BYZANTINE AUTHORS.
THE
MEDIEVAL MEDITERRANEAN
PEOPLES, ECONOMIES AND CULTURES, 400-1500
EDITORS
Hugh Kennedy (St. Andrews) Paul Magdalino (St. Andrews)
David Abulafia (Cambridge) Benjamin Arbel (Tel Aviv) Mark Meyerson (Toronto)
Larry J. Simon (Western Michigan University)
BYZANTINE AUTHORS:
LITERARY ACTIVITIES
AND PREOCCUPATIONS
Texts and Translations dedicated to the Memory
of Nicolas Oikonomides
EDITED BYJOHN W. NESBITT
BRILL
LEIDEN•BOSTON 2003This book is printed on acid-free paper.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Byzanthine authors : texts and translations dedicated to the memory of Nicolas Oikonomides / edited by John W. Nesbitt.
p. cm. – (The Medieval Mediterranean ; v. 49) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 90-04-12975-8
1. Byzantine prose literature–Translations into English. I. Oikonomides, Nicolas. II. Nesbitt, John W. III. Series.
PA5196.E54B98 2003 888’.020808–dc21
2003045164
ISSN 0928–5520
ISBN 90 04 12975 8
© Copyright 2003 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written
permission from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright
Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910 Danvers, MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change. printed in the netherlands
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface . . . vii Chapter One—Cosmological Confectionary and Equal opportunity in
the Eleventh Century. An Ekphrasis by Christopher of Mitylene (Poem 42) . . . 1 Paul Magdalino
Chapter Two—Two Teaching Texts from the Twelfth-Century
Orphanotropheion . . . 9 Timothy S. Miller
Chapter Three—Alexander the Monk’s Text of Helena’s Discovery of the Cross (BHG 410) . . . 23 John W. Nesbitt
Chapter Four—Elias the Monk. Friend of Psellos . . . 43 George T. Dennis
Chapter Five—Five Miracles of St. Menas . . . 65 John Duffy/Emmanuel Bourbouhakis
Chapter Six—Elias of Heliopolis. The Life of an Eighth-Century Syrian Christian Saint . . . 85 Stamatina McGrath
Chapter Seven—Two Military Orations of Constantine VII. . . 111 Eric McGeer
Chapter Eight—A Byzantine Instructional Manual on Siege Defense: The De Obsidione toleranda. Introduction, English Translation and Annotations . . . 139 Denis Sullivan
Bibliography . . . 267 Index . . . 279
PREFACE
This volume was born from a wish to honor the memory of a man who was for many of the contributors both a mentor and a friend. From this wish evolved the idea of publishing a group of texts and translations. The authors were free to choose their texts and as a result the contributions are of varying length and content. The longest, the De obsidione toleran-da (chapter eight), is a military manual, an instruction booklet on tech-niques of countering the investment of a town or fort. The publication of Prof. Sullivan’s translation provides the opportunity to reprint the (Brill) Greek text of 1947. In contrast with defensive tactics, the two orations (chapter seven) which Dr. McGeer has translated reflect on imperial mil-itary policy and the outward expansion of Byzantium into Moslem terri-tories. Dr. McGrath (chapter 6) has translated a text which offers a glimpse of the precarious nature of the practice of Christianity within the borders of Islam. In a much lighter vein are Prof. Magdalino’s translation of an ekphrasis (chapter one) celebrating the merits of a cake decorated with signs of the zodiac and Prof. Dennis’s translations of letters of Psellos (chapter 4) describing the ribald doings of a monk named Elias. Dr. Nesbitt’s text (chapter 3) on Helena’s discovery of the cross is offered as a contribution to the history of pilgrimage. Prof. Miller’s texts (chap-ter 2) provide a valuable insight into the educational activities of the Orphanotropheion of St. Paul and the teaching techniques in vogue among instructors at this orphanage. Prof. Duffy and his student have contributed a hagiographical text relating some five miracles of the pop-ular Egyptian saint, St. Menas.
The volume presents a wide spectrum of literary genres and topics which claimed the attention of Byzantine writers and their reading public. The editor gratefully acknowledges the help of Dr. McGrath in resolv-ing computer-related problems. He also wishes to thank Dr. McGrath, and his wife Carla, for help with proofreading. Thanks are also expressed to Dr. Karen Rasmussen for her patience in formatting this book and preparing the Adobe Acrobat version from which it is printed.
COSMOLOGICAL CONFECTIONERY AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY IN THE ELEVENTH CENTURY.
AN EKPHRASIS BY CHRISTOPHER OF MITYLENE (POEM 42) Paul Magdalino
Although published a century ago, the poems of Christopher of Mitylene deserve to be better known for their rich information on the realities and mentalities of Byzantine secular society.1 A short article by Nikos
Oikonomides remains the best introduction to this material.2It therefore
seems fitting that a collection of translations dedicated to Nikos’ memo-ry should include one of Christopher’s least known and more unusual pieces.3 As an ekphrasis, or rhetorical description, it is singular in three
ways: in describing a piece of confectionery, in celebrating a work of art by a woman, and in attesting to a type of representation which is hardly ever encountered in Byzantine art of the medieval period.
... in a circle the Zodiac in dough, to his cousin
I saw the heavens as works of your fingers. For from modest but smooth dough, you have stretched out the heavens for us like a curtain,4
and you have adorned it with houses of the stars. By houses I mean the double sextet of the Zodiac, which you have put forward as symbols of the virtues and passions, most vividly for all people: Leo for the manly, Taurus for the savage, Gemini for fornicators5 and Virgo for the
conti-nent, Cancer for the twisted, most fittingly, Libra for the just, and Sagittarius for the malevolent. Capricorn is for those whose bed has been dishonoured, while for the senseless, Aries is wisely chosen. Aquarius is appropriate to the dropsical, speechless Pisces to all quiet types, and Scorpio to all stinging slanderous tongues. These are the houses of the wandering stars. Two trios of duck eggs keep the exact shape of the Pleiades, while the hens’ eggs you may understand as the planets, Mercury, Moon, Sun and Jupiter, Venus, Mars and Saturn too, for though
1 Ed. Kurtz (1903) from MS Grottaferrata Z. a.29 2 Oikonomides (1990).
3 Ed. Kurtz (1903) no.42, 23-6; Italian translation with short introduction by Milazzo (1983). 4 Psalm 103: 2.
2 PAUL MAGDALINO
they may be fixed and established, they are still seven in number. Of the five larger eggs, the middle one is to be taken as the star of Orion, for Scorpio aspects him diametrically, signifying the ancient wound just as it happened.6 But the other four acquire a novel significance. For the four
positions of the four eggs are a most exact fourfold fixation of the four cardinal points, of the ascendant, that is the east, of the setting, that is dusky evening, of the meridian, that is mid-day, and the anti-meridian, the northern quarter. The eggs themselves signify the foursome of winds, blowing from the four points of heaven.7For Zephyr comes out of the
west, Apeliotes from the eastern parts, while Notos proceeds from the south, and as for the Arctic wind, even if explanation falls silent, the very name shows whence it blows. What then of the quartet of pastry finials which cap the eggs? This is the quartet of seasons in the sky, for as the wise rhapsody bears witness, the seasons dwell at the gates of heaven. I would even have seen here what the starless sphere of heaven looks like, were it not completely invisible to mortal men; for it is fashioned and is present here, but is not seen: that is its nature. So wise and resourceful in her mind is the creator of this new sky. O all wise Providence of God the Word, what arts you bestow even upon women, what minds you implant in them too! Others may talk of men like Pheidias, Zeuxis indeed and Parrasios, Polygnotos the actually unknown, Polykleitos who rather is inglorious, and Aglaophon of the murky intellect, even the resourceful hands of Daidalos: it is all trash and bombast, nothing any more. But let the script admire the novel art-works of all women, saying, ‘Who gave to female nature a consummate knowledge of textiles, and every aspect of the science of embroidery?’8 Not wishing to go in for mass
generaliza-tion, I would rather marvel at the art of one woman, who has skilfully given me such a work to behold. But you, O glory of virgin women, I wish to address you yourself: if you make these things out of flour and dough, what, I want to know, will you make with warp and woof? But as one can learn from what you have crafted, you would indeed in the art of weaving also surpass all Penelopes and Helens, amen I say unto thee, and women of Lesbos too.
