass and plunder the Romans; [P. 617] yet, joined with the imperial forces, they defeat the enemies of the empire brilliantly at a place called Chenam, enriched thereafter with no small amount of booty, ibid.
Around this time, Atman or Ottoman assumed a royal title, and having later occupied Prusa, he placed the seat of his kingdom there. Dying then in the year of the Hegira 726, as the Arab chronologer Al Jannabis records, which is about the year of Christ 1327, he left his son Orhan as heir to the kingdom begun in the city of Prusa, freshly captured. Pachymeres alludes to the siege of Prusa, l. V, c. 21, p. 296, and to its conquest, l. VII, c. 27.
C On the 14th of January, a frightening lunar eclipse was seen at Constantinople, l. IV, c. 45.
Michael, the junior Augustus, moves into the East with a strong army in early spring around the Easter holidays, and strikes great consternation among the Persians by his fame, l. IV, c. 17.
The Persians are finally drawn out to a contest: but on the brink of battle, the Emperor, persuaded by the Roman commanders, cowardly avoids the fight. Whence he falls into contempt among his enemies; by whom, soon after, the Roman regions of those tracts were devastated by cruel and greedy incursions, l. IV, c. 18 and 21.
Muzalo the hetairiarch, commander of the Roman forces in Bithynia, while striving to resist the Atman who were ravaging everything, was defeated by a base languor—caused by the weariness, jealousy, and despair of a multitude of Romans who were fighting cowardly—and he was barely able, through the brave operation of the Alans, to take the remnants of the routed army with him into Nicomedia. This disaster took place on the 27th of the month of July near Bapheus, close to Nicomedia, l. IV, c. 25.
852 Thirteen Venetian triremes, along with seven pirate ships, arrived at Constantinople in a hostile manner at midday, entered the harbor called Ceras, and taking up a station opposite the imperial palace, they behaved in a hostile fashion, casting fire and missiles at whatever was in their way. Thus they forced the emperor to grant what he had refused to the Venetian envoys at Thessalonica, namely, the remission of the fine and the restoration of the seized goods, l. IV, c. 23. At the same time, the pirates, having occupied the Prince’s Island, forced the emperor to redeem with ready money many captives whom they had taken there. With Magnesia closed, the Alans who were serving under Michael Augustus the Younger requested their discharge. With difficulty, and at last through blandishments of words, a three-month period of delay was obtained from them. Being warned of these things, Andronicus was unable to provide his son with what he needed, although he wished to do so most of all, l. IV, c. 19.
[P. 618] The things which prevented Andronicus from providing what was necessary for the army of Augustus Michael were, besides the aforementioned Venetian war, the disturbances that had then arisen from the ecclesiastics in the city, which are narrated, l. IV, c. 27, almost at the end of the book. This year, after a long war between Charles, King of Naples, and Frederick, the ruler in Sicily, peace was established, and Eleonora, the daughter of Charles, was given to Frederick in marriage. Pachymeres mistakenly calls this daughter of Charles "Catherine": the occasion of which error I note in the remarks. Pope Boniface approved of these nuptials and the peace, although he wished for some change to be made in the conditions. See the most accurate Odoricus Raynaldus for this year from number 1 to 8. Roger of Lauria, whom Pachymeres names Rontzerius, and who had served Frederick usefully in the preceding war, having offered his services to Emperor Andronicus, was eagerly accepted and, having been invited by a diploma fortified with a golden bull to great expectations, prepared a fleet and forces to set out there, l. V, c. 12.
853 The Alans, once the three-month period that they had agreed upon with Emperor Michael had elapsed, extorted their discharge by armed supplications, l. IV, c. 20. Emperor Michael, having received no subsidy in the meantime from his father, fled by night from there in great perturbation and confusion to Pergamum, while the barbarian satraps—Ale, Amur, Laminse, Atman, and many others—were besieging him, having surrounded him on all sides of Magnesia, ibid. From there, all the Eastern regions of the empire yielded to the barbarians as plunder, c. 21. The Alans, leaving the empire's service without permission, killed the grand domestic Alexius Raoul, who attempted to restrain them at the crossing to Callipolis, c. 22. After this, the Alans, excusing the deed, were once again received into favor by Andronicus, ibid.
