Preface and Proems (Theophanes Kerameus)

NOTITIA EX FABRICIO

Furthermore, neither the opinion of Father Scorsus, who places Theophanes in the age of Photius, nor the opinion of Fabricius, who—following others—asserts that Theophanes finally flourished under the Normans in the twelfth century, is fully embraced by a recent writer, not the least among learned Sicilians, the abbot Nicolaus Buscemi. He initiates a middle path, teaching—not without some verisimilitude—that the homilies which circulate under the name of Theophanes were not issued by one author, but by two, of whom the former flourished during the time of the Saracens, and the latter during the time of the Normans. N. Buscemi inserted his learned disquisition into his *Bibliotheca sacra*, vol. I (1832), and inscribed it as follows: *Teofane Cerameo. Sopra il Siciliano scrittore che va sotto tal nome, memoria del sac. N. Buscemi*. This is praised by Alessio Narbone, of the Company of Jesus, in *Bibliografia Sicola sistematica, o Apparato metodico alla storia letteraria della Sicilia*, vol. III, p. 275 (Palermo, 1855), and vol. I, p. 472. Let it be consulted. B... 15 Feb. 1862. J.-B. M.

NOTICE ON THEOPHANES CERAMEUS

There are those who call Theophanes Cerameus by the names Georgius, Gregorius, Nicephorus, or Philippus, or who wish him to be the same person as Georgius or Gregorius Cerameus and Nicephorus Figulus (or Cerameus), or Philippus Cerameus (or Ceramita). See Allatius, *De Georgiis*, p. 414 ff., who mentions Georgius Cerameus again on p. 345. This Theophanes was born in Sicily, at Tauromenium or in the nearby town of Mascalis, and was educated there as a boy at the church of St. Andrew, in his own country, as he himself celebrates in Homily LI, delivered on the feast of the Apostle St. Andrew. He became Archbishop of Tauromenium, by which title he is constantly designated in the manuscript codices, as Scorsus noted in proem. I, § 4; in these codices he is also called *sophotatos* and *rhētorikōtatos*—most wise and most eloquent—id. proem. II, § 2. ^A He did not write in the ninth century and the age of Photius, as Scorsus was persuaded (since the monk Theophanes to whom Photius wrote was entirely different from the bishop); nor around the year 1040, the time to which he is referred by Cave (a)—a time when Rogerius, later Count of Sicily from the year 1063 (not king), was not yet living; but he wrote while the son of that count, Rogerius (King of Sicily and Apulia from 1129 to 1152), was reigning, at which time the power of the Saracens was great. Hence he frequently prays to God to protect the king from their violence: *Τῷ εὐσεβεῖ ἡμῶν βασιλεῖ σύμμαχος γενοῦ κατὰ τῶν ἀθέων τῆς ᾿Αγαρ υἱῶν*, "Be an ally to our pious king against the ungodly sons of Hagar," homil. XL, p. 288; and in homily IV, p. 26, *Κράτυνον τῇ ἰσχύϊ σου τοὺς πιστοὺς ἡμῶν βασιλεῖς, ἐνίσχυσον αὐτοὺς κατὰ τῶν ἀθέων Ἰσμαηλιτῶν τῶν τὴν σὴν ἀθετούντων προσκύνησιν*, "Corroborate by thy strength our faithful kings, and confirm them against the ungodly Ismaelites who reject thy adoration." He celebrates the king's deeds and piety in homily XXX, which he delivered in his presence.

(a) In *Hist. lit. SS. eccl.*, tom. II, p. 132 ff., ed. Basil., he agrees with Cave at the year 1040, and notes that our author is most mistakenly confused with Theophanes the Confessor, the founder of the *Chronographia*, by Miraeus in *Au. clar.*, c. 253, and from him by Olearius in *Abaco patrol.*, p. 450. Oudin discusses him at greater length in *Comment. de SS. eccles.*, tom. II, p. 1185, at the year 1140 ff. and p. 1320 ff. In the former place, he first examines and refutes the arguments of Scorsus and Allatius, then shows the inconsistency of Lambecius in defining the age of Theophanes (conf. below in the notices of the mss. codices). In the latter place, where he discusses the age of Symeon Metaphrastes, he again inquires into the time when Theophanes Cerameus lived, and disputes especially about the writing and signification of the word *rhēgion* or *phthegion*. L. Ellies Du Pin in *Bibl. eccl.*, tom. VII, cap. 17, p. 196, judges that Theophanes closed the twelfth century; but in tom. VIII, cap. 12, p. 3, he transferred him to the eleventh century. Mongitor, in *Bibl. Sicula*, tom. I, p. 250 ff., collected the opinions and judgments of many learned men concerning his age and his own manner of writing and living, and he also cites Cajetan in *animadvers. ad tom. I SS. Siculorum*, p. 16. Add Pagi in *Crit. Baron.* at the year 1252, VIII-X; Jo. Moller in *Homonymoscop.* sect. II, cap. 5, § 77, p. 523 ff., who enumerates many Theophanes, and teaches that they were sometimes confused by learned men; Jo. Laur. Moshem. in *Institut. hist. eccl.*, century XI, p. II, cap. 2, 30. Sax. in *Onom. lit.*, part. II, p. 249, at the year 1152: "And at these times," he says, "Theophanes Cerameus is believed—with probability—to have lived and flourished." Christian Frid. Matthaei, *Progr. de Theophane Cerameo*, Dresden 1788, 4to, in which the learned man carefully describes three codices (the Moscow, the Leipzig, and his own) and their reasoning in writing the author's name and the order of the homilies, and noted variant readings of the speech XLV from the Leipzig codex, p. 8-15. Under the same president, M. Car. Chr. Ernesti Charitii, the disputation *de Theophane Ceram.*, part 1, *de Theophane interprete*, and the disputation in response to J. C. G. Praedecovius, *appendix part. 1, de studio allegoriarum, praecipuo recte interpretationis impedimento*, Wittenberg, 1792, 4to. And I myself treated him in *Introduct.*, etc., vol. II, part 1, p. 451 ff. Concerning the narrative and opinion of Iriarte, see a little later in the notice of the codices, where I also recorded at greater length the animadversion of Montfaucon, who contends that Gregorius Cerameus is entirely different from Theophanes Cerameus. Harl.

NOTICE FROM FABRICIUS.

14 13 he had the sense, *ἐνώπιον τοῦ ῥηγὸς Ῥογερίου* (before King Roger), for thus it should be read, not *ῥήγου*, as Allatius teaches in *De Simeonibus*, p. 63 sq. (b). There exist published homilies of his for the Sundays and feasts of the year, worthy of perusal far above many sermons of other more recent Greeks, and suited to the custom of the Churches of that time, which they maintained in their sacred readings and homilies, and they illustrate many Gospel passages not unsuccessfully. Theophanes is not a different person from him who is cited in the Corderian Catena on Luke, whom Corderius wrongly confuses with Theophanes the Confessor, the author of the Chronicle, noted by that name by Combefis in the *Bibl. concionatoria*. In the same way, in the catalogue of the Bodleian Library, Theophanes Cerameus and the author of the Chronicle and the Bishop of Nicaea, to whom belongs the hymn on the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin, are confused into one. But let us now review the published homilies of Theophanes Cerameus. It begins: *Εὐλογητὸς ὁ Θεὸς ὁ καταξιώσας ἡμᾶς διαδραμεῖν τὴν κυκλικὴν τοῦ χρόνου περίοδον*. Pag. 1. Dionysius Petavius had published it in Greek and Latin at the end of the *Breviarium historicum* of Nicephorus of Constantinople, Paris, 1616, 8, p. 258, who calls the author Gregory and in the notes on p. 10 testifies that he received this and many other homilies of his from Sirmond. Who, because, he says, he frequently demands their publication from us, that he might be satisfied in some part, we have set these forth as a kind of specimen. [Paris. in bibl. publ. cod. 562, n. 12.] It begins: *Οἱ παιδοτρίβαι καὶ τῶν νέων διδάσκαλοι*. Pag. 7. Of the precious and life-giving cross. It begins: *Φέρε σήμερον, ὦ θεοφιλέστατον ἄθροισμα*. Pag. 13. Jacob Gretser had published this homily with the version of Franciscus Turrianus in Volume II *De cruce*, page 124, Ingolstadt, 1600, 4. It begins: *Ὁρῶ σήμερον τὸ μεγάλον τοῦδε ναοῦ*. Pag. 16. Gretser had also published this homily with Turrianus’ version, tom. II *De cruce*, page 133. The same as the preceding is read in Latin in the more recent *Bibliothecae Patrum* of Paris, Cologne, and Lyon. First Sunday on that: "Stans Jesus secundum stagnum Genesareth." It begins: *Ἐπειδήπερ ἀρχεῖον*. P. 27. In the opening of this homily Theophanes narrates that the fathers had established by long usage that the Gospel of John should be read in the church from the feast of Easter until Pentecost; Matthew from Pentecost until the end of the year; thereafter that Christians should be instructed in the great mysteries by the great Luke, with the divine herald Mark left for the time of the fasts. FABR. Conf. cod. Bavar. 210 and cl. Hardt in *Aretini Beytr.*, etc., a. 1705, part. 5, p. 268 sq. HARL. - mías. Pag. 59. sophy. P. 46. Of the Gadarenes. It begins: *Ἐλέγχει γοῦν τὴν γλῶσσαν ἡ νόσος τοῦ σώματος*. Pag. 53. The woman with the issue of blood. Luc. viii, 41. It begins: *Ἁπλῶ ἡμῖν σήμερον*. P. 57. The Lord questioning, and concerning him who fell among thieves. Luc. x. It begins: *Οὐ τοσοῦτον αὐχμώδης ἡ γῆ*. Pag. 63. It begins: *Οἱ κηφῆνες εἶδος ἔστι μελισσῶν*. Pag. 69. Of the generation of Jesus Christ the son of David. It begins: *Τοῦ μὲν αἰσθητοῦ ἡλίου*. Pag. 81. Of that divine ladder. Pag. 87. (b) Conf. Oudin. l. c., and Lambec. V, page 122 sqq. Kollar., where from p. 117 he reviews cod. 228, containing thirty-six homilies of Theophanes on the Sunday Gospels and anniversary feasts. Lambecius, after he noted that the first is inscribed at the beginning of the year: *Γρηγορίου τοῦ Κεραμέως μητροπολίτου Ταυρομενίας τῆς Σικελίας, ὁμιλία*, etc., and had rendered the longer account of Scorsus regarding the double name of the author, and had added that in a certain Greek codex in the Imperial collection, which contains various autograph opuscula of Georgius Calyba, Georgius Cerameus is cited, and, having changed his former opinion, he binds the age of Theophanes to the twelfth century under Roger, King of Sicily, who died in the year of Christ 1152 (witness Baronius in *Annal. eccl.* tom. XII, a. 1152, n. 14), observes that when in the codex there is found the Greco-barbarous inscription of the XXVI homily, on the day of the feast of Palms, *ἐνώπιον τοῦ ῥηγὸς Ῥόγου*, the name written by abbreviation *Ῥόγου* is the same as the complete *Ῥογερίου*, and the word *ῥήξ* in Greco-barbarous is the same as king. Finally, he speaks at length about King Roger, and suspects that that oration was delivered in the year of Christ 1140. Add. Kollar. not. A, to Lambec. IV, page 41 sqq. concerning the age and name of Theophanes. HARL.

16 evangelical voice. Page 92. Incipit: "What kind of things do those suffer." Page 111. "Those in the equestrian contests." Page 119. (in which the Greeks celebrate the memory of the restoration of the veneration of the icons), concerning the holy icons. Incipit: "A bright feast and assembly has arrived." Page 125. Baronius gave this homily in Latin at the year 842, n. 29, from the version of Franciscus Turrianus, with which Jacobus Gretserus published it in Greek and Latin in volume II *De cruce*, p. 1242, edit. in fol. Ingolst. 1616. (Conf. Lambec. VIII, p. 700 sqq. against Gretser and Scorsus.) Incipit: "Hastening to touch upon the customary teaching." Page 130. "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself." It was delivered on the Sunday of the Adoration of the Holy Cross, in the middle of the time of the Fast. Incipit: "Now the time of temperance has reached its very midpoint for us." Page 137. "Lord, have mercy on my son, for he is lunatic." Incipit: "It urges on a proud horse." Page 144. "And the Son of man shall be betrayed." Incipit: "The time of temperance has already progressed." Page 149. "The disciple whom Jesus loved [provides] a banquet for us." Page 158. It was delivered before King Roger. Incipit: "Bright is the gathering of the present feast." P. 185. [On which I have written more in the first note to this chapter.] "I shall seem burdensome to your love." Page 188. In this homily, page 207, Theophanes praises the hymn of Andreas Cretensis for its excellence of style.

28-33. Interpretation of the eleven matins Gospels, concerning those things which were accomplished after the resurrection of Christ. These eleven homilies are in the manuscript in the Cæsarean codex, of which Lambec. IV, p. 61 [p. 434 ed. Kollar.] - 28. a) On Matt. xxviii, 16. Incipit: "Of old indeed, Moses, the seer of God." Page 215. – 29. b) On Mark xvi, 1. Incipit: "Rising, the dawn gladdens the eyes." Page 219. – 30. c) On Mark xvi, 9. Incipit: "The ever-flowing rivers." Page 224. 31. d) On Luke xxiv, 1. Incipit: "Since concerning the life-giving." Page 230. – 33. f) On John xx, 1. Incipit: "The [triumph] against our nature." Page 238. p. 275. John xx, 11. Incipit: "Instead of the chief of the disciples." Page 244. – 35. h) On John xx, 19. Incipit: "It must be sought by the examiners of the sacred words." Page 247. – 36. i) On John xxi, 3 seq. Incipit: "To the lake of Tiberias." Page 250. – 37. k) On John xxi, 14 seq. Incipit: "The Lord having appeared to the disciples." Page 257. — Page 262. — Page 273. — most holy. Page 282. "The season leads us to the very goal of spring." Page 288. "eye." Incipit: "And a grateful debtor." Page 296. — Page 308. "Such as is accustomed to happen." Page 313. For the feast days of the Saints. (c) See Du Cange, Glossarium on *Orthodoxia*, Lambec. VIII, p. 456. [p. 700 sqq. Koll.] Nic. Rayrum, preliminary dissertation to *Acta Sanctorum*, vol. II of June, p. 22.

^A of the holy great martyr Demetrius. Spoken on the feast of the great martyr Demetrius (October 8). Incipit: "On account of a double cause today." Page 321. Of the holy Unmercenaries Cosmas and Damian (October 17). Incipit: "He gathers us together, O lovers of festivals." Page 324.

FABRICIUS: In Moscow codex 274 (concerning which more later), no. 16, it reads: "Read on the first day of November, of the holy Unmercenaries. He gathers us together today..." And Matthaei, in *Notitia codd. Gr. Mosq.*, p. 173, in note 4, after "is read," would like to insert "and also." For he says: "This pericope is explained twice in the church, on the feast of the twelve apostles and on the feast of the holy Unmercenaries. See my second edition of the Gospels on Matthew 5:1. Theophanes gave this homily on the first of November, in which reading verses 2, 3, and 4 are omitted, as he himself notes in this homily, p. 326b." Thus far the celebrated Matthaei.

HARLES: Spoken on the feast of the archangel of the celestial host, Saint Michael (September 29). Incipit: "The sensory meadows..." Page 329. ...on the feast of Saint Philip (May 1). Incipit: "Not only wandering about bodily..." Page 336. ...two." Spoken on the feast of the holy apostle Andrew (November 30). Incipit: "For me, the discussion of the present feast..." Page 342. ...laus. Spoken in memory of our holy Father Nicholas (December 16). Incipit: "That (d) towards His own divine court the Master..." Page 346. In this homily, page 350, Gregory of Nyssa's eight homilies on the Beatitudes are praised in these words: "The depth of this sacred teaching was understood alone of all by that man who, like the great Moses, entered into the darkness of theology—the Nyssen and great Gregory—who explained in eight homilies the beauty of this [teaching]; and it will be permitted to anyone who wishes to draw forth from that book of all wisdom the streams and to get drunk on the sober drunkenness."

...today. Page 353. ...March). Incipit: "Today the Church is mystically illuminated." Page 359. Spoken in the *panegyris* of Saint Onuphrius (June 1). Incipit: "It has fallen to me to wonder." Page 365. Spoken in the feast of the holy apostles Peter and Paul (June 29). Incipit: "I rejoice with you, O city, and with you, divine temple of the palaces." Page 370. Before it was published, Turrianus cited it against the Magdeburgians in favor of the Apostolic Canons 11, 6. ...feast of Saint Procopius (July 8). Incipit: "And a cithara-player man is often..." Page 378. ...of Saint Pancratius. Spoken in the feast of Saint Pancratius of Taormina, as they say, bishop, and disciple of the apostle Peter (July 14). Incipit: "We have not come behind, as the saying goes." Page 385.

FABRICIUS: Octavius Cajetanus had a fragment of the homily on the 6th festive day of Saint Pancratius printed, translated by Augustine Floritus, S. J., in the *Lives of the Sicilian Saints*, vol. I, p. 10, as testified by Mongitore.

HARLES: ...ty." Spoken in the feast of the holy great martyr Panteleemon (July 27). Incipit: "Those who have gathered to this public festival..." Page 392. ...of our Lord Jesus Christ (August 6). Incipit: "What sort of thing a shepherd is accustomed to suffer." Page 398. ...on the feast of the Dormition of the most holy Mother of God (August 15). Incipit: "How much more glorious than I..." Page 402. ...August). Incipit: "The order rightly adjusted the completion of the Forerunner to the very closing of the year." Page 418. (a) That: in the cited Moscow codex, no. 20.

19 NOTITIA EX FABRICIO. 20 μου ὕδωρ. Pag. 424. Theophanes’ homilies, revised from the Panormitan, Vatican, Escorial, and Parisian codices, were first edited by Francis Scorsus, S. J., with an elegant version and learned and copious notes appended to the end of the volume (Paris, 1644, folio). The same exist in the Coislin codex, concerning which see Montfaucon, p. 591. The 56 homilies in the Imperial codex, concerning which see Lambecius IV, p. 17 (e). That many more unpublished homilies of the same writer lie hidden in libraries there is no doubt, since Allatius, in his *Diatribe de Georgiis*, p. 445, testifies that he read on the island of Chios five of his homilies not seen by Scorsus, the titles and openings of which you may see there, if you like. FABR. However, it is certain today that there are unpublished homilies of Theophanes in manuscript in several libraries. Yet in few is the same order observed, a fact which I shall briefly point out, as it has been demonstrated by the compilers of the catalogues, to whom I must refer the reader. Consider this information on such codices: In Venice, in the Nanian codices 66 (though the first two are missing) and 89, there are 35 and 41 homilies respectively; the author of the catalogue of Greek codices of Nan (pp. 418 sqq. and 170 sqq.) shows their sequence and how they differ from the published ones. In Turin, in the royal codex 212, fol. 37-256, there are homilies, but in an order completely different from the published ones; in the same codex, fol. 1 sqq., they are read under the title: *From the Questions and Answers of Theophanes Kerameus and Justin the Philosopher*. These are nearly sixty questions of varied subject matter concerning Holy Scripture, regarding which, since no mention has been made by Oudin, or by Fabricius, or by others who write about Theophanes, the author of the catalogue of Greek codices in Turin, p. 311, brought to light by way of a specimen the first question of Theophanes in Greek with a Latin version. Ibid., in codex 319, fol. 10 sqq., are Theophanes’ homilies, the same as those that were published. See the cited catalogue, p. 398. Ibid., in codex 320, fol. 4, is John (sic) Kerameus’s homily on the beginning of the indiction, and fol. 185 sqq., other homilies of John (sic) Kerameus; the author of the cited catalogue shows the order differs from the published ones by comparison, p. 399 sq. In Paris, in the public library, there are ten codices containing sometimes single, sometimes several homilies; for example, in codex 1183 there are 45 homilies; in codex 1184 there are 54 homilies; in codex 1206, 34 homilies; in codex 1207, under the name of Gregory Kerameus, 40 homilies. See the index to the royal manuscript catalogues of Paris, vol. II. In the Coislin codex of the library 201, there are passages from Theophanes in Nicetas’s collection of interpretations, etc., as witnessed by Montfaucon in *Bibl. Coislin.*, p. 251. And there, p. 391, by the same witness, in codex 277 are read 62 homilies in the same order as they were published. According to Montfaucon in *Bibl. bibliothecar. mss.* I, p. 33, in Rome, in the Vatican codex no. 904 of Queen Christina’s library, there are certain works of Kerameus. P. 231. In Naples, homilies in two codices of the library of S. Giovanni a Carbonara, etc. P. 483. In Venice, in the Justinian library, in two codices. P. 505. In Milan, in two codices of the Ambrosian library; vol. II, p. 1198, many works of Theophanes Cer. in the library of Guil. Pelliserii; p. 1314, in codex 64 of the Mazarine library, are Gregory Cerameus’s homilies, etc., where the observation of Montfaucon is to be noted: "The author," he says, "is clearly different from Theophanes Cerameus; there is nothing common between the homilies of both. He is the one who is noted by Allatius to be in the library of Augustinus Tarraconensis and in the royal Escorial, beginning with the publican, whom, however, he wrongly confuses with Theophanes Cerameus, following the error of Franciscus Scorsus. The homilies are 54 in all. The first is for the Sunday of the Publican and the Pharisee, the last for the Sunday of the Progenitors of Christ." So far Montfaucon. And Mongitor, *l. c.*, already cited several who distinguish the two. Add below from Villois, *Epist*. Ibid., p. 4315, in Mazarine codex 66, 26, which is indicated thus: "Of Cerameus, Metropolitan of the city of Rhoto (or Rhegium) in Calabria, on Zacchaeus, chief of the publicans: this is among the homilies of Theophanes Cerameus, who was bishop not of Calabria, but of Sicily." In Moscow, in the synodical codex 274, there are sixty homilies of Gregory, Archbishop of Tauromenium, whose order and openings Matthaei reviews in *Notit. cod. Gr. Mosquens.*, pp. 172 sqq., and the same person, p. 175 sq., praises a similar codex of prime quality kept in Leipzig in the Paulina library, and judges the homilies of Theophanes altogether worthy to be compared for the sake of the sacred text. Especially noteworthy is codex 46 in the royal library of Madrid, both because of the name of the author—who in this unique codex is called Philagathus the Philosopher—and because of the greater number of homilies than are found in any other codex. For it contains seventy-eight homilies of Theophanes and has twenty-eight which do not occur either in Scorsus’s edition or among those which Leo Allatius lists as unpublished in his *Diatribe de Georgiis*. For this reason, Iriarte, in the *Cat. codd. Gr. Matrit.*, pp. 55-70, reviewed them no less copiously than diligently, and from his codex he provided the inscriptions of the individual homilies (the order of which also differs from the published ones), which are generally richer and more complete than those which Scorsus published, and he scattered memorable observations here and there, in which also Scorsus’s edition is sometimes explained, sometimes amended, and sometimes supplemented. The title, however, is: *Work of Philagathus the Philosopher*, by which name Theo(e) Or pp. 35 sqq. of the Kollar edition. Regarding Imperial codex 102, no. 2, where see Kollar’s note, pp. 41 seqq., Lambecius, after he had indicated the order of the homi-liary preserved in this codex, and the inscriptions and openings of each, warns and teaches that the author of them in Imperial codex 224 is called Gregory Ceram.; in codex 111, however, formerly 161, he is called neither Theophanes nor Gregory, but only by the surname *Kerameus*, or "Figulus." Regarding Imperial codex 111, no. 8 (Lambec. IV, p. 134), especially 228 (Lambec. V, pp. 117 seqq.), I have already written more above. HARL.

^A Iriarte shows that Theophanes used the name Philagathus while he was leading a monastic life, from the subscription of the unpublished homily 77 (p. 63, n. 204). For this homily is inscribed: *Philagathi philosophi opus*, and at the end it is read: "Philagathus, the humble monk, speaks and writes these things, being unworthy." However, with some folios torn away, six entire homilies are missing, which should have followed according to the prefixing index, but which have indeed been published. But I would stray too far from the right path if I were to excerpt everything that might seem worthy of note by Iriarte. Yet it is helpful to note a few things more. On pages 65 sq. he reviewed the Escorial codex; on p. 67 he subjoins a catalog of Theophanes' homilies, arranged in alphabetical order, with a note added everywhere indicating which homily exists either in Scorsi's edition, or in the Madrid and Escorial codices, or has been seen by Allatius. On page 69 he also blames our Fabricius and Montfaucon, who in his *Diarium Italicum* recounted two mss. codices of the same Theophanes' homilies inspected by him in Naples and as many in Venice, because they neglected to describe the titles of each one, much less their opening words. But they seem to have done this out of a desire for brevity, and thus they are to be excused. On this occasion, let it be permitted for me to add a portion of a letter, in which Villoison formerly and kindly taught me many things pertaining to Greek literature—with that singular kindness and remarkable erudition and abundance of letters from which he flourished—in which he so learnedly supplements and amends what I had written in the *Introduction*, etc., II, part 1, p. 450 sq.: "You could add this important passage from the *Lettera intorno a' pregi dell' antica città di Taormina*, written to one of his friends by Sig. D. Ignazio Cartella, of Taormina, page 153, vol. XV, of the *Opuscoli di autori Siciliani*, in Palermo, 1774, 4to. Ignace Cartella speaks there of the prelates of Tauromenium, who held the title of archbishop, and among others, of the two Kerameis, Gregory and Theophanes, whose famous homilies we possess, he says, published in Greek and Latin by Scorsi, who attributes them all to Theophanes, while one sees clearly upon reading them that some of them belong to Gregory, and others to Theophanes, as the famous Fr. Francois Combefis maintains, *Bibliothecae concionatoriae Patrum* vol. 1, on the word 'Theophanes Kerameus,' p. 46, and on that of 'Gregory Kerameus.' P. 14. You mention the *Catalogue of Greek manuscripts of Madrid*, by Jean Iriarte, who on p. 84, col. 2, boasted in these terms of the discovery he believes he made of the true name of the author of these homilies: *'My own discovery, I confess candidly, I have marveled at. To find the name of the writer is considered more [important] than the writings themselves. Moreover, it is entirely certain that Theophanes used the name Philagathus while he was leading a monastic life.'* He is mistaken. Greek bishops, who are always drawn from the bosom of convents, just like laymen who embrace the monastic life, change their name at the time; but they always take care to adopt one whose initial letter is the same. It is a rule without exception. Maffei had made this judicious observation in the learned *Lettera al P. Abate Bucchine sopra i frammenti Greci dati in luce nel tomo XVI del Giornale de Letterati d'Italia*, and reprinted in Holland under the name of St. Irenaeus, p. 301 of his *Rime e prose*, part collected from various books, and part never before printed, in Venice, 1719, in 4to. ^B I shall observe, therefore, despite the authority of Iriarte, that according to this constant usage, if Theophanes Kerameus had been called Philagathus in his convent, he could not have helped, upon ascending to the see of Tauromenium, taking a name whose initial letter would have begun, just as his own did, with a P, such as Peter, Philip, Pachomius, etc. It is thus that Manuel Margunios took the name of Maximus with the bishopric of Cerigo." So far Villoison. Who then was that Philagathus? Was he the unknown author of certain homilies, distinct from Theophanes, whose name had been wrongly prefixed by the scribe of the codex? Or was Theophanes also sometimes so surnamed because of his virtues? But why is he called a philosopher? Unless "Philagathus speaks and writes these things" had been appended at the end of homily 77, one could easily have fallen into the suspicion that it was the name of the scribe. But let us dismiss the conjectures. In Madrid codex 33 there are thirteen homilies of Theophanes Kerameus, whose order and inscriptions Iriarte indicates, and he judges them to be part of codex 16, I.c. p. 133 sq. HARL.

