Theodore Gaza

THEODORUS GAZA

NOTITIA

Theodorus Gaza, a native of the Macedonian city of Thessalonica, was appointed the first prefect and moderator of the restored gymnasium of letters at Ferrara, and there he taught Greek publicly. He wrote much of his own, and translated much from Greek into Latin and from Latin into Greek. He wrote on his own behalf four books of Greek Grammar, which were printed in various places: at Venice by Aldus, at Basel by Curio, and at Paris by Wechel, generally with a Latin translation. Finally, [they were printed] at Basel by Nicolaus Brilinger in the year of our Lord 1540. How highly Robortellus valued the art of Gaza in organizing grammatical matters, we may hear from the man himself in his expositions of Aristotle’s book of *Poetics*: "Hence Theodorus Gaza, a most learned man, who constructed that method with the highest ingenuity, says at the beginning of the fourth book: *'Now regarding the syntax of the parts of speech,'* etc." I wished to add Gaza’s own words here, because they seem to be set forth with such artistry that you may recognize the marvelous industry of that most refined man in discerning and distinguishing this method, just as Aristotle is accustomed to do in other arts and sciences when there is need. And, by heavens, I value Gaza so highly in this fourth book in particular that I believe he should be set before no one among the ancients. Joannes Sambucus possesses a grammar of Theodorus Gaza other than the one that was printed. (Gesnerus.)

*On the Attic Months*, a Greek book printed at Basel by Robert Winter with a Latin version by Joannes Perellus, and now recently [reprinted] in the *Uranologion* of Dionysius Petavius, Paris, by Sebastian Cramoisy, 1630, in folio.

*Antirrhetic*. It is said to Bessarion the Patriarch in the discourses *On Behalf of Plato*, that he might have hoped to encounter other matters of the more serious theorems in the book of the one who spoke against Plato; and concerning forms, whether some are separable, whether all are inseparable, and if they are separable, whether they exist by themselves or exist in conceptions. An *Antirrhetic Oration*. It was said to Bessarion the Patriarch regarding those things which he said in the books *In Defense of Plato*, because he had indeed hoped to find theorems of greater study in the book of the one who contradicted Plato. And regarding species, whether any are separable, or all are inseparable: and if separable, whether they subsist per se, or are indeed discerned by thought alone. In which you also have the argument of the oration: *'As you may have hoped for amongst other things'*...

*On the Voluntary and the Involuntary*. *'But one might raise a difficulty about the voluntary and involuntary in particular cases.'*

*That Nature Does Not Deliberate*. *Quod natura consilio res non gerit*.

*On the Antiquities of the Turks*. *De origine et antiquitate Turcarum*, addressed to Franciscus Philelphus. *'Regarding the Turks, who they might be, and from where they first set out.'*

*Various Epistles*. I. To his brothers Demetrio and Georgio. *'While I was thinking of writing to you.'* II. To Demetrio Sguropulo. *'You announce terrible things again, if indeed [you have] nothing [good].'* This epistle is also read in the Royal Library in Paris. III. To Andronicus Callistus. *'That you did not go abroad with the others.'* IV. To the same. *'I answered the master regarding what you wrote.'* V. To Cardinal Bessarion. *'Already your sacred [garment/dignity] is among the Celts.'* VI. To the same. *'From the things sent to the masters.'* VII. To the same. *'I pray to hear good things about you.'* VIII. To Alexius. *'The illness that befell the master.'* IX. To the same. *'Yesterday by chance I saw the licentiate.'* X. To Philelphus. *'Old age does not seem to be weak in all things.'* XI. To Alexius. *'We arrived at Viterbo, and the natural hot springs.'* XII. To the same. *'I sent [a letter] to you at the month of February’s end.'* XIII. To the same. *'I sent twice, the first things.'* XIV. To the same. *'The letter was received by me, the seventeenth.'*

The Royal Index of San Lorenzo notes: *Theodori Gazæ Temmachia*: on the soul, on the voluntary and involuntary, definitions, and defenses against Plethon.

He wrote poems besides, and for that reason Gyraldus lists him among the poets of his time in dialogue I. The things that Ludovicus Carbo [said] in a certain oration on the liberal arts to Leonellus Estensis are to be heard...

^A in part: "I say, indeed, to what honor Theodorus is worthy, whom I shall always love more than half of my own soul, whose little verses, which he published most elegantly concerning your muses, I beg and beseech again and again that you order to be carved in that most beautiful shrine. For what could Callimachus have said more gravely? What could Propertius have said more sweetly? What could Tibullus have said more beautifully? For they express both the name and the office of the Muses elegantly, and alluding to their painting, they sing their praise more briefly. O noble talent of the man, that such a philosopher excels in delicacies of this kind!"

From the Greek, the following were turned into the Latin tongue by him: Aelian's *On the Instructing of Battle Lines*, [printed] at Cologne with certain others, and at Venice in quarto. Dionysius of Halicarnassus's *On the Composition of Speech*. Theophrastus's *On the History and Causes of Plants*, fifteen books. Aristotle's *History of Animals*, nine books. *On the Parts of Animals and Their Causes*, four books. *On the Generation of Animals*, five books. *Problems*, thirty-one sections. All of which, along with the rest of Aristotle's works rendered into Latin, have been printed frequently. ^B Cratander published the two books of Alexander's *Problems* at Basel in the year 1537, with Aristotle's *Problems* translated by the same. Regarding this version of Theodorus, Franciscus Patricius [writes in his] *Discussiones Peripateticae*, book II: "Following Leonardus Brunus, about the year 1453, Theodorus Gaza produced in Latin all of Aristotle's books on animals, and the *Problems*; as well as Theophrastus's books *On Plants*, and Alexander's *Problems*." Three other most learned Greeks followed him in that task: Georgius Trapezuntius, Bessarion, and Joannes Argyropulus, who gave various books of Aristotle to the Latin language.

Petrus Pantinus, in the letter to the reader which he prefixed to the *Proverbs* of Michael Apostolius, enumerating among other Greeks who had come to Italy with Bessarion [the name of] Theodorus Gaza, writes: "But [of those who translated] Aristotle, Theodorus Gaza, Joannes Argyropulus, and Georgius Trapezuntius the rhetor, were all so exercised in writing Latin in a short time, that Gaza pushed the boundaries of the Roman tongue in the *History of Animals* of Aristotle so far, that I can hardly find anyone whom I might compare to him, and indeed I would prefer no one." Nor is Franciscus Floridus alien to this opinion in his *Lectiones Subsicivae*, book IV, chapter 12, who, in rendering Greek authors into Latin, places the excellence of Theodorus among the highest nobles of that order, even if, having slipped in the most trivial words, he may sometimes have left behind the greatest quarrels over nothing for those unskilled in the Greek tongue.

In Theodorus Gaza's interpretations of Aristotle's *Problems*, and of Cicero's little book *On Old Age*, Angelus Politianus found certain flaws, which he would have wiped away with his own interpretation (*Miscellanea*, chapters 90 and 91). And furthermore, he accuses Theodorus of having dissimulated regarding by whom he had profited most, and having held in near contempt and mockery him whose own labors he was primarily subverting. ^C To which Theodorus could clearly answer that he was a man; it is no wonder, therefore, if he erred in some things, he who expressed the mind of the author in so many other [areas]: and that it is one thing to examine and scrutinize this or that place of an author, and another to scrutinize and examine the whole work: and that he was angered by the not very sound judgment of Politianus, who compares his own work—whether Greek or Latin—with that of Trapezuntius, whom it was no trouble to defeat, even though Trapezuntius likes himself much in that work, and is clearly insolent, believing that he gives those books no less elegantly and emended than they are held among the Greeks. Therefore, was that golden river of Aristotle's eloquence of value to Politianus, so that the things of Trapezuntius might be equated with it? He could have kept silence about these things rather than bringing them forward openly, to be exploded with laughter by the readers.

