Poems of Theodore Prodromus (Amarantus Dialogue, Epigrams, Tetrastichs)

at the first milestone from Jerusalem on the way leading to Ramatha is Mount Modin, whence came Mattathias, the father of the Maccabees, and in which they rest buried, their tombs still appearing. At the eighth milestone from Modin, on the road leading to Joppa, is Lidda, which is also Diospolis, in which it is shown that the body of the blessed George was buried. At a milestone from Ramatha, three miles from Bethlehem, is the town of Thecue, from which came the prophet Amos, who also rests buried there. Four miles from Jerusalem to the south is that town in which Zacharias was staying at that time, when Mary, the Mother of Jesus, hastening, already having in her womb the Son of God, came to greet Elizabeth her kinswoman, who was pregnant with John the Baptist; and whom they claim was also born there. ^B At the thirteenth milestone from Jerusalem toward the north is Jericho, from which was Rahab the harlot, who received into her lodging and fed and hid the four spies of the promised land. From there was Zacchaeus, small in stature, hearing that Jesus was passing through those parts, climbed a sycamore tree, and because he wished to see the Lord and speak with him, he made himself known, asking for mercy; from there too were the boys who ridiculed the blessed Elisha performing his ascent to Jerusalem, shouting: "Go up, you baldhead, go up, you baldhead." At the second stone from Jericho to the south is the desert which is called Quarantena, in which Jesus fasted for forty days and as many nights, and when the devil tempted him there as he was hungry, he said: "Command that these stones become loaves of bread." At the second milestone from Quarantena toward Galilee is that high mountain where the devil tempted Jesus again, showing him all the kingdoms of the world and saying: "All these I will give to you, if you will fall down and worship me." Below Quarantena is the trickle of that spring which the blessed Elisha, having healed its sterility, rendered drinkable from bitter. Before Jericho, by the way, the blind beggar, hearing that Jesus was passing by, crying out: "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me," ^C merited to be enlightened by him, more inwardly than outwardly. Three miles from Jericho, at the second milestone from Bethagla, which is interpreted as "place of the circle," because there, according to the custom of mourners, Jacob’s sons and his people made a circuit, bringing him from Egypt into Hebron. Engaddi is in the tribe of Judah, where David hid himself in the wilderness that is in the valley of Jericho, that is, in that level region of which we spoke above. That is called a very large village of the Jews. In Gadda near the Dead Sea, balsam used to be brought and grow. Whence also the vineyards of Engaddi are named. At the eighth milestone from Nazareth toward Carmel is Mount Cham; at the root of which, near a fountain, Lamech, the father of Noah, killed Cain with his arrow and his bow, his own leader. Whence, filled with fury and angry, he said: "I have killed a man for my wound, and a young man into my bruising." At the third milestone from the mountain of Cain is Mount Carmel, of which in the Canticles: "Thy neck is as Carmel"; in which the blessed Elijah willed to dwell for a long space of time, and with him his disciple, the blessed Elisha. At the seventh milestone from Nazareth toward Geninium is Gaver, the place in which Jehu, king of Israel, struck Ochozias, king of Judea. At the sixteenth milestone from Nazareth toward the east above the sea of Galilee is Gergesa, that small village in which the Savior restored to health those who were vexed by demons; from which also the swine were cast into the sea and died. At the sixteenth milestone of Mount Carmel toward the south is Caesarea, the metropolis of Palestine, from which was Cornelius the centurion, whom the blessed Peter baptized in it and created bishop; in which also is the tower of Straton, which Herod built of white marble against the arrival of Augustus Caesar; and the tower which overlooks Jerusalem, which Herod himself built, and which is also called the tower of David, Josephus attesting, and called it Antonia.

AFTER THE MIDDLE OF THE TWELFTH CENTURY: THEODORUS PRODROMUS

NOTICE

Theodorus Prodromus, or Ptochoprodromus, for so he is very often expressed in manuscripts, born of Christian parents, was instructed in good and pious disciplines. For he himself says of himself: Who was born of God-minded fathers, And of a faith proven by deeds, And especially by the calling of a Christian name.

^A

Some are not pleased by that word *eusebōs* (piously), because he seems to be overly addicted to the error of the Greeks regarding the Holy Spirit. He himself says to Bareas: The Word, indeed, is the offspring of the thought of the All-Cause, Most holy, from the most holy Father, And the Spirit is the procession and the problem of the Mind. ^B

And elsewhere he speaks of the same subject, [saying it is] “from the Father alone.” Moreover, he defends this same point against the Latins in a singular little work, as we shall see below. The word *kyros* attached to the name Theodore, which those who edited his epigrams interpreted as “Lord” (Cyri Theodori Prodromi), they judged to be a proper name. Gilbert Gaulmin refuted them excellently in his Annotations on that same Prodromus, chapter 1. For *kyros* is in fact used by recent Greek writers in place of *kyrios*, just as in the same century among the Latins *domnus* was used for *dominus*; which [the editors] also rendered even more corruptly as *kyr* or *kyris*, and he proves that this same word is misinterpreted in all languages. ^C

He was a man of varied erudition, and he wrote various works in every genre of knowledge. Published among his works are his Greek epigrams together with certain others, which are: Arguments, or chapters of both Testaments in iambic senarii and heroic verse, which are everywhere subjoined to the iambics of the same sentiment, not indeed for all books, but for the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, and Kings. Likewise, for the four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, there are also iambic and heroic tetrastichs on the three holy hierarchs: Gregory, Chrysostom, and Basil. Elegies in which he addresses the apostle Paul. Similar ones to Gregory the Theologian, others to Basil the Great, others to Gregory of Nyssa, others to Saint Nicholas. An exile’s friendship written in senarii. On Providence. Expostulatory verses against Bareas, by whom he had been rashly called a heretic. On the image of life. [Published] at Basel by Bebel in the year 1536. ^D

All these same things exist in Italian manuscripts, both more correct and more ample, relying on which someone could not ingloriously attempt a new edition. There are also manuscripts in the royal library of the Escorial. His Greek epigrams were translated into the Latin tongue by Joannes Ribissus, and printed at Geneva by Crispin. The dialogue *On Friendship*, written in iambic trimeters, was edited in Greek and Latin with a translation by Conrad Gessner at Basel after the sentences of Joannes Stobaeus in folio. In these, however, as well as in other remaining works, a more accurate handling of the quantity of syllables is desired.

His dissertation, in which he agitates against the verse of an ancient poet, by which he attributed wisdom to poverty—namely, *Anatropē tou, sophiēn peniē elachen* (The overthrow of [ignorance], poverty obtained wisdom). A refutation of the argument: *Pauperies sophian nacta est* (Poverty has obtained wisdom), taken from the royal library, was edited in Greek and Latin with notes by Frederick Morel at Paris in 8vo. Whether the author of this little dissertation is the same as the *kyros* Prodromus, whose *Exlogai* (Selections) of pious poems on the oracles of both Testaments exist, the same Morel admits is uncertain to him and not sufficiently known. Perhaps someone might conclude that it is the same person, because in the beginning he confesses that from his boyhood he had pursued the poets with love and reverence, following the example of Plato. But why did the pious poet, acting as an orator, frequently use only the authority of profane writers, and not even note a *gry* (a speck) of the holy authors, whom he knew by finger and ear? He turns this issue into doubt for him. But let him know that to the author, who was acting against profane writers and agitating against them, it seemed inopportune to refute them from the holy texts, to which they do not turn their minds, and especially with no necessity compelling him. He wrote as he pleased. ^A

Nevertheless, that the epopoiist and the orator are the same is clearly proven by those works of his which we shall list below; as well as by all the manuscript codices, which count this little dissertation among his other monuments. His *Rhodanthe and Dosicles*, books IX of love [stories], were edited in Greek and Latin in Paris by Fussanus de Bray in 1625, in 8vo, with Gilbert Gaulmin as translator. Gaulmin translates them in such a way, however, that he does not render what belongs to Prodromus, but rather arranges and polishes them in his own way, and added a book of annotations on the same. He added his dialogue *Amarantus*, or *Old Age Love*, written in Greek prose, and his Latin translation of it. The Greek text of the loves he had described from the Palatine Library by the hand of Salmasius; what was missing, by the care of the senator Peiresc, was [taken] from a Vatican codex: and he made the Latin in seven days, as he himself reports. The *Amarantus* described from the Vatican library was communicated by the same Peiresc. And these indeed have been published. ^B

Many more are unpublished, which we shall arrange in their own order as we are able, primarily from the Italian libraries. And first, indeed, he wrote many things in prose. Those which I myself have been able to see are: *Erotēmata grammatika pros tēn sebastokratorissan* (Grammatical Questions to the Sebastocratorissa). P. *Kathaper to anthrōpinon sōma, philologōtatē moi basilidōn, apo diaphorōn merōn* (Just as the human body, most philological of my empresses, [is composed] of various parts). Hence is expunged an error in the manuscript index of the royal library of the Escorial, where it is written: *Theodorou tou Prodromou exēgēsis eis tēn grammatikēn tou Moschopoulou* (Theodore Prodromus’s explanation of the grammar of Moschopulus), for Moschopulus is much more recent. Unless there is another more recent Theodore Prodromus for us, or Moschopulus is older than Manuel Moschopulus. *Paroimiai diaphoroi kata alphabēton meta tēs hermēneias* (Various proverbs in alphabetical order with explanation). P. *Abydēnon epiphorēma to aēdona*

^A Epistles. I. To the Ephor. P. We, indeed, my blessed and most wise. II. To the logothete, lord Stephen Meldes. P. Then tell me of Hymettus. III. To the Orphanotrophos and Nomophylax concerning the plague that takes hold of him. P. From the belly of Hades this is strictly what is prophesied. IV. To the same. P. When shall I arrive, most wonderful master? V. To the same. P. Yesterday, most godlike master. VI. To the Metropolitan of Trebizond. P. Who am I and of whom, my priest and most divine one? VII. To Theodore. P. I would that it were so, my brotherly and dear soul. VIII. To the same. P. This is that very thing, friend Theodore, which has come upon you too. IX. Lizici. P. It is not good for you, boy. X. To the same. P. Exceedingly? Lizix, out of how much [you have] us. XI. Myla. P. The experienced say, and I am persuaded. XII. To the same. P. This is that very tongue breathing the fury of Athenian fire. XIII. To the same. P. You, on the other hand, give us the *parhypatai* and the *hypatai*.

To Gregory, monk and abbot of the venerable monastery of the Bulgarians on the island of Oxia, when our most holy master came to the island from the patriarchate, having fallen ill and resigned. P. Woe is me, my inspired and wise father.

Orations and other tractates. I. Inaugural oration to the Orphanotrophos and Nomophylax, when he received the dignity of Nomophylax. P. Which one, most divine master, should I sing to which one in the inaugural oration? II. To the Caesar, or on behalf of the Green faction. P. Concerning colors, and their nature, and their generation. III. To those who, because of poverty, blaspheme against Providence. P. Timoleon, the son of Timodemus, a citizen of the Corinthians. IV. The Ignorant, or the grammarian in his own estimation. P. If anyone were to ask Marsyas the flautist. V. The Philo-Platonist, or the Tanner. P. Well now, oh child of Ariston, you are a fine man. VI. The Executioner, or the Physician. P. If he were one man, he would not be feeling pain. VII. The Sale of the lives of politicians and poets. P. The place, oh Hermes, and the depths. VIII. To the Patriarch of Constantinople, John. P. How is it that you have suspicions about me? IX. Oration to the Porphyrogennetos, lord Isaac Comnenus. P. I cannot reach you by bringing the fruit of the eulogy as a preamble. X. Epithalamium for the children of the most fortunate Caesar. P. There was need even of goat hair for the ancient tent-making. XI. A speech of gratitude to the Nomophylax, *protekdikos*, and Orphanotrophos, lord Alexios Aristenos. P. Then the tragedians and the dithyramb-poets. XII. Concerning the tongue of the Orphanotrophos and Nomophylax Alexios Aristenos. P. The discourse is concerning the tongue of the Nomophylax. XIII. Monody for the Porphyrogennetos and Sebastokrator Andronicus Comnenus. P. Scenes and writings of lamentation. XIV. Monody for the Sebastos and logothete Gregory Camaterus. P. For whom, oh those present, should I have performed the monody first? XV. Monody for Constantine the Hagiotheodorite. P. If it is permitted to lament ^B the good who have departed. XVI. Monody for the most holy Metropolitan of Trebizond, lord Stephen Scylitzes. P. Only now have I perceived that I have lost a friend.

Difficulties from the five voices. Xenodemus or voices. I. Well, oh child of Aristander, of Theocles and of some report.

Concerning the great, and the small, and the much, and the little, that they are not of the relative, but of the quantitative. P. To what else, if not to reason, are things calculated?

Paraphrase of the Posterior Analytics of Aristotle. I. Neither of the greatness of mind of Aristotle, nor of our own nothingness. In the royal library of the Escorial, and the imperial one of Vienna. In the same royal one is held his *Exposition on the Psalms*.

Concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit against the Latins. P. It is evident that just as the Son, so too the Holy Spirit is believed to have [existence] from the Father alone.

On the text: "And he himself shall go forth before him in the spirit and power of Elias." P. The difficulty as a beginning, oh friend, is the beginning of ease.

^A

EXPOSITION OF THE CANONS COMPOSED FOR THE HOLY FEASTS OF THE MASTER BY THE HOLY AND WISE POETS COSMAS AND JOHN OF DAMASCUS. PROEMIUM TO THE ORPHANOTROPHOS.

P. You seem, man of God, regarding the matter of the holy and public feasts. Possevinus, in very few words, fills the reader with various errors: "Theodorus the pauper," he says, "explained the interpretation of the book of John of Damascus, which is called the Octoechus." This "pauper Theodorus" was none other than Prodromus. For indeed this man attached to himself "pauper" as a sort of surname; and hence the name Ptochoprodromus, that is, the pauper Prodromus. And he was truly miserable and poor in condition. It is a dream of matters, this "Interpretation of the book of Damascus." For he wrote no book under the title of Octoechus. What monster this "Octoechus," which Prodromus may have explained, might be, let Possevinus explain. And he wretchedly defiled the work of John's Octoechus with the name of Octoechus, which does not exist anywhere. Therefore, the sentence must be corrected as follows: "Theodorus Ptochoprodromus interpreted the book of John of Damascus which is called the Octoechus." But even that will be false. For although this Prodromus wrote an interpretation on the canons of Cosmas and Damascus, which they composed for the solemn feast days of our Master, I have never read that he interpreted the same Octoechus of Damascus, which Joannes Zonaras explained in a most diffuse commentary. Since Prodromus accomplished the others, he could have also finished this interpretation; but to this very day I have seen it marked in no library. Would that this also existed! The Thessalonian mentions this exposition in the Prooemium of his Exposition of the canon of John of Damascus for Pentecost. "Even if the renowned among the wise, Theodorus Prodromus, gives a dignified cause, having explained the sacred canons." Thus, among the wise of most famous name, Theodorus Prodromus provides a grave reason for this, he who explained the sacred canons. Nicephorus Blemmida also respected this in his oration to Jacob, Archbishop of Bulgaria. "In these," he says, "the interpreter, admired by many, who was the first explainer of the sacred canons, sets forth that the 'shining forth' is the passionless generation of the Son from above." To this, the interpreter, who is held in admiration by many, and who first explained the sacred canons, says: "It shone forth," he says, "denoting the supernal generation of the Son without passion." This exposition is held in manuscript at Scoriac in the royal library, at Rome in the Vatican, in the Barberini and Altemps libraries.

He also wrote many things in political, iambic, and heroic verse, besides what has already been published. Those which we note here we have read, and they are:

TO THE GRAMMARIAN THEODORUS STYPPIOTES.

TO THE MONK, LORD JOANNICIUS.

FUNERARY [VERSES] TO LORD CONSTANTINE CAMYTES.

AGAINST A LONG-BEARDED MAN, WHO APPEARS WISE BECAUSE OF THIS.

INDIGNANT [VERSES] AGAINST PROVIDENCE.

AGAINST THE ENVIOUS.

INDIGNANT [VERSES] CONCERNING IGNOMINY.

HEROIC [VERSES] AGAINST DISEASE.

ON A PORTRAYED LIFE.

ENIGMA ON THE CLOUD.

MONITORY [VERSES] ON SOMEONE THROWN FROM THE SEA, DEAD WITHOUT HANDS.

VALEDICTORY TO THE BYZANTINES.

DE HORTO [ON THE GARDEN].

THE SAME.

THE SAME.

THE SAME.

THE SAME.

ON THE WEDDING OF THE SON OF LORD NICEPHORUS PHORBENUS, TO LORD ALEXIUS.

ON THE SAME.

ON THE SAME.

ON THE SAME.

On the same. P. Marriages, and rites of marriage.

Warning verses to Pausanias, who turned to stone on account of the death of his son, Peter. P. Peter [changed] into a stone.

On the same subject. P. He who [turned] the much-weeping Niobe.

On the same subject. P. Grief [turned] Pausanias.

On the tomb of Athanasius the Hesychast, rebuking the tomb-robbers. P. O tomb-robber, you shredder of graves.

To the Orphanotrophos. P. What say you, O most brilliant Orphanotrophos?

To the same, heroic verses. P. Nature bears witness to the swamp.

Elegiacs. P. If among the dead he had become an arbiter of justice.

Anacreontics. P. Come to me, progenitor of mind.

On the son of the Panypersebastos Lord Nicephorus Phorbenos, Lord Alexius. P. Who knows a garden of virtues? Let him come, let him look now.

To the children of the Porphyrogennetos and Sebastocrator Isaacius, as if the Emperor were absent. P. O pair of most beloved sons.

Programma for a kontakion containing drafts of the Lord Joannicius. P. O hero Joannicius, Joannicius O hero.

To the Logothete Lord Stephen Meldes, apologetic verses concerning the delay of his arrival. P. Savior, grant me a crown.

To the most wise Porphyrogennetos Caesarissa, Lady Anna Ducaina, on her own affairs. P. Hear, O Trinity, great Queen.

To the Empress Lady Irene Ducaina on the death of her son the Sebastocrator. Heroics. P. Would that I were, O Empress.

Funeral orations for the late Empress of the Romans Irene, as if she were laid to rest. The departed speaks. P. If any law allows the dead also to speak.

On the coronation of Alexius Comnenus. P. O Sun of Rome.

Hymn to the Emperor Lord John on the birth of Christ. P. Again the birth of Christ, and the victory of the Emperor.

Another. P. I give thanks to my God.

Another. P. Since God is with you, O Emperor.

Hymn to the Emperor Lord John Comnenus on the baptism of Christ. P. Behold a double festival.

Another. P. You baptized me, O Emperor, the new servant Rome.

Another. P. Be enlightened, O Roman city.

Decastichs taken from the prophets for the Emperor Lord John, while he is campaigning again against the Persians, by which he prays for good things. P. Seeing him arrayed again against the Persians.

Political dodecastichs for the Emperor Lord John Comnenus, while still in Castamon. P. Good are your beginnings of the empire, O Sovereign.

Ekphrasis in heroic verses on the procession of Lord John Comnenus after the capture of Castamon. P. My heart, let be the battles.

Political decastichs for the people on the triumphal procession of Lord John Comnenus after the capture of Castamon. P. A forerunner from a forerunner, a servant from a servant.

Decastichs as if from the city, exhortatory to the Emperor to mount the chariot. P. Each year, O Emperor.

Another. P. If each year, O Emperor, of your reign.

To the Emperor Lord John Comnenus upon the capture of Castamon. P. There was a time, great-hearted king.

To the Emperor Lord John Comnenus upon the second capture of Castamon and Gangra. P.: And these things are yours, O noble victor. ^B To the Emperor returning victoriously from the Persians. P.: Again the contest for the orators. For a royal wedding, the songs of the people. P.: Leap again, Byzantium. For another royal wedding, songs for the peoples. P.: Again, as you return to us from battle. To the Emperor John Comnenus. P.: Many of those who serve. To the Emperor marching for the tenth time against the Persians. P.: Barbarians, be downcast. Others. P.: O invincible Emperor. ^C Nuptial songs upon the entrance of the bride from the Germans to the Porphyrogennetos Lord Manuel and Sebastokrator. P.: There is not, nor has there been another of emperors. Propitiatory address to Christ as if from the Emperor. P.: O Sovereign of all. Another. P.: How good are your gifts, O Almighty. Epitaphs for the Porphyrogennetos and Emperor Lord John Comnenus, as if from the departed. The deceased speaks. P.: The pride of mortals, and the vainglory of sovereign power. ^D A program for the same tomb, heroic. P.: Why did you touch me? Iambic. P.: Do you seek me, the hidden dust here, stranger? To the tomb of the Emperor John Comnenus. P.: You see, spectator, the slab set before you. Admonitory. P.: Have before all things the fear of God, stranger. Addresses to the great apostle Paul. P.: Let us hymn the loud-voiced mouth of God. ^A Pairs on Gregory the Theologian. P.: I shall hymn the great power of theology. Pairs on Saint Basil. P.: I shall hymn Basil of the Cappadocians. Pairs on Saint John Chrysostom. P.: I join in song with those who honor the Golden-mouthed. Pairs on Gregory of Nyssa. P.: Gregory, later a brother. Pairs on Saint Nicholas. P.: But later I sing a lament. To Saint Peter being crucified. P.: For the Master, indeed, the feet were below. For communion. P.: You, at the table of the mysteries of God. For the crucifixion, heroic. P.: Do not, O man of savage heart. ^B Single-verse epigrams for the commemorations of the saints at the end of each day throughout the whole year, with the name and surname of the author expressed in the initial letters of the first verses of each month. P.: Simeon bears of the pillar the city. Finally, the political poems of Theodore Ptochoprodromos to Manuel Comnenus Porphyrogennetos are read concerning the customs of the monks of his time, not without salt and sharpness. P.: Daring, I report to you, my lord, the power, in which he confesses himself to have been a monk by profession. ^C Yet those write wisely and according to reason, As wise men and orators; but I do not write thus. For I am unlettered and a young tatterdemalion, And a monk of the lowliest, possessing nothing. Lest anyone think this man is different from the former. And these, indeed, with some other poems of lesser importance, have happened to be seen. There exist also in the Bavarian codex of Munich, 66, some verses of Theodore Prodromos. And in the Royal [Library] of Saint Lawrence, the explanation of the grammar of Moschopoulos by Theodore Prodromos, concerning which we [have spoken] above. On the canons of Cosmas and John. On the books of the Posterior Analytics of Aristotle. On the Psalms. Some verses on ^D Who was also joined in the communion of marriage. From the Germans, a most noble maiden Adorned with the graces of virtues, No less than with the beauty and form of body.

^A New and Old Testament, upon the holy mass, and upon the Electra of Euripides. Concerning the last two, those who read them will judge the truth. Joannes Meursius, in his Notes to Constantine Porphyrogenitus De administrando imperio, ch. 51, praises the Lexicon of Theodorus Prodromus, and the book On accents, in his Glossary. But to tell the truth, his heroic verses are most lifeless; many things even you will read with annoyance. And there is almost no concern for syllables. To such an extent did he write with Minerva against him! His iambic and political verses are produced not unhappily; and if you make a few exceptions, they could be reckoned among the poems of no lowest standing. For they have sharpness, and you would not find the diction disagreeable. And so that you may clearly judge this, I shall append here some of his as yet unpublished works:

Upon the chessboard. From the play, O excellent one, of that which comes from the dice Placed in clear view; an image and type Of the all-turning and much-turning life, Or rather to say, having painted the life Which is purely and simply nothing more than a game.

^B Next, Allatius places couplets from Prodromus, and so forth. Also a long poem against a fornicator—a piece full of iambic hatred, which we have decided to omit. For we shall set forth later the poems of Prodromus of a more serious and useful argument. A. M.

A SURVEY OF THE WORKS OF THEODORUS PRODROMUS

GREEK INDEX

ACCURATE TABLE OF THE PRESENT CASKET OF THE WISE PRODROMUS.

α'. Iambic and heroic quatrains. β'. Of the same. Letter to the ephor. γ'. Of the same. Thanksgiving to the nomophylax, protoekdikos, and orphanotrophos, the lord Alexios Aristenos. δ'. Of the same. Letter to the logothete, the lord Stephanos Meletes. ε'. Of the same. Heroic verses on the crucifixion. ς'. Of the same. To the orphanotrophos concerning the plague that had taken hold. ζ'. Of the same. Letter to the same. η'. Of the same. Letter to the metropolitan of Trebizond. θ'. Of the same. On behalf of the tongue of the orphanotrophos and nomophylax. ι'. Of the same. Inaugural address to the orphanotrophos, when he received the position of orphanotrophos. ια'. Of the same. Letter to the same. ιβ'. Of the same. To the same, when he became orphanotrophos for the second time, iambic verses, heroic verses. ιγ'. Elegiacs and Anacreontics. ιδ'. Of the same. To the Caesar, or on behalf of the Green (faction). ιε'. Of the same. Against those who, because of poverty, blaspheme against Providence. ις'. Of the same. On the evangelical text: "And he himself shall go forth before him in the spirit and power of Elias." ιζ'. Of the same. Refutation of: "Poverty obtained wisdom." ιη'. Of the same. The ignorant man, or a grammarian in his own eyes. ιθ'. Of the same. The lover of Plato, or the tanner. κ'. Of the same. The executioner, or the physician.

OPERUM RECENSIO

^A κα'. Of the same. Amarantus, or the Loves of an old man. κβ'. Of the same. The sale of lives, poetic and political. κγ'. Of the same. Oration to the Patriarch of Constantinople, the lord John. κδ'. Of the same. Monody for the Porphyrogenitus and Sebastokrator, the lord Andronicus Comnenus. κε'. Of the same. Monody for the Sebastos and Logothete, the lord Gregory Camaterus. κς'. Of the same. Monody for the Hagiotheodorite, the lord Constantine. κζ'. Of the same. Epithalamium for the sons of the fortunate Caesar. κη'. Of the same. Letter to Theodore. κθ'. Of the same. To the same. λ'. To Aixikes. λα'. To the same. λβ'. Of the same. To Mytas. λγ'. To the same. λδ'. To the same. λε'. Epitaphic verses for the great victor, Porphyrogenitus and Emperor, the lord John Comnenus, as if from the text. λς'. Program for his tomb, in heroic verse. λζ'. Another program for the same tomb. λη'. Expiatory verses to Christ, as if from the Emperor; in heroic meter. μ'. Epitaphs for the blessed Empress of the Romans, Irene, as if from the text. μα'. For the children of the Porphyrogenitus and Sebastokrator, the lord Isaac, as if from the Emperor. μβ'. To the Logothete, the lord Stephen Meliteniotes, apologetic verses regarding the delay of his arrival. μγ'. For the tomb of the Emperor, the lord John Comnenus. μδ'. Of the same. Heroic verses to the Empress, the lady Irene Doukaina, on the death of her son, the Sebastokrator. με'. Of the same. To the Porphyrogenitus and Emperor, the lord John Comnenus, on the capture of Kastamon. μς'. Of the same. To the most wise Porphyrogenita and Caesarissa, the lady Anna Doukaina, regarding his own affairs. μζ'. Of the same. Program for a kontakion containing the life of the lord Joannicius. μη'. Of the same. For the tomb of Athanasius the Hesychast, censorious verses against tomb-robbers. μθ'. Of the same. On the departure of Philia. ν'. Of the same. Expostulatory verses to Providence. να'. Of the same. Against an old woman fond of harlotry. νβ'. Of the same. Against a man with a long beard, who thinks himself wise on that account. νγ'. Of the same. Ekphrasis in heroic verses on the expedition for the capture of Kastamon.

^B νδ'. Of the same. Suppositional verses for Pausanias, who was turned to stone because of the death of his son Peter. νε'. Of the same. On the same. νς'. On the same. νζ'. Of the same. Suppositional verses for one who was cast out by the sea, a corpse without hands. νη'. Of the same. To the monk, the lord Joannicius. νθ'. Of the same. Riddle concerning the cloud. ξ'. Of the same. On the marriage of the son of the lord Nicephorus Phorbenus, the most honorable lord Alexius; in five parts. ξα'. Of the same. Triumphal procession for the Emperor, the lord John Comnenus, on the capture of Kastamon; political decastichs for the demes, in thirty parts. ξβ'. Of the same. As if from the city; suppliant decastichs to the Emperor regarding his riding in the chariot for the demes, in ten parts. ξγ'. Of the same. On a painted life. ξδ'. Of the same. Monostichs on the ends of the saints commemorated on each day of the whole year, with the name of the poet also woven into the initial letters of the first lines of each month. The month of September has 30 days. ξε'. Of the same. Iambic verses on the twelve feasts of our Lord Jesus Christ. ξς'. Of the same. On Abraham entertaining the Holy Trinity. ξζ'. Of the same. On a ring having a seal, two lovers, and two trees having sprouted from their breasts, and terminating in one cluster. ξη'. Of the same. Expostulatory verses on the dishonor of the Word. ξθ'. To Bareas, who slandered his name with that of a heretic. ο'. Against those who envy. οα'. Admonitory verses. οβ'. On a garden. ογ'. Hymn to the Emperor, the lord John Comnenus, on the Nativity of Christ, for the demes. οδ'. Hymn to the Emperor, the lord John Comnenus, on the Baptism of Christ, for the demes. σε'. Against disease; in heroic meter. ος'. Of the same. To the great victor Emperor, the lord John Comnenus, on the second capture of Kastamon and Gangra. οζ'. Salutations to the great apostle Paul. οη'. Similar ones to Gregory the Theologian. οθ'. Similar ones to Basil the Great. π'. Similar ones to Saint John Chrysostom. πα'. Similar ones to Gregory of Nyssa. πβ'. Similar ones to Saint Nicholas. πγ'. Of the same. Farewell verses to the Byzantines.