REVIEW OF THE MADRID CODEX WITH CRITICAL NOTES BY JOHN IRIARTE. (Cod. Græc. Matrit., p. 53.)

[THEOPHANES KERAMEUS – RECENSIO CODICIS MATRITENSIS]

REVIEW OF THE MADRID CODEX

with the critical notes of John Iriarte. (Cod. Græc. Matrit., p. 55.)

Codex marked no. XVI, parchment, in folio, having 220 leaves, written in two columns, and having all its titles—not to mention the original letters which are distinct, written by an ancient hand, indeed of the eleventh century, and with its older writings, that is to say the deeper script, being visible everywhere and the new ones written over them: of its leaves—in addition to being considerably degraded on its outer face by smoke and age, casting a sense of great reverence owing to the smoky images; nor is it less magnificent in its lack of light, as it once belonged to the Velascan library.

In it are contained LXVIII homilies of Philagathos the philosopher, to which are added two others: namely, one ^A of St. Sabas Mesimeros, his disciple, and another adorned with the name of St. John Chrysostom. These homilies of Philagathos, however, were first brought to light in Paris, in Greek and Latin with notes, by the Sicilian Jesuit Franciscus Scorsus, under the name of Theophanes Kerameus, Archbishop of Tauromenium; though not all of them, inasmuch as he only edited LXII. Our codex, for its part, contains thirty-two in its own pages, which occur neither in the aforementioned edition, nor among those which Leo Allatius mentions as unpublished in his *Diatriba de Georgiis*. As for which ones these are, we have marked them in the course of the review with an asterisk, for the sake of brevity. But let us proceed to a review of this most excellent codex.

Fol. 1. On its front, in letters distinct from the rest of the book's writing, which are for the most part either deleted or abraded, and are read with great difficulty, is the title: That is, the work of Philagathos the philosopher: which name you may find expressed in three other places. Immediately follows an index, written by the same hand, of all the homilies that this codex once contained, namely, comprising the titles, omitting however three homilies mentioned below; under which lies, by the very same hand, such a subscription: This is (if one supplies the second, nearly obliterated line with these words) Ends attained by the humble brother Angelus. ^B THE WORK OF PHILAGATHOS THE PHILOSOPHER. Sermon 1. Homily spoken at the beginning of the Indiction, and on St. Simeon Stylites. Begins: Blessed is God who has deemed us worthy to run through the circular period of the year. This is numbered as homily 1 in the edition of Theophanes by Scorsus. Sermon 2. Homily on the debtor of ten thousand talents. It was delivered in the ambo, or pulpit, of the archiepiscopal church. Begins: The trainers and teachers of the young. This is the same there, 2. Sermon 3. Homily spoken on the Sunday before the feast of the Exaltation (of the Holy Cross). "No one has ascended into heaven." It was delivered in the ambo. Begins: Come today, O God-beloved assembly. This is the same there, 3. Sermon 4. Homily on the Exaltation of the precious and life-giving Cross. It was delivered in the ambo of the archiepiscopal church. Begins: I see today the venerable ceiling of this great temple imitating the celestial vault. This is the same there, 4. Sermon 5. Homily on the passage, "Jesus wished to depart into Galilee." It was delivered in the church of St. Philip the Apostle, on his feast. Begins: Not only walking about bodily in the land of the Savior. This is the same there, 49. Sermon 6. Homily on the lunatic. It was delivered in the ambo of the archiepiscopal church. Begins: A flat plain urges on a high-spirited horse. ^C This is the same there, 23. Sermon 7. Homily on the passage: "Possessing the legion." It was delivered in the ambo of the archiepiscopal church. Begins: The disease of the body hinders my tongue. This is the same there, 9. But this text is nearly entirely missing, for its leaves have been torn out; it ends, in fact, with these words: which you may find on page of the aforementioned edition.

Also, with the leaves torn out, six whole homilies are missing which ought to have followed. To wit, the eighth, On the passage of John's Gospel: "John was standing," and on the feast of the Apostle Andrew: which is numbered as homily 50 there. The ninth, whose inscription clearly lies hidden, because it was obliterated in the earlier index of this codex's homilies, and omitted in the later. The tenth, On the hemorrhoissa, and the daughter of the archisynagogue: which is likewise 10 there. The eleventh, On the rich man and Lazarus, which is 8 there. The twelfth, On Zacchaeus the chief of the publicans, which is 15 there. The thirteenth, On the Publican and the Pharisee, which is 16 there.

The inscriptions of each of these homilies, ^D however, apart from the one mentioned above, are clearly evident from both indexes. But in truth it is less inconvenient that only those homilies are missing here which are already safely established through the benefit of print.

^A [GREEK COLUMN] ...having said that a drachma is buried in the dung of pleasures, of a man in his glory.” Spoken on the Sunday of the Carnival. What sort of things those suffer from some high mountain peak, the transgressions. ” Spoken on the Sunday of Cheese-fare [missing phrase in source]. They who struggle in the Olympic contests. Spoken on the Sunday of Orthodoxy. A bright feast and festival has arrived. ...of the one in Capharnaum. Spoken on the second Sunday of the Fasts. Hastening to grasp the customary teaching. ...to follow me.” Spoken on the third Sunday of the Fasts. Now the season of abstinence has arrived for us. Jerusalem.” Spoken on the fifth Sunday of the Fasts; seek the fourth Sunday, Sermon 7. The season of abstinence has already progressed. Spoken in the ambo. A magnificent [or many] feast the disciple who leaned on the breast has prepared for us. Spoken in the ambo of the archbishopric. Today the Church is mystically enlightened. Sermon 23. Homily delivered on the Gospel of the holy Passions. Spoken on Great Friday after the morning office. Perhaps I shall seem burdensome to your love. Samaritan woman]. Spoken in the ambo of the archbishopric. Unprefaced [or: Who, unprefaced] to the Savior today let us mentally follow. ...to be men?” Spoken in the church which is in the palace of Palermo on the feast of the Holy Apostles. I rejoice with you, city, and you with me, divine temple of the palaces. Palermo, of the Gospel according to Luke. Spoken in the ambo on the feast of the Dormition of the all-holy Theotokos. As for me, the day today is much brighter. ...in the ambo of the archbishopric. ...the holy Bethlehem today leads. ...twelve disciples. Spoken on the feast of the holy Unmercenaries in their temple. He calls us, O festival-lovers. Sermon 29. Homily on the mission of the seventy disciples. Spoken on the feast of the Archistrategos Michael. The sensible meadows, indeed, of varied flowers.

[LATIN COLUMN] REVIEW OF THE MADRID CODEX. Concerning the prodigal. Mutilated at the beginning, it begins from these words, which you may read in the alleged edition on page 101, line 20; and it is 17 there. Homily 15, on the text: “When the Son of man shall come in his glory.” Pronounced on the Sunday of Carnival. It begins, ...It is 18 there. Homily 16, on the text: “If you forgive men their sins.” Pronounced on the Sunday of Cheese-fare, that is, the week during which the Greeks begin the abstinence of cheese. It begins, ...It is 19 there. Homily 17, concerning the holy images. Pronounced on the Sunday of Orthodoxy, that is the Lent of the Greeks. It begins, ...It is 20 there. Homily 18, concerning the paralytic at Capharnaum. Pronounced on the second Sunday of the Fasts. It begins, ...It is 21 there. Sermon 19. Homily on the text: “If any man will come after me.” Pronounced on the third Sunday of the Fasts. It begins, ...It is 22 there. Homily 20, on the text: “Behold we go up to Jerusalem.” Pronounced on the fifth Sunday of the Fasts. Seek Sermon 7 for the fourth Sunday. It begins: It is 24 there. Sermon 21, Homily on the four-day Lazarus. Pronounced in the ambo. It begins, (in published versions) It is 25 there. Sermon 22 [sic], Homily on the Annunciation. Pronounced in the ambo of the archbishop’s church. It begins: It is 53 there. 45, verso Sermon 23. Homily delivered on the Gospel of the holy Passions. Pronounced on Great Friday after daybreak. It begins, It is 27 there. Sermon 24. Homily on the Samaritan woman. Pronounced in the ambo of the archbishop’s church. It begins, (incorrectly in Scorso’s edition), It is 38 there. Sermon 25. Homily on the text: “Whom do men say that I am?” Pronounced in the temple which is in the palace of Palermo, on the feast of the Holy Apostles. It begins, (read as in the published editions), It is 55 there. The word which the title of this homily carries is not a little opposed to P. Scorso, who contends at length that this homily was delivered by Theophanes in Constantinople in the magnificent temple which the Emperor Basil the Macedonian built in the palace. Indeed, Scorso opposes himself even more, since he admits that two even more magnificent temples of this kind built by the kings of Sicily still exist in Palermo, one of which is the temple in the viceroy’s palace dedicated to St. Peter the Apostle... and it is certainly similar to this one which our author describes here; but he asserts that Theophanes visited Constantinople only led by mere conjecture. But if his manuscript had provided the word “Palermo” to be read in this place, he would surely not have embraced such an opinion, I suppose. Sermon 26. Homily concerning Martha and Mary from the Gospel according to Luke. Pronounced in the ambo on the feast of the Dormition of the most holy Theotokos. It begins, It is 60 there. Homily 27, on the holy Infants, or Innocents. Pronounced in the ambo of the archbishop’s church. It begins, It is 52 there. Sermon 28. Homily on the mission of the twelve disciples. Pronounced on the feast of the holy Unmercenaries, in their own temple. It begins, It is 47, 69 there. Sermon 29. Homily on the mission of the seventy disciples. Pronounced on the feast of the Prince of the heavenly host, Michael. It begins, It is numbered 48 there.

Sermon 50. Homily on the Beatitudes. Pronounced on the feast of S. Nicholas. It begins, "When the Master was calling His own sheep to His own divine court..." It is numbered 51 there. 73, averso. Sermon 31. Homily on "The Book of the Generation" and concerning Martha. Pronounced in the ambone on the Sunday before the Nativity of Christ. It begins, "Of the sensible sun which marks the horizon..." It is numbered 43 there. Sermon 32. Homily on the Gospel according to Matthew, on the Sunday of the First of Matthew: "Whoever acknowledges me." Pronounced in the ambone of the episcopal church. It begins, "The time is for the Body of the Lord..." It is numbered 41 there. 79, averso. Sermon 33. Homily on the text, "The lamp of the body is the eye," and concerning a grateful debtor. It begins, "The lamp of the body is the eye..." It is numbered 42 there. Sermon 34. Homily on the rest of that saying, "The lamp of the body is the eye." Pronounced in the ambone. It begins, "The peddlers, and the rustic, and the poor who go around the houses..." It occurs there 45. 83, averso. Sermon 35. Homily spoken about the centurion on the 4th Sunday of Matthew. Pronounced in the ambone. It begins, "It acts against good works." It is numbered 44 there. Sermon 36. Homily on the parable of the vineyard. Pronounced in the temple of Saint Stephen in Panormus. It begins, "Because the time has so very beautifully joined the feast of the protomartyr to the festival of the birth of Christ. And now he has promised to drink the cup of the intelligible wine, of which we may also partake, in Christ Himself the God; to whom be the glory and the power with the unoriginate Father and the consubstantial and life-giving Spirit unto the ages. Amen." 88, averso. Sermon 36. Homily on the Gospel according to Luke concerning the catch of fish. Pronounced in the ambone. It begins, "Since it has begun today to be read through..." It is numbered 5 there. Sermon 38. Homily on the widow’s son. Pronounced in the great monastery of the Savior at Akroterion, when the first chanter had died. It begins, "When intending to make a different subject the prologue of the discourse..." It is numbered 6 there. From the inscription of this homily, which escaped Fr. Scorso, you may gather two things worthy of note: namely, that it was delivered at Messina (since in its port or summit there existed once the monastery of the Savior, which is mentioned here, as is clearly evident from note 2 of this our catalogue); secondly, that the man whose death Theophanes laments in the opening of his oration was the first chanter or precentor of the church of that same monastery. But because he calls him his brother, it is certainly not thereby proven that he was his brother by blood-kinship, as the same Fr. Scorso affirms in his notes; for would not the intimacy of familiar companionship be enough to use such a term of address? Moreover, if Theophanes’ true brother had died, is it credible that he would have praised only the beauty of his form, a face worthy of the priesthood, a grace of manner in society, and the varied and sweet modulation of his psalmody, while omitting the sweetest sentiments of brotherly love? Furthermore, in the very inscription of the homily, there should have been mention of a brother rather than a chanter. Finally, which is the head of all arguments, it is recorded in no literary monuments that Theophanes had a brother. Sermon 39. Homily on the parable of the sower. Pronounced in the ambone. It begins, "Those who set out on long journeys for the trade of wealth..." It is numbered 7 there. 95, averso. Sermon 40. Homily concerning the lawyer who questioned Him. Pronounced in the ambone of the episcopal see after his return from Sicily. It begins, "Not so much is the land parched, and rugged, and dried up..." It is numbered 11 there. Towards the end of this homily, it occurs to Fr. Scorso—in the page, that is, of the edition made by him—where these words marked with an asterisk shine forth: a place of scripture obscured and difficult by the fault of corruption, which, being entirely destitute of the aid of another copy, he professes to have commented upon rather than interpreted. But that fault emanated entirely from the preposterous transposition of words from one period into another, and from the evil division of the word in ac. But since our book is free from this fault, we shall have done a great service if, in order that the whole passage may be restored to health, we present all the words pertaining to the understanding of it, just as they are in the manuscript codex folio averso, most accurately, enclosing those in asterisks which, moved from their own places and corrupted, produced the obscurity. They are indeed of this kind.

^A On the morrow, he says, he went forth and gave to the innkeeper two denarii, and said to him: Take care of him, and whatever you spend besides, I will repay you when I return. What, then, is the "morrow"? It is the time after the passing of the commandments, according to which the grace of the Gospel dawned, making another day, possessing the light of knowledge. The morrow, that is to say, after his resurrection from the dead, according to which (from the time that) he, having set as the sun in the tomb, leapt forth again as from the sunrise. Having gone forth, therefore, on the morrow. From where did he go forth? From the corruption of death; he gave to the disciples and to all the heralds of the mystery the two Testaments as two denarii, having one inscription, that of the Trinity, just as indeed the denarii bore one image, even if they happened to be two in number. He says, therefore, to the teachers, "It was spoken in the ambo." Drones are a type of bee that is both idle and useless. ^B Sermo 42. Homily on the parable of the feast. It was spoken in the ambo. The God-called voice of the Gospel is a mystical feast for us. Sermo 43. Homily on the rich man who questioned the Lord. It was spoken in the ambo. As something happens externally regarding the perfumes made from roses. It was spoken for the litany. “Who will give water to my head, and a fountain of tears to my eyes?” regarding the blessing of the waters. It was spoken at the feast of Saint Demetrius. We observe the assembly today regarding the provocation of two years. “I say to you.” It was spoken in the festival of Saint Procopius at Draginas. And a cithara-player often going through the streets. “All things have been delivered to me.” It was spoken in the festival of Saint Onuphrius. “It is for me to marvel at the attribute of virtue.” ^C Of the olive grove. It was spoken in the ambo. The purpose of our conduct, O fathers, is this: to gather what is useful from all things seen and spoken. Having our loins girded and our lamps burning, we too shall be like men awaiting their Lord, according to the parable of the Gospel. To Him be glory and power unto the ages of ages. Amen. 114. Sermo 49. Homily on the coming of the Holy Spirit. It was spoken after the genuflexion. Seeing today the holiest church of our all-holy Lady. Sermo 50. Homily on, “The Lord said, I am the door.” It was spoken in Tauromenium at the feast of Saint Pancratius. It is not absurd, as the saying goes, that we have come to the feast; it is not absurd, nor is it behind [the time]. Sermo 51. Homily on, “Be wise as serpents, and innocent as doves.” It was spoken at the feast of Saint Panteleemon. ^D Those gathered to this universal festival. Sermo 52. Homily on the saving Transfiguration. It was spoken in the ambo of the archbishopric. As a shepherd is accustomed to suffer when seeing the flock multiplied for him. Sermo 53. Homily on the beheading of the Forerunner. It was spoken in the temple of the Forerunner. Well did the order fit the finishing of the Forerunner. At Panormus to the litany in the presence of the king. [alt-version omitted]

It was spoken at Panormus in a procession, in the presence of the king. It begins, It ends at line 26. If Father Scorsus had seen the inscription of this homily, enhanced by the name of Panormus, he would perhaps not have dared to contend so fiercely in the Proœmium 11, § 6, that it was delivered at Constantinople before the emperor. Indeed, he applies himself with all his mind and zeal to proving that the term which Theophanes uses here, as well as elsewhere—for example, in homily 40, according to the Scorsan edition—designates the Constantinopolitan emperor, not the Sicilian king. Let it be granted, as he himself proves with many examples, that this term was commonly used in documents or other public instruments to distinguish the emperors of the East from the kings of Europe; but I would not believe that this custom had become so prevalent that it was altogether impermissible for bishops to address their own kings in prayers, or sermons, or any other kind of speech. Moreover, the commentator holds his opinion so tenaciously everywhere that, whenever he hears the author pronouncing the title, he does not hesitate to lead—or rather, to drag—him all the way to Constantinople to speak before the emperor, at the very time when he neither removes his eyes from the sight of his own king nor his feet from Sicily. 131, verso. Superscription: Sermo 55. Homilia in illud: “Ante sex dies Pascha.” It was spoken in the ambon. Begins, Ends, Sermo 56. Homilia in parabolam decem Virginum. Begins, Ends, verso. (sic) Sermo 57. Ejusdem homilia de censu Deiparæ. Begins, Ends, verso. (sic) Sermo 58. Ejusdem homilia in illud: ...“Domini nostri Jesu Christi.” Begins, Ends, verso. Sermo 59. Homilia in Evangelium, in illud: “In Cana Galilææ.” Begins, Ends, Sermo 60. Homilia in illud secundum Joannem, “In principio erat Verbum.” Begins, Ends, Sermo 61. Homilia in illud: “Deum nemo vidit unquam.” It was spoken in the ambon. Begins, Ends, (leg. Sermo 62. Homilia dicta Dominica Paralytici. Begins, Ends, (sic) (perhaps etc.) Sermo 63. Homilia dicta in illud: “Cæcum a nativitate.” It was spoken in the ambon of the archepiscopal church. Begins, Ends,

Luke the divine was an Antiochene ^A by birth, and a physician. He who is also truly worthy to hear the Gospel. Sermo 64. By the same, a history on the birth of the Forerunner. “Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us.” And he was hidden in the deserts until God was pleased to manifest him to the people of Israel; to whom belongs all honor and glory unto the ages of ages. Amen. ^B of the memorable Father Bartholomew, and a partial account of his life; and concerning not mourning for the departed. We celebrate a festival of paternal memory today, O assembly of fathers, if indeed it belongs to any other among us most particularly. By the grace and love for mankind of our Lord Jesus Christ, with whom to the Father together with the Holy Spirit be glory, honor, and power, and worship, and majesty always, now, and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen. or, for the dedication. “At that time the dedication took place in Jerusalem.” By the grace of Christ, being moved and changed from the worse to the better; by the grace of our Lord, and God, and Savior Jesus Christ; through the intercessions of the holy ^C (most holy Theotokos). It was spoken in the ambon of the archepiscopal church of Palermo. Radiant is our assembly today, stirring up the mind and making ready the eagerness, O divine and good audience for me. But my word is short and weak. Leaving the investigation and probing of deeper thoughts for another time; through the intercessions of the Mother of the Lord, of the intelligible ministers, of the glorious and all-lauded apostles, and prophets, and all the saints. Amen. of the holy Quadragesima. The gate of repentance, behold, has been opened, O most Christian assembly; behold, the spiritual struggle is prepared. That He may deem us worthy to see the venerable day of His glorious resurrection, and to obtain eternal goods, by the grace and love for mankind of our Lord, and God, and Savior Jesus Christ, with whom to the Father and to the Holy Spirit be glory, power, and praise always, now and ever, and unto the ages. Amen. of the holy Fasts. “I will bless the Lord at all times; his praise shall continually be in my mouth.” I will bless the Lord at all times; his praise shall continually be in my mouth. To that same Lord, and God, and our Savior Jesus Christ be the glory always, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen. of the holy images, and for confession. Obedient to the prophetic utterances, hearing the apostolic exhortations, and instructed by the evangelical histories, let us celebrate the day of the dedication. Being empowered and covered in Christ Himself, the immortal King; with whom to the beginningless and philanthropic Father, and to the life-giving and all-holy Spirit, be glory, greatness, and praise always, now and ever unto the ages. Homilia 71, on Orthodoxy, and on confession, and concerning the holy images. Come today, let us celebrate the former orderliness of the divine and holy images which the Church has put on radiantly, and let us take up spiritual joy. Of which may it be granted to us all to partake, by the grace and love for mankind of our Lord Jesus, with whom to the Father and the Holy Spirit be glory, now and unto endless ages. Amen. for the Dominical feasts. I indeed, O fathers and brothers and most beloved children, and the ornaments and precious spouses of the holy Church. And I in Him who dwells in you, we became a temple of His all-holy Father; for to Him belongs glory, honor unto the ages of ages. Amen. 73. “Days of poverty have anticipated me; I have walked about groaning without a muzzle; I have become a brother of sirens, and a companion of ostriches.” And Eliphaz the Temanite, answering, says: “Whether a wise man [should offer] an answer…

of knowledge, and filled the belly with the east wind?”

*Of Thomas.* Blessed is God who has deemed us worthy to see this holy and radiant feast. Come, let us spread out the veil, and we shall be within the contemplation. Attend, my people, to my law; incline your ear to the words of my mouth. For the interest and the avarice of the devil are yoked together, as we have prophesied above.

*Of Saint Sabbas, who became his disciple at Mesimer.* A joyful feast has shone forth today to the ends of the earth, this day of the Lord of Palms. So that, being thus worthily glorified by us as God, He may glorify us in return by His divine glory, by His goodness always, now, and unto the endless ages. Amen.

*Of the debt.* When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory. Then they slay, having despised even the crowd, only that their will may be done.

*And of the holy icons.* A brilliant feast and solemn assembly has arrived.

*Calendar of the wise.* It was not right to consider even the rusticity of words; for there is nothing in common between heterogeneous things; for if the leopard should resist the lion, and the hare [should resist] the bristling one. Then we too shall arm this sufficient right hand for the vengeance of the truth, and we shall converse with the adversaries with ink and reed. *The Philagathos, a humble solitary, as unworthy, speaks and writes these things.* End.

*Homily 76, on the Palm-bearing [Sunday].* It was delivered for the procession in the city of Messina. Again, the feast of feasts has arrived for us as a pre-feast. And to be humbled under his feet are those who oppose him; and that we may attain, uncondemned, the light-bearing and life-bearing resurrection; by the grace and love for mankind of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory and the power unto the ages. It was delivered in the ambo of the cathedral of Rhegium. I see the present solemnity as far more radiant, bearing the prologues to the resurrection of Christ and bringing an additional threefold joy to the Christ-named people. And if, through the negligence of a priest, [someone] should die even unconfessed or uncommunicated, the judgment for the same shall be toward the priest according to the promise of the Savior.

*Homily of Chrysostom concerning those who approach the divine mysteries with attention, for those left behind at the Encaenia.* It does not suffice to hear us, as Christians, simply and as it happens; and if you wish, I shall provide as a trustworthy witness the brother of the Lord, James, who says... That we may be delivered from the future and endless punishment, and be deemed worthy of the kingdom of heaven, by the grace and love for mankind of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory and the power always...

now and forever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen. This homily is found neither among the genuine nor among the spurious works of St. John Chrysostom, if one is to place faith in the alphabetical index of his works according to the first words of the sermons and homilies—in which the spurious ones and those omitted are also listed—which Father de Montfaucon presents in vol. XIII, page 296, of his very rich edition. But truly, after many manuscript catalogs and indices had been searched and examined in vain, mention of this homily at last occurs in the Greek manuscript library of Antonius Augustinus, codex 44, in these express words: *Chrysostom, item, a sermon on the Eucharist at the Encaenia, and that we ought to approach the divine mysteries with great fear.* Since the manuscript library of this most learned prelate was transferred to the Royal Library at the Escorial, we do not doubt in the least that this homily still exists there, unless it perished in the most disastrous fire of the year 1671. As it is, it has not yet become known in print.

The order of the homilies of Theophanes follows, with each ascribed its own numerical mark, as follows:

Homily 80, on the salutary Ascension of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ.

It begins: "Today the economy of our salvation has been fulfilled; today the nature of men has been transplanted from the earth to the heavens." It ends: "And may we be illuminated at last by the light of the holy Trinity, which we confess with boldness; by the command of the holy Fathers and Apostles, and of all the saints, always, now and forever, unto the ages of ages. Amen."

[There follow entries] for the first seven *Eothina*, that is, the Matins [homilies]; but since the leaves were torn out or corrupted by age, only the latter portion of the seventh exists, beginning with these words: "Finally, human nature accordingly," and ending in these: "Of Him who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, now and forever, and unto the ages." These seven homilies are extant in the above-praised edition, and they extend from the twenty-eighth to the thirtieth.

Ibidem.