What if, as Maussacus says in the prolegomena to Aristotle's *History of Animals*, no one before Theodorus Gaza had translated this *History of Animals*, except for that old unknown interpreter who rendered the philosopher's works into Latin word for word? Some attribute that ancient version to Boethius, but falsely, in my opinion: for whoever he may have been who first moved his hand to the work, he translated the text of the philosopher word for word. But the things we have today by Boethius are not *kata poda* [literal], but elegantly turned.

Nor was the quarrel of Theodorus less with Julius Scaliger, who graced not only Aristotle's *History of Animals*, but also Theophrastus's *History* and *Causes of Plants* with a new interpretation and commentaries, in which, on account of a lack of understanding of the Greek tongue, and [also] not the Latin, and the meaning not being properly rendered, ^D Theodorus is most often and sharply beaten, so that that labor undertaken by Scaliger seems to have been done for no other reason than that, with Theodorus defeated, he might win the palm of glory for himself among the Greeks and Latins. However, it must be known in one word, that the things which learned men note in Scaliger's interpretation and commentaries are no less than those which Scaliger had noted in Theodorus; indeed, that the same man stumbles most often not only in the understanding of words, but also in expressing their meaning in Latin.

Likewise, the judgment of Joannes Crispinus regarding the interpretation of the books of Theophrastus, which Gaza undertook, is very sharp: "But that which was most to be desired, that an interpreter might hit upon a most eloquent man for the most learned works, that [man is] surely Scaliger, explaining in Latin and properly those things which Theophrastus had once handed down to Greece." Many indeed have tried to accomplish this, among whom is Theodorus Gaza, a most learned man and most skilled in his own, that is, the Greek, tongue, whose effort is certainly to be praised, but yet so far that we might recognize him to have hallucinated in almost infinite places, whether through not quite a distinct knowledge of the Greek or Latin tongue, or, which is more likely, through ignorance of the subject matter, so that he had need of Julius Scaliger as his appositor and emender. Whatever the case may be regarding the hallucinations of Gaza, is the most learned [Scaliger]—and likewise indeed most skilled in the Greek tongue—any better than Crispinus, he who has no distinction of the Greek tongue and, through ignorance of the subject, hallucinates in almost infinite places? Scaliger, what a man! while asserting [this] to Crispinus, in almost innumerable places of his own commentaries on Theophrastus, [does similar things, for] he imitated the negligence of his own countrymen, uses ambiguous words, too much perverts the order of things he treats, and translates them worst and semi-Latinately, and adds from his own [mind] against the duty of translators, which is, as he himself explains, not what he himself...

senses, but what the author whom he undertakes to translate [senses]. For this business is not similar to that which is circulated regarding Sophocles and Euripides: the one of these professed to portray persons as they had been, the other as they ought to have been. But a Latin who is ignorant of Greek, if he has to use the authority of Theophrastus, falsely always imputes to him something from Theodore, which he himself never drew from his own [mind]. And furthermore, he depicts his speech in various ways. He omits many things from Theophrastus: he does not interpret according to the office of a paraphrast, which he often professes: he abuses the inflection of words, and words signifying a change for those which signify a habit, he places the antecedent genus before the consequent species: he avoids common words, and teaches most perplexingly with a vice peculiar to himself, he does not sustain Latinity. And what does he not do? This, I say, Theodore, who along with the most ignorant knows nothing, and will be reputed most erudite and most wise by a Crispinus? Error dispels erudition, ignorance wisdom. Unless that too, along with so many others, is imputed to the innocent, that he went astray not from ignorance but from malice. But who would believe this? But let us drive away from Theodore his rival Scaliger, as much as we can; and let us hear how honorably Theodore was spoken of by men of Theodore’s who were otherwise honest, and instructed in every kind of science. Nicolaus Secundinus in a letter to Andronicus Callistus: ^A “I was indeed grieved for Theodore when he was reviled and unjustly spoken ill of, but I was pleased, and pleased exceedingly, to have encountered the replies in his defense directly afterward, for many reasons. For I love Theodore very much, and I hold the man in the highest regard; and I admire not only his speeches, and his zeal and accuracy concerning every science, but much more his character, his virtue, his gravity, and also the chastity and decorum of his life, and likewise his aptitude for and skill in all good things combined, and [his] being highly sagacious, so that if anyone were to call him the foremost of the Greeks of our day in terms of varied education and goodness of character, he would not be erring from the truth.” ^B And Cardinal Bessarion in a letter to the same Theodore, in which he promised himself the benefits likely to accrue to literary matters from the translations of Theophrastus and Aristotle, ingenuously confessed this. Let the most elegant words be transcribed, and the rest which we have now published above. See col. 685, among the letters of Bessarion.

Let it be permitted to me here, by the way, to deplore the unjust and miserably wretched condition that perpetually accompanies men of letters. Theodore Gaza, what a man! Emeritus after so many labors of study among the Greeks and Latins, famous and conspicuous for so many volumes composed, known to the Supreme Pontiff, dear to the purple-clad Fathers, in Italy the nurse of studies, with princes watching and praising, [is] so needy that he has not even a home where he may live; and lest he reduce himself to mendicancy, he is forced to abstract his mind from studies and to till the clods of another’s small field. I would not believe it myself, by Hercules, if Theodore himself did not admit it and expose this poverty of his in a letter to Demetrus Sguropulus: ^C “An example, perhaps, would not be a bad thing for our affairs. For since the necessities of life were not at all available to us, we set our hand to cultivating another’s field; and by procuring necessities in this way, we have become burdensome to no one, nor troublesome or odious by begging. But you, indeed, are under no necessity to farm. For to me, the war that was being waged at that time closed the road to the cities; but you are in Florence, a city most productive for everyone, in whatever pursuits they may choose to engage.” ^D And in a letter to Andronicus Callistus: “To you, however, since you are poor, it is necessary that you be pressured by a lack of such things; which, as it happens, also occurs to me when I am sick; and although our masters, in ordering our necessities for us, define only the things necessary for one who is healthy, they provide no provision for sickness and such accidents, as if we were sprung from an oak or a rock, and not from human beings.” O hands of princes more arid than pumice itself! O brilliant riches more avaricious than poverty itself! But to the writings of Theodore. Besides his translation, Theodore also brought about a division of the books on his own account. Franciscus Patricius in book XI of his *Peripatetic Discussions*: “Among those who made Aristotelian books from Greek into Latin, Theodore Gaza, in his own way differing from the Averroist, cut the books into chapters, which I think Argyropulus and Bessarion also did, and others: so that the books of Aristotle are divided in various ways according to the whim of each man, when he himself wrote them integral and continuous, such as they were published twice by Aldus and his heirs, but once at Basle.

^A were expressed. Maussacus in the stated place says: Theodore Gaza, in his own manner, after Averroes, translated the text of Aristotle, dividing it into chapters, and after him many other interpreters, such as Argyropulus, Bessarion, and others, according to each one’s caprice. For the books of Aristotle, before the interpreters, were read in a single flow, nor were they divided either into chapters, or into summaries, or into other sections, which the first interpreters introduced. Whence it happens that the ancient editions of the works of Aristotle by Aldus appear without any sections and divisions: for the philosopher had not cut his books, but had written them in continuous discourse, as did Pliny. Whatever may be the case regarding Aristotle, it is clearly false regarding Pliny, for he spent his entire first book of his History on this; and he had prefaced it to Vespasian: "Because your occupations required that the public good be spared, I have appended to this epistle what is contained in each book, and I have taken great pains so that you would not have to read through them all. You will, by this means, ensure that others do not have to read them through as well. But so that whoever desires something may seek only that much, and know in what place to find it."

Exhibiting one of the books *De animalibus*, he changed the order of the others. He himself says in his preface: "But although this interpretation of the *Histories* is completed with nine books, yet the one which is the ninth in the Greek copy, I have placed as the seventh, nor do I think it was done rashly. For it concerns the generation of man, which matter Aristotle continues to promise he will explain from the generation of animals. Therefore, since he had set forth the generation of the other animals in the fifth and sixth, there should be no doubt that he placed this one seventh." But Apellicon the Teian, concerning whom Strabo says much, just as he corrupted many other things in the transcribing of Aristotle’s books, seems to have permuted this also, thinking the last one should be placed at the end of the entire *History*, because when Aristotle began to deal with generation, he promised to speak of man in the final place. And there are also copies, both Greek and ^B Latin, which have a certain fragment added to the histories: but it explains certain material and efficient causes of human generation, it does not embrace history. Therefore, I did not think this should be placed among the books of history. But if it is to be placed anywhere, in my judgment, it should be joined to the books on generation.