Patriarch John Cosmas, having been attacked both secretly and openly by various machinations of the bishops who favored John of Ephesus—as is narrated at length in chapters 27, 28, and 29 of the fourth book—finally, on the fifth of July, which was a Friday (the letter of the year, according to the solar cycle, is F, which corresponds to the Sunday letter, note of index F), indignantly withdrew from the synod, and the patriarch departed to the monastery of Pammakaristos; from there, the following day, he sent a written resignation of the patriarchate to the emperor. The Emperor, disturbed at the same time by fearful reports from everywhere—that not just one or another city or province was succumbing to the barbarians, but that the entire empire was being oppressed everywhere at one time, especially since the Persians were, without controversy, the masters of the entire Eastern continent, and having entered the sea with piratical fleets, were plundering Tenedos, then Chios, Samos, Carpathus, and Rhodes [P 619] with sudden landings—left the cause of the patriarch, and the deliberation over whether his abdication was valid, to the opinion of the bishops, ibid. He himself, meanwhile, was striving to save that city by secretly arranging a friendship between Cuximpaxim, a Tochar faithful to him, and Solymampaxim, a leader of the barbarian army threatening Nicomedia, and to diminish somewhat the evils of the cruel war; in which matter he achieved not much, l. IV, c. 30. After the synodical deliberations concerning the resignation of Patriarch John Cosmas, and various disputes on that occasion on both sides, as mentioned in c. 31 and 32, the matter still being undecided, the emperor, in the hope of attracting the Arsenians to his side, showed that he did not dislike the promotion of the bishop of Marmaritz—who had been nominated by them for this purpose—to the patriarchate, l. V, c. 33. Michael Augustus the Younger, being unequal to resisting the most vehement attacks of the Persians, retreated from Pergamum to Cyzicus; and not feeling secure even there, he betook himself to Pegae, which was a very well-fortified maritime city, l. V, c. 10. Boniface VIII, the Supreme Pontiff, died in Rome on the 5th of the Ides of October, having sat for 8 years, 9 months, and 18 days. His successor was elected on the 11th of the Kalends of November, Brother Nicholas Bocasinus of the Order of Preachers, Cardinal Bishop of Ostia, who on the following Sunday, the 4th of the Kalends of November, the vigil of the apostles Simon and Jude,
was crowned at St. Peter's and took the name Benedict. Spondanus numbers him the ninth among the Roman pontiffs so named, although most number them as eleven.
In September of this year, the second indiction having already begun to be counted according to the Greek manner, Rontzerius arrives at Constantinople with an auxiliary army. He is created Grand Duke by the emperor, and he takes as his wife the daughter of Asan, born of the Augusta’s sister. He is sent to Cyzicus. On his departure, he is attacked by the Genoese. The Drungarius Muzalo, sent by the emperor to settle the quarrel, is killed (Book V, ch. 14).
Menas the monk, nicknamed Scoleces, a disciple of the former patriarch Athanasius, approaching Emperor Andronicus on January 25th toward sunset, and having with difficulty obtained an audience, declares to him that Athanasius had said that the wrath of God was impending over the city and the people in his presence, and that he wished for the Augustus to immediately order prayers and vigils by everyone in all the monasteries of the city for three full days. The Augustus, taking this advice, immediately orders prayers to be announced that very night. The next morning, the emperor notices a slight earthquake, and judges this to be the beginning of the evil predicted by Athanasius. Soon, on the seventeenth day of January, a more violent earthquake occurred [P. 620], though not one strong enough to cause the collapse of buildings. Then he did not doubt that the impending danger to the city had been revealed to Athanasius, and that the force of the earthquake had been weakened by the prayers prescribed by him. Hence, he looked upon him as a man dear to God and decided to restore him to the throne. On January 18th, the emperor, having summoned the bishops, ecclesiastics, and monks, discoursed on the plan suggested to him and the event that followed, while withholding the name of Athanasius. Then, on the 19th of the same month, he held an assembly for everyone summoned—not only ecclesiastics and monks, but also citizens—and spoke to the same effect, praising that still-unnamed author of the salutary prophecy. Then, from the assembly itself, professing that he wished to go immediately to the beneficial prophet, he invited everyone to follow him; and so, with almost everyone accompanying him, he proceeds to Athanasius, whom at first sight most of the bishops acclaimed as patriarch, urging him to resume the government of the Church, while he himself refused with feigned modesty, and only asked for and obtained from the emperor the authority to relieve those who were oppressed. Whence it happened that supreme power over almost all affairs in the city was deferred to him, with everyone appealing to him from whatever court. These things are narrated more fully in the last three chapters of book IV and in book V.