Homily 88, on the eighth of the Matutinorum.

Homily 89, on the ninth of the Matutinorum.

Homily 90, on the tenth of the Matutinorum. On the catch of the fish.

Homily 91, on the eleventh of the Matutinorum.

Thus far is the review of the individual homilies that the whole codex contains. But now, beyond those things we have observed in passing, some matters remain for us to discuss concerning the author's name, age, and writings, as well as the codex itself. The author is indeed one of those who suffer from *polyōnymia*; for he is called by some Georgius, or Gregorius; by others Theophanes; by others Philippus; and finally by others Nicephorus, with the surname *Cerameus*—or *Ceramitae*, which means "potter"—always added. But all most frequently call him either Theophanes or Gregorius, so that he may be considered a man of two names, with the surname of Cerameus and the title of archbishop of Tauromenium also added. Concerning this matter, see Scorsus in the *Proemium* II, § 23; Leo Allatius in the *Diatriba de Georgiis*, no. LXXI; and Fabricius in the *Bibliotheca Graeca* vol. X, cap. 42.

As regards the appellation of Philagathus the philosopher, what is more rare than that? It occurs in no writer and in no manuscript copy, except for this Matritensis, where it is repeated four times—a reason for doubt concerning it. From this you may plainly gather how great was the desire that seized me to discover the author’s genuine name, and how great was the labor for me in finding it; how much effort I expended in perusing the writers of homilies, and in comparing them, until at length I succeeded in recognizing Theophanes in Philagathus. To confess frankly, I congratulated myself marvelously on my own discovery; it seemed to be worth more to find the name of the author than his writings. Moreover, it is entirely certain that Theophanes used the name Philagathus while he was leading a monastic life, from the subscription appended to homily 77, which we presented on the verso of folio 202 of this codex.

Now, concerning the age in which Theophanes lived: if the reading of the inscription of the homily according to Scorsus 26, spoken on the solemnity of Palm Sunday, "Euentou tou rhētos Rhēgiou," is true—where both Leo Allatius and even Scorsus himself, when questioned, judge that *Rogeriou* should be read instead of *Rhēgiou*—then he seems to have lived rather in the time of Roger I, King of Sicily, from about the year 1150 to 1154, than in the ninth century under the emperors Basil and Leo. Scorsus contends, however, that one should strive with every argument to erase the name *Rogeriou* and establish the word *Rhēgiou*, stubbornly interpreting the appellation *basileōs*, which Theophanes frequently uses, as emperor, not king. But Allatius, in his *Diatriba de Simeonum scriptis*, refutes each of these arguments of his singularly well, and explains that same Allatius, and clears up and illuminates the whole matter most excellently, is Casimirus Oudin in his *Commentary on the Church Writers of Antiquity*, vol. II, col. 1185 sqq. As for the writings of our author, that is, the homilies...

let us now proceed. That they are many more than the sixty-two which the Scorsan edition presents, this manuscript book here also abundantly proves. ^A Among the other codices of these Homilies, when I was observing that they were cited by the same Scorsus, as well as by Leo Allatius in his *Diatribe on the Georges*, at the Escurial, it immediately occurred to me to consult the Index of the principal manuscripts of the Escurial library, which I had previously compiled, partly from its own catalogue and partly from the books themselves, in the year 1747, during the time when I was staying at that royal monastery—the seat of all arts and disciplines—for forty days during the months of October and November, not as an idle spectator.

In that index, I very opportunely chanced upon a book titled: *Various Homilies of Gregory, Bishop of Tauromenia in Sicily, called Cerameus*, distinguished by this mark: IV. Q. 27. Immediately, being desirous to be informed how many and which homilies this book contained, I sent a letter on the 16th of the Kalends of August 1766 to Bernard Yriarte, the son of my brother and a primary administrator of the royal archives, who was staying at the aforementioned monastery while the King was rusticating there, earnestly requesting that he meet with the two most skilled custodians of that library and consult them on the matter. ^B When he had set about this vigorously, as is his habit with all things, the Reverend Father Didacus de Cisneros—the second custodian, to whom he had delivered my schedule bearing the codex's title and mark—complying with both his instructions and my wishes as diligently as he was kindly, caused the most accurate catalogue of that codex, with the inscriptions of the homilies and their first words written in Greek, to be sent to me two days later through the aid of the same Bernard.

This Escurial codex, therefore, consisting of 299 leaves and marked with the aforementioned sign IV. Q. 27, contains 56 homilies of Theophanes in total, of which the first displays this title: *Of the most blessed, most wise, and most rhetorical Archbishop of Tauromenia of Sicily, Lord Gregory, surnamed Cerameus, on the beginning of the Indiction, that is, of the new year.* That is: *Homily of the most blessed, most wise, and most eloquent Archbishop of Tauromenia of Sicily, Lord Gregory, surnamed Cerameus, on the beginning of the Indiction, or the new year*; the last is inscribed: *Homily of the same on the 11th Matutinal [Gospel]*, and begins: *At that time Jesus manifested himself to the disciples.* But all these have already been published by Father Scorsus in the Paris edition. ^C In the end, there is added: *Of the most wise, most learned, and most holy Patriarch of Constantinople, Lord Gregory the Cypriot, a discourse on the holy great martyr and trophy-bearer George.* This is: *Discourse of the most wise, most eloquent, and most holy Patriarch of Constantinople, Lord Gregory the Cypriot, on the holy great martyr and trophy-bearer George*, beginning with these words: *It is the custom of those who compete in speeches almost,* which has already appeared in Greek and Latin in the *Acta Sanctorum*, April, vol. III, on the 23rd day. Finally, at the end of the catalogue transmitted by the Reverend Father Cisneros, it was noted that nothing more by the same Gregory Cerameus existed in that library.

Yet, by no means recalled from the intention of inquiring into the works of Theophanes by such a clear and open indication from a most sagacious man, I persisted in asking him, through repeated letters to the aforementioned Bernard, to investigate more accurately if any writing of that author, or pertaining to him, lay hidden anywhere—such as the Lexicon of his Homilies, highly commended by Father Scorsus, as will be narrated more fully below. ^D However, that most diligent custodian of the royal library, after having applied more earnest care and having found nothing new, did not begrudge sending me the schedule written in his own hand through the efforts of the same Bernard: which it pleased me to produce here as a most copious witness of both his diligence and his duty.

*In the old index that existed before the fire of the year 1671, the following homilies and titles of Gregory of Tauromenia are found.* *...and from Zacchaeus up to Palm Sunday.* *...up to the finished Lenten season, and they end on the feast of All Saints.* *Lexicon of the principal words of the same 5 homilies.*

*This Lexicon was incorporated in the same volume in which the homilies of numbers 2, 3, and 4 were found. And as it seems, there were two copies, as is evident from the diverse places they occupied in the library. Of these, the one that had the mark VI. F. 1 perished, and in this was the Lexicon. The one of number 1 also perished. So that there has remained to us (as far as we know) no book other than that of the 37 homilies, of which I gave notice.*

For truly, it is a grave and intensely lamentable loss to letters! Especially of the Lexicon, concerning which, as a work singular and completely unknown to other libraries, Scorsus discourses among the Escurial codices of Theophanes (Prooem. III, § 2): *Furthermore, in the royal Spanish library in the monastery of St. Lawrence, which they call the Escurial, [there are] Homilies of Gregory, Bishop of Sicily, from [the homily on] the Chief Publican, and in another codex, Homilies for the whole year. Homilies of Gregory, Bishop of Sicily, beginning from the Chief Publican; complete homilies for the year, which indeed Mariano Vulgarnena of Palermo, a man clear not more for his lineage than for his erudition in Greek letters, certified to be the same as these which we publish; to whom, while staying in Madrid at the court of Philip IV, I gave the task in this literary matter, that he should learn about these homilies and their author, and compare with the index of those which I had with me, which was transmitted to him, the arguments, inscriptions, and the first words of each, by which collation he discovered them to be the same which I, in my...* [alt-version omitted]

understanding, perceived. And he found in the same library, annexed to the codex, a certain singular work which I have not yet heard of being found in other libraries: *Lexicon τῶν ῥημάτων*, or a Glossary of singular and difficult words of the author with their explanation. I have seen to it that a copy of this lexicon be printed at the end of this work, once I finally obtained it through the help of many friends and learned men, above all the diligence of Laurentius Cocchi, an erudite man and a most devoted scholar of the apparatus of the history of St. Demetrius the martyr, so that this testimony and trace of antiquity might also exist; but more will be said about that in its proper place.

But truly, the fate of the exceptional Lexicon would be less to be lamented if Scorsus had performed what he so beautifully asserted he had performed. Yet the matter is otherwise: the work itself is the witness. For it was impossible to find such a lexicon there, although I examined two very complete copies of the Scorsan work which the royal library provided. Furthermore, neither Allatius nor Fabricius, who most accurately searched through this edition of Theophanes, mention anything about that work being either annexed or inserted. How badly, therefore, did the writer, who was otherwise very deserving regarding Theophanes himself, defraud the republic of letters with such a singular ornament and such a notable treasure! How he inflamed the desire for the archetype of the writing that was consumed by fire!

It seems not at all alien to this place to mention the Homilies of Gregory Cerameus which the most learned prelate Antonius Augustinos had in his library, seeing as they were brought into the Escurial collection along with his other Greek manuscripts. These are indeed referred to in this manner in the Greek codex 102 of the same Catalogue: Homily of Gregory, archbishop of Tauromenium in Sicily, on the chief tax-collector Zacchæus. Homily of the same on the Publican and the Pharisee. Homily of the same on the parable of the Prodigal. Homily of the same on that passage of Matthew: "When the Son of man shall come." Homily of the same on that passage: "The Lord said, If everyone does not forgive his brother." Homily of the same on the adoration of the holy images. Homily of the same on the paralytic in Capharnaum. Sermon of the same on that passage: "Whoever wishes to come after me." Homily of the same on that place of Matthew: "A man came to Jesus, falling on his knees." Homily of the same on that passage of Matthew: "Behold, we go up to Jerusalem." Homily of the same for the feast of Palms. A book written on paper in the year 1535, in a square format. And if you look at the homily with which that codex begins and the one with which it ends, you may rightly consider it the same as the one which is designated by number 1 in the notice of the R. P. Cisneros inserted above; and therefore that it has perished in the terrible fire.

Finally, since the number of the homilies of Theophanes—which either the Parisian edition published, or the Matritensis codex preserves unpublished, or which Allatius indicates in the *Diatriba de Georgiis*—has grown so much, we have thought that we would perform a work very pleasing and convenient for men studious of these letters if we should set forth in this place a catalogue composed of them all, placing the first words of each in alphabetical order, from which they might understand without any effort what had already been committed to print, what lay hidden in manuscripts, what they themselves still desired, and what new ones they had obtained, and could perceive very quickly with a single glance of the eyes.

Catalogue of the Homilies of Theophanes arranged by alphabetical order

Going to another subject, to make a preface to the discourse. The Lord went up to Jerusalem. M. M. 52. † The wicked one opposes good deeds, seeking. Without a preface to the Savior today. M. M. He narrated to us today a double account of miracles. We perform today the assembly of a twofold cause. And it came to pass in those days, a decree went out. M. M. 57. † I indeed, O fathers and brothers, and most beloved children. M. M. 72. † It was necessary not to deem even the rusticity of words worthy. M. M. He said that the Son of man is about to come. For me, the discussion of the present feast is an old debt. Here is the much-talked-of question, how the Son appears envious. A joyous feast has shone today for the ends, this day of the Lord. Hastening to touch upon the usual teaching. Since he said that grace and truth. M. M. Since about the life-giving resurrection of Christ. Since the reading had begun to be read today. Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth. M.

[LATIN] RECENSIO COD. MATRIT. [GREEK] It causes me to marvel at the distinct quality of virtue. Bodily infirmity holds back my tongue. The divine-sounding [word] brings us today to holy Bethlehem. Drones are a kind of lazy and useless bee. The sensible meadows of manifold flowers. Which trains, and the teachers of the young. Those gathered for this public festival. To the discourse. Today, O lovers of festivals, it calls us. I will bless the Lord at all times and at all times. Blessed is God who has deemed us worthy to run through the cyclical period of time. Blessed is God who has deemed us worthy to see this holy and brilliant feast. M. M. 74. † Evangelical philosophy has arrived from the things below. The parable of the Publican and Pharisee. Behold, the gate of repentance has been opened. M. M. The power of the Spirit is perfected in weakness. M. M. 60. † Perhaps I shall seem burdensome to your love. Those who set out on long journeys for the trade of wealth. What a shepherd is accustomed to suffer when [the flock] has been multiplied. What those who [suffer] from some high [place] suffer. What is accustomed to happen concerning the parts. I see today the venerable roof of this great temple. I see today the most holy temple of the all-holy Lady. Which [being] prelusive to the Savior today, let us contemplate [it] intellectually. Which: [or] prelude. When the Son of man shall come in his glory. M. M. When the Master was calling to his own divine court. When the [counsel] against our nature from the beginning. Also a cithara-player often going through the streets. And when the eight days were fulfilled to circumcise. M. M. 58. † And Jesus passing by saw a man blind from birth. M. M. 53. † And a grateful debtor, even if [he owes] nothing to the creditor. They call the Lord to the marriage. The order of the Forerunner fitly brought its completion. A bright feast and festival has arrived today. Bright indeed, and illustrious, is the present festival. Mary stood at the tomb weeping outside. The God-called voice of the Gospel is a mystical supper for us. Now the time of temperance has reached its very center for us. The extended plain spurs on a spirited horse. We do not have a festival behind [us], as the saying goes. Not only walking about bodily in the land of the Savior. Neither is it such parched land, and rugged, and dry. It being evening on that day, on the first of the Sabbaths. Of old, Moses, who saw God, [led] the Israelite people. Again the evangelical voice leading us back to the paternal ladder. Again the consubstantial wisdom and power of God. Again the feast of feasts of the queen [of cities] is for us. We celebrate today a feast of paternal memory, O fathers. M. M. 65. † The season leads us to the very end of spring. The time of temperance has already progressed and reached its [end]. Peter rising ran to the tomb, and stooping down. The disciple whom Jesus loved sets before us a great banquet. A rich banquet for us, M. A great banquet, For before his voluntary passion the Savior having promised. The intent of our manner of life, O fathers. The wandering and greedy poor going around the houses. The rivers flowing eternally neither cease flowing in summer. Days of poverty have anticipated me; I have gone about groaning. M. M. 73. † Give ear, my people, to my law: incline your ears. M. M. 75. † Obeying prophetic utterances and apostolic exhortations, having [them] (listening). M. M. 70. † Those struggling in the hippodrome contests.

[LATIN COLUMN] SC. 54. SC. 9. SC. 52. §4 SC. 12. SC. 28. SC. 2. SC. 58. SC. 36. SC. 47. M. M. 69. † SC. 1. SC. 17. ALL. 5. † SC. 27. SC. 7. SC. 45. C. 18. SC. 45. SC. 4. SC. 40. SC. 58. Perpera forte legendum. Vide extra numerum. † SC. 51. SC. 33. SC. 56. SC. 42. St. 61. ALL. 5. † SC. 20. SC. 39. SC. 51. SC. 13. SC. 22. SC. 23. SC. 57. Ita legendum, non ut mendose excusum est. SC. 49. SC. 11. SC. 35. SC. 28. SC. 10. SC. 8. M. M. 78. † SC. 41. SC. 24. SC. 32. SC. 25. etc. M. Eadem, quae superius incipit: etc. ALL. 2. † M. M. 48. † SC. 43. SC. 30. SC. 19. (leg.

ἄρτι) Today the Church is spiritually illumined. SC. 46. We must seek this from the examiners of the sacred oracles. Matutino IX. FAB. And when the evening of that day, being the first of the Sabbaths, had come. SC. 35. Today the plan of our salvation is fulfilled. M. M. 80. † He calls us together, etc. Eadem, which begins above: He calls us together. I rejoice with you, O city, and with you, O temple of the palace. SC. 55. This I appear to suffer today, when. M. M. 77. The rising sun gladdens the eyes toward the east. SC. 29. That mystical and divine ladder which God showed. SC. 15. The Lord having been seen by the disciples. Matutino XI. FAB. At that time Jesus revealed himself. SC. 37.

Furthermore, a far greater abundance of the sermons or homilies of Theophanes could enrich this catalog, if his primary concern had been to provide an accurate transcription of their opening words. But most, touching upon the matter with a light hand, or rather pen, deemed it sufficient to deal with them in general. What is especially surprising is that this happened to the most diligent Father de Montfaucon, who, in his *Diarium Italicum*—that is to say, his literary journey—having described two manuscripts of homilies by the same Theophanes which he inspected in Naples and as many in Venice, neglected to record the titles of individual homilies, let alone their opening words.

Who will give water to my head, and my eyes. SC. 62. The supernatural mystery of our Master and Savior Jesus. M. M. 55. † Of the perceptible sun rising above the horizon. SC. 14. At that time, he says, a marriage took place in Cana. M. M. 59. † At that time the dedication took place in Jerusalem. M. M. 66. † At that time Jesus revealed himself. SC. 37. Bright is the gathering of the present feast. SC. 26. Bright is your gathering today, stirring up the mind. M. M. 67. † Bring today to its former order. M. M. 71. † Bring today, O most God-loving assembly, of the life-bearing cross. SC. 3. As the most beautiful, time hath joined the first. M. M. 36. † As the day is far brighter to me, that of the teaching. SC. 60. As I see the present festival far brighter. M. M. 79. †

The reader should be advised here that the beginnings of four homilies have been excluded from this catalog, which Fabricius (Bibliotheca Graeca, vol. X, cap. 42) brings forward from the Cesarean codex reviewed by Lambecius, as having been edited by Skouras, where an "Interpretation of the eleven matins" is contained. But why so? Presumably because, having embraced the Lambecian recension rather than the Scorsan edition, he preferred to record the "acephalous" homilies—that is, those missing the words usually placed before the Gospel—rather than complete and whole ones, such as the same Scorsas published on the authority of the best copies. You have the beginnings of the homilies which Scorsas edited, cited in Fabricius: "The life-bearing resurrection of the Lord." Matutino V. FAB. "Peter, arising, ran to the tomb, and stooping down." SC. 32. "Just now, the chief of the disciples." Matutino VIII. FAB. "Mary stood by the tomb outside, weeping." SC. 54.

What we undertook to present in the last place, let us at length approach, and fulfill our pledge. These points, above others, you may find in this codex worthy of observation. Scarcely any word is free from scribal abbreviation. The ligatures of letters are frequently difficult and inextricable, whence one sometimes needs an Oedipus, sometimes an Alexander. To this, words sometimes cling so tightly to one another that two coalesce into one; sometimes they stand so far apart from themselves that one completely splits into two. What could more gravely disturb the meaning of the speech? What could more bitterly torture the mind of an interpreter? In the larger letters, that rare and singular occurrence arises, where the letter O in several places, for example, fol. 93, 113, and 116, depicts a fish, and thus, by nature, silent living creatures are made to speak. Concerning this matter, mention will be made elsewhere, and when the discourse is compared with Father de Montfaucon.

As pertains to the material of the codex, or the parchment, it is thick and crude; the whole thing consists of the leaves of several books, palimpsests collected from everywhere, not written by one hand or in one age, the previous writing of which the frequent shortage of parchment in those times forced them to erase so that they might accept new [writing]. Yet this was not completely successful, since many pages still appear, some with minute [letters], others with moderate, and not a few with larger letters, now representing a square, now a round, now an upright, now an oblique form. Finally, many things certainly conspire for the praise and commendation of this exemplar. The inscriptions of the homilies generally reveal themselves to be richer and more copious than those which Father Scorsas edited. How much light, furthermore, shines from thence upon the deeds of Theophanes! Whether they signify places, namely cities, churches, or houses where he lived; or days, times, feasts, events of things, saints, and other men distinguished by their virtues, in whose memory and celebration [the sermons] were pronounced. Why should I recall the great abundance of homilies which are contained in this, our codex, and which do not exist in any Vatican, Gallic, or German [manuscripts] inspected thus far? Let the "Oration on the memory" serve as an example.

REVIEW OF THE MADRID CODEX

The funeral of the venerable father Bartholomew, including his life. To these have been added the address of Saint Sabas or Sata Mesimerus, a disciple of Theophanes, as well as an unpublished—so far as I know—homily of Saint John Chrysostom (concerning which [I spoke] above). Furthermore, if from the emendation of a single passage which we noticed in passing, and which we presented above, one may rightly conjecture: how many passages in the printed homilies of this kind ought one to judge can be corrected by the benefit of our codex! Since these things are so, what fair judge of matters would not clearly understand how great is its value, how much more excellent it is than the others, [and] how much it could contribute to a fuller and more corrected edition of the writings of Theophanes? Up to this point, the review of the codex of the Madrid library. We shall now add a description of a codex from the same library which contains thirteen homilies of Theophanes. Codex 33, made of parchment, [folio] size, contracted to only [a few] leaves, in an old hand, as it was transcribed in the XIII century, but on much older parchment, it contains the homilies of Theophanes Kerameus in the following order. Fol. 1. (on the margin) The beginning of the 11 Matutinals. Homily on the first Matutinal. It begins... Homily 84, on the 4th Matutinal, according to Luke. It begins (on the margin)... Homily on the 5th Matutinal. This [is] with the preliminary words of the Gospel: (it reads: It begins...) (on the margin)... Homily 86, on the 5th Matutinal and on the saving Ascension. It begins... (in the printed [edition] Homily 87, on the 7th Matutinal. It begins, "Ote..." This homily lacks an end, and finishes with these words, which fit perfectly with those from which the same homily begins, [though] mutilated at the beginning, in our present Catalog's Codex 16, which contains the homilies of Theophanes Kerameus, fol. 212, col. 1. This is clearly confirmed by the edition of the same Theophanes made by Father Scorsus, where on page 243, near the middle, the words of the homily just cited are read in conjunction, namely at [the passage], "Having a legion," which in the aforementioned codex 16, on the verso folio, col. 1, [is] indeed intact at the beginning, but lacking its sequence, and ending at [the word] to which they are wonderfully connected by these words, etc., whence the same continuation starts, as is clearly evident from page 53 of the cited edition, at the end of which you may find the contiguous words cited. (sic). (it reads: (on the margin) Homily 8, on that [passage] of the Gospel according to John: "Stabat Joannes," and on that: "It was said in his own country in the temple of the apostle Andrew." It begins... (on the margin) Homily 10, on the woman with the issue of blood and the daughter of the archisynagogus. It was said on the ambo. It begins... (on the margin) Homily 11, on the rich man and Lazarus. It begins... (on the margin) Homily 12, on Zacchaeus, the chief of the publicans. It begins (on the margin)... Homily 13, on the Publican and the Pharisee. It begins: (sic). (on the margin) Homily 14, on the Prodigal [Son]. Spoken on that [subject]. It begins: This homily is lacking in its greatest part, and ends at this word (it reads: The rest follows in the above-cited codex 16, fol. 18, where the same homily exists lacking its beginning, starting from these words: etc., which are most aptly coupled with the word...). Furthermore, all the homilies contained in this codex are by Philagathos the Philosopher, or [rather] Theophanes Kerameus, Archbishop of Tauromenium, which, along with very many others of his, Francis Scorsus, S.J., published in Greek and Latin with Parisian type in the year 1644. However, they are all desired entire; the fragments of the mutilated ones, however, are found in codex 16 of this Catalog, which is composed almost entirely of the homilies of this same Philagathos. There are present there, indeed, homilies on the 4 later Matutinals, along with a fragment pertaining to the seventh; but...

49 again, the homilies on the 5 earlier ones are lacking from there, as is the fragment of the homily on the seventh, which you may find entirely here; and, in a word, the other miscellaneous homilies and their fragments, which are contained here. But from whence did the mutual defect of both codices arise? This codex is, beyond doubt, a part of the aforementioned codex 16; that this is so, there is nothing more clear, nothing more manifest. For the method of both is the same, as is the thickness of the parchment, and the equally smoky appearance; the hand is the same, and finally, the script itself, written over erased older characters. Add the mutual completion of the homilies, add the most fitting conjunction of the fragments, and as it were the joining: so much so that one codex provides equal aid to the other, and applies medicine to their mutual wounds. By what fortune, however, whether through cleverness or diligence, should I say it came to pass that leaves torn from one volume fit into another without any loss or diminution? That the limbs of one body, having been torn apart, could be joined together and coalesce again? Should you not rightly compare both codices of this sort to those papers of the ancients divided by the alphabet, which, once cut, were later found, when brought together and compared, to be entirely coherent? Such is the accord of the two volumes, so singular and marvelous is their consensus. When, indeed, did this insolent tearing away and distraction happen, who can truly affirm? Certainly, in the index of homilies written by a 15th-century hand, which is prefixed to the aforementioned codex 16, exactly the same homilies are mentioned as those which this codex happens to contain by chance: a truly strong argument that such a tearing away and distraction is not so recent.

HOMILIES OF THEOPHANES KERAMEUS ON THE SUNDAY GOSPELS AND FEASTS OF THE WHOLE YEAR. TO THE PRIMATES AND TO THE ENTIRE PEOPLE OF TAORMINA, FRANCISCUS SCORSUS S.