The poem evokes a loaf or cake sculpted with representations of the twelve signs of the Zodiac, and studded with eighteen eggs, from
differ-6 Aratos, Phaenomena 634-46 (Martin ed., pp. 38-9) tells a version of the myth of Artemis
and Orion, according to which the the goddess killed the huntsman, in revenge for violating her, by setting a scorpion on him; this explains why the constellation of Orion sets when that of Scorpio rises.
7 Iliad V.749. 8 Cf. Job 38: 36.
3
COSMOLOGICAL CONFECTIONERY
ent birds and of different sizes, symbolising the Pleiades, the seven plan-ets known to the ancient and medieval world (the moon, Mercury, Venus, the sun, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn), the star of Orion, and the four cardi-nal points. It is not clear that all the symbolism expounded by the poet was intended by the confectioner, and this makes the confection some-what difficult to visualise in detail. Nevertheless, since the representa-tions of the Zodiac appear to be unambiguous, it is reasonable to suppose that they formed a band around the rim of a circle of baked dough, with eggs set before the figures of Aries, Cancer, Libra and Capricorn; these eggs were surmounted with crusts, which were probably fashioned in the form of personifications of the four seasons.
Bread decorated with eggs is attested in Byzantium by the twelfth-century canonist Theodore Balsamon, in his commentary on canon 23 of the Council in Trullo. Balsamon records that one Easter, at a village in Thrace, he observed the local peasants, both men and women, coming to the parish church after vespers and presenting the priest with gifts of food which included “birds’ eggs set together in bread dough” (metå Ùrniye¤vn »«n §n zÊm˙ êrtou sunhnvm°nvn).9 Such loaves are still
baked as part of traditional Easter fare in Modern Greece. Another tradi-tional practice, though more associated with weddings than with Easter, is the confection of ornamental loaves encrusted with finely-wrought fig-ures, foliage and other designs. In recent practice, the two types of con-fection are not combined, being made for different occasions, and with different types of dough, baked to a different finish in each case. The Easter bread tends to be simply shaped, with braiding the most elaborate form of ornamentation, and it is soft enough to eat, whereas the wedding bread is baked hard almost to the consistency of plaster of Paris.
Almost as unusual as the medium of representation is the design itself. Although the artistic representation of the Zodiac was well established in the secular culture which Byzantium inherited from antiquity, surviving examples are very rare, and Christopher of Mitylene’s poem is the only literary attestation. Of the two extant zodiacal cycles earlier than the thir-teenth century, one is part of a complex celestial diagram illustrating an eighth-century manuscript of Ptolemy’s Handy Tables (Vat.gr.1291); the diagram has a precise astronomical significance, which, however, con-tinues to elude satisfactory explanation.10 The other representation is
depicted on the opus sectile floor of the katholikon of the Pantokrator
9 Ed. Rallis and Potlis, vol. II (1852) 355; cf. Koukoules (1955) 161.
10 For the date, see Wright (1985) 355-62; for the diagram, see Tihon (1993) 194-200. On
fol. 2vof the same manuscript is a miniature representing the northern celestial hemisphere
4 PAUL MAGDALINO
monastery.11 Executed c. 1130, it is closer to the work described in our
ekphrasis not only in date, but also in its inclusion of the four seasons, depicted in personification at the four cardinal points.
The rarity of the zodiacal cycle in Byzantine art is possibly to be explained by the church’s condemnation of astrology, although the Zodiac had been thoroughly tamed for Judaeo-Christian use,12 and
rep-resentation of it did not necessarily serve an astrological agenda; in itself, it could signify the solar year or stand as a two-dimensional symbol of the heavenly spheres. It is evidently in this non-astrological sense that Christopher of Mitylene chooses to interpret his cousin’s handiwork. He assigns no qualities or influences to the planets, and while he alludes to their zodiacal houses, he does not comment on the association between planetary positions and zodiacal signs which was the essence of astrolo-gy, and he does not even specify the locations of the eggs representing the planets on the loaf. The moral attributes which he attaches to the zodiacal signs are based on a facile and obvious symbolism that has noth-ing to do with astrological doctrine. He ignores the astrologers’ classifi-cation of signs into male and female, diurnal and nocturnal, hot and cold,13 and he does not imply that people are born under the signs whose
qualities they exhibit. In another poem (no. 92), where Christopher prais-es the beauty of the night sky, he likens the stars to angels praising God. The author seems less concerned with the cosmological significance than with the artistry of the work he describes. The point of his poem is to praise a novel work of art, novel because it is fashioned from every-day foodstuffs, and by a woman. The point is emphasised by the rhetor-ical synkrisis with famous ancient artists — a topos of ekphrasis which Christopher here puts to doubly subversive use. Instead of citing the great exempla from antiquity as models to be emulated, he derides and dismisses them. This was a common device of Christian homiletic, yet the contrast which Christopher draws is not between the outdated absurd-ities of pagan mythology and the revealed truth of Christianity, but between the inflated reputations of dead males and the unsung but tangi-ble achievements of living women. One should be wary of reading fem-inist sentiment into a piece of stylish rhetorical inversion by a male author of the eleventh century, whose works also include a poem cele-brating the artistic genius of the spider, complete with an ekphrasis of the spider’s web (no. 122). However, Christopher does not confine his atten-tion to one domestic example or to the domain of home baking, but uses
11 Ousterhout (2001) 133-50, esp. 144-6. 12 Hübner (1983).
5
COSMOLOGICAL CONFECTIONERY
the art of one woman to exemplify the skill of all women as producers of finely woven and embroidered textiles. Unfortunately, it is not clear from his brief allusions whether he he is referring to domestic production, or to the more commercial and guild-based manufacture which is implied in the description by his contemporary, Michael Psellos, of the festival of Agathe: the yearly occasion, on 12 May, when the women involved in the carding, spinning, and weaving of wool and linen gathered for a religious ceremony followed by dancing.14It is also unclear whether he is thinking
only of wool and linen textiles, or also envisages the manufacture of the high-quality silks for which Byzantium was famous.15The elevated
ter-minology which he uses to describe female expertise – the knowledge (gn«siw) of textiles, the science (§pistÆmh) of embroidery, the art (t°xnh) of weaving – would seem appropriate to artefacts at the top of the range. The tenth-century Book of the Eparch mentions women engaged in the silk industry, and women were prominent among the silk-weavers of Thebes in the twelfth century.
A cautiously feminist reading of the ekphrasis is appropriate to both the period and the author. The eleventh century was a time when imperi-al women were especiimperi-ally important on the politicimperi-al scene, and their prominence was recorded by two historians, Michael Psellos and Anna Comnena, who both in their different ways clearly found it remarkable.17
Psellos also wrote three gender-specific works which are key sources for the role and image of women in Byzantine society: his funeral orations on his mother and adopted daughter, Styliane,18and the text on the
festi-val of Agathe, which provides a unique aperçu of a public event organ-ised by and for women. Yet for all his insight and interest, Psellos’ view of women’s place in society shows a condescension which we do not find in Christopher of Mitylene, either in the ekphrasis we have examined or in his other poems concerning women (nos. 52, 57, 61, 66-7, 70, 75-7, 81, 140). Psellos says that his mother was second to none at weaving, but had little time for it; “she was terribly annoyed that she did not have a male nature, and that it was not possible for her to converse fearlessly with letters”.19 As for Styliane, he says, one must not imagine that
because she was literate, she neglected her “womens’ work” of weaving
14 Ed. Sathas, vol. 5 (1876) 527-31; Laiou (1986) 111-22.
15 On Byzantine silk and other textile production, see in general the chapters by A.
Muthesius and G. Dagron in Laiou (2002); Jacoby (1991-2) 452-500; Kaplan (1998) 313-27.