A dissension flares up among the bishops regarding Athanasius, as to whether he could be canonically and prudently restored to the throne (Book V, ch. 2).
Emperor Andronicus, striving to overcome the authority of the prelates resisting the promotion of Athanasius by obtaining the assent of John Cosmas to it, approaches him during the days of Cheesefare, which are the seven days preceding Ash Wednesday (this was on February 11th in that year), and having been asked by him whether he thought he still held patriarchal power, he heard him respond submissively: "Yet, if I am truly patriarch, my abdication not yet having been approved or accepted, and with the commemoration of my name still continuing in the Great Church and the monasteries, I, by the authority of the Holy Trinity, subject to a major excommunication whoever may wish to establish Lord Athanasius in the patriarchal seat again" (Book V, ch. 3).
Theodora Augusta, mother of Emperor Andronicus, dies on the second feria of the second week of Lent, February 16th; and is magnificently buried by him (Book V, ch. 4).
After Easter, which fell on March 29th that year, the marriage of the despot John with the daughter of the prefect of the canicleo is celebrated (Book V, ch. 5).
Irene Augusta, wife of Emperor Andronicus, departs from the city for Thessalonica (ibid.).
Melitas, an ambitious cleric, being unable to pay off the huge debt he had contracted, hangs himself at Constantinople this year on July 30th (Book V, ch. 8).
On August 8th, an earthquake begins, by which Rhodes, Alexandria, a large part of the Peloponnese, and the island of Crete are miserably defaced (Book V, ch. 11).
Emperor Andronicus, anxious about the excommunication with which John Cosmas had bound him because he was meditating on the restoration of Athanasius to the throne, takes care to have it inquired among the bishops whether that sentence should be considered valid or not. But with them dissenting without end or hope of concord, the emperor is finally mollified by many intercessors sent to John Cosmas himself, and receives the revocation of that anathema expressed in writing; which document he receives on Friday, the twenty-first day of the month of August (Book V, ch. 6 and 7).
Emperor Andronicus, having informed the bishops by word of mouth about the release of the bonds of excommunication placed by John on those who would wish to restore Athanasius to the patriarchate, orders them to deliberate on his promotion, having gathered in the temple of the Holy Apostles. They did this by arguing endlessly throughout the following Saturday and the morning hours of Sunday, which was the 23rd day of the same month of August, at whose very midday Andronicus, having understood through his own men, whom he had ordered to explore the matter, that the prelates were split into factions and would never appear to be in unanimous agreement for the restoration of Athanasius, sets out for the synod and from there takes with him the bishops who favored Athanasius, and with them [to the]
A church, and himself leads Athanasius, adorned in his episcopal robes, under the sweltering sun, and installs him in possession of the patriarchate, l. v, c. 7.
Michael Augustus the Younger, while at Pegae, where he had retreated, is in danger from a dire illness but recovers through the aid of the Mother of God, l. v, c. 10.
Rontzerius and his men, having entered Cyzicus, exercise a dire tyranny there, l. v, c. 14.
John Batatzes, once emperor, appears, guarding Magnesia, and he who sees him, having previously been mute, receives the faculty of speech, l. v, c. 16.
Emperor Andronicus endeavors to win over Cazan, Khan of the Eastern Tocharians, by offering him his daughter in marriage; Cazan, having gratefully accepted this condition, issues an edict ordering the Barbarian leaders attacking the Roman Empire to cease their injuries, threatening that if they do not obey, he will crush them with arms, l. v, c. 16.
As the other satraps pay little heed to these threats, Alais alone makes certain truces with them, in concert with the defenders of the city of Sardis; their troops, with the aid of the Roman leader, the primicerius of the palace, are surrounded and destroyed in a slaughter, ibid.
858 Benedict IX, Roman pontiff, dies at Perugia on the 6th or 7th of July. As the cardinals dissent regarding the election of a successor, the see remains vacant for more than ten months.
The Rontzeriani live in the most flagitious manner at Cyzicus from spring until autumn, vexing their allies and refusing to move against the enemy. Many of their number, having stolen booty from the citizens and loaded it onto ships, flee; for the sake of excusing these things, Rontzerius approaches Andronicus in the final months of this year. He persuades him of what he wishes; moreover, he is gifted a great sum of money, l. v, c. 21.