He also translated five homilies of John Chrysostom *On the Incomprehensible Nature of God*, printed with the rest of Chrysostom’s Latin works. Now, in the preface to these homilies, Theodore writes that he also translated the books of Emperor Maurice *De re militari*. Paschalis Gallus and Joannes Schenchius write that it should be investigated whether Theodore Gaza translated the *Aphorisms* of Hippocrates.

From Latin into the Greek tongue, he translated Cicero’s book *De senectute* and the *Somnium Scipionis*, which have been printed several times now. Likewise, John Michael Savonarola of Padua’s book *De physiognomonia*, with the book *De balneis*, which Joannes Georgius Schenchius mentions in his *Biblioth. medica*. Also the first letter of Cicero to Lentulus, as Andrew Schott reports (*Tullian. quaest. lib. IV, cap. 12*), although he does not affirm it with certainty. As likewise the manner in which the letter of Pope Nicholas V to Constantine, the last emperor of the Greeks, came from Theodore Gaza, or from someone else. Arcudius published this in Greek and Latin among his *Opuscula aurea*, Rome 1630.

That there were altercations between Theodore and Gemistus, and that they attacked one another in various writings, refuting statements and not without abuse, we have proved at length in our treatise *De mensura temporum antiquorum*, and their writings cry this out most openly. Hence it happened that other Greeks of that same age, although they were gods of lesser nations, divided into various factions, some opposing or defending Gemistus, others Theodore, through published writings. Michael Apostolius attacked Theodore, defending Gemistus. Andronicus Callistus attacked Michael, taking up the cause of Theodore. How Andronicus behaved in this defense is explained at length by Nicolaus Secundinus in a letter to the same Andronicus (1). But I would be doing the greatest injustice to the Muses themselves if, from my own treasures, I did not first produce the most prudent and ingenuous letter of Cardinal Bessarion concerning this business to Michael Apostolius, a rare document for writers. And it is this: *Bessarion Cardinalis Michaeli Apostolio salutem. Avixeto hos hemas bradyteron men*, etc. See above col. 687.

SECOND NOTITIA

Theodore Gaza, of Thessalonica, by almost common consent the most learned of those who restored Greek letters in Italy, came to Italy (1) when Amurath was laying waste to Greece with victorious arms, specifically at that time—as far as we can conjecture—when the Barbarian conquered the city of Theodore’s birth, the light not only of Macedonia but of all Greece; which happened in the thirtieth year of the fifteenth century (2). When Gaza arrived in Italy and had composed an exquisite knowledge of speaking Latin to stir up... who was present at the calamity of his country, Joannes Anagnosta. That narrative, with the addition of the same mo-

- ^Adern ornament of letters, perceived that he stood in great need of it, and immediately approached Victorinus of Feltre, by whom being instructed, he soon excelled in the skill of the Latin tongue, such that, whether he were translating Greek into Latin, or Latin into Greek, all admired him. With his learning, Theodorus greatly illustrated Ferrara ^B, in which city, when the gymnasium was renovated—as Lilio Gregorio Giraldo witnesses—being constituted the first rector, he professed Greek letters with such applause that from all parts of the Italian regions there flocked to him as many as loved the study of letters. He taught in that same city at a later time also, if it be that Rudolph Agricola, a Frisian by birth, when he had come from Gaul into Italy in the seventy-sixth year of the fifteenth century, heard at Ferrara Theodorus Gaza explaining the writings of Aristotle. He, indeed, returning home from his school, was the first to restore letters in Germany. Among Gaza's disciples, Volaterranus mentions Demetrios, who afterward stood out as a most famous doctor of Greek letters at Milan, and Joannes the Venetian, whom Innocent VIII later appointed prefect of the Vatican library.

Called to Rome by Pope Nicholas V, Gaza, in order to satisfy his will, devoted his efforts to translating Greek writers into Latin, and, above all others, he presented Theophrastus' *De plantis* with the freedom of the Latin tongue. By his interpretation of Aristotle's *Problems*, which he completed, he so offended Trapezuntius—who had translated the very same work into Latin—that the latter conceived an implacable hatred toward Theodorus and carried on perpetual altercations with him. However, he had Bessarion as his greatest patron at Rome, who, on account of his exquisite learning and virtue, embraced Gaza with singular benevolence and assisted him in every way he could, calling him his companion and familiar friend.

Thus, when Gaza was pressed by poverty, as were most of the other Greek exiles, Bessarion not only relieved his need with his own resources, but also, as he was a man most dear to him, he brought it about through his own recommendation and authority that a priesthood in what is called Magna Graecia was decreed to him, after he had betaken himself to King Alphonsus at Naples following the death of Pope Nicholas, but had returned to Rome two years after the king had died. Nevertheless, Gaza preferred to remain in Rome rather than to take himself to the seat of his priesthood. By some chance, it is said that, being gravely agitated, he departed from Rome and betook himself to the Bruttii. Jovius tells the story thus: When he had brought his most noble labors (namely his Latin interpretation of Aristotle's *History of Animals*), accurately transcribed on parchment, to Pope Sixtus IV, and neither money nor a reward worthy of even the scribe himself was returned to him, he indignation-filled, spoke that rustic judgment: "It is pleasing to flee from here, since the best harvests rot in the nostrils of over-fat asses"; and thus he hastened to the sacred seat of his priesthood among the Bruttii.

^A Having left Rome, before he could betake himself to Apulia, he repaired to Borso d’Este, Duke of Ferrara, and having been most kindly received by him, he sojourned for some time in Ferrara and, as was mentioned above, performed the office of teacher. ^B Indeed, it was not long after he had come to the Bruttii that, having already advanced in age, he departed from this life, in the seventy-eighth year of the fifteenth century. His lot was not an unfair one, as Jovius says, seeing that, having been born and educated in Greece, and having lived his life in Italy, earning great desert by his services to Greek and Latin letters, he was buried in Magna Graecia.

How highly Bessarion, an extremely competent judge, esteemed the learning of Gaza, and with what benevolence he embraced Theodore for that reason, has been said before. Francesco Filelfo, Ludovico Carbone, Pomponio Leto, Bartolomeo Scala, Ermolao Barbaro, Jacopo Filippo Bergomense, Marcantonio Sabellico, Pietro Crinito, Giano Parrasio, Aldus Manutius, Luis Vives, Erasmus, and Guillaume Budé extolled him with the highest praises. Nay, even Poliziano, although he was for Trapezuntius against Gaza, and had noted the Greek interpretation of Cicero’s *De senectute* prepared by the latter, nevertheless attributed owed praise to his learning and genius, and dedicated several Greek and Latin epigrams to his honor. Joseph Scaliger—the *ho πάνυ*—among all those who recalled the study of letters to light in Italy, confessed that he envied only three, and among these especially Theodore Gaza, a truly great and learned man; yet he said that he had fallen into error in a few places in translating Aristotle’s books *On Animals* into Latin. There are indeed others who find his fidelity in translation wanting, and who criticize his audacity in inventing and forming new Latin words; yet Huet, above others, praises him, inasmuch as Gaza seems to have deserved well in that, by cleverly devised words to express things hitherto unknown in Latin, he enriched the Roman language.

Gaza held Plutarch of Chaeronea in greater delight than other Greek writers. Wherefore, being asked at some time by his intimates whom, at length, out of the whole number of Greek authors he thought should be prized, if he were forced to suffer the loss of his library equipment, he replied: "I am satisfied enough, if one were to save Plutarch, who seems to construct a perfect and absolute library of all the learning that is scattered and disseminated throughout all the most ample books of the Greeks." The same man thought magnificently of Aristophanes, the prince of comic poets, and commended this writer, most diligent in Attic elegance, to all who might wish to learn Greek letters, as one to be turned over with the hand day and night.

