Preface of Pietro Matranga to the Anacreontics of Saint Sophronius

3725 ANACREONTICA. — PRÆFATIO. 3726

and in its purpose. Zosimas said to the lion: “Since, O beast, the Great Lady has permitted her body to be buried, and I am an old man and have not the strength to dig the trench (for I do not have a tool suitable for this need; nor can I go back the distance to fetch a proper instrument), do you perform this service with your claws, so that we may commit the tabernacle of the Saint to the earth.” Immediately at his word, the lion made a trench with its front paws, as much as was sufficient for the body to be buried. ^B

40. And so the old man, having again washed the feet of the Saint with his tears, and having entreated her much to pray now for all, covered her body with earth, the lion standing by; it was naked as it had been before, having nothing else save that torn garment which Zosimas had thrown to her, with which Mary had covered the more shameful parts of her body from behind. Then, therefore, both departed. The lion (38) retreated into the inner desert like a lamb. Zosimas, for his part, returned, blessing and praising Christ our God. Having come back to the monastery, he recounted everything to the monks, concealing nothing of what he had heard and seen; for he told them everything from the beginning, little by little, so that all who heard were struck with wonder at the great works of God, and with fear and longing they celebrated the memory of the Saint. And John the hegumen found in the monastery some who were in need of correction, so that not even this speaking of the Saint should be idle or of no avail. Zosimas finished his life in that monastery, having attained nearly one hundred years of age.

41. The monks continued by tradition to teach these things without writing, and set them forth as a common model of edification for those wishing to hear; but I have not heard of anyone having recorded the narrative in writing until today. But I, what I received without writing, I have made known by setting it down in letters. Perhaps, however, others have written the life of the Saint, and altogether more magnificently than I, although nothing of the sort has come to my knowledge. Nevertheless, I also have written this narrative according to my ability, wishing to prefer nothing to the truth. May God, who grants great rewards to those who flee to Him, grant the reward of edification to those who handle this narrative, and to him who ordered this present writing or account to be committed to writing, and may He deem them worthy of the share, standing, and rank of this blessed Mary, concerning whom is the narrative, together with all who from the ages have pleased Him through contemplation and action. Let us therefore also give glory to God, the King of the ages, that He may deem us also worthy to obtain mercy on the day of judgment, in Christ Jesus our Lord, to whom is due all glory, honor, and adoration, together with the Father who is without beginning, and with the all-holy and good and life-creating Spirit, now and always, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.

NOTE. (38) This is better than what is in the manuscript, “the elder departing,” and “the lion,” etc.

PREFACE OF PETRUS MATRANGA TO THE ANACREONTICS OF SAINT SOPHRONIUS

and those who have earned well of lost authors—having rescued them with great patience and labor from the principal libraries of Italy—have bestowed eternal life upon them through the benefit of the press, it was surely not to be borne that the lyre of the holy melodist should lie buried in the squalid dust and remain mute. And in truth, if those who expend their labor in editing the remains of secular authors for the advancement of the liberal arts and letters are to be commended with perpetual praise, those who now study to publish the unknown or lost works of the holy Fathers earn for themselves no small glory; so that from them our most holy religion may shine more splendidly, and the immutable doctrine of the Catholic Church may lie open on all sides against the deceitful trifles of the reformers. But since I am, so to speak, still on the threshold of such studies, no one will forbid me to exult with joy at having been the first to edit the precious odes of Saint Sophronius, composed so many centuries ago.

For while I was searching among the papers of Allatius for records concerning various controversies of the Greeks, I chanced upon a small codex, long desired by me, marked C. A. 579, containing nine sacred and secular anacreontics. I immediately recognized a copy made by the hand of Allatius himself, and I saw another exemplar from Vernatia lying not far off; whereupon, lest this precious collection lie hidden any longer in the dust, I decided to record it in my own papers; which I finished in a short time, although the most intense heat caused me no small annoyance, as all these things happened in the month of August of the year 1838. Meanwhile, intending to visit my sweet homeland, I began a journey to Sicily, and I deposited my work in a cabinet, with the intention that, upon my return, I would have my corrected poems readied for the press. But when I had considered that the Allatian codex was sufficiently corrupted, I began to search anxiously for the archetype through the Roman libraries. I went immediately to the Vatican, where in certain adversaria of Allatius I saw a list written in his own hand, which merely recounted the titles of the Odes of Sophronius, and noted that Allatius himself possessed a certain codex, which formerly the eminent Sirletus, and then the eminent Columna, had possessed. However, I could not find my Sophronius, nor the indices of that same library, among the Columna codices that were sold. Then, having thoroughly examined the Sirletian codices in the Vatican once more, I inspected their index; and so that Allatius' assertion might be confirmed in every respect, I read with joy in C. V. 5970, f. 118, the following: ^A 262, "An ancient parchment book, whose capital letters are gold, in which it contains the following: 'The Anacreontica of the holy Sophronius, Bishop of Jerusalem.'" There follow the titles of the Odes, some of which are omitted, or are attributed to another author.