While there are many insignia of your city, citizens of Taormina, by which you may boast without any pride of arrogance and lift your head conspicuously among the primary cities of Sicily, this glory certainly arising for you from this work—which both in your name and for eternity is brought to light, consecrated—is the most honorable, if any other is, and the most ample. For as for the other decorations and monuments of great cities, which were constructed with great effort and laborious hand for the display of power and wealth, you yourselves are ocular witnesses to how subject they are to the injuries of heaven and the elements, and if these are absent, how by antiquity itself they subside, crack, and dissolve. You have traces of your ancient amplitude, which seemed to have wished to rival Roman greatness itself, still standing on the ground, or rather monuments that still stand intact: for the petulance of fortune seems to have respected you more than others; Saturn seems to have held back his right and voracious teeth from you; such that even if he has inflicted some bites, yet he has not struck down and devoured everything—the theater, the naumachia, the conduits of water to it, and the receptacles of ancient and magnificent substructure. But things which by their own nature are fleeting, antiquity itself has partly undermined and worn away, as I have said; partly also, as is their condition, having fallen, posterity will lament. The other prerogatives of your city—the nobility of your founders, your antiquity nearly coeval with very many cities of Sicily, your liberty, civil administration, rights as a Roman colony, and the rest which I described at greater length in my first introductory preface to rouse the glory of your city, which was already nearly extinguished in the minds of men—although they are committed to letters that will always survive, yet I do not know how it is that even now

are hidden; and if not altogether from them, certainly their knowledge or memory has been obliterated from men, and they have been removed far from the common parlance and speech; and while known to very few antiquaries and students of esoteric literature, they are certainly unknown to the great majority of men. And, to hit the mark more closely, how many, even until this day, have known your ancient prelate, Theophanes, that most eloquent preacher and man distinguished in every branch of learning, even by name, let alone by his appearance? He indeed flourished together with the golden ages of your republic; but when the empire of the Hagarenes brought on a discolored and iron age, he underwent almost the same fortune as the glory of your city, and his name was almost buried and overwhelmed in the same ruin. Nevertheless, since, as that Roman Callimachus says, "A name sought by genius will not perish from time, and although age consumes stone and iron, writings overcome the years, and alone these monuments know not how to die," your Theophanes Cerameus has found a refuge where he could last and live longer: in the asylums of libraries. In these, having been hidden until this day, he at last beholds the light and is brought to the mouths and tongues of men: with him, indeed, all your glories, which had already been obscured by age and almost deleted by oblivion, seem to me to revive; not only because I have undertaken, in the isagogic prefaces of this work, either to repeat them from remote antiquity, or to recall them to the memory of men, or to bring them to their knowledge—moved as much by the dignity of the subject itself as compelled by your own zeal—but also because when the name of Archbishop Theophanes, an ecclesiastical writer, is on the lips not only of the learned, but also of sacred orators, when it is cited in commentaries, and when it resounds in temples and in assemblies of the people, at the same time the glory and ornament of Tauromenium will also resound. Wherefore, this glory of your Theophanes, and with it that of the Tauromenitan name, will flourish; and it will bloom more every day: and as much as the length of time will take away from your man-made works, so much will it add to these praises. For this is my monument, which, having been founded and elaborated by me with great zeal, yet in great scarcity of time, in nearly my spare hours, at last comes into being: it is, I say, of such a kind that it may live for its immortal condition in the memory of all ages, which posterity may always embrace, and eternity itself may contemplate. But what I called mine, I now change; and I alienate the thing as if out of my own possession: I meant to call this work yours, which I wish to be given and dedicated to you for your merit, and for your zeal toward your foster son and pastor, and for the public funds contributed for its transcription. For I do not fear that, inscribed with your name and devoted to your patronage, it will come more acceptably into your mouths and hands, and will remain more safely and for longer on the shelves of learned men.

TO THE HUMAN READERS, FRANCISCUS SCORSUS, OF THE SOCIETY OF JESUS.

^C which the holy doctors of the Church have handed down in their doctrine and writings. For that [doctrine] has proceeded and spread in an unending course from the very birth of the Church itself; and the generations which followed received it, transmitted and passed down by the Fathers, just as the apostles received it from the first Teacher, Christ, without any interruption in its course. Whence it happens that it not only thrives, being always the same, but is even increased and shines more and more brightly, since one [teacher] brings forward another torch in order to explain and illuminate the evangelical doctrine; especially indeed when some storm of heresy has arisen, which might obstruct the most candid lights of truth with its own clouds—which indeed those celestial and prevailing rays penetrated and dispersed in such a way that the prince of darkness gained nothing from the gloom he had spread, as our Theophanes teaches in a certain homily, other than that the splendor of the Church shone forth the more. So, therefore, in order to complete the intended circle of my prayer, the preceding day seems to teach the following one; which the Mime-writer also expressed charmingly in that verse: "The day that follows is a disciple of the one before." Nor, indeed, would I wish this to be said only of the Fathers of the Church, for the reason that almost no century has passed without bringing forth someone who, while he lived, outshone it with the light of that doctrine; but also because their works, being laid aside as it were along with their very lives and buried as with a corpse, have subsequently lived again after some centuries—a light so great even having been long dead—and, having been unearthed from the sepulcher of oblivion, have come into the light; in which case we see that most, even those who are the first in both time and dignity, are like Fathers who have passed away. How great and how brilliant a doctor was Dionysius the Areopagite, who derived for posterity through his books the most profound theology concerning the divine names, and altogether the celestial theology concerning the celestial hierarchy, drawn more closely from the fountain of the apostles? And yet those distinguished books of his were in obscurity for nearly six hundred years, since no one is found to have remembered them before the times of blessed Gregory; and Cardinal Bellarmine judged there to be no other reason for this thing than that they had been hidden somewhere, just as many other things often lie hidden for a long time. St. Jerome lists the books of St. Gregory of Nyssa against Eunomius in his book *De viris illustribus*, and testifies that they were read by him, written by the same Gregory; yet these books, having lain in darkness for so many centuries before our own times, beheld the light. When Father Jacob Gretser—who rendered such excellent service to letters and, what is far more glorious, to the Catholic Church—had brought them forth from the Bavarian library and had them in hand and was polishing them in order to bring them out for the light and common utility, Father John a S. Francisco, a Feuillant monk and the son of the translator, forestalled him by publishing them from the interpretation of Nicolas Gulonius, and they exist today in Volume II of the Works of Nyssa. Indeed, more than a hundred epistles of his brother, Basil the Great, have come to light in a new edition of his works in Greek and Latin simultaneously. We have recently seen the Commentaries of St. Cyril on the minor prophets published by Jacob Pontanus: and lest I should weave a catalog from individuals, which would surely be longer than this Preface could contain, whoever has turned the volumes of the holy ancient Fathers, or shifted through old and new libraries, will notice how true this is which we propose for consideration: for indeed that [collection] which was published at Cologne in the year 1618 and is called the *Magna* has been increased and enriched by more than a hundred short works of the Fathers which were previously unknown. In this sphere, men of our Society, conspicuous in both doctrine and holiness, have indeed already performed great labors worthy of their hire from the very time the Society was founded; to whom God seems to have put that intention and those spirits—not human, but divine—for the glory and propagation of His Church, so that they might well invest their application and their command of languages, which they had acquired for themselves, in searching out the monuments of the ancient Fathers, and especially of the Greeks, from the more hidden corners and retreats of libraries, and in illustrating them; and from the food of bookworms, they made food for human intellects and benefits for the Church. Since they have done this much more studiously and greedily than those mortals who, stimulated by avarice, have dug gold from the veins and bowels of the earth, it has been, moreover, more useful and salutary for the human race; for indeed gold is pernicious—but to collect [the truth] for human uses is quite the contrary, "With a right hand snatching every sacred thing: Hidden virtue differs little from buried sloth."

55 And concerning this, the Wise Man, inspired by the heavenly Spirit, has pronounced better: *Wisdom that is hid, and a treasure that is concealed, what profit is in them both?* And moved by the authority of these illustrious men, when I understood both how fitting this study was for our Society, and how much it would benefit the Christian Republic—especially in these times, when the authority and doctrine of the holy Fathers is being corrupted or disparaged by heretical interpreters—I was vehemently moved, so that if I had expended any study and effort in learning and cultivating Latin and Greek letters, I might contribute it to this work of no small moment, and bring my own contribution, however modest, to so rich a feast, and take my place at it.

Therefore, as soon as the homilies of Theophanes Kerameus, Archbishop of Tauromenium in our Sicily, were brought to me, I did not wish to let the opportunity be wanting to me or to the literary world, but rather to seize the offered occasion; and, having obtained the province, I would adorn it. To this, the love of my native soil added even sharper incentives—the desire to illustrate our own people—since I considered that I was not only consulting and serving the glory and splendor of the universal Church, but also of our own Sicily, if I brought this ecclesiastical writer to the light; for this is certainly one man in whom Sicily can glory, since it possesses almost no other whose work of such magnitude has been handed down to us to this very day. For although Paschasinus, Bishop of Lilybaeum, flourished in the fame of his wisdom and presided over the Council of Ephesus as legate of the Roman Pontiff Leo, nevertheless there exist among his works only a few of his letters to Leo himself. The history of Peter Siculus concerning the vain heresy of the Manichaeans we have obtained through the study and interpretation of Matthaeus Rader, a man clearly most distinguished in the learning of our Society; which Peter indeed lived and wrote in almost the same century as this, our Theophanes, namely, under the Emperors Basil and his sons Constantine and Leo, by whom he was sent as an envoy to Tephrike, a city of Armenia; but how small a profit is that of a brief history? If any other has flourished in past centuries to the glory of Christian wisdom, his works, so far as I know, have not yet reached the light of men.

Added to this was the fact that I discovered our Theophanes lived in a century that is called "obscure" by the learned due to the scarcity of learned men to illuminate it with the light of doctrine, so that I seemed to myself to be making no small contribution to the literary world and the faith if I were to hold up a torch, or even some small star, to illuminate that century, and to show that the light of the doctor Fathers did not fail in the Church of Christ even then. Having calculated these reasons, I thought it a noble enterprise to undertake if I were to bring this ring, too, to be joined to the chain of the holy Fathers, by which the neck of the Spouse is adorned.

Truly, there is one thing in the joy of discovering this treasure that I, and all good men, must lament—a sorrow that even now remains fixed in my mind—which is that, along with these monuments of his genius, we find no trace imprinted among historians of his life or deeds. This is certainly to be attributed both to the obscurity of the century in which he lived and to the Saracen slaughter, by which everything good and beautiful that existed in all the towns of Sicily, if you except Palermo, was destroyed; so that neither did the records and annals of past times survive, nor did the founders of new things arise in such barbarism. Nor indeed after the eighth synod—from the time of which we conjecture him to have begun to flourish, and in truth we are certain of it in the prefaces—was there another synod celebrated in the world in which he could have participated, so that we might have been able to receive some notice concerning him, as we do from the synods regarding the earlier bishops of the Tauromenian Church.

But our Theophanes will not be entirely *unsearchable*; rather, I shall certainly attempt what painters are accustomed to do: when it is not permitted to express the face and colors of a living man, they draw the outlines from the fresh corpse itself, and form the living from the dead. So I, from these homilies, in which he himself has left not a few traces and lines of his own life and character, will draw an image of his life; for there is truly no image of the mind more authentic and illustrious than the speech that is the genuine offspring of the genius and soul itself. That saying of Demetrius Phalereus is well known: "Each man writes his own soul's image in his letter, and it is possible to see the character of the writer from every other discourse as well." And if these sermons of Theophanes seem to me to show anything else, from these as if from tracks I will thoroughly investigate everything that pertains to his homeland, the century in which he lived, the dignity of his episcopacy, his travels, and lastly his character and studies; I hope, moreover, effectively, if God helps. And so that everything might not be said in one single stretch of discourse, it seemed best that the one introduction, or introductory preface, be divided into three prefaces, and those even further into many parts; for thus, both the tedium to the reader [is avoided...]

57 is removed, and our collected observations will be the clearer for being distinct. They are called "proems" for the reason that they pave the way for the reader to peruse these sermons and make him teachable; and "isagogical" because they introduce him, and lead him as it were by the hand, so that once they have come to know the author, they may more willingly and easily grasp his teaching. Furthermore, we have also considered it best to add notes to illustrate the difficult points of the author, the justification for which plan we shall render more fully in its proper place.

The series of the Gospels, which are read on Sundays and feast days throughout the year in the Roman order; for which the homilies of Theophanes Kerameus, arranged in this volume according to the order of the Greeks, are of use for the convenience of preachers.

For the first Sunday of Advent: homily XVIII, which is on the Judgment. For the feast of St. John the Evangelist: homily XXXVII, from the eleventh morning office, which is on the same Gospel. For the feast of the Holy Innocents: homily LII, which is on the same saints. For the feast of St. Thomas of Canterbury: homily LVII, which is on St. Pancratius, for the same Gospel. For the octave of Epiphany: homily L, which is on St. Andrew, on the words of the same Gospel. For the third Sunday after Epiphany: homily XLIV, which is on the centurion. For the fourth Sunday after Epiphany: homily XLVI, for the day of St. Demetrius, on the same Gospel. For Septuagesima Sunday: homily VII, which is about the parable of the sower. For Quinquagesima Sunday: homily XXIV, which is on the Gospel, "Behold, we go up to Jerusalem." For Wednesday of Ashing, at the beginning of the fast: homily XIX, in which the same Gospel is explained. For Wednesday of Ashing: homily XLIV, which is about the centurion. For Monday after the first Sunday of Lent: homily XVII, which is about the Judgment. For the Saturday of the Ember Days of Lent, and the second Sunday of the same: homily LIX, on the Transfiguration. For Thursday after the second Sunday of Lent: homily XXIV, which is on the same Gospel. For Thursday after the same Sunday: homily VI, which is about the rich man and Lazarus. For Saturday after the same Sunday: homily XVI, which is about the prodigal son. For Thursday after the third Sunday of Lent: homily XXXVIII, which is about the Samaritan woman. For Thursday after the fourth Sunday of Lent: homily VI, which is about the widow's son. For Friday after the same Sunday: homily XXV, which is about Lazarus raised. For Saturday before Palm Sunday, and for that same Sunday: homily XXVI, which is on the solemnity of Palms. For the week of the Lord's Passion: homily XXVII, which is on the same Passion, upon all four Gospels. For Easter Sunday: homily XXIX, which is on the second Gospel of the Resurrection of the Lord, from the Matins of the Sunday Office. For the Monday of Easter: homily XXXII, which is on the fifth of the same matins. For the Wednesday of the same: homily XXXIX, which is about the Ascension, on the same Gospel. For the Thursday of the same: homily XXXVI, which is on the tenth of the matins. For Friday of the same: homily XXXIV, which is on the eighth of the matins. For Saturday of the same: homily XXVIII, which is on the first of the matins. For Low Saturday: homily XXXIII, which is on the seventh of the matins. For Low Sunday: homily XXXV, which is on the ninth of the matins. For the second Sunday after Easter: homily LVII, which is about St. Pancratius, on the same Gospel. For the day of the Lord's Ascension: homily XXXIX, on the same, and homily XXX, which is on the third of the matins. For the Sunday within the octave of the Ascension: homily LVI, which is about St. Procopius, on the same Gospel. For Pentecost Sunday: homily XL, which is on the same feast. For Monday after Pentecost: homily LVII, about St. Pancratius, on the same Gospel. For Thursday after the same: homily XXI, which is on the same Gospel. For the feast of the Blessed Trinity: homily XXVIII, which is on the first of the matins, and a homily on Pentecost. For the Sunday within the octave of Corpus Christi: homily X, which is about the parable of the supper. For the fifth Sunday after Pentecost: homily V, which is on the same Gospel. For the tenth Sunday after Pentecost: homily XVI, which is about the Publican and the Pharisee. For the tenth Sunday after Pentecost: homily XI, which is on the same Gospel. For the fourteenth Sunday after Pentecost: homily XLIII, which is on the same Gospel. For the fifteenth Sunday after Pentecost: homily VI, which is about the widow's son. For the seventeenth Sunday after Pentecost: homily XI, which is on a part of the same Gospel. For Wednesday of the September Ember Days: homily XXIII, which is on the same Gospel. For Saturday of the Ember Days of the same month: homily XLII, which is about the woman who was bent. For the sixteenth Sunday after Pentecost: homily XXI, which is on the same Gospel. For the nineteenth Sunday after Pentecost: homily XI, which is on the parable of the supper. For the twenty-first Sunday after Pentecost: homily II, which is about the parable of the ten thousand talents. For the twenty-third Sunday after Pentecost: homily X, on the same Gospel. For the Vigil of St. Andrew: homily L, which is on the same Gospel. For the feast of the Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary: homily XIV, which is on the same Gospel. For the feast of St. Thomas the Apostle: homily XXXV, which is on the same Gospel. For the feast of St. Paul the first hermit: homily LIV, which is about St. Onuphrius. For the feast of the Chair of St. Peter: homily LV, which is on the same Gospel. For the feast of St. Matthias: homily LIV, which is on the same Gospel. For the feast of the Conversion of St. Paul: homily XLI, which is about all saints. For the feast of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary: homily LIII, which is on the same feast and Gospel. For the feast of St. Leo the Pope: homily LV, which is on the same Gospel. For the feast of St. Mark the Evangelist: homily XLVIII, which is about the mission of the seventy-two disciples. For the feast of the Invention of the Holy Cross: homily II, which is the first about the cross.

^A For the feast of S. Monica: homily VI, which is about the son of the widow. For the feast of S. Barnabas the Apostle: homily LVIII, which is about S. Pantaleon for the same Gospel. For the feast of SS. Vitus and Crescentia: homily XLVIII, which is for the same Gospel. For the Vigil of the Apostles Peter and Paul: homily XXXVII, which is for the same Gospel. For the feast of the same Apostles: homily LV, which is for the same feast and Gospel. For the Commemoration of S. Paul: homily LVIII, which is for the same Gospel. For the days within the octave of the same Apostles: homily XLI, which is about all the saints. For the feast of S. Alexius the Confessor: the same homily. For the feast of S. James the Apostle: homily XXIV, which contains the same Gospel. For the feast of S. Martha: homily LX, which is for the same Gospel. For the feast of S. Peter in Chains: homily LV, which is for the same Gospel. For the feast of the Transfiguration of the Lord: homily LIX, which is for the same feast and Gospel. For the Vigil of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary: homily LX, which contains in part the same Gospel. For the feast of the Assumption of the same: the same homily, which is for the same feast and Gospel. For the feast of S. Bartholomew the Apostle: homily LI, which contains a part of the same Gospel. For the feast of the Decollation of S. John the Baptist: homily LXI, which is for the same feast and Gospel. For the feast of SS. Felix and Adauctus the Martyrs: homily XLVII, which is for the same Gospel. For the feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin: homily XIV, which is for the same Gospel. For the feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross: homily IV, which is for the same feast. For the feast of S. Francis the Confessor: homily LIV, which is for the same Gospel. For the feast of S. Luke the Evangelist: homily XLVIII, which is about the mission of the seventy-two disciples. For the feast of SS. Simon and Jude the Apostles: homily LVI, which is on the words: "These things I command you, that you love one another." For the feast of All Saints: homily LI, which is about the beatitudes. For the feast of S. Martin the Bishop: homily XLII, which is on the words: "The light of the body is the eye." For the feast of S. Gregory Thaumaturgus: homily XXIII, which contains the same Gospel. For the common of the vigils of one apostle: homily LVI, which is for the same Gospel. Descending Jesus from the mountain, and homily; "He who hears you, hears me," etc. For the common of one Martyr: homily XXII, which is for the Gospel: "If anyone wishes to come after me." For the common of several martyrs: homily LI, which is for the Gospel on that passage: "I confess to thee, O Lord Father," and XLVII, "He who..." For the common of confessors who are pontiffs: homily XLI, which is for the Gospel: "The light of the body is the eye." For the common of confessors who are not pontiffs: homily XLI, which contains the Gospel: "Behold, we have left all." For the anniversary of the Dedication of a Church: homily XV, which is about Zacchaeus. For the Gospel of the Holy Trinity in votive Masses: homily LVI, which is on the same words. For the Gospel of the angels: homily XLIX, which is on the same words: "Jesus saw Nathanael." For the Gospel of the Holy Cross: homily XXIV, which is on the same words. For the Gospel of the Passion: homily XXVII, which is on the same. For the Gospel of the Blessed Virgin: homily LI, which is about the Annunciation, and homily LX, which is about the Assumption.

PROŒMIUM I: ΕΙΣΑΓΩΓΙΚΟΝ, DE TAUROMENITANA ECCLESIA

^B Since we are recalling the Tauromenian Archbishop Theophanes from the shadows into the light with this new work, it seemed best that we should, by the same endeavor, awaken the city and Church of Tauromenium itself from its ruins and tomb. For undoubtedly, the same fate, or the same Saracen slaughter that shattered the episcopal see, afflicted the city itself, and it, together with its Theophanes, was almost entombed. For if anyone contemplates with their eyes and spirit the foundations of the town of Tauromenium, rivaling the works of Roman magnitude, the splendor of the city, and the dignity of the episcopal see—which had flourished even up to the times of our Theophanes—they will deem true that saying of Ausonius: "Let us marvel that men have perished, the monuments fall to ruin. Death comes even to the stones and the names." It is not the same body of the city that now survives, which lived before those times, but rather the still-breathing corpse of that former one; and, altogether, what was said of ancient Rome, laid waste by so many incursions of barbarians, you will search for Tauromenium within Tauromenium. ^C Wherefore the magnitude of the work I have undertaken demands for its own recommendation that, just as magnificent buildings are known from their facade and vestibules, so too its primary knowledge and admiration be received from the very approach; so that, indeed, it may be understood in what city Theophanes flourished and from what throne he was conspicuous; and that the munificence of the honorable Tauromenian citizens, and especially the fathers of the city—who contributed no little aid to this work with public funds—might justly deserve that their city, which lies buried almost in its own ruins, might live again through this little work of ours, whatever that may be. I will therefore set out to restore it from its beginning and from its very foundations. ^D For if we inquire into the antiquity of Tauromenium, it will be found that it raised its lofty head upon Mount Taurus as early as the time of Dionysius the younger, tyrant of Syracuse, 468 years before the birth of Christ, and from the ruins of the older town of Naxos, as most things of mortals happen, whose

61 FRANCISCI SCORSI PROŒMIUM I. one thing is born from the ruin of another, we shall discover it stirred up. And it is of little relevance to our present subject whether Naxos was situated in that place where the fortress now visible—called by the common people *lo Schiso*—is located, which stands about two thousand paces from Tauromenium (as Thomas Fazellus and his follower have judged), or whether it was situated somewhat further off, namely at a distance of five miles (as Philip Cluverius, a most diligent investigator of ancient Sicily, writes, who also refutes the opinion of the former writer from the Itinerary of Antoninus). That is certain—and confirmed by approved authors, Strabo (Book VI), Diodorus (Book XVI), Thucydides (Book VI), and Plutarch in his *Timoleon*—whence the narrative regarding the origin of Tauromenium brought forward by Diodorus in the place already cited is confirmed and is considered stronger and more truthful than that which is handed down by the same author, unmindful of his own work, in Book XIV, which differs from the second. Therefore, relying on these authors, we assert the following: Naxos was founded by Theeocles the Athenian, who, when he had been driven by the winds to those shores off his intended course, and had noticed the goodness of the soil and the sluggishness of the Sicilians in cultivating it, returned home. Having failed to persuade the Athenians to send a colony thither, he took with him a large number of Chalcidians who inhabited the island of Lubaca, as well as Ionians and Dorians, of whom the majority were Megarians, and sailed into Sicily; and the Chalcidians indeed founded Naxos, and the Dorians founded Megara; and this occurred in the year 736 before the birth of Christ, 448 years after the Trojan War. Cluverius writes that after Naxos had stood for 333 years, it was eventually destroyed by Dionysius the younger, tyrant of Syracuse, because the city, being hostile to his tyranny, had revolted from him. Therefore, 37 years after the destruction of Naxos, Andromachus, father of Timaeus the historian (whom Marcus Tullius praises in his book *De Oratore*), gathering together the remnants of the exiles from here and there, gave them the mountain Taurus—named from the shape of a bull—to inhabit; and for the long space of time in which it stood there, it was called Tauromenium, from the laurel (*laurus*) and the staying (*manendo*), or in Greek *ἀπὸ τῆς ἐπὶ Ταύρου μονῆς*. And when the town had begun to flourish with sudden growth, it came about that both the inhabitants gained great wealth and the city acquired most ample dignity. And this is the rise of Tauromenium, this the origin of its name. But if Pliny says, "Tauromenium, a colony which before was Naxos," and Solinus likewise, "Tauromenium, a colony, which the ancients called Naxos"—if they speak of one and the same town and of the same location, they are mistaken; if they are to be interpreted in such a way that they mean Tauromenium arose from a colony of Naxians, they are correct. Furthermore, the etymology which Fazellus relates is utterly inept: "Tauromenium," he says, "is so called as if it were the fortitude of a bull." For *menos* in Greek is fortitude or strength. Fazellus is mistaken in the word, but more so in the subject; *menos* is not properly the fortitude of walls, but of minds or bodies: nor was the derivation of Tauromenium deduced from the strength of walls, but from the staying, as Diodorus, the author cited above, states. But this error might perhaps be forgiven, had he not, knowing and willing—or rather, not knowing—plunged himself into the brambles of the Greek language. 62 What of the point he adds for support, so trivial and ridiculous, that walls (*muri*) are called *mœnia* as if from *menos*? But this is to be ignorant even of Latin: *mœnia*, as if *munia*, are derived from *munire* ("to fortify") in the early tongue of the Latins, who wrote and pronounced with 'a' what was later written with 'u'. Plautus, *Captivi*: "We are surrounded by shackles and guards (*Vinclis custodiisque circummœniti sumus*)." Thus, *mari* for *muri*, *æsus* for *usus*, and many others of that kind. But in some words, custom has retained the 'æ', as in *manibus*, while in most it has rejected it, as in the examples brought forward. This etymon, therefore, is false. And truly, also fabulous is that which the writer of the history of Saint Pancratius, the first bishop of Tauromenium, puts forward, as if Tauromenium were named from *Manæa* and *Taurus*: the anonymous writer, I say—not Evagrius, the disciple of Saint Pancratius himself, by whose assumed name that whole fable rather than history emerged—or at any rate, many fables crept into the true history, which I received translated from Greek into Latin from the monuments of P. Octavius Caetani, the writer of the history of the Sicilian saints. Thus it is narrated: a certain Taurus by name, a Canaanite, was captured by the Syrians and sold to a Roman merchant in Calabria, and taken to Renaldus the toparch, whose wife was Mænæa the Macedonian; but when Renaldus was killed in the war he waged against Aquilinus, the king in Calabria, Mænæa married Taurus. Soon King Aquilinus led forces against Taurus; and he, with his wife Mænæa, fled into Sicily, where Tauromenium was founded by the spouses Taurus and Mænæa. This is the little fable about the origin of Tauromenium, concocted and spread among the common people, which, having been laid before the light of historical truth by me, has already been dispelled and scattered like mist without any argumentation, and can be easily debunked by anyone moderately trained in criticism: which Fazellus himself also rejected; for it would not be a matter of surprise for a man of sharper judgment to reject it regarding Octavius Caetani; but I brought it here so that it might be extracted, as far as possible, from the perceptions of the common Tauromenians, in which I see it has taken root like other old wives' tales. From those beginnings, therefore, Tauromenium proceeded and began to gain its growth. I have an additional proof of its antiquity and dignity, which, so far as I know, has not been set forth in writing by any of those who have written about Sicilian affairs; but I received it from that most noble and studious man of antiquity and letters, D. Martino Lofarina of Palermo, who today resides with the King of Spain, attached to the royal chapel, when he brought it to me, extracted from the work of Malchus on the life of Pythagoras, edited in Greek by Cunradus Rittershusius, which is as follows: «Ὅσα δ' ἐπιδημήσας Ἰταλίᾳ τε καὶ Σικελίᾳ κατέβαλε πόλεις δεδουλωμένας ὑπ' ἀλλήλων, τὰς μὲν πολλῶν ἐτῶν, τὰς δὲ νεωστί, φρονήματος ἐξελευθερίου πλήσας διὰ τῶν ἐφ' ἑκάστην ἀκουστῶν αὐτοῦ ἠλευθέρωσε. Κρότωνα, καὶ Σύβαριν, καὶ Κατάνην, καὶ Ῥήγιον, καὶ Ἱμέραν, καὶ 'Ακράγαντα, καὶ Ταυρομένιον, καὶ ἄλλας τινάς, αἷς καὶ νόμους ἔθετο διὰ Χαρώνδα τε τοῦ Καταναίου, καὶ Ζελεύκου τοῦ Λοκροῦ· δι' ὧν ἀξιοζήλωτοι τοῖς περιοίκοις ἄχρι».