^A πδ'. Of the same. Aporiae on the five voices. ^B Xenedemus, Musaeus, or voices. The book holds the singer Nicander.

The present book of Nicander’s Theriaca was completed on the 23rd of April of the 12th indiction, written by the hand of Theophylactus Saponopulus. And ye who read it, make prayer, for the Lord’s sake, to God, that He may grant me forgiveness for the measureless sins wherein I have transgressed.

Of the same. Upon Saint Peter being crucified. ^B πε'. Of the same. Epitaph verses for the most venerable lord Constantine Kamytzes. πς'. Of the same. Aporiae on the five voices. Xenedemus; the voices. Musaeus. πζ'. Touching the great and the small; and the many and the few; that they are not of the relative, but of the quantitative. πη'. Third instruction of the most wise teacher, lord Constantine Stilbes, teaching that [the lecture was held] in the renowned temple of the holy great Apostles in the Orphanotropheion. It is among the most exceptional.

NICANDER.

πθ'. Nicander’s Theriaca. Book one. ^C κα'. Of the same. On the cave of the Nymphs in the Odyssey. ιβ'. Heraclitus’s refutation of myths, or a remedy for things traditionally transmitted in a manner contrary to nature. ιγ'. Stories of the sophist Libanius. ιδ'. Herodotus on the birth of Homer. με'. Menander’s precepts, by alphabetical order.

Of the same. Letter to Ephorus.

[The remaining text is a catalogue and commentary in French by the editor, detailing the contents of the manuscript mentioned above.]

^D As may be seen from this Index, the volume contains a very great number of short works by Theodore Prodromus, which until this hour have remained not only unrecorded, but even completely unknown. I shall provide an exact account of them. I will not content myself with merely giving a notice of each of these short works in the order in which the manuscript presents them; there will be several of which I shall transcribe the text in its entirety. Neither will I fail to mark the articles that have already been published. Since a fairly large number of these short works relate to historical facts, or are addressed to personages who played major roles under the reign of the Comneni, I am persuaded that this Notice, and the remarks by which it will often be accompanied, will not fail to interest the readers.

ARTICLE XIV. Works contained in the manuscript, fol. 8 (numbered 1), recto, penultimate line [n. 1 of the Greek Index]. Quatrain in iambic and heroic verse, composed by Theodore Prodromus. On the sixth folio (numbered 1 in the manuscript), there begins a series of quatrains, composed by Theodore Prodromus, half in iambic verse, half in heroic verse. These are the same ones that were published for the first time in Basel, in 1536.

ARTICLE XV. [Work contained at fol. 27, verso, line 5, n. II of the Greek Index.] Letter of Theodore Prodromus to Ephorus. This letter is inserted in a collection that Father Pierre Lazeri, a Jesuit, has published under the general title of *Miscellaneorum ex mss. libris bibliothecæ collegii Romani Societatis Jesu*, in-8º, volume one, Rome, 1754. It is to be found in volume I, page 18, n. 1. I shall have occasion, in the following pages, to speak at greater length about this collection.

As for the letter in question here, I do not know who the personage by the name of Ephorus was, to whom it is addressed. Father Lazeri accompanied it with two versions, one in Latin, the other in Italian; but he added no clarification. From what Theodore says in the course of his letter, one can conjecture that Ephorus was some writer (either in prose, or rather in verse), whose new composition he was awaiting with impatience. However, it is possible to interpret the whole thing as the expectation of a simple letter from Ephorus.

I am certain that at least two volumes of this collection were published; but I have not yet been able to procure knowledge of any but the first, which alone is to be found in the National Library. For the rest, I do not know if Father Lazeri issued any more.

What I shall say in the articles that follow will suffice to enable the readers to appreciate the work of Father Lazeri, relative to what he has had printed from the short works of Theodore Prodromus.

The preceding thirteen articles deal with certain anonymous little writings that do not concern our Theodore. Here we present an analysis only of the *opuscula* of Prodromus, together with their titles, intending to publish these same *opuscula* in a single fascicle further on, with the exception of those that still lie in manuscripts or which we were obliged to omit on account of their profane subject matter. Editor, Patrologia.

ARTICLE XVI. REVIEW OF THE WORKS.

Piece contained on folio 27, verso, line 19, no. III of the Greek index.] Thanks of Theodore Prodromus to Alexius Aristenus, nomophylax, protecdice, and orphanotrophus. *To the same: A thanksgiving to the nomophylax, protecdice, and orphanotrophus, Lord Alexius Aristenus.*

Father Lazer noted this piece among those contained in a manuscript of the Roman College, but he did not publish it. In this writing, Theodore shows Alexius Aristenus how grateful he is for the praises which this magistrate had given him in a piece that the latter had composed.

The letter of Theodore, or rather this species of panegyric—for the letter is one—can serve to finally fix the time when Alexius Aristenus flourished. We have from this author scholia on the Body of Canons, which have been printed more than once. Very learned men have paid great attention to these scholia and have used them to advantage to establish many essential and interesting points of canon law. But neither Antoine Augustin, nor Leo Allatius, who often cited them, nor Guillaume Voëlle, who, jointly with Christophe Justell, gave the first edition of them around the year 1661, nor Beveridge, who in 1672 reproduced them in the *Pandectae canonum*, were able to determine the precise time when the author compiled them. Cave ^B assigned it to the year 1166. To judge of the utility that Theodore's piece can have in this regard, it suffices to cast one's eyes over the different passages in which Leo Allatius spoke of the writings of Alexius Aristenus, and then to compare the different articles of the *Bibliotheca Graeca* of Fabricius, where there is talk of these same writings.

This Alexius Aristenus, under the reign of Alexius Comnenus and under that of John Comnenus, held the triple office of nomophylax, protecdice, and orphanotrophus. These offices were considerable.

One often finds the *nomophylax* [or guardian of the laws] cited among the officers of the Church of Constantinople. In all likelihood, his office had much in common with that of the officers who, among the Athenians, bore the same title, and who, according to Cicero, as also Columella, observed the conduct of the citizens, recalled them to the execution of the laws, and in everything saw to it that the laws were observed. It must be that this office in title existed in the Church of Constantinople at a very early date, and perhaps from the first ^C times of the translation of the seat of the Empire to this city; for sufficiently ancient authors speak of it frequently. From what they say of it, one might believe that this office was all at once civil and ecclesiastical.

As for the *protecdice*, it is known that in the civil administration of the Empire of the East, there were magistrates named *ekdikoi ton poleon*, charged with defending the interests of each city, of each commune, and with serving as their advocates. But independently of this civil magistracy, there were similar positions in the ecclesiastical administration. One finds *ekdikoi* in most of the Churches of the East, especially in the church of Saint Sophia of Constantinople, where there was a fairly large number of them, which the Emperor Heraclius reduced to ten. It was the head of this species of college who bore the title of *protecdice*. Du Cange has reported several passages from various Greek works, whether published or anecdotal, where the functions of the *protecdice* are determined. The historian George Pachymeres himself informs us that he had been invested with the dignity of *protecdice*. It had at first been only one of the secondary dignities; but the Patriarch Xiphilin (John VIII, who sat from January 12, 1064, until August 11, 1075) placed it in the rank of the first, and of those who were designated by the epithet of *exokatakoilon*. This change took place under the reign of Michael Ducas (surnamed Parapinaces, who reigned from 1071 to 1078); ^D but the matter did not fail to cause some difficulty. This officer was the born protector of all those who had recourse to the asylum of the church, and he knew of their crimes, as well as their right to immunity. He held his tribunal in the part that was called the *proscenium* of the church, and this tribunal was called the *protecdikaion*; sometimes one simply said the *ecdikaion*.

The title of *orphanotrophus* alone teaches that the officer who carried it was charged with watching over the maintenance of the orphans. The office of *orphanotrophus* was one of the great offices of the court. Codinus speaks of it and describes the costume, although in his time the office of *orphanotrophus* in title no longer existed. One can see in Du Cange and Father Banduri the different modifications that this office received at various times; and to have a just idea of the importance it had under the reign of Alexius Comnenus, it suffices to read what M. Le Beau reports under the year 1117. But as the author of the invaluable *History of the Lower Empire*, given the nature of his work, had neither to nor could speak of

this subject in general, we shall provide other details elsewhere.

In reading this piece, one sees that Alexius Aristenus, already endowed with the triple office of nomophylax, protecdice, and orphanotrophe, had had some occasion to deliver in public and from the chair a eulogy of our author. Theodore, singularly flattered to have been praised by a man of this importance, testifies to him his gratitude with the greatest outpouring of heart. One cannot deny that the piece is written elegantly. One cannot even make a crime of the writer having praised almost to excess the merit and qualities of his hero. That in which we find him inexcusable is having thought that, in order to elevate him further, he had to speak of himself, not only with too much humility, but with a sort of baseness. Almost at the beginning of his discourse, he supposes it possible that one might treat him habitually ill, and even indignantly.

We will remark, in the first paragraph, a trait relating to Timon the Younger and Speusippus: I do not recall having read it elsewhere. What I believe certain is that this trait is not encountered at all in Diogenes Laërtius. I also believe that Ménage, Stanley, and Brucker make no mention of it.

ARTICLE XVII.

Letter of Theodore Prodromus to Etienne Mélés, logothete.

The personage to whom this letter is addressed appears to have borne the name of Etienne, and to have filled the post of grand-logothete. Theodore here renders thanks to Etienne for the letter which the latter had written to him: he praises its style, its form, and its content greatly; he tries to encourage the grand-logothete to write similar ones often. To judge by some expressions of Theodore, the letter from Etienne concerned some subject of morals, or of conduct, not simply private affairs.

This piece is printed in the *Miscellaneorum ex mss. libris bibliothecae Collegii Romani Societatis Jesu*, Rome, 1754, vol. 1, page 22, no. 11. Father Lazeri added to it, as to all the other letters of Theodore that he published, a Latin version and an Italian version. He also added a small number of notes, very short and of little importance, as much regarding the variants that were encountered in his manuscripts as, sometimes, regarding some difficulties that seemed to him to result from Theodore's phrasing. Here, for example, he observed ^A that Theodore appears to have made a painter of Phidias: Οὐχ οὕτω Μύρων ἐχαλκοτύπει· οὐχ οὕτω Φειδίας ἔγραφεν κ. τ. λ. Upon which Fr. Lazeri says: "It is strange to make Phidias a painter, when he is called a sculptor (nλáστης) by Plutarch in his *Pericles*, and the works that Pausanias and others relate are Phidias', are statues." (*De Phidia*, Abb. Gedoyn, vol. XIII, Memoirs of Literature of the Academy of Inscriptions).

I shall have occasion to speak at more length of Etienne Mélés, logothete, when I give an account of another, more considerable piece that Theodore had likewise addressed to him.

ARTICLE XVIII.

These two pieces are not found in the Collection printed either at Basel in 1536 or at Angers in 1632.

ARTICLE XIX.

This letter, as well as the two following, ^B are printed in the collection published by Fr. Lazeri; but several considerations have made me think that I would do well to reproduce them here.

1° The text, in the edition of Fr. Lazeri, is often faulty: the Vatican manuscript has put me in a position to restore, in many places, the true reading. Independently of this advantage, especially relative to the three pieces in question here, it is important to establish the degree of confidence that our manuscript can merit.

2° The subject of these three letters seems to me curious. Theodore speaks there of an extraordinary malady that he had just experienced, and whose effects had been terrible. He himself did not know how to define it exactly. The physicians of Constantinople had known neither its species nor even its genus. He calls it λοιμώδη. Fr. Lazeri, whether in his Latin version or in his Italian version, thought he ought to interpret this word as if it signified a devouring hunger, a canine hunger. This idea on his part astonishes me to the last degree; I believe he was mistaken. ^C It seems evident to me that it is a question here of an inflammatory malady, which had produced the violent eruption of a large number of boils or virulent pustules, the opening of which had not been accomplished without spreading a scent, not only foul, but contagious. These pustules, upon drying out, had become floury, and ^D the patient had absolutely lost his hair.

^A Other observations: According to the account of Theodore, the disease did not reach its full strength until after frequent vomiting; during the suppuration he experienced the greatest discomfort, knowing neither what posture to adopt nor on which side to lie. From such symptoms, one will perhaps be inclined to believe, as I believe myself, that this disease was precisely smallpox. Theodore complains of the ignorance of the physicians of Constantinople, who had seen in a disease like that only a double-tertian fever. This ignorance presents nothing that ought to force me to reject my conjecture. To speak exactly, the Greek physicians have never known smallpox. At least, it is certain that they never had any marked theory, neither on the causes, nor on the effects, nor on the cure of this disease; and as long as, relative to such a disease, the art remains in such a vague state, one may well say that they did not know it in any way. Without doubt, Rhazes, that skillful Arab physician who flourished towards the beginning of the 10th century, has said positively that Galen, in several of his works—even those that have reached us—had spoken of smallpox and the remedies proper to cure it. But, first of all, according to the manner in which Rhazes expresses himself (one is justified in believing it so), he himself did not know the works of Galen except through the Arab versions. Furthermore, the passages he alleges do not prove demonstratively that Galen had, in effect, claimed to speak of smallpox properly so-called. Moreover, Rhazes himself is the first to agree that Galen had not given any particular and sure rule for the cure of this disease, and had not explained its cause: "Perhaps," adds Rhazes, "he had done so in some of his works which, not having yet been translated into Arabic, are not known to me." But, in this regard, I have curiously interrogated all the physicians who understand Syriac and Greek, and there is not one among them who has found anything more in Galen. On the contrary, most of them had not even noticed the passages which prove to me that Galen had known smallpox. Thus, for my part, I remain surprised that this great man neglected to the point of not mentioning a disease so frequent, so difficult to treat, he who had been so careful in the research of the cause of diseases and the means of curing them. ^B To my mind, the history of medicine does not teach us that, since the era when Rhazes flourished, any Greek physician—neither in the 11th century, nor the 12th or 13th, nor even later—has treated of smallpox in his works. We have, it is true, a ^C version of the English author of a historical work on medicine, which is known to me only from the translation of... newly issued. "We owe to the Arabs the first description of three new diseases, which are smallpox, measles, and the spina-ventosa or caries of the bones. The first two, more fatal to Europe than had been the bloodiest wars of which the annals of the world had preserved the memory, were not known before this era, except through Arab versions. Afterward, the passages he alleges do not prove demonstratively that Galen had, in effect, claimed to speak of smallpox properly so-called. Furthermore, Rhazes himself is the first to agree that Galen had not given any particular and sure rule for the cure of this disease, and had not explained its cause: 'Perhaps' (adds Rhazes) 'he had done so in some of his works which, not having yet been translated into Arabic, are not known to me.' But, in this regard, I have curiously interrogated all the physicians who understand Syriac and Greek, and there is not one among them who has found anything more in Galen. On the contrary, most of them had not even noticed the passages which prove to me that Galen had known smallpox. Thus, for my part, I remain surprised that this great man neglected to the point of not mentioning a disease so frequent, so difficult to treat, he who had been so careful in the research of the cause of diseases and the means of curing them." To my mind, the history of medicine does not teach us that, since the era when Rhazes flourished, any Greek physician, neither in the 11th century, nor the 12th or 13th, nor even later, has treated of smallpox in his works. ^D

^A The Greek version of the Treaty of Rhazes, considered by some scholars as a work of the 11th century, was published by the clever physician Jacques Goupil, under the following title: *PAZH TOY OAYMAΣTOY IATPOY λόγος περὶ λοιμικῆς, ἐξελληνισθεὶς ἀπὸ τῆς Σύρων διαλέκτου πρὸς τὴν ἡμετέραν*; and it is found following the *Therapeutics* of Alexander of Tralles, in the superb edition of this author, printed in the presses of Robert Etienne in 1548, folio. About sixteen years later, Sébastien Colin, a physician from Fontenay (a town in Poitou), translated this same Greek version into French (1): his work, completed on July 20, 1564, was dedicated during the year 1565 to Jacques de Billy, abbot of Saint-Michel-en-l'Herm (2), and only appeared in print in 1566. Sébastien Colin believed that the Greek version of the treaty of Rhazes was by Alexander of Tralles. His error is palpable. Alexander of Tralles flourished under the reign of Justinian (from August 1, 528, to November 14, 566), and Rhazes composed his treaty (cf. Casir. *Bibl. Ar. Hisp. Esc.* tom. I, p. 173, Gol. *not. in Al-Ferg.* pag. 213) for al-Mansor, a paternal nephew of the caliph Moctafi (from the year 902 to 908 A.D.), and governor of the city of Rayy. Perhaps Sébastien Colin believed that Jacques Goupil, having published this Greek version following the *Therapeutics* of Alexander of Tralles, should be considered to have attributed it to him. But, unless Jacques Goupil (which I do not know) had expressed this opinion elsewhere, one must not attribute it to him; for, in ^B his edition of the *Therapeutics* of Alexander of Tralles, and in the Greek version of the treaty of Rhazes, no more than in the notes he added to it, he says absolutely nothing of the sort. In the course of the Greek version, no passage can serve to make known who its author was, nor at what epoch it was made; the translator merely announces that he had worked by the orders of the emperor under whose reign he was writing: *Ἀλλ' οὖν πείθομαι τῷ προστάγματί σου, θεόσεπτε καὶ ἀεισέβαστε αὐτοκρατορ, τὴν παρὰ τοῦ σοφοῦ τούτου ΡΑΖΗ καλλίστην καὶ τελειοτάτην περὶ τῆς λοιμικῆς νόσου πραγματείαν Σαρακηνικοῖς λέξεσιν ἐκτεθειμένην εἰς τὴν Ἑλληνίδα μεταμειψάμενος φωνὴν ἠνέγχαμεν τῷ κράτει σου κ. τ. λ.* (cf. edit. Jac. Goup. p. 243). According to this passage, Fabricius (cf. Fabric. *Bibl. gr.* lib. VI, c. VII, § 15, t. XII, pag. 692) thought that the emperor in question must have been Constantine X Ducas (who reigned from December 25, 1059, to May 1067). I see no motive to adopt this sentiment, unless one wishes to persuade oneself that the Greek version must have followed closely after the Arabic composition of the treaty. But (I do not conceal it), far from this motive seeming to have any force, I would incline rather to believe that, on the contrary, a considerable time must have elapsed before a writing composed in Arabic by Rhazes could be widely spread, and inspire, in Constantinople, the desire to see it translated into Greek. However, I feel myself that, before strongly embracing this latter ^C opinion, it would be fitting to engage in a mature examination of the possibility, considering that in no part of the globe frequented by Europeans at least, does one find traces of it in any Greek or Roman physician, poet, or historian. These two poisons were brought to us, it is said, from the deserts of Arabia, by the followers of Mahomet. It is in Egypt, and under the reign of Omar, successor of Mahomet, that I find the most ancient vestiges of smallpox: for it is at about this epoch that Aaron was writing about this disease, according to Rhazes. The Mahometans soon spread the variolous venom into Syria, Egypt, Persia, Spain, and everywhere they carried their victorious arms. Several centuries later, the Crusades finished infecting all of Europe with it, where since that time these two diseases have caused incredible ravages. See the *Sketch of a History of Medicine and Surgery*, from their beginning to our days, as well as their principal authors, progress, imperfections, and errors. Translated from the English of M. W. Black, M. D., by Coray, chap. V, pag. 169. (1) See the title of this work: *Treatise on the plague, and its healing, primarily written in the Syriac language, by Rhazes, an admirable physician, interpreted into Greek by Alexander Trallian, and newly translated from Greek into French by M. Sébastien Colin, physician at Fontenay. Plus, an epitome containing the causes, remedies, and preservatives of the plague, composed by said Colin. - Also a brief exposition of certain words encountered while translating this author, which seemed necessary to have an easier understanding of this translation. With a treatise containing the diet and way of life, useful to amateurs of ^D their health, composed by said Colin.* At Poitiers, by Engilbert de Marnel, 1566, in-8°, *Bibliot. nat.* 2370 T. At the end of the treaty of Rhazes, one reads: *End of a treaty on the plague; firstly in the Syriac language, by Rhazes; secondly in Greek, by Alexander Trallian, translated into French, by Sébastien Colin, physician, the twentieth of July, fifteen hundred and sixty-four.* The author of the modern translation of the treaty of Rhazes not only did not know the version of S. Colin, but fell into strange errors when he spoke of the Greek version, and of Rhazes himself (cf. *Hist. of smallpox* by M. J. J. Paulet, t. II, part. II, 1768). (3) ... catus, and most learned in Greek, translated Gregory Nazianzen, John of Damascus, etc. Joannes, his brother by age, favored his studies; he renounced in his favor the abbeys he held. *He was Abbot of Saint-Michel-en-l'Herm and Blessed Mary of Castellariis on the island of Ré, in the year 1566, when, on May 5, he renewed the statutes of the abbot Bertrand de Moussy.* (We see, by the dedicatory Epistle of Sébastien Colin, that Jacques de Billy had already replaced his brother in the abbatial rule, at the latest by the year 1565.) *He lived until the year 1581, when he passed from the living at Paris, on December 25; and was buried at the church of St. Severin, in the choir, where his sepulcher is visited with an epitaph. We have his eulogy in lib. III, Elog. Scævolæ Sammarthani.* *With him ruling, the monastery was destroyed by Pierre Villates, lord of Champagne.* Gall. Christ. nov. tom. II, col. 1421, C. E.

[1029/1030A] idea, it would be appropriate to abandon oneself to a mature examination; for I am not unaware that precisely in the 11th and 12th centuries, history shows us, on several occasions, the court of Constantinople very eager to attract Arab physicians into its service, so much were they then held in higher reputation than the Greek physicians. Be that as it may, one can always say that nothing seems to base the opinion of Fabricius very solidly concerning the somewhat precise epoch to which that learned man wished to assign the Greek version of the treatise of Rhazes. The Bibliothèque Nationale offers four manuscript copies (2200, 2201, 2202, 2208, in fol.) of this version, but all are quite modern; none of the four (at least I believe so) could be regarded as being able to date back further than the last half of the 15th century, nor even, perhaps, as being decidedly anterior to 1450. In three of these manuscripts (2200, 2201, 2202), the version remains anonymous throughout. In the fourth (2228), it is attributed to Actuarius: *Περὶ λοιμικῆς τοῦ Ῥαζῆ ἑρμηνεία Ἀκτυαρίου*. It must be observed that this title is not of the same character as the piece itself: evidently it is in a much more modern hand. However, it is perhaps solely upon this statement that the opinion of those who attribute the Greek version of the treatise of Rhazes to the famous physician John the Actuary [Actuarius] rests. But this opinion, even if it were unshakably founded, would in no way contradict what I have said here concerning the ignorance in which the Greek physicians appear to me to have remained until the 13th century, and perhaps even later, regarding everything that pertains to the essence, the characteristic signs, and the cure of smallpox. John the Actuary flourished under the reign of Andronicus II Palaeologus (that is to say, from December 11, 1282, to May 24, 1328). It is misguided that one has sometimes wished to make him live since the end of the 11th century; I shall have elsewhere the opportunity to fix irrevocably this point of chronology, which has remained to this hour vague, and which is not without importance for the history of medicine. Here, I satisfy myself by adding that it is perhaps permitted to doubt, and very strongly, whether in effect the Greek version of the treatise of Rhazes was indeed the work of John the Actuary. I say more: even if one had to agree to it, I do not know if I would not still permit myself to affirm that John the Actuary, all while translating Rhazes, in no way recognized the species of disease that we call smallpox. As for the other writings of this Greek physician, I have been in the position to examine them all, both those which are absolutely inedited—than those which, published in Latin, have remained until the present as anecdotes for the Greek text. I have even transcribed a good part of those which are in the latter case, and I will not delay in giving a notice of them; but I do not remember having seen anything in them that had any relation to smallpox.

Furthermore, the letter of Theodore, among several passages worthy of some attention, presents one that will perhaps appear very remarkable: it is the one where Theodore seems to say that the disease with which he had been struck, and which appears to me (a) to be that which we call especially smallpox, is commonly called *eulogia*; and one will see how far Father Lazeri was from understanding anything of this passage. Without doubt, the Greek term *eulogia*, taken in the sense of a pestilential disease, is known. It is true that the most important lexicons, such as those which bear the names of Hesychius, of Suidas, of Photius, do not present it; but one must not be astonished, since the term *eulogia*, in such an acceptation, belongs to the lower centuries. The Greek version of the Treatise of Rhazes provides us, in this regard, with a precise testimony (conf. edit. Jac. Goup. c. II, p. 246): *Τὰ δὲ ἰσχνὰ σώματα, τὰ χολώδη καὶ ξηρὰ καὶ θερμά, ἐπιτήδειά εἰσι πρὸς τὴν ΕΥΛΟΓΙΑΝ· ΕΥΛΟΓΙΑΝ δ᾽ ὠνόμασαν οἱ παλαιοὶ τὸ ἓν εἶδος, τὸ μοχθηρότερον τῶν δύο, καθὰ καὶ παρὰ πολλῶν οὕτως ὀνομάζεσθαι ταύτην ἀκούω. Ἐν γὰρ ταῖς Ἑλληνικαῖς διαλέξεσι κλῆσις ταύτης οὐχ εὕρηται. Ὁ δὲ σοφὸς οὗτος ἀνὴρ τῇ ἰδίᾳ διαλέκτῳ ΧΑΣΠΕ ὠνόμασε· δηλοῖ δὲ ἡ λέξις τὸ κατ᾽ αὐτό. Οἶμαι δὲ ὅτι κατ᾽ αὐτὴν τὴν ΛΟΙΜΙΚΗΝ ὁ λόγος βούλεται. Εἰ δὲ καὶ διαφέρουσι ἀλλήλων ἐν ταῖς διαθέσεσιν, ἀλλ᾽ οὖν καὶ κοινότητα ἔχουσι, καὶ οὐδὲν ἀπεικός.* Which Sébastien Collin rendered in the following manner (chap. II: Of bodies subject to the plague): "Lean and attenuated bodies, choleric, dry and hot, are subject to an atrocious and severe pestilence, which the ancients named *eulogia*, because among the two species of pestilence it is the most dangerous, and is named *eulogia*, as if you were to say: 'Worthy to be observed,' just as I have heard from many that it is so named: for such a name is not found among the Greek dictions. But this wise personage (Rhazes) names it in his language *chaspe*. Therefore I deem that for such a pestilence there is need of great consideration and reason." Naturally, Meursius should have known this acceptation given by the Greeks of the Lower Empire to the term *eulogia*. However, he did not collect it. Simon Portius had paid attention to it (conf. Simonis Portii *Dictionar. Græco-vulgare*).

^A *Græco-litterale, et Latinum*, edit. Paris, 1625, in-4º, p. 72); but the lexicographer seems to have found in this sense the term εὐλογίαις, not the term εὐλογία, since he says only: ΕΥΛΟΓΙΑ. [εὐχή.] Eὐλογία, εὐηγορία. *Benedictio*. Η ΕΥΛΟΓΙΑΙΣ. [Δι᾿ ἀκναῖ, ἐφήνιδες, ἴονθος. *Vari.*] The book swarming with typographical errors, one cannot conclude anything from this reading. Simon Portius, as one can see, does not cite his authorities at all. Du Cange (Gloss. med. et inf. Græc. col. 448) alleges no other than that of Portius himself, and that of the Greek version of Rhazes, of which he reports the passage cited above; from there, perhaps, we must infer that he had not encountered this term anywhere else. Consequently, one might believe that the letter of Theodore Prodromus becomes for us the oldest example of the word *eulogia*, taken in the acceptation which is in question here.

ARTICLE XX

ARTICLE XXI

ARTICLE XXII

For an example of the orators or rhetoricians whom, in his time, the princes of the Comnenian race, under whose empire he lived and flourished, appeared to esteem and favor the most, he cites Lizix of Byzantium, whose elocution, full besides of ancient graces, was a little disfigured by a defect of pronunciation which the Greeks called *psellisma*, which perhaps we have not yet been able to define for ourselves quite clearly. This personage, it seems to me, has been until this hour totally unknown to us. Two letters that Theodore addresses to him and that Father Lazeri has already published, but not without incorrectness, can give a rather unattractive idea of Lizix, as to the qualities of the heart, and especially as to the sincerity and constancy of his love for letters; but as to the culture of the mind and the reputation for eloquence, according to

^A expressions, or textual usages of their own terms. I do not hide that there may perhaps be many that have escaped me. Such will be, for example, the expression, *λακησταῖς ἐν πέτρησιν εὑρέσθαι μόθον*, which appears to me to have to be relative to some verses of one of the tragic poets.

I limit myself to indicating a part of that which may merit attention in this piece. I will add to the text only a very small number of very succinct notes: it would be neither without much trouble, nor without much leisure, that I could accompany it with a translation and a commentary capable of completely satisfying the reader.

ARTICLE XXIII.

^B [Piece contained at fol. 36 recto, line 22, n. X of the Greek index.]

Oratorical discourse or congratulations to the orphanotrophe-protecdice-nomophylax Alexis Aristenus, on his return to the position of orphanotrophe; by Theodore Prodromus.

This piece, the same as the previous one, was simply indicated by Father Lazeri, as existing in the Roman College, and does not form part of those which he gave. It teaches us various particularities concerning the life and status of Theodore Prodromus, whose personal history, moreover, is little known to us. According to what he says here, we see that he undoubtedly had some employment in that which constituted the establishment of the orphanotropheion. ^C In all likelihood, this employment was what we would call a professor's chair. On one hand, one cannot doubt that there were a school and classes founded in this hospice; and, on the other hand, from what Theodore says in one of his letters to Lizix, of which we have already spoken, one can infer that he had filled some teaching chair.