The monuments of his own genius which Gaza left behind—to review each and every one of them—Leo Allatius had purposed to do in his *Diatriba de Georgiis* and their writings, the publication of which he promised in the preface to his two books on the *Συμμεικτα*, which Bartel Nihusius published at Cologne in the year 1653; which *Diatriba*, however, never saw the light. That same task was excellently accomplished, however, by Johann Albert Fabricius, in the ninth volume of his *Bibliotheca Graeca*, book v, chapter 33—which treats of Theodore of Mopsuestia and other Theodores who wrote in Greek—page 194 sqq. The works which Gaza himself composed, and which have been published, are generally these: 1° A Greek Grammar, which consists of four books.

^A The first of these, along with Gaza’s short treatise *On the Months* and the four books of Apollonius *On Syntax* and Herodian *On Numbers*, was published by the Roman Aldus Manutius in the year 1485 in folio, from his learned press established in Venice. Ever since that time, these books of his Grammatical *Institutions*, both together and separately, in Greek or in Latin, or in Greek and Latin simultaneously, have been printed in many places. Erasmus, Richard Croke the Englishman—the first professor of Greek letters at the University of Leipzig—Jacques Tusan the Parisian (a doctor of the Academy and leader of the heresiarchs), all applied their efforts to translating them into Latin, and Elias Andreas illustrated them with commentaries. Then, indeed, moved by the excellence of these *Institutions*, the aforementioned Tusan and Lazarus Bonamicus (the former in Paris, the latter in Padua) explained them in public schools. Guillaume Budé, a man most learned in Greek, thought so highly of Gaza’s *Grammar* that he denied he had ever read anything similar in that genre of writing. I pass over the others, the learned men who adorned it with their praises. ^B Yet most people have truly noted that it serves those who are more advanced and knowledgeable in Greek literature better than it does beginners learning Greek; and that the first book, by excessive brevity, is rather obscure, while the fourth—which is *On the Structure of Speech and the Various Modes of Expression*, and in which Gaza mainly followed Apollonius—is much more difficult than the former ones. Constantinos Lascaris, in the proem to the third book of his own *Grammar*, declares the fourth book of Gaza to be brief, indeed, and a “Delian diver” in need of an interpreter—laudable certainly, and most useful to those who are learned, but holding the secrets of the ancients. 2° *On the Attic Months*, written in Greek in the year 1470. It was published together with Theodorus’ *Grammar* by Aldus in the year 1495, and reprinted in Florence by Filippo Giunti in 1515 and elsewhere in Greek with the Latin translation of Joannes Perellus; it appeared at Basel in 1536 and was inserted into the *Uranologion* of Petavius, and likewise, but in Latin only, into the ninth volume of the *Thesaurus Antiquitatum Graecarum* of Johannes Gronovius, page 977 sqq. 3° *Περὶ ἀρχαιογονίας Τούρκων*, an epistle on the origin of the Turks, which is presented with the Latin version of Leo Allatius in his *Συμμικτά*, book II, p. 318 sqq.

Gaza translated the following from Greek speech into Latin: 1° Aristotle’s *Problems*; 2° Aristotle’s books *On Animals*. Maittaire, in *Annales Typographici* (vol. V, part I, p. 76), mentions the Roman edition of the former translation—which he dedicated to Pope Nicholas V—as revised under Sixtus IV, and the Venetian edition of the latter in 1476. Both are found in certain Latin and Greek-Latin editions of the works of Aristotle. Daniel Heinsius and Joannes Bodaeus a Stapel corrected the translation—published in Venice in 1504 and reprinted elsewhere—according to the Greek, and thus amended, the former presented it in his edition of the works of Theophrastus, the latter in his *History of Plants*, which was published with his own commentaries. 4° The two books of Alexander of Aphrodisias’ *Problems*, printed in Venice in the year 1501 and frequently thereafter. 5° The book of Aelian *On the Drafting of Battle Lines*, of whose translation several editions also exist. 6° The precepts of Dionysius of Halicarnassus *On the Nuptial and Natal Oration*. 7° Five homilies of Chrysostom *On the Incomprehensible Nature of God*, the translation of which is contained in both the Latin and Greek-Latin editions of the works of Chrysostom by Ducæus.

Beyond these, however, which have been printed, Theodorus completed many other translations of Greek authors. For he translated certain other books of Aristotle into Latin; yet he burned his own translation of these, providing a singular example of modesty, so that it might not be a detriment to the rising fame of his very close friend, Argyropulus, who had translated those same works (though without the same skill and store of resources). In the preface to the same (which is placed before the homilies of Chrysostom), he himself testifies that he offered to King Alfonso his translation of the books of Emperor Maurice *On Military Affairs*. The translation of the *Aphorisms of Hippocrates*, adorned by the study of Gaza, is also praised by Jovius; but indeed, the translation of these seems to be wrongly ascribed to him by Jovius. From Latin, he translated Cicero’s *De senectute* and *De somnio Scipionis* into Greek. This Greek version of both books has been published separately and exists in the editions of the works of Cicero (the Aldine of 1523, the Sturman, and others). We have said above that he noted the Greek version of Cicero’s *De senectute*.

985 LAUDATIO CANIS. 986 P. Arcudius included in his theological works, published at Rome in the year 1630. He also translated into Greek the two books of Michele Savonarola, *On the Baths of Italy (26).*

Among the unpublished works of Gaza which are preserved in the libraries of Italy and France, besides his letters, the most significant is almost certainly the work he opposed to Plethon’s book *On the Difference between Platonic and Aristotelian Philosophy*, in which he defended Aristotle against him. Michele Apostolius attacked this very work; his rashness, however, was gravely rebuked by Bessarion, and Andronicus Callistus refuted his apology written in favor of Gaza, concerning whom we shall say more in his life and that of Apostolius.

It is helpful, after what has been set forth concerning the life and writings of Gaza and Trapezuntius, to observe the incredible variety by which these two men—though joined by a common origin of race and an association of studies—are distinguished in their inclinations of mind, as well as in their character, fortune, and the outcome of their lives and affairs. Theodore was of a sedate disposition, of a settled mind, and the most modest of the Greeks, who always remained within himself and established a limit for his honor and glory through prudence and reason. George, on the other hand, a man of an ambitious spirit and at times of a reckless and lofty audacity, was led by impulses and levity beyond necessity, and, seeking nothing but what was arrogant, he always strove to stand out. Each wished to appear great among the learned; the one supported by the resources of both Greek and Roman literature, the other trusting too much in the faculties of his own genius and inflated by the untimely persuasion of his acquired knowledge. The one was slower to publish what he had pondered, never wearying in correcting what he had written; the other, with headlong haste, often pushed crude works into the public awareness, and was steadfast in the errors in which he was entangled. Indeed, Trapezuntius, by doing much, sinned much: Gaza, by presenting little, offered great things. The former, most learned in Greek, cultivated the language of the Romans with difficulty; the latter placed the resources of a foreign tongue at the service of his native language. Each sustained the role of rhetorician with praise, but Gaza, in the force and gravity of his speech, seemed to render not just any Aphthonius or Theon, but Demosthenes himself. He sought no one’s praise and acquired his own glory through virtue and the honesty of his actions: Trapezuntius assailed the learned with insults and lost the praise acquired by detraction through the virtue of others. One measured friendship by duty, the other by utility. The latter was ashamed of his country, whereas the former pursued it with true love and always wished to be called by its name. Fortune, having followed Trapezuntius of its own accord, quickly deserted him: to Gaza it was conciliatory—though slowly—and fostered him for longer. A common fate forced both to yield their homeland: but it brought the one into perpetual errors so that he would always be a wanderer among foreigners; as for the other, he repaid the benefits of his homeland among the alien-born. Finally, Trapezuntius lived miserably and died worse: Gaza consoled the detriments of life with a peaceful kind of death, and while the former seemed to grow childish in his old age, the latter preserved the vigor of his prime right up to his extreme old age.