16 Leo VI, Liber Praefecti 7.2 (Koder ed., p. 100); John Tzetzes, Epistulae 101-2; Choniates
74, 98.
17 See in general Hill, James, Smythe (1994) 215-29; Hill (1999). 18 Ed. Sathas (1876) 3-61, 62-87; cf. Leroy-Molinghen (1969) 155-63. 19 Ed. Sathas 7.
6 PAUL MAGDALINO
and embroidery.20Unlike Psellos, Christopher of Mitylene is not writing
from the lofty perspective of the philosopher,21but approaches mundane,
material reality for its own sake and on its own terms. Although his poems are educated and elegant commentaries on everyday life, they draw simple morals and do not strain to relate their subject-matter to higher levels of meaning or of being. He does not need to relativise the artistic achievements of contemporary women, because it is enough for him to reflect the real value their products were accorded in the home, the market-place and the ceremonial magnificence of the court.
20 Ibid. 66.
21 Psellos makes his philosophical priorities clear in all the minor works cited above, and a
TWO TEACHING TEXTS FROM THE TWELFTH-CENTURY ORPHANOTROPHEION
Timothy S. Miller
Vaticanus Palatinus gr. 92 contains a short poem (folios 145v-46) and a
prose essay (folios 207-08) which offer valuable information concerning the Orphanotropheion of Saint Paul, the premier philanthropic institution of Constantinople and, during the twelfth century, one of the capital’s leading educational centers.1Although the Orphanotropheion outranked
all other charitable institutions of the Byzantine Empire, no typikon has survived which outlines how the orphanage functioned, nor do any extant hagiographical sources describe the buildings, monasteries, and church-es which formed part of this complex institution.2
To understand how the Orphanotropheion educated its children, organized its administration, and financed its operations, one must ana-lyze a wide variey of sources, from the laws of the emperor Leo I (457-74) to twelfth-century literary works such as Anna Komnena’s Alexiad.3
The two texts, published here for the first time, provide new information concerning both the teaching methods used at the orphanage as well as its administrative organization, information which supplements what scholars have gleaned from published sources.
Vaticanus Palatinus gr. 92 was copied in the last decades of the thir-teenth century in Southern Italy. It belongs to a large group of manuscripts, which preserve short poems and prose texts used to teach Classical Greek grammar, vocabulary, orthography, and syntax. Some of these short works were extracted from Classical Greek literature, while others were composed by Byzantine teachers to illustrate difficult grammar rules or to introduce unfamiliar vocabulary.4
Vaticanus Palatinus gr. 92 is unusual among these instructional codices in that, beginning on folio 122v, it identifies the Byzantine
instructors who composed the original poems and prose essays. As Carlo Gallavotti has demonstrated, many of these author/instructors taught in Constantinopolitan schools of the twelfth century.5This manuscript
iden-1 For a detailed description of Vat. Pal. gr. 92, see Gallavotti (1983) 21-30. 2 Miller (1994) 83-104.
3 Anna Komnena, Alexiad, 15.7.3-9 (Leib ed. 3.214-18); Prodromos, “Monodie” 1-14. 4 Gallavotti, (1983) 21-30. See also Browning (1976) 21-34.
tifies the author of the poem on folios 145v-46 as “Leo of Rhodes” and
that of the prose work on folios 207-08 as “of Rhodes”. Since the manu-script identifies no other author as “of Rhodes”, and both of these texts refer to exactly the same issue, we can safely assume that Leo of Rhodes wrote both texts.
The poem and the prose work prove that Leo of Rhodes taught at the Orphanotropheion of Saint Paul in Constantinople. This Leo is most likely the same man who became metropolitan of Rhodes sometime before 1166.6
During the twelfth century, the patriarch of Constantinople and the emper-or often selected metropolitan bishops from among prominent teachers at the Orphanotropheion. The emperor John II (1118-43) confirmed Stephen Skylitzes, one of the leading teachers and eventually director of the orphan school (not the orphanotrophos), as metropolitan of Trebizond.7At the end
of the twelfth century, Constantine Stilbes attained the metropolitan see of Kyzikos after beginning his career as a catechism teacher at the Orphanotropheion.8During the same years, Basil Pediadites taught
gram-mar at the orphan school and then advanced to shepherd the metropolitan church of Kerkyra.9It would, therefore, not be unusual for a teacher at the
Orphanotropheion, like Leo, to receive a promotion to an important see such as Rhodes.10
Leo wrote both of these texts for teaching. Greek grammar manuscripts, like Vaticanus Palatinus gr. 92, contain many short iambic dodecasyllabic poems such as Leo’s first text. Students used such poems to learn both Classical meters based on vowel length and the more recent stress rhythms used in Byzantine dodecasyllabic poetry. Leo’s second text belongs to a cat-egory of teaching tools called schede. The ancient Greek word schedos meant a riddle or puzzle. In the eleventh century, Michael Psellos used the word to describe a teaching exercise, a short essay that provided examples of difficult words or confusing grammatical constructions from ancient Greek.
In the Alexiad, Anna Komnena described students at the Orphanotropheion hard at work recopying schede, exercises she consid-ered to be innovations of her generation.11In claiming that schede were a
recent innovation, Anna was probably referring to a new type of schedos, associated with Theodore Prodromos and Stephen Skylitzes, both
gram-10 TIMOTHY S. MILLER
6 Hierarchia (1988) 1.203. 7 Prodromos, “Monodie” 9-10. 8 Browning (1963) 26-32. 9 Ibid. 20-22.
10 Browning (1976) 25, where Browning assumes that the attribution toË ÑRÒdou refers to
the bishop of Rhodes.
mar teachers at the Orphanotropheion. In a recent article, Ioannis Vassis has shown that authors of twelfth-century schede, such as Prodromos, deliberately used misspellings, tricky elisions, and changes in pronunci-ation of both vowels and consonants to give their compositions two or more possible meanings. To determine the correct meaning of such texts, students had to rewrite the schede following the strict rules of Classical Greek pronunciation, orthography, and grammar.12
It is also possible to classify Leo’s poem as a schedos exercise since it too contains what appears to be a deliberate misspelling. On line 12 the manuscript reads efiw Œw, which would mean “into the ear”, echoing the prÚw Œtaof line 11. It could also be recast, however, as ‡svw which in the context makes better sense “so in the same way”.
Because of many deliberate misspellings in schede exercises, it is extremely difficult to provide an accurate printed text of such prose com-positions. Should it be presented in its form as a puzzle, or should the mod-ern editor recast the text as the students were supposed to recopy it?13
As Vassis has shown, Prodromos prepared difficult schede. Fortunately, Leo of Rhodes wrote easier exercises. The prose schedos edited below has only two passages where strange orthography and elisions make the mean-ing unclear. Leo seems to have written this schedos primarily to teach his students to observe proper rules of accentuation and to check carefully for proper breathing marks.14
Some twelfth-century intellectuals attacked the use of schede. Anna Komnena condemned them as a confusing intertwining of words (plokÆ). Both John Tzetzes and Theodore Balsamon used the same term, ploke, to describe the useless complexity of the schedos exercises, as designed by Prodromos and Skylitzes.15In place of such schede, Anna
Komnena recommended a return to reading the original works of the ancient Greeks.16
In preparing this edition, I have reproduced both the poem and the prose schedos, found in Vaticanus Palatinus gr. 92. I have included in the 11
TWO TEACHING TEXTS
12 Vassis (1993-94) 1-19.
13 Vassis (1993-94) 14-19, where he resolves the problem by presenting the schedos first as
transmitted by the manuscript (überlieferte Fassung) and then written out with the errors and contradictions eliminated (entschüsselte Fassung).