This year occurred the death of Cazan, Khan of the Tocharians, mentioned in c. 1, l. vi. The coronation of his brother, who succeeded Cazan, had preceded this by a little time.
Michael Augustus the Younger, having returned from the Eastern expedition on January 24, enters Constantinople with a solemn reception by his father and the city, l. v, c. 17.
On March 13, the despot Michael, convicted of treason, is sentenced to perpetual imprisonment, l. v, c. 19.
As the Bulgarian Sphentisthlabus declares war on the empire, Emperor Andronicus strengthens that border with garrisons, and strives to keep Eltimerus, the uncle of Sphentisthlabus, in his allegiance by anticipating him with gifts. Finally, he sends Michael Augustus the Younger there, having assigned to him the possessions of the despot Michael, l. v, c. 18 and 19.
In the month of March, Emperor Andronicus, pressing insistently, obtains from the bishops who had broken away from Athanasius that they would consent to be reconciled to him. Whence, soon, on the next feast of Palms, which fell on April 7, they met in the church and acknowledged Athanasius as patriarch, communicating with him.
Athanasius of Alexandria alone inflexibly refuses to communicate with Athanasius of Constantinople, ibid. B
859 From the entire Eastern continent, stripped with impunity by the Persians, a rush is made into the city of Constantinople, which is thereafter burdened by a vast number of needy refugees, l. v, c. 21.
Nicaea, Nicomedia, and other great cities, their surrounding fortresses and suburban villages having been reduced to the power of the Barbarians, barely endure under siege, ibid.
Atman destroys Roman forces in the parts of Catacia under the stratopedarch Siurus in a slaughter. Then he occupies the fortress called Belocoma, which was most heavily fortified and provided with every apparatus; he escapes, having become very wealthy from that booty, ibid.
The Persians are slain by the Roman leader Marules at the tower called William’s; but the Catalans seize the spoils won from these people from the victorious Romans, ibid.
Horrendous examples of cruelty, avarice, and lust were produced by the Catalans at Cyzicus, ibid.
On the vigil of Pentecost, on the Nones, or the fifth day of June, Bertrand de Got, Archbishop of Bordeaux, is created pontiff at Perugia, and he assumed the name Clement V.
Rontzerius, knowing that he and his men labored under grave infamy at court because they were biding their time idly and flagitiously at Cyzicus, while their enemies were flying with impunity through the provinces and tracts of the empire—and were even attempting to compel Philadelphia to surrender through famine, having placed camps all around it—sets out for Constantinople toward the end of the year, and there alleges to the Augustus that his soldiers refused to march against the enemy because their wages were not paid. This is understood from c. 21, l. v.
Rontzerius, in the first or second month of this year, having easily cleared C himself and his men of the accusations before an emperor who was credulous and devoted to him, even obtained a great sum of money from him (a part of which he accepted at the time, while the rest was promised 860 to be counted out at Cyzicus within forty days, as was done), with which he might pay wages in full not only to his Catalans, but also to the Alans, l. v, c. 21.
While Rontzerius divides the imperial money liberally among his Catalans but niggardly D among the Alans at Cyzicus, he provides the cause for quarrels and enmities between both nations, ibid.
The Catalans, being provoked, treat the Alans with contempt and do not abstain from violence. Hence, it comes to a fight; the Catalans at first were victorious, and George, the son of the Alan leader, was killed: but later three hundred Catalans are perished by the Alans on April 9th, ibid.
Alisyras, with an army of Carmanians, reduces Philadelphia, which was surrounded by a tight siege, to extreme famine, ibid.
Andronicus, anxious for Philadelphia, urges Rontzerius to hasten there to its aid with forces of his own and of the Alans which he had at Cyzicus, ibid.
But as they were still delaying, and now that March was well advanced, Andronicus orders his sister Irene, the widow of Asanes and mother-in-law of Rontzerius, to set out for Cyzicus at the beginning of the Holy Week at the end of March (for Easter that year was April 3rd), and there to urge her son-in-law not to delay any longer such a necessary expedition, ibid.
At length, in the month of May, having reconciled the Alans as best he could, Rontzerius moves his entire army to Achiraus, and from there he approaches Germa, which fortress he captures, the Persians having fled in fear. The Romans, recovering their own property identified in the Persian loot, are harshly punished by Rontzerius. On that occasion, the great tzausius Chranisthlabus is in danger of being hanged, book V, chapters 21 and 23.