THEODORI GAZE LAUDATIO CANIS

THEODORE GAZA’S PRAISE OF THE DOG

1. I, most illustrious sir, am aware that I may be doing something strange and unusual, perhaps even absurd, because while others depreciate and diminish with their words the gifts they send to their friends, I, on the contrary, undertake to magnify and embellish them. Yet, I am not lacking either an example for this thing, nor a probable excuse. For an example, I have not just any man, not one from the many, but him who holds the primacy of erudition among his contemporaries, and wields the greatest power... ^A

^A over men—I mean that emperor who waged war against the Christians and brought about no trifling evils, and who inflicted like sufferings upon me personally. Yet I have a pretext, and a hope conceived that this secondary labor will be no less a pleasure to you than the primary work itself; or rather, that you may judge this secondary labor to be the work itself, and value this addition to the gift all the more. For inasmuch as you are a most ardent lover of learning, you delight, as is fitting, in all fine things, but especially in those which proceed from erudition; reflecting upon these things, I was led to undertake this essay.

2. Therefore, the gift being sent to you from me is, by name, a dog, but in reality, one of the most precious and highly esteemed things among men. For while other animals seem to provide men with one benefit each and to possess one peculiar virtue, this animal alone provides all manner of benefits to mankind, and is adorned with the most numerous and greatest virtues. In lions, indeed, courage flourishes; in oxen, obedience to the yoke and aptitude for agriculture; in horses, intelligence and speed; in donkeys and mules, as the poet says, patience for those who labor; and other animals possess other endowments. But in this one alone, there is naught that it does not possess; rather, it gathers up all the good qualities of the others. For the nature of this animal is adapted to cities and to the countryside, to times of peace and of war, and is useful and delightful at the same time. But indeed, to recount all the virtues of this animal and the succors provided to mankind is not an easy task. If, therefore, I set forth and disclose a few points out of many, I judge it will be sufficient for both of us—for you, to convince you, and for me, to demonstrate it.

3. In the first place, then, the hunting of four-footed animals, which has derived and retains its name in the Greek language from the dog—the *cynēgesia*—who does not know how estimable it is and how useful to human life? The gods practiced it, and heroes, and men, both Greeks and Barbarians, long ago, and now, and everywhere. And presiding over this pursuit is Apollo’s sister, Artemis, who is honored among the gods by this title above all. Furthermore, heroes applied themselves to hunting: Chiron, Cephalus, Asclepius, Melanion, Nestor, and finally, such a great number of heroes that it would be laborious to name them one by one. Does not Homer ^C introduce the wisest of the Achaeans hunting at the house of Autolycus, and being wounded in one thigh by a boar

^A coming to Parnassus with the sons of Autolycus? Sparta, also being most warlike, cultivated hunting; at any rate, there was a law with them at the feast of Artemis that he who came to the banquet without having hunted should pay the penalty for unlawful behavior. The penalty for a young man was a bucket full of water poured over his head, but for an elder, it was poured upon a single finger of his hand; which indeed, if one looks at the pain, might perhaps seem to some a light punishment, but considering the ignominy, it was very great. The Macedonians also held this in high regard, for they allowed him who had pierced a boar without nets not to dine sitting, but reclining, which among them was held as more honorable. The Persians also ^B were addicted to hunting, and among them the king presided over hunting no less than over warlike operations, leading out the young men to the hunt and taking care that they might hunt; nor did they do this without reason. For hunting is thought to be the greatest practice for warlike matters. For it accustoms one to rise early, to go to sleep late, and to spend the nights awake, and to endure heat alike, and cold, and thirst, and hunger, and to travel, and, by Zeus, if need be, to run through plains and level ground, and through woods and even broken terrain. Furthermore, it teaches one to shoot and to strike, and not to yield if one is struck, and to endure every labor, every danger, and every difficulty; all of which wonderfully assist the warriors, just as if war were being waged. But if you wish to know how much hunting contributes to warlike matters, compare the hunter to the man who is untasted and inexperienced in hunting, and you will see how much the former excels the latter in military virtue. ^C 4. Therefore Plato in the *Laws* exhorts the young to apply themselves to this practice, if they intend to inhabit well and expertly their own country. But perhaps it is better to choose and relate the very words from the legislator's own tablets. He says, therefore: "For it seems that the study of knowing with precision all the regions of one's own country is of no less importance; for the sake of which there is no less need for one who desires it to practice both hunting and the other chase, not only for the sake of other pleasure and utility, which happens to all in such matters." And those things are his. But indeed, by what means do we carry out the hunt? It is not unclear that it is by means of dogs; for dogs, when brought out for hunting, either pursue the beasts once they are seen, or, ^D having caught the tracks, by these they lead us quickly running after them, and they fight with us on our behalf; and often, even before the hunters arrive, they have already torn the beast to pieces. And so much for the utility of dogs in hunting. For someone might,

^A in no need of haste, show and explain how, were hunting abandoned, all things would become full of wild beasts that would harm men and besiege them while locked within their cities; from all of which nuisances we are freed by the help of hunting dogs.

5. Furthermore, what animal is more fit for guarding, and more faithful in returning that which has been entrusted to it? For this reason, we set them over the flocks, and they themselves lead them out to pasture, and send them ahead, and guard them once sent, and lead them back when they have been guarded; they are gentle toward the sheep, fearful to the wolves, and obedient to the shepherds. And while these dogs are alive, wolves would not touch the flock, but once they are dead, they would quickly tear them to pieces. Therefore, those Aesopic wolves offered a treaty of peace and alliance to the herds, provided that they would hand over those rough, harsh, and odious dogs; well knowing that, if they obtained these, they would capture the sheep without any labor. And why should I tell you about that Capparo, or rather, why should I not tell you of that guardian of the temple of Aesculapius? For when a certain sacrilegious thief ^B had entered secretly and was carrying off the most precious things, the dog barked with the most powerful voice he could; but since the temple attendants did not wake up, and instead gave the thief an opportunity to flee, the dog himself pursued the thief and never ceased from him. The next day, he would meet every person and receive them kindly, but he barked at the thief, and by night he likewise pursued him, until men sent to search for the culprit, having heard the report about the dog's business on the road, caught the thief and dragged him back to Athens; and the dog followed them, very joyous, as if carrying a trophy from an enemy, providing a most excellent and, to those who saw it, a most delightful spectacle. Wherefore the Athenians decreed public sustenance for the dog, and ordered the temple attendants to take care of him.

6. While reflecting on these things, that divine Plato, ^C when seeking to install a suitable guardian for his most beautiful and wonderful city, had no other place from which to take his image than from the nature of dogs. Thus, he speaks in the dialogues of the *Republic*, describing the guardian: "Do you think, then, that the nature of a noble puppy and a noble youth differ in regard to the power of guarding? What do you mean? Is it not reasonable that the nature of both should be strong, sagacious in perception, and swift and ready to pursue what is perceived, and yet, if there is need, ^D strong to fight?" And a little later: "Toward those they know and are familiar with, they (dogs) are exceedingly gentle; toward strangers, they are savage. I indeed know this. This, therefore, I say, is of such a kind that it can conveniently come to pass; and we are not seeking such a guardian in a way that is contrary to nature. It does not seem so. And furthermore, does it not seem that he who is destined to attain this dignity needs, besides the fact that he ought to be irascible, to be also endowed by nature with sharpness? How? he says; for I do not understand. I say that, in the dogs, you will perceive what is also worthy of admiration in the beast

What is this? Towards the unknown, it is enraged, even though it has never suffered any evil from it; but towards one it knows, it fawns, even though it has never received any good from it. Have you not yet admired this? Not greatly, he said, have I hitherto noticed this; but that it is so, it is clear. And yet this impulse of its nature is wise and truly sagacious. But here to pause, is a noble thing. For who, wishing to say the greatest things not only about dogs, but also about men, could express anything greater or more beautiful? He does not seek for a guardian similar to a horse, nor an ox, nor an elephant, but to a dog. Let the dog, he says, be the best guardian of my city, a dog sagacious in its soul. And let my guardian be similar to the dog in this respect.