14 For example, on folio 207v, the schedos text has the reading ≥syh eÈfrÒsunon. A review
of the forms of afisyãnomai, however, shows that ≥syh does not exist, but if the readerchanges the breathing mark to ¥syh (a change which would not alter the pronunciation of the word), the verb becomes the third-person, singular, aorist, passive of ¥domai, a verb which occasion-ally appears in a construction with a neuter substantive adjective, such as eÈfrÒsunon.
15 Vassis (1993-94) 9-10, and notes 33 and 34.
16 Anna Komnena, Alexiad, 15.7.9 (Leib ed. 3.218). For additional information concerning
apparatus criticus the words that have been written above the line in smaller letters. The same hand which copied the body of the text appears to have added these superscripted words. The copyist probably included these words to assist students in understanding the text since, in most cases, the superscriptions offer a common synonym for a more obscure Greek word in the text.
THEPOEM
Fol. 145v ToË ÑRÒdou kuroË L°ontow NËn oÈ prÚw Ímçw toÁw §n èm¤ll˙ n°ouw oÈd¢ prÚw Ímçw toÁw sunelyÒntaw f¤louw, éllå prÚw aÈtÚn t∞w sxol∞w tÚn prostãthn §jagoreÊv tØn §mØn ékhd¤an.
5 ka‹ tØn ÙdÊnhn §kf°rv t∞w kard¤aw ka‹ pr°sbin aÈtÒn, oÈk ¶xvn ˘ ka‹ drãsv, t“ pammeg¤stƒ poimenãrx˙ prof°rv. k°kmhka ka‹ går proslal«n brefull¤oiw pl°kvn épe›pon toÁw èmillhthr¤ouw. 10 …w oÔn §fãnhw, PaËle, kur¤ou stÒma |
l°gvn prÚw Œta t“ sof“ didaskãlƒ. oÏtv per ‡svw tlhpayoÁw éndrÚw xãrin t“ patriãrx˙ frãze t∞w ofikoum°nhw. d¤dajon aÈtÚn toÁw makroÁw §moÁw pÒnouw 15 ˜souw én°tlhn s∞w xãrin klhroux¤aw.
ékoÊsetai s«n fllar«w prosfyegmãtvn. prosd°jetai sou toÁw lÒgouw éspas¤vw. §nde¤jetai tÚ f¤ltron ˘ prÒw se tr°fei. tÚn går ımo›on o‰da file›n toÁw trÒpouw 20 ka‹ =Êseta¤ me t∞w pikrçw plinyourg¤aw.
12 TIMOTHY S. MILLER
4 ékhd¤an] yl¤cin supr. scr. || 6 pr°sbin] parãklhton supr. scr. | aÈtÒn] ka‹ prostãthn supr. scr. || 7 prof°rv] prosp°mpv supr. scr. || 8 k°kmhka] épe›pon supr. scr. || 10 …w] kayÉ supr. scr. || 11 didaskãlƒ] XrusostÒmƒ supr. scr. || 12 ‡svw] efiw Œw ms
TRANSLATION
Now, neither to you, the youths in the contest, nor to you, my assembled friends,
but to him, the patron of the school, I confess my apathy,
and I set forth the pain of my heart, and having no <other> course of action,
I present him as my ambassador to the exceedingly great patriarch. For I am worn out in addressing the tribes of young children, and I renounce my weaving contentious words.
Therefore, just as you appeared as the mouth of the Lord, Paul, when you spoke into the ear of the wise teacher [John Chrysostom], so, in the same way, on behalf of a wretched man
speak to the ecumenical patriarch. Teach him my long painful labors,
as many as I have endured on behalf of your inheritance. He will listen joyfully to your utterances.
He will readily accept your words.
He will show the affection which he nourishes toward you. For I know that a similar person loves these ways.
And he will rescue me from this bitter brick making.
13
THEPROSESchedos
Fol. 207 ToË ÑRÒdou
ÉEpaxy¢w ¶rgon pçsa didaskal¤a, polÁ pl°on d¢ paidodidaskal¤a, to›w d¢ trighrãsasin efis°ti pl°on, ıpo›ow êra kaÉgΔ kayå ka‹ sÁ épofÆn˙ per‹ §moË: ˘ pçn êr˙w, tel« gÉ, Œ ka‹ m°litow ≤d¤vn tª frãsei, dikaiodÒta ka‹ Ùr-fanotrÒfe lamprÒtate, kr¤nv går =ipØn pãlin §n lo|gism“ sunet“ tÚ efikÚw ka‹ énagka›on t«n lÒgvn moi prÚw s¢ épote¤nasyai, ka‹ tolmhr«w §rvt∞sai tosaÊthn [ka‹ dÊnamin] ¶xein §m°, tØn ékmØn ˘w ±nãlvsÉ efiw tÚ leitoÊrghmÉ éteir∞, toËto neËra mØ eÈtux«n. mØ går oÈk ênyrvpÒw tiw §gΔ ·nÉ §park« tosoËton xrÒnon prÚw tÚ mustagvge›n, ≥dh dÉ êskhnow êggelow. miÉ ≤ §mØ oÈs¤a m«n, efi fulãttei tØn ofike¤an fÊsin, t«n épay«n; polloË ge ka‹ de›.
ÉEpe‹ oÔn Íp¢r pãntaw o‰syÉ ¶rgon ≥dh §m°, filoiktÒtate, tÚ §paxy¢w t∞w mustagvg¤aw §p‹ xrÒnoiw makro›w §nergÆsanta, ˜ti ka¤ soi, yesp°sie, Œs-mai efiw taÊthn, ˜ti mãlista dejiÚn ¶krinaw metå toË thnikaËta sofoË érxi-poim°now. efi går mÆ, dialanyãnei tÚ makroxrÒnion taÊthw mÉ, e‡kosi
talai-pvr¤& §ntaËya d¢ ¶th §st¤—tå d¢ t∞w Ífedr¤aw pare¤syvsan. o‰sya går ka‹
aÈtÚw tØn ≤m«n §fore¤an √ diempisteuye‹w metå ka‹ êllvn meg¤stvn érx«n, ìw efi ka‹ y°lv t“ lÒgƒ perilabe›n, ne›mai tr‹w §k kair«n t«n nËn énast°llo-mai.