ἄχρι» ^A longinquity of time were held, and whose institutions were emulated. And these things pertain to the antiquity of Tauromenium, to which two most noble pairs of men added no small amount of decorum. Of these, one flourished in history almost at the very birth of the fatherland: Timaeus, the son of the founder Andromachus, concerning whom the testimony of M. Tullius exists, lib. II *De orat.*: "Timaeus was by far the most learned, and most abundant in the wealth of his subject matter and the variety of his sentiments; and while not unpolished in the very composition of his words, he brought great eloquence to his writing." The same Tullius mentions him in book V of his *Epistles to Lucilius*. Plutarch mentions him in his *Nicias* regarding the histories written by him. Dionysius of Halicarnassus attests to these things in book I of *Antiquities*: "Timaeus the Sicilian narrated the ancient histories in his general histories, but assigned the wars against Pyrrhus of Epirus to a separate treatise." This, rendered by Sigismund Galenus, is: "Timaeus of Sicily, having embraced ancient events in a universal history, [devoted] a volume privately to the wars of Pyrrhus of Epirus." But nothing of this distinguished historian has reached our age. The other man of Tauromenium mentioned in histories is Phileas, who excelled in mechanics, a contemporary of Archimedes the Syracusan, concerning whom Athenaeus [writes] in book V of his *Deipnosophistae*, where he discusses the ship of Hiero, king of Syracuse, constructed by the effort of Archimedes himself, and its enormously large mast: "Κατήγαγεν δὲ αὐτὸν ἐπὶ θάλατταν Φιλέας ὁ Ταυρομενίτης μηχανικός." [Phileas the Tauromenitan mechanician launched it into the sea].

Now indeed, the site of Tauromenium is admirable, and fortified more by nature than by art; so that it is no wonder if it could only be captured or stormed by the Saracens through treachery, and [if] that was the destruction of the most famous of cities. For the mountain itself on which it is situated is both steep and difficult of ascent on both sides, which we ourselves have inspected with our own eyes and traversed, and we have recognized as true that which Appian also reports concerning it: that it is "most rugged in appearance and from every side fortified with sharp, precipitous rocks." The city itself is set among those middle Alps—or rather, I should say, among alpine and jagged crags—and is surrounded and walled in by them; some of which, where it looks toward the east, it has below itself, depressed toward the sea; others, where [it looks to] the west, touch the sky itself—to speak poetically—and threaten it, on the summit of which stands the citadel and the little town of Mola, most well-known in all Sicily, to which, as Fazellus reports, doomed criminals are deported; and beneath it lies the lower citadel of Tauromenium, so that it could be overwhelmed without difficulty by masses of stone tumbling down from Mola.

Otherwise, the climate of Tauromenium is joyful and healthy; the prospect from the town over the broadest expanse of the straits of Messina and the Ionian sea, and the opposite mountains of the Bruttii, is most pleasant; the plains also [are] the most charming of fields; [they are] very fertile in sweet canes and, as Pliny bears witness, in wines most celebrated among the ancients, so that not without merit did the Romans choose that region among others to which to lead colonies—which was done when Julius Caesar gained power and was desirous of expanding Tauromenium, as Diodorus, a writer of that same time, is witness. And truly of their magnificence appear to be the works which I was saying at the beginning: a theater constructed of brickwork, which is extant in large part intact—a fate I know not whether other ancient monuments of Sicily have enjoyed—and this I have measured not once with eyes and feet, not without a sense of pleasure in my soul, and I have grieved and complained to the citizens that bricks are soon cut away from it to construct other new buildings; whereby it will come to pass that in a few years that huge monument of Tauromenitan grandeur will collapse to its foundations. ^B Likewise, works of the same admirable power are the reservoirs or underground cisterns, vaulted in two parts, of which one is supported by eight square cementition columns; but the other is seen to be almost prostrate and afflicted by the injury of time. Ancient aqueducts are also seen there; and finally, other remains of monuments, and first of all those of the temple of Archegetes, and not a few tombs, show how great it was—whether in circumference (for what part of it remains today?) or in magnificence—or how distinguished for the number of its citizens the city was. And this splendor of it seems to have remained even until the Saracen tyranny, namely, during the whole time of the Greek empire up to the age of Leo the Wise, under whom it was stormed. For Constantine Porphyrogenitus, his son, who wrote the little book *De Thematibus Imperii*, in book II, in the theme of Sicily, reports these things, which [thus] close this first part of the proemium concerning the political state of Tauromenium, and may it be the most honorific seal of all that has been said, and impressed by the emperor's own ring—not to say written with his finger: «Ἔχει πόλεις ἐπισήμους τήν τε Συράκουσαν, καὶ τὸ καλούμενον Ταυρομένιον, καὶ αὐτὴν τὴν Ἀκράγαντα, καὶ τὰς λοιπὰς πόλεις τὰς μὲν ἠρημωμένας παρὰ τῶν Σαρακηνῶν. Τὴν μὲν οὖν Συράκουσαν ἐπὶ Βασιλείου τοῦ ἀοιδίμου βασιλέως παρέλαβον οἱ Σαρακηνοί· τὸ δὲ Ταυρομένιον ἐπὶ Λέοντος τοῦ Σοφωτάτου.» [It has notable cities: Syracuse, and what is called Tauromenium, and Agrigentum itself, and the other cities, [some] desolated by the Saracens. Now the Saracens took Syracuse during the time of Basilius, the celebrated emperor; but Tauromenium during the time of Leo the Wisest.]

§ II. - The Ecclesiastical State of Tauromenium

No one would call into doubt that the Tauromenitan Church is to be compared in antiquity and dignity with the first and most ancient churches of Sicily, provided that

one considers its origins; it is certainly beyond controversy that it was founded by St. Peter, the prince of the apostles, who sent St. Pancratius, his first bishop, from the East to Tauromenium, having been consecrated by St. Peter himself. The Roman Martyrology of April 3rd bears witness to this, as do Cardinal Baronius in his notes, Nicephorus (lib. II, c. 35), and our own Theophanes in his homily on St. Pancratius. Nay, from the Greek text which is in the possession of Simeon Metaphrastes, in his Oration on the SS. Peter and Paul, that Church was increased and stabilized in sanctity and honor by the very footsteps of St. Peter having been impressed upon it; for, in the course of his journey, the apostle was received there with hospitality, and St. Pancratius himself went forth to meet him with the highest tokens of affection. But regarding St. Pancratius and his acts and martyrdom undergone at Tauromenium, Dom Rocco Pirro relates some matters in his notes on the Tauromenitan Church, ^A excerpted from the Gallican Breviary; you will read there also many things pertaining to this Church. It is sufficient for us, as our undertaking requires, to prefix here a certain synopsis of that Church and to touch upon its main points.

St. Pancratius was succeeded by his disciple Evagrius; after Evagrius came St. Maximus; both were bishops consecrated by St. Peter—the former at Rome, when he was sent there as a legate by St. Pancratius; the latter at Tauromenium, when he was staying there on his journey. Concerning the former, the Gallican Breviary bears witness, which I read when I was at Tauromenium, having been offered it by the citizens: from which likewise Pirro, in his *Notitia*, places Evagrius in the second position after Pancratius. We produce the testimony of the Breviary on the homily concerning St. Pancratius (homil. LVII), note 13; of the latter, that is, St. Maximus, I have Metaphrastes as my authority in the cited place. The Tauromenitan Church celebrates the anniversary of this St. Maximus on the day before the Ides of January. After Maximus, Nicon presided over Tauromenium, who, with his one hundred and ninety-nine disciples, gave testimony ^B to the Christian faith through death under the Emperor Decius.

After them, many Tauromenitan bishops are gathered from the letters of the pontiffs and from councils, both provincial and ecumenical. For St. Leo the Pope, in a letter which he wrote to all the bishops of Sicily about the year 447, makes mention of the Tauromenitan bishop, but does not specify his name. Afterwards, Rogatus, Bishop of Tauromenium, was present at the Roman synod celebrated under Pope Symmachus; Dom Gregory mentions the bishops Victorinus and Secundinus in a letter to Peter the subdeacon, about the year 649; Justus came to the Lateran council under Pope Martin and the Emperor Constans; to the ecumenical council held against the Monothelites under Constantine the Third, Peter, Bishop of Tauromenium, came with the others; and indeed, John was present at the seventh, which was the second Nicene, against the Iconoclasts, under the Emperors Constantine and his mother Irene. After these, one reads of Zacharias, Bishop of Tauromenium, or rather bishop-in-name-only, as is read in the notes of Anastasius the Librarian to the eighth council, who favored the party of Photius; ^C but whether he is the same as that Zacharias who was called by the surname Cophus, as Pirro left in his writing, and whether having been adorned with the title of archbishop by Photius he was a pseudo-patriarch of Constantinople, we shall dispute below, § II.

To this Zacharias, already deposed in the eighth ecumenical council as a schismatic and not showing repentance, succeeded Theophanes Kerameus, consecrated at the very time the schism was composed and peace restored to the Eastern Church, which we shall demonstrate evidently in Proemium II, § IV and VII. But it seems that St. Procopius was subrogated to our Theophanes, who, in the year of Christ 903, in the twenty-sixth year of the Emperor Leo, under the African Saracen King Abrachenus who was invading and occupying Tauromenium—which was the last town to be taken in that slaughter and ruin of Sicily—suffered martyrdom. This, I say, is contained in the Life of the same St. Procopius, which John the Deacon of Naples wove into that narrative in which he describes the translation of the body of St. Severinus from the Lucullan castle, on the occasion of the fear that had arisen ^D concerning the incursion of the same Saracens. I read it in the manuscript monuments of Father Octavius Caetani, which, however, are still being turned on the anvil.

This Tauromenitan Church fell from its flourishing state, both episcopal and political; but it was truly fitting that it, which had been initiated by the blood of the martyr St. Pancratius, its first pastor, should also be signed by the blood of the last. Nor indeed, between the first and last pastors who poured out their souls for their sheep, were the contests of the sheep themselves with wolves—whether pagan or Saracen enemies of the Christian name—unobserved; the Tauromenitan Church was also sprinkled and adorned with the noble blood of its citizens, like many others. There were shown to me at Tauromenium two coffins full of bones, which were found many years ago in the Tauromenitan countryside, not without divine testimonies of miracles, and taken up; they were perhaps still stained with recent blood and were pierced by the very instruments of death. But whose martyrs these are, or of what time, has not yet been discovered by them, nor sanctioned by the Roman Pontiff.

For the rest, these things are gathered from other histories, and from tablets and monuments. Under the very rise of the Church, having been instructed by the teachings of their master and prelate Pancratius, and confirmed by his example, the holy women Aesia, Susanna, and Zenais triumphed over the tyrant and, in spite of their female sex, succumbed to death. Along with St. Nicon the bishop, whom we recounted in the fourth position above, two hundred minus one were slaughtered while Decius was exercising his tyranny; they were crowned with the same laurel, that they might accompany their triumphant leader, which we also touched upon there. But under the Emperor Diocletian, the SS. Sperus and Cornelianus, with sixty companions, bore away the same palm. Nor would I believe that the holy Procopius, the last bishop and martyr, lacked companions in that most savage slaughter which the Saracens, the most hateful enemies of the Christian religion, dealt on its account once Tauromenium was taken, perhaps among whose sacred remains are those which I said were found in previous years and were kept in the greater temple of Tauromenium. Finally, the holy Tauromenitan garden was not lacking in the flowers of virgins and confessors, the scent of whom has spread far and wide. From these...

families ^A came Paulina, dedicated to Christ from the time of St. Pancratius; Epaphroditus the priest, initiated into the sacred mysteries by the same; and, when the Christian emperors were ruling in the East, the abbots Attalus and Luke, who blossomed around the year 800 both in the institution of monks and in their own virtues and holiness. In the same century, closer to the time of our Theophanes, Daniel, a disciple of St. Elias of Enna, also flourished in the virtues of the monastic life, just as I believe—though I would rather suggest than assert, since no historical authority documenting his holiness and death has yet appeared—that Theophanes himself shone forth in the exercise of both public and private ministry, established by the voice and nod of God. And such was the rise, progress, and decline of the Tauromenitan Church.

§ III. The image of the blessed Virgin, not made by human hands, at Tauromenium.

It pertains to the standing and holiness of the Tauromenitan Church not only that it was marked by the footprints of an apostle and adorned with the blood of martyrs, but also that it was endowed with a heavenly gift in the form of an image of the divine Virgin, which the Greeks call ^A *acheiropoietos*, that is, not made by human hands. James Gretser mentions this in his golden booklet *On Images Not Made by Human Hands*, which he attached to his book *On the Offices of the Constantinopolitan Court*; but in truth, he uses no other authority than the *Idea* of Octavius Caetanus, which that author published as a prodromos to his histories of the Sicilian Saints. But Octavius Caetanus received that information from these homilies of Theophanes Kerameus, who mentions it twice: first, at the beginning of Homily XI, "On Him Who Fell Among Thieves," and then in Homily LIX, "On the Transfiguration," as well as in the Proemium. D. Rocchus Pirri also mentions it in his *Notitia of the Tauromenitan Church*, at the end, but from the same source. Thus, as far as writers are concerned, the Tauromenitan Church derives its tradition from our Theophanes.

He asserts two things that must be said to illustrate this matter: what the origin of this image is, by what miracle it was fashioned if it was not painted by human work and hand, at what time, and from where so great a gift arrived? And secondly, whether the image of the divine Virgin—which the Tauromenitans venerate with great religion and faith in its miracles, and which I myself viewed with my own eyes and venerated in my heart when I went there for no other purpose than to see it—is the same one that existed in the time of Theophanes as *acheiropoietos*. But I would have wished to offer more certain information than what I have regarding both of these questions.

However, I first lay down as certain and well-argued what the same James Gretser writes in the aforementioned Commentary, *dysporozov*—or rather *acheiropoietos*—for this word is in use among our author, Theophanes, to mean an image taken in a universal sense that excludes the workmanship of human hands, insofar as the strength of the word is concerned, and which was brought about by either divine or angelic work. In this sense, you could correctly call the universal world *acheiropoietos*, as it relates to the creation of the world without the mention of any hand. ^B And when this epithet is applied to images, it signifies those images—whether of Christ or of His Mother the Virgin—which He Himself deigned to imprint upon linens or napkins by bringing His face to them, or which the Virgin deigned to manifest by some miracle and the work of an angel.

Three images of Christ not made by human hands are celebrated in histories: the Edessene, sent by Christ to Abgar, the toparch of Edessa; the Camulian, which took its name from a city in Cappadocia, whose glory the second Council of Nicaea heralded for the sake of the veneration of images; and the third, the Veronica, or the face of Christ imprinted upon a linen or napkin while He was being led to the mount of Calvary. To this class could also be referred the full-body effigy which He expressed upon the shroud in which Christ was wrapped in the tomb. All such images are held to be worthy of faith by the testimony of many writers and are held in highest veneration in the churches where they are preserved.

Besides these images of Christ the Lord, there are also said to be images of the blessed Virgin *acheiropoietos*. The historian Theophanes, drawing from Georgius Pisides, and Matthew of Westminster, as related by the same Gretser from whom we received this, attest that the Emperor Heraclius moved his camp against Chosroes in the tenth year of his reign, while he was carrying with him the icon of the holy Mother of God, which is at Byzantium—painted not by the hand of man but by a divine miracle. With her present help, Heraclius is said to have routed and put to flight all the enemy’s forces. Gretser adds that this narrative does not conflict with the authors who maintain that Heraclius carried an image of Christ (which ought to be the Camulian, as we said above) in the army and the battle line; for, protected by a dual image as if by a twin shield, Heraclius charged into the enemy.

You may find the testimonies of other authors who lend credence to this miracle of the image in [the work of] Gretser himself. Furthermore, another image of the Mother of God not made by human hands is read to have been in high value and worship, with a monastery founded in her honor, and its cult is said to have remained even after Constantinople was captured by the Turks. For Malaxius the Peloponnesian, in his *Patriarchal History*, where he discusses the deposition of Patriarch Dionysius, says: "He departed from Constantinople with all the things he possessed, and entered the monastery of the Most Holy *Acheiropoietos*—the Mother of God not made by human hands—situated near Cabala." To this passage, Gretser adds (for what better can I append?): "You see here also an *acheiropoietos* image of the Mother of God; whatever the origin of this name—whether the Virgin herself imprinted her face upon some linen, or it was deposited by an angel—*acheiropoietos* surely excludes the human brush." And I have not read anything else about this image anywhere, so far as I know. But there is a double Cabala: one is a city in Thrace, the other a fortress above Iconium; I cannot say to which this monastery was near. It is credible that it should be understood as the Cabala of Thrace.

^A Likewise, Gretser, who also produces testimony concerning ours in the very next paragraph of the same chapter. At Tauromenium in Sicily, an ancient image of the Blessed Virgin is venerated, which is not made by hand; similar to this appears to be that image of the Theotokos, painted by divine power, which is venerated in the Green Valley, on Mount Etna, as Octavius Constantinus (read Caetanus; for Constantinus is the name of one of the brothers of the same Octavius, a monk and abbot of the Order of Saint Benedict) writes in his *Idea of the work concerning the Saints of Sicily*. And thus far I have set forth the thesis for this treatise of mine, and from the reports of Gretser and from the general class of these icons, I have fortified my own belief, so that it might not seem incredible that such an *acheiropoietos* image existed at Tauromenium, since it is known that they exist elsewhere based on certain authors. What, therefore, shall I say concerning the non-manufactured image of the Blessed Virgin at Tauromenium? Indeed, I shall provide certain things for certain matters, and conjectures for conjectures; for I cannot do more given such great antiquity of times and the scarcity of history. That such an *acheiropoietos* image existed and was most religiously venerated at Tauromenium in the time of Theophanes, and indeed during all that time which preceded the Saracen tyranny, does not seem to me to be put into doubt, since Theophanes mentions it so expressively in two places, and glories in it within his Church and city. However, as to where it had its origin, by what work it was effected, and whether it is an archetypal *acheiropoietos*, or an ectypal one—that is, an image expressed from a prototype—and that whether by miracle, or by the workmanship of a painter, yet maintaining the same name of *acheiropoietos* as the archetype, which Gretser is the author for saying happened in many such cases of both Christ and the Theotokos. Furthermore, as to by what other miracle it was brought to Tauromenium, or at what time, I shall say the same thing that Gretser said a little earlier concerning the non-manufactured image of the Theotokos of the monastery of Conissa near Cabala; nothing else, to my knowledge, has been handed down concerning the Tauromenian image. But concerning the other point, which I had proposed above to be debated—whether the image of the Blessed Virgin, which the people of Tauromenium venerate today with supreme piety, and whom they call their patroness, in whom their hopes and resources are placed in afflicted affairs, which also some not undistinguished men call "not made by hand," is the same as that which existed in the time of Theophanes, so that it even escaped the impious hands of the Saracens, and, having been vindicated from their injuries and those of time, was preserved safe and sound until this time, which would have to be ascribed to another miracle—I truly have these arguments to believe it is the same. First, because they commonly call it the Theotokos of the Greeks, whence it becomes probable to me that this appellation was derived from the time when the Church and rite of the Greeks were flourishing at Tauromenium, that is, in the time of Theophanes, and was handed down by continuous transmission to these times; furthermore, because in the greatest scarcity of rain, the people of Tauromenium have it as their unique and certain refuge, and they run to it as to a rich fountain of all graces to ask for rain: and scarcely has the solemn procession begun to be carried around the city, when they are forced to interrupt it, overwhelmed and drenched by the rain—they who had begun, dry and thirsting, to perform it; a fact I received confirmed by many trustworthy residents of Tauromenium while I was staying there to learn of these things. And indeed, from another side, we read that Theophanes, in a homily delivered concerning the plague of drought (Hom. LX), turns his peroration to the Blessed Virgin and implores her not to abandon her city, which glories in her name; a glory which one might not undeservedly refer to the non-manufactured image, as we have noted there. Many other gifts of every kind received throughmiracle, and works effected above human power through her invoked faith, are told and testified to daily, not only by the inhabitants but also by foreigners: among whom must not be passed over in silence Lord Francis, a Roman of Catania, a priest not long ago deservedly added to the college of canons of the Church of Palermo, endowed with the office of preaching and an no ordinary ardor of piety, who, when he was delivering sermons at Tauromenium during Lent, told me and consigned to writing and to his own signature that he had received many miracles, both asked for by others and experienced in himself, through that non-manufactured image. However, I would wish this to also be observed by the readers in this matter: if one is persuaded that the image of the Theotokos which exists today is that *acheiropoietos* which existed in the time of Theophanes, it is not to be considered as one of those that bear the face of the Virgin imprinted on some linen by her very self: for that panel does not express the face of the Virgin alone, but her whole stature, sitting and carrying the infant Jesus in her arms: wherefore I would have classed it in the other category of *acheiropoietoi*, concerning which Gretser also speaks, so that it may have been depicted by the work of angels, or at least described from some non-manufactured painting, as I was saying above. They serve it today in their temple, the religious of the Blessed Virgin from Mount Carmel, and they observe a solemn day for it on the eighth day of December, which day is consecrated to the celebration of the Immaculate Conception of the same Virgin. Octavius Caetanus, in his *Idea of the work concerning the Saints of Sicily*, hands down that the feast of the non-manufactured image of the Theotokos is celebrated at Tauromenium on the first day of September; which, indeed, from where he received it is still unknown to me: but since he was a most diligent investigator of Sicilian matters pertaining to the cult of the Saints of Sicily, I ought not to refute it, nor yet can I affirm it. For while staying at Tauromenium and inquiring about that feast day, nothing was handed down to me except that on the said eighth day of December, a feast is celebrated for the image of the Theotokos already mentioned—which we persuade ourselves to be non-manufactured—on the same day as her Immaculate Conception. Perhaps Caetanus may have gathered this from the homily of Theophanes himself on the Indiction and the beginning of the year; in which, among other celebrations of the first day of September,

^A Theophanes mentions the image of the divine Virgin; whose words are these: "All these hallow the beginning of the year: for our Savior Jesus blesses the crown of the year. And the all-holy Lady, honored through the venerable image, becomes our mediatrix to God." Which we have there interpreted into Latin as follows: "From all these things, some holiness redounds to this beginning of the year: for our Savior Christ Jesus blesses the crown of the year: and the most pure Virgin, honored by the religion of the venerable image, intercedes as a mediator between us and God." Such is Theophanes: who, since he does not call the image of the Mother of God *acheiropoietos* (not made by human hands)—and I see no reason why he would not have expressly named it, if the discussion concerned it, when in other homilies he designated it with a certain distinguished and boastful epithet—and on the other hand, since I read in the Menaion that on that day a *synaxis* of the most holy Theotokos of Miasena is celebrated, it is certainly not clear, and the matter remains in doubt, whether Theophanes speaks of the Tauromenian image, or of some Miasenian image, to which a gathering might be held on that first day of September, just as it is customary here in Palermo on the second of July for the image of the blessed Virgin, whom we call "of Grace," and at other times for others; for festivals are usually held in towns for such venerable images. Indeed, as I have said, I have decided neither to refute the conjecture of Octavius Caetanus, nor to affirm it, but to leave it in the middle, supported by the authority of the man.