7. It is not, therefore, surprising if in ancient times men who possessed the greatest reputation among their contemporaries for philosophy did not reject the name derived from dogs, but rather claimed and appropriated it as something splendid and wonderful, and would not have suffered themselves to be called anything else than Cynics. Thus, when some rustic and dull-witted person, by way of insult, cast at Diogenes that he was a dog, Diogenes replied very gently, without denying the fact: Dogs bite their enemies, but I bite my friends in order to save them. Not only were the noblest of men called dogs, but also the most brilliant of the stars, which shines at the height of summer. And even gods, for among the Egyptians, a dog is a god. That the dog is a guardian ^B and philosophic in its soul, I think, has been demonstrated by what has been said. But who is there who does not know that the same animal is also most friendly and most affectionate? For when the master is at home, it remains at home; but when he goes away, it goes away with him; and neither the length of the road, nor its difficulty, nor thirst, nor winter, nor summer prevents it from following everywhere. It accompanies him, now going before, now returning to the master, now playing and wagging its tail, and conduct- ^C ing itself entirely in such a way as to provide amusement and pleasure to the master. Does the master call it? It comes. Does the master threaten it? It becomes very humble. Does he strike it? It is not angered. And how charmingly Aesop, when ordered by his master Xanthus to give some choice pieces of meat to the one who was well-disposed to him, did not give them to the wife, but to the dog. When Xanthus had returned home, and his wife was ill-disposed toward him on this very account, and was attributing this not to the craftiness of Aesop, but to the insult offered to her by Xanthus, Aesop said: "Did I not act rightly, O master, by throwing the meat to the dog as one well-disposed? For even if you strike it, and even if you whip it, it forgets; ^D but the wife, if she once thinks she has been treated with injury, remains implacable."

8. Since the examples of friendship and goodwill on the part of dogs towards their masters are countless, a few of the most remarkable out of many...

we shall recount. ^A For Lysimachus the king, his dog Hyrcanus died with him. A dog also died with a certain commoner named Pyrrhus; for when his master was dead, the dog could not be pulled away from the corpse, and when the body was placed on the pyre, the dog leapt upon it and was consumed with him. As for a certain Roman, Caelius by name, a patrician, his dog acted as his defender and, fighting, did not allow his head to be severed until it too, struck by the murderers, fell dead at the same time. When the whole population of Athens was embarking on the ships, since the dog of Xanthippus, the father of Pericles, could not board the ship, it threw itself into the sea, and swimming alongside the vessel, endured the labor as far as Salamis, where, having stepped ashore, it expired. King Pyrrhus, while traveling, met a dog that was standing by its master's corpse on the road. The king took the dog and kept it in his custody until, while reviewing his army with the dog standing by the king, the animal remained quiet towards others, but soon, upon seeing his master's murderers and killers, it rushed upon them with barking and howling, frequently turning towards the king, to such an extent that it cast suspicion upon them to all those present and to the king himself. Wherefore the men were seized and tortured, confessed that they had committed the murder, and paid the penalty, with the dog avenging its master's death. They report that the dog of Hesiod did something exactly similar, exposing the poet's own slayers. When Titus Sabinus had been thrown into prison by the Romans to be punished, his dog could not in any way be driven away from the walls of the prison. ^B And when the corpse of Sabinus had been cast onto the Gemonian stairs, the dog never left it, howling most mournfully before many spectators; when one of them threw it some bread, the dog carried it to the deceased. Finally, when the corpse was thrown into the Tiber, the dog threw itself in there too, supporting the corpse, and lifting it up with all its might, while an innumerable crowd watched and admired it to the highest degree.

9. That the animal is indeed courageous and warlike, the king of the Albanians demonstrated by sending an dog of exceptional size to Alexander. The king, delighted with it, set a bear and then a boar against it in combat; but when it scorned these beasts, judging them not worthy to do battle with it, an enraged Alexander ordered the dog to be killed. Having learned of this, the king of the Albanians sent another, warning Alexander not to make trial of it against small beasts, but against a lion or an elephant. Therefore, the dog laid low both the lion and, a little while later, the elephant as well, to the marvelous delight of Alexander and all who stood by. The dogs of the Garamantes are also witnesses for us: for two hundred...

Garamantian dogs; for two hundred dogs led the king of the Garamantians back to his kingdom after putting his enemies to flight in battle. ^A The Colophonians and Castabalienses also bear witness, who possessed phalanxes of dogs that fought in the vanguard of the battle and were most valiant allies, and particularly inclined the outcome of the war. The Cimbrian dogs also bear witness, who, when their masters had fallen in battle, guarded and saved their homes, which were set upon wagons, by fighting. Although I had many more things to say in general about the whole race of dogs, and in particular about this most charming little dog, I shall conclude my discourse here, because the page does not hold more than this. I wished, nevertheless, to dictate this discourse as if in haste—one that might be in praise of a dog, for my own amusement, and for your delight. Farewell, and live according to your heart’s desire. ^B

THEODORUS GAZA ON THE ORIGIN OF THE TURKS

Theodorus to Francis Philelphus, greetings. ^C It is not particularly easy to say who the Turks once were, and from what place they originally set out to occupy the land they now inhabit. For those who have written about them before us do not all say the same things. For that which is not agreed upon by others often brings even what is manifest into dispute, not to mention that which contains some ambiguity. Now Scylax, who wrote up the deeds of the emperors from Nicephorus Genicus to Isaac Comnenus, under whom he himself also lived—a man not to be despised in his thinking, ^D although, if one considers his manner of expression, deliberately using a common style of speech when it pleased him—says that the Turks were a Hunnish nation, and that they inhabited the northern parts of the Caucasian mountains. But when the Arabs had taken possession of the greater part of Asia, and had then broken into several prefectures, he says that Moametes, son of Imbrael, lord of Persia, while waging war against the Babylonians and Indians under the Emperor of the Romans, Basil son of Romanus, but being weaker in forces, sought aid for his person and fortunes from the Prince of the Turks; and that he (the prince) sent three thousand archers and Tangrolipix, son of Michael, to lead them. Moametes, when he had united these with his own forces, led his army against Pissasirus, prefect of Arabia, and having joined battle, routed him in a glorious victory. Thereafter, having returned, he prepared an army against the Babylonians and Indians.

^A Since they refused and requested that he allow them to return home, he remained insistent, and it was clear that he would lead them away by force. Those who remained unrepentant, fearing that they might suffer some harm for their disobedience, fell away and retreated into the Carbonitic desert, from where they made incursions to plunder and do much damage. Moameth sent an army of about twenty thousand against them, entrusting them to ten of his most illustrious generals. When they arrived, they were cautious about entering the desert regions due to a shortage of water and provisions; and while camping nearby, they deliberated on what they should do. Tangrolipix, having learned of this—even though he was encamped some distance away—advanced with incredible speed within the space of three days, attacked the enemy at night while they were unprepared and negligent, and easily routed them, gaining supplies of many horses, weapons, and money. After this, he no longer launched attacks in the manner of runaways and bandits, but openly and with an orderly battle line; and as many from that region, as well as defectors, robbers, and others who rejoice in political upheaval, joined him, his army grew very quickly to about fifty thousand. Moameth, moved to anger by these events, determined to put his generals to death and to humiliate the soldiers who had escaped by parading them in women's clothing. ^B When they learned of this, all of them deserted to Tangrolipix. Having a great force around him, Tangrolipix advanced against Moameth, eager to decide the whole issue in battle. He [Moameth] advanced to meet him, leading an army of about five hundred thousand. A battle took place near Aspachan in Persia, where many fell on both sides, as did King Moameth himself. For as he rode too boldly, encouraging his own men, his horse stumbled and he fell, breaking his neck. Once he was dead, the multitude came to terms with the enemy, and Tangrolipix was proclaimed King of the Persians by the common vote of all. The Turks, moreover, threw open the entrance to Persia which had previously been closed to them, and having defeated the Persians and the Arabs who were there, they extended their empire over all of them, and named Tangrolipix "Sultan," as if to say ruler and lord of all. Then he also seized Babylon, Arabia, and the Median Atropatene—which was still under the Romans—and many other parts of the Roman dominion.