Certainly, Father Lazeri is right to say that these kinds of chairs were often designated by the term *βῆμα*. He could have said, with equal accuracy, that, independently of its most common signification, namely, that of the elevated chair in the sanctuary of churches, the term *βῆμα* was applied equally to any elevated seat from which one spoke, whether in that which is said here, we must believe that Lizix was a distinguished man. In another passage, Theodore would seem to have wished to boast of the eloquence of a patriarch of Constantinople, who sat indeed in his time: I speak of John IX, surnamed Hieromnemōn, who having replaced Nicholas III, called the Grammarian, who died in 1111, held the patriarchal see of Constantinople until 1134. John IX, a Chalcedonian by birth, had, before his exaltation, been a deacon of the Church of Constantinople, and honored with the dignity of *hieromnemōn*, a dignity which was the twelfth in the hierarchy of the Constantinopolitan Church. We know, albeit vaguely, that he had much literary merit. Fabricius does not appear to have believed that any production of this prelate had been preserved, for he did not cite him anywhere in the *Bibliotheca Graeca*. We see here that Theodore attributes to a *hieromnemōn* an elocution which reunited all the qualities without any of the faults of that which had been so honored, either formerly in Demosthenes, in Aristotle, in Dion Chrysostom; or lately in Lizix. But the *hieromnemōn* to whom he gives so much praise, he does not designate by any other denomination than that one, which may have been common to several personages. Alexis Aristenus himself, before being elevated to the dignities of *nomophylax*, of *protecdice*, of *orphanotrophe*, could have passed through the grade of *hieromnemōn*. What am I saying? Theodore does not permit us to doubt it. We encounter another passage in which we see evidently that the *hieromnemōn* of whom he then speaks is Alexis Aristenus himself.

It is still a remarkable place, that where Theodore speaks of the different peoples and of the diverse personages who, according to him, invented the *σάλπιγξ*, the *αὐλός*, the *δίχορον*, the Lydian harmony, the *φόρμιγξ*, the cithara, the hymn, the *χορεία*, the *ὑπόρχησις*; and what he says of it could give subject matter for several interesting observations, as well as the citation of a passage from Proclus the Lycian. ^D The more the reader is familiarized with the ancient authors, the more he will recognize here, either allusions to their maxims, or happy parodies of their...

in public assemblies, or at the bar. He advances nothing more than the truth when he states that Theodore uses the word *bêma* here to designate both the imperial throne and the patriarchal throne, perhaps less in the physical sense, as elevated seats, than in the metaphorical sense, as attributes of temporal power and spiritual power. All these interpretations are, in fact, supported by irrefutable testimonies; but they are not sufficient to make us understand clearly what could authorize Theodore to say that Alexis Aristenus, by reason of the employments entrusted to him, was found—which could not be said of anyone else—to occupy both chairs at once; that is to say, the spiritual one and the temporal one. The passage where Theodore speaks in this sense will call the attention of learned readers and may give them food for some research. Subsequently, one will recognize that often too, in our author, the term *bêma* signifies the clergy in general. At the very least, Theodore seems to have given this word a latitude much greater than that which results from the citations collected by Du Cange in his lexicon; following this observation, I believe I must report in a note what he has said on this term.

ARTICLE XXIV

This letter is one of the fourteen that A P. Lazeri has published; it is found in his collection, under no. 15, p. 72: but the text there is so frequently altered, and the version, whether in Italian or in Latin, is so faulty, that it cannot be superfluous to reproduce this piece in its entirety and to present it correctly.

We have seen, from the oratory discourse which forms article XXIII, that Alexis Aristenus, a distinguished personage under the reign of Alexius I Comnenus, had been, on two different occasions, charged with the office of orphanotrophe, that is to say, administrator of the hospice for orphans. In all likelihood, on the occasion of the return of this magistrate to such an important post, a solemn feast had been celebrated. The Archbishop of Nicomedia had not failed to attend it; but the crowd had prevented him from approaching the Orphanotrophe. Not wishing that a magistrate so eminent could suspect him of having, on this occasion, neglected to show his attachment, the archbishop charged the personage who writes this letter to let the Orphanotrophe know that he had gone to the feast, but that, despite his efforts, he had not managed to be seen by him.

I have already made known Alexis Aristenus, and I have spoken of the triple employment with which, as we learn from the letters and discourses of Theodore Prodromus, this magistrate was honored. But who was the prelate who, at the time when the letter I reproduce here was written, occupied the metropolitan see of Nicomedia? This is what I cannot determine.

It appears that a little before the reign of Alexius I ^C

[original-script column: see facsimile]

[alt-version omitted]

(1) *BHMA*. *Sacrarium*. A hidden place in the temple where priests stand, and which no layman was permitted to enter, except for the emperor, who was allowed to enter into the *bemate*, and that according to some most ancient tradition, as it is in the Trullan Synod, Can. 69. Cyril's MS Lexicon: *Aduton* [is] the hidden part of the sanctuary, or *bêma*, in which it is not permitted for all to step. Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople, in [his] *Mystagogia*: *Bêma* is an elevated place, and the throne in which the King of All, Christ, resides over His apostles, etc. Council of Laodicea, can. 55: That it is not permitted for presbyters to enter before the entry of the bishop and sit in the *bêma*. Gregory Nazianzen, *Carm.* 11: The *bêma* blossomed with angelic choir-stands. Palladius, in *Life of Chrysostom*, p. 18: And [the] *bêma* was surrounded, his feet in the church, as also the holy *bêma*... The *bêma* of the temple [being] the dome, where the orthodox celebrated liturgy. IN THE DAYS, TO A CERTAIN BLIND MAN, [HE] REVEALED TO COME TO THE LEFT BÊMA AND TO WORSHIP, THEN FROM THE RIGHT TO COME TO THE LEFT AND TO PLACE THE FIVE FINGERS UPON THE BÊMA. HIEROPHANT HIEROKERYX... ALEXANDER PERI concerning those of the *bêma*, and those below. Performing the liturgy, at once the patriarch himself, and the archpriests, and all those of the *bêma*, at each of the things being performed, and [in honoring] the Son in the customary way, [they offer] what is fitting to the Father and to the King. And these of the holy *bêma* also have the rank of the angels.

Other [citations] in the learned Spon, vol. III of his *Itinerary*: THE BÊMA, etc. See others in our *Constantinopolis Christiana*, lib. III, and in Goar in the *Euchologion*, p. 13, 14. Those who sit within the *bemate* rails, in the *Euchologion*, p. 251, 253, 302. Ecclesiastical dignities. But on the contrary, those of the *bemate*, to whom it is not permitted to sit in the *bemate*, in Sguropulus in the *History of the Council of Florence*, sect. XII, cap. 7, and in the same *Euchologion*, p. 302. Eustathius, in *Life of St. Eutychius, Patr. of Constantinople*, num. 99: Those of the sacred *bêma*, in Nicephorus Gregoras, lib. III, p. 33, edition 1. Pachymeres, lib. IX, cap. 1: Then also the sacred liturgy... Symeon of Thessalonica, *De sacris ordinationibus*, cap. CXL: and [noted] elsewhere. (2) *Miscellaneorum ex Mss. libris*, etc., Rome, 1754, in-8, vol. 1, p. 1-84. (3) Above, art. XVI. (4) Ibid. Independently of what I have already said about this author, I shall provide a detailed notice of his life and an index of all his works, following the articles that belong to him in our manuscript.

^A Comnene (1), that is to say, prior to the year 1081, the metropolitan see of Nicomedia had been occupied by a prelate by the name of Basil. Indeed, the first Novel of Alexius I Comnene informs us that, under the reign of this prince, there existed a niece of the late Basil, metropolitan of Nicomedia, named Anne, who had, relative to her uncle's succession, a lawsuit begun in the first instance against the late Stephen, bishop of Caesarea, but subsequently continued against the protospatharios and tagmatophylax Michael, heir intestate of that bishop: "Many were the lawsuits between Anne, niece of the deceased metropolitan of Nicomedia Basil, and Stephen, formerly bishop of Caesarea, and later [against] the protospatharios and tagmatophylax Michael." The fact had not escaped Father Le Quien; he speaks of it on two different occasions. But the manner in which the learned author of the *Oriens Christianus* (vol. I, col. 586 A, and col. 594 E) cites the Novel from which this particularity is drawn is indeed erroneous. 1. Father Le Quien wrongly believed that not only the first, but also the second Novel of Alexius I Comnene concerned the affair in question here. However, only the first Novel relates to this affair; the second Novel is totally foreign to it. What misled Father Le Quien is that, following the first Novel, one finds another act which is like its necessary appendix, since it also concerns the lawsuit on which it turns, but which nonetheless cannot be regarded as a Novel properly so-called and distinct from the first. 2. Father Le Quien thought that the prelate Stephen, whom the Novel of Alexius I Comnene mentions, should be counted among those who occupied the see of Caesarea in Cappadocia. But this see (ibid., col. 594 E) was a metropolitan see. Stephen, here, has no other title than that of bishop of Caesarea. It therefore seems evident that it concerns a bishop of Caesarea in Bithynia, a city whose episcopal see fell under the metropolitan see of Nicomedia. Following this observation, it will perhaps be necessary to erase the name of Stephen from the catalog of prelates who occupied the metropolitan see of Nicomedia, and to insert it into the list of bishops of Caesarea in Bithynia (Or. Chr. ib., col. 628, B.).

^B Be that as it may, if one can absolutely suppose that the metropolitan of Nicomedia, Basil, had seen Alexius I Comnene ascend the throne, we must believe that at least he had survived that event by little. Despite the omission of the date, one can believe that the Novel in question here was among the first that emanated from this prince; and everything said therein about the antiquity of the lawsuit gives reason to think that the prelate whose inheritance was then still in litigation had ceased to live several years prior.

Moreover, it is perhaps not easy to fix the year in which the Novel with which we are currently occupied must have emanated from Alexius I Comnene. In the *Jus Græco-Romanum*, this Novel bears no date; a defect which is likewise found in several other Novels attributed to this emperor. To help us place chronologically all those which are in this case, the rank that the *Jus Græco-Romanum* assigns them cannot serve as a guide; because the editor has not kept the chronological order, even for those which bear a precise date: the oldest of all those which are dated with precision, and which is determinedly from the year 1032, in the month of August, "having occurred in the month of August, of the 5th indiction, in the year 6540," is only placed after another which, given the synchronism of the 9th indiction, could not have been issued before the month of September 1086, and which could even be pushed to the year 1100, if not to the year 1113: "in the month of September of the 9th indiction" (2).

Later, under the reign of Alexius I Comnene, we find the see of Nicomedia occupied by a prelate by the name of Constantine II. It was Constantine II who, as metropolitan of Nicomedia, was a member of that solemn assembly, ^C convoked and presided over by the emperor in the new *Triclinium* of the Blachernae palace, and in the presence of which the archbishop of Chalcedon, Leo, having declared authentically that he submitted in good faith to the decisions of the synod concerning the veneration of images, was reconciled with the patriarch of Euchaita named Basil. In the different places where Father Le Quien speaks of this assembly, he appears persuaded and he affirms that it took place in 1082, that is to say in the second year of the reign of Alexius I Comnene. It seems to me that here again Father Le Quien was mistaken (Conf. Or. Christ., vol. I, col. 265, C. D, col. 595 A, col. 607, B, C). The act emanating from this assembly, and which he indicates as published by Father Montfaucon in the *Bibliotheca Coisliniana* (cod. XXXVI, fol. CCCV, apud Montf., p. 103), presents a synchronism which forces us to descend to a later epoch. It is stated there that the assembly was held in Constantinople, under the patriarchate of Nicholas (surnamed the Grammarian); thus, it could not have taken place before the year 1084 (3). It is stated likewise that the patriarch of Jerusalem, Simeon II, was present there. We are unaware in what year com- ^D menched the patriarchate of Simeon II: but as the patriarch of Nicholas III (that is, the Grammarian) can date from the month of August 1084, up to the year 1111.

and since this prelate was in Jerusalem in 1094, and it does not appear that he had come to Constantinople since that time, one is justified in believing that the assembly in question here was not held later than the year 1094.

Later still, and only under the reign of John Comnenus, we see sitting at Nicomedia a prelate named Nicetas. It was with Nicetas that the bishop of Havelberg, Anselm, deputed by the Emperor Lothair II, and arrived at Constantinople, held conferences on the subject of the articles which caused the schism between the Greeks and the Latins. To mark definitively the year in which these conferences were held, it would perhaps be necessary to enter into a long discussion. We have, it is true, a writing which Anselm himself, long after his return, composed out of deference for Pope Eugenius III, and in which he gives an account of the arguments which had served him to combat the erroneous opinions of the Greeks; but one finds nothing in it which indicates the precise date of his journey to Constantinople. Thus, all that can be affirmed, before engaging in a more mature examination, is that the conferences of Anselm with the metropolitan of Nicomedia, Nicetas, could not have taken place either before the month of May 1125 or after the month of December 1136. Moreover, Nicetas is represented to us by the bishop of Havelberg as a prelate of the greatest merit, and one enjoying the highest consideration in the clergy of Constantinople. ^B

We are ignorant in what year Nicetas ceased to live. We know only that the metropolitan of Nicomedia was present at three assemblies which were held at the Thomaite, the first, on Friday, August 20, 1143, for the judgment and deposition of Clement, bishop of Stasimes, and of Leontius, bishop of Balbisse, both of them intruders. ^C

Following this were [meetings held by] those attached to the sect of the Bogomils; the second, on Friday, October 1 of the same year, for the seclusion of the monk Niphon; the third, on Tuesday, February 22, 1144, for the condemnation of this same monk as a heretic. Father Le Quien suggests that by then it was no longer Nicetas who filled the see of Nicomedia. But it is not seen upon what authority this assertion can be founded. In the acts of these three assemblies, the name of the metropolitan of Nicomedia is not expressed.

In 1147, on Wednesday, February 26, it was held at the palace of the Blachernae, another assembly, in which the patriarch of Constantinople, Cosmas, called the Attic, was deposed as having been attained and convicted of heresy. The metropolitan of Nicomedia, who was one of the assistants, was named John IV. On this subject, Father Le Quien has been mistaken twice: first, he makes Wednesday, February 26, 1147, coincide with the indiction IX, whereas it was the indiction X that was running from the month of September 1146; second, he believed that, in the text of the assembly published by Leo Allatius, the date was faulty, and that, following the reading presented by the editor, the assembly would have been held on Wednesday, February 26, 1144, indiction X, which could not be. Father Le Quien had not perceived that, in the act published by Leo Allatius, it is a question of two dates. One of these two dates relates to the condemnation of the monk Niphon, with whom the patriarch Cosmas II was accused of having connived; and it is the act of this condemnation which is reported twice with accuracy on Tuesday, February 22, 1144, as we have seen above. The other date is that of the act itself by which the patriarch was deposed; and it is equally ^D expressed with accuracy, the 26th of the month of February.

The same archbishop Nechites (i.e. Nicetas) was the chief among the twelve Didascaloi, who, according to the custom of the learned Greeks, govern the studies of the liberal arts and divine Scriptures, and who, as those excelling all others in doctrine, preside over the other learned men, and to whom all the most difficult questions are referred, and by them solved, and subsequently held and written down as a confirmed sentence.

^A expressed with accuracy, on the 26th of the month of February, Wednesday, indiction x (that is to say, of the year 1147): Φευρουαρίῳ κς', ἡμέρᾳ τετάρτη, Ἰνδικτιώνος δεκάτης. Thus, the text of Leo Allatius is correct, and it is that of the *Oriens Christianus* (col. 595, E) which must be read with caution, all the more so because, in the article on the metropolitans of Nicomedia, Father Le Quien still places the deposition of Cosmas in 1146.

In 1156, the prelate who occupied the metropolitan see of Nicomedia was named Theophylact II; it is he who attended the synod held in that year, on Thursday, January 26, and in which, at the third session which took place on Monday, May 13, Sotericus Panteugenes, designated patriarch of Antioch, was deposed for heresy (Conf. Leo Allat., *Vindic. synodi Ephesin.*, p. 584); but, through inattention, Father Le Quien, in the article on that patriarch (*Or. Christ.*, t. II, col. 758, D), places the synod in the year 1155.

Through a further inadvertence, Father Le Quien thought (*Or. Christ., loc. cit.*) that it could have been Theophylact II, if not even his predecessor John IV, who had attended a synodal assembly held on Monday, April 11, 1166, by the patriarch of Constantinople, Luke surnamed Chrysoberges; an assembly from which a decree emanated to prohibit marriages in the seventh degree. After having spoken of this decree in a sufficiently just manner, in his article on the patriarchs of Constantinople, Father Le Quien, in the article on the metropolitans of Nicomedia (*Or. Christ.*, t. I, col. 269 E, 270 A, and 593 E), recalls the same act (where the name of the metropolitan of Nicomedia is not expressed), and he recalls it as if the *Jus Græco-Romanum* fixed its date at the year 1151, indiction iv; then he relies on this date to found his opinion regarding the metropolitan of Nicomedia who could have attended it. But it would be difficult to accumulate more errors in as few words.

1° The patriarchate of Luke Chrysoberges dates, at the earliest, from the year 1155. 2° The indiction iv ran only from the month of September of this same year 1155. 3° In the text presented by the *Jus Græco-Romanum* (tom. I, p. 227), the decree in question is dated positively to April 11 of the indiction xiv: Μηνὶ Ἀπριλλίῳ ια', ἐπινεμήσεως ιδ', which leads us to Monday, April 11, 1166.

It must not, therefore, have been Theophylact II, but his successor Michael, who attended the synod just mentioned. Indeed, we know that it was Michael who signed the acts of another synod held likewise in [the year] 1066 in Constantinople (Conf. Leo ^B Allat., *de Eccl. Or. et Occ. perp. cons.*, col. 689 and 690), and by which some Germans, established at that time in this city and accused of heresy concerning the dogma of the divinity of Jesus Christ, were absolved.

These are the only notions that I have been able to gather on the succession of the metropolitan prelates during the entire time that Theodore Prodromus could have lived. I say, the time that Theodore Prodromus could have lived, because the letter in question must almost evidently be attributed to this writer. It is not that, strictly speaking, it is not anonymous in our manuscript, and, according to the text represented by Father Lazeri, it must be the same in the manuscript he used; but, to all appearance, this letter would not be found in the place it occupies in our copy if it were not by the same writer as the discourses and letters which precede it, and which bear the name of Theodore Prodromus.

ARTICLES XXV, XXVI, XXVII, XXVIII

Pieces in iambic, heroic, elegiac, and anacreontic verse, in honor of the orphanotrophos, *protecdicos*, and *nomophylax*, Alexis Aristinos.

I group these four articles together, first because they are all four of the same genre; then, because the author himself had in a way gathered them ^C together. According to what he says in verse 47 of his poem in iambic verse, which constitutes the first article here, the three other pieces must have been composed, if not at the same time as that one, at least shortly after, and perhaps all four were sent together to the Orphanotrophos.

It is not that, at the very place just cited, there is not a fairly great difficulty. Indeed, there, our author seems to lead us to understand that this first piece must be uniquely regarded as the announcement or, if one can speak thus, the cover letter for the piece which will follow immediately, which will be in heroic verse, but that among those which will come later, ^D there will be one in iambic verse, and another in anacreontic verse. However, after the piece in heroic verse, there is only one in elegiac or pentameter verse, and one in anacreontic verse: that which serves as an announcement is alone in iambic verse.

Of the four pieces, there is not one whose title, in the manuscript, bears the author's name. But, independently of the fact that the same reason which made me attribute to Theodore Prodromus the letter represented in the preceding article, authorizes me...

^A to believe that the pieces which follow also belong to this writer, his name is clearly indicated in the verse.

(Post allatos Prodromi versus, qui exstant infra, Teilius subdit:)

In verse 4, the author says that he has already celebrated the Orphanotrophe in a discourse in prose: "I sang of you first in prose ^A discourse." He likely wishes to recall one of these three pieces that we have already seen, which are: 1) Article xvi, Thanks from Theodore Prodromus to Alexis Aristenus for the eulogy that this magistrate had made of him; 2) Article xvii, The Eulogy of the eloquence of Alexis Aristenus; 3) Article xx, Congratulations to Alexis Aristenus on his reinstatement to the post ^B of Orphanotrophe. I am inclined to believe that the last piece is the one in question here.

In verses 9 and 10, the author recalls a second piece, *deuteron*, which he had composed, like the first, in honor of the Orphanotrophe Alexis Aristenus. The manner in which he designates this second piece is remarkable: "I sang of you a second time in a *schedourgia*, in the grammatical labyrinthine manner."

What must one understand here, 1st, by the term *schedourgia*, 2nd, by the expression "grammatical labyrinthine manner"?

The term *schedourgia* can be taken in various acceptations. Indeed, this term can signify a piece composed without preparation, and what we would call an impromptu, or, if one may speak so, an improvised discourse. The primordial force of the two radical words *schedon* and *ergon*, of which *schedourgia* is composed, lends itself to this meaning. *Schedon*, as is known, signifies, most commonly, that which is written following a first thought and without reflection. But what the author adds immediately after, namely, that this same piece had been written "in the grammatical labyrinthine manner," totally excludes the idea that it could have been composed without preparation. It is therefore necessary to explain the term *schedourgia* otherwise.

Among the authors of lower-grécité, the term *schedos*, having become technical for the grammarians, signified what the Latins called *partes*, that is to say, these sorts of elementary themes, by which one accustoms children to examine and to decompose the oration or the discourse and the verbs, by parts; and it seems clear that this method is precisely that whose abuse Anna Comnena condemned in a passage of her Alexiad (bk. XV, p. 485, D), where she speaks at some length of *schedes* and *schedographies*, but which is not easy to explain well.

"The art of the *schedos* is an invention of the moderns, and it was born in our time... And this is what I say, being vexed at the total neglect of the encyclical education. This is what sets my soul on fire, because I have spent so much time on such trifles. And as soon as I was delivered from this childish schooling of theirs, and had been directed toward rhetoric, and had taken hold of philosophy, and among the sciences reached toward poets and prose writers, and by those means smoothed the rough edges of my tongue, then, with rhetoric providing for me, I condemned the complex ^C knot of their *schedography*."

The art of the *schedos* is an invention of the moderns, and it was born in our time... What makes me speak in this way is that this method of *schedes* causes one to neglect entirely the study of the humanities, which we call encyclopedia. My soul is irritated when I consider how much time I gave to these trifles. As soon as I was delivered from this childish study, and I applied myself to rhetoric, to philosophy, to poetry, and to history, I easily smoothed out all the difficulties that one finds in our language; then, with the help of rhetoric, I condemned all the folds and creases of *schedography*. All that one sees here clearly is that the learned princess intended to blame the conduct of the grammarians of her time, who explained to their students only their *schedes*, instead of making them read and study the best authors of antiquity. And, in fact, the study of grammar is only good for those who use it solely as a step to pass to more elevated ^D sciences: *Non nocent haec disciplinae per eas euntibus, sed circa eas haerentibus* (Quinctil., Instit. orat., lib. I, cap. 1).

But, in what sense and with what accuracy could the illustrious daughter of Alexis I say that this method was an invention of the moderns, that she herself had seen its usage begin (which would place the introduction of this method around the epoch when Theodore Prodromus flourished)? And how must one understand what she adds a little lower down, namely, that those who abused it the most were certain Styliens, also called Lombards (1)? These are two questions that I will perhaps have elsewhere the occasion and the leisure to examine, but whose solution will lead me into long discussions. I must therefore here confine myself to observing that the composition in the form of a *schedos*, *schedourgia*, in which Theodore Prodromus, according to what he himself tells us, had celebrated the praises of the Orphanotrophe Alexis Aristenus, could not have had anything of the *schedographers* in it. Until now, I have vainly sought it in the manuscripts which have been transported from the Vatican to the National Library, and I have reason to believe that in fact this treatise is not part of any of the volumes that have come to Paris.

^A It seems more probable to me that this composition must have been one of those sorts of griphoi, or logogriphs, as Eustathius defines them for us in several places, but especially in the following passage, which, in supporting my opinion, seems also to give the key to the expressions employed by our author, τῷ γραμματικῷ λαβυρίνθῳ νέμῳ. This passage is concerned with a verse from the Iliad:

Αὐτὰρ ὁ βῆ ῥ’ ἸΣΟΝ τε καὶ Ἄντιφον ἐξεναρίζων. ^B

There Eustathius (ad Homer. Iliad. Δ, lib. XI, v. 101, f. 833, lin. 61) expresses himself in these terms: "Observe in what has been said, and still more in that:

Αὐτὰρ ὁ βῆ ῥ’ ἸΣΟΝ τε καὶ Ἄντιφον ἐξεναρίζων,

the occasion for the later ΣΧΕΔΙΚΗΣ ΤΕΡΘΡΕΙΑΣ [scholarly improvisation] and the LABYRINTH according to it lies hidden; just as there are other such things in the Poet that are put forward without much effort as customary conventions, but have been drawn out by grammarians for imitation. For there is put forward here, in the 'Bῆ ῥ’ ἸΣΟΝ,' a certain echo of 'ΡΗΣΟΥ,' like the aforementioned Thracian hero.

Observe here that this verse:

Αὐτὰρ ὁ βῆ ῥ’ ἸΣΟΝ τε καὶ Ἄντιφον ἐξεναρίζων, He went to kill Isus and Antiphus :

has insensibly provided the moderns with a subject for logogriphs, which surprises the listener and casts him into a kind of labyrinth. There are several other similar verses in Homer, the composition of which has nothing extraordinary or affected; the grammarians nevertheless have made them models of logogriphs. Indeed, when one reads these words, βῆ ῥ’ ἸΣΟΝ, one hears resonating the name of some Rhesus [in Greek ΡΗΣΩΝ], such as was the hero of Thrace, of whom we spoke higher up (ad Iliad. Κ, lib. Χ, v. 435, fol. 817, lin. 6)."

This observation of Eustathius supposes that 'PIΣON and PHΣON were pronounced in the same way, that is to say that the sound of the letter H remained ^C similar to that of the letter I. Should one, therefore, conclude definitively that such was the origin of the pronunciation of the Greeks? That is another point that I shall perhaps examine elsewhere; but here it is not the issue at hand. What the passage of Eustathius provides relevant to our object is the following: This author calls ΣΧΕΔΙΚΗΝ ΤΕΡΘΡΕΙΑΝ [literally, schedic point or impromptu], what we would call logogriphs, rebuses, or enigmatic discourses. And, in effect, one gave these sorts of discourses the name of schedes. Eustathius assures us of this himself elsewhere, regarding the play on words that deceives the Cyclops, when Ulysses tells him that he is called Nul or Nobody, Οὔτις. These are, adds Eustathius, plays on words that Homer knew how to use at times with skill, which provided other poets, quite ancient although later than him, with examples of pleasantries. Epicharmus called this sort of enigma a "matter for thought," νόημα, and also a "discourse hidden in a discourse," λόγον ἐν λόγῳ. From there, those who express themselves in schedes have also called their griphoi or enigmas "matters for thought," νοήματα. Evidently it is also the "discourse hidden in a discourse," λόγος ἐπὶ λόγῳ, that the modern schedists have pretended to imitate, and which one recognizes in their labyrinth. After which Eustathius reports several examples of these labyrinths, examples drawn almost all from Athenaeus.

I believe then almost certain that the piece with which we are concerned here was a type of enigma or logogriph. But was it written in prose or in verse? It is not easy to decide. On one hand, the term ἐμελψάμην, which the author uses to designate it, leads one to believe that it must have been in verse. Moreover, he seems to oppose this same piece to the first, which he says positively to have been written in prose:

Ὑμνησάμην σε πρῶτα ΠΕΖΩ ΤΩ ΛΟΓΩ. Εμελψάμην σε δεύτερον ΣΧΕΔΟΥΡΓΙΑ.

Also a critic no less ingenious than learned, M. Corai, has thought that perhaps the true reading... ^D [This verse being recognized as poor, many commentators found it reasonable to delete it: "Μὴ ἐμφέρεσθαι δέ φησιν ὁ Ἀρίσταρχος νῦν ἐν τοῖς Ποσειδίππου ΕΠΙΓΡΑΜΜΑΣΙ τὸ βῆ ῥ’ ἸΣΟΝ· ἀλλ’ ἐν τῷ λεγομένῳ ΣΩΡΟ, εὑρεῖν. Εὔλογον δέ, φασίν, ἐλεγχόμενον αὐτὸν ἀπαλείψαι." Apparently, says M. Heyne (Var. Lect. et Obs. in loc. edit. nov. t. VI, p. 141), this AMAS, or heap, was one of those playful pieces of the genre of those which are attributed to Simmias. Did it belong to Posidippus? Was it the work of some other poet? That is what I am ignorant of.]

That is not all, the little scholia, represented by Baruès, carry this variant: Γρ. Αὐτὰρ *ΒΗ ΡΗΣόν τε. Finally, what is read immediately after, in the scholia of Venice, shows that in the century of Apollonius Dyscolus one read sometimes Αὐτὰρ ὁ βῆ ῥησόν τε ἐξεναρίζων. See Apollonius Dyscolus, de Syntaxi, lib. I, § 32, p. 7.

it should have been *stichourgia*, not *schedourgia*; and thus one would easily suppose with him that the verses employed for the composition of this piece were of that type called *karkinoi*, retrogrades, like the verse: Νίψον ἀνομήματα, μὴ μόναν ὄψιν, which, no matter how one reads it, whether from left to right or from right to left, gives the same words and the same meaning. ^A On the other hand, our author, a few lines further down (ver. 16), seems to say positively that he had not written pieces in verse in praise of the Orphanotrophe; he even makes this a subject of reproach: "Shall I then confine my praise to these pieces alone? Eh! what becomes of the verses, as well as the power of the measured discourse [literally, of the meter]?" Καὶ κλείσομεν τὸν ὕμνον ἐν τούτοις μόνοις; Ἀλλ’ οἱ στίχοι ποῦ, καὶ τὸ τοῦ μέτρου κράτος; Finally, this first piece is nothing other than the announcement of different pieces in verse that are to follow. After all these observations, I do not blush to leave the question undecided. (There followed, under numbers XXVI-XXVIII, Prodromus’ heroic, elegiac, and Anacreontic verses, which will be published below.)