Efiw o‰kton kamfye¤w, sumpay°stat°, moi él°jei, §kkakÆsonti t“ musta-gvge›n. §pikoÊrei ta›w sa›w prÚw tÚn patriãrxhn eÈprosd°ktoiw fvna›w. ka‹
14 TIMOTHY S. MILLER
1 ÉEpaxy¢w ¶rgon] fortikÚn prçgma supr. scr. || 2 épofÆn˙] épofπn˙ ms ||
3 ˘ pçn] ˜p ín ms et ka‹ fvnØn supr. scr. | êr˙w, tel« gÉ] ka‹ épçr˙w ka‹ Ípãrxv supr. scr. | ≤d°vn] ka‹ glukÁw supr. scr. || 6 [ka‹ dÊnamin] supr. scr.] dunatÚn ·nÉ ms | ±nãlvsÉ ms] ka‹ kathnãlvsa supr. scr. || 7 éteir∞] éblabØ supr. scr. || 8 êskhnow] ka‹ és≈matowsupr. scr. || 9 m«n] ka‹ îra supr. scr. | efi] ka‹ §peidÉ supr. scr. | de›] pr°pei supr. scr. || 10 o‰syÉ] ka‹ gin≈skeiw supr. scr. || 11-12 Œsmai ms] ka‹ §mb¤blhmai supr. scr. || 12 mãlista] ka‹ l¤an supr. scr. || 14 o‰sya] gin≈skeiw supr scr. || 15 §fore¤an] ka‹ tØn §pitÆrhsin supr. scr. | √ ] ka‹ kayÉ supr. scr. | meg¤stvn érx«n] ka‹ §jousi«n supr. scr. || 16 ne›mai] ka‹ parasxe›n supr. scr. | tr‹w] ka‹ §k tritÒw supr. scr. || 18 él°jei] ka‹ boÆyei supr. scr. | t“] ka‹ t¤ni supr. scr. || 20 e‰ar] ka‹ ¶ar supr. scr. | efiste›nai] ka‹ stena‹ supr. scr. ||
15
TWO TEACHING TEXTS
TRANSLATION
All teaching is difficult work, but especially teaching children, and even more difficult for those who are very old, such as I am, as even you make known concerning me. Everything you happen to take up, I finish, o chief justice (dikaiodotes), sweeter than honey in your diction, and most illustrious orphanotrophos. For, after wise deliberation, I judge it rea-sonable and necessary for me to let my words rush forth to reach you, even daring to ask that I have so much strength, a man who expended the strength of his prime in this unyielding service, a man not fortunate in physical strength. For I am not such a man that I am strong enough to serve so long in this mystagogia, already an incorporeal angel. If my being guards its own nature, it is not one of those who suffer no changes, is it? Not at all!
Because you already know, most merciful one, that I have performed beyond all others in the arduous work of the mystagogia for a long peri-od of years, and that I have exerted myself to such an extent in your inter-est, reverent one, you have judged me especially acceptable, together with the wise arch-shepherd [serving] at that time. If not, then I receive no credit for this long service—at this time twenty years of drudgery, omitting the years in subordinate service. For you yourself know our supervisory position with which I was entrusted along with all the other offices. Although I want to include these in the speech, I restrain myself from reciting them most especially at the present moment.
Most sympathetic one, protect me, bent down in supplication, since I am exhausted by this mystagogia. Give help with your acceptable appeals to the patriarch. May your meeting with him, o honorable one, lead me from the oppressions of winter to reach the spring air. He has
16 TIMOTHY S. MILLER
§k xeim«now yl¤cevn efiw e‰ar efiste›nai, [Œ] pan°time, prÚw aÈtÚn ¶nteujiw sØ diagãg˙ me. ¥syh eÈfrÒsunon, ˜ti oÈ fa¤nontai kekleism°nai tis‹n afl pÊ-lai t∞w eÈsplagxn¤aw aÈtoË, éllÉ ín eÔrow efiw svthr¤an ényr≈pou mçllon §k-te¤non. yarr« goËn …w ín nuxyÆsonta¤ soi ka‹ énapetasyÆsontai, |ka‹ tª mak-rò mou talaipvr¤& ·levn ı f¤loiktow §nidΔn lÊtron ofl mogÆsanti d≈sei moi. éndrÚw tÚ loipÚn tlhpayoËw Íperlãlei. tÚn PaËlon ßjeiw tÚn m°gan sunergã-thn ˘n pr°sbin aÈtÚn égaya›w §pÉ §lp¤si pros∞ja t“ =hy°nti. tØn tÒlman bl°peiw: toÊtƒ d¢ ka‹ s¢ sÆmeron suneisf°rv. ka‹ går ˜sow moi PaËlow §n to›w èg¤oiw, tosoËton aÈtÚw §n broto›w ¶rrei fyÒnow.
21 ¥syh] ≥syh ms et ka‹ §l°xyh supr. scr. | tis‹n] tÉ efis‹n ms || 22 eÔrow] ka‹ plãtow supr. scr. || 23 nuxyÆsonta¤] ka‹ diegeryÆsontai supr. scr. || 24 mogÆsanti] ka‹ kakopayÆsanti supr. scr.
17
TWO TEACHING TEXTS
rejoiced in what is gracious so that the gates of his mercy appear not to be closed to some, but rather he is stretching wide for the salvation of man. I am confident that [these gates] will be stirred by you and spread wide. Seeing my long suffering, the compassionate one will give his mer-ciful release to me struggling on his behalf. For the rest, speak on behalf of a long-suffering man. You will have Paul as your great colleague whom, with good hopes, I have added as an ambassador to the one under discussion. You appear bold. Today I commission you [ to go] to him. For as much as Paul [is my ambassador] among the saints, so much does this jealousy among mortals disappear.
COMMENTARY REGARDING THEORPHANOTROPHEION
Both Leo’s poem and his schedos describe how his teaching duties have wearied him and how he longs for the patriarch of Constantinople to relieve him from his labors among “the tribes of young children” (poem, line 8). In the poem, he addresses his appeal to the heavenly patron of the school, Saint Paul. From earlier sources we know that Saint Zotikos founded the orphanage of the capital city, probably in the fourth century, but that the emperor Justin II rededicated the institution to Saints Peter and Paul in the late sixth century when he built a splendid church for the Orphanotropheion.17Peter gradually receded in importance, and by the
twelfth century sources often connected the Orphanotropheion with Saint Paul.18
In the prose schedos, on the other hand, Leo refers directly to the supervisor of his school, the director of the Orphanotropheion of Constantinople.19As in the poem, so also in the prose schedos, Leo
men-tions only Paul the apostle as the patron of the school where he was teaching. These two instructional texts, thus, provide additional evidence that by the twelfth century Paul had emerged as the sole patron saint of the Orphanotropheion.
Leo’s poem opens by describing youths in a contest (toÁw §n èm¤ll˙ n°ouw); line 9 refers to weaving contentious words, an expression which clearly refers to Leo’s work in writing schede.20Why were schede
con-tentious and the children of the orphanage involved in contests?
17 Theophanes 1.244.
18 Vie de St. Cyrille le Philéote, chap. 47.4-6 (pp. 229-31). See also Basil Pediadites
identi-fied as a teacher sxol∞w grammatik«n toË PaÊlou, in Browning (1963), 20-22.
19 For the office of orphanotrophos, see Miller (1994) 99-104, and Guilland (1965) 205-21. 20 Vassis (1993-94) 9-10, and notes 33 and 34.
Several instructional poems, similar to Leo’s poem presented here, demonstrate that grammar schools of Constantinople held some form of student contests in connection with schede. In two eleventh-century poems, Christopher of Mytilene and John Mauropous, later metropolitan of Euchaita, referred to students engaged in schede competitions.21
Moreover, Giuseppe Schirò published an anonymous poem, also from the eleventh century, which invoked heavenly assistance for two children participating in a schedos contest.22 More recently, Robert Browning
cited a nine-line verse composition in Marcianus graecus XI.31 which called on St. Paul to reward the victor in a grammar and schedos compe-tition. Since Paul was the sole patron of the Orphanotropheion, this
sche-dos contest surely took place in the orphanage of Constantinople.23 In
view of such references to schede contests at grammar schools in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, we can safely assume that Leo’s arduous duties included training students to contend in such events.
In both his poem and his prose schedos, Leo emphasizes how difficult he found working with the children at the orphanage. Leo compares his duties to the slavery of the Hebrews in Egypt when they labored in mak-ing bricks for Pharoah (Exod. 1:14). It is not clear why Leo considered his work with the children so difficult. Perhaps he had discipline prob-lems. We know from the frank letters of a thirteenth-century metropoli-tan of Naupaktos, John Apokaukos, that among the orphans at his epis-copal school, some were difficult to control.24
Leo’s schedos also offers some new information regarding the Orphanotropheion’s staff organization. Leo claims to have worked at the school for more than twenty years. He began his cursus honorum in hum-ble positions, but at the time of writing this schedos, he held some sort of supervisory position (§fore¤an), a post he attained after having served in other important offices. Although Leo did not mention specific offices, his schedos clearly reveals that there were several ranks of instructors at the Orphanotropheion.