IV. The dignity and title of the Archbishop.

Since in almost all the manuscript copies of these homilies, which are preserved in the most famous libraries of Europe—the Vatican, the Spanish, and the three in Paris—from which I have been able to obtain, through the work of friends who professed themselves to be supporters of letters and literary men, either the entire homilies or a transcript of their index, the title of archbishop is either inscribed to the author's name where the author is mentioned, or appears solely in the writings under the designation of the archbishop of Tauromenium—a point on which all agree, although they disagree on the name (of which I shall speak in the following Proemium)—the credit due to them does not seem to be rashly abrogated; otherwise, all faith in ancient monuments would perish, even though the most learned writers desired it to be kept safe and firm, those who, in their printed monuments, published that title of archbishop, accepted from no other source than the faith and authority of the manuscripts: Cardinal Baronius, vol. IX; James Gretser, vol. II *De cruce*; Franciscus Turrianus in his book against the Magdeburg heretics, in defense of the apostolic canons, chap. 6; Antonius Possevinus in his *Apparatus*, and others whose testimonies we have collected in this present work of Proemiums. Therefore, this dignity of the Tauromenian Church is rather to be asserted, for it is sufficiently ample, being constituted by St. Peter himself, as we argued in § II, and to be vindicated—as far as my own contribution goes—from every ^B note of a surreptitious title and the calumny of arrogance. For I see this mark printed, or rather branded, upon it in the *Notitia Ecclesiae Tauromenitanae*, which was published in volume II by Dom Rocchus Pirri, abbas Netinus, who has well deserved of the Churches of Sicily: yet this mark was imposed not so much by him as by Alberto Piccolo, who branded it upon him. According to which author, Pirri writes that Zacharias, the schismatic bishop of Tauromenium, [received] the nomenclature of archbishop from Photius, because that was a task poorly performed by him, and a price previously paid for the defense of the Photian factions. But from where did Piccolo receive this? By producing what testimony does he affirm it? For first, if the Zacharias who was nicknamed *Kophos*, that is, "the deaf," is supposed to have been bishop of Tauromenium, he certainly did not receive from Photius the title of archbishop for his Church, but was created metropolitan of Chalcedon; which Nicetas David wrote most openly in his *Life of St. Ignatius*, against whom Photius fought so persistently and bitterly; he was a writer of those times who followed all the struggles of St. Ignatius most diligently and faithfully, whose history was printed at the beginning of the synod celebrated for this cause of St. Ignatius and Photius. Thus he writes concerning Photius: "After he had procured all these things, he sent into Italy, by the hand of Zacharias Cophi, whom he himself had created metropolitan of Chalcedon, and Theodore, who had been translated from Caria to the bishopric of Laodicea." From these facts, surely, there can be no doubt that that Zacharias who was nicknamed Cophus was not previously a bishop of Tauromenium, but was endowed with the new dignity of metropolitan of Chalcedon. But you will say, "he was promoted from the bishopric of Tauromenium to the Chalcedonian." But this word *cheirotonēin* ("to ordain"), which David used, cannot signify this; it can only designate a bishop or consecrate one; which, from the very reason and etymology of the name, which clearly denotes the imposition of hands, and from other writers—James Gretser, Juan de la Cerda, Peter Arcudius, a Corcyrean priest who wrote an entire volume on the rite of the Greek sacraments—ought to be so certain to anyone with a moderate knowledge of Greek that proving it would be a waste of effort. And I ask, does it not appear more certain than certain from the following words, in which he writes that Theodore was transferred from Caria to Laodicea, in which he used the verb *metatithenai*? For since he expressly says he was "transferred" the second time, and uses the proper verb, it must certainly be accepted that, in the first case, he was "created," since the writer reported those as different acts. Furthermore, in Leunclavius, *De jure Greco-Rom.*, there exists a chapter on the translation of Eastern bishops, in which all translated bishops are enumerated, from St. Gregory Nazianzen, who was transferred from Sasima to Constantinople, up to Gregory Asbestas, who, on account of the Photian schism itself, was transferred to Nicaea by Photius himself, according to the same Nicetas David; and there is no mention in that chapter of the translation of Zacharias. It is therefore as manifest that that Zacharias Cophus did not [bear] the title of archbishop, but the thing itself and the dignity...

of Metropolitan received from Photius, about which there can be no doubt. But nevertheless, an error has been made even here regarding Zacharias by Piccolo—or should I say Pirri? Forasmuch as Zacharias Cophus, Bishop of Tauromenium, is called by him that Zacharias who was sent to Rome as Bishop of Tauromenium in the cause of Photius; those writers were deceived by the similarity of names, not examining the acts and writings of that fifth synod (the eighth) thoroughly. There were indeed two Zachariases who were supporters of Photius, and two embassies were sent to Rome. The first is that which is reported by Baronius in the year 859 and in the eighth synod, act 1, in which, upon the inquiry of the Senate, these responses were made by the legates of the Roman See: ^A *First was sent Arsabir, legate of the Emperor Michael, and with him were sent four bishops (whose names we do not know), carrying with him both a royal letter signifying the cause of the heresy of the images, and at the end of those letters showing also the expulsion of the most holy Patriarch Ignatius.* To which passage Anastasius the Librarian, writer of that synod and eyewitness, added this note: *As the prosecution of the proposed speech pressed them, the names of the bishops could not recur to their memory so quickly, to whom, however, the names were: Methodius, Metropolitan of the Gangrenians; Samuel, Bishop of Chonae; Theophilus of Iconium; and Zacharias of Tauromenium, pseudo-bishops, who carried the embassy and the letters from Photius to the Apostolic See.* ^B Thus Anastasius: from which you see Zacharias was afflicted with no surname; and certainly from this note of Anastasius alone is this Zacharias known to have been Bishop of Tauromenium; and from it Baronius reports it in the cited place: but nowhere else, where mention is made of this embassy and the same Zacharias the bishop is named, is he inscribed as "Tauromenitan," as in the proemium of that synod written by Anastasius himself, and in the Life of St. Ignatius by David, who mentions only two, Theophilus and Samuel, omitting the rest. And these legates were heard by Pope Nicholas I in the Basilica of St. Mary Major, but were not admitted to communion. This is also reported by Pirri from the aforementioned place in Baronius.

The second embassy is after the sentence passed by Nicholas and the anathema inflicted upon Photius, and his deposition. Which was the cause why Photius, headlong with anger or fury, convened that conventicle of his of wicked bishops, by which he attempted to excommunicate Pope Nicholas, and transmitted the acts of that conventicle through Zacharias Cophus into Italy, as Nicetas David explicitly writes in the place already related above. But I shall show the distinction between the two Zachariases even more evidently. For the first, who discharged the first embassy, was legitimately ordained by St. Methodius the Patriarch, who had preceded St. Ignatius: the second was ordained by the illegitimate Photius. For at the beginning of the fourth session, Baannes the patrician reported to the synod in these words: ^C *There are bishops holding ordination from the most blessed Methodius: Theophilus and Zacharias, who accept Photius; if therefore it seems good, let them enter into the holy ecumenical synod.* They are bishops consecrated by St. Methodius, Zacharias who communicated with Photius: if it seems good, let them enter to the holy ecumenical council. The outcome of this session was that the legates, having been openly convicted of falsehood and affirming their schism, were cast out. But in the fourth session, at the beginning, were sent the bishops ordained by Photius, and their cause was discussed, in which Zacharias is always named as a Photian bishop and ordained by him. *Zacharias, he who was consecrated by Photius, Metropolitan of Chalcedon, said, etc.* And below: *Then Metrophanes of Smyrna said to Zacharias, who was consecrated by Photius as Metropolitan of Chalcedon: To what you have argued, we respond. The laws, etc.* Then Metrophanes, Metropolitan of Smyrna, addressed Zacharias, created Metropolitan of Chalcedon by Photius: *To those things which you have argued, we respond. The laws, etc.*; and in these altercations this session was prolonged. From which places it appears more clearly than light that Zacharias Cophus, whom Nicetas writes was consecrated Metropolitan of Chalcedon by Photius, is not the Zacharias who is called Bishop of Tauromenium by Anastasius.

I return, therefore, to the point from which this dispute has started: whence does Piccolo collect that Zacharias of Tauromenium took away the title of archbishop from Photius? But perhaps from the fact that Nicetas himself, when he deals with the first embassy, writes thus: ^D *He therefore sends Theophilus, Bishop of Amorium, and Samuel, who until that day was the prelate of Chonae, subject to Laodicea, having been dignified with the honor of archbishop by Photius*; therefore, you will say, just as Samuel, so also could Zacharias be distinguished with the title of archbishop by Photius. But what is this, if it be not divination? Certainly, I contend in this dispute that by no testimony, by no author, by no history which may exist in writing, is it affirmed by Alberto Piccolo and from him by Pirri; and certainly just as he wrote with little consideration that Zacharias the Bishop of Tauromenium was called by the surname Cophus, so truly it seems rashly proposed by him that he was adorned with the nomenclature of archbishop by Photius. It remains, therefore, that I show whence this title has been attributed to the Bishop of Tauromenium. I shall not deduce it from any other principle, and indeed with sufficient reason, than that which the same Rocchus Pirri shows: whence the title of archbishop was attributed to St. Mamilianus, prelate of Panormus, as far back as from ancient times, since it is read engraved in the marble of his monument. Whence, I say, he collects: *I would believe, he says, that it may not ineptly be referred to the fact that Panormus held its prelate from St. Peter.* For who does not know that to those churches which traced their origin from the times of the apostles, and which had handed down the discipline of Christ as parents to others, some peculiar honor was held? Certainly Rupert, Abbot, tom. II *De divin. Offic.*, cap. 27, says: *The succession of the Apostles...*

must be looked to; and if they seem to enter into the ecumenical council, the outcome of this session was that the legates, having been openly convicted of lying, were cast out in their schism. But in the session that was held at the beginning, bishops ordained by Photius were sent, and their cause was argued, in which he is always named Zacharias, as a Photian bishop and ordained by him. ^A “The metropolitan of Chalcedon ordained by Photius said,” etc. “Zacharias, metropolitan of Chalcedon, ordained by Photius, said,” etc.; and further down: “Then Metrophanes of Smyrna said to Zacharias, the metropolitan of Chalcedon ordained by Photius, ‘We answer you. The laws,’ etc.” Then Metrophanes, metropolitan of Smyrna, addressed Zacharias, created metropolitan of Chalcedon by Photius: “We answer what you have argued. The laws,” etc.; and in these altercations this session was prolonged. From which places it appears more clearly that Zacharias Cophus, who wrote as metropolitan of Chalcedon, is not Zacharias ^B whom Anastasius calls the bishop of Tauromenium. I return, therefore, to the point from which this discussion was begun, whence Piccolus infers that Zacharias had stolen the title of bishop of Tauromenium from Photius. Perhaps it is from the fact that Nicetas himself deals with the beginning, and he writes, “He sends [Greek phrase omitted],” that is: “He sends, therefore, Theophilus, bishop of Amorium, and Samuel, bishop, up to that time bishop of the Cones, now subject to Laodicea, worthy of the honor of archbishop by Photius.” Therefore, you say, the legate Amorii bishop, and Samuel who up to that time was subject to Laodicea as an antistes, was deemed worthy of ^C the honor of archbishop by Photius; therefore, you say, as Samuel, so also Zacharias could be adorned with the title of archbishop by Photius. But what is to be divined, if this is not the case? Indeed, in this mode of disputation, with no testimony, no author, no history that exists in writing, to affirm that by Alberto Piccolo and then by Pirri: and just as it seems little considered that he wrote Zacharias was bishop of Tauromenium, surnamed Cophus, so indeed he seems rashly adorned with that title by Photius. It remains, therefore, to show that this title from hence is attributed to the bishop of Tauromenium. ^D I do not trace it from another principle, and indeed with enough reason, than from that which the same Rocchus Pirri, Abbot of Netum, who deserves well enough of the churches of Sicily, since it is attributed to the prelate of Panormus already from ancient times, that he had it inscribed in marble on the monument. Whence, I say, he infers: “I would believe,” he says, “that it cannot be referred to [the times] when it could have had the blessed Peter [as its founder] at Panormus.” For who does not know that the Churches which traced their origin from apostolic times, and which handed down Christ’s teaching to others like parents, held a peculiar honor?

Rupert, Abbot, in his second volume *De Divinis Officiis*, chapter 27, says: “These are called successors of the apostles; but the successor of Peter, on account of the excellence of the prince of the apostles, is called Apostolic; and whoever among them (namely, Saint Peter and the other apostles) were sent through the provinces, their successors are called archbishops.” ^A His reasoning is consistent and, indeed, right; no one would deny this. By which reasoning, if one is not too stubborn, one must concede that the dignity of archbishop of the Tauromenitan Church—an honor to which he asserts it is entitled—could be attributed to it, with no intermediary between it and Saint Peter. ^B And indeed he argues further about the dignity of the see of Panormus, to which the same title could be attributed; and all that Baronius reports to prove it can be done for Tauromenium, although the dignity of this city is not equal to that of Panormus. Yet, in those golden ages, it attained such great renown, as is shown by the Emperor Constantine [§ 1] of this Proemium, and it seems rightly ^C included here by the author. I shall also bring in the Syracusan and Catanensian Churches to support this Tauromenitan case, those churches whose bishops were granted the honorable titles of archbishop, just as the Syracusan prelate is a metropolitan, while the Catanensian was born of the same origins, and the others, Marcianus and Berillus, were received as the first parents and pastors from Saint Peter; although their titles were also sold, and were bought by Photius, for which he ^D is rebuked on account of his association with the schism against Ignatius and his defense of the same cause by the aforementioned Piccolos, as cited by Pirri in Part I, chapter 26, and in *Notitia Messanae*, Vol. II, page 125, although this volume, III, in the *Notitia Syracusanae et Catanensis*, seems to recede little by little from those points which I shall now bring forward. Indeed, I do not deny that in that age these prelates were shipwrecked, and that Gregory Asbestas of Syracuse was indeed among those who were stubborn in their schism and persistent in their spirit; but Euthymius of Catana, who at first had adhered to Photius, afterwards repented of the deed, and was reconciled to those who held the right view in the synod, Act 5, and subsequently joined them. But as regards the titles, I do not know how either writer can positively affirm and write this, since in the Seventh Synod, which was celebrated against the Iconoclasts, under the Emperors Constantine and Irene, and under Pope Adrian I, where the bishops subscribe, the Syracusan bishop is explicitly named. ^A Therefore, in the list of bishops: “Galaion, minor priest, on behalf of the archbishop of Sicily, greets you.” But the Latin version suppresses this, saying: “exiguous priest, and on behalf of the archbishop of Sicily, etc.” But in the first Greek text, “Galaton, presbyter, and holding the place, of Stephen, Bishop of Syracuse.” Galaton the presbyter, and holding the place of Stephen, Bishop of Syracuse. They have not produced Piccolos, but have sought to deflect their power and authority and, on suspicion of error, to bring in the text. But these are trifles; I shall not repeat them here; for indeed, I do not recount the words of Pirri, who, while he inclines towards his opinion, yet openly confesses that he cannot elevate the testimony of this authority: for what Piccolos says is an evasion, and a comment—namely, that ^B Galaton is openly said to hold the place of Rhegium; whence he thinks the Archbishop of Sicily should be called Rhenus by ancient custom, because Calabria was called Sicily, and since it is read in act 4 that Constantine is to be substituted, it vanishes entirely. For that act does not write *Galaton*, Galato, as is written in the first, but *Galaton*, and it is translated into Latin as *Galata*; hence, if any weight is to be accorded to these, we have an opening to conclude that he was someone else, and thus we refute his conjecture. And act 4, in which Piccolos suspects a corruption and wishes to substitute Constantine for Stephen, he finds that Constantine was present: whom perhaps he suppressed, that place which in the Latin version is called Chii, not Rhegium: but I marvel that he did not notice in the margin the emendation of the word Chii, ^C and replacing it with *Reghii*; and although I am a man skilled in Greek, I do not read in the Greek without an asterisk, “Constantinus indignus episcopus Regii,” that is, “Constantine unworthy bishop of Regium,” etc., and finally in act 7, Piccolos’s conjecture is strangled when the deacon Galato is called the vicar of Stephen, bishop of Syracuse, and in the same act, Constantine, bishop of Rhegium, is said to have arrived; which Pirri explains perfectly well; therefore, as I have said, he does not agree with Piccolos. But there is a more open testimony than this, the letter of Pope Nicholas to Photius and the Emperor Michael written by him, in which, when they were attempting to make the Syracusan Church forever subject to their jurisdiction, after having torn away Gregory, ^D Nicholas responds: “We say what we have said above, *that the ordination of the Syracusan archbishop is to be bestowed by our See, so that the tradition instituted by the apostles may not be violated in your times.*” This is Nicholas: from which who does not see that the name of archbishop was not imposed by Photius upon the Syracusan prelate, but was granted by the Roman pontiff? For was a pontiff ever to name a Syracusan archbishop, if he was to be writing to schismatics, and if the title were recent and purchased with money and evil arts by Photius himself and the emperor? Let him believe who will, to me it is easy to persuade. What, indeed, will they say to another place in that same letter of Pope Nicholas to Emperor Michael, in which he calls Ignatius patriarch and his minister, in which he commands that Ignatius and Photius and some of those who were with Gregory of Syracuse be present, and furthermore adds: “They also send, on the part of Ignatius, certain archbishops: Antony of Cyzicus, Basil of Thessalonica, Constantine of Larissa, Theodore of the Syracusans, Metrophanes of Smyrna”: and this Theodore was one whom others with—

name Theodosius (which is of little relevance to my question), substituted in the place of Gregory Asbestas, whom the patriarch Ignatius had deposed. And that Nicholas I openly mentions him as archbishop implies that he would never have done so had he not deemed that dignity valid, as it was already confirmed by ancient practice, and not derived from Gregory, as Piccolus claims. And indeed, compelled by the authority of this epistle and by his opinion, Pirri retracts his position in a refined manner, nor does he openly continue to reject what he had said. In the cited place, if he spoke of this nomenclature, he follows Piccolus. The same happened ^B to my mind regarding the bishop of Catania; for when Euthymius of Catania was made metropolitan and archbishop in the eighth synod, and under the legitimate patriarch Ignatius when he was restored, and under Pope Adrian II and the emperor Basil the Macedonian, it was celebrated, and even if one sees them sitting as metropolitans, not rejected, but rather approved by the supreme pontiff, it must be acknowledged, as it is indeed acknowledged, that they were decorated with these marks of dignity, and I have convinced myself and the truth, and Pirri himself supports this: nor, if I am certain about the origin of this title, is it clear now from the beginning that they held those prerogatives. It is ^C likely that they were established by Saint Peter: which the same Taormenitan [bishop] would affirm. For as for the rest, that they are not always decorated with that title in the subscriptions of councils, especially in the seventh synod against the Monothelites, in which the Syracusan bishop is subscribed first among the Sicilians, and likewise in the letters of Saint Gregory without any monuments, this is of no importance, since even the patriarchs themselves and the supreme pontiff are often simply called bishops. I contend only for this: that they were never not to be called archbishops, especially by the supreme pontiff, and in councils, as I have already shown for the Syracusan and Catanensian [bishop], unless they ^D sought to occupy that title. For the rest, the lower nomenclature, according to the whim of the writer, could often have been used in those earlier centuries without the diminution of dignity; and I would wish the same to be said for the Taormenitan. If anyone objects that because the name of archbishop was never claimed before the times of Photius, it does not necessarily argue that the title was imposed by Photius. If, however, to anyone it seems that the Taormenitan archbishop was never to have other bishops subject to him, nor to gain the legitimate right of archbishop or metropolitan over some [part] of Sicily, as he contends for the Syracusan, and Pirri proves by the partition of times, and judges that all, at least in the time of Saint Gregory, were subject to the Roman pontiff and to no other, though we have already seen, the title of archbishop to both the Syracusan and Catanensian cannot be denied, it is also willingly conceded to the Taormenitan, provided that the honorary title of archbishop on account of the already commemorated prerogative was legitimate, and not adulterated.

SECOND PROEM

CONJECTURAL LIFE OF THEOPHANES KERAMEUS

§ 1. Those who lived in the same times as Theophanes Kerameus are to be distinguished.

What I promised at the end of the Preface to the Readers, I shall now perform in this second proem, so that as if in a mirror the image of the author may present itself to us reflecting itself from the various lines or strokes of the homilies, so that I may express a shaded life, if not with living colors; nor indeed do I perform this without the example and authority of many writers. It was customary for many to transcribe the labor and script of the authors themselves in their works; this was to be done in writing the Life of Gregory Nazianzen by the priest Gregory: "And that he left nothing

...

PROOEMIUM II. THEOPHANIS CERAMEI VITA CONJECTANEA.

^A necessary, to understand clearly the historical Theophanes, the abbot of Agros, for he is the same one who, under Leo the Armenian, suffered exile for the sake of the holy icons, and therein met his death, and is very different from our Theophanes, who, the heresy of the Iconoclasts having been entirely eradicated, had no contention with those already damned, but who by order, under Basil and Leo, flourished in his own place; and also the error in that Bibliotheca is corrected: likewise in Sebastianus Corradus’s Catena of the Fathers on Luke, where he cites Theophanes with the same eulogy or inscription taken from that Bibliotheca, and relates the same words. But in truth from both sides he is different from that other Theophanes, prefect of the monastery of Sigriane, who after a two-year imprisonment endured for the faith, was deported to the island of Samothrace, where he is distinguished by the glory of his confession of faith. Baronius treats of him under the year of Christ 816 and warns the reader of the distinction between the two Theophanes, the former who first died under Leo, and the latter who died in the third year of the same emperor for the same cause, who is also called Isaac: but the truth is evident that this Theophanes Isaac is distinct from ours. A third Theophanes is closer ^B to that, who, having been reared in the monastery of St. Sabas, being a kinsman of this Theophanes in blood and singular virtue, was afterwards vigorously contending for the holy icons against Leo the Armenian, and by his order was beaten with scourges and sent into exile; but upon his death, once Theophilus reigned, again resisting the same iconoclasm, he was scourged and sent into exile again: in which, when he had breathed his last in prison, Theophanes, having at last been restored to the Church, performed his duties as Metropolitan of Nicaea and passed away. These things are described most fully in the Roman Martyrology for those who desire intelligence. More of these holy brothers, and the writers of the history of the Eastern empire, Georgius Curopalates, Zonaras, Glycas, Manasses, the Menologia of the Greeks, and Baronius, from whom it is also evidenced, say that their foreheads were inscribed with iambic verses, not without great torture, so that they were translated as if into letters; the aforementioned authors relate both the torture and the iambi. The one who makes ^C this Theophanes the author of the epistles which exist under the name of the Bishop of Nicaea is Consalvus Ponce, who published them in Latin, adding notes, which we all read. Therefore, when this Theophanes died in the time of St. Methodius, then Theophanes Kerameus, later created Bishop of Tauromenia, was in the monastery of St. Andrew, as I shall say in its place, having not yet been raised to the episcopal throne, and this happened above the year eight hundred and forty-seven, and up to the eight hundred and ninetieth, at which time Theophanes was reaching old age, forty-three years intervening. But through this deduction of time, it does not conflict that this Theophanes, who was present at the translation of the body of St. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople, which Baronius refers to the year 845, was not only the spectator, but the writer of his Life, and the panegyrist in that celebration, and that he was the same as Theophanes Kerameus: I do not say that the rationale of the times conflicts, but the fact that the writer is said by Baronius to have been a presbyter, whereas our monk existed before, since he was a bishop: which I showed as required above ^D § II: then the surname Kerameus having been added is sufficient to distinguish him from any other for us. From which it is also certain to me that this Theophanes of ours is someone else entirely than he whom Baronius refers to, who lived in the time of Basil the Macedonian; he was his royal cleric by the name of Charnus, who promoted the frauds of Photius, when he offered to the emperor a book written on the genealogy of the emperor, and lied that it could be understood by Photius alone. Although the times agree, yet when he is said to have been that cleric, and indeed a courtier, but ours was either already instituted as bishop of Tauromenia at that time, or was still living the monastic life in the monastery of St. Andrew in Sicily, or even elsewhere, since he was a Greek, as I said above, it is clearly persuaded that that cleric Theophanes is someone else than our bishop; and certainly it is clear that he is someone else than that cleric who is distinguished from our bishop by the piety and the most perfect life of virtues which we shall explain more fully in § VIII and IX, with that twofold and deceitful mind of the Theophanes who tries to deceive. These things I have brought, which are drawn partly from certain arguments of the times, partly from conjectures of the same events and lives, to offer the distinction of those who are marked by the name of Theophanes and to be considered distinct from our own. Moreover, none of those things which the student employs, he offers to the reader of great standing, unless he brings these conjectures with sound and integral faith, however he understands them.

§ II. The twofold name of the author of the homilies: one surname, KERAMEUS.

I have distinguished thus far the homonyms of Theophanes, in this paragraph it will be upon the *di-onymy* or rather the *poly-onymy* to be considered. For what happens in many other monuments of the ancient Fathers, that the same thing is inscribed under a name and transmitted to posterity, as in the sermons of Eusebius Emisenus, and of Maximus, and Ambrose, and Augustine, and Fulgentius, those who have taken the effort in perusing them note; especially indeed a most eminent reader and censor of theirs, Cardinal Bellarmine in the work *On Ecclesiastical Writers*, and so also in his homilies which we are bringing to light. For indeed he is Theophanes, and Gregorius, and Philippus, to whom they are attributed: for whose surname is the same, one and the same is *Kerameus*, third *Keramites*, which although they are diverse, the name is the same in sense; and it is interpreted into Latin as *the Potter*; but of this third one, there will be in the last sermon.

^A and that we appear to have received the work for the sake of the labor, certainly the proems themselves, many of which are not taken from some common place, but from the time and place itself in which they were said, and from fortuitous events occurring at that time, and are almost extemporaneous, and as they were being said, were excepted; and many singular things which occur in them, among which it must be said that it cannot fully happen that they happened to one and the same person, and yet these sermons are attributed to one in all and each of their parts. You say that there might be some arguments for this; as for the rest that I could bring forward, and which the reader can notice, he may make judgments for himself.

In the homily on the widow’s son (homil. VI), the author says that another proem had been proposed to him, but, having caught sight of the space on the right side of the choir empty and of the deceased friar, he says that he made an exordium concerning the brevity of life, and changed his proposed intention, and was forced to be moved to tears. In the homily on St. Pancratius (homil. LVII), he says that he had almost missed the day to celebrate it with his people, because he had come after the feast, but although weary and infirm from the journey, he did not want, however, to be absent from the sermon. In the homily on the Centurion (homil. XLIV) he makes mention of a controversy on judgment, offered to him at the very moment of delivering the sermon, so that he was prevented by the devil himself from holding the meeting. In the homily on these words: *The lamp of the body is the eye* (homil. XLII), he severely rebukes the deacon because he had allowed himself to be overcome by sleep during the sermon, and he draws out the exhortation at length because of the time, and concludes the sermon with that. These things and six hundred others, which are said not only in the proem and perorations, but in the very course of speaking as is fitting, ^B from the time, place, and person and the rest of the circumstances, entirely overcome the fact that these sermons could have belonged to many, since it is impossible that these things should happen to different people at different times. Furthermore, the explanations and interpretations of the author agree, and what is said in one, he repeats in another; and he refers to himself, not rarely what we have annotated as a concordance in the notes of individual homilies: these things clearly demonstrate that this work issued from one and the same workshop. Since therefore it must certainly be posited that this author has a double name, and is called the same Theophanes and Gregory, always however *Cerameus*, which is sufficiently evident from the consensus of the manuscripts: and that he is the same one of this name in the Tauromenitan archbishopric; and that the other name was indeed given from the cradle, the other imposed after he had accepted the habit of a monk or the office of a bishop. Although this change of name is accustomed to happen among the Greeks with a changed state of life, not only with Theophanes, we have an example in the most ancient Fathers. S. Gregory of Neocaesarea was made a bishop after being famous for his works and was surnamed *Thaumaturgus*; Theodore, afterwards, was called Gregory; which all bear witness to nearly.

63 Thus they had been born. ^A Moreover, the cities which Pythagoras, in his travels through Italy and Sicily, found oppressed by neighbors, some in ancient times and others recently, he filled with a zeal for liberty through his students—whom he had as adherents in every one of them—and restored them to their former freedom, namely Croton and Sybaris, Catana, Rhegium, Himera, Agrigentum, and Tauromenium, and certain others, for whom he ordained laws through Charondas the Catanean and Zaleucus the Locrian; and for this reason, they were held in high esteem among their neighbors for a long time, and their institutions were emulated.