^B The Turks, therefore, as Scylax reports, emerging from the Caucasian mountains, began by defeating the Arabs, and then the Romans. The same author calls them also "Curti." He reports, in fact, that Amermumnes gave ten thousand Curti to his son, along with the entire Armenian army, while the Emperor Theophilus was still alive. And again, that messengers were sent back to Basil from Mesopotamia, with many Curti and Saracens brought to him as captives. Gemistus, known by the surname

^A Pletho, a man who claims for himself to follow history more than others of our time, asserts that the Paropamisadae are the Turks; and that, having been ensnared and overcome by Alexander the son of Philip and the Greeks who campaigned with him—as a side-task while he was traversing toward the Indians—they are now, after a long time, exacting from the Greeks retribution multiplied many times over for what they suffered. So these men differ greatly from each other, when one says the Turks originated from the Caucasus and the other from the Paropamisus. For it is clear that Scylax does not call the Caucasus that mountain which the Macedonians falsely labeled such in the region of India, as it is a part of the Taurus range, but rather [the mountain] which towers over both the Pontic and Caspian seas and, in the place of a wall, fences off the isthmus separating them, and which is distant from India by more than thirty thousand stadia; this he customarily calls Caucasus. But the Paropamisus is a part of the Taurus near the Imaus and India, from which Aristobulus says the Macedonians set out to invade India.

But these things seem to have been said by Pletho irrationally, seeking to elicit wonder rather than to polish the truth. For neither has anyone before him claimed that any race of the Paropamisadae were Turks, or any other of the names in that vicinity, nor that they moved from elsewhere to settle in Paropamisus. Furthermore, it is not plausible that Mahomet, a prince of the Persians, while fighting against the Babylonians and Indians, would have sent ambassadors to ask for an alliance from the Paropamisadae as neighbors to the Indians, if one must believe Scylax regarding his account of Mahomet’s embassy. But it is more reasonable that he requested and received an alliance from those who dwell between the Tanais and the Hyrcanian Sea. But if Pletho thinks that Scylax is ignorant of these matters and lies, whence does he himself, knowing the truth, claim it, when no one before him ever said that the Turks were the Paropamisadae? And how on earth was the truth revealed to him, having lived four hundred years after Scylax? ^B And indeed, if it is more likely that those who are closer in time to the events should report the facts, Scylax, having preceded Pletho by four hundred years, ought to be judged to have had a better grasp of the facts and therefore to be speaking more truly.

There is also something marvelous in Pletho’s argument: if the Paropamisadae were ensnared and captured long ago by the forces under Alexander, are they now, eight hundred and a thousand years later, exacting vengeance from the Greeks for what they suffered? For reason declares that some sort of justice and providence from the Divine governs mortals. But why would it not rather concern the Persians, who were despoiled of their empire of Asia, to exact retribution from those who despoiled them, rather than the Paropamisadae? And at the same time, if the ancient name of the Turks were found among the Persians, it would render Pletho’s argument more plausible. For there were tribes in Persia, such as the so-called ^C Patischorenses, and the Achaemenidae, and the Magi—these latter being pursuers of a certain solemn life—and the Cyrtii and Marai, who were predatory and plunderers. Or is it because the Persians had previously done wrong to the Greeks, that they have justly suffered in return? But why not the Bactrians, and the Sogdians, and the Arae, and many other nations more temperate than the Paropamisadae, whom Alexander destroyed? ^D

^A And what were the plots of Alexander, or those with him, against the Paropamisadae? Or what would be more worthy of mention than other plots and strategic maneuvers? For those who have recorded his deeds say that Alexander crossed the Paropamisus into the northern regions, and having conquered all the Bactrian territory that was under the Persians there, and even more than that, he then began to desire India. But no one has spoken of a plot, because it is worthy both of attention and of being noted.

And what was the plot against Alexander, or those with him, in Paropamisus, doing no wrong to the Greeks? ^B Much more reasonable, it seems to me, is what Scylax has said, and what is more consistent with the statements of the geographer Strabo. For Strabo writes that the northern parts of Atropatenian Media are mountainous, rugged, and harsh, and that they are the dwelling place of the mountain-dwelling Cadusians, Amardians, Tapyrians, Cyrtians, and other such peoples; and that these are migrants and brigands. For the Zagros and the Niphates have these nations scattered here and there, and the Cyrtians, Amardians, and the inhabitants of Armenia themselves are of the same character. Therefore, according to Strabo, the Cyrtians inhabit not only the mountainous part of Atropatenian Media, but have also permeated into Armenia and have a settlement there. Certain spurs of Mount Caucasus, extending toward the south, divide the middle of Iberia and reach as far as the related ridges of the Armenian mountains. Hence, it is not without reason that the Cyrtians who were then in Armenia are the same as those whom Scylax calls Curtians or Turks, and asserts that they inhabit the northern parts of the Caucasus. It also seems to me that the name of the Huns was derived from those living toward the Hyrcanian Sea, and these also, occupying those parts, corrupted the name of the barbarians, just as has happened with many others. ^C It is also reasonable that the Turks living around the Danube migrated there under Leo, the Roman Emperor, having crossed from the bends of the Caucasus mountain by crossing the so-called Cimmerian Bosporus, and not from the Paropamisus. For Scylax also records that the Turks in Pannonia are neighbors to the Danube. And he clearly classifies some Turks as being in Asia and some in Europe, and says that Leo, son of the Emperor Basil, obtained aid from the Turks and Hungarians who lived beyond the Danube against the Bulgarians. ^D And it should not seem absurd if he calls the Cyrtians "Curtians," pronouncing them with a *u* and not a *y*. For he writes the name taken from the Romans in the Roman fashion. For the Romans, as you well know, change many things written by the Greeks with a *y* into the sound of *u*, for example, they write "Cuman" for Cyme, and "duo" for *dyo*, just as they also say *mus* and *sus* for what is *mys* and *sys* in Greek. In the same way, therefore, those whom Strabo calls Cyrtians, the Romans called "Curtions" and shortened them to "Curtos." And they also called the same people "Turks" by an inversion of the consonants, either because it seemed that it could be pronounced with a more harmonious sound of the mouth, or because they received the name more accurately from the people themselves. For when they had long been intermingled with...

in such a way that those called by the Greeks Cyrtii should be called Tyrcii and not Cyrtii. And so, we too, for this reason, write calling them Tyrcii, and by a contracted name, Turks, wherever it may seem appropriate. And we think that these are the people whom Strabo reports were wandering thieves around Media and Armenia, and not the Paropamisadae, as Plethon believes. If, however, there is any error in these matters, you shall be the judge. Farewell.

THEODORI GAZE LETTERS

^A Theodore to Demetrius, greetings. You report terrible things again, if indeed even in Florence things are not turning out better for you by the grace of fortune. But you make a more terrible statement, claiming that I have neglected you, when I could have established income for you in Rome and provided sources of profit and means, and that, being persuaded by someone in Florence who says these things, you are both indignant and blame me.

But I do not marvel at all that there exists even in Florence a slanderer; for life is full of slander. But that you should be so easily susceptible to these slanders, this I do marvel at. For you ought surely not to have believed such a man by mere word, having spent forty-five days in Rome without yourself perceiving any such thing, nor having learned of it from others. For if I had any such power, you would have perceived it yourself while present, and Argyropoulos and the other friends would have spoken of it. But now, when all the friends here have considered much regarding means and a situation, and no one has been able to find anything, you have considered some slanderer in Florence—I know not whom (for you do not name him), but a fellow, as it seems, of base character—more trustworthy than yourself and all your friends and kin in Rome.