ARTICLE XXIX. [Piece which begins at fol. 40 verso, lin. 17, n. XIV of the Greek Index.] Discourse of Theodore Prodromus to Caesar N., on the color green. Τοῦ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸν Καίσαρα· ᾖ, Ὑπὲρ πρασίνου. Father Lazzeri had indicated that this piece existed in the Roman College manuscript, but he had not provided it. Since the publication of the *Miscellaneorum*, etc., the piece has been printed. We owe it to M. Yriarte, who inserted it into his *Catalogue of the Manuscripts of the Royal Library of Madrid*: he drew it from a volume written almost entirely by the hand of Constantine Lascaris, in the course of the year 1464, at Milan. We must observe that Constantine Lascaris, not knowing the author of this piece, thought he could attribute it to Geminus. M. Yriarte remained embarrassed to guess who this Geminus could be. Truly, one does not see of which writer Constantine Lascaris intended to speak. I am inclined to believe that it was G. Gemistus Pletho. But what one cannot doubt is that the piece cannot belong to that author. One knows that G. Gemistus Pletho flourished in the first half of the XV century; and the Vatican manuscript, where we find the piece in question, is far anterior to that epoch. Thus, nothing prevents us from adding faith to the title, according to which, in the manuscript, as we have ^B already remarked, this piece appears attributed, as were the preceding ones, to Theodore Prodromus.

ARTICLE XXX. [Piece which begins at folio 43 recto, lin. 16, n. XV of the Greek Index.] Discourse of Theodore Prodromus, on those who, dissatisfied with being poor, complain of providence. Following the testimony of Father Lazzeri (1), one may believe that, in the Roman College manuscript, where different opuscula of Theodore Prodromus are found, the piece which is the subject here, and which has never been published, is attributed nominatively to that author; and not only the place where this same piece is found inserted in the Vatican manuscript of which we here give an account, but also the words, Τοῦ αὐτοῦ, which it bears at the head, assure us equally that in effect it belongs to Theodore Prodromus, like the preceding pieces. This point once established, the piece, independently of the subject and of the style, becomes interesting in itself. It offers several particularities relative to the person of the writer. In effect, Theodore Prodromus informs us here that, far from having been of a base extraction, he was on the contrary of a rather exalted birth: that, if he was not of a robust complexion, he had at least no bodily vice, no physical imperfection, unless perhaps some embarrassment in ^C the pronunciation; and yet he seems to give us to understand that this slight defect held less to the lack of suppleness and flexibility of his tongue, than to the vivacity of his imagination, and to the abundance of ideas which, presenting themselves too rapidly to his mind, did not leave him the time to express them. He tells us that his education had been careful; that he had studied grammar and rhetoric under the best masters; that he was full of the reading of the works of Thucydides, of Plato, and of Aristotle. He announces that he had composed an almost infinite number of literary discourses: and at the same time, he prides himself on not having premeditated any of them (οὐκ ἔστιν ὅς μοι προσχεδίασται), although he claims not to imitate the cold sophists, such as the Simocatuses, or others of a like stamp, οἱ ψυχροὶ Σιμώκαται, καὶ οἱ κατ’ αὐτούς, κ. τ. λ. This name of Simocatus, and the contempt that Theodore Prodromus marks for the person who bore it, give cause for reflection. Among the Greek writers of the Middle Ages, we know, it seems, only one who has been designated by this name, or to speak more exactly, by this surname of Simocatus, or Simocatius; and even he is most often called Simocatta. One sees already that I want to speak of Theophylactus Simocatta. This author, contemporary of the emperors Maurice, Phocas, and Heraclius, as also of the patriarch ^D

^A Sergius, seems not to have prolonged his career beyond the year 640. He was a native of Egypt (1), and without doubt his family was not of an abject condition, since at the moment of the tragic end of the Emperor Maurice, he found himself a relative of the magistrate who at that time commanded in Egypt (2). He was himself decorated with several dignities. We see him qualified as *apo eparchon* (Phot. Bibl. cod. XLV, page 82), that is to say, as ex-prefect, and ^B *antigrapheus*, a term whose meaning is not well determined, some (Budæus in Pandect., Salmas. ad Hist. Aug. scr. p. 480, 481, 483) rendering it, in Latin, by *observator coactorum*, which would correspond to what we would call in French "comptroller of receipts": others (Henr. Vales. ad Sacr. Hist. eccl. l. V, c. 25, p. 240), by *proximus a magistris scriniorum*, or even by *magister scriniorum*, an interpretation which appears the most conformable to the sense in which the Latin lexicons explain the word *antigraphus* (3). Theophylactus, born with an amiable spirit, was also endowed with a natural taste for fine things; and the writings which bear his name prove it. His History of the reign of the emperor Maurice (4), although it comprises only what passed from the year 582 until the year 602, does not fail to have been sometimes qualified as "Universal History" (Eustath. ad Dionys. Perieget. vers. 730; Tzetz. Hist. 69, Hist. chil. III, v. 100); and, on the merit of this work, one can consult not only the "Advice to the readers" which is found at the head of the beautiful edition given by Ch. Annib. Fabroti, but also Ger. Jean Vossius (de Hist. Gr. lib. II, cap. 23, p. 113, p. 280 et seq., ed. Harles. tom. VII, p. 582 et seq.). ^C Independently of this great piece, generally known, it is to this same Theophylactus Simocatta that one attributes various opuscules. I do not pretend to speak here of the fragment which remains to us of a small treatise *De risu et vociferatione in festis sanctorum* (Ph. Labb. de Scriptor. eccl. tom. II, p. 416; It. Biblioth. Patr. Ap. Bign. ed. Paris. 1579 et 1624, t. VI; It. ibid. ed. Col. t. IV, p. 1056; it. ib. edit. Lugd. tom. V, p. 1214); nor of another fragment, *De Nicephoro confessore*, indicated vaguely by P. Labbe; but I want to speak, 1st of the Dialogue, concerning various physical problems and their solution, *Διάλογος. Περὶ διαφορᾶς φυσικῶν ἀπορημάτων, καὶ ἐπιλύσεως αὐτῶν* (5): 2nd of eighty-five letters, revolving, twenty-nine on moral subjects; twenty-eight on the labors of the countryside; and twenty-eight on the amorous intrigues of courtesans (6). Without doubt the author of these letters could have been ranked, by men of sound judgment, in the class of sophists, more proper to corrupt than to form the taste in the study and exercise of literature: thus, from this point of view, one would willingly suppose that it is precisely he of whom Theodorus Prodromus wished to speak. But, on the other hand, according to the manner in which he expresses himself on this subject, one feels ^D inclined to believe that his contempt fell, not on some sophists already ancient, but on those whose, at the time he was writing, the pernicious lessons and the bad example were corrupting true eloquence.

ARTICLE XXXI. THE EXPLANATION OF A VERSE FROM THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO SAINT LUKE, BY THEODORE PRODROMUS.

^A The verse of which this article offers an explanation, or rather a quite extensive commentary, is the 17th of the 1st chapter of the Gospel according to Saint Luke. It forms part of the predictions of an angel to Zachariah, regarding both the imminent birth of Saint John the Baptist and the life to which this precursor of Jesus Christ will be devoted. The Greek text is conceived in these terms: Καὶ αὐτὸς προελεύσεται ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ ἐν πνεύματι καὶ δυνάμει Ἠλίου. The Latin version reads: *Et ipse praecedet ante illum in spiritu et virtute Eliae*; and the French translation adopted by Father Calmet: *Et il marchera devant lui dans l’esprit et la vertu d’Elie* [And he shall walk before him in the spirit and power of Elijah].

This verse is one of the numerous passages where the commentators of the New Testament find themselves embarrassed; and this one, from the first centuries of Christianity, has given rise to many discussions. As such subjects hardly concern more than a certain class of readers, I have long hesitated whether I should not limit myself to indicating the existence of this article; but I have not stopped at that decision, because, independently of the fact that it does not cease to have people who are strongly occupied with what can clarify or determine the precise meaning of the obscure parts of the holy Books, and who like to compare the more or less ingenious, more or less sound, ideas of the different interpreters of Holy Scripture, ^B the piece in question here contains things quite remarkable, and, furthermore, offers, like the preceding one, various peculiarities concerning the state and the habitual life of the author, of which the Vatican manuscript CCCV contains such a great number of short works that have remained, until this hour, almost totally unknown.

Moreover, I warn the reader that, in several places, the Greek text of this piece presents difficulties. I have felt them only too well; but I do not have the necessary capacity to overcome them: it would require, for this purpose, to be more versed than I am in the subject; and besides, I could not presently engage in research extraneous to the work that has been commissioned from me. One should not, therefore, expect to find in the notes with which this whole article will appear scattered, anything other than simple and light comparisons provided by my memory. For example, I thought it my duty, in beginning, to recall the passage from the IV Homily of Origen, where one finds a manner of interpreting the verse upon which Theodore Prodromus has dissertated. This passage is short; but it is known that the Greek text of the Commentaries of Origen on the Gospel according to Saint Luke is almost entirely lost; only fragments have reached us. ^C Of the work of Origen on this part of the New Testament, we have, strictly speaking, only a Latin version, due to Saint Jerome, and made perhaps simply by extract. One is therefore not certain of knowing today, by means of this version, everything that Origen might have written on the first verse in question. I shall also report in a note the Commentary of Father Calmet, which indicates the other interpreters whose sagacity has been exercised on this subject.

^D Most commentators explain it otherwise: He will be the precursor of the Messiah, of the Son of God; he will prepare the ways for him, just as it is marked in Isaiah (XL, 3) and in Malachi (III, 4): he will announce him to the peoples, he will point him out to them, he will lead them to him, and that in the spirit and in the power of Elijah; animated like him with zeal and force to repress the wicked, and to resist the proud, preaching like him penitence and the return to God, as much by his examples as by his words.

This meaning appears the most natural, and the Evangelists (D. Marc. cap. 1, v. 2, 3; D. Matth. cap. III, v. 1 et seqq.) lead us to it by representing Saint John the Baptist as the precursor of the Messiah foretold by the prophets. Jesus Christ himself tells us (D. Matth. cap. XI, v. 14; XVII, v. 11 et 12) that Elijah has already come in the person of John, not that the soul of Elijah has passed into the body of the Precursor, as some heretics have maintained, but because Saint John was another Elijah by his zeal, his merit, his virtue, the purity of his life, his functions. Some Fathers have believed that John the Baptist is compared to Elijah, such as he will be before the second coming of the Son of God, that is to say, before the last judgment.

ARTICLE XXXII

Discours de Théodore Prodrome, in refutation of that maxim set forth by a poet: "SCIENCE IS THE PROVINCE OF POVERTY."

I have nothing to say about this piece, since it is printed. It is the one that was published in 1608, under the title: THEODORI PRODROMI *Invectiva in hunc poetæ versiculum: PAUPERIES SOPHIAM NACTA EST*; FED. Morellus, professor of eloquence and royal interpreter, collected, edited, translated into Latin, and illustrated with notes from the royal library, etc.

In case any man of letters should ever wish to reproduce this piece, which deserves not to be forgotten, I shall indicate the variants that the Vatican manuscript CCCV offers for each page of the edition provided by Frédéric Morel.

ARTICLE XXXIII

Diatribe of Theodore Prodrome, against an ignorant man who posed as a man of letters.

Although I have transcribed this diatribe in its entirety, like all other writings attributed to Theodore Prodrome in the Vatican manuscript CCCV, I content myself here with pointing it out. It offers, at the first reading, many difficulties, and at the same time it requires the collation of a multitude of passages from ancient authors. I cannot, therefore, permit myself to publish it without adding a large number of notes which seem to me absolutely necessary, and which would require research that I am unable to undertake. I limit myself here to presenting the title, along with the first and last phrase.

ARTICLE XXXIV

Another diatribe of Theodore Prodrome, entitled the PHILOPLATON or the CURRIER. ^A This piece is in the same condition as the previous one; to facilitate an understanding of it, to make its merit recognized, and to make its wit felt, one must continually compare it to the passages of Plato to which the author alludes, or which he parodies. His goal is to unmask and hold up to ridicule an ignorant person who, giving himself out as enamored of the works of Plato, never appeared without holding some treatise of this philosopher in his hand. Here is the title, the beginning, and the end of the piece:

THEODORUS PRODROMUS, Philoplaton, or the Currier

"Well then, O son of Ariston; you are noble and wise, and toward all the Muses, and every kind of wisdom, [you are among] those who are most clever and skillful."

"Who, also feeling greatly annoyed by the matter, will snatch the book from your hands, and will plant many a knuckle upon your crown."

ARTICLE XXXV

Diatribe of Theodore Prodrome against a physician and a dentist. ^B

Our author, in this piece, complains bitterly, both of the ignorance of a physician who, in order to cure him of a fluxion of the head, had ordered him to have a tooth pulled, and of the clumsiness and cruelty of the dentist, who, as a consequence of this order, had made him lose several, not without causing him sharp pains; in his anger, he entitles his diatribe: *The Executioner, or the Physician*, and he rages with violence against bad physicians, against the charlatans, with whom, at the time he was writing, the city of Constantinople abounded. But at the same time, one recognizes that he wishes to spare ^C those who could merit their reputation; and he names two of this kind, whom he calls, the one Callicles-Nicolaus, the other Michaël, of the family of Liziz (See above, art. XXIII). This piece does not cease to merit some attention; it is even quite curious; but it requires explanations and notes. I cannot, at this moment, make it known otherwise than as the two preceding ones, by the title, the beginning, and the end.

THEODORUS PRODROMUS, The Executioner, or the Physician

"If man were one [simple being], he would not be in pain, says the ^D physician. And who would blame a man for having discerned and declared the most crucial things concerning human nature?"

"It would be yours to take thought for this poor, sick little body of mine, and to crush these wretched ones for me."

ARTICLE XXXVI

Dialogue entitled: AMARANTHUS OR THE ELDER, by Theodore Prodrome.

Gilbert Gaulmin, following the novel composed by Theodore Prodrome on the LOVES of Rhodanthe and Dosicles, presents it under this title:

THE DIALOGUE OF LORD THEODORE PRODROME, Amaranthus, or The Loves of an Elder

ARTICLE XXXVII.

The literal version of the Greek title, which bears *βίων πρᾶσις ποιητικῶν καὶ πολιτικῶν*, would be: Auction of the POETIC and POLITICAL Lives. But this title does not indicate exactly all the interlocutors who will speak in the Dialogue. Theodore brings onto the scene Jupiter, Mercury, Homer, Hippocrates, Aristophanes, Euripides, Pomponius, Demosthenes, and the buyers. Now, the life of a personage like Hippocrates could not be called political or poetic, unless one interprets the two words *πολιτικός* and *ποιητικός* in a sense very different from that in which they are taken ordinarily. The Dialogue is an imitation and often a parody of the *βίων πρᾶσις* of Lucian (vol. I, p. 540-569, edit. Amst. 1743, 4). In a Greek manuscript of the Vatican (n° 87, fol. 453-478), one finds under the title *Timarion, or On his sufferings*, *Τιμαρίων, ἢ περὶ τῶν κατ' αὐτὸν παθημάτων*, another dialogue of this same genre, and likewise imitated from Lucian. Timarion, one of the interlocutors, announces to Cydion, his friend, his sudden death arriving on a voyage from Constantinople to Salonica; he renders him an account of what he saw during his sojourn in the underworld, and of the rather singular reason for which Aeacus and ^CRhadamanthus had let him return to the earth. We will speak elsewhere in more detail of this other piece, which must be either by Theodore Prodrome or by some author nearly contemporary: here we will observe only that, if it does not announce, like this one, the most profound knowledge of antiquity and of good writers, the details with which it is full, and frequent allusions to the events of the time, align it with the Satires of Lucian, and permit us to regard it as the pendant (if we may express ourselves thus) of the piece that we offer to the reader ^D(b).

ARTICLE XXXVIII.

Of the same, to the patriarch of Constantinople, Lord John.

This piece which, in our manuscript, is formally attributed to Theodore Prodrome, occupies eleven and a half pages, and here is its beginning: *Πῶς ποτε ὑπονοίας ἔχεις περὶ ἐμὲ, θεοειδέστατε δέσποτα; ὁποδαπὸν δέ με φαντάζῃ, τὸν αὐτόμολον ῥήτορα; Καὶ τί ποτέ μοι κρίνεις τὸ ἐγχείρημα; Ἀναίδειαν καὶ ἀναισχυντίαν εὖ μάλα πολλὴν καὶ μεγάλην; Οὐμενοῦν.* It ends thus, at folio 75 verso: *καὶ τὴν ἱεράν σου λάκκην ἀναπαύσαιμεν, ἐκεῖνό γε μόνον παρὰ τῆς ἐκκλησιαστικῆς δανεισάμενοι Μούσης, τὸ ταῖς ἱεραῖς ἐκκλησίαις σῶον, ἔντιμον, ὑγιῆ σε φυλαχθῆναι, καὶ μακροημερεύοντα.*

The patriarch whom the author was here praising must have been John, surnamed Hieromnemon, who held the see from the year 1111 until the year 1134. He is little known in history. Zonaras (Ann. lib. XVIII, § 25, vol. II, pag. 303, D), reporting that he succeeded the patriarch Nicholas III, does not say what his proper name was, and contents himself with informing us that he was a nephew of the bishop then occupying the see at Chalcedon: *ἀδελφιδοῦν δὲ τοῦ τῆς ἐν Χαλκηδόνι τότε προέδρου ὄντος ἐκκλησίας.* And unfortunately, towards this epoch, the list of the bishops of Chalcedon is found to be imperfect (Orb. Christ., vol. I, col. 607); so that one cannot decide which of these prelates John Hieromnemon belonged to by ties of blood. Nicephorus Callistus seems to have believed that John was born at Chalcedon (Vid. Niceph. Callist. Catalog.). He was of the Constantinopolitan clergy, of the order of deacons, and even among the first of this order when he was elected patriarch. Zonaras adds that from childhood, John had been very instructed in divine and human letters.

ARTICLE XXXIX.

Of the same, Monody for the porphyrogenitus and sebastocrator, Lord Andronicus Comnenus.

Here is another piece that the manuscript of the Roman College, in agreement with that of the Vatican, gives to Theodore Prodrome. It is not without interest, since it can shed light on several points of the History of the Comneni, and rectify some errors escaped by du Cange. Andronicus Comnenus, porphyrogenitus and sebasto-

- ^B crator, was the son of the Emperor Alexius I and of the Empress Irene Ducaina. Du Cange (*Famil. Byz.*, p. 176), and following him Father Lazzeri (*in Epist. Theod. Prodr.*, p. 5), have advanced that this prince was killed in the year 1118, in a battle against the Turks, and du Cange, in support of this assertion, cites Zonaras, p. 237, and the *Alexiad* of Anna Comnena (Book V, p. 475). But, on the one hand, Zonaras, whether at the place indicated by this citation, which may be faulty, or anywhere else, does not say in any manner that the Sebastocrator Andronicus had finished his days by a violent death; and the funeral oration composed by Theodore Prodromus teaches us the contrary. Now, on such a historical fact, the testimony of this contemporary author is absolutely irrefutable. On the other hand, upon closely examining the passage from the *Alexiad* in which Anna Comnena speaks of the death of her brother Andronicus, one recognizes that this princess does not represent this sad event as having taken place in the battle against the Turks.

From what we read in this funeral oration, we are assured that the Sebastocrator Andronicus, second son of the Emperor Alexius I Comnenus, died not under the reign of his father ^C (1), but under the reign of his brother John Comnenus. In effect, Theodore states that Andronicus had seen his father quit the scepter along with life: "A father, Emperor, and of all emperors the most bellicose and the most peaceful, but one who laid down his scepter along with his life at the same time."

With many other particulars which appear to have been ignored, not only by du Cange, but also by M. le Beau (whose testimonies on the subject of Andronicus, in the *Histoire du Bas-Empire*, may appear to imply contradiction), we see from the piece which is the subject of this article:

1º That Andronicus had been married, but had the sorrow of losing his spouse, and even quite promptly after his marriage: "You were fortunate, and you took the fairest of the fair as your marriage partner, and there is no one who did not bless you for the union; but she too quickly changed her life."

2º That Andronicus had had from this marriage a son, who died in the springtime of his age: "For you there remained a consolation, a handsome and young child, a gift of grace, an image of nature. But in the midst of the spring of his age, his bloom was snatched away."

3º Finally, that Andronicus had remained, for a fairly considerable space of time, in a painful state which had altered his health, to the point that the first illness which subsequently befell him found him out of condition to resist: "The periodic furnaces of fevers, and the boilings about the heart, and those wretchedly perishing tertian agues, and the symptoms arising from these and upon these... From which the body of my soldier, stripped of his strength, [was so weakened] that he was not even able to resist the onset of the disease by a small amount, being overcome in a short time."

The fear of occupying too much space in this volume, and the desire to finish at last the notice of all that the manuscript I am working on contains, prevents me from giving here the entire text of the funeral oration of the Sebastocrator. But, to facilitate the means of recognizing this piece in the other manuscripts where it might be encountered, I am going to transcribe passages of some length, as much at the beginning as at the end.

It begins thus: "Dramas and mournful writings, they are in themselves indeed apt to excite tears, and the makers of grief by no means moderate for a sympathetic soul, and, to say it in a word, a human one. But if the symptoms and the diseases and the accursed Fates were more elaborately and in greater detail explained by someone, the soul would be disposed even more sorrowfully toward these things. And however often the discourse might mention the same death, so often does it lament so many deaths. And this is wont to happen when the speakers happen to be outside the suffering. For their tongue is indeed free and unhindered for these things, and the narrative is an outlet."

Here is how the piece ends:

"Alas! Where do they lead your horses, equipped as they are? Why do they march in the procession? Where do they carry the spear? Where do they lead the shield? Are there wars again, Scythians again, are Persians disturbing things again? Are Barbarians making a din again? To them do you bear these things, Sebastocrator?

And yet this clamor—it does not seem to be the clamor of war and battle; nor the clamor of combat; but a clamor of grief and lamentations, the great Sebastocrator having fallen, not fallen by the hand of an enemy, nor struck by iron; for who had it in his power to kill an invincible man? And what iron bent or tamed the iron and adamant soldier? How then did he depart? Having been a servant to a harsh disease and nature, so that Andronicus also might be numbered among the mortals, and be proved to have shared in the perishable and mortal nature; since as far as his mind and his hand were concerned, in works and labors beyond man, he was equal to an immortal. But behold, O Death, even the great Andronicus has yielded to you. Who then will be able to endure you any longer?"

ARTICLE XL.

Gregory Kamateros is depicted to us in history as a man of great wit, who, originally, was neither rich nor from a noble family, but who, having found the means to approach the Emperor Alexios I Komnenos and to please him, had been placed by this prince among his secretaries or clerks: *And among those assigned to write.* It is added that in this capacity he had been charged with inspecting the provinces to regulate the taxes there; an employment which had put him in a position to make a great fortune, and, by that very fact, to obtain in marriage a relative of the emperor. According to the account of Anna Komnene, but a short time had passed since Gregory Kamateros was an imperial secretary or clerk when he was commissioned to receive and write down the confessions of Nikephoros Diogenes, who was convicted of having conspired against the days of Alexios I. We also see, from two letters of Theophylaktos, that after having been, for some years, among the number of simple secretaries, Gregory Kamateros had become first secretary, *protasekretis*, and finally logothete. His funeral oration teaches us, moreover, that he was also honored with the title of *sebastos*; a particularity which does not appear to have been known to M. Le Beau. The discourse begins with these words: *To whom, O those present, should I labor...* and ends with these: *We shall build; woe, woe.*

ARTICLE XLI.

This piece does not contain enough particulars to make known to us the personage whose death Theodore Prodromos laments therein. It is seen, however, that Constantine Hagiotheodorites enjoyed the reputation of being a very skillful jurisconsult. Given this, we might think that this concerns the author of a work cited by the Greek commentators on the Basilika, if the title of this work, *Synopsis of Novellae* of the monk and jurisconsult Hagiotheodorites, did not at all attest that the one who composed it had embraced the monastic life; ^D which the discourse of Theodore Prodromos not only does not announce, but rather seems to contradict. The orator also tells us that Constantine Hagiotheodorites occupied a superior place in the capital of the Empire itself. If we are to believe him, the death of Constantine afflicted a part of the universe that this magistrate had governed with justice; these are the terms of which Theodore makes use at the beginning of his discourse: *And now then, not one house, nor one city alone partook of the calamity, but the good order of the whole inhabited world, inasmuch as it was also guided toward good order by you.* According to another passage, it appears that Constantine Hagiotheodorites had been taken from his friends by a fever: *And I deem life a Cyclops, that is, for the most part, a son of the liquid substance; and you an eye, one of this Cyclops of Polyphemos, most celebrated; who were gouged out, woe, woe, with the burning stake of the fever.*

ARTICLE XLII.

The epithalamium which is the subject of this article will perhaps serve to establish several historical and genealogical facts of which, up to this hour, one had, it seems to me, only a rather confused notion. The Caesar, father of two sons whose marriage Theodore Prodromos celebrates here, must have been Nikephoros Bryennios, the husband of the celebrated Anna Komnene, and consequently the son-in-law of the Emperor Alexios I. According to what Du Cange reports, Anna and Nikephoros would have had only one son; for he mentions no child born of their marriage other than Alexios, who, towards the end of the reign of his maternal grandfather, Alexios I, was married, or at least destined to be married, to the daughter of the prince of Abasgia; and who, subsequently, was raised by the Emperor Manuel, of whom he was a first cousin, to the dignity of Grand Duke. And yet Zonaras...

states quite clearly that this same prince must have had some brother; since, in the passage where he recounts the circumstances of the death of Alexius I, and speaks of the manner in which John Comnenus, at the moment when his father ceased to live, went forth from the palace of the Manganes, he says: "But as he had just left the enclosure of the Manganes, the Abasgians met him; those who had been sent from there, in all likelihood, either as an escort to the girl brought from Abasgia and being wedded to the elder of the Caesar's sons, or..." ^A a passage from which it seems to follow that, at the moment when the Emperor Alexius I expired, the marriage of Alexius, son of the Caesar, was not yet celebrated.

The epithalamium composed by Theodore Prodromus does not allow one to doubt that Anna and Nicephorus had two sons, who were married both at the same time and, by all appearances, on the same day; for one reads in one place (ms. fol. 1v, lin. 41): "I address you, therefore, a holy pair dear to me, of bridegrooms and brothers at the same time..." and further on (Ibid. v, lin. 16): "...marriage tent..." The orator did not transmit to us in an express manner the name of more than one of these two princes, of him who was called Alexius: "And you, O active mind, Alexius (Fol. 84, v, lin. 22)." As for the second, he contents himself with designating him as a branch of the stem of the Ducas, and bearing the same name as the Graces [Charitonyme]; these are his expressions: "And you, O shoot of the Ducas root, O Charitonyme [Gracious-named]." But it is enough to inform you that the prince was called John. Indeed, one could not doubt that our author regarded these two designations as synonyms; since, elsewhere, he equally calls the Emperor John Comnenus "Charitonyme." Furthermore, it is thus that St. John Chrysostom is addressed in the short piece of verse which bears this title: *By the Rhetor on the Reading of the Life of [St. John] Chrysostom*: "But, O Charitonyme, and until the end / Those pious men, of mystical fragrance / And divine light, and understood delight, / And of mental brightness, you deem worthy." And indeed, it is easy to explain this synonymy, given that the name *Joannes*, in the Hebrew language, signifies "gracious." The epithalamium begins thus: "It was necessary, even from the hair of the goats of ancient tent-making, O wise Caesar..." and it ends (fol. 86, v, lin. 18) in this way: "...and to drive into deep and rich hoary age. Farewell."

ARTICLE XLIII.

LETTERS OF THEODORE PRODROMUS.

We include in this Article XLIII seven letters which not only does our manuscript seem to announce as being by Theodore Prodromus, but which the manuscript of the Roman College formally attributes to him.

Of these seven letters, the first two are addressed to a personage by the name of Theodore, and who, according to the terms in which our author greets him, might appear to have been, if not his own brother, at least one of his companions in the monastic life (for we shall show elsewhere that he made profession of it during a part of his career); but the content of the second letter proves that these terms are expressions of pure friendship.

The first begins with these terms: "I wish, O brotherly and dear soul, that I were before your eyes..." It ends thus: "For the friend is not ungrateful, nor will you receive an ungrateful friend. Farewell."

The second begins in this manner: "This, dear Theodore, has also come to my mind to think of and to utter..." and ends with these words: "You do not have the reminder, but you know that Homeric saying." ^B With the addition: "And two went forth, and he noticed them beforehand. Farewell."

The third and fourth are addressed to Lizix, a personage whom Theodore Prodromus mentions with praise in one of the pieces that we have provided previously, and where he lauds him as a great orator. Here our writer reproaches him for a sort of inconstancy in his love of philosophy. Here is the beginning and the end of the two letters: ^C

III. "It is not good for you, O child, most learned Lizix, that philosophy, as it seems, should have reared..." But if not, return the letters as a price for things; exchanging gold for bronze. Farewell.

IV. "Being divided from our connection and life together, to the extent that avenging fortune has separated us... O that you might console the work even with a deed. Farewell."

The three last are addressed to Mytas, a personage regarding whom the only notion that I can give for the moment is that, in these letters, our author appears to attribute to him the most strong and most persuasive eloquence. ^D

^A Consolation to me, in truth, soul... I know how to bid farewell to the present, intending to qualify [it] for the completion of the required honor. Farewell. VI. That is the one, a tongue breathing power... But not for long, not, O before the books. Farewell. VII. You indeed [concerning] to us the parupatai and the hupatai... may save. Farewell.