Constantine Porphyrogenitus, brother of the Emperor Andronicus, dies in prison on the fifth day of May, book V, chapter 22.
[P 624] Rontzerius defeats Alisyras in battle at Aulax; he is wounded and flees, and thus Philadelphia is liberated, book V, chapter 23.
Previously, Tripolis on the Meander was captured by the Persians by a stratagem during the night, book V, chapter 25.
861. The Grand Duke moves Attaliotes, the usurper of Magnesia, into his intimate confidence, though he had been restored to the Emperor's favor, to whom he was suspect, book V, chapter 24.
Nostongus, the Grand Hetairiarch, and prefect of that province, is forced by the insults of the Grand Duke to return to Constantinople without the order of the Emperor, where he is poorly received by the prince, who was predisposed in favor of Rontzerius, and is deprived of his dignities, ibid.
The Grand Duke cruelly extorts vast sums of money from the Romans. Magnesia, failing the Grand Duke through the advice of Attaliotes, is besieged by him with the greatest force, but in vain, ibid.
The fortress called Cenchreae, where many Romans had taken refuge, having been besieged by the Barbarians for a long time and briefly refreshed by aid brought by Choeroboscus, is finally forced to surrender due to thirst, book V, chapter 27.
Michael Augustus the Younger, having gone with an army into the Western regions, enters the territory subject to the outer yoke, which was obedient to the hostile Bulgarians, and on the twenty-third day of August, he enters it in a hostile manner and lays it waste far and wide, book V, chapter 28.
Prince Alexius of the Lazi fights successfully against the Genoese at Trebizond, book V, chapter 29.
Queen Anna is attacked in the Western regions in war by her son-in-law Philip, whom she was putting off regarding his dowry lands according to the pacts, book V, chapter 30.
A mute man suddenly recovers the use of his tongue through the intercession of the holy martyr Theodosia, book V, chapter 32.
The Alans, having escaped the camp of the Grand Duke by flight, destroy nine hundred Persians near Pegas, though they themselves were much fewer in number, book V, chapter 31.
The Emperor Andronicus tries again and again, with repeated orders, to pull the Grand Duke away from the siege of Magnesia, but in vain, ibid.
At length, he leads his troops into the Western region, as he had been commanded, laying everything waste on his journey, book VI, chapter 3.
862. Cazanes, Khan of the Tocharoi and friend of the Romans, dies, his brother Carmpantane, whom he had previously summoned for this purpose from India, being designated as his successor, book VI, chapter 1.
Amurius treats with the Emperor Andronicus for peace, ibid.
On September 29th, the Emperor delivers a long oration to the Arsenians, who had long been separated from the others by a persistent schism, seeking in vain to bring them back to agreement, book VI, chapter 2.
[P. 625] Having crossed into the Western continent, the Amogavari cruelly plunder the Romans under the pretext that their wages had not been paid, and they boast without end of the victory they had gained against the Carmanians at Philadelphia, book VI, chapters 3, 13, 14, and book VII, chapter 1.
For I believe this to be the point of the epoch of the sixth book described at its beginning. For in truth, at this time it had happened that the 12th year of Michael and the 23rd year of Andronicus had unfolded. For although the title of this year in our index has Michael 13 and Andronicus 24, it is no obstacle, since we place the years initiated in the title, while Pachymeres speaks manifesty of completed ones. However, since the 13th year of Michael and the 24th of Andronicus were in the course of unfolding, they could not count completed years unless it was the 12th of the former and the 23rd of the latter. However, the historian, I suppose, wished to mark the beginning of the Catalan war with that unusual diligence of his in expressing the years during which the princes had reigned. See what is said above in the 6th chapter of this chronological book, note 8.
The Genoese dwelling in Galata warn the Emperor Andronicus that a war is being prepared by the Catalans against the Romans, and that aid is expected for this from Sicily.
A However, as the Emperor did not credit their information, they prepared themselves to repel that war B (bk. vi, ch. 6 and 9).
Berenguer de Entença, the Catalan, arrives with nine warships at the port of Madytos, summoned by the Grand Duke, who went to him toward the end of October so as to reconcile him with Andronicus and persuade him to accept honors and pay. He demanded 300,000 coins for his soldiers in payment of the wages owed; then, pleading for Entença, he requested that he be honored. Struck by the demand for such a sum of money, the Emperor at first refused to agree; later, however, when Rontzerius [Roger] approached him again and reduced the request for wages to a more moderate sum, he granted both (bk. vi, from ch. 4 to 8).