In the prose schedos, Leo addresses his appeal that he be assigned a post outside the Orphanotropheion to the institution’s director, the orphanotrophos. Leo pleads with the director to obtain a promotion from the patriarch of Constantinople. In his funeral oration in honor of Stephen Skylitzes, Prodromos also described the patriarch as involved in deciding promotions on the teaching staff of the Orphanotropheion,
21 Schirò (1949) 13 (Christopher of Mytilene) and 18, note 21 (John Mauropous). 22 Ibid. 27-28.
23 Browning (1976) 32 (verses reproduced from Marcianus gr. XI.31, folio 277v.). 24 Apokaukos, ep. 27 (pp. 85-86) and ep. 100 (pp. 150-52).
19
TWO TEACHING TEXTS
although he also mentioned that the emperor had made the final decision to appoint Skylitzes head of the teaching faculty at the orphan school.25
In both the poem and the prose schedos, on the other hand, Leo viewed the patriarch as playing the key role in personnel decisions at the Orphanotropheion. In neither text does the author refer to the emperor, even though we know from many lists of state officials that the orphan-age director was ranked as a member of the imperial bureaucracy. From other sources, it appears that the orphanotrophos dealt primarily with financial and legal issues and functioned as an imperial magistrate. The teachers of the orphanage school, however, received their right to teach from the local bishop, in the case of Constantinople, from the patriarch. Thus, according to Theodore Prodromos, the patriarch confirmed Stephen Skylitzes’ promotion to a high teaching post at the Orphanotropheion by anointing Stephen with holy chrism.26
In the prose schedos, Leo addresses his immediate superior. the orphanage director, as dikaiodotes and orphanotrophos. During the twelfth century, the dikaiodotes had evolved into one of the leading judges of the imperial bureaucracy.27Several other sources of the twelfth
century reveal that orphanotrophoi also held important judicial posts. An oration of Theodore Prodromos addressed Alexios Aristenos as both orphan director and nomophylax, a post which by the twelfth century included judicial duties.28 According to a speech by Niketas Choniates,
the orphanotrophos John Belissariotes had excelled in the study of law.29
Leo’s schedos, thus, provides additional evidence that the men who served as directors of the Orphanotropheion of Saint Paul had extensive legal training in Roman/Byzantine law and often filled high-ranking judicial posts at the same time they supervised the orphan home and school.
Both these teaching texts offer internal evidence that Leo wrote them for the students to present in public schede contests. In his poem, Leo specifically mentions that he is not addressing the children who were participating in the competition nor his colleagues who were either spec-tators or coaching other young contestants. Rather, he is offering a verse prayer to the school’s patron, Saint Paul. Although he implores Saint Paul to present his plea to the patriarch, the flattering references to the
25 Prodromos, “Monodie” 9.
26 Prodromos, “Monodie” 9. See also Criscuolo (1975) 378-79 and 387 note 37. 27 ODB 624.
28 Prodromos, “Eisiterios” (PG, 133, cols. 1268-74) not only mentions Alexios Aristenos as
holding the office of nomophylax and orphanotrophos, but the speech stresses Aristenos’ role as magistrate.
head of the church in Constantinople suggest that in fact the patriarch was present at this academic contest. In the case of the prose schedos, on the other hand, it seems that only the orphanotrophos attended the event. Another twelfth-century source reveals that high officials sometimes attended these student contests. In one of his orations, Constantine Manasses described a contest for grammar students which took place in the presence of the orphanotrophos and the emperor Manuel I (1143-80).30Like Leo and Theodore Prodromos, Manasses also taught in the
grammar schools of Constantinople and composed a number of extant
schede.31If the emperor presided over some of these events, it is not
sur-prising that the patriarch also attended grammar competitions held in the Byzantine capital, as Leo’s poem suggests.
30 Mannases 181. 31 Browning (1976) 26-27.
ALEXANDER THE MONK’S TEXT OF HELENA’S DISCOVERY OF THE CROSS (BHG 410)
John W. Nesbitt
In 1991 Stephan Borgehammar published a well-researched, stimulating book entitled How the Holy Cross Was Found.1Borgehammar was
inter-ested in reconstructing Gelasius of Caesarea’s account, in his lost Church History, of Helena’s discovery of the cross at Jerusalem. Accordingly he was led to consider whether Alexander the Monk’s Historical Treatise on the Finding of the Cross might contain, in the section dealing with Helena and her travels to Jerusalem, some traces of Gelasius’s text. In the end he concluded his objective was beyond reach because “the edition is very unsatisfactory, leaving room for hesitation about individual phras-es.”2Borgehammar’s assessment is just. The edition to which he refers is
the one printed in PG, a text originally edited and published by J. Gretser in his De cruce Christi of 1600.3Gretser’s edition is based (as I
under-stand matters) upon: a) a Munich manuscript of the 16th century; b) a manuscript owned by the humanist and Jesuit, Andreas Schott; and c) a manuscript of Grottaferrata.4 The Munich manuscript is corrupt, the
Schott manuscript has never been identified, and the Grottaferrata text is now lost.5Such is the state of research on the text after some 400 years.
The Historical Treatise occupies some 31 columns in the PG edition and may be fairly described as a “World Chronicle”. It commences with a discussion of the Divine Logos and proceeds to a listing of the
occa-1 Borgehammar (1991). 2 Borgehammar (1991) 25.
3 J. Gretser, De cruce Christi, II (Ingolstadt: 1600) 1-52; eadem editio Opera Omnia, II
(Regensburg:1734) cols. 1-30 (notes cols. 31-6). The latter was the source of the text reprint-ed in PG 87.3, cols. 4016-76 (Helena’s recovery of the cross is found at cols. 4061-64). The PG also prints a condensed version, cols. 4077-88. The “edition” published in 1913 by P. C. Pennacchini is simply a re-publication of Gretser’s text: see Pennacchini’s Discorso storico
dell’invenzione della Croce del monaco Alessandro (Grottaferrata: 1913) 7-75. The full title of
Alexander Monachus’s Treatise, as it appears regularly in manuscripts, is LÒgow flstorikÚw per‹ t∞w eÍr°sevw toË tim¤ou ka‹ zvopoioË StauroË.
4 Schott collated the manuscript in his possession with the manuscript preserved at
Grottaferrata. In the notes to his edition Gretser distinguishes between “Cod. Bav.”, “Cod. Sch.”, “Sch.”, and “Cod. Crypt. Ferr.”. The Munich manuscript used by Gretser is of the 16th century and has the shelf number ms. gr. 271.
5 H. G. Opitz tried to locate the Grottaferrata manuscript which Gretser mentions, but he
sions on which the cross is pre-figured in the Old Testament. The author continues with a narration of Christ’s life and historical events beyond Christ’s death (in particular, persecutions of Christians) to the end of the reign of Constantine I. Then follows: a) Cyril of Jerusalem’s “Letter to Constantius” of 350/351 regarding an appearance of the cross over Jerusalem; and b) a lengthy eulogy of the cross. The Historical Treatise was a popular text; a new editio princeps would involve (either in whole or in part) some forty manuscripts. Our goal here is fairly modest. It is our intention to offer an edition of the section of the Historical Treatise’s account dealing with Helena’s discovery of the cross. The edition incor-porates prior editions and adds ten more manuscripts that have been selected, for the most part, because of their age and general reliability. We have included later manuscripts in order to give an idea of the range of variations within the manuscript tradition. After presenting our edition of what might be considered the culminating section of the Historical Treatise, we shall then turn to larger questions, such as the date of the Treatise’s composition, the author’s intent and his anticipated audience.