Father Lazzeri published these ^B seven letters, but the text he provided is not correct; without the reason I have already explained, I would have made it a duty to present this text, purged of the errors the first editor left in it, though perhaps only on the basis of the faulty readings of the single copy he had before his eyes.

ARTICLE XLIV

Three pieces of verse on the death of the Emperor John Comnenus. I. Epitaphic lines to the great porphyrogenitus and sovereign lord, John Comnenus, as from the text. III. Another program for the same tomb, iambic.

Our manuscript does not formally attribute these three pieces of verse to Theodore Prodromus; ^C but everything intimately persuades me that they belong to this author. Emperor John Comnenus having died on April 8, 1143, we have the date for these three compositions. In the first, containing 111 verses, which begins with this one: *The brow of mortals, and the pride of princely power,* and ends with these two others: *John, thou offspring of the purple,* *Comnenian, pious autocrat,* the author seems to have John Comnenus state that he had eight children (four sons and four daughters), born of one and the same marriage (verse 93): *But as for a lawful bed, for fair offspring* *There is no one who could compare to me.* *For from a queen of the entire Western race,* *I have fashioned a holy, twofold quartet:* *Four sons, valiant and warlike,* *Brought forth from the paternal purple,* *And four orderly daughters.*

The spouse one sees here (verse 93) qualified practically as mistress of all the Western nations, ^D *anassis dusmikou pantos genous*, was a princess of Hungary, daughter of the king of that country, Ladislas, and whose proper name, Pyrisca, appears to have been changed at the court of Constantinople to that of Irene. John Comnenus had married her as early as the year 1105 ([Cf.] *Ann. Alexiad.* lib. XII, p. 356).

Du Cange (*Fam. Aug. Byzant.* p. 179 and 180) names the four sons who were born of this marriage, namely: 1. Alexis, born in 1106, and died before his father, in 1142; 2. Andronicus, died likewise around the same time; 3. Isaac, who was disinherited of the crown and saw himself preferred by his younger brother; 4. Manuel, who replaced John Comnenus on the throne, in 1143.

But Du Cange does not appear to have known, according to the original historians, more than three daughters born of this same marriage of John Comnenus with Pyrisca [or Irene], for he names only: 1. Marie (twin of Alexis), who married the Caesar John Roger; 2. N., married to Stephen Contostephanus; 3. N., wife of Theodore Vatatzes, who was one of the generals of the emperor, his brother-in-law. M. Le Beau also makes mention only of these three daughters.

This testimony, which is found recorded in the piece in question here, and which will be repeated in one of the following articles, does not permit one to doubt that John had a fourth daughter. Whatever little esteem one might have for this writing, considered as a poetic composition, one cannot deny that, relative to such facts and such particularities, it is of very grave authority.

As for the two other pieces, which I also indicate in this Article XLIV, they consist, one of eight hexameter verses, the other of nine iambic verses; here they are:

Program for the same tomb, heroic. Why do you feel me, O stranger, [the] poly-daedalus [stone]? Within [is] a ruler, from ruler Alexius, John.

I possess the Comnenian, city-destroying corpse. But if you inquire about the greatly-glorious works of produce and of the parent, ask the elders who are unscathed as to the maidens, or whence the history, of the guardian of the hoary works, and you shall know clearly having learned other great-prizes of the kings; for the whole mage will not escape the ultimate things to mortals.

Another program for the same, iambic: You seek me, the covered dust here, O stranger? I am John, ruler of the whole earth, Son of Alexius Comnenus, the king. But our brilliant powers against barbarians, If they live, you might hear from those who saw them; And you might learn from those narrated by them, How many labors having served in life, The son, the father, where we reach the end. I die, indeed, in this very province of Bithynia, An emigrant from the queen of the Ausonians; I am carried back, being sailed again, And I entrust my dust here. ^A

ARTICLE XLV.

I. Propitiatory to Christ as if from the king. II. On the same. These two small pieces are of little interest. The first, composed of eight heroic verses, begins and ends thus: "O ruler of all, soft-skinned, who from flesh," "...forgetful of our transgressions." The second, which contains no more than eight verses, but in iambic meter, begins with this: "As [it] had of your gifts, O Almighty;" And ends with this other: "Grant also to the deceased mental salvation." The place where they are found in our manuscript, the title they bear, the style, all announce that they have come, like the three preceding ones, from the pen of Theodore Prodromus.

ARTICLE XLVI.

ARTICLE XLVII.

which, having died at an early age, will have been, for that very reason, forgotten by contemporary writers. We are inclined to believe that it is this second Sebastocrator Isaac who is the subject of the piece which forms the subject of this article; and the emperor, their grandfather, whom the poet makes speak therein, must have been John Comnenus.

It begins with these verses: Ὦ ζεῦγος υἱῶν φιλτάτων τέκνου φίλου, Ἐμαῖς προσαγκάλισμα καλὸν ἀγκάλαις, Ἐμοῖς ὑποψέλλισμα τερπνὸν ὠτίοις, Ὅσῃ πλύνεις με τῇ θοῇ τῶν δακρύων Ὅσῃ τεφροῖς με τῇ καμίνῳ τῶν πόνων. Ὁμοῦ προφανὲν καὶ κρυβέν, λάμψαν, δύναν... and here are the last six verses: Ἀλλ’, ὦ δοτὴρ μοι τοῦ κράτους παντοκράτωρ, Ὁ μυρίαν ἄβυσσον εὐτυχημάτων Ἐμοὶ παρασχὼν ἐκ βρέφους σπαργάνων, Τῆς κειμένης δέεις ἐκλαθέσθαι δυάδος Ὡσὰν τὸ βάρος κουφιεῖς τῆς καρδίας, Γὴν τῶν πόνων ἄκανθαν ἐξανασπάσας.

ARTICLE XLVIII

Apologetic verses addressed to the Logothete Stephen Meles [by Theodore Prodromus], in excuse for his delay in visiting him. Τῷ λογοθέτῃ κυρῷ Στεφάνῳ τῷ Μέλητι ἀπολογητικοὶ ἐπὶ τῇ ὑπερημερίᾳ τῆς εἰς αὐτὸν ἐλεύσεως.

We have already seen that Theodore Prodromus was in correspondence with the Logothete Stephen Meles. We do not hesitate, therefore, to attribute to him this sort of note, comprised of twenty-one hexameter verses, by which he excuses himself to this eminent personage for not having been among the first to visit him, and gives as the cause the various indispositions, if not even rather grave ailments, that he was experiencing at the time: Οὗπερ ἐμὲ, στεφάνωμα ἐπαρσινόων ἀρετάων, Ὃς σε λέλυκε τύχης βαρυπήματος, κἂν ἔτι λύσει.

ARTICLE XLIX

Verses suitable for inscription on the tomb of the Emperor John Comnenus.

ARTICLE L

Heroic verses addressed to the Empress Irene Ducaina, on the death of her son the Sebastocrator, by Theodore Prodromus. Τοῦ αὐτοῦ στίχοι ἡρῶοι εἰς τὴν βασίλισσαν κυρίαν Εἰρήνην τὴν Δούκαιναν ἐπὶ τῷ θανάτῳ τοῦ σεβαστοκράτορος, υἱοῦ αὐτῆς.

This piece, composed of 98 verses, contains facts relating to the Comnenan family, and is the more worthy of some attention in that it reveals involuntary errors in the narrative of modern historians.

I consider it incontestable that the princess to whom the poem is addressed is Irene, the widow of Alexis I Comnenus. Her son the Sebastocrator, for whose loss our author here grieves, cannot be other than that Andronicus Comnenus, ^B whose funeral oration we have transcribed above (See above, article XXXVIII): and, at the same time, we have had occasion to observe that, through failure to have known this piece, du Cange, and after him M. le Beau, were mistaken about the time of this prince’s death. In this regard, the piece which forms the subject of the XLII article confirms fully that the Sebastocrator Andronicus, son of Alexis I, and brother of the Emperor John Comnenus (verses 46-47), did not die before his father, nor, consequently, before his brother’s accession to the throne: Ὦ βασιλεῦ Σκυθολοιγέ, μεγασθενές, Ἰωάννη, Ὤλετό σοι σύμβουλος ἀδελφὸς ἠδὲ μαχητής.

From the manner in which our author expresses himself, we are well-founded in believing that the death of Andronicus must have coincided with the time, which has remained until this hour quite uncertain, at which his younger brother Isaac, discontented with the emperor, ^C their own son John Comnenus; but she subsequently took no part in the conspiracy formed against him at his accession to the empire. As soon as he was in possession of the crown, she had resumed her motherly sentiments, and when she learned of the dark plot which had just been discovered: "The barbarians," she cried, "they wanted then to plunge the iron into my bowels, and cause me a pain more cruel than any I experienced in bringing him into the world."

This princess, after the death of Alexis, withdrew from the intrigues of the court; she owed this to letters, which she had always cultivated. Grace completed what reflection had begun, by inspiring in her a contempt for rank and a taste for retirement. She withdrew into a monastery she had founded, took the habit there under the name of Xene, and herself composed the Rule for nuns, which we still have in our hands.

^A left to take refuge with the Turks. The poet says (ver. 22 and seqq.) that Asia had caused the empress, all at once, the loss of two of her sons: that of Andronicus (who had just died) and that of Isaac, who, wandering toward the extremities of the East, existed no more [for his mother], though yet alive:

For [too] you have lost two sons at once, fierce Telchin; The strength of Andronicus, and the might of Isaac, He who is drifting in the distant borders of the East, Though alive, yet dead.

We learn here likewise that which Du Cange, it seems, had not found indicated in the historians, namely:

1° That Nicephorus Bryennius, the son-in-law of Irene, the husband of the celebrated Anna Comnena, died quite a short time after Emperor Alexius I and before the sebastocrator Andronicus (ver. 18 and 19). The poet, having just reminded the empress of the death of her spouse, says that she immediately lost her son-in-law Nicephorus, and saw her daughter become a widow:

Following him, you lost your illustrious son-in-law, and [thereby] You made your own dear child a widow, the noble wife of Nicephorus.

2° That after the death of Nicephorus, the empress saw her daughter-in-law (the wife of the sebastocrator Andronicus) perish successively, and the son that she had left to her husband (ver. 20 and 21):

After him (referring to Nicephorus), the son of Andronicus died, And before that, his [own] wife died.

^B 3° That these two deaths had been followed by that of Eudocia Porphyrogenita, a princess who could not have been anyone other than the third daughter of Alexius I, the wife of Constantine, son of Iasitas, of whom Du Cange expresses himself thus: *Eudocia Comnena, Alexii imperatoris I filia tertiogenita, a patre Constantino Iasitæ filio uxor data est; a quo pessime et contra generis dignitatem habita, soluto matrimonio, in monasterium concessit* (ver. 21):

Hades seized the purple-born [princess] for his favor.

Moreover, these particulars are not the only ones furnished by the poem of Theodore Prodromus; it contains others still, but some of which have appeared to me difficult to reconcile with history: I am forced to postpone their examination to another time.

The poem begins with this verse: *Would that I were, O Empress, a great honor for women;* and ends with this one: *May you hear these things, O Christ, from Prodromus praying [to You].*

ARTICLE LI

^C [Piece beginning at fol. 92 recto, line 9, no. XLV of the Greek Index.] Verses addressed to the Emperor John Comnenus, on the capture of Castamon, by Theodore Prodromus. *Of the same, to the Porphyrogenitus and Emperor, lord [John Comnenus, upon the capture of Castamon].*

It is a question here of the first conquest that the Emperor John Comnenus made of the city of Castamon. Castamon (the ancient Germanicopolis), a city of Paphlagonia, near the banks of the Euxine Sea, passed for having been the homeland of the ancient Comnenians.

According to the account of some historians, it was in this city that Isaac, the first of his house to have worn the scepter, had received his birth. When Alexius Comnenus, before his accession to the throne, being yet only Grand Domestic, returned to Constantinople—victor over the Gaul [or Frank] Ursellus and master of his person—passing near Castamon, he could not resist the desire to visit the cradle of his family. He turned from his route to enjoy this satisfaction; but, having found this city depopulated, he could not restrain his tears, and the friends who accompanied him tore him away only with difficulty from these desolate places, which reminded him only too sadly of the memory of his ancestors.

M. Le Beau places the event celebrated by Theodore Prodromus in the year 1125:

«The Hungarian war being ended, the Emperor John Comnenus resumed the plan he had formed to recover Asia Minor. The Turks, spread through Paphlagonia, had made themselves masters of Castamon, one of the principal cities of the country (it was the ancient Germanicopolis); John transported himself there, and took it by escalade.

«He recrossed the Bosphorus, then, with a great number of prisoners, and renewed the pious triumph, the spectacle of which Zimisces had given at Constantinople. The day fixed for the entry of the prince, the streets were hung with the richest tapestries and bordered with scaffolds loaded with spectators, from the Oriental Gate as far as the church of Saint Sophia. A chariot enriched with silver and precious stones was drawn by four white horses. In the place ^D of the emperor, one saw there a statue of the holy Virgin, to whose protection the prince attributed all his successes. The chariot was driven by the first officers of the Empire, who held the reins. The emperor, on foot, walked in front, a cross in his hand. This magnificent procession betook itself to Saint Sophia, from whence the emperor, after solemn acts of thanksgiving, went to his palace.»

According to what Theodore Prodromus says here, the chariot had been offered to the emperor by the clergy, the senate, and the people of Constantinople: no doubt it was by a movement of piety and modesty that this prince had it serve for the triumph of the holy Virgin; and one finds the proof of it in another piece which will be the subject of article LVII.

The small poem by Theodore Prodromus brings to our attention several particulars which historians do not mention at all in the account of this campaign. It is composed of 120 hexameter verses, of which here are the first and last:

"Was there a time, great-hearted king, rejoicing in glory, When of all the boundless earth you held the reins."

ARTICLE LII.

Verses addressed by Theodore Prodromus to the Porphyrogennetos Caesarissa Lady Anna Ducaina, to ask for her protection.

As for the title of this piece, I think as Father Lazeri does. The princess to whom Theodore Prodromus addresses himself, to ask for her protection and her recommendation to a person even more powerful than she, could only be the famous Anna Comnena, born of the marriage of Alexius I with Irene Ducaina, and wife of the Caesar Nicephorus Bryennius. One must therefore believe, either that the reading *Anna Ducaina* is faulty, and that one should read *Anna Comnena*; or that this denomination of *Ducaina* stems from the fact that the princess, belonging on her mother's side to the Ducas family, had a double affinity with them, because, before marrying the Caesar Nicephorus Bryennius, she had been betrothed to Constantine Ducas Porphyrogennetos, son of the Emperor Michael Ducas.

But with regard to what the poem contains, composed of one hundred and eighteen verses, as I shall have occasion elsewhere to analyze it completely, I content myself here with saying that one finds there many notions concerning the birth of the author, his fortune, and his state, which was then neither brilliant nor happy.

Here are the first and last verses:

"Hear, O Trinity, great Queen, hear, O angels high... For to you I have tethered the moorings of my life."

ARTICLE LIII.

Two small pieces of verse composed by Theodore Prodromus.

The first of the two pieces gathered in this article was, to judge by the title, intended to serve as a frontispiece to a scroll-volume containing the writings of Joannicius, whom Theodore Prodromus, in another small piece, as will be seen later, has qualified as a monk. By all appearances, it concerns this monk Joannicius whom the mother of Alexius had placed near him, and whom this prince, even before being emperor, led everywhere with him, using him as a chamberlain to guard his tent.

The second, composed of seventeen iambic verses, and which is found again, but incorrect, in the manuscript of the Imperial Library, is addressed to the brigands who would dare to violate the tomb of the solitary Athanasius the Hesychast.

These two pieces bear the following titles:

1. By the same. A program for a kontakion, having the plan of the master Joannicius. 2. By the same. Epitaph for Athanasius the Hesychast. Reproachful verses against grave-robbers.

On the margin of the third verse of this last piece, one encounters in our manuscript a species of small diatribe in sixteen verses, written in a character much more modern than everything contained in the volume, and in which the author, whoever he may be, declaims with virulence against the supposed avarice of the monk for whom Theodore had here composed the epitaph. I would scarcely have been able to read a portion of these sixteen verses without the help of M. Hase. Aided by his great knowledge of the Greek language and of the different characters of manuscripts, much more than by the goodness of his eyes, accustomed moreover to a boundless compliance for me, this young and learned littérateur soon knew how to decipher these verses completely, with the exception of a few words of the last; it is he who provided me with the copy that I am going to represent.

Epitaph of a greedy monk.

I will exhaust you, even to the dust, if necessary, And I will measure out all the dirt and will look; I will gather the whole of the coffin, of the bones, And I will palpate the entire harmony Of the dead man, his composition, his whole frame. I will examine precisely even of the entrails The avaricious and miserly little monk, Carefully examining you, even dead, To see if you carry any gold, the gold-worshipping race, In your hands, in your chest, in your bosom. For if I could believe it, I would not [think you] of gold, Even dead, wretched and rotting, (Who you, breathing gold, speaking gold, Eating gold I know many times over), That you would have buried with you your object of worship, The metal that colors, the whole deceiver. Wretched [into] the bitter pains of Daphnis.

ARTICLE LIV.

Friendship banished from the world, dramatic dialogue, by Theodore Prodromus.

This piece, which is quite esteemed as a poetic opuscule, has been printed a great number of times. Independently of the editions which may be unknown to me, I know that it has been given:

1º In Greek, by J. Honter and J. Guntius, at Basel, 1536, in 8°. 2º In Greek and in Latin, by Conrad Gesner, at

Zurich, in the year 1549. 3º Likewise, in the edition of Stobaeus, printed at Basel by J. Oporin, in 1549, in-folio. 4º Similarly, in the edition of Stobaeus, printed at Zurich, in 1550, in-4°. 5º In the year 1558, the small work which is the subject of this article appeared in French, translated by Jean Figon, under the following title: FRIENDSHIP banished from the world, by Cyrus Theodore, Greek poet, and translated into French verse by Jean Figon, of Montélimart in Dauphiné. At Toulouse, 1558, in-8°. 6º It was then reprinted in both Greek and Latin, in a fourth edition of Stobaeus by Conrad Gesner, dated from the year 1559. 7º In a new edition of the opuscula of Theodore Prodromus, by Jérôme Erard; at Leipsic, 1598, in-8°. 8º In a fifth edition of Stobaeus, printed at Geneva, in 1609. 9º Barthius, in his Adversaria, published in 1624, cited and corrected certain passages of the *Andēmos Philia*. 10º Finally, Maittaire reproduced the entire Dialogue in his *Miscellanea Græcorum aliquorum scriptorum carmina*, London, 1722, in-4° major. He added notes to it, some of which will become superfluous if, in the future, a new editor, consulting our manuscript, profits from it to restore the true reading in more than one place.

ARTICLE LV

ARTICLE LVI

ARTICLE LVII.

ARTICLE LVIII.

ARTICLE LIX.

^A Afterwards, he reviews all the victories gained by the emperor on the banks of the Danube (Decad. VI, verse 3); of the Sangarius (Ibid.); of the Halys (Ibid. verse 4; item Decad. IX, verse 8; it. Decad. XVI, verse 1; it. Decad. XXIII, verse 8; it. Decad. XXVII, verse 2); and he celebrates above all the capture of Castamon (Decad. X and following), as well as that of the cities of Balzos, of Alamos, of Alazos (Decad. XXII, verses 1 and 2: it. Dec. XXVII, verse 6). Then, on this occasion, he names (Decad. XXIV, verse 1 and following) the emirs or Mohammedan generals defeated by this prince. Toward the end (Dec. XXVIII), he also makes mention of the advantages obtained as much in Dalmatia as at Laodicea, at Sozopolis, at Amorium, and elsewhere.

One encounters this piece in the manuscript of the Imperial Library, no. 2831, fol. 134 verso, line 8; but it is mutilated there, since it is found composed of only 108 verses.

The other poem contains only ten stanzas [100 verses], and the subject is sufficiently explained by the title itself.

This title, as well as that of the six other pieces of which I shall soon speak (1), bears these words: *Tois demois* [literally, for the demes]: which would seem to signify that the pieces in question were intended to be recited or chanted, in the name of these circus factions, so often mentioned in the *History of the Lower Empire*. In fact, du Cange seems not to have encountered the words *hoi demoi* except in works where they indicate sometimes these factions of the Greens and the Blues, etc., which divided the people of Constantinople, relative to the competition in the circus games; sometimes the benches or tiers of the Hippodrome, on which the members of each faction gathered one beside the other (2): *Demoi Factiones agitatorum... It. Demoi Gradus Hippodromi in quibus sedere consueverant demoi*, or factions. Perhaps the attentive examination of the different poetic compositions of Theodore Prodromus, whose title bears *tois demois*, will give rise to the suspicion that at the time when the author was writing, these words did not fail to be taken in some other sense.

ARTICLE LX.

1º Stanzas, in political verses, on the triumphal entry of the emperor John Comnenus [at Constantinople], after the capture of Castamon. 2º Other stanzas of the same sort, addressed to the same prince on this same occasion. The city of Constantinople is supposed to speak, to induce him to sit on the chariot that it presented to him. By Theodore Prodromus.

1. By the same (a) [a] triumphal entry of the emperor lord John Comnenus, political decastichs. For the Demes. 2. By the same, decastichs of supplication to the emperor, for sitting on the chariot. For the Demes.

These two small poems are relative to the same feast, and to the same particularities as those which were the subject of articles LI and LVII.

In one, which is composed of twenty-nine stanzas, or of 290 [political] verses, the poet begins by making himself known and naming himself (Decad. I, verses 1, 2 and 3): From Prodromus, Prodromus. Prodromus to the emperor. These I offer thee as first fruits.

ARTICLE LXI.

ARTICLE LXII.

^A every day of the year. By taking, for each month, the first letter of the first verse, the gathering of these twelve letters will form the surname [*Prodromos*] of the author.

*Of the same, monostichs for the ends of the saints commemorated on each day throughout the whole year, with the surname of the poet also appearing in the initial letters of the first lines of each month.*

This type of poetic calendar, whose title alone sufficiently announces its subject and genre, begins, according to the usage of the Greeks, with the month of September. There are as many verses as there are days in the year. The work opens with this verse: *Symeon is carried by a pole...* and ends with this one: *Zostre, maiden, encircles your own city for you.*

One might perhaps find some pleasure, and even some utility, in comparing this piece with another of the same genre, entitled: *Summary description of the holy times*, and which is attributed to Nicephorus Callistus in the collection published at Basel in 1536.

2. Verses on the twelve feasts of Our Lord Jesus Christ. 3. Eight verses on Abraham giving hospitality to the Holy Trinity.

**ARTICLE LXIII.** [Pieces contained in fol. 117 verso, line 8 et seqq., n. LXVII and LXVIII of the Greek index.] 1. Five distichs on a ring bearing a seal ^C with the imprint of two lovers from whose chests two trees emerged. 2. A lament in heroic verses on the little honor that, in the author's century, was rendered to literature.

**ARTICLE LXIV.** [Piece beginning at fol. 118 recto, line 2, n. LXIX of the Greek index.] Verses by Theodore Prodromus, against [a certain] Barys, a vain talker, who [making it a crime for him to have too great an application to the study of belles-lettres] had slanderously called him a heretic [or sectarian].

*Of the same, against BARYS, who slandered his name as a heretic:*

The piece which is the subject of this article is found ^D in the collection printed at Basel, in 1536. It is not without interest, in that it informs us of various details concerning the family, the status, and the fortune of our author; but, in the print, it is full of errors. Gilbert Gaulmin noted a few of them, and our manuscript can serve not only to confirm the conjectures of that learned man, but also to restore the corrupted passages on which he made no comment. I have thus been tempted to reproduce here the text of this little poem purged of every faulty reading. But, as in more than one place it requires commentaries, and I cannot devote myself to such a task, I confine myself here to a simple notice. In the print, the piece contains only 300 verses; in our manuscript, it is of 301, because immediately after verse 164: *By nature the same, and by power, and by might* the manuscript offers one which is not found in the print: *Nothing separate of the three; the three are one.*

**ARTICLE LXV.** [Pieces contained in fol. 121 recto, line 14, n. LXX, LXXI and LXXII of the Greek index.] Verses of Theodore Prodromus: 1° On the envious; 2° Exhortation to piety and wisdom; 3° On a garden. These small poems were all three published in the collection given in 1536.

**ARTICLE LXVI.** [Pieces beginning at fol. 121 verso, line 27, n. LXXIII and LXXIV of the Greek index.] Hymns addressed to the emperor John Comnenus, on the occasion of both the feast of the Nativity and that of the baptism of Jesus Christ.

*Hymns to the emperor lord John Comnenus on the Nativity of Christ [and on the baptism]; for the factions.*

These hymns, of 24 verses each, are six in number; three for the feast of the Nativity; three for that of the baptism of Jesus Christ [which corresponded to the same day as the Epiphany].

I have already said that, according to the words, *for the factions*, which are read in the title of these hymns, as in that of the two other poems of which I spoke above, they seem to have been intended to be sung in the name of the factions of the circus games; but at the same time I have not concealed that perhaps this point lent itself to some difficulties, of which I could not give or even seek the solution at this moment. I add here, with regard to the six pieces which are the particular subject of this LXVI article, that it would be quite interesting to determine in which year they might have been composed. They contain several details of which some at first glance seem, in a way, to imply contradiction; and the others, decidedly, could not agree with what modern historians have thought they could establish.

For example, certain verses of the first of the hymns relating to the feast of the Nativity correspond to a year in which the emperor, returning from eastern lands, would have made a triumphal entry into Constantinople; and, at the same time, to an epoch when his eldest son Alexius would have already been associated with the crown, while his three younger sons [Andronicus, Isaac, Manuel] would have simultaneously borne the title of SEBASTOCRATOR: 3. Again God [was seen as] flesh-bear- pes,

^Aing 16: But O progenitor of all... 18: Guard, protect for many circles [times] the victor, the Comnenus, the master John, and the sharer of the CROWN, ALEXIUS, the master, and the SEBASTOCRATORS and the PURPIRIO-GENITI, the image of those of equal age, the marvelous TRINITY. The Danube has enjoyed you, the Halys has seen you. The land of Kastamon has seen you, Gangra has looked upon you. But I, out of word alone and report alone, see... And may you rejoice with the child and emperor Alexius, and with the Sebastocrators and the Porphyrogeniti. The ^B conqueror, however, I do not see. Thrice-fortunate is Kastamon, thrice-glorious is Gangra, because they have enjoyed your imperial rays. But Christ born of a virgin mother. Bright sun of the Romans, triumphant master, may He guard you and the one born of you, the sharer of the empire, along with your companions, the SEBASTOCRATORS. But O You who wash away my filth in the Jordan, guard the great victor, the master John, together with the child and sharer of the crown, Alexius, and with the SEBASTOCRATORS and Porphyrogeniti. And to me ^C they preserve until eternity, rejoicing with the emperor and your child Alexius, and with the SEBASTOCRATORS AND PORPHYROGENITI—those who triple in number, honored by being unique. Together with the sharer of your power, Alexius, and the TRINITY of the venerable SEBASTOCRATORS. I, however, out of word alone and report alone, see you; the conqueror, however, I do not see. Thrice-fortunate is Kastamon, thrice-glorious is Gangra, because they have enjoyed your imperial rays.

ARTICLE LXVII

Heroic verses by Theodore Prodromus, on his illness.

ARTICLE LXVIII

Verses addressed to the Emperor John Comnenus, by Theodore Prodromus, on the recapture of Castamon and the conquest of Gangra.

By the same, to the most victorious Emperor, Lord John Comnenus, on the second capture of Castamon and Gangra.

[The Greek poem here addresses the Emperor's actions. The historical analysis provided in the text notes that this work serves to clarify errors in the account of M. le Beau in his *Histoire du Bas-Empire*. According to that historian, John Comnenus would not have taken Castamon for the first time until 1125, after having lost his wife, Irene (or Pyrisca), who died at the end of 1124. However, the testimony of our poet establishes that the sequence of events was different: the Emperor had already taken Castamon, but the Turks had recaptured it before his wife’s death. The delay in his departure for Asia was indeed due to the grief he felt for her loss. After fulfilling the duties of mourning, he pursued his military projects. Upon arriving in Asia Minor, he first sought to capture Gangra, a city held by the widow of a Turkish emir, who had shut herself up inside with her sons and daughters.]

^A ...with a promise of a good composition, he refused to consent. The Emperor, not judging it appropriate to begin the campaign with a formal siege of such a strong place, turned instead toward Castamon. Indeed, our poet, in a passage where he apostrophizes the Holy Virgin, tells her:

"But thy King, another city didst thou turn to— Great Castamon; this the Lord Himself took. But also, he turned back the greatly-thieving Persian, Wherefore didst thou lead him from Gangra through the deep night To the city of Castamon."

Castamon was quickly taken. The Emperor did not hesitate to return under the walls of Gangra, nor did he delay long to make himself master of it.

^B Such are the facts, regarding which our poet, being a contemporary and especially addressing his account to the prince whose exploits he celebrates, has more authority than all historians, even the most judicious ones.

As for the exact date, whether of the second conquest of Castamon or the taking of Gangra, Theodore’s little poem seemed to me to contain nothing that would prevent adopting the date M. le Beau saw fit to indicate.

This poem, whose details are by no means devoid of interest, consists of 296 hexameters; here are the first six and the last eight:

^C "And these great deeds of thine I shall recount to the citizens Of the younger Rome, O destroyer of cities, descendant of the Comneni, The glory of the palace; and I shall inscribe them in books, So that even for posterity this shall remain, and shall not die, And so that strangers may honor thee as a god, O son of Ares! And all things I shall proclaim to thee in due measure and clearly...