The pirate Andrea, offering military service to the Emperor with two armed ships, is admitted. But one of his ships is burned by the Venetians, who were hostile to Andrea, with him fleeing in the other (bk. vi, ch. 10).
Berenguer de Entença arrives at Constantinople around the middle of December at the Emperor's summons, refusing to disembark from the ship unless hostages were given. Finally, persuaded to disembark by the feast of Christ's nativity, he is created Grand Duke, and swears loyalty to the Emperor, but with an exception (bk. vi, ch. 11 and 12).
Being then admitted to the council regarding the petitions of the Catalans, where he heard from the Emperor how much he had already given to the Catalans and how much he was still prepared to give, he began to complain that he was being treated meanly, being given so little in comparison to others. And from this, he plotted defection from the Emperor (bk. vi, ch. 14 and 15).
[P. 626] Berenguer, invited by the Emperor to appear with him at the feast of the Lights, that is Epiphany, on the 6th of January, rudely refuses to go, even mocking with contempt the insignia of honors granted to him by the Augustus; and on the third day after, he set sail for Gallipoli to the Catalan camp, without saluting the Augustus, who, having been sufficiently assured that he was preparing a defection, forbade him from being invaded and detained by his men (bk. vi, ch. 15).
The Emperor, seeing that the Catalans were clearly certain to wage war openly against the Romans—which he had been unwilling to believe when the Genoese long ago and Michele Augustus more recently had indicated it to him—offered the dignity of Caesar to Rontzerius through envoys, so that he might hinder it in some way, and he accepted it after much difficulty on certain conditions (bk. vi, ch. 16).
Theodorus Chumnus, carrying the insignia of the Caesarean dignity from the Emperor to Rontzerius, along with documents sealed in gold and 30,000 coins, hearing on the journey that the Catalans were not fulfilling the pacts and fearing violence from them, returns with the business unfinished (bk. vi, ch. 17).
The island of Chios was captured by the Persians, plundered and laid waste, with most of the inhabitants slaughtered with barbaric inhumanity (ibid.).
Rontzerius, at Gallipoli, holds a speech insulting to the Emperor and proudly threatening (bk. vi, ch. 18).
Ten days later, Rontzerius, having sent letters to Andronicus, feigning repentance for his words and actions against him and excusing the necessity caused by his men being incited to sedition, requests pardon (bk. vi, ch. 18).
On the ninth of March, regarding the embassy sent by the Catalans, Andronicus, with a great assembly gathered, delivers an address in which, having reminded them of their duty, he also attempts to deter them from contumacy with threats (ch. 19).
The Emperor Andronicus creates the son of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, his brother, Panhypersebastos (bk. vi, ch. 20).
The Emperor, studying to protect Patriarch Athanasius from envy—for he was loathed by all for his immense cruelty and therefore attacked by libelous pamphlets scattered in secret—delivers a sermon on his praises, adding the example of a certain Armenian who, after cursing Athanasius, had by chance broken his leg, which he attempted to persuade them was a punishment divinely inflicted (bk. vi, ch. 21).
Meanwhile, on the day when the Gospel of Lazarus raised from the dead by Christ is read during the sacred rites in the Greek church, which is certain to happen on the Saturday contiguous to Palm 865 Sunday, or the day before that feast—which in that year fell on March 26, falling entirely on the 19th of the same month, and consequently the preceding Saturday fell on March 19—Rontzerius solemnly assumes the insignia of Caesar sent to him by the Emperor Andronicus, along with 33,000 gold coins [P. 627] (bk. vi, ch. 22).
Rontzerius, now Caesar, goes to Adrianople with 150 picked men of his own number, to greet the younger Augustus, Michael, by whom he is magnificently received (bk. vi, ch. 23).
Rontzerius the Caesar is killed by the Alans at Adrianople at the very entrance of the chamber of the Augusta, whom he was admitted to greet (bk. vi, ch. 24).
His companions, then given into custody, later attempting to escape by flight, were besieged, attacked, and consumed by fire (bk. vi, ch. 33).
The Catalans at Gallipoli, where they ruled after the Romans there were cruelly killed, are besieged by the Roman army, under the Grand Primicerius; but by means of a truce obtained through the fraud of the siege, they loosen [their hold] and fortify that citadel with supplies and garrisons. Then, having increased their forces, they raid the Roman regions. They capture Perinthus by force on the 28th of May, with the grown men found there killed. And on the same day, having crossed
the strait, they set fire to the rustic dwellings throughout the fields, cutting down everyone they met and bringing terror to the gates of the city itself, as the crowds fleeing to safety could scarcely be contained, lib. VI, c. 25.