And these things pertain to the antiquity of Tauromenium, to which not the least splendor was added by two most noble pairs of men. One of them flourished in history almost at the birth of the fatherland itself: Timaeus, the son of the founder Andromachus, concerning whom the testimony of M. Tullius exists in *De Oratore*, book 11: "Timaeus, by far the most learned, and most abundant in wealth of knowledge and variety of opinions, and not unpolished in the very composition of his words, brought great eloquence to writing." The same Tullius mentions him in book 5 of his *Epistles to Lucilius*. Plutarch mentions him in his *Nicias* regarding the histories written by him. Dionysius of Halicarnassus attests to these in book 1 of his *Antiquities*: "Timaeus the Sicilian, having related the ancient matters of history in his universal histories, separated the wars against Pyrrhus the Epirotes into a distinct treatise." This is, by the translation of Sigmund Gelenius of Dionysius: "Timaeus the Sicilian, embracing ancient events in a universal history, [wrote of] the wars of Pyrrhus the Epirotes in a privately dedicated volume." But nothing of this distinguished historian has reached our age.

The other man mentioned in history as a Tauromenitan is Phileas, excelling in mechanical skill, ^B a contemporary of Archimedes of Syracuse, concerning whom Athenaeus writes in book 5 of the *Deipnosophistae*, where he speaks of the ship of Hiero, King of Syracuse, constructed by the design of Archimedes himself, and of its largest mast of all: "Καθείλκυσεν δὲ αὐτὸν ἐπὶ θάλασσαν Φιλέας ὁ Ταυρομενίτης μηχανικός." That is: "Phileas the Tauromenitan, a mechanic, launched it into the sea."

Now, the site of Tauromenium is indeed admirable, and fortified more by nature than by art; so that it may seem no wonder if it could not be captured or taken by the Saracens except through treachery, and [if] it was the last slaughter of the most famous cities. For the mountain itself upon which it is situated is both steep and difficult to climb on either side, which we ourselves have surveyed and traversed with our own eyes, and we have recognized as true what Appian also relates concerning it: that it is most rugged to look upon, and pointed and craggy with rocks on all sides. The city is indeed situated in those middle Alps—or should I rather say among alpine crags—and cliffs, and is surrounded and encircled by them; some of which, looking toward the east, it has beneath it, dropped toward the sea; others, looking toward the west, touch the very sky, so to speak, and threaten it. On their summit stands a fortress and the small town of Mola, most famous in all of Sicily, to which convicted criminals are deported, as Fazellus relates, below which lies the lower fortress of Tauro- ^C menium, so that it could be oppressed by masses rolling down from the Mola with no difficult effort.

Moreover, the climate of Tauromenium is pleasant and healthy; the prospect from the town over the widest expanse of the Mamertine strait and the Ionian sea, and the opposite mountains of the Bruttii, is most delightful; the plains of the territory [are] also most lovely; most fertile in honey-canes and wine, which was most celebrated among the ancients, as Pliny bears witness; so that not undeservedly did the Romans choose that region among others to lead colonies into, which was done when Julius Caesar had gained power and was desirous of expanding Tauromenium, as Diodorus, a writer of that same time, is witness. And indeed, they seem to be works of their magnificence, that which I spoke of from the beginning: the theater constructed of brickwork, which exists in a great part intact—a fate I know not if it befell other ancient monuments of Sicily. I myself, not without pleasure of mind, have measured this with eyes and feet more than once, and I grieved and complained to the citizens that bricks were being cut away from it repeatedly for the sake of building new structures; whereby it will come to pass that in a few years this huge monument of Tauromenitan greatness will fall to the ground.

Likewise, works of the same admirable power are the ponds or two subterranean vaulted cisterns, of which one is supported by eight square cement columns; the other, however, is seen almost prostrate and afflicted by the injury of time. Ancient aqueducts are also seen there; and finally, traces of other monuments, and first of all [those of] the temple of Archegetes, and not a few tombs, show how great it was in circumference (for what share of it remains today?) or how noble in magnificence, or [how] famous in the number of its citizens. And this splendor of it seems to have remained even until the Saracen tyranny, namely through the whole time of the Greek empire until the age of Leo the Wise, under whom it was conquered. For Constantine Porphyrogenitus, his son, who wrote the booklet *On the Themes of the Empire*, in book 2, in the theme of Sicily, relates these things, which close this first part of the prologue concerning the political state of Tauromenium, and [is] a seal most honorable of all things said, and impressed by the Emperor’s own ring, not to say written by his finger: "Ἔχει πόλεις ἐπισήμους τήν τε Συράκουσαν, καὶ τὸ καλού- μενον Ταυρομένιον, καὶ αὐτὴν τὴν Ἀκράγαντα, καὶ τὰς λοιπὰς πόλεις τὰς μὲν ἠρημωμένας παρὰ τῶν Σαρακηνῶν. Τὴν μὲν οὖν Συράκουσαν ἐπὶ Βασιλείου τοῦ ἀοιδίμου βασιλέως παρέλαβον οἱ Σαρακηνοί· τὸ δὲ Ταυρομένιον ἐπὶ Λέοντος τοῦ Σοφωτάτου." That is: "It has famous cities, Syracuse, and that which is called Tauromenium, and Agrigentum itself, and the other cities, partly desolate, partly occupied by the Saracens. The Saracens certainly took Syracuse under Basil the celebrated emperor; Tauromenium, however, under Leo the Wise emperor."

^D § II. — The Ecclesiastical State of Tauromenium. No one would call into doubt that the Church of Tauromenium should be compared in antiquity and dignity with the first and most ancient Churches of Sicily, provided that...

one considers its beginnings; indeed, that it was founded by Saint Peter, the prince of the apostles, when he sent Saint Pancratius, his first bishop, from the East to Tauromenium, having been consecrated by Saint Peter himself, is beyond controversy. The Roman Martyrology of April 3rd bears witness to this, as do Cardinal Baronius in his notes, Nicephorus in Book III, chapter 35, and our own Theophanes in his homily on Saint Pancratius. ^A Furthermore, from the account which is among those of Simeon Metaphrastes, the Oratio on Saints Peter and Paul, that Church was increased and stabilized in holiness and honor, having the footsteps of the same Saint Peter imprinted upon it; for it received the apostle into its hospitality when he was on his journey, with Saint Pancratius himself going to meet him with the highest expressions of love. But regarding Saint Pancratius and his acts and the martyrdom he suffered at Tauromenium, Dom Rocchus Pirrus reports some things in his notes on the Tauromenitan Church, ^B excerpted from the Gallican Breviary, and you will read there many other things pertaining to this Church. We are content to prefix here a certain synopsis of this Church, as our plan requires, touching upon the principal heads.

Saint Pancratius was succeeded by Evagrius, his disciple; and Evagrius by Saint Maximus; both were consecrated bishops by Saint Peter—the first at Rome, when he was sent there as a legate by Saint Pancratius; the second at Tauromenium, when he was staying there on his journey. The Gallican Breviary bears witness to the former, which I read when I was at Tauromenium, having been offered it by the citizens; from this, Pirrus likewise places Evagrius in the second position after Pancratius in his record. We produce the testimony of the Breviary on the homily concerning Saint Pancratius (homily LVI), note 13; regarding the latter, that is, Saint Maximus, I have Metaphrastes as my authority in the cited place. ^C The Tauromenitan Church celebrates the annual memorial of this Saint Maximus on the day before the Ides of January. After Maximus, Nico presided over Tauromenium, who, with his one hundred and ninety-nine disciples, gave testimony to the Christian faith in death under the Emperor Decius. After these, many bishops of Tauromenium are gathered from the letters of the pontiffs and from synods, both provincial and ecumenical. For Saint Leo, the pontiff, in a letter he wrote to all the bishops of Sicily around the year 447, makes mention of the Tauromenitan bishop, but does not state his name. ^D Afterward, Rogatus, bishop of Tauromenium, was present at the Roman synod celebrated under Pope Symmachus; Dom Gregory mentions bishops Victorinus and Secundinus in a letter to Peter the subdeacon, around the year 649; Justus came to the Lateran council under Pope Martin and the Emperor Constans; Petrus, bishop of Tauromenium, met with others at the ecumenical synod held at Constantinople, the sixth, against the Monothelites; and Joannes was present at the seventh, which was the second Nicene, against the Iconoclasts, under the Emperor Constantine and his mother Irene. After these, Zacharias, the Tauromenitan bishop, or rather pseudo-bishop, is read of, as is recorded in the notes of Anastasius the Librarian on the eighth council, who favored the faction of Photius: but whether this is the same as that Zacharias who was called by the nickname Cophus, as Pirrus left it in writing, and whether he was made pseudo-patriarch of Constantinople ^A after being raised to the title of archbishop by Photius, we shall dispute below, § 1.

To this Zacharias, already deposed as a schismatic in the seventh ecumenical synod and unrepentant, succeeded Theophanes Kerameus, consecrated at the very time the schism was composed and peace was restored to the Eastern Church, which we shall clearly show in Proemium II, §§ IV and VII; but it seems that Saint Procopius was substituted for our Theophanes, who suffered martyrdom in the year of Christ 903, in the twenty-sixth year of the Emperor Leo, when Abrachenus, the Saracen king of Africa, invaded and occupied Tauromenium, which was the last town captured in that slaughter and ruin of Sicily; he, I say, Saint Procopius, suffered martyrdom: which is had from the Life of the same Saint Procopius, which John the deacon of Naples wove into that narrative in which he describes the translation of the body of Saint Severinus ^B from the Lucullan castle, on the occasion of the fear that arose concerning the incursion of those same Saracens. I read it in the manuscript monuments of Father Octavius Caetani, which are, however, still being worked under the forge.

This Tauromenitan Church fell from its flourishing episcopal and political state; but it was surely fitting that what had been initiated by the blood of the martyr Saint Pancratius, the first pastor, should be sealed also by the blood of the last. Nor indeed, between the first and last pastors who poured out their souls for the sheep, were the contests of the sheep themselves with wolves—whether ethnic or Saracen enemies of the Christian name—unobserved: the Tauromenitan Church was also sprinkled and adorned with the noble blood of its citizens, like many others. ^C Two caskets full of bones were shown to me at Tauromenium, which many years ago were found and erected in the Tauromenitan territory, not without divine testimonies of miracles, or perhaps still stained with recent blood, and fixed with the very instruments of death: but whose martyrs those are, or of what time, has not yet been discovered by them, nor sanctioned by the Roman pontiff.

Otherwise, these things are gathered from other histories, and from tablets and monuments. Under the very rise of the Church, instructed by the documents of their teacher and prelate Pancratius, and confirmed by his example, the holy women Æsia, Susanna, and Zenais triumphed over the tyrant and their womanly sex by yielding to death. With Saint Nico also, the bishop, whom we reviewed in the fourth position above, two hundred less one were killed, while Decius exercised his tyranny, who, as they stood by their triumphing leader, were crowned with the same laurel; which we also touched upon there. But under the Emperor Diocletian, the holy Sperus and Cornelianus, with sixty companions, carried off the same palm. ^D Nor indeed would I believe that Saint Procopius, the last bishop and martyr, lacked companions in that most savage slaughter which the Saracens, most bitter enemies of the Christian religion, gave cause for, once Tauromenium was captured; perhaps their sacred relics are those which I said were found in previous years and are now kept in the major temple of Tauromenium. Finally, the holy Tauromenitan garden was not lacking in the flowers of virgins nor of confessors, whose fragrance has spread far and wide. From these...

^A individuals, namely, the bishop and confessor, concerning whom we say more in their proper place, I should rather believe than assert—while as yet no authority appears in history that might establish faith in their sanctity and death which is consistent with [the account of] their lives—that they flourished. And here is the rise, progress, and decline of the Tauromenitan Church.

§ III. The image of the Blessed Virgin not made by hands at Tauromenium.

To the state and holiness of the Tauromenitan Church belongs not only the fact that it was marked by the footprints of the apostles and adorned by the blood of martyrs, but also that it was endowed with a heavenly gift by the image of the divine Virgin, which the Greeks call ἀχειροποίητον, that is, not made by hand. ^B Jacob Gretser makes mention of this in his golden little work *On Images Not Made by Hand*, which he appended to the book *On the Offices of the Court of Constantinople*, but surely upon no other authority than from that Idea of Octavius Caetanus, which he published as a *prodromus* to the histories of the Saints of Sicily. But Octavius Caetanus received that information from these homilies of Theophanes Kerameus, who makes mention of it twice: first ^C in homily XI, concerning the one who fell among thieves, at the beginning; then in homily LIX, concerning the Transfiguration, likewise in the proemium. Dominus Rocchus Pirri also makes mention of it in his *Notitia of the Tauromenitan Church*, at the end, but from the same source. And so, from our Theophanes, as far as the writers are concerned, the Tauromenitan Church possesses the tradition thereof. He asserts two things [that] must be said to illustrate this: what the origin of ^D this image is; by what miracle it was made, if it was not painted by human work and hand; at what time; whence such a gift arrived; [and] secondly, whether the image of the divine Virgin, which the Tauromenitans venerate with great religion and faith in miracles—which I, when I betook myself there for no other business than to see it, regarded with my eyes and venerated in my heart—is the same as the *acheiropoietos* of Theophanes’ time. But concerning both, I would wish to bring forward more and more certain things than I have.

But, in truth, I posit first, as certain and well-debated, those things which the same Jacob Gretser writes, in that Commentary of his, which we just mentioned, *dyssopoieton* or *acheiroteukton*: for this word also is in use with our Theophanes: that an image taken universally excludes the labor of human hands, as far as the force of the term is concerned, and is effected by either divine or angelic work. In which sense you could rightly call the universal world *acheiropoieton*, inasmuch as it makes no mention of any hand; [and he mentions] a third, which is the Veronica, or the face of Christ imprinted on a linen or sudarium while he was being led to the Mount of Calvary; to this class can also be referred that image of the whole body which he expressed on the shroud in which Christ was wrapped when he was in the sepulcher; and that all these images are held to be worthy of faith, [are supported] by the testimonies of many writers, and are held in the highest veneration in the churches where they are preserved. Besides these images of Christ the Lord, there are also read images of the Blessed Virgin *acheiropoietoi*. Theophanes the historian testifies from Georgius Pisida, and Matthew of Westminster, referring to the same Gretser, from whom we have received it, that the Emperor Heraclius, in the tenth year of his reign, moved his camp against Chosroes, when he carried with him an icon of the holy Mother of God, which is at Byzantium, not painted by the hand of man, but by divine miracle: supported by whose present help Heraclius routed and put to flight all the forces of his enemies. Gretser adds that those authors do not oppose this narrative who relate that an image of Christ (which ought to be the Camulian, as we said above) was carried about by Heraclius in the army and in battle; for, protected as if by a double shield, Heraclius rushed upon his enemies. You have the testimonies of other authors, who might establish faith in this miracle of the image, in Gretser himself.

There is read besides another image of the Mother of God not made by hand, which was in high value and worship, the monastery having been founded in her honor, and whose cult remained even after Constantinople was captured by the Turks. For Malaxius the Peloponnesian, in his *Patriarchal History*, where there is a discussion about Dionysius the patriarch who was deposed from the patriarchate: "He departed from Constantinople with all the things that he had," he says, "and entered into the monastery of the most holy *Acheiropoietou*, the not-made-by-hand Mother of God [called] Conissa, situated near Cabala." To which place Gretser thus subjoins (for what better things might I add?): "You see here also an *acheiropoieton* image of the Mother of God; from wherever this name was obtained, whether the Virgin herself imprinted her face on some linen, or it was deposited by an angel, *acheiropoieton* certainly excludes the human paintbrush. Nor have I read anything else about this image anywhere, as far as I know. But Cabala is twofold: the one is a city of Thrace, the other a fortress above Iconium: I do not know to which of these this monastery was near. It is credible that it should be understood as the Cabala of Thrace." Thus far.

FRANCISCI SCORSI PROOEMIUM I.

69 Gretser, who also produces testimony regarding our subject in the very next paragraph of the same chapter. In Taormina in Sicily, an ancient, non-made-by-human-hands image of the blessed Virgin is venerated; such also appears to be that divinely painted image of the Theotokos which is venerated in the Green Valley, on Mount Etna, as Octavius Constantinus (read Caetanus; for Constantinus is the name of one of the brothers of the same Octavius, a monk and abbot of the Order of Saint Benedict) writes in his *Idea of the Work on the Saints of Sicily*. And thus far I have set forth the thesis for this treatise of mine, and from the things reported by Gretser and from the whole class of these icons, I have fortified my own conviction, so that it may not seem incredible that a non-made-by-human-hands image of this kind existed in Taormina, since it is known from certain authors that such exist elsewhere. What, therefore, shall I say concerning the Taormine image of the divine Virgin not made by human hands? Indeed, I will state certainties as certainties and conjectures as conjectures; for in such antiquity of times and scarcity of history, I cannot do more. ^A That an image of this kind, not made by human hands, existed and was most religiously venerated in Taormina in Theophanes' time, and even throughout all that time which preceded the Saracen tyranny, does not appear to me to be a matter for doubt, since Theophanes mentions it so clearly in two places and glories in his Church and city. But as to where it had its origin, by what work it was effected, and whether it is an archetype, that is, a non-hand-crafted object, or an ectype—that is, an image expressed from a prototype—and whether this was by miracle or by the most accurate work of a painter (which nevertheless retains the same name of "non-made-by-human-hands" as the archetype, because it is an imitation of it, which Gretser is the author for saying has happened with many such images, both of Christ and of the Theotokos): furthermore, by what other miracle, and at what time, it was brought to Taormina, I shall say that just as little has been handed down elsewhere, to my knowledge, than what Gretser wrote a little earlier about the non-made-by-human-hands image of the Theotokos of the monastery of Conissa near Cabala. ^B Regarding the other point which I proposed above to be discussed—whether the image of the blessed Virgin which the people of Taormina honor today with the highest piety, which they call their patroness, in whom their hopes and riches in times of affliction are placed, and which some men of no common standing call non-made-by-human-hands, is the same as that which existed in Theophanes' time, so that it even escaped the impious Saracen hands and, having been vindicated from their injuries and those of time, was preserved safe and sound until this day (which would be attributable to another miracle)—I have these arguments for believing it to be the same. ^C First, because the common people call it the "Theotokos of the Greeks," from which it seems probable to me that this appellation was derived from the time when the Church and rite of the Greeks flourished in Taormina—that is, in Theophanes' time—and was handed down by hand to these present times; next, because in the greatest scarcity of rain, the people of Taormina have it as their sole and certain refuge, and they run to it as to a rich fountain of all graces to seek rain: and it has scarcely begun to be carried around the city in a solemn procession when they are forced to interrupt it, being overwhelmed and drenched by rain, whereas they had begun it dry and thirsty; this I have received as attested by many trustworthy men of Taormina, when I was staying in Taormina to learn about these matters. And indeed, from another source we read that Theophanes, in a homily delivered concerning the plague of drought (Hom. LXII), turns his peroration toward the blessed Virgin and supplicates her not to forsake her city, which glories in her name: which glory one might not unjustly refer to a non-made-by-human-hands image, as we have noted there. ^D Furthermore, 70 they daily report and attest many other gifts received through miracles in every kind, and works effected beyond human aid through faith in her; these are attested not only by the inhabitants but also by outsiders: among whom one must not pass over in silence D. Francesco, a Roman of Catania, a priest not long ago deservedly added to the college of canons of the Church of Palermo, possessed of the duty of preaching and of a zeal for piety not ordinary, who narrated to me that when he was preaching in Taormina during the time of Lent, he had received many miracles through that non-made-by-human-hands image as petitioned by others, and had experienced many in himself, and he signed the statements with his own writing and hand. Moreover, I would wish this also to be noticed by readers in this matter: if anyone is persuaded that the image of the Theotokos which exists today is the non-made-by-human-hands one which existed in Theophanes' time, it is not to be judged from those which bear the Virgin's face imprinted upon some linen cloth: for this panel does not express only the Virgin's face, but her entire figure, seated and carrying the infant Jesus in her arms: wherefore I would have reckoned it in the other class of non-made-by-human-hands images, about which Gretser also speaks, as though it were depicted by the work of angels, or at least described from some non-made-by-human-hands painting, as I was saying above. They keep it today in their temple, the religious of the blessed Virgin from Mount Carmel, and they celebrate a solemn day for it on the eighth day of December, which day is consecrated to celebrating the immaculate conception of the same Virgin. Octavius Caetanus, in his *Idea of the Work on the Saints of Sicily*, reports that the feast of the non-made-by-human-hands image of the Theotokos is celebrated in Taormina on the first day of September; which, indeed, I do not know whence he received: but since he was a most diligent investigator of Sicilian matters pertaining to the veneration of the Sicilian saints, I should neither refute this nor can I affirm it. For while staying in Taormina and inquiring about that feast day, nothing was passed on to me, except that on the aforementioned eighth day of December, a feast is held to the image of the Theotokos already mentioned, which we are persuaded is non-made-by-human-hands, celebrated on the same day as her immaculate Conception. Perhaps Caetanus might have collected this from Theophanes' own homily on the Indiction and the beginning of the year: in which, among other celebrations of the first day of September...

^A Theophanes makes mention of an image of the divine Virgin; whose words are these: "All of these sanctify the beginning of the year: one, our Savior Jesus, blesses the crown of the year. The all-pure Mistress, honored through the venerable image, becomes a mediator between us and God." Which we have interpreted there into Latin as follows: From all these, some holiness redounds into this beginning of the year: for our Savior Christ Jesus blesses the crown of the year; and the all-pure Virgin, worshipped by the religion of the venerable image, intercedes as a mediatrix between us and God. This is Theophanes: who, since he does not call the image of the Mother of God "not-made-by-hands"—and I see no reason why he would not have named it expressly, if it were the subject, since he designated it as a certain distinguished and boast-worthy feature in other homilies—and on the other hand, since I read in the Menaion that on that day the *Synaxis* of the most holy Theotokos of the Miasenoi is celebrated, that is, the *Synaxis* or celebration of the most holy Virgin of the Miasenoi, it is certainly not clear, and the matter remains in doubt, whether Theophanes speaks of the Tauromenian image, or of some Miasenian image, to which a gathering was celebrated there on that day, the first of September, just as it is customary here in Panormos on the second day of July to the image of the blessed Virgin, whom we call "of Grace," and the days of the feast are wont to be held for images of this kind at other times and in the town. For my part, as I have said, I have decided neither to refute the conjecture of Octavius Caetani nor to affirm it, but to leave it in the middle, supported by the authority of the man.

§ IV. The dignity and title of Archbishop.