LIST OF MANUSCRIPTS.
Am Milan, Ambrosiana Library, gr. A 63 inf. (11th century) B Oxford, Bodleian Library, Auctarium E.2.6 (12th century) BN1 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, Ancien gr. 1454 (10th-11th
century)
BN3 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, Coislin 306 (16th century)
Bu Bucharest, gr. 595 (13th century) L Athos, Lavra D 78 (11th century) M Monte Cassino, gr. 431 (11th century) P Patmos, gr. 257 (12th century)
T Thessalonica, Vlatadon gr. 6 (12th century) V Vatican, gr. 504 (1105)
EDITIONS.
Gr PG 87.3, col. 4061, line 19-col. 4064, line 25
Penn. Pennacchini, 59, line 6-61, line 27
GH Georgii Hamartoli Chronicon in: PG 110, col. 620, line
12-col. 621, line 25
TEXT
Metå taËta ép°steilen ı basileÁw tØn •autoË mht°ra El°nh n tØn éji°painon ka‹ yeofil∞ efiw ÑIerosÒluma metå grammãtvn ka‹ xrhmãtvn éfyon¤aw prÚw tÚn fer≈numon
Makãrion, tÚn t∞w Afil¤aw §p¤skopon, §p‹ énazhtÆsei toË §ndÒjou 5 stauroË ka‹ ofikodomª t«n èg¤vn tÒpvn, aÈt∞w afithsam°nhw t∞w
basil¤dow, faskoÊshw Ùptas¤an tinå ye¤an •vrak°nai, keleÊousan aÈtª tå ÑIerosÒluma katalabe›n ka‹ toÁw èg¤ouw tÒpouw efiw f«w égage›n xvsy°ntaw ÍpÚ t«n énÒmvn ka‹ éfane›w genÒmenouw, §p‹ tosoÊtouw xrÒnouw. MayΔn d¢ ı §p¤skopow 10 éfikom°nhn tØn basil¤da, sunagagΔn toÁw t∞w §parx¤aw
§p¤skopouw metå t∞w deoÊshw tim∞w épÆnthsen aÈtª. EÈy°vw d¢ parek°leuse to›w §piskÒpoiw tØn zÆthsin toË poyoum°nou jÊlou poiÆsasyai. ÉAporoÊntvn d¢ pãntvn per‹ toË tÒpou ka‹ êllvn êllvw §j Ípoc¤aw dihgoum°nvn, ı t∞w pÒlevw §p¤skopow pãntaw 15 parekãlei ≤sux¤an êgein ka‹ spoudaiÒteron eÈxØn Íp¢r toÊtou 25
DISCOVERY OF THE CROSS
1. Metå] d¢ add. VGH | ép°steilen] ép°stilen M aneteilen T | tØn] om. BuGr |
•autoË] aÈtoË V || 2. tØn éji°painon ka‹ yeofil∞] om. GH | éji°painon] ajiepenon T
| yeofil∞] yeofile› AmT yeofhl∞ M yeÒsepton BN1 || 3. éfyon¤aw] éfyon¤an BN1
| fer≈numon] om. BuGr || 4. tÚn t∞w Afil¤aw §p¤skopon] tÚn t∞w pÒlevw §p¤skopon BN1
ÑIerosolÊmvn MGr tÚn t∞w èg¤ou pÒlevw V || 4-5. toË §ndÒjou stauroË] toË tim¤ou
stauroË B toË zvopoioË jÊlou toË §ndÒjou stauroË BN1BN3P toË zvopoioË jÊlou
Gr || 5. aÈt∞w] toËto add. BN1BN3PGH toË add. T | afithsam°nhw] §thsam°nhw M
traithsamenhw T || 6. basil¤dow] basile›dow M ka‹ add. V | faskoÊshw] fãskousan M | tinå] om. AmBuGr post ye¤an trsp. BN1BN3 | •vrak°nai] •orakenai M || 7. aÈtª]
aÈtØn AmGH | katalabe›n] katå labe›n BN1 || 8. xvsy°ntaw] xosy°ntaw M |
énÒmvn] paranÒmvn M nom«n T || 9. genÒmenouw] genãmenouw M | §p‹ tosoÊtouw
xrÒnouw] §p‹ tosoÊtou xrÒnou GH || 10. éfikom°nhn] éfhkom°nhn BLT BN3| basil¤da]
basile¤da M || 10-11. sunagagΔn toÁw t∞w §parx¤aw §p¤skopouw] sÁn t∞w §parx¤aw
§piskÒpoiw Gr | §parx¤aw] §parxe¤aw TV || 11. metå t∞w deoÊshw tim∞w] om. Gr |
épÆnthsen] épÆnthsan M épÆnthse Gr ÍpÆnthsen GH | aÈtª] tª basil¤di BuBN1VGr
| EÈy°vw] Euyeow T || 12. parek°leuse] parek°leusen B parekeleÊsato BuBN1Gr
pareskeÊasen MT pareskeÊase V | to›w §piskÒpoiw] toÁw §piskÒpouw BVGH |
poy-oum°nou] pepoyhm°nou BN1 poyeinoË GH || 13. poiÆsasyai] §p°trecen add. BN1 | toË
tÒpou] toÊtou GH || 13-14. êllvn êllvw] êllon êllo B êllou êllow M êllou
êllo PTV êllou êlla GH | êllvn êllvw §j Ípoc¤aw] êllow éllaxØ ÍpÚ c¤aw BN1
|| 14. dihgoum°nvn] dihgoum°nou GH | pÒlevw] pÒleow M || 15. parekãlei] para¤nh M
| êgein] aghn T | spoudaiÒteron] spoudaivt°rvn B spoudeot°ran BN3MPTV
t“ Ye“ prosf°rein. ToÊtou d¢ genom°nou eÈy°vw §de¤xyh yeÒyen ı tÒpow t“ §pikÒpƒ, §n ⁄ Âdruto t∞w ékayãrtou da¤monow ı naÚw ka‹ tÚ êgalma. TÒte ≤ bas¤lissa tª basilikª aÈyent¤& xrvm°nh, sunagagoËsa pl∞yow polÁ texnit«n ka‹ §rgat«n §k°leusen §k 20 bãyrvn énatrap∞nai tÚ musarÚn ofikodÒmhma ka‹ tÚn xoËn
pÒrrv pou éporrif∞nai. ToÊtou d¢ genom°nou, énefãnh tÚ ye›on mn∞ma ka‹ ı tÒpow toË Kran¤ou ka‹ oÈ mÆkoyen tre›w stauro‹ kexvsm°noi. ÉEpimel«w d¢ §reunÆsantew eron ka‹ toÁw ¥louw. ÉEke›yen loipÚn émhxan¤a ka‹ yl¤ciw kat°labe tØn bas¤lissan, 25 §pizhtoËsan po›ow êra e‡h ı DespotikÚw staurÒw. ÑO d¢ §p¤skopow
diå p¤stevw tØn diãkrisin ¶lusen. Gunaik‹ går érrvstoÊs˙ t«n §mfan«n ka‹ épegnvsm°n˙ ÍpÚ pãntvn ka‹ tå teleuta›a
pneuoÊs˙ prosagagΔn •kãteron t«n staur«n, tÚn zhtoÊmenon eren: mÒnon går ≥ggisen ≤ skiå toË svthr¤ou stauroË tª 30 ésyenoÊs˙, eÈyÁw ≤ êpnouw ka‹ ék¤nhtow ye¤& dunãmei
26 JOHN W. NESBITT
16. prosf°rein] prÚw f°rein BN1| genom°nou] genam°nou MT | eÈy°vw] om. MV ||
16-17. ı tÒpow] ante yeÒyen trsp. GH post §piskÒpƒ trsp. BN1MV || 17. t“ §pikÒpƒ] t«n
§piskÒpvn M | Âdruto] ∏druto BL ¥druto BN3 | da¤monow] ÉAfrod¤thw add. VGH ||
18. bas¤lissa] bas¤leissa M | basilikª] basileike› M basilhkh T | aÈyent¤&]
aÈyente¤& AmBBN1 | xrvm°nh] maxom°nh P || 19. pl∞yow] pliyow T | polÁ] poll«n
BuGr t«n add. M | texnit«n] te add. Am texnhtvn T || 20. énatrap∞nai] katå
straf∞nai BN1 anatrapinai T énaskaf∞nai V || 20-21. tÚ musarÚn-éporrif∞nai]
tÚn t∞w da¤monow naÚn Gr | musarÚn] mussarÚn V | ofikodÒmhma] ”kodÒmhma BN1 ||
21. pou] poË BMBN1 | éporrif∞nai] épÚ rifÆnai BN1 ka‹ add. BBuBN3Gr | d¢] om.