Thus far matters stood; but I had not laid aside every hope of finding the Sirletian codex. For I had heard that the Barberini library had once possessed such a codex; but two things hindered my investigation: the fortune of that most illustrious library, for I feared that my Sophronius might have migrated from there; and the fact that I had no friendship with the prefect of that library. Love of study gave me confidence, nor did my opinion deceive me; for I experienced such kindness from Lord Pierilis, though I was a stranger, that I can never forget the memory of his favor. For although the new arrangement of the library kept everything in confusion, the power having been granted by the most illustrious prince, he worked with me more than once to search for my Sophronius; the codex was finally found.

The odes of Saint Sophronius are composed in the more elegant type of Anacreontic verses; for they are all dimeter, odd, and catalectic, and are scanned in this way. Let the first verse of the first ode be an example, *ἀπὸ Πνεύματος Θεοῖο*, where you have an anapest and an iamb in the first dipodia; there follows the second dipodia, which consists of an iamb and a syllable. Poems of this sort are read in various Anacreontic odes, whence they are also called by the generic name "Anacreontics." They are divided into Tetrastichs, in which our Melurgus, according to a custom already received beforehand, has interspersed odd verses containing twelve syllables; which seem to pertain to the genus which the Prosodiographers call Anapastic, Hypercatalectic; they usually coalesce from two dactyls, to be sure, a spondee, an anapest, and a redundant syllable; they often begin with an anapest and a dactyl, once with a spondee and an anapest, as it will be permitted for anyone to observe in verses 35 and following of ode 17, which furthermore depart from the ordinary scansion. These anapastic verses, although entirely alien to Anacreontics, charmingly interrupt the long-drawn-out chant; and sometimes they contain some thought consonant with the argument, at other times an epiphonema. But while all the odes are mixed with these verses, the eighteenth has two only at the end, as a conclusion. Furthermore, the same odd verses are explained through almost three subsequent Anacreontics; I said "almost," for it happened not once that for some time three short verses are found at the beginning of the ode, but not at all in its progress, and often the anapastics alone accompany the greatest part of the odes (c). The verses of which the odes consist do not exceed the number 126, so that the smallest among the odes contain no less than 90; but the verses of all the odes collected together, without any exclusion of the mutilated ones, reach a total of two thousand one hundred and thirteen.

But leaving aside the structure of the poems, I do not hesitate to set forth my opinion concerning them in a few words, whatever it may be. And everyone now knows that these poems were long ago considered by Leo Allatius to be most elegant, most pious, and most honeyed. Indeed, a prudent reader will not easily depart from the judgment of so great a scholar; nay, if he should wish to weigh the matter well, he will confess that the poems of Sophronius deserve even the highest praise. For since, by the force of time, literary matters were gradually falling away from their classical dignity, and empty verbosity was succeeding the gravity of thoughts and the purity of language, that this melodist of ours, buffeted by so many and such great evils, should have composed graceful verses and adorned them with poetic charm, this is altogether worthy of admiration. Furthermore, Sophronius uses such ease in expressing even difficult matters, while he explains the mysteries of the faith and the dogmata of the Catholic [religion], whose ^B

learning one is not imbued with in an ordinary way ^D; so that you would not even wish to desire more. Several of the openings of his odes show such charm of imagery that they seem to have had some author of the highest golden Greek age; although often, as Photius observed in the aforementioned place, "he brings innovation to words," the new terms of which we have reviewed in our annotations. These gifts shine forth brilliantly, and, if I may say so, are felt; but if anyone attempts to render these Anacreontics into Latin word for word, as if they were obvious to those unacquainted with the Greek language, he aspires in vain to render the Sophronian elegance; nay, it is certain to me that the greatest part of their beauty would perish. Sophronius himself confirms my opinion, he who adapted some plain histories of the Gospels to his lyre in the first eight odes: nevertheless, the arrangement of the Greek words is so admirable, the sweetness of the locutions, and a certain naturalness of imagery, that when read in Greek they never cease to satisfy, while on the contrary, when rendered into Latin word for word, they grow cold and lose their innate charms. This was surely proved by experiment by that most learned man, Cardinal Sirletus, once the possessor of the ^A archetype. For while searching for information about Sophronius in the Vatican Library from the Sirletian codices, I also inspected a certain codex of miscellaneous content marked with this note, 6285, in which I read the first ode of Sophronius rendered into Latin, carrying variant readings in the interlineations and margins. I recognized the hand of Sirletus himself immediately, and even after almost two centuries the writing is seen to be so intact that the golden dust still adheres to the ink. Meanwhile, as I was considering adding an interpretation of the odes to my edition, the Sirletian translation so discouraged my spirits that I decided I would rather, if at any time my duties afforded me leisure, sketch them in verse than make the Sophronian charms dull by prose oratory.