Rome, fertile in blessings, city of cities, Queen, Rome of Constantine, inheritance of the holy Queen [Theotokos], Who ever possessed Gangra? Who of the kings ever Gave to them [the people] authority over Castamon? Who bent the height of the unbending neck of the East, And gave the enslaved, mighty barbarian lords [to the Romans], Excluding the descendant of Alexius, the Emperor John, For whom we, sons of the Ausonians, pray for long years."

^D ...of the sword. This news afflicted the Emperor, whom a sickness kept in Constantinople. As soon as he recovered his strength, he took the road to Castamon. Doniman was dead, and Mahomet, his successor, was in discord with Masoud, the Sultan of Iconium. The Emperor took advantage of the situation to draw Masoud to his side. He obtained troops from him to act in concert against the common enemy, and with this aid, he re-entered Castamon.

ARTICLE LXIX. REVIEW OF WORKS.

ARTICLE LXX.

ARTICLE LXXI.

ARTICLE LXXII.

true, calls her the *epane* of this granddaughter of Alexius I, Manuel, and not Constantin Camytzes; and, moreover, he qualifies him, not as *pansebaste-sebaste*, but only as *protostrator*. But, despite this difference in designation, we believe that the person celebrated by Theodore Prodromus is the same as the one Nicetas mentioned, and that his wife, called by our poet Marie Comnena, daughter of a Porphyrogennetos mother, is precisely the princess whose name Du Cange had nowhere found.

II. Verses [by the same author] to the name of Marie Comnena, daughter of Theodora Comnena, wife of Constantin Camytzes, dedicating, upon the communion table, her purple garment after her widowhood.

ARTICLE LXXIII

[Piece beginning on fol. 129 recto, line 10, no. LXXXVI of the Greek Index.]

XENEDEMUS, a dialogue, composed by Theodore Prodromus. Doubts regarding different points of the treatise of Porphyry, entitled *The Five Voices*.

Τοῦ αὐτοῦ Ξενέδημος, διάλογος· ἀπορίαι ἀπὸ ΤΩΝ Ε΄ ΦΩΝΩΝ.

^A Scarcely had the little treatise of Porphyry, entitled *Introduction*, or *On the Five Voices* [the goal of which is to serve as an introduction to the reading of the Categories of Aristotle], been published, than it became, among the Greeks, an elementary and classical work. It is nevertheless this same treatise that Theodore Prodromus, in the dialogue entitled *Xenedemus*, critiques.

The piece is written in the taste and even in the style of the dialogues of Plato.

The author has only two interlocutors speak, who are supposed to be conversing in Athens, namely: the Athenian Musaeus, and the Byzantine Xenedemus, sons of Aristander. But Xenedemus himself professes to have been the disciple of Hermagoras, and reports what he held from Xenocles.

Were Musaeus, Xenedemus, Aristander, Hermagoras, and Xenocles all fictitious characters, or were they persons, if not still existing, at least known in the century of Theodore Prodromus? This, I confess without circumlocution, is what I am ignorant of. In certain respects, it would be quite curious, and perhaps it would be, at the same time, quite easy to resolve this doubt. But I do not have the leisure to undertake the necessary research. I will only remark here that in speaking of a Hermagoras, of whom the interlocutor Xenedemus calls himself the disciple, our author could not have had in view the rhetorician Hermagoras, known by the testimonies of Quintilian as also of the Scholiast of Hermogenes, and who, consequently, was much earlier than Porphyry. The Hermagoras, instructor of Xenedemus, was, on the contrary, posterior to Porphyry, since he had explained the writings of this philosopher to his disciple.

As for ^B Xenocles, he is given to us here as a literary philosopher, who had composed works without number and of every genre, written partly in verses of different meters, partly in prose. Of these works, some, addressing themselves to princes, dealt now with wars and conquests, now with illnesses and deaths; the others were destined for the instruction of private individuals: and this same Xenocles was no less prolific in unprepared discourses than in premeditated compositions. At first glance, I see no literatus mentioned in the *Literary History of the Lower Empire* in the 12th century to whom such a portrait could apply, nor even one who has simply borne the name of Xenocles.

The dialogue, if it is truly by Theodore Prodromus, as the title it bears announces, not only in our manuscript but also, according to the testimony of Father ^C Lazeri, in another manuscript of the Vatican, no. CCXLIII, page 37, must have been one of the first fruits of his application to the study of rhetoric and philosophy. Indeed, on the one hand, the author seems to say himself that he was still very young when he attempted in this way to refute Aristotle: Οὐχ οἷός τε ἐγενόμην ἐγκρατής γενέσθαι τῶν τῆς ψυχῆς κινημάτων· ΝΕΩΝ γὰρ φρένες οὐ μόνον, κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν, καὶ τοῦτο σοφόν, ἠερέθονται, ἀλλὰ καὶ δύσκολοι εἰσι πρὸς τὰ δόξαντα καὶ πρὸς τὰς προλήψεις, ὅτι μάλιστα βιαιόταται. And on the other hand, we see this production dedicated to a person who could hardly appear worthy of praise and homage, except in the first years of the reign of ^D Alexius I, a time when Theodore Prodromus could not have been very advanced in his career. I am speaking here of that Italus, sophist and troublemaker, about whom the skillful historian of the Lower Empire gives almost all the information that original writers can provide. In our manuscript, the Maecenas to whom the author addresses himself is in truth named not [Jean Italus is precisely the same as Jean Hypatus, of whom Gesner cites some Treatises on rhetoric and philosophy in his *Bibliotheca*. This denomination of *Hypatus* was not a surname, but the title of a dignity that Jean Italus obtained after Psellus had left Constantinople. The dignity about which we wish to speak is marked among the number of employments of the court of Constantinople, in the work of the monk Matthew; but Codinus has omitted it. We see it successively worn by Constans Vestarcha...].

^A Italus, as M. Le Beau calls him, but Italicus; the author seeks to establish against Aristotle that these are not relative qualifications, but absolute. "By what other standard," he says, "should one judge all philosophy, and rhetoric, and both of them taken together and separately, and every discourse, both our own and that of outsiders, if not by the ITALIC standard? Just as, for instance, one judges gold by the Lydian touchstone, and the eaglets by the sun." ^B Looking to the daughters of Demosthenes, and to those of Plato, and of Aristeides, I would add also: "and of ITALICUS."

ARTICLE LXXIV.

Written by Theodore Prodromus on the qualifications of GREAT and SMALL, of MUCH and LITTLE.

The author of this polemical writing seeks therein to destroy a portion of what Aristotle establishes in the sixth chapter of his Categories. Aristotle in this chapter states the following: 18. "Nothing is contrary to quantity..." 19. "Unless, perhaps, one were to say that MUCH is contrary to LITTLE, or GREAT to SMALL." 20. "Of these, however, none is a QUANTITY, but rather of those that are RELATIVE. For nothing is called GREAT or SMALL in and of itself, but by reference to something else." ^C For instance, a mountain is called SMALL, and a millet seed LARGE, because the one is greater than objects of the same class, and the other is less than objects of the same class. 22. "Whether one posits that such things are quantities, or whether one does not, there is no contrary to them. For that which cannot be apprehended in and of itself, but is referred to something else—how could it have any contrary?" 25. "Furthermore, if GREAT and SMALL are contraries, it will follow that the same thing at once admits of contraries, and that these are even contraries to themselves..."

Our author combats these different propositions one after the other. ^D Jean Italus, adds Du Cange, flourished under the reign of Michael Ducas and, as Anna Comnena attests, before the reign of Alexius I. This same Jean Italus, he continues, must have been precisely the anonymous philosopher to whom Theophylactus (Epist. 45) addressed a letter, urging him to arm himself with both patience and courage in order to resist the violent enemies who were attacking him.

PREFACE TO THE EPISTLES OF THEODORUS PRODROMUS

(Miscellanea from the manuscript books of the Library of the Roman College of the Society of Jesus, in 8vo, vol. I. Rome 1754.)

The reason why I now consider that the Greek epistles of Theodorus Prodromus should be published for the first time is, primarily, the renown of the man himself among learned men, and secondly, the rarity of these very epistles. For if you except our own manuscript and the Vatican codex 305, it is evident that hardly another exists containing the same number of them. Montfaucon, indeed, in his review of the Vienna Library (1), mentions the epistles of Theodorus Prodromus. But Lambecius, from whom Montfaucon derived that information (2), names but one single epistle of Prodromus to Gregorius. I am not ignorant that Cave (though Fabricius (4) and Oudin (5) hold Cave (3) to be the author) teaches that a few epistles of Theodorus exist among the Baroccian codices in the Bodleian Library, but he does not indicate what they are or their number. I have thought, therefore, that I would be doing a worthwhile service if I were to publish the epistles that were in our possession and not so easily found, and thus rescue the work of this most celebrated man from obscurity. For how much fame and name this Theodorus attained, those who call him "the Greek writer" witness; furthermore, Gretser, Possevinus, and others who enumerate the more famous writers, and especially Leo Allatius. And so, other works of his have already been published by Rivius, Gesner, Morellius, and Gaulminus. The manuscript of our library that contains these epistles is on paper, not of very ancient script, but rather of a more recent one, yet generally accurate, and besides the epistles, it contains certain other of his works which we shall commemorate here, omitting those which have already been published or which Fabricius lists.

Giving of thanks to the Nomophylax, Protecdicus, and Orphanotrophus Lord Alexius Aristenus. The first words are: "Then the tragedians."

Concerning the tongue of the Orphanotrophus and Nomophylax Lord Alexius Aristenus. "On behalf of the Nomophylax."

An introductory oration to the same Orphanotrophus, Protecdicus, and Nomophylax, when he was receiving the dignity of Orphanotrophus for the second time. "Which first?"

To the Caesar, or on behalf of the prasini (green) faction. "Concerning colors."

To those who, on account of poverty, blaspheme Providence. "Timoleon, son of Timodemus."

On the text: "And he himself shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias." On the text: "And he shall precede him in spirit and truth of Elias." "Concerning the beginning of lack of wisdom."

The Ignorant, or the Grammaticus in his own estimation. "If anyone... Marsyas," "Lover of Plato, or Tanner." "O you boy."

Hangman or Physician. "If a man is..."

Auction of the lives of politicians and poets. "The place, on the one hand..."

To the patriarch of Constantinople, Lord Joannes. "How, when?"

Monody on the Porphyrogenitus and sebastocrator Lord Andronicus Comnenus. "Scenes and writings."

Monody on the sebastus and Logothete Lord Gregorius Camaterus. "For whom, O those present."

Monody on the saintly God-given Lord Constantinus. "If the good ones..."

Epithalamium for the sons of the most fortunate Caesar. "He needed both hair..."

The works reviewed thus far, even if all others were lacking, show the time in which our Theodorus lived; especially that Monody in which he pays his respects to the Porphyrogennetos and sebastokrator Andronicus Comnenus. For this Andronicus Comnenus was the son of Alexius Comnenus and Irene Ducaina, and died in the war against the Barbarians, as Prodromus later indicates in the same place, shortly before the demise of his father, that is, in 1118, as Du Cange correctly taught (6). In the Vatican codex CCCV (7) there exist his heroic verses ^A *to the Empress Lady Irene Ducaina, on the death of the sebastokrator, her son*. The same is concluded from what he writes to the Patriarch of Constantinople, the lord Joannes. We must entirely conclude that this is Joannes IX, who reached the Constantinopolitan see in 1111 and held it until 1154, as Gulielmus Cuperus (8) and Bandurius (9) note. There are other things which are ascribed to the same Prodromus in the Vatican manuscripts, in which many of his poems are contained; cod. CCCV. *Entry-speech on the occasion of the wedding to the Porphyrogennetos Lord Manuel and sebastokrator of the bride from the race of the Alamani.* Especially, indeed, concerning the wars waged by Joannes Comnenus against the Persians and the storming and defeat of Castamon; as in the *ten-line political verses for the people on the victory procession of Lord Joannes Comnenus after the defeat of Castamon* (10). Regarding these, Cinnamus (11) and Nicetas (12). There are also found verses on the emperor's own tomb (13), *On the tomb of the Emperor Joannes Comnenus*. That that bride from the race of the Alamani was the one whom the Latins called Bertha, while the Greeks, as was their custom, changed the name and called her Irene, is entirely clear. Thus, by Cinnamus (14) she is said to have been united to him from the Alamani. Robert of Monte (15) makes her the daughter of Frederick, Duke of Swabia, but William of Tyre, the Gests of Louis VI (16), Godfrey of Viterbo (17), and Berengar, Count of Sulzbach in Bavaria, do the same. Her entrance into Constantinople and the nuptials occurred, according to the same Cinnamus (18), with Manuel as emperor around the year 1143. Wherefore our Prodromus flourished from the year 1118 up to this year. ^B This age, confirmed by his writings, seems to be rendered doubtful by the fact that under his name there is read in the same Vatican codex CCCV (19): *To the most wise Porphyrogennetos Caesarissa Lady Anna Ducaina regarding her own affairs.* For, indeed, at the time that we assigned to Prodromus, there lived an Anna Ducaina, married to Georgius Palaeologus, son of Nicephorus, appearing in the Alexiad of Anna Comnena (20) (and thus I think Du Cange’s memory slipped (21) when he names Irene Ducaina as the wife of Georgius Palaeologus), but since she is Porphyrogennetos, she cannot be called the daughter of Andronicus Ducas, nor a Caesarissa. Anna Ducaina, daughter of Constantinus, is too ancient to be able to be transferred here. Furthermore, what of that title "most wise"? I judge that for "Ducaina" one should read "Comnena"; and that this is the Anna who was noble in her writings and her history, unless you prefer that she be called Ducaina because her father had betrothed her while she was still a girl to Constantinus Ducas, son of the Emperor Michael Ducas.

There is another principal work of Prodromus in the Vatican, Barberini, Royal Library, Escorial, etc. *Exposition on the canons composed by the holy and wise poets Cosmas and Joannes Damascene, which they set forth for the lordly sacred feasts.* This work is thought to be praised by Eustathius of Thessalonica (22), as well as by Nicephorus Blemmida (23); from whom the latter calls Theodorus "the interpreter ... of the sacred canons, the first clarifier," who first interpreted the sacred canons. These sacred ^C canons are the hymns customarily sung in the sacred services of the Greeks, which consist of nine odes; and Petrus Possinus erred gravely when he said that Theodorus explained the Damascene's Octateuch. He meant, I think, the Octoechos, an ecclesiastical book of the Greeks which contains the troparia and canons customarily sung from the first Vespers of Sunday to the end of mass, and it finishes at eight Sundays, according to the number of the tones. But Theodorus Prodromus did not interpret this book either—which contains the works of others, [such as those] of Metrophanes of Smyrna, Anatolius of Constantinople, and Theodorus Studites—but Joannes Zonaras did. He could impose even more gravely upon the incautious by what we said from Blemmida; that Theodorus Prodromus was the first interpreter of the sacred canons. For Theodorus Prodromus is said to be the first interpreter of the canons of the councils and of ecclesiastical law, whom many of the Greeks praise. But it is necessary that this man was someone else than ours, if it is true as Nicolaus Comnenus Papadopoli (24) affirms, that the first to attempt the interpretation of the canons did so nine hundred years ago. Hence, Fabricius (25) distinguishes this other writer from our Theodorus Prodromus by name, following the aforementioned Papadopoli. And that more ancient man wrote, moreover, concerning the sacred synaxes of the Church, whom the same Comnenus (26) named.

But should a certain third person be introduced under the surname of Prodromus or Ptochoprodromus, namely, Theodore? There are held in Vatican codex DLXXIX (27) *Theodore the Ptochoprodromus’s verses to the emperor Lord Manuel the Porphyrogenitus*. But the poems of this Theodore Ptochoprodromus are political, addressed to Manuel Comnenus regarding the morals of the monks of his time. Du Cange, in the index he appended to his *Glossary of Media and Infima Latinitas*, considered this man the same as our Prodromus, and Oudinus followed him; likewise Petrus Possinus, who assigns that *Exposition of the Canons or Hymns* to the poor Prodromus, that is, the Ptochoprodromus. On the other hand, others distinguish them, like Cave, who even assigns different years to each. But whether there was one or several, they lived in the same times.

As for what is to be concluded regarding the author of the book of Prodromus, which in the index to the Royal Library of the Escorial is proposed as follows: *Theodori Prodromi explicatio grammatica Moschopuli*, Theodore Prodromus’s grammatical explanation of Moschopulus? Here, almost a third or fourth Theodore Prodromus is born, unless there is another Moschopulus, more ancient than the Manuel Moschopulus. But the learned know how little faith is to be put in the titles of such books or their indexes. Something similar—to pass over infinite examples—happened with Theodore the Reader, whose *Excerpts from the mouth of Nicephorus* exist. Miræus translated this title as if Theodore had excerpted them from the mouth of Nicephorus; and thus he made Theodore more recent than Nicephorus Callisti and pushed him back to the 14th century, and from there this error crept into the general index of the Library edited at Lyons in 1677, and volume XXVI. And for this reason, Sagittarius (28) judged these collections to be forged.

Furthermore, from those works which are ascribed to our Prodromus, it is evident that he was thoroughly learned in the faculty of rhetoric and the mysteries of dialectics. Grammatical skill is indeed shown by the work we described a moment ago, the *Grammatical Questions to the Empress*, which are held in Vatican codex XVI (29), and in other libraries, as Montfaucon is witness (30). Jean Meursius (31) praises Theodore’s *Lexicon* and the book *On Accents* (32), which perhaps are the same, for there exists Vatican codex 883 (33), *Lexicon concerning breathing-marks*. Concerning dialectics, the books are witness: (34) *Paraphrasis in posteriora Analytica Aristotelis*; likewise (35), *The same man’s and Leo Margentinus’s explanation of the later Analytics of Aristotle*. Finally (36), *That the great and the small, and the much and the little, do not belong to relation, but to quantity*. His eloquence is demonstrated by the opuscula which he wrote, especially in prose; for those who read them admit that he wrote poems, especially heroic ones, mostly against his will, with the rules of syllables even neglected. Only a fool would deny that he wrote the *Exposition of the Psalms* which is held in the Royal Escorial Library. There is also held what he wrote, *On the procession of the Holy Spirit against the Latins*; where, from the very first words, he undertook to defend the error of the Greek schismatics: "It is manifest that just as the Son, so also the Holy Spirit has existence from the Father alone."

But who else and of what quality Prodromus was, or what kind of life he followed, is difficult to unearth from his or others’ writings: yet one can gather from these very letters that we are publishing that he lived in Constantinople; and also that he was attached to the Orphanotropheion. For his letters and the opuscula inscribed to the orphanotrophos, who at that time was indeed Alexius Aristenus, a man noble among his own people, whose collection of canons exists in Justell’s *Bibliotheca Juris Græco-Romani* (37) and in Beveridge’s *Pandects* (38), seem to indicate this. Indeed, he begins the *Eisiterion*, or inaugural oration spoken to the same Aristenus, which we mentioned above, in such a way that Prodromus openly signifies that he pertained to the orphanotropheion and its care: "Which shall I sing to you first, most divine master, the entrance-song and anthem, or my own—not an exit-song, for it is not time for me or this house to be saved?" Truly, as Anna Comnena describes the Orphanotropheion of the Orphanotrophos (39), there was a literary school in it, in which youths were instructed in all disciplines and all parts of learning; and the teachers were fed along with the disciples, as Zonaras (40) also signifies. Indeed, do we not make our Theodore one of these teachers? He himself seems to indicate that he directed the school while writing to the Lizicus (41), where he extols that *bema* of his, which we prefer to interpret as the teacher’s chair. For it is known that, besides its most common meaning of a higher and holier part in a church, it signifies other things. Budé interpreted it in the writings of the older Greeks as a place for speaking in an assembly and a place for speaking in a trial, but it is transferred to any other higher place; and thus we know the Manichæans called *bema* the feast day on which Manes was killed; which, placed on a high seat, to which through

five grades one ascended, was celebrated. Otherwise, with our author, this name signifies both royal and ecclesiastical power. And thus, in that inaugural oration, "For," he says, "of the entire authority divided among us and distributed to two *bemata*, I mean the priestly and the royal—" and in the oration to Alexios Aristenos, he attributes to the same nomophylax and orphanotrophos ^A *the senatorial and at once priestly bema*.

Many wish for our Theodore to have been a monk. And indeed, if we make him one and the same as that Plochoprodromos of whom we have spoken, we cannot conclude anything else. For in those verses which we indicated above, he narrates this openly about himself, where he said about the elegance of the writing of others: "But I do not write in this way; for I am unlettered, and a young man in rags, and a monk of the lowest sort, possessing nothing." These things seem to correspond well with what he writes to Lizices, ^B "our *aloutoumen*, etc.," and in epistle 1 concerning his solitude. For as the writer of these times, Nicetas, says, "it was necessary for those who renounce the world to settle their dwelling in impenetrable places and in entirely deserted regions." But if he lived afterwards in an orphanotropheion, Zonaras and Anna narrate in the cited places that there were ^C *lodgings for both monks and nuns* there. But on the contrary, what reason would there be for a monk to complain so greatly about his hair, because it had fallen from his head, as he himself does in epistle 10, or why an ointment would be appropriate for a monk, as epistle 13 has it? Concerning the tonsure of monks in these times, Cedrenus is a witness, who writes about Michael Kalaphates, having been cast from the empire by Zoe, ^D *in the monastery which is situated on Prince's Island, having laid aside his worldly hair, he spent the remaining time of his life.* In the monastery of the island of Protes, laying aside his worldly hair, he spent the rest of his life.

However, since we see today that Greek monks also use hair that is somewhat longer, and that among the Latins, to not do the ecclesiastical tonsure, so that the hair is to be cut off entirely: I truly cannot resolve the matter for myself; although, to tell the truth, my mind inclines to that side which posits that our Prodromos, who even calls himself Hilarion under a monastic name, was distinct from Plochoprodromos.

Fabricius brings forward the verses in which, writing to Bareas or Baryas, he tells that he was born of upright parents and instructed in the best disciplines, and speaks of his uncle, a bishop. It is strange that Koenigs himself makes our Prodromos bishop of Cotyaeum in Phrygia; and writes that the same flourished in the 14th century; Fabricius, by whose authority or witness he said this, confesses he does not know. I think, however, he was led into error by the name of *Kyros* which some attributed to him, because they read *kyrou Theodorou tou Prodromou* (of the master Theodore the Prodromos); but there are those who wish that famous Kyros, who was once prefect of Constantinople under Theodosius the Younger, and later bishop of the Smyrnaeans, to have been bishop of Cotyaeum, as Baronius hands down. But it is superfluous to admonish that the Greeks of the later age said *kyrou* for *kyriou*, and so it is a title of honor, not a name in our Theodore, as many have already noted: Barthius, Gaulminus, Fabricius, etc.

Moreover, the age of Theodore, besides what we said above, is confirmed from these letters of ours; that is to say, from the last one which is written to Gregory, *that our most holy master came to the island from the patriarchate, having taken ill and having resigned*—when our most holy master comes to the island from the patriarchate after his sickness and abdication. No one will not recognize here Michael II, called Oxites, who, when he had succeeded Leo Styppiotes in the year 1145, after two years and eight months, which Philippus Cyprius and all other catalogues of patriarchs attribute to his see, abdicated the patriarchate, as Nicetas and Cinnamus write. And hence it is confirmed what had been established by us from other monuments, that Prodromos flourished up to the year 1145; we can even add the year 1146. These things are perhaps longer than necessary concerning our writer, about whom almost everything, as you see, is very obscure; and yet we desire that nothing should not be clarified. As for the epistles, they are 14 in number, for the most part official, which either praise epistles received from others or seek them not without some complaint of their intermission. However, the man’s eloquence stands out as clearly singular, which on the same topic, even though it be a common one, has nonetheless always something that delights. Especially to those morose men who will disdain that sort of redundant and, as it were, lush oratory, it must be remembered that those who were considered the most learned and eloquent among the Greeks at this time were not accustomed to write otherwise, indeed even the historians themselves, as is evident from Nicetas, Anna Comnena, and others.

It remains for me to speak about my interpretation. And first, why did I prefer to turn these letters of Prodromos into Italian? But I do not think those who have at some time taken up this most troublesome and most thorny task of interpreting will seek the reason for this from me. For they know well enough how much more conveniently Italian corresponds to Greek than Latin. Why, therefore, should I not take this lesser trouble for myself? Or show less to the readers, whom I expected would come to me for the most part not unskilled in the Italian language? Later, however, when there were those who demanded a Latin interpretation, I gave the whole task to a friend, who, when he had seen mine, nevertheless adorned his own from the Greek. And so, if this differs anywhere from mine, I do not refuse for the reader to stick to his rather than mine. I perhaps dealt a little more freely in expressing the Greek. For I did not want one reading the Italian to find not so much Italian words and our speech as Greek or "barbarous." But as in other things, so here much more, everyone’s own reason and counsel is pleasing. In order to give the Greek more correctly, I fled to the Vatican codex CCCV, which I described above: the Othobonian codex of the same Vatican library also brought some help in some things which it contained. In presenting or amending variant readings, I first indicated them by the letter C or with *Cod. Vat.* precisely; [index: entries preserved]

I have called the other, that is, the Ottobonian. I warn you, however, that some things still seem corrupt in the Greek text, which could not be restored in any way from our manuscripts, and which I myself have interpreted by conjecture; in other places, even where they are intact, I believe I have sometimes not fully grasped my author. But certainly, anyone who knows the books of the later Greeks—often sprinkled with new words and filled with examples, witticisms, "allusions" as they call them, and other things of this sort—will not be unaware of how obscure they are; or they will indeed believe me when I affirm that I wrote these things in haste, distracted by other matters, namely, the duties of my office, as it were *en parodō* [in passing].

CARDINAL ANGELO MAI NOTICE PREFIXED TO THE POEMS OF THEODORUS EDITED BY HIM (Biblioth. nov. PP. vol. VI)

Allatius has written accurately concerning Theodorus Prodromus and his very many writings, both edited and inedited, in his diatribe, no. CXVI. Since, however, many of his lucubrations are contained in Vatican manuscript 305, and that manuscript had been moved to Paris in years past, an opportunity was offered to the most learned French scholars to discuss it more fully in the volumes of *Excerpta* from the royal library manuscripts. Furthermore, I see a poem of Prodromus on the Holy Trinity edited by the distinguished Boissonade in *Anecdota Graeca*, vol. IV, p. 440. Likewise, in the *Anecdota Parisiensia*, vol. IV, p. 267 by the distinguished Cramer, there is an epitaphic poem beginning *entautha moi stach*, etc., which, although anonymous there, our manuscripts show to be by Prodromus. And the Vatican manuscript 305 has indeed returned to Rome after its long journey; but we have examined not only this one but also other manuscripts of Prodromus in the pontifical library, especially the Ottobonian 324, an index of whose nine poems we have long since set forth in *Spic. Rom.* vol. V, p. 396; these poems we have now decided should be given to the press, with the addition of several others which we have taken from the aforementioned recovered Vatican manuscript, and which are not to be esteemed of less value. And indeed Allatius in his diatribe, p. 183, commends the iambic and political poems of Prodromus for their wit and elegance; not so the heroic ones, which we have also left untouched in manuscript 305, namely, among others, f. 91 to Irene Ducaina, f. 93 to Anna Ducaina, and ff. 92, 101, 123 to the Emperor John. Finally, as for the epithalamium to Nicephorus Phorbenus, although it is not at all heroic, and also other minor pieces, we have not been very reluctant to omit them, as well as the monodies written in prose.

Now, what urged us to publish these selected poems was not so much the poetic faculty of Prodromus, though not to be despised from other points of view, as the extraordinary utility and enrichment they provide for history. For the deeds and virtues of the illustrious Comnenian emperors, Alexius and especially John, and whatever concerns their lives and the vicissitudes of the empire, are drawn forth from a rich vein and written with a clear and not unpleasant eloquence; and therefore Prodromus will not seem to be ranked undeservedly among the Byzantine historians, the new edition of whom is being pushed forward in Germany. And indeed I would have wished, just as I edited the poet and chronicler Ephraem in Greek along with a Latin version, so also to clothe Prodromus in a Latin garb, but partly more pressing occupations, and partly the already excessive bulk of the volume, deterred me. Otherwise, Prodromus will be sufficiently plain to those who read Greek, and for those who do not know it, an interpreter will not be wanting eventually. And this was the reason why I have refrained from writing exegetical scholia, the place of which other Byzantine historians will serve. And indeed our Ephraem, now brought into the series of Byzantines, imparts a great deal of light to Prodromus in the history of both emperors.

THE TETRASTICHS ON THE OLD TESTAMENT OF LORD THEODORE PRODROMUS, AS ANCIENT SO PIOUS, IN WHICH ALL THE CHAPTERS OF BOTH TESTAMENTS ARE MOST HAPPILY COMPREHENDED.

GENESIS. On the work of God completed in six days. You spend only six days on the creation of the world, O Word, not as if you could not create the world in the blink of an eye; but so that I, adding the seventh to these six, might learn of the final Sabbatism.

On the same. On the first day, earth and the vault of heaven, and diffused light; on the second, the firmament; on the third, the sea and all plants; on the fourth, the stars; on the fifth, the birds and swimming creatures; on the sixth, the races of land animals, and after these man was built.

On the creation of the world. O strange architect of heaven and earth, O Word, ^A you first lay foundations, then you fix the fragile things, and you create the earth second to the firmament, and these are works of your all-wise ministry.

On the same. If you had let the divine oracle of Moses enter your ears, O Aristotle, perhaps you would have understood the heaven to be clearly a creation of the great God, and by the persuasion of a wandering mind you would not have called it unbegotten, but begotten.

On the creation of the firmament. You saw God yesterday, O guest, as the creator of heaven; behold the same creator of heaven again. ^B The one of yesterday was without stars, the first formation; the second is illuminated by the stars.

^A

On the same.

On the [verse] "Let the earth bring forth vegetation and fruit-bearing trees."

On the same.

On the creation of the stars.

On the same.

On the production of swimming and flying animals.

