Notice

NOTICE

Touching Archbishop Symeon of Thessalonica, I had written as follows in my work *On the Union of Both Churches*, book II, chapter 18, n. 13: ^A “At this same period flourished Symeon, Archbishop of Thessalonica. He lived, in fact, after Barlaam, Acindynus, Palamas, Gregoras, Philotheus the Patriarch, Nilus of Thessalonica, Nicholas Cabasilas, Nilus the Patriarch of Constantinople, and Isidore of Thessalonica, all of whom he himself mentions in his *Ecclesiastical Dialogue* against all heresies, and concerning other ecclesiastical matters. Indeed, in that very *Dialogue* he reveals his own age.

“But in this age of ours, those who have written most excellently concerning the monastic life—as those who themselves were truly from God, speaking of God, bearing God, and bearing Christ, and truly inspired by God—are our holy Father Callistus, who was by the grace of God Patriarch of the Royal City (New Rome), and his fellow-breather and fellow-ascetic, the blessed Ignatius. And in a book composed by them, they have philosophized in a spiritual, divine, and most exalted manner in one hundred chapters—a perfect number—transmitting the perfect knowledge concerning this subject.

“The work of Callistus and Ignatius is held in the Barberini Library under this title: ^B ‘The method and exquisite rule of Callistus and Ignatius Xanthopulos, the least of the solitaries, confirmed by the testimonies of the Fathers, concerning those who choose the quiet and monastic life, and concerning the way of life and the reason for the aforementioned, and for what goods quietude proves to be the cause for those who embrace it according to reason.’ The work is divided into one hundred chapters. Since there are two who bear the name Callistus—the one under John Cantacuzene, and the other under Manuel Palaeologus, some forty-six years later—it could be called into doubt of which Callistus he speaks. But since he mentions Nicholas Cabasilas, who flourished under Manuel, it is necessary that he is speaking of the second Callistus, who managed the patriarchate around the year of the Lord 1406. Therefore, he flourished around the times of John Palaeologus, or a little before, the third ^C after the elder Symeon of Thessalonica following Isidore, whom he himself mentions (for between Isidore and him, only Gabriel is recorded). From this it is gathered how greatly Possevinus blunders in his *Apparatus*, writing with a monstrous anachronism that he lived six hundred years ago, whereas he lived only one hundred and eighty years before Possevinus's own time. In all his writings he is injurious toward the Latins, whom he often carps at, and he assails their rites while comparing them with the Greeks.”

And these things, indeed, I wrote briefly at the time concerning him; but now, as time and place demand, I shall add other things: and let his eulogy precede, which Eugenius the Nomophylax (by what authority he acted, men of similar lot will say) appended to the Synodicum of the Sunday of Orthodoxy, which is accustomed to be recited in the Church of Thessalonica.

“Of Symeon of blessed memory, the most holy Archbishop of Thessalonica, ^D who, being filled beyond human comprehension with both external and spiritual wisdom, excelled in the ascetic—or rather, angelic—institution and way of life, and performed it most perfectly with the highest virtue and praise, and, according to Christ, by self-abasement and the excellence of his virtues, was exalted according to the divine promises that cannot lie, and through action he ascended..."

^A contemplationem ascended, and thence, by the nod of God, like a light-bearing torch placed upon a lampstand, and as a most brilliant herald of the truth ascended upon a high mountain, he illuminated with his sweet-shining rays—that is, with his teachings—not only this, his own renowned metropolis, but the entire world like the sun. And he demonstrated toward God and neighbor a love, if any other did, to the highest degree, as almost no one of all men has shown, and he adorned the choirs of the saints with sacred chants, and from his own resources, whose life he emulated and fulfilled. And in his angelic and venerable, and godlike manner of conduct, and in his cheerful state, he was truly God-bearing in reality and in appearance, and one might call him a man possessing the fervent zeal of Elijah for the pious and ancestral dogmas of the Church, and he watered them daily with the sweet flowing stream of his teaching, and with the persuasive and pleasing power of his words, and with his honey-flowing speech, he drew all men to himself, as if by some ineffable power of the Sirens, and held them fast. And as a sign and expressive image of the ancients, and a pillar of piety, and a rule of virtue, and a type of Christian life, he strove with greatest zeal to set forth his own life, and by these means he stirred all men—even those who held different views regarding the faith than we do—to astonishment and wonder, and to the praise and glorification of the great God of all. Eternal be his memory.