Besides the piety with which all the writings of Sophronius shine, as Photius observed regarding the synodical letter [E], these Anacreontics offer to the learned many things worthy of knowledge, relating either to the interpretation of sacred Scripture or to new sacred or profane erudition. We, however, shall select a few examples, and the first one I deem worthy of note is that which he tells in ode 4, v. 24 and following, regarding the food of the Forerunner. For he asserts plainly that he fed on the roots of a certain shrub, which is called *meleagrum*; furthermore, since he had said shortly before that food was always ready for John “without pain,” which he soon explains to be *meliagri* and *alcras*, it follows that it is necessary to refer the term *acrides* to a species of vegetable, according to the certain mind of Sophronius. Yet, lest the opinion of Saint Sophronius offend candid readers too openly, I shall recount here a few among so many authors who have held the same view. I shall premise above all the words of the most learned Calmet, which are read in his commentaries on this passage of the Gospel: “The opinion of those who have judged that the Forerunner was accustomed to feed on the buds of trees has found very many followers. Nor does this abhor from the faith. And in very truth, that the first men not only, but also the prophets of old and later the holy anchorites, fed on the tops of greenery and herbs, no one will surely deny.” Behold Ovid’s description of the food of the first men: Bread to the first mortals were green herbs, Which the earth gave without anyone asking, And they would pluck grass living from the sod. Now the feast was the tips from the tender leaf.

Regarding, however, the similar food of prophets and ascetics, both the sacred codices and the *Spiritual Meadow*, and the examples of the lives of the monks, abound. And first, regarding the interpretation of *acrides*, Saint Isidore of Pelusium in epistle 5 to Nilus, proposing a perfect example of monastic life taken from John the Baptist, exhorts that garments are to be fashioned for ascetics from hair, and that spare sustenance is to be taken by monks from the leaves and tops of herbs: “If, therefore, we have been instructed in the perfect asceticism according to God in John the Baptist by his foods and clothing, we shall be content with hair for covering if possible, and with the tips of herbs and leaves for meager food, strength, and simplicity.” He urges the same below in epistle 132. An Anonymous Vatican author in the *Catena of the Greek Fathers* who interpret the Gospels, edited by Petrus Possinus, reports similar things: “Some say that the *acrides* (“locusts”) are the fruits of trees, according to the verse: ‘The caper blossomed and the locust (acris),’ which is found in the 12th chapter of Ecclesiastes.” Theophylact in Matthew: “Some say that the *acrides* are herbs, and they call them *meliagria*; others say they are tree-fruits, or wild fruits.” So much for *acrides*. It is equally clear that Sophronius understood the shrub *meleagrum* for "wild honey" (*meli agrion*). In very truth, that the roots of this shrub are edible is confirmed by various testimonies. In Suidas, under the word *meleagri*, this example is brought forth, which I believe is extracted from the life of some anchorite: “And he was accustomed to be entertained with the roots of *meliagria* and the hearts of reeds.” In Du Cange, this shrub is called *meliagrion*. Therefore, from the manuscript life of Saint Cyriacus the anchorite, the aforementioned Du Cange produced these two examples: “Being in want then of food, and not having any source from which they might soothe the necessity of nature—for not even *meliagria* grew in the desert—he would take the roots of *meliagria* and the tips of reeds.” From these testimonies, two things are argued: namely, that the roots of *meliagrion* are edible, and that...