On the same.

On the formation of Adam.

On the same.

On the formation of Eve.

On the same.

^A Indeed, this is so. You have another brother to see instead of Abel. Or does the whole world not contain the two?

On the same

On the translation of Enoch

On the same

On the flood in the time of Noah

On the same

On the deception of the serpent

On the same

On the exile and the birth of Cain

On the same

On the slaughter of Abel

On the drunkenness of Noah and the shamelessness of Ham

On the same

On the building of the tower

On the same

On Abraham departing from his land

On the same

On Abraham’s arrival in Egypt due to famine

On the same

On the battle of the shepherds of Abraham and Lot, and their separation

On the same

TETRASTICHS ON THE OLD TESTAMENT

^AOn the victory which Abraham won over Chedorlaomer, when also, returning, he is blessed by Melchizedek. Salem’s king, the priest of God, gives blessing, And prefigures the sacrifice of our own rite, Bringing bread and wine to the patriarch.

On the same. With only three hundred and eighteen servants, Abram destroyed the host of foreign kings, And rescued Lot from the capture of enemy spears, And carried off all the spoils back to the Sodomites.

On Abraham entertaining the three men. O oak most excellent, oak most blessed of oaks, How high you are exalted, even above cedars and Libanus! For God dwells in you, and who could be set against you? Yet, Abraham, it is not the oak that holds the grace.

On the same. These are the rewards for you, Abraham, for your goodness of mind: Heaven, the oak, became, and the Trinity came upon it, And ate; and therein are the mysteries of the hidden dispensation, And He gave, from a barren womb, the fruit of the womb, Isaac.

On the Sodomites seeking the angels who had entered in to Lot for intercourse. O shameful nation, O nation of boy-abusers, Do you now rave even against the very angels? Take heart, for before you can do violence to the angels, You shall be destroyed by fire, and perish miserably in your wickedness.

On the same. O stubborn men, what evil things are you devising in your minds? Calling these men to the bed of women? I have within two daughters unmarried to men; These you may take, and put away your base lecheries.

On the burning of Sodom. Flee, Lot, flee from the land of Sodom, Lest you be consumed with the wicked and perish with them; Ascend to the mountain of Segor, and be saved alone, And do not look behind you, lest you turn into a stone.

On the same. A sooty rain of fire-like substances from the clouds ^B Rained down from the ether, and burned the senseless [Gomorrah], Yet from the land of Sodom, Lot alone escaped; For he alone was righteous in an unrighteous city.

On Lot having drunk too much wine, and having had intercourse with his daughters. How would he not have abused the daughters of others, If he corrupted his own daughters? You speak rightly, yet you are ignorant of the cause; For it is the wine, not Lot, that is the source of the drunkenness.

On the same. Who ever saw the same man be, at once, grandfather and father, The daughter’s wife, brother, and son? Come now, Lot, let he who has seen you joined to your daughters, As the author of evils, as wine, parent of drunkenness, ^C depart from me.

^D [alt-version omitted]

On the trial of Abraham, when he was commanded by God to sacrifice his son.

^A Held between two loves, Abraham, the one indeed implanted by nature, the other transcending all nature, has preferred over the natural that which transcends nature: you see the son, the sword, the wood.

On the same.

Turn back this sword, old man Abraham, for it is not fitting to appease God the King with a child-slaying hand. Behold, this lamb is near, caught in the thicket of Sabek. Take this and sacrifice it, but refrain from killing your dearest son.

On the betrothal of Rebecca, who was betrothed to Isaac by the servant of Abraham.

Give me to drink, mistress, to a thirsty stranger; And for your camels I shall pour out an urn. Rejoice! I will lead you as a bride to my master; accept these things as a dowry.

On the same.

Stranger, who is this man walking toward us? His eye is sharp, and he is looking straight at the camels. Is this he, mistress, your husband? Is this he? I am going, and veiled in modesty, I blush to see him.

On the error of Isaac, in which he was deceived regarding the blessing of his sons.

How unlucky is the catch of the hunt, how lucky the hunt which is opportunely feigned, through which Jacob, forestalling Isaac,

On the same.

Beguiled by the dimness of his eyes ^B in his own old age, Isaac gave his blessing to the son born later; the firstborn missed it, and a heavy anger came upon him; for so God and the prudent Rebecca had accomplished these things.

On the ladder which Jacob saw.

What sort of ladder are you, and who set you? Who ascends you, and who descends you? By how many rungs, and how far do you reach? Ask these things of the Mosaic book.

On the same.

The divine Jacob once beheld an ethereal ladder, on the summit of which sat God, and ethereal minds ^C traversed it—some went upward, and others went downward—verily these are the signs of the future Incarnation.

On the labor which Jacob performed for Laban for the sake of his two daughters.

Shepherd brother, is this flock yours? It belongs to another. To whom? To Laban. Do you tend it for wages? Yes. For what? For two maidens. I envy you, shepherd, for this wage.

On the same.

In the icy winter, and in the heat of summer—the one freezing, Jacob, and in the other sweltering in the grazing of flocks ^D — hasten with your double toils; you have a two-fold and notable reward for your work, Leah and Rachel, the daughters of Laban, excellent in beauty.

TETRASTICHS ON THE OLD TESTAMENT

^AOn Sichem, who had intercourse with Dinah, the daughter of Jacob, and was slaughtered by her brothers: Sichem the foreigner violated Dinah, And was slain by the brothers of her who was violated; He wrought one ruin, and endured another; He wrought violation by mixing, and perished being slaughtered.

On the same: Sichem of Cammorus mounted the marriage-bed of Dinah, And did not perceive that another evil was coming upon him, Nor that her brothers would slay him, Having had their spirit increased by the shame of the maiden; yet he felt the sting of marriage.

On the dream of Joseph: “Why do you act thus, Joseph? You tell your dreams, Not fearing the envy of your brothers, Lest perhaps they, mad with rage, may deal ill with you.” “I trust in God, and I speak confidently.”

On the same: In night-visions, divine Joseph foresaw What things were to receive fulfillment in future days; There were eleven sheaves, bowing to the sheaf of Joseph, So that you might see those eleven brothers bowing to him.

On the sale of Joseph: O pitiless brotherhood, savage nature! You cast Joseph into the mouth of the pit; Be it so, if kinship did not soften you, Did not at least his beauty soften you?

On the same: By his own brothers Joseph was cast into a pit, From which he was led out again, and having been seized, they sold him to the Agarites to be led away into Egypt, Leaving his father behind, whom an intolerable grief for the boy invaded.

^BOn Judah, who forced his daughter-in-law Thamar, from whom he begat Phares and Zara: “What are you doing, Judah? You touch the bed of your own kin? And the daughter-in-law Thamar becomes your wife, You, who did not provide for her the third son you promised; The feigned appearance of a harlot deceived me.”

On the same: Thamar painted her skin with garments worn around her, And sat at the crossroads, and Judah approaching directly— As he saw, as he was maddened, he lay upon a shared bed; She, having conceived, rose from there, having given birth to twins.

On the love of the Egyptian woman, by which she was infatuated with Joseph: “For you are mad, not in love, O Egyptian woman; For you would not have dared to imprison the one you love. Or do you expect to draw him from there? You will not draw him, know this, even if you do worse things.”

On the same: The mistress forced the chaste youth, and along with him To enter into the bed in love. But he would not. She, having grasped His tunic, was dragging him, and love was scorching her limbs— At last, she forced him, and he, having cast off his tunic, leaped away.

On the distribution of grain by Joseph: O how I declare the interpretation of dreams to be happy, Since from the poor and the imprisoned

^A they might make the judges free, And lords of the whole land of the Egyptians. On the same. The dispenser of grain in Egypt was Joseph the prisoner; And those who had delivered him as a slave, the brothers, now honor him as servants, and he, in his mind, concocts harsh plans against them, being vehemently inflamed with longing for his own brother, Benjamin. On Joseph weeping at the recognition of his brothers. Do you shed a guest-loving tear, O Joseph? No, but I shed a brother-loving tear. Are those present not strangers, then, Joseph? No, but brothers: therefore you weep sincerely. On the same. ^B Kinsmen sold kin to foreigners, Kinsmen sold kin, and cared nothing for their own lineage. Yet a foreign and strange land saved the strange man, And yet he melts into tender tears for the traitors. On Jacob coming into Egypt and lamenting at the recognition of Joseph. Yesterday you wept, O Jacob, for your son, thinking he had died; it was right to weep. Now he lives; why do you still weep, when you ought to laugh? I weep now the tear of joy. On the same. Come, dear head, falling upon your father’s neck, and grant me these things, placing your head upon my neck. Come, father, to the house, and lie down; it is no longer fitting for you to shed tears, since I am among the living. On Jacob blessing the two sons of Joseph by the crossing of his hands toward them. Thus, Jacob, do you bless the grandchildren, showing Ephraim to be better than Manasseh? As you were blessed, Isaac, by your father, having supplanted your first-born brother, Esau. On the same. Ephraim and Manasseh were the two children of Joseph, Ephraim the last, but Manasseh the first-born; and then upon them the grandfather’s hands lay on the brothers’ heads; but to Ephraim was the right hand given; for he was the type of the faithful. ^C On the death of Jacob, and the removal of his body to Canaan. You die, Jacob, in the imagery of the Egyptians, But Canaan again has received you. For Joseph, fulfilling your command, buries you with your fathers. On the same. Who is this lamentation that breaks forth into the air from above? Excellent sons stand around and weep for this corpse. Who is the corpse? Jacob. Where and from where does he set out to journey? Leaving Egypt, he reaches the Canaanite land.

EXODUS

^A much more desires to destroy it.

On the same

On Pharaoh’s edict, which orders the midwives, when the Hebrews are first born, to kill the males, but keep the females alive

On the same

On the birth of Moses, and how, when he had been cast into the river in a basket, Pharaoh’s daughter saw him and adopted him

On Moses, by whom the Egyptian was killed and hidden in the sand

On the same

On the bush seen at Sinai

On the same

On Moses being sent to Pharaoh, and shrinking from going because of his slow speech.

On the same.

On the transformation of the rod of Moses into a snake, which also swallowed the rods of the soothsayers, and them themselves as they were becoming snakes.

On the same.

On the conversion of the water of the Nile into blood.

On the same.

On the eruption of frogs from the water.

On the same.

On the production of lice from the earth.

On the same.

On the production of the dog-flies

On the same

On the death of every firstborn beast

On the same

On the blister, and the ulcers

On the same

On the hail, and the fire, and the noises sent down from heaven

On the same

On the locust

On the same

On the palpable darkness

On the same.

On the death of the firstborn.

On the same.

On the division of the Red Sea.

On the same.

On the sweetening of the water at Marah by means of the wood.

On the same.

On the manna, and the quail.

On the same.

On the fall of Amalek due to the stretching forth of the hands of Moses.

On the same.

^A For this is the figure of the tabernacle being understood, in which shall remain [the Word] clothed in the thickness of mortality.

On the descent of God at Sinai, and his converse with Moses.

On the same.

On Moses, who, having delayed in the mountain while the people practiced idolatry, returned and in his anger shattered the tablets.

On the same.

On the Tabernacle of the Law.

On the same.

On the glory of Moses’ face, and how no one could look at him unless he put on a veil.

On the same.

LEVITICUS. On the consecration of Aaron.

On the same.

^A along with the oracle, the manifestation, and the truth, and the plate after the turban. And for the last, he anoints him with oil as high priest.

On Nadab and Abuid, the sons of Aaron, who were reduced to ashes by flames sent from God while burning incense with strange fire. You who see, O stranger, those burning with strange fire—a by-product of divine fire—tell me, you who do not cast the fire of love entire into the censer while performing your vows to God, how is it you do not tremble?

On the same. Nadab and Abuid were two sons of Aaron, priests of a priest; they burned incense around with strange fire. But flames of God, descending from heaven to earth, burned both alike; and Aaron’s heart was terrified.

On the stoning of the one who cursed the Israelite. The son of an Israelite woman by an Egyptian man scattered curses upon an Israelite. The leader of the people judges this man, half-Israelite, to be stoned.

On the same. Petrous stones fall from all around onto the head of this man, for he, ^B miserable among men, cursed the offspring of Eber; miserable, for he did not understand the evil that would come upon him from that, nor that he was drawing down upon himself a stony, bitter fate.

NUMBERS.

On the same. Come, woman, stand before me; yet with your own hands remove all the soft bindings of your head, and then drink this expiatory water, so that I may be taught whether you are pure or a participant in illegitimate union.

On the slander of Maria against Moses, and how she was covered in leprosy. Do you, Maria, wickedly speak against the great leader of the people, Moses, your own brother? Do you not fear that God, hearing these things, might avenge you even though Moses is silent?

On the same. O envy, ^C inescapable evil, an immense weight upon the earth, a most troublesome kind of disease, which, invading even one’s own kin, stirs up foul leprosy upon the skin—never approach me, terrified as I am by the example of Maria.

On those who were sent to scout the land of Canaan, and who, upon returning, said that the Canaanites were giants. "Men, have you scouted the land of Canaan?" "Yes, Lord Moses." "Then tell me everything. ^D How fertile is the land?" "This cluster of grapes reveals it. But the men to us are as giants, like beetles. On..."

On the same.

On Dathan, and Korah, and Abiram, whom the earth swallowed up on account of their blasphemy against Moses.

On the same.

On the rod of Aaron that blossomed.

On the same.

On the death of Aaron, and the inauguration of his son Eleazar in his stead.

On the same.

On the bronze serpent, which healed the Israelites bitten by snakes.

On the same.

On the fall of the kings Og and Sihon.

On the same [subject]. Sehon of the Amorites, and Og king of Basan, another, Both ruling over countless cities, The people of the Jews alone bravely overthrew, Having mastered the insolent and arrogant princes.

On the ass of Balaam, and how,

TETRASTICHS ON THE OLD TESTAMENT

On the same. This song, a song of consternation, threatens us with the darts of God, drunken with blood, and the greedy lips of the sword that devours flesh; terror strikes me even as I hear it. May I never experience the danger of your arrows, most powerful King. ^A

On Moses, who then, when he was at the point of death, bestowed a blessing upon the twelve tribes of Israel. Moses, now breathing his last, blesses the blessed Israel, not binding them all in a single prayer, but assigning a measure to the tribes with his blessings.

On the same. Upon the mountain, Moses beheld the great King, God, amidst the great [mountain], and having heard, he clearly explained [it] to the people. Upon the mountain he also saw death, and first he gave twelve prayers to the twelve Hebrew tribes.

JOSHUA.

On Raab the harlot, who, having saved the spies of Jericho, was later, when she was captured, the only one among the townspeople to be saved. Raab, having saved two Israelites, redeemed in exchange her whole family’s salvation. Imitate, oh harlots, the heart of Raab, so that you may obtain the salvation of your souls.

On the same. Men, flee, flee, bound with a rope, and escape through the window; and deliver me from the misery, when my city shall be taken by the sharp spear. ^B

We shall accomplish all these things, as it is fitting.

On the crossing of the ark, and the division of the Jordan. If the ark of the covenant, prefigured of old, can divide the streams of the Jordan in two, why should the mystical ark, the Virgin Mary, not be able to divide the ocean of my sins?

On the same. Why do you stand still, O Jordan, flowing with silver eddies, and become a path for men, and are divided in two? As if someone had cut a newborn lamb with a sharp sword; who disturbed you? I stand in awe of the ark of God. ^C

On the circumcision of the Hebrews by Joshua. You have passed beyond impiety as if it were the Jordan; from now on, burn away your foreskin, just as Joshua did with the stone knife, that is to say, clearly, [burning away] the passions of the flesh in passionlessness.

On the same. Abraham first circumcised his own sons with an iron knife, but Joshua later circumcised them with a stone knife, which was a type of Christ, who knows how to circumcise mortals with the sword of passionlessness.

On Joshua, because of the fear he felt at the vision of the angel, falling on his face to the ground. You who are a legate of the God-seeing Moses, do you see an archangel, and do you fall down trembling? What then has happened to you, who tremble before archangels, if you have indeed beheld the vision of God himself? ^D

On the same.

On the conquest of Jericho.

On the same.

On the stoning of Achan, who stole a golden tongue from ^A the spoils of Jericho.

On the same.

On the burning of the city of Ai, and the hanging of its king.

On the same.

On the standing still of the sun through the rebuke of Joshua in Gibeon.

On the same.

On the slaughter of the Jebusites, whom Joshua slew below with swords, and God above with hailstones.

On the Same.

On the death of Joshua.

On the Same.

JUDGES.

On Judah, who began to rule the Hebrews after Joshua.

On the Same.

^D

On Adonibezek the Canaanite, who used to maim the hands and feet of all he overcame, and who himself suffered the same.

On the Same.

On the idolatry of the Hebrews, and the invasion of Chushan-rishathaim the Syrian, whom Othniel the Israelite defeated in battle.

On the Same.

On Ehud, who by guile killed Eglon the Moabite.

Having stripped him bare by a guileful word.

On Deborah, who defeated Jabin the Canaanite

On the same

On Jael, who nailed Sisera

On the same

On the fleece of Gideon

On the same

On Gideon defeating Midian with only three hundred

On the same

On Abimelech, who killed his own brothers, then being killed by a millstone cast down by a woman's hand

On Jephthah, who sacrificed his own child to God because of his vow.

Blessed art thou in thy slaughter, Jephthah; ^A For thy daughter, thine only one, the virgin, Thou heedest not, sacrificing her to God, Fulfilling the vows made to Him.

On the same.

O foolish virgin, thou dancest in early joy, and with thy hands Thou strikest thy timbrel, and, unhappy one, thou rejoicest for thy father, Because he returns as a conqueror from the war; But he, though unwilling, shall yet cut thy throat.

On the birth of Samson by the promise of G-d.

Manoah begets, a wonder, in the midst of old age, And this Samson is another great wonder. And a third wonder, from a barren womb, The seed having been promised by an angel.

On the same.

Whatever I shall tell you, store it in your heart, woman. You shall bear a strong son, and a great scourge to the foreigners; But no razor shall come upon his head, He shall not drink wine; he shall be a Nazarite of God.

On Samson rending the lion.

Do you not see the youth Samson, stranger, How, having seized the lion, he rends it? I see. If, therefore, he has done such things as a youth, What manner of man will he be when he is numbered among the men? ^B

On the same.

A young lion of the mountain suddenly rushed from the leafy thicket, Lashing his flank with his tail, devising mournful deeds. When Samson perceived him springing near, He took him with robust hands and killed him, rending him in two.

On Samson’s riddle, which is: What is food from the eater, and from the bitter has come forth the sweet?

What edible thing from the eater, O Samson, do you speak of? And from the strong, what sweet thing has come forth? Do you indicate, in a riddling way by your word, The lion, and the honey of the hive?

On the same.

Samson once broke the ferocity of the mountain lion, And bees swarmed about the prostrate carcass, From which with his own hands Samson partook of the honey, And set forth a fearful riddle for the foreigners to see.

On Samson slaying the foreigners with the jawbone of an ass, which he also squeezed and drank from.

The hand of one man, one jawbone of an ass, Have killed whole thousands of men. Are these the works of a hand, or of a jawbone? It is not to be said; it is the work of God alone.

On the same subject

On Samson carrying the gates of Gaza upon his shoulders, and bringing them to the mountain that looks toward Hebron

On the same subject

On the first attempt of Delilah, by which she did not prevail over Samson

On the same subject

On the second attempt, by which she did not prevail a second time

On the same subject

On the third attempt, by which she did not prevail a third time

On the same subject

On the blinding of Samson

TETRASTICH IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

^AOn the Same. Who deprived you of the pleasant use of your eyes, noble Samson? Who shaved the hair of my head? Who indeed could that be? It is that most cunning woman, whom they call Delilah. O wretched one, how you warmed a deadly serpent in your breast!

On Samson grinding in the mill. If you wish to shed wretched tears, lament the great Samson blinded, and alas! grinding like a donkey; and take care to flee the wickedness of women.

On the Same. He who once slaughtered ten thousand troops with the jawbone of an ass, now, an ass himself, grinds wheat at the mill; not as horses do, with a frontlet placed over their eyes as they look forward, but with his own eyelids covered by blindness.

On Samson shaking the house, and killing himself with the foreigners. The shaved hair grows back for you, O Samson, and at once the power of your strength is reborn. But the pupils of your eyes are gone, O the loss! Yet, though blinded, he takes vengeance on the envy of his enemies.

On the Same. Samson went forth as a plaything for the drinking foreigners. He stood by the main support, and grasped the two pillars with his hands, ^B and pulling, the whole house fell to the ground, immense; and together with the foreigners, it slew him, their slayer.

On Ruth the Moabitess, who, after her Israelite husband died, nurtured her mother-in-law Noemi, gleaning corn. A woman, Noemi, fleeing ^C together with her husband and children to the city of Moab, found noble virgins as wives for her sons, but returns alone with Ruth only.

On the Same. Boys, whom do we see gleaning corn, this girl? She does what is pleasing to my heart. She is a Moabitess, she who came with Noemi, and she calls herself Ruth, and professes to be her daughter-in-law.

On Booz joined in marriage with Ruth, and begetting Obed, the grandfather of David. How happily and auspiciously you glean the fruits, O Ruth, if through them you might become the wife of Booz; suddenly declared the great-grandmother of Christ, for you shall bear Obed, the grandfather of David.

On the Same. Who are you, woman, lying near my feet in the dark of night? I am Ruth, who lie beside you, who yesterday was gleaning barley in your ears of corn. Rejoice, dear soul, rejoice, and may God endow you with a heap of all good things.

FIRST BOOK OF KINGS

On the birth of Samuel

On the same

On the consecration of Samuel to God from infancy

On the same

On Ophnei and Phinees, who having tasted of the sacrifices beforehand, stirred God to anger against Heli their father, children of a most holy father

On the same

On Samuel being called by God at night, and not knowing by whom he was being called

On the same

On the captivity of the Ark, and the death of Heli

^A the venerable ark, the high priest, and the countless multitude of the Israelite people.

In the same. Would that you had perished, unhappy Heli, childless and without descendants, and had not begotten those foolish, ill-fated sons, upon whom the throned King launched His wrath; the ark was surrendered to the nations, and you fell from your seat breathless.

On Dagon, the god of the Azotians, falling before the face of the ark. Azotian, shudder at Dagon having fallen ^B and lying before the face of the ark, just as if he were trembling in worship before it; and perceive in the ark the God who is God.

In the same. Men of Azotus, send away this ark, which Dagon fell to the ground fearing, and his limbs were loosed. Send it away, for an ulcer shall boil upon your seats, and dense swarms of mice shall fill the fields.

On the aging of Samuel, and how the Hebrews requested a king for themselves. Samuel reaches old age; his two sons take up the administration of Israel, ^C but, not imitating the ways of their father, they are stripped of the dignity they had received.

In the same. Foolish Hebrews, wicked and stupid generation, choosing a mortal king in place of God, who alone ruled you as the most powerful of all kings: how much more wisely will you understand your error when the deed is done!

^A As He alone reigned over you, greater than all other kings, so one day you shall have late, regretful understanding.

On the kingship of Saul. That which you do, Saul, as a side-task is a great work, and that which is the work, you treat as a side-task, in reverse. You seek out wandering ^B donkeys as your work, and you receive a kingdom as a side-task.

In the same. As he sought the lost donkeys of his father, which no one could find, Saul received a great and unhoped-for power. Obey your parents, stranger, and serve them, and soon God will make you a glorious king.

On the stature of Saul, and how he utterly destroyed the Ammonites. Since first the excellence of his form was worthy of a kingdom, who is better [E] (or ^B) than Saul for taking up the kingdom? Saul, I say, the great one, the broad-shouldered, ^C the fair-faced, the beautiful in his own person.

In the same. Who is this young man, with the broadest of shoulders, who destroys the great and infinite host of the Ammonites? He has become the ruler of the Hebrew race, best of friends, from noble blood; his father is Cis, and his beloved name is Saul.

On Jonathas, how, having charged alone against the enemies and put them to flight, then, a fast having been declared, he tasted honey and risked death. O ^D the daring, the daring of the heart of Jonathas! He alone rushes against the ten thousands of barbarians, and with God’s help he puts them all to flight. Even though he is near death for the sake of a little food, he…

struggles in the very shadow of death.

[On the same.] He who, like a lion, rushes boldly against the strangers themselves, Jonathas, now unhappily encounters the crisis of his own death, because driven by hunger he ate honey; O most bitter honey! Nor did his father aid him, but he was delivered by the entire multitude.

On the slaughter of Agag, who was saved by Saul, contrary to what God commanded, and is slaughtered by the sword of Samuel. Although you escaped the hands of Saul, Agag, most wicked king of the Amalekites, yet you cannot escape the sword of Samuel, but, being slain, you shall experience the bitterness of fate.

[On the same.] Why, O Saul, did you break the commandments of the great God? And furthermore, why did you spare the Amalekite king and not cut his throat? The Lord will cut the throat of the kingdom; and Agag shall be destroyed by Samuel.

[On David, chosen for the kingdom alone among his brothers.] Samuel anoints David as king, and the Holy Spirit breathes grace upon the anointed, ^B departing from the most cursed Saul, whom a wicked spirit agitates all the more vehemently.

[On the same.] Neither stature, nor strength, nor genius, nor elegant countenance, nor primogeniture are more worthy in the sight of God than later births, for He does not scrutinize the body, but the affection of the heart; cast your eyes upon King David, who was occupied with grazing flocks.

[On the wicked spirit agitating Saul, which would rest at the harp of David.] Observe here the distinction and discord of spirits: one declares Saul, the son of Cis, a prophet, while by the other he is vexed and pressed even to desperation. O Trinity, may I never experience the danger of the agitating spirit.

[On the same.] The spirit of prophecy has flown from you, O Saul, for you had forgotten the covenants of God who reigns widely, and the spirit of malice has subsequently invaded you, which, in the end, with David absent, is soon to stifle you with a sudden rush.

[On the slaughter of Goliath.] David the shepherd, small in body for his age, brings death to the tall giant Goliath, the unarmed man to the armed, and that by the casting of a single stone, from which incredible joy arose for Israel.

[On the same.] The barbarian, rushing out before the phalanxes of the Philistines, challenged to single combat a man most instructed in war; he was indeed horrible to behold, but he was prostrated by minuscule David, by whom that man, having been struck, lay stretched out, covering an immense space of ground.

[On the mutual love of David and Jonathas.] O how extensive is the kindness of your mind, O Jonathas; you found that the boy David had behaved himself most handsomely, and for that reason, as soon as you saw him, you held the most humble shepherd in your heart of hearts, royal offspring.

On the same.

On David taking Saul's daughter Michol as wife, for which he brought Saul one hundred foreskins of the foreigners.

On the same.

On Saul's envy toward David.

On the same.

^A

On David fleeing from the face of Saul, Michol sending him away.

On the same.

On David, how in fleeing unarmed he deceived Abimelech the priest, and received from him bread and a sword.

On the same.

On David entering the city of Geth during his flight, then, when he was recognized by those there, transforming himself into an epileptic, and thus being released.

[LATIN COLUMN]

On the same.

On David taking to wife Michol, the daughter of Saul, for whom he brought one hundred Philistine foreskins to Saul.

On the same.

On Saul’s hatred for David.

On the same.

On David fleeing from the face of Saul, with a message sent to him by Michol.

On the same.

On David, how, fleeing unarmed, he imposed upon Abimelech the priest, having received bread and a sword from him.

On the same.

On David entering the city of Geth during his flight, where, when he was immediately recognized by the townspeople, he transformed himself into the appearance of a madman, and by that means escaped.

^A utter senseless words, and spit out foam. Oh, the manifold wiles of necessity!

On the same.

On David, who caught Saul in the cave and left him after cutting off a small piece of his cloak.

On the same.

On the death of Samuel.

On the same.

On Abigail, the wife of Nabal, who appeased David, angered at her husband, with gifts, and later became David’s wife.

On the same.

On David, how, by happening upon Saul sleeping alone, he did not kill him.

On the same.

On Saul asking the ventriloquist to bring up Samuel to him.

You who do not seek to see Samuel while he lives, do you seek to see him dead? What folly!

On the same.

On the death of Saul and his children.

On the same.

SECOND BOOK OF KINGS.

On David’s lamentation over Saul and Jonathan.

On the same.

On Abner, the commander of Saul’s army, who, after killing Asahel, the brother of Joab, having made peace with David, was killed by Joab.

On the same.

On Ish-bosheth, the son of Saul, how, while his doorkeeper was dozing, an enemy entered and killed him.

On the same.

On the reign of David.

On the same.

Concerning Oza, who touched the Ark of the Covenant unworthily and died immediately.

On the same.

On David dancing before the Ark of God.

On the same.

On Mephibosheth, son of Jonathan, whom David, because of his father, caused to eat at his own table, though he was lame.

On the same.

On the adultery of David with Bathsheba, and the murder of Uriah.

On the same.

^A David saw with stealthy eyes, having cast a love into his heart that he conceived, and having gone to the common bed, he took away ^B Uriah, the consort of that bridal chamber, into the midst of death.

On the Birth of Solomon

in the hollows of the mountain, while he seized the city; yet God inflicted death from above upon the ruinous son.

On the imprecation of Shimei

On the same

On Absalom, who was mingling with the concubines of his father, at the instigation of Ahithophel

On the same

On Absalom preferring the counsel of Hushai to the counsel of Ahithophel, when Ahithophel himself hanged himself

On the same

On Absalom being suspended by his hair on a tree, and being slain

On the same

On David counting the people of Israel, and provoking God to anger at this, so that he killed a great part of the people

On the same

^A or to flee from the imminent swords of the enemy, or for the people to waste away for three days; a choice which he indeed brought to pass.

THIRD BOOK OF KINGS

^A On David, who had grown cold from old age, and was sleeping with a virgin in order to be warmed. Thy natural and inherent heat, Through the vice of old age, grew faint in thee, O David; But let an alien and adventitious heat warm thee, Not from strong drink, but from a beautiful virgin.