Since in almost all the manuscript copies of these homilies, which are preserved in the most famous libraries of Europe—the Vatican, the Spanish, and three in Paris—from which I was able to obtain, through the work of friends who have professed themselves to be patrons of letters and learned men, either the complete homilies or a transcript of their catalogue, the title of archbishop is either inscribed to the name of the author, where the author is named, or the author is called by the title of Archbishop of Tauromenium in the writings alone, in which all agree, although they differ in the name (of which I shall speak in the following Proemium), the faith in them does not seem to be rashly abrogated; otherwise, all faith in ancient monuments might perish, even though most learned writers—who in their own printed monuments have published that title of archbishop, accepted from no other source than the faith and authority of the manuscripts—have wished it to be kept safe and firm: Cardinal Baronius, Vol. IX; Jacobus Gretserus, Vol. II *De cruce*; Franciscus Turrianus, in his book against the Magdeburg heretics *pro canon. apostol.*, ch. 6; Antonius Possevinus in his *Apparatus*, and others whose testimonies we have collected at the end of these Proemiums. This dignity of the Tauromenian Church is therefore to be asserted all the more, which is sufficiently ample, in that it was established by St. Peter himself, as we discussed in § II, and by me, as far as my vigorous part goes, to be vindicated from every ^B note of a surreptitious title and the calumny of arrogance. For I see this mark impressed, or rather branded, upon it in the *Notitia of the Tauromenian Church*, which Dom Rocchus Pirri, Abbot of Netum and a man who deserved well of the Churches of Sicily, published in Vol. II: but this mark was not imposed by him so much as by Alberto Piccolo, who laid it upon him; under whose authority Pirri writes that Zacharias the schismatic bishop of Tauromenium received the nomenclature of archbishop from Photius, because it was work badly collected by him, and the price of the defense of the Photian parties paid in advance. But whence did Piccolo receive this? By producing what testimony does he affirm it? For first, if that Zacharias who is called by the surname *Cophus*—that is, "deaf"—is posited to have been Bishop of Tauromenium, certainly he did not receive from Photius the title of archbishop for his Church, but was created Metropolitan of Chalcedon; which Nicetas David wrote most openly in the *Life of St. Ignatius*, against whom Photius fought so pertinaciously and bitterly—a writer of those times who tracked all the struggles of St. Ignatius most diligently and faithfully; whose history is printed at the beginning of the eighth synod celebrated for this cause of St. Ignatius and Photius. Concerning Photius, he writes thus: "Having procured all these things, he transmitted into Italy, by the hand of the insane and sacrilegious Zacharias Cophus, whom he himself had created Metropolitan of Chalcedon, and Theodore, translated from Caria to the bishopric of Laodicea." From these things, surely, there can be no doubt that that Zacharias who is called by the surname Cophus was not previously Bishop of Tauromenium, but was endowed with the new dignity of Metropolitan of Chalcedon. But, you will say, he was promoted from the bishopric of Tauromenium to that of Chalcedon. But this word *cheirotonein*, which David used, cannot signify that, but either to designate a bishop or to consecrate; which, from the very reason and etymology of the name, which clearly denotes the imposition of hands, and from other writers—Jacobus Gretser, Joannes de la Cerda, and Petrus Arcudius, a Corcyrean priest who wrote an entire volume on the rite of the Greek sacraments—must be so certain to anyone with a moderate knowledge of Greek that to prove it is to waste effort; and I ask, does it not appear more certain than certain from the following words, in which he writes that Theodore was translated from Caria to Laodicea, in which he used the verb *metatithenai*? For since he says the second was expressly translated, and uses the proper verb, it must be accepted as certain that the first was created [bishop], since the writer has handed these down as different things. Furthermore, in Leunclavius, *De jure Græco-Rom.*, there exists a chapter on the translation of Eastern bishops, in which all the translated bishops are enumerated, all the way from St. Gregory Nazianzen, who was translated from Sasima to Constantinople, to Gregory Asbestas, who, for the cause of that very Photian schism, was translated to Nicaea by Photius himself, with the same Nicetas David writing it; nor is there any mention in that chapter of the translated Zacharias. It is therefore as manifest as can be that that Zacharias Cophus possessed not the title of archbishop, but the reality and dignity

attained by the metropolitan from Photius, such that there can be no doubt. Yet, even in this, a mistake has been made regarding Zacharias by Piccolo—or should I say by Pirri?—in that Zacharias Cophus, the bishop of Tauromenium, is said by him to be that same Zacharias who, as bishop of Tauromenium, was sent to Rome regarding the case of Photius; those writers were deceived by the similarity of the name, not examining all the acts and writings of that fifth synod in detail. There were, indeed, two Zachariases who were supporters of Photius, and two embassies sent to Rome. The first is that which is reported by Baronius in the year 859 and in the sixth synod, Act 1, in which, while the senate interrogated the legates of the Roman See, these answers were given: "First was sent Arsabir, the legate of Emperor Michael, and with him were sent four bishops (their names we know not), carrying with him a royal letter expressing the cause of the heresy of images and, at the end of those letters, demonstrating also the expulsion of the most holy patriarch Ignatius." To this place, Anastasius the Librarian, the writer and eyewitness of that synod, added this note: "As the prosecution of the proposed speech pressed them, the names of the bishops could not recur to their memory so quickly, to whom, however, the names were: Methodius, metropolitan of Gangra; Samuel, bishop of Chonae; Theophilus of Iconium; and Zacharias of Tauromenium, pseudo-bishops, who carried the embassy and the letters from Photius to the apostolic See." Thus Anastasius; from which you see no surname attached to Zacharias; and certainly from this note of Anastasius alone is it known that this Zacharias was bishop of Tauromenium; and from it, Baronius reports what he took at the cited place: never, however, elsewhere, where mention is made of this embassy and the same Zacharias is named bishop, is he inscribed as "Tauromenitan," as in the proemium of that synod written by Anastasius himself, or in the Life of St. Ignatius by David, who only mentions two, Theophilus and Samuel, and omits the others. ^A And these legates were heard by Pope Nicholas I in the basilica of St. Mary Major, but they were not admitted to communion. This is also reported by Pirri from Baronius in the place already mentioned above. The second embassy is after the sentence had been passed by Nicholas and the anathema indicted upon Photius, and he had been deposed. This was the cause why Photius, headlong in his anger or fury, convened that infamous council of his, in which he attempted to excommunicate Pope Nicholas, and he transmitted the acts of that council to Italy through Zacharias Cophus, as Nicetas David explicitly writes in the place mentioned above. But I shall show even more evidently the distinction between the two Zachariases. For the first, who discharged the first embassy, was legitimately ordained by the holy Patriarch Methodius, who had preceded St. Ignatius; the second, by the illegitimate Photius. For in Act IV, at the very beginning, Baannes the patrician reported to the synod in these words: ^B "There are bishops holding consecration from the most blessed Methodius, namely Theophilus and Zacharias, who accept Photius; if it pleases, let them enter into the holy ecumenical synod." They were bishops consecrated by St. Methodius, Theophilus and Zacharias, who communicated with Photius; if it seems good, let them enter the holy ecumenical council. The outcome of this session was that the legates, openly convicted of lying and affirming their own schism, were cast out. But truly, in the fourth session, at the beginning, bishops ordained by Photius were sent, and their cause was discussed, in which Zacharias is always named as a Photian bishop and ordained by him. "Zacharias, the metropolitan of Chalcedon consecrated by Photius, said," etc.; and below: ^C "Then Metrophanes, metropolitan of Smyrna, said to Zacharias, the metropolitan of Chalcedon consecrated by Photius: 'To those things which you have argued, we respond. The laws,' etc." Then Metrophanes, metropolitan of Smyrna, addressed Zacharias, created metropolitan of Chalcedon by Photius: "To those matters you have discussed, we respond. The laws," etc.; and in these altercations this session was prolonged. From which places it appears clearer than light that Zacharias Cophus, whom Nicetas writes was consecrated metropolitan of Chalcedon by Photius, is not the Zacharias who was called bishop of Tauromenium by Anastasius. I return, therefore, to where this disputation began, from where Piccolo gathers that Zacharias the Tauromenitan took the title of archbishop from Photius. But perhaps it is from the fact that Nicetas himself, when he deals with the first embassy, writes thus: ^D "He sends, therefore, Theophilus, bishop of Amorium, and Samuel, who until that day was the prelate of Chonae subject to Laodicea, having honored him with the rank of archbishop" by Photius; therefore, you will say, just as Samuel, so also could Zacharias be adorned by Photius with the title of archbishop. But what is it to divine, if this is not? Certainly, that is what I contend in this disputation: by no testimony, by no author, by no history which extant in writing, is that affirmed by Alberto Piccolo and from him by Pirri; and indeed, just as he wrote with little consideration that Zacharias the Tauromenitan bishop was called Cophus by surname, so also it seems rashly proposed by him that he was adorned with the nomenclature of archbishop by Photius. It remains, therefore, that I show from where this title was attributed to the Tauromenitan bishop. I shall certainly not deduce that from another principle, and indeed with sufficient reason, which is from where the same Rocchus Pirri shows from where the title of archbishop was attributed to St. Mamilianus, prelate of Panormus, from ancient times, since it is read inscribed on the marble of his monument. From where, I ask, does he gather it? "I would believe," he says, "that it can not inaptly be referred to the fact that Panormus had its prelate from St. Peter." For who does not know that to those Churches which traced their origin from the times of the apostles, and which had handed down the discipline of Christ to others as parents, some peculiar honor was held? Certainly Rupert, abbot, in Book II of *De divinis officiis*, cap. 27, says: "The successors of the apostles are called patriarchs; but the successor of Peter is, on account of his excellence, the chief..."

of the apostles, called Apostolic; those, however, who were sent by them (namely, by St. Peter and the other apostles) through the provinces, both they and their successors are called archbishops." Thus Rocchus Pirri reasons, and rightly, indeed, as no one would deny. By this reasoning, who—unless he were biased against me—would not concede that it may be used to assert the dignity of the archbishop of the Church of Tauromenium, since it was founded by St. Peter without any intermediary? Furthermore, what he himself argues concerning the dignity of the city of Panormus, to which that title could also be referred, and what he cites from Baronius to prove it, can all apply to Tauromenium; the dignity of which city, although not equal to that of Panormus, was nevertheless so great in those first golden ages, as was shown from the Emperor Constantine in the § of this Proemium, that it seems this title may rightly be ascribed to it.

Indeed, I also summon to defend that same cause of Tauromenium the related Churches of Syracuse and Catania, whose honorary titles of archbishop, I believe, were born from the same condition of their origins, in that the one received St. Marcianus and the other St. Beryllus as their first parents and pastors from the Lord Peter. Although the same Piccolus, cited by Pirri (part 1, cap. 26), and Pirri himself from him in *Notitia Ecclesiae Messanensis* (tom. II, f. cclxv), argues against these as venal titles, bought from Photius on account of his having undertaken and defended his cause in the schism against Ignatius; though here in tom. III, in the *Notitia* of the Church of Syracuse and Catania, [Pirri] seems to withdraw his foot a little, struck by the arguments which I shall now set forth.

Certainly, I will not deny that those bishops were shipwrecked in that storm, and that Gregory Asbestas of Syracuse was the torch of that war, and that he persisted in a headstrong spirit during the schism; but that Euthymius of Catania, while he had at first adhered to Photius, later, stung by remorse for his deed, seceded from him and was joined with those of right mind in the council (Act. 3, and others thereafter). But as for the titles, I truly do not know how either writer can assert and record this as certain, when in the seventh council, which was celebrated against the Iconoclasts, during the reigns of Constantine and Irene, under Pope Hadrian I, where the bishops subscribe, Stephen, the archbishop of Syracuse, is expressely named. For so it is in Act. 4, in the review of the bishops: *Γαλατῶν ὁ ἐλάχιστος πρεσβύτερος, καὶ ἐκ προσώπου ἀρχιεπισκόπου Σικελίας ἀσμένως, etc.* Responding to this, the Latin names him: "Galate, the least of priests, and in the person of the archbishop of Sicily, willingly, etc." But truly, in the Greek text itself: *Γαλατῶνος πρεσβυτέρου καὶ τὸν τόπον ἐπέχοντος Στεφάνου ἐπισκόπου Συρακουσίων*. "Galatone, priest, and holding the place of Stephen, bishop of the Syracusans."

These places did not escape Piccolus, but he attempts to escape their force and authority, and to bring the text into suspicion of error. But these are trifles, which I shall not recount here. For Pirri recounts them, who, although he leans toward his opinion, yet openly confesses that the authority of this testimony cannot be diminished. For the excuse and invention of Piccolus—namely, that in Act. 2 Galato is openly said to hold the place of Rhegium, whence he himself thinks the archbishop of Sicily is called "of Rhegium" according to the old custom by which Calabria was called Sicily—completely vanishes when Stephen is read in Act. 4, and one would wish to substitute Constantine for him. For that "Galato" in Act. 2 is not *Γαλατῶν*, "Galaton," as it is written in the first, but *Γαλάτιος*, and it is turned into Latin as "Galata." Whence, if any weight is to be placed on these details, we have the handle to conclude that it was a different person, and thus we refute our conjecture of that other.

And in Act. 4 itself, in which Piccolus suspects a mistake and would want Constantine substituted for Stephen, Constantine is found to be present: whom he perhaps concealed, because in the Latin version it is said "of Chi," not "of Rhegium." But I am surprised he did not notice the correction of the word "Chii" in the margin and the restoration of "Reghii." And that a man knowledgeable in Greek did not read in the Greek without any asterisk at the word for Rhegium, *Κωνσταντῖνος ὁ ἀνάξιος ἐπίσκοπος τοῦ Ῥηγίου ἀσμένως*, that is, "Constantinus, the unworthy bishop of Rhegium, willingly, etc." And finally, in Act. 7, Piccolus's conjecture is slaughtered, when it is said there that Galato was the vicar of Stephen, the bishop of Syracuse, and it is established that Constantine, the bishop of Rhegium, was present in the same act; which Pirri saw excellently, and therefore, as I said, assents less to Piccolus.

But what testimony could be more manifest than the epistle of Pope Nicholas I written to Photius and the Emperor Michael, in which, when they were attempting to make the Church of Syracuse forever their own domain, having torn it away from Gregory, Nicholas replies: "Among these and the things said above, we wish that the consecration of the archbishop of Syracuse be provided by our See, so that the tradition instituted by the apostles may in no way be violated in your times." So says Nicholas. From which, who does not see that the name of archbishop was not only not attached to the Syracusan bishop by Photius, but was bestowed by the Roman pontiff? For would a pontiff ever name the Syracusan specifically as "archbishop" when writing to schismatics, if that title were recent, venal, and acquired by the very Photius and the Emperor through wicked arts? Let him who wishes believe that; certainly, no one will be able to persuade me.

But what will they say to another place in the same epistle of Pope Nicholas I to the Emperor Michael, in which he calls Ignatius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, his fellow minister, in which he commands that Ignatius and Photius and some of those who were with Gregory of Syracuse should come to him, and furthermore adds: "Let there also be sent from the party of Ignatius some archbishops: Antonius of Cyzicus, Basilius of Thessalonica, Constantinus of Larissa, Theodorus of the Syracusans, Metrophanes of Smyrna." And this Theodorus (whom others...

77 call Theodosius, which matters little to my question) was substituted into the place of Gregorius Asbestas by the Patriarch Ignatius, who had deposed that same Gregorius. Yet Nicolaus I openly reckons him among the archbishops; he would never have done so unless he recognized that dignity as valid, as one already confirmed by antiquity itself and not derived from Gregorius by his successors, as Piccolus dreams. And indeed, convinced by the authority of this letter and forced to abandon his own opinion, Pirri honestly backs down and now does not expressly retract what he had said concerning this nomenclature in his second volume at the cited locations, following Piccolus. The same thing happened to him regarding the Bishop of Catana; for when he sees Euthymius of Catana called now metropolitan, now archbishop, in the sixth synod—in which Ignatius is restored as legitimate patriarch under Pope Adrian II and Emperor Basil the Macedonian—and that he sat among the metropolitans, he must admit that these titles were not rejected but rather approved by the Supreme Pontiff, and indeed he confesses that they were older than the Photian times. I therefore return to that point from which the dispute was undertaken, since I have proven that the prelates of Syracuse and Catana, whom I brought in to testify to the title of archbishop for the Tauromenitan, were legitimately adorned with those insignia of dignity, and in that point I have compelled Pirri himself to support me and the truth. Nor, in truth, is the beginning of this appellation known for certain; it is probable that they had obtained that prerogative from the very beginning, because they were instituted by the Blessed Peter—the same thing I had affirmed regarding the Tauromenitan.

For the rest, that they are not always adorned with that title in the subscriptions of councils, especially in the VII synod against the Monothelites, in which the Bishop of Syracuse is subscribed first among the Sicilians, and likewise in the letters of Blessed Gregorius and other monuments, that is of no moment, since even the patriarchs themselves and the Supreme Pontiff himself are often called simply bishops. For I contend only that they should never have been called archbishops, not even once, especially by the Supreme Pontiff and in councils, as I have already shown regarding the Syracusan and the Catanan, unless they possessed that title by right. Furthermore, in the earlier centuries, they could often be called by a lesser nomenclature by one writing as he pleased without any diminution of dignity; I would wish the same to be said regarding the Tauromenitan. If someone objects that he was never affected by the name of archbishop before the times of Photius, that does not necessarily argue that the surname was imposed by Photius. But if it seems more likely to anyone that the Tauromenitan archbishop never had other bishops subject to him, and that he did not possess and exercise the legitimate right of an archbishop or metropolitan over any bishops of Sicily as suffragans—which Pirri contends regarding the Syracusan, and attempts to prove by a partitioning of the times, and believes that all the Sicilian bishops, at least in the time of Saint Gregorius, were subject directly to the Roman Pontiff and no other—although he cannot deny the title of archbishop to both the Syracusan and the Catanan, I would gladly concede the same regarding the Tauromenitan, provided they concede that the honorary title of archbishop was, because of the aforementioned prerogative, legitimate and not counterfeit. 78

PROOEMIUM SECUNDUM: INTRODUCTORY, COMPRISING CONJECTURES CONCERNING THE LIFE OF THEOPHANES CERAMEUS

...are separated from Theophanes Cerameus. What I promised at the end of the Preface to the Readers, I shall now perform in this second proemium, so that from the various lines or lineaments of these homilies, in which the image of the author reflects itself to us as if in a mirror, I might outline his life, if I cannot express it in vivid colors due to the lack of the light of history; nor, indeed, shall I do this without the example and authority of many writers. It was customary for many to describe the life and customs of authors from their written works; Gregorius Presbyter professes that he would do this in writing the Life of Gregorius Nazianzenus: "Next, because no one has left us a record of the events concerning him, but I have gathered them sporadically from his own discourses, I imitate the stone-masons who, having gathered the small tesserae little by little, fit them all together into the single completion of a house; the beginning of these," etc. This is, in the interpretation of Jac. Billius: "Then, because no one has left us his Life consigned to writing, but his life gathered sparingly from his own writings, I imitate the stone-masons who, after they have brought stones little by little, only then adapt them all to building and completing one and the same house." Symeon Metaphrastes affirms the same should be done in these words: "This great Gregorius the Theologian himself set forth his own life in those funeral orations in which he adorns Basilius the Great, his father Gregorius, his brother Caesareus, and his sister Gorgonia." And therefore, he who would write his Life...

79 has received the subject matter of his discourse from no other source than from his very own works. And this is what is to be said concerning Gregorius. Furthermore, Marianus Victorius compiled the Life of St. Jerome from the very documents of his writings; and, to omit others of greater antiquity—whose catalogues I could spin out at length—among the more recent scholars of our Society, Dionysius Petavius wrote the life of Synesius, bishop of Ptolemais, whose complete works he published in the light of his own brilliant interpretation and notes, both in Greek and in Latin, composing a great part of his Life from his own letters and other works. Theophilus Raynaudus, likewise of our Society, traced the Life of the "Idiota," a most pious writer—whom he brought to light in its entirety in his latest edition, whereas previously it existed mutilated in a good part of it—from the very Contemplations themselves: a man who is known to us through no other history, nor indeed by his own proper name, which he desired to conceal.

In the same manner, therefore, I shall endeavor to render this Theophanes Cerameus—truly a new man—noble through the very sermons of his which I bring to light. And first, since many men of the same century, and nearly of the same age, became famous by the name of Theophanes, both for their letters and for their holiness, it is worth the effort to distinguish our own from them, lest confusion arise among readers less practiced in the chronology of history. And in order to resolve this homonymy, I was most spurred to act when I read in the *Bibliotheca Magna Patrum* published at Cologne that this Theophanes, the writer of homilies, was being confused with Theophanes the historian. For in volume IX, of that same 9th century—in which two homilies of this Theophanes Cerameus are described from the edition of Jacobus Gretserus, volume II, translated *De Cruce*—these things are read in their inscription: "Theophanes Cerameus, bishop of Tauromenia in Sicily, wrote: *Annals from the times of Diocletian up to the Emperor Michael*, which have not yet been published."

He was distinct from the author of the *Historia Miscella*, Paulus Diaconus, concerning whom more observations are held by Henricus Canisius before the aforementioned history of the preceding 8th century. He wrote, furthermore, homilies on the Sunday gospels and on certain feasts of the whole year, which are preserved in manuscript at Venice, and other things not yet published. The compilers of that *Bibliotheca Magna*, therefore, distinguish Theophanes the historian from the author of the *Historia Miscella* of Paulus Diaconus; but then they make Theophanes the historian and Cerameus, the writer of homilies, one and the same person.

As regards the first point, it stands correctly: for Canisius, in that eighth volume of the cited *Bibliotheca*, proves with many arguments that Theophanes the historian is different from Paulus Diaconus, or the author of the *Historia Miscella*, and he shows that a mistake was imposed upon Baronius, a great man in the composing of Annals, who, when he confers upon them many and frequent testimonies from Paulus Diaconus, wishes them to be from the true Theophanes who is falsely named Paulus Diaconus. But the case is otherwise, says Canisius: the true Theophanes, the author of the history, is not that Paulus Diaconus; for this name was 82 falsely attributed to him: the history of Paulus is one thing, that of Theophanes is another—indeed not yet published to the world; but Canisius promises it, and proceeds to uncover this error with many arguments; whose reasons are to be read in his own work, for it is not our business to pursue them here.

But as to what concerns our Theophanes, that he is completely different from Theophanes the historian is evident from the account of the times in which they lived and wrote: it is evident from the account of the life and death of that historian. Concerning him, Joannes Curopalates writes thus at the very beginning of his history: "Theophanes the Confessor, and Hegumen (that is, *hegoumenos*, which is the same as abbot) reduced into a compendium the historical books that he had more accurately gone through himself." But Georgius (this was a monk, syncellus to the patriarch Tarasius, also a historian), having made his beginning from the creation of the world, stopped at the tyrants Maximianus and his son Maximinus: Theophanes, however, taking up the end of those events as a principle for his own undertaking, and having briefly described the remaining times, ended his own narrative when he had reached the death of the Emperor Nicephorus.

These are the words of Curopalates, from whom you see that Theophanes the historian, who began from Maximianus, where Georgius left off (but to say "from Diocletian," as the *Bibliotheca Magna* has it, is the same thing), was an abbot and brought his history down to Nicephorus. Anastasius the Librarian, who translated the history of Theophanes into Latin, writes in these words that this same man—whom we have mentioned from Curopalates—was a monk and an abbot of Agri, and famous for miracles: "What shall I say of the other (namely, Theophanes), when his written Life also—namely, how he sold his ample patrimonies and took up his cross, how he followed Christ and performed the office of abbot in the monastery of Agri, how he shone with virtues, and sparkled with miracles—cries out to those regions round about, to those who are near and to those who are far?" These are the words of Anastasius concerning Theophanes the historian.

Cedrenus, however, and Baronius following him to the year of Christ 814, narrate that his death occurred under Leo the Armenian, the Iconoclast, in the first year of his empire, because of his defense of the holy images; from whom accept these things: "When Nicephorus was being led away to Proconnesus (this was the patriarch of Constantinople who did not endure to subscribe to the impious edict of Leo the Armenian against the holy images, and for that cause was punished with exile by him), Theophanes the Confessor, the prefect of the Great Agri, sensing by divine instinct that he was sailing past, while he himself was in a certain part of his estate, followed him with incense and candles; but Nicephorus, with hands outstretched in turn, saluted Theophanes, and with bent knees worshipped and blessed him: though neither saw the other, yet perceiving each other with the eye of the mind, they rendered worthily to each other that honor. And when someone of those sailing together asked whom he was saluting with his hands thus raised on high, he replied: 'The most holy Theophanes the Confessor, the prefect of Agri, who received us with torches and incense.'"

And not long after, the outcome showed the truth of Nicephorus' prediction: for soon, with many others, Theophanes also was cast out of the Church, and having been vexed in infinite ways, he carried off the crown of a confessor. These are the words of Cedrenus, which I could not gather into a shorter sum; but they were...

81 necessary, so that it might be clearly understood that Theophanes the historian, abbot of Ager, is the same person who under Leo the Armenian suffered exile for the sake of the holy images, and in that state met his death, and is therefore far different from our Theophanes, who lived after the heresy of the Iconoclasts had been utterly destroyed—against whom, already condemned, he himself delivered the homily which is twentieth in order—under Basil and Leo, as I shall show in its proper place; and thus the error in that Bibliotheca will be corrected: likewise in the catena of the holy Fathers on Luke by Sebastian Corderius, where he cites Theophanes with the same eulogy or inscription taken from that Bibliotheca, and related in the same words.

But indeed, another Theophanes, superior of the Sigrian monastery, is also distinct from both of these; who, after a dire two-year imprisonment, was deported to the island of Samothrace, where he died, distinguished by the glory of confession. Baronius treats of him at the year of Christ 816, and warns the reader about the distinction between the two Theophaneses: the former, who died in the first year of Leo, and the latter, who died in the third year of the same, for the defense of the same cause; the second of whom is also called Isaac. But it is evident for the same reason that this Theophanes Isaac is distinct from our own.

A third Theophanes is closer to the age of our Theophanes: he, I say, who was raised in the monastery of St. Sabas with Theodore, his brother by both blood and distinguished virtue; when he afterwards struggled strenuously for the veneration of the holy images against Leo the Armenian, by his order he was beaten with lashes and thrown into exile. But upon Leo’s death, as he resisted with constancy the same heresy held by the Emperor Theophilus, he was again afflicted with lashes and exile; in which condition, when Theodore had expired in prison, Theophanes, peace being finally restored to the Church, was made metropolitan of Nicaea by St. Methodius, and departed this life in the function of his pastoral office.

These things I have described chiefly from the Roman Martyrology to provide acquaintance with the Nicene Theophanes. Others have written more about these holy brothers: the historians of the Eastern Empire, Cedrenus, Curopalates, Zonaras, Glycas, Manasses, the Greek Menologia, and Baronius, from whom it was also reported that iambic verses were inscribed upon their foreheads, not without great torture, so that they might be disgraced as learned slaves; the authors cited refer to the torture and the iambi as well. Gonsalvo Ponce, who interpreted into Latin and published with notes the letters that exist under the name of Theophanes, bishop of Nicaea, makes this martyr the author, all of which we have read through.

To the matter, then. Since this Theophanes died in the time of St. Methodius, at that time Theophanes Cerameus, who was afterwards created bishop of Tauromenium, was living in the monastery of St. Andrew, as I shall say in its proper place, not yet having been elevated to the episcopal throne; for from the passing of St. Methodius, which occurred in the year eight hundred and forty-seven, unto the ninetieth, in which our Theophanes was in his old age, forty-three years intervene. Indeed, from this calculation of times, it is not repugnant for that man who was present at the translation of the body of St. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople—which Baronius reports at the year 845, and who was not only a spectator but also the writer of his Life and a eulogist before the assembly at that celebration—to be the same as Theophanes Cerameus. The timing, I say, does not hinder it; but it is hindered by the fact that the writer is said by Baronius to have been a presbyter, whereas our subject might have been a monk before he became a bishop: which was above shown to be consistently required by the Greeks [§II]. Furthermore, the surname 89 τοῦ Κεραμέως affixed to our author seems to distinguish him sufficiently from any other.

From which it is also entirely certain to me that our Theophanes is a different person from the one who, as the same Baronius reports, lived in the time of Basil the Macedonian—his royal cleric who was dear to that same emperor on account of his wisdom—who promoted the frauds of Photius when he falsely claimed that the book written concerning the emperor’s genealogy, and offered to the emperor, could be understood by Photius alone. For although the times agree, yet since that man is said to have been a cleric, and indeed a courtier, while our author either must have already been initiated as Bishop of Tauromenium at that time, or was still living the monastic life in the monastery of St. Andrew in Sicily or elsewhere—since, as I said above, bishops were chosen from among the monks by the Greeks—I am clearly persuaded that that cleric Theophanes is a different person from our bishop. And indeed, the piety and devotion to the most perfect life of virtues which our author presents in these sermons, and which we shall explain more fully in §§VIII and IX, are repugnant to the double-dealing, crafty nature, and will to deceive of the cleric Theophanes.

These things I had to bring forward regarding the distinction of those who, distinguished by the name of Theophanes, should be deemed different from our author, partly with certain arguments of time, partly with conjectures taken from those same times and studies of life. Further, I have wished for the reader to know nothing of what I have discovered through study to be hidden, so that anyone may understand with what sound and upright faith I offer these conjectures.

§II. — The double name of the author of the homilies: one surname, CERAMEUS. Hitherto I have distinguished the naming of Theophanes; in this paragraph, it will be to conjecture regarding his "di-nymy" or rather "poly-nymy." Indeed, for the occurrence in many other monuments of the ancient Fathers—that the same works have been transmitted to posterity inscribed with many authors, as those who have labored in examining them have noticed regarding the sermons of Eusebius Emesenus, and Eucherius, and Maximus, and Ambrose, and Augustine, and Fulgentius—especially their most eminent reader and critic, Cardinal Bellarmine, in the work *On Ecclesiastical Writers*—so also it is with these homilies which we are bringing to light. For they have been attributed to Theophanes, and to Gregory, and even to Philip; of whom the surname of the first two is the same and unique, Cerameus, while that of the third is Ceramites, which, although it has a different inflection, is nevertheless the same surname in meaning, and is said to be interpreted into Latin as "the Potter." But we shall have speech regarding this third one later.