Did Eugenicus not wash his Ethiopian well? From the writings of Symeon, it is manifestly proven that what he relates concerning his learning and eloquence is false and mendacious. Who can assure us that he speaks the truth in other matters? His credibility is suspect.

And that the series of the bishops of Thessalonica may be held, those things must be set forth which we have copied from the same Thessalonian Synodicon, which are these:

Of Isidore, of blessed memory, the most holy archbishop ^C of Thessalonica, who like a brilliant star illuminated this flock of his with his daily sacred teachings and instructions, and who, like the good and first shepherd Christ, took care of the flock in every way, and endured long travels, and whatever seemed divine and conducive to salvation, he both taught by his words and demonstrated by his works, and firmly attained the heights in all respects, truly equal to those who before him were conspicuous in virtue and doctrine; eternal be his memory. Of Gabriel, of blessed memory, the most holy archbishop of Thessalonica, who from early childhood was dedicated to God, and held the highest place in the monastic life, and thence, as a reward for virtue, received the care of this city, and by many works and by prayers to the Divine, he preserved it; and among other spiritual gifts with which he shone, he was adorned with gentleness and love, and always showed paternal affection toward his spiritual children; eternal be his memory. Of Symeon, of blessed memory, etc., of Gregory, of blessed memory, archbishop ^D of Thessalonica, who even before his pontificate was counted among the first of the same order and—you have it above. Then follows:

flock of Christ entrusted to him before, was transferred to its holy throne after the capture of this city. And having neglected nothing that might contribute to its restoration—having honored this clergy almost entirely with holy ranks in whatever ways he could, and again both publicly and privately helping and laboring together for all in the face of the impending needs, and showing in all his works that he followed the divine law—everlasting be his memory. Many years to Niphon, our most holy master, the most divine metropolitan of Thessalonica, and Hypertimos and Exarch of all Thessaly. ^A

What is said here about Niphon was written at the end in that codex and by another hand, from which it may be gathered that it was written in Niphon's own time, and especially since he prays for many years, and does not commemorate "everlasting memory," which is acclaimed for the dead. In the eulogy of Gabriel, it was noted in the margin: "Symeon," or "of Symeon," and if conjecture does not err, this Symeon, of whom we speak, was its author, just as Eugenicus dictated the eulogy of Symeon. Symeon lived, therefore, before Thessalonica was captured by Amurates, and he died six months before the ruin of that city; Gregory succeeded him after the capture. But Thessalonica was captured by Amurates in the year 6938 from the creation of the world, 1430 from Christ. Joannes Anagnosta, an eyewitness of events in his *Narrative of the final destruction of Thessalonica* says: "The month of March was beginning its twenty-ninth day, the year of the world six thousand nine hundred thirty-eight." Hence you may see how much the author of the *Political History* is mistaken, as well as those with him, such as Martin Crusius, Leunclavius, Jacob Pontanus in his notes on the *Protovestiarius*, and others, who refer the siege of Thessalonica to the year of Christ 1431. Others, with a greater anachronism, refer it to '32, confusing the first arrival of Amurates, when he oppressed the city, with the second; for after two years he returned to it, and whatever he had beneficially conceded to the Christians after the storming of the city, he wickedly perverted during this second visit and changed things to the worst state. Symeon was a man of manly and present mind, who could be led neither by the rewards offered by Amurates to the Thessalonians nor by threats to the opinion that the Greeks should eject the Latins and surrender to Amurates; and therefore he was the more sharply accused by the malevolent. The same Anagnosta pursues the matter at greater length, and since his work is rare and not available to all, I shall set down his words here, even though they are quite prolix. ^B