On the same. The wedded nurse mounts the shared bed of the thrice-aged, A wonder, and joins her young limbs to his withering ones; Nor does she mingle with the man as a wife with her husband, But rather warms the cold body of the enervated old man with heat.

On Adonias, who, claiming the kingdom for himself, sacrificed, and was supplanted by Solomon. Thou who sacrificest oxen and art glad, Adonias, Thou anointest thyself as king, But God, David, and Nathan destine Solomon; Surely, I believe, those three will prevail more than thou.

On the same. Bersabee, sound thy rattle, and play with thy hands upon the cymbals; For thou hast seen thy son riding upon the royal Mule, upon which King David once had mounted, Placed before his father’s throne as if above others.

^B On the death of David, at which instant he gave commands to his son Solomon that he should kill Semei. Thou who wast most clement, now at the very death, Dost thou foster an oblivion, as it were, of clemency, Injoining thy son Solomon To kill Semei? These are the words of a dying man.

On the same. He himself, that David, has departed from the world to the lower realms, He who, while living, cast down the noble forces of his enemies, And accomplished many deeds of reverence, and bore many Pains in his soul; yet he was a friend to God.

On Adonias meeting Bersabee, and through her middle-man praying Solomon to take into marriage the girl who had slept with David in his old age. Thou askest for the maiden Abisag, Adonias, Thou askest for death, and an abrupt death. For thou shalt not escape the wisdom of Solomon, Asking through her for the whole kingdom.

^C Guntius added these eight lines to the remaining verses. Adonias asks for the beautiful maiden, the one formerly Abisag, To take as his wife, but this affair is not accomplished; [/C]

for he is eager to lay hold of the kingdom [instead]. ^A Ah, craftily-contriving man, how do you do these things?

*On the death of Joab, whom Solomon ordered to be run through.* Solomon indeed punishes Joab, that transgressor, fulfilling the commands of his father. He enjoins that all those be killed who had long ago done any injury to any man.

*On the same.* You transgressed against your parent, having done evil, O Joab, you transgressed against your parent, and you fell to the son's anger; for he pays back for the insolence against his father, and destroys you, fulfilling the command regarding David held in his mind.

*On the dream of Solomon, who, when asked by God what he wished to receive, replied "wisdom".* What do you wish to receive in life, Solomon? Wisdom. Not wealth, not length of life? Wisdom. Not triumphs? Just judgment. And having grasped these, he has that other too.

*On the same.* Sweet sleep poured over the eyelids of Solomon. But the Most High came straight to him, and asked him what he wished to receive from the heavens; and he asked for wisdom, and did not miss the mark, and at the end he possessed his heart's desire.

*On the judgment of Solomon concerning the child of uncertain parentage.* When the half-matriarchal child was placed in the midst, the executioner was brought forward by the judgment of Solomon, but he did ^B not cut the child; thus he cut short the quarrel of the mothers.

*On the same.* The light of the sun proves the brood of eagles, as to which is a bastard and which is the eagle's own offspring; and the clear stream of the Rhine is the tester for the children of the Celts. But this [the King] is a tester not of adulterous offspring, but of false mothers.

*On the temple that Solomon built.* If it is right for God to dwell in things on earth, then it is right for Him to dwell in the hearth of Solomon's house; for it bears the likeness of heaven itself, and boasts a beauty befitting the glory of God.

*On the same.* O stranger, do you wish to see how great a power lies in wisdom? Look fixedly at Solomon; for he plants for God another heaven in Jerusalem, the best of all temples. Indeed, wisdom is something quite like God.

*On the idolatry of Solomon.* O the wisdom of Solomon, O the judgment! Now he foolishly honors the idol of Astarte, and the abomination of Chamos, the Moabite. For which cause God breaks his power.

*On the same.* Begone far from my bedchambers, O flocks of women, take yourselves hence; for I truly fear greatly, that Solomon, from your company, may be brought into the midst of ^C divine wrath.

On the division of the kingdom of Solomon, when his slave ruled over ten tribes, and his son over two.

On the same.

On the impiety of Ahab, for which Elias shut the heavens.

On the same.

On Elias fed by ravens.

On the same.

On the woman of Sarephta feeding Elias.

On the same.

On Elias raising the son of the woman of Sarephta.

On the same.

On the sacrifice of Elias, by which he slew the priests of Baal.

^A For the fire exposed their error, having fallen upon the sacrifice of the Thesbite.

*On the same.*

Fire once fell from heaven to earth, and burned the sacrifice of Elias, despite the wood and the water, and the trench itself. Fire also, from Elias the zealous, was kindled, a destructive one, and burned all the impious priests of Baal.

*On the flight of Elias from the face of Jezebel.*

He who closes all the gates of heaven, and raises the dead, and performs strange miracles, now flees, trembling before Jezebel. Let us imitate his flight and his fear.

*On the same.*

The female queen Jezebel was enraged at Elias, and extended against him the most grievous threat of slaughter. Frightened, he said to his own great-hearted soul: flight is better, and he escaped for long days.

*On the encounter of God and Elias at Mount Horeb.*

Mount Horeb, receive Elias the Thesbite, exhausted by long flight and wandering, and refresh him with the communion of God. ^B

*On the same.*

A great, powerful wind came forth, rending the mountains, and with it shaking the rocks; and an earthquake, and fire after this; and not yet did God appear in them. But a thin breeze, and the Thesbite stood opposite the Most High.

*On the greed of Ahab, who lusted after the vineyard of Naboth, slew him, and inherited the vineyard.*

Small is the power of all Samaria, King Ahab; is your plot of land so small, that you also desire the vineyard of Naboth? How insatiable indeed is the nature of mortals.

*On the same.*

You would have been better off, O Naboth, to have been born a disinherited son of the father who begot you, and not to have received even a small acre of land as a father’s possession; for you would not have perished, if you had not possessed the inheritance which was a snare to you.

FOURTH BOOK OF KINGS

*On King Ochozias, who, being sick, sent to Baal to inquire if he would live; and how Elias, meeting the messengers, foretold that he would not live.*

Do you seek to learn from Baal if you will yet live, Ochozias? ^D Because you ignore God, and seek to be taught by Baal whether you are still to enjoy life, learn now from Elias a bitter word, yet a true one: you shall not rise from your bed.

*On the same.*

Why, O thrice-unhappy head, Ochozias, shame of kings,

^C lying in grievous sickness, did you consult Beelzebub whether you would be numbered among the living or the dead? Rather, consult Elias; for he prophesies that you shall certainly die.

*On the rapture of Elias into heaven.* That you were caught up, Elias, I well know, but where you were received, I do not know. When you also, as I expect, shall ascend, carried by a fiery chariot, and draw near to the heavenly heights, then you shall learn.

*On the same.* Who is this who travels on high in the clouds, in a flaming chariot, and gently holds the reins, and does not fear the immense strength of the fire, lest it consume him? It is Elias, my friend, who is lifted to the heights through the ether.

*On the mantle of Elias dividing the Jordan.* What power resides in you, O mantle of the Thesbite! You divide the great Jordan into two parts, and you make passable to men what was until then navigable, passed from prophet to prophet.

*On the same.* The sun once illumined the depth of the Erythraean Sea, but it saw the Jordan many times through others, and now it sees it dried up at last by Eiseus; and this is the work of the mantle which covered the shoulders of Elia.

*On the children who, for mocking the baldness of Eliseus, were devoured by bears.* You mock, children, the head of Eliseus, which is bald and bare; he, however, will ^D not mock you at all, but will give you as food to the shaggy bears.

*On the same.* A double grace of Elias came upon you, O Eliseus, but your nature is also doubly more severe; for you stirred up voracious bears against foolish boys, because they had mocked your baldness with petulant words.

*On the son of the Sunamitess restored to life by Eliseus.* In return for modest hospitality, O Sunamitess, a child was promised to you by Eliseus, who, though dead, rose again for you, the prophet bestowing a double grace for your kindness.

*On the same.* To the son of the Sunamitess who had breathed out his life, Eliseus drew near, and applied mouth to mouth, and eye to eye, and hand to hand; and at once the boy leaped back from the netherworld to the light.

*On Giezi, the servant of Eliseus, how, having received money from Naaman who had been cured of leprosy, he was himself in turn covered with leprosy.* You sell the Spirit, and you traffic in grace, O foolish Giezi, to the Syrian Naaman. Have confidence; for you shall receive not only the money, but together with it you shall report back the leprosy of Naaman.

*On the same.* Because of a double sin, of theft and of lying, this one fitting reward has come upon you, Giezi: leprosy, a great woe to mortals, the most destructive of all diseases, that even while being insulted, you may remember your sins.

^A **On Jehu, who killed the entire house of Ahab and Jezebel herself.** Rejoice, Jehu, you sharp-edged sword, who destroy the entire house of Ahab, and at the same time strike down the prophets of Baal, and slay the defiled Jezebel.

**On the same.** Elijah once feared Jezebel, from whose presence he once fled—a woman bitter of heart, cruel, a brood of vipers; but Jehu, having hurled her down from on high, cast her to the ground and slew her, and gave her body as a feast for dogs and birds.

**On the corpse that, having been placed near the bones of Elisha, was restored.** Even in death, Elisha raises the dead; why, then, does he not raise himself from the grave? For it is not the work of the man himself, but of God, who, I believe, honors the bones of the prophets by miracles.

**On the same.** He who once plucked a son from the earth for the Shunammite is now sent down into the gloomy earth. But even so, he draws the corpse that was buried near his bones up from the earth; a great miracle! A dead man restored the lifeless among the living.

**On the mourning of Hezekiah, and the addition to his life.** How joyfully you weep, Hezekiah! For you obtained all your later life from your tears. My eye, shed torrents of tears, so that at my end, I too may perhaps obtain life.

**On the same.** The savage necessity of fate once seized the king Hezekiah. But he, while already about to set his feet upon the threshold of death, prayed to God with flowing tears; and God heard his voice, and added fifteen years to his lamented life.

**BY THE SAME: TETRASTICHS, IAMBIC AND HEROIC, SUMMARIZING WHAT IS STATED IN THE FOUR GOSPELS.**

**On the Nativity of the Theotokos.** So let the lampstands be set in place, and let the bridal chamber be adorned, let the vase be fashioned, and the golden bush be brought forth; for the Light is near, the comely bridegroom is at hand, the manna is close by, and now the fire shines forth. ^D

TETRASTICHA IN NOVUM TESTAMENTUM

^A

On the same.

On the Holy of Holies.

^A

On the same.

MATTHEUS. On the words: The Book of Generation, etc.

On the same.

On the birth of Christ.

On the same.

On the flight of Jesus into Egypt.

On the same.

^A You sit upon a light cloud, so that you may lift me up, On a light cloud, into the embrace of the revered Father.

On the preaching and vesture of John

On the same

On the baptism

On the same

On Christ tempted by the devil

On the same

On the leper healed by the touch of Christ

On the same

On the miracle concerning the mother-in-law of Peter

On the same

TETRASTICHA ON THE NEW TESTAMENT

^A On: "The foxes have holes, but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head." You say, O Christ, that you have not where to lay your head; Your statement is clear, for your divine nature, Which is the head of the incarnate Word, Cannot be laid anywhere, for it is most unmoved.

On the same. Foxes abide in dens, and the brood of birds Of the air [have nests]—but Christ does not wear a cubit of earth As a home. What would they say to this, those Who build a gold-adorned, lofty, and magnificent house?

On Christ sleeping on the sea. The Lord's sleep, through an ineffable word, Awakened the salt sea, which was then sleeping; But the waking of the Lord, in return, Lulled the breadth of the sea to sleep.

On the same. Christ had held back all the winds with his hands; But sweet sleep, having poured over his eyelids, Persuaded the north wind to come; it flew off and struck the sea; But when Christ awoke, it retreated again into its caves.

On the miracle performed among the Gerasenes. ^B Consider, O man, how great is the madness of Satan! For if he torments the very herds of swine, What else would he do to mortals if he could? Therefore, you who live like a swine, take warning from this example.

On the same. Swineherds, where are you fleeing, leaving your swine there? We fear the legion; it is an accursed brood. The herd of swine was strangled, and it went down to the bottom of the lake. And you have not yet satiated the legion, even though you are being choked.

On the calling of Matthew. What is this, Christ? Do you sit with the tax collectors? What is this new thing? But I even dine with them. Is this Matthew not a tax collector to you? To me, he is better than many scribes.

On the same. Rejoice, O you who do wrong, take heart, O multitude of sinners; Christ sits with those who have erred, and dines. Look at Matthew: he who was formerly counted among the tax collectors, Now has Christ the King as a table-companion in his house.

On Christ raising the daughter of the synagogue ruler. You both put to death and make alive again by your word. You make alive more than you put to death, my Christ. The synagogue ruler [bears witness] to the truth, Seeing his daughter alive again.

On the same. Do not weep, women; the girl sleeps; she sleeps, She sleeps, she has not perished. But you laugh in vain. Arise to me, girl, and behold the divine ether. The faith of your father, the synagogue ruler, is blameless.

On the Woman with the Issue of Blood

On the same

On the lifestyle and mission of the Apostles

On the same

On the miracle performed on the man with the withered hand

On the same

On the utterance, "He casts out demons by Beelzebub"

On the same

On those who seek a sign

On the same

On the utterance, "My mother, and my brothers, are those who do the will of God"

^A Perform the will of God sincerely, and know that you are born a kinsman of God.

On the same. Is it not from lineage that a man attains honor from Christ? Was not a woman also shown to be a great lady from this? That man is a brother of God, and that woman is a mother, who fulfill His words and do righteous decrees.

On Christ teaching from the boat, to those on the shore. "The voice of the Lord is upon the waters," they say. You see the boat, you behold the teacher; therefore, run and reach the shore, and listen to the wise teaching.

On the same. Oh blessed axe, oh divine wood of the mountain! Happy woodcutters! Noble hands of shipwrights! Who fashioned this sea-faring vessel, well-fastened! God, having embarked, bestowed the voice of a teacher.

On the beheading of John. Oh light-minded prince, servant of a profane girl! Oh foolish oath, sharing the royal power! Oh shameful feast, breathing of fresh blood! Oh breathing corpse, displaying the abomination!

On the same. The origin of life and existence became a root, but Herod wrought murder at the birthday celebration, and he mixed a bowl of wine with warm blood. ^B Or did the dead man keep silent? He twists [in his tomb], the lewd and wanton woman.

On the miracle regarding the five loaves. He who formerly rained manna upon the Jews, now from a mere five loaves fed the flock of five thousand men. And see the baskets of the leftovers.

On the same. Food did not restrain the inward parts, which Christ conceals within, when He fed the boundless multitudes with a few loaves; but He increased the provisions. And the vessels became a witness, in which the remnants were kept; they were twelve in all.

On the walking of Christ and Peter upon the sea. You walked upon the waters, one miracle; Peter also came with you, this is the second; you saved him from the depths, this is the third; you calmed the winds, this is the last.

On the same. Peter, do you walk upon the back of the sea on foot? Yet who gave you wings fitted to your feet? Or who, extending a long chain from heaven, supports you by the head? Behold Christ who is near, helping you.

On the Canaanite woman. Christ is the bread; the Israelite people is the son of the family; the whole Gentile race is a dog. But now the son has most disdainfully turned away from the bread; by which it came to pass that the dog, in the end, ate it most gladly.

On the same.

On that which is said, "Whom do men say that I am?" and on Peter's answer.

On the same.

On the Transfiguration.

On the same.

On the miracle regarding the lunatic.

On the same.

On the payment of the census tax.

On the same.

On the rich observer of the Law.

On the same.

TETRASTICH ON THE NEW TESTAMENT

On Palm Sunday

On the same

On Christ driving the temple-merchants out of the temple

On the same

On the fig tree withered by Christ’s command

On the same

On those invited to the wedding

On the same

On the ten virgins

On the same

On the harlot who brought ointment

^A Wiping the feet of Christ with your hair, though the malice of Judas may prick at these things. On the same. ^B Truly the ointment was precious, O woman, which you poured out upon the feet of the Lord, while you wiped the Master with your hair. Indeed the ointment was precious, but you obtained a yet more precious thing, namely, what a formidable grace for sin you have reported. On the mystical supper. You are the sacrifice, and you offer the sacrifice; you eat the supper, and you break the bread; you are the cup, and you drink. For you are both priest and offering; yet he who is to betray you, Judas, eats of you, fearing nothing. On the same. Behold the bold-handed one, the stubborn one, or rather that man who thrust his hand into the dish. This man, rising from the supper, would forget the friendship and the bread, and would betray his Teacher to robbers, so that he might perish. ^A

On Christ the King and the Word, to the evil-minded high priests.

On the betrayal.

On the same.

On the cutting off of the ear of Malchus.

On the same.

On the same prayer: "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me."

On the same.

On the betrayal of Judas.

On the same.

On the cutting off of Malchus's ear.

On the same.

On him who spat in the face of the Savior.

^A

On the same.

On the man who struck Christ in the face.

On the same.

On the denial of Peter.

On the same.

On the verse, "Whom shall I release for you, Barabbas or Christ?"

On the crucifixion.

On the same.

On the burial.

On the same.

THEODORI PRODROMI

On the Resurrection

On the Same

On the Myrrh-bearing Women

On the Same

On the "Rejoice" (Chairete)

On the Same

MARCUS

On the Man with the Impediment of Speech

On the Same

On the Widow who Offered Two Mites

so that you may be blessed more than those with much gold.

On the Same.

On the Ascension.

On the same.

LUKE

On the Annunciation.

On the Same.

On the Presentation.

On the Same.

On the Twelve-Year-Old Jesus Remaining in Jerusalem.

On the Same.

And what says he? Come, stand around him, and let us hear what he commands. ^A For he is a child who is God, and he reveals the words of God.

On the miracle concerning the centurion’s servant.

On the Same.

On Martha and Mary.

On the Same.

On the man whose land produced a rich harvest.

On the Same.

On the woman who was bent over.

On the Same.

On the dropsical man.

On the Same.

TETRASTICHS ON THE NEW TESTAMENT

On the Prodigal.

On the Same.

On the Rich Man and Lazarus.

On the Same.

On the Ten Lepers Healed.

On the Same.

On the Pharisee and the Publican.

On the Same.

On Zacchaeus.

On the Same.

On the Request of Satan.

^A Why, O wicked worker Satan, dost thou touch to cast a grievous sieve about Peter, as birds circle around grain? Has it harmed thee? This man has led thee into a more grievous snare, from there; there shall never be an escape.

*On the justified thief.* Blessings upon the struggles of the martyrs, And blessings upon the toils of the monastics, Saving themselves; but that "Remember me," O faithful thief, was a swift salvation.

*On the same.* To two murderers, an equal penalty was fashioned, The cross; but their intent was most unequal: ^A For one was urging foolish gibes upon the kingly Word; But the other was entreating Him from the cross, saying "Remember me."

*On that concerning Cleopas and Luke.* Thou didst break bread even before the Passion, O Word, And again, risen, Thou didst break the bread; There, by the breaking, Thou didst make Thyself a sacrifice to God, Here, Thou dost manifest Thyself to Thy friends.

*On the same.* "Who, pray, is this now, dearest Cleopas, who broke the bread, A man unknown to us?" "The Master." "Is it Christ Himself? Didst thou know Him?" "Because my eyes were darkened, I did not recognize Him. Make haste, let us relate these things to our most dear disciples."

JOANNES.

*On "In the beginning was the Word."* A strange thunder strikes me; alas! what is this rumbling? Be not afraid, it is the son of Zebedee writing. And what does he write? Look for yourself, and learn. O mind! He says, "In the beginning was the Word."

*On the same.* Hearing from the Holy Spirit, the glorious John, Whatever he heard he spoke; and Prochorus ^C on the tablet Unfolded the voices of John, writing them with honey-flowing reeds— For "In the beginning was the Word," cried the son of Zebedee.

*On the wedding in Cana.* Born of the Virgin, Thou didst not disdain to attend the wedding; For both, O Savior, are blessed in Thee, And Thou dost work a miracle befitting the occasion, Changing the nature of water into the nature of wine.

*On the same.* Wine-servers, bring a fine deep cup, And draw sweet wine; the jar is near. The Word of God grew for us a wine-bestowing vine, A spontaneous vine, and He fashioned an instantaneous winepress.

TETRASTICH ON THE NEW TESTAMENT

^AOn the nocturnal disciple Nicodemus. Nicodemus learns the teaching of the day by night, and, having left behind the night of error, he sees the twilight of the spiritual day. O that I had been Nicodemus, my Christ!

On the same. In that divine night, Nicodemus beheld the divine dawn, King Christ, the light of Him who is the Father without beginning; from whom he knew the dark gloom of error, and further was taught of the day proceeding from Christ the Sun, the archetype of all light.

On the Samaritan woman. Woman, why do you delay? Cast down your water-jar, and running fast, call together Samaria; that from the divine well she may drink the water that is alive: so may you finally become the first apostle among women.

On the same. To the woman who was a harlot, O Word of God, you come to speak, and you seek to drink water from them, O fountain without b, For you did not come down for men alone, Saviour, nor for righteous men, but especially for the worthless.

On the paralytic. Be knit together, paralytic, in every limb, and as one risen from the tomb of the portico, taking up the bed that bore you, run. O the incomprehensible nature of your power, Christ!

On the same. Let joints be bound to joints, and again come together in vigor, and you, nerves, be stretched, and bones, be endowed with strength, and you, membranes, pour forth, and cover this body. Arise for me, paralytic, and having lifted your bed, walk. ^B

On the blind man. This clay is clay that works the eyes, not as if it had the nature to create eyes, but as serving the command of the Word; so may you deign to spit upon the eyelids of my soul, O Christ.

On the same. With joy I behold you, the radiance of the sun and the moon, the starry heaven, the element of fire, the divine air, and rivers, and the sand of the shore, and the earth. For the Word of God fashioned eyes for me, which I did not have before.

On Lazarus. If while standing afar Christ despoiled you, O Death, of Lazarus, and those others who were offered to you, calling them back to life; what, O creature worthy of every curse, will He do to you henceforth when He has come down into the deep abysses of your realm?

On the same. Loosen, loosen for me the crooked intertwining bands ^C of the shroud, and take away the covering from my head, O brothers, so that I may open my eyes and breathe, and sing the praises of Christ, who liberated me from the death that brings a long sleep.

On the washing of the feet. Come here, Peter, I will wash your feet. You shall never wash my feet for all time.

If I do not wash you, you shall be a stranger to my friends. Also my head, and the rest of my poor body.

^A On the same. Wash with your feet, but remain unwashed in your heart. Would that you had stained your whole body with the filth of mud, And not defiled your heart in the mire of deicide, When you betrayed Christ to the Jews, O Judas.

On John falling upon the breast of Christ. Having fallen upon the pure breast of the Master, John, how many streams did you draw? Truly tens of thousands, and with this very breast, Through which you flow abundantly into the whole world.

On the same. Upon the breast of Christ, John stooped Into the secret inlets, and beheld divine doctrines. What he saw, he told, and set forth to mortals: "In the beginning was the Word," he said, teaching a miracle.

^B On the taking down from the cross. Bold Nicodemus, cast away the hammer, Lest any bone of the Master be crushed; The pincers suffice, and for drawing out the nail From the hands! Proceed then to the feet.

On the same. Your fingers, Nicodemus, have come forward, fingers of Thomas...

^C For Thomas looked afterward and gazed at the imprint of the nails, But you were the first to see the nails themselves, And you grasped the holy, still-moist side of the King.

On that which happened to Thomas. How did you come inside, the doors being shut? As I went out from the guarded tomb. And how did you go out from there, O Word? As before, I came forth from the sealed door.

On the same. Touch, Didymus, the side pierced by the lance, Touch, and believe, and receive my prophecy: There shall come a day when your own sides shall be pierced Through and through by iron spears of Ethiopians.

^D On the dormition of the Theotokos. I behold the mystical assembly; Mary, Mother of Jesus, breathes out her soul, And God receives the soul of his mother, And a new plume blooms for the apostles.

On the same. You walked on foot, Peter, for you were earthly; who would deny it? Yet you nonetheless crossed the seas on your feet (a wonder to behold). Now you fly through the air, O life-giver, And shortly you shall rise to heaven itself.

ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

On Pentecost

On the same

On Matthias replacing the place of Judas

On the same

On the Catechesis of Peter

On the same

On the lame man healed by Peter and John

On the same

On what happened to Ananias and Sapphira

- ^A truth you were permitted to show compassion. Yes, but I prevent the first-fruits of evil.

On the same. Once Peter’s word killed Ananias, because he had lied to the Spirit, the all-ruling King, and from the price of his possessions, having stolen a portion, he had embezzled it from there. Let us, liars, tremble; for the pattern lies close at hand.

On those healed by the shadow of Peter. If the shadow of Peter entirely dissolves diseases, tell me, what would he himself do to them hereafter? Peter himself, and the mouth of Peter? By all means, Peter might possess more than Peter’s shadow.

On the same. The shadow is not the reality. But even the shadow itself of Peter healed the sick in truth, a wonder to behold! In such a way, O most blessed Peter, shadow me as I am sick, and may you not be such as you were once toward Ananias.

On the imprisonment of Peter, and his deliverance by the angel. He who is able to bind and loose all things is now bound, and Peter is held fast. But an angel, having broken the bolts and fetters, sends him as a morning herald to the crowds.

On the same. You imprisoned Peter, you priests, but Christ set him free; Christ released Peter and sent him forth openly to teach. And yet, would he not have released Christ, but saved Christ from death? ^B Believe then, at last, O ye wicked, for Jesus has risen from the dead.

On the counsel of Gamaliel, that one must not prevent the preaching. Let the apostles go, you wicked man, to speak. They bear tongues of fire; tremble, you have been singed! For you would not have the strength to act against God. Let your own Gamaliel persuade you by his words.

On the same. Who is the noble man among the elders who devised this good counsel, to release the heralds of God to speak rightly? And not to stretch forth wicked fingers before God? He is Gamaliel, O best of men, a Pharisee learned in the law.

On the election of the seven deacons. The sun, a king among the seven planets; Stephen, a king among the seven deacons. The one is above three and below three; the other is rightly placed before the six.

On the same. Nicanor, and Prochorus, and Timon, and Nicolaus, and Parmenas, and Philip, and god-fearing Stephen. These Peter set aside and chose, that they might prepare tables for the ^C faithful, noble ministers that they are.

On the stoning of Stephen. The martyr was a golden crown even before the stones; for his brightness bears witness to his appearance. ^D

^A On the same. Around the heights of Mount Tabor Jesus shone, And the senseless and cruel house of Judah slew him; Yet Stephen also shone like the great light of the sun, And that same house killed him with whitening stones.

On the decision of Peter regarding Simon Magus, who sought to purchase the Spirit. May your gold perish with you, O faithless one, O faithful servant of money, Simon, For I, Simon Peter, do not sell the grace Of the Spirit to Simon the Magus.

On the same. You think the Paraclete is bought for silver, O Magus, The Paraclete who has delivered me from the service of Belial; You are a slave to Belial, and to gleaming silver, With which you will hasten to ultimate ruin, O wretched Simon.

On the account of Philip and Candace. "Behold water, Philip," says the eunuch of Candace, "What hinders me from receiving the grace of God?" Philip said, "Nothing," and having baptized the man On the spot, he departed, snatched away by an angel.

On the same. For you, O eunuch, a very swift carriage moved along, Drawn by young mules of Ethiopia; But Philip's carriage was faster, going from Gaza To Azotus, having quickly harnessed better steeds.

On the calling of Paul. God calls you, Paul, and God anoints you; For it was not fitting that even in this way Should you be inferior to the chief, Peter, To whom you do not yield, not even in the seats themselves.

On the same. Peter once struck down the foolish Ananias, But the wise Ananias, conversely, saved the great Paul; Behold, Paul, the light, and the sun, and Jesus, Behold, and preach as you roam over all the earth.

On the escape of Paul from Damascus through a basket. I pant for you, Paul, I long for you, But I do not see you; now you run toward the heavens, Now you travel the depths, now a basket hides you. O winged pedestrian, who by running will catch you?

On the same. Here is Paul, having escaped in a basket from hands ^B That were not to be touched, he steals away through the high-crested wall; Yet a little later he will traverse the third heaven, And from there he will be caught up into Paradise itself.

On the miracles of Peter regarding Aeneas and Tabitha. Peter raised Aeneas in Lydda, And in Joppa, Tabitha the gazelle; The one whose body was completely paralyzed, The other who was entering the gates of death.

On the same.

On the net shown to Peter from heaven.

On the same.

On the slaughter of James.

On the same.

On the second imprisonment of Peter, and his deliverance by an angel.

On the same.

On the death of Herod.

On the same.

On the preaching of Paul.

On the same.

TETRASTICHS ON THE NEW TESTAMENT

In the mouth of Paul all the graces of the Holy Spirit are stored, and by his hands every kind of miracle is performed. ^A

On the lame man at Lystra healed by Paul and Barnabas, and how they were thought to be gods by those there.

On the same.

On the stoning of Paul at Lystra.

On the same.

On the expulsion of the Pythonic spirit from the handmaid, and the rage of her masters against Paul, and his stripes.

On the same.

On the discussion of Paul on the Areopagus, when Dionysius, and Damaris, and others believed.

On the same.

On Paul teaching until midnight, and how he raised the boy who fell from the third story and died.

On the same.

^A during the midnight hours; and the people, though vigorous, are enduring, preferring your teaching to nightly rest, O Paul; perhaps a siren sings in your divine mouth.

On the evils inflicted upon Paul by Demetrius

On the same

On Agabus’ prediction to Paul

On the same

On the ^B blows received by Paul in Jerusalem, when he also called himself a Roman

On the same

On Paul’s voyage to Rome

On the same