The treachery of a certain Catalan who had defected to the emperor, whom he had created an Admiral, is discovered, lib. V, c. 26.
Following this, sedition being stirred up in the city, the mob, on the pretext of searching for Catalans in hiding, plunders and burns the houses of the citizens, ibid.
The Friars, that is, the Latin monks, are expelled by Patriarch Athanasius from the house and temple which they held within the city with the emperor's consent. The Pisan Exarch, who had been in charge of this execution, is wounded by assassins 866 sent by the Galatin Genoese. On account of this, Andronicus bars the Galatines from entering the city, lib. VI, c. 28.
Andronicus is reconciled with the Genoese, and persuades those arriving in the city with their sixteen long ships to fight against the Catalan fleet, which was threatening the city under the leadership of Mpyrigerius. All the Catalan ships, except one, fall into the power of the Genoese. The leader Mpyrigerius himself is captured, lib. VI, c. 29.
Two Roman commanders, sent by Michael the Younger Augustus with a portion of the army against the Catalans, are drawn into an ambush by them and defeated, lib. VI, c. 30.
Emperor Andronicus, having held an assembly, restrains the mob tumultuously stirring within the city with threats and admonitions, lib. VI, c. 31.
Junior emperor Michael, leading the entire army drawn up in battle array against the Catalans, is himself defeated, and having endangered his life, he escapes with difficulty, lib. VI, c. 32.
The ripe crops in the fields, and the produce harvested in the threshing floors and villas, left behind by the rustics as they fled to the city [P. 628] from all sides, fall as booty to the Catalans, ibid.
Two Genoese warships are hired by Emperor Andronicus at great expense for a two-month campaign, ibid.
Andreas Muriscus, besieging Tenedos on behalf of the emperor, secures the surrender through the Genoese and takes possession of that fortress, lib. VI, c. 34.
Manuel Zacharias, ruling over Phocaea, obtains from Andronicus that the islands lying adjacent to it be exempted from his guardianship, ibid.
Mpyrigerius is abducted from the Genoese as a captive to Italy, lib. VII, c. 7.
With Michael the Junior Augustus shut up in Didymoteicho after an adverse battle, and with the Bulgarian Osphentisthlabos harassing the Roman border on one side, and the Catalans ravaging everything on the other, Emperor Andronicus treats for peace with the Catalans through legates at Gallipoli, 867 but in vain, as they demand intolerable conditions, lib. VII, c. 1 and 2.
The Persians who had been serving in the Catalan army, being offended by them, cross the strait while withdrawing to their own people in Asia and are intercepted and destroyed by Andreas Muriscus, the emperor's admiral, lib. VII, c. 3.
Thereupon, Muriscus is created Admiral as a reward for his service, ibid.
Alani and Turcopuli, deserting the emperor, attack the Romans, lib. VII, c. 4.
Attaleota rebels against the emperor in the East, ibid.
The Catalans widely pillage all the Roman regions, lib. VII, c. 3.
Andreas Muriscus brings grain to Madytos, which was suffering from hunger due to a long siege by the Catalans, lib. VII, c. 11.
Shortly after, he deserts from the Augustus, ibid.
Madytus, finally compelled to surrender, is captured by the Catalans under the leadership of Pharendra Tzime, lib. VII, c. 6.
A fatal fire, having started toward evening through a chance accident—or perhaps by the will of God declaring that He turned away from the prayers of Athanasius, the Patriarch of Constantinople who was hated by all and who was daily celebrating litanies to appease God during such great evils—reduced a very densely inhabited and most wealthy district of the city, from the Cynegos Gate to the monastery of the Forerunner, to ash with inestimable loss, lib. VII, c. 10.
Athanasius, the Alexandrian patriarch, being irreconcilably hostile to Athanasius of Constantinople, after having been ordered to return to his own church by Emperor Andronicus—who had often tried in vain to reconcile the two men—is released, carried toward Crete, and then to Euboea, where, having been in grave danger from the Latins [P. 629] dominating there, he is subsequently thrown into prison in Thebes, and finally is set free.
In the month of April, on the Sunday called "New," Meliteniota, steadfast in the faith of the Roman Church, dies, lib. VII, c. 31.