a very cheap food was that to which extreme necessity compelled Saint Cyriacus. Whether all these things correspond to the Precursor, the reader may see; yet he knows that the holy Fathers have generally concurred in the contrary and most widely held, almost common opinion, and that learned men have adopted it. ^C In Ode 17 you will find a new bishop of Ascalon, most religious and a preeminent observer of the true faith, whose virtues are praised with the highest laudations by the holy archbishop. What, finally, shall I say of the description of the sacred places, which he enumerates graphically and pleasantly sets forth, as it were, before the eyes? In Ode 21, Menas is called the *oikonomos* of the “Ninth” of Alexandria, which is also proven by various examples brought forward from the *Spiritual Meadow*. Indeed, it is clear from many arguments that very many monasteries in the Alexandrian region were distinguished by numbers; indeed, often even by numbers, the miles of distance from Alexandria were designated, as is common in Moschus, in the *Spiritual Meadow*; for thus in c. 110 we read: “I took my lord Sophronius, and we went away to the *laura* of the Eighteenth in Alexandria.” Furthermore, in c. 162: “Twenty miles from Alexandria there is a *laura* called that of Calamon, between the Eighteenth and the Mafora.” And earlier in c. 51, mention is made of Anazarbus, the metropolis of the second province of Cilicia, from which the monastery called that of the Egyptians is distant about twelve miles. And further down: “The monastery of the abbot Gerasimus is distant from the Jordan by about one mile.” In c. 170, it is narrated that a certain monastery called that of Samson is distant from Jerusalem by about twenty thousand paces. In c. 145, mention is also made of the *coenobium* of Menas himself, Salama, at the ninth mile from Alexandria, as the Latin interpreter translates. But that Moschus often visited the “Ninth” with Sophronius, we read also in the *Spiritual Meadow* itself, c. 177: “Abbot John the Cilician was saying that as we were sitting at the Ninth of Alexandria...” In c. 184, they hear the account of the life of the eunuch Abbot John while they were dwelling at the Ninth; “as we were in Alexandria at the Ninth.” That its abbot was Menas at that time, when they had undertaken pilgrimages through the *coenobia* of the aforementioned man, I have elicited from the *Meadow* itself. C. 146, Cotel. 417, p. 414: “While we were at the Ninth in the *coenobium* of Tougora, Abbot Menas the *koinobiarches* spoke about the holy Pope Eulogius.” And in the following: “Abbot Menas the *koinobiarches* of the same *coenobium* told us this also.” Since things were this way, it may be conjectured that Sophronius heard the account of the calumny from the mouth of Menas himself. ^D Not only the monasteries of Alexandria were distinguished by numbers, but also those of other places. One example suffices, which is read at the end of the *synaxarion* of Saint John the Evangelist, attributed to our Sophronius, whose miraculous efflux of manna from the tomb is celebrated on the festival of May 8: “His *synaxis* is celebrated at his second *apostoleion*, which is at the Seventh.” Finally, concerning Maria, the mother of Paul the Candidatus, in whose praises we read the last ode, the *Spiritual Meadow* provides us with quite certain information. For in c. 185, she is called the mother of Paul the Candidatus, where Sophronius and John on the island of Samos hear her narrating the wondrous way in which a Christian woman converted a pagan man to the faith: “On the island of Samos, Maria, the God-loving and alms-loving mother of Lord Paul the Candidatus, etc., told us,” where you also observe the holiness of the noble woman commended.

In my Preface above, I had promised that I would one day render the Anacreontics of Saint Sophronius in verse, so as not to cast down their charms by prose speech. Since, however, I saw that the leisure which I desired for the sake of studies was far from me, and since, often running through the Sophronian odes, both on account of the poetic construction and also on account of the difficulty of the reading, I saw they would cause no small task to those uninitiated in the Greek language, I, revoking my intention, decided to publish them in loose speech. And so that I would not deprive Sirletus of his concerns regarding my method, I have combined the first ode, which he himself had made into Latin—as I had warned in c. 1 of the Preface—and which was first brought forth by me from Vat. Lat. codex 6285, with my translation of the others. Nor does it escape me how much grace and poetic force these poems lose when translated into prose: but although in my critical observations and philological notes I have omitted nothing that anyone could desire for their explanation, the greatest part of the readers would have remained in the dark about whatever new and charming qualities the poems of my Sophronius may present. Therefore, my intention in my translation was that they might be read by anyone who wishes to extract from them information about foreign ecclesiastical history and the saints, knowledge of places, and explanations of the holy Scripture itself, which are of no small importance. I have added the very honeyed ode to Joseph, son of Jacob, the *iatrosophist* of Sophronius, at the end of the interpretation. Which Sophronius is perhaps the same as the Jerusalemite thought by Allatius. Indeed, in c. 69 of the *Spiritual Meadow* by Moschus, a Sophronius is called a *sophist*; however, which medicine he practiced does not appear from the monuments; but the matter is not altogether absurd. This ode is extended to f. 68, as you may see, after the Odes of Sophronius. Apart from the gaps due to the loss of a few quaternions, and the strange disruption of the verses in certain odes, the Barberini codex exhibits errors of no small importance, though otherwise most beautiful: since indeed neither Allatius had corrected them in his transcript, if you except some very light ones of little moment, as will be seen below, I have taken care to amend them by my own effort, and at the same time I have added here the reason for the emendations for the readers.