^B I also marvel that you say there were in Rome more sources of the necessities of life. For who were these? Or do you not remember how we often held discussions and, considering every kind of means, found nothing possible, with Bessarion gone, on whom all our hope rested? But indeed, as it seems, you, experiencing ^C the difficult affairs in Florence now, consider the previous ones easier. And this happens to you, perhaps also because the present evil always seems more grievous than the past; but as I would say, asserting it, it is because in Rome Theodore was there to console you and to moderate the hardships, and to take away the great perception of evils by the small means he had. But in Florence you have no one such. One must, however, view and judge things themselves as they are, and not according to some circumstance and accident; for to do so would be to be deceived often.

One means of living you had in Rome, mine alone; but this would have sufficed for a certain time, and indeed it did so; but to suffice through everything was not possible. And so, having helped with what was possible, we sent you off, and even before you arrived in Rome, you were yearning to go. If you do not even there happen upon what is necessary, we at least are not at fault in anything, nor is this any crime of ours, unless you also wrong us because, while you were present and being hosted by us, a messenger arrived that Bessarion, who was our benefactor, was dead.

^D The demanding that we must also know matters in Florence, while living in Rome and leading a quiet life, is very burdensome, and a demand not of a friend, but of one who seeks grounds for blame. For we do not know everything, not only regarding matters in Florence, but not even regarding the house in which we live; for the servant is often destructive and idle without our knowing. And you complain that we did not predict the things that would happen to you in Florence, a matter as uncertain for us then as it was for you; and you blame us as having cast you into other calamities.

^A One should praise those who give, and not speak evil of those who do not.

This, then, concludes what I had to say, partly in my own defense based on what is right, and partly in exhortation based on goodwill. As for the matter of Pausanias, if you are able to write to me ^B, I shall render to you as a reward what is sufficient; but beyond that I am unable to promise anything, owing to poverty—a malady that becomes more severe to me every day. Farewell. From Rome, June 18th.

Epistle of Theodore

The letter which you sent me, partly complaining and partly becoming reconciled, has been delivered; for this reason I, too, must make a reply both to those complaints and regarding our reconciliation.

I, for my part, deem that a man of sound mind should, above all else, never allow himself to enter into enmity and reviling with anyone; or if not that, at least not do so lightly or without reason and an investigation of the truth—especially if the person happens to be a friend. For because there is much calumny in life, and because most matters are not immediately obvious, one would hardly remain invulnerable to false words and suspicions unless, as I said, he were to use reason in all things, and by examining each matter thoroughly, finds out what is true and what is false in what is being reported.

And since I think it right to apply this to all things, I assumed it to be all the more appropriate and just to apply it to you; for you did not enter into friendship with me yesterday or the day before, but a long time ago, and within such a space of time I have learned through much experience that I have great goodwill toward you and am eager to do whatever good I can. For he who is dearer and closer to one must also be more steadfast, less easily deceived by the calumnies of men, and more unmoved by the suspicions that otherwise sprout up.

But you, after such a long time and such great proof of my goodwill and intimacy, have become an enemy from a friend, and a vehement accuser from a praiser, just as if you had suffered the greatest of evils at my hands; and, neither considering my character as it has always been, nor keeping in mind the things by which I have helped you from what I had, ^D you rushed straightway into reviling and were carried away into speaking evil against me. Yet I have never yet done you any evil.

^A I cared just as much for your caviling as I might for the barking of a little Melitean dog, nor did I ever choose to say against myself, on account of your blasphemies, anything that was not fitting. For I am not the most shameless of men, nor a dog of Cerberus, as you say; but if anything, I am ashamed not only to do shameful things, but even to speak them. Therefore, I have neither written anything blasphemous to you, nor as one retaliating have I made any other speech railing against you; but—oh, what I hear in return for what I said!—I merely spoke, and kept silent. For to revile you and to answer you back, I had neither the leisure, nor was it the conduct of a grave and magnanimous man.

Thus, then, am I; and no one will be able to show otherwise, even if he should burst with lying. But you, for heaven’s sake, what have you done of all those things that befitted a friend, or a good man, or generally one who has any sense? Since, whether some contentious and envious person slandered ^B me to you, or you yourself suspected it, you unreasonably grasped at the idea that I was speaking against you to Bessarion, when it was your duty, if you were a friend and possessed of a mind, to consider first and inquire from where such a thing might likely come. For one ought not to believe everyone without discrimination, because the majority are base and wicked, nor is it true just because someone suspects it; but it happens that the majority are deceived in this matter and suffer the same thing as the drunken, to whom all things seem to rotate and many things appear as one. For each of the foolish has a mind deranged, like the initial state of vision ^C that the drunken have; and they seem to see friends harming and wronging them, and yet not one of them is actually doing such a wrong. Or was it because you spoke ill of Bessarion at some time, thinking yourself wronged by him, that you suspected me of having spoken against you and betrayed you?

When, then, did I speak against you? And what letters do you say I have written against you? Or was it the letter which you yourself received from me and read, and gave to Aurispa to carry, which said whatever was fitting regarding reconciliation and goodwill? But in truth, you have nothing reasonable or logical to bring forward in proof of what you shout; but you have been moved altogether mindlessly, and, desiring to satisfy a certain beastly impulse, you blasphemed and railed, thinking that ^D you had thus proven I had accused you.

But, O man, you had a different relationship with Bessarion; everyone knew it, and Bessarion himself most of all, from the insults and taunts you sent him, just as you did to me later. But I, wishing to reconcile you, would not have become your accuser—for so, enmity and hatred would have resulted, not some reconciliation—but I used words suitable to this noble intention. And that I wished to do these things while I was present, is clear from what I sent beforehand. And you cannot even say that I was an enemy to you when I was leaving Ferrara; for I departed from you as a friend, embracing

^A what is now your sober state. Formerly, however, just as those who are seized by a frenzy, you considered your friends to be enemies, and thought that those who were providing you care were offering you poisons; but now, having been delivered from that most terrible disease of madness and folly, you know how to judge who is a friend and who an enemy, and who is an acquaintance and who a stranger.

‘And indeed I forget,’ you say, ‘all that came before.’ And with good reason, for those who have sobered up do not remember the things they did while drunk and carousing, when they acted boisterously and behaved insolently, nor do those who have come to their senses remember the things they did while dancing and reveling in their shame. For even you are now led by right reason, whereas formerly passion and irrational impulse prevailed; and now you are master of yourself, whereas formerly you were not at all.

But as for the fact that you are thus now, I approve of this change for the better; and, just as formerly I hated your manner while feeling pity for your folly, so now I both admire you ^B for the understanding you have acquired, and I already embrace your manner now that it has become better, and I make you my friend again. And I will love you for as long as you remain unchanged; but if you should change back, I shall hate your manner again, yet I will pity you.

However, I advise you, now as a friend, to keep your character permanently in what is good, and to do and say everything reasonably and becomingly, and to take as your subject for discourse not insults and reproaches and gibes, but praise of what is noble and of integrity, and whatever else is useful and acceptable to men; for everyone loves such people, and they willingly help those in need. But as for the arrogant, the fault-finding, and the fickle, they turn away from and hate them.

You are poor, a stranger, having no one to assist or otherwise encourage you; therefore, for this very reason, you ought not to rail against those who have more and have greater power; but, just as the vine and the ivy and other such plants, by entwining themselves ^C around the elm or the elder or another such tree, increase by being held and lifted up, and live and thrive and bear fruit by being supported by others, so also ought you to cling to those who are more fortunate and more powerful, and make use of the strength of such people for your own advancement.

Before now, because you would say, ‘Theodore harmed me, and so-and-so and so-and-so, and may they perish most miserably,’ everyone hated and avoided you ^D as a man who was fault-finding, censorious, and quarrelsome; and no one was willing to share any of their goods with you, lest they themselves some day hear the same things from Theodore, having become your associate. For everyone knows that Theodore harms no one, but by every means possible he confers benefits, and loves all men, and is gentle and pleasant to all. But now, if you re-adjust your character and demonstrate it to be auspicious, virtue-loving, orderly, and steadfast, everyone will love you, and they will deliver you from poverty and deem you worthy of honor. For virtue indeed and wealth