868 Cubuclea, a fortress of Mysia situated on Olympus, is most perfidiously and cruelly betrayed to the Persians by the Amogabars: they themselves are safely brought to Lampsacus, lib. VII, c. 9.
The Turks occupy the fortress of Examili under the leadership of the Latin Romofortus, whose conspired treachery against the emperor is discovered, lib. VII, c. 12.
The fortress of the Thyraeans is forced to surrender to the necessity of hunger after a long siege, and after it, Ephesus is captured by the Persarch Sasane; where the temple of St. John the Evangelist, most wealthy in sacred furnishings, happened to be plundered on such an occasion, lib. VII, c. 13.
Twenty thousand soldiers sent to the emperor's aid by Charmpantane Kani Tocharorum are reported to have reached Iconium, ibid.
The Catalans, having joined the Turcopuli, devastate all of Thrace, lib. VII, c. 14. Emperor Andronicus implores aid from the Genoese, having sent envoys to them, ibid. The monk Hilarion conducts affairs successfully against the Persians by hand and arms, and is therefore harassed by the patriarch but protected by the emperor, lib. VII, c. 16. Prusa is forced to pay tribute to the Persians, ibid. In the early spring, about nineteen long ships arrive at Constantinople from Genoa, lib. VII, c. 18. Andronicus neglects to use them against the Catalans, in the hope of reaching a peace agreement with them; to which end he sends envoys to Gallipoli in vain, ibid. The Turcopuli, joined by the Amogabari, defeat the Alans in battle on the borders of Bulgaria, and distribute among themselves the vast spoils taken from them as the prize of victory, ibid. The Amogabari, having besieged Orestias for a long time without success, are forced to retreat, having lost many of their own men, ibid. A part of the Amogabarian army, composed mainly of Persians, having occupied the defiles and the fortress of mount Canis, ravages the region below, harvesting the ripe crops in the month of July, lib. VII, c. 20. Romofortus captures other fortresses in that region with the Latins, lib. VII, c. 26. Isaacius Melecus, a Persian who was serving with the Amogabari, having given his word to the emperor to abduct them, while the emperor in turn promised him the hand of the daughter of the other Melecus, the niece of Sultan Azatines, is caught while attempting that which he had promised, and is beheaded, lib. VII, c. 15, 22, and 29. The grand primicerius Cassianus, rebelling against the emperor, is betrayed by the Chellenses, taken to Constantinople, and imprisoned, lib. VII, c. 24. A league with the Iberians is attempted by the emperor with no success, lib. VII, c. 25. The fortress of Rhaedestus is forced to surrender to Romofortus, lib. VII, c. 26. The emperor, having sent his own envoys with the Genoese to the Catalans, attempts in vain to secure peace from them, lib. VII, c. 27. The Romans are slaughtered by the Amogabari at Bizya. After that defeat, to prevent the fortress of Bizya from being taken, women dressed as men were displayed, lib. VII, c. 28. The most severe oppressions of all people, especially the clergy, are described, owing to the inhumanity of Patriarch Athanasius, lib. VII, c. 22, 28, and 35. The treachery of Pharendas Tzimas against the emperor, disguised as a defection, is discovered, lib. VII, c. 30. Maria, the emperor's sister, betrothed to Charmpantane Kani Tocharorum, while living at Nicaea, having obtained thirty thousand soldiers from her betrothed, as rumor had it, who were arriving, attempts in vain to deter Almanes from attacking the Roman fortresses of those districts. For at that very time he captures Tricoccia, the most fortified bulwark of Nicaea, by force, lib. VII, c. 33. The emperor strives to recover the fortress of Thasus, which had been occupied by Manuel the Genoese, son of the brother or sister of Zacharias, by sending ten ships in the height of summer, under the command of Marules, ibid. The Roman fortress of Aenus is besieged in vain by the Latins, under the leadership of Tzimas, ibid. The leaders of the Catalans, dissenting among themselves, cannot be reconciled even by the emperor's own son who had been sent by the king of Sicily, lib. VII, c. 34. Finally, the leaders of the Catalans fight among themselves at Cassandrea. After Mpyrigerius is killed and Pharendas Tzimnes put to flight, Romofortus, having gained sole power, leads all the Catalan forces into Thessaly, lib. VII, c. 36. The end of this history terminates in the forty-ninth year of the life of Andronicus, ibid.