For when our affairs were in this state, and single moments brought countless calamities, and we were despairing of salvation, another evil suddenly burst forth. And this was the departure of our shepherd, according to divine counsel—the shepherd who, like the first Shepherd, daily laid down his soul without hesitation for his flock. To him indeed it happened fortunately, but to us it brought huge losses, for we were deprived of his prayers to God, by which our safety was secured. And that this happened according to divine will, you may conjecture from the things that had occurred to him in a dream while he was still alive. It seemed to him, before the city fell to war, that he had entered a clear and very large house, and was examining its individual parts, and admiring its beauty and magnitude. While intent on this, he heard a voice coming from outside, saying: "This house, whose individual parts you are admiring while observing them as very bright and beautiful, ^C will soon collapse; and so that its ruin may not overwhelm you, take yourself out of here quickly." This vision was confirmed by its effect not long after. For as he was a just man, that he might appear so, and receive the rewards of his many labors of virtue, he departed in this way, as was fitting, to God, whom he had so greatly longed for, even before the common misfortune. For it was not judged right by God that he should have experience of such evils and share in the...

^A life of those who were his equals; for his manner of life was not like that of others, and his paths were distinct, to speak with Solomon. But we, being altogether filled with wickedness, and walking after the thoughts of our own evil heart—which is indeed that of Jeremiah—and being murmurous just as the ancient Israel was, and not having the things we desire to enjoy, we have justly fallen into such miserable straits; and we have been deprived of this man, who alone remained as a consolation in these most afflicted times and in such great perils. For we all regarded him as a kind of vital force within us, and we viewed his death as nothing else but the prelude to the most just chastisement of God upon us. This most clearly refutes those who utter unworthy words against him and load him with infamy, because he did not urge betrayal, and because he restrained them when they were meditating on something deeper according to their own designs. ^B For I think that God, wishing to show what that holy man was like and what he was worthy of, and what we are like, and what punishments it was just for us to pay, for this reason arranged the matters of each party so adaptably.

Therefore, this terrible evil—his death, I mean—being added to the others, and all the men, women, children, Latins, and even the Jews themselves in the city miserably conversing with one another and putting aside in oblivion everything else that was then afflicting them, but taking into their minds the deprivation of their pastor, and mentioning it again and again, and asserting—as I have already hinted—and not without reason believing that this was an indication both of divine punishment and of the subsequent downfall, and so on... But since I have reached this point, I shall address a few words to those who accuse him or anyone else. Where were you, when Murad was offering these things? Were you not in the city, and did you not hear the proclamations with your own ears? By what reasoning, then, did you not act? Why, when you were thinking of it, did you not carry it through to completion? Why do you accuse others of not having acted, when you yourselves—with the occasion pressing and nothing to prevent you—did not act? For at that time there was no pastor; for he had already departed from among the living six months earlier. Nor were there at that time the curses, nor the other things which you recount and list exactly on your fingers. What, then, was the obstacle for you, or whose work were the things that happened? ^C Anyone who considers the matter with piety would answer: no one's, except our own wickedness, which moved God, who is free from wrath, unto wrath against us, and stirred Him to bring over us, who were falling into incorrigible error, a chastisement, so that we might at least come to ourselves and grow wise for the future.

But if anyone, recalling the times past, opposes us again and attaches the cause to the Pastor—who, to those wishing to surrender, indeed spoke against the stated judgment—he harbors, I think, the thoughts of a madman. For, in the first place, it is not fitting for a pontiff to take charge of military affairs, ^D and like a tyrant to drive one from power and introduce another, and to be the cause of events, or of slaughter, or of the losses that occur when the state of affairs is being changed. For he is not seated upon a throne of military command, but upon a throne of priestly and of the Master's—