AmGr | genom°nou] genam°nou TGH | ye›on] ye›oon BN3 || 22. oÈ] mØ BuGr | mÆkoyen]
mÆkon M || 23. kexvsm°noi] kexosm°noi M kaixvsmenoi T §xvsm°noi GH | ÉEpimel«w] §pimelow T §p‹ mel«w BN1| §reunÆsantew] diereunÆsantew GH | eron] hron BMT |
¥louw] ilouw T || 24. §ke›yen] PrÚw oÂw BN1V | loipÚn] om. AmB post émhxan¤a trsp.
BN1 | émhxan¤a] pollØ add. GH | kat°labe] kat°laben B BN1MT | bas¤lissan]
basil¤da BuMGr bas¤lleissan M | êra e‡h] ín e‡h AmB BN1 ara hei T | e‡h] ∑n
BuBN3Gr || 25. DespotikÚw] basilikÚw Am || 26. diå] metå GH | diãkrisin]
émfi-bol¤an BuGr diãfisin V | ¶lusen] ¶luse AmBuBN3LTGr | Gunaik‹] GunaikØ T |
érrvstoÊsª] arrvstousi T || 27. §mfan«n] §pifan«n AmBuGrGH | épegnvsm°n˙] apegnvsmen˙ T | teleuta›a] teleutea T || 28. prosagagΔn] prÚw agagΔn BN1 |
•kãteron] ßkaston Bu V Gr •kãtervn M | t«n staur«n] tÚn staurÚn M | staur«n] staurÒn P | tÚn] tÚ BN3PVGH || 29. eren] ere AmBN3PGH hren MT | mÒnon] …w
add. BuGr | går] post ≥ggisen trsp. BuGr | ≥ggisen] ≥ggise BuGr | stauroË] om. BuGr ||
30. ésyenoÊs˙] yanoÊs˙ BuGr | eÈyÁw] eÈy°vw BN1MTV om. BuGr | dunãmei]
paraxr∞ma énepÆdhse megãl˙ tª f≈n˙ bo«sa ka‹ dojãzousa tÚn YeÒn. ÑH d¢ bas¤lissa ÑEl°nh metå xarçw megãlhw ka‹ fÒbou énelom°nh tÚn zvopoiÚn staurÒn, m°row m°ntoi sÁn to›w ¥loiw énekÒmise prÚw tÚn pa›da: tÚ d¢ loipÚn glvssÒkomon érguroËn 35 poiÆsasa, par°dvke t“ §piskÒpƒ t∞w pÒlevw efiw mnhmÒsunon pãsaiw genea›w. Ka‹ yesp¤sasa §kklhs¤aw gen°syai §n t“ zvopoi“ mnÆmati ka‹ §n t“ èg¤ƒ Golgoyò ka‹ §n tª Bhyle¢m §n t“ sphla¤ƒ, ¶nya ı KÊriow ≤m«n ÉIhsoËw XristÚw tØn katå sãrka g°nnhsin Íp°meine, ka‹ §n t“ ˆrei t«n ÑElai«n ¶nya ı KÊriow eÈlogÆsaw toÁw 40 mayhtåw énelÆfyh. Ka‹ êlla pollå poiÆsasa §n ÑIerosolÊmoiw én°strece prÚw tÚn pa›da. ÑO d¢ metå xarçw aÈtØn Ípodejãmenow, tØn m¢n toË tim¤ou stauroË mer¤da §n xrusª yÆkh époy°menow par°dvke t“ §piskÒpƒ efiw tÆrhsin, §niausia¤saiw mnÆmaiw •ortãzein tØn énãdeijin toË stauroË prostãjaw. T«n d¢ ¥lvn 45 toÁw m¢n efiw tØn fid¤an perikefala¤an énexãlkeuse, toÁw d¢ én°mije
t“ salibar¤ƒ toË ·ppou aÈtoË, ·na plhrvyª tÚ =hy¢n ÍpÚ toË Kur¤ou diå toË profÆtou l°gontow ÑEn tª ≤m°r& §ke¤n˙ ¶stai tÚ §p‹ tÚn xalinÚn toË ·ppou ëgion t“ kur¤ƒ Pantokrãtori (Zacharias 14: 20). 27
DISCOVERY OF THE CROSS
31. paraxr∞ma énepÆdhse] énepÆdhsen paraxr∞ma BN1V | énepÆdhse] énepÆdhsen
BMP anephdeisen T | tª] ti T om. GH | bo«sa ka‹] om. AmBuGr | ka‹] om. B ||
32. bas¤lissa] bas¤leissa M | ÑEl°nh] om. BuGr | megãlhw] om. Am Bu || 33.
énelom°nh] énelvm°nh M | zvopoiÚn] om. GH | m°ntoi] m°n ti AmV men ti T menti BN1 BN3 | ¥loiw] hluw T || 34. énekÒmise] énekÒmhsen BM anekomisen T
énekom¤sato GH | tÚ d¢ loipÒn] t“ d¢ loip“ Am tv d¢ lupon T | érguroËn]
érgÊreon Am BN1MV érgurÚn BLT | par°dvke] par°dvken BBN1T par°doken M ||
36. pãsaiw] ta›w add. AmM | §kklhs¤an] §kklhs¤aw BN1|| 37. t“] to T | Golgoyò]
Golgoyã M | tª] èg¤& add. BN1 | Bhyle¢m] Biyle¢m MT | §n t“ sphla¤ƒ] en to sphlev
V om. BuGr || 38. ≤m«n ÉIhsoËw XristÚw] om. BuGr || 39. Íp°meine] Íp°meinen B BN1
BN3MPV upeminen T | §t°xyh BuGr | ˆrei] ˆri M | ÑElai«n] Ele«n T || 40.
énelÆfyh] énele¤fyh B | pollå] ple›sta A | pollå kalå] katory≈mata BN1 | §n
ÑIerosolÊmoiw] om. BuVGr || 41. én°strece] én°strecen BMTV | tÚn] •aut∞w add. B
| Ípodejãmenow] épodejãmenow BN1 || 42. §n] om. GH | époy°menow] yemenow T || 43.
par°dvke] par°dvken BBN1MV | §niausia¤saiw] §niausia›sew (corr.: §niausia›aiw) B
§niausi°aiw BN3L eneausieaiw T | mnÆmaiw] mnhmew T || 44. énãdeijin] anadijin T ||
45. perikefala¤an] per‹ kefala¤an BN1 perikefalhan T | énexãlkeuse] §xãlkeuse
AmBGH énexãlkeusen BN1MPV exalkeusen T | én°mije] én°mijen BBN1MTV || 46.
salibar¤ƒ] silibariv T xalin“ V salbar¤ƒ GH || 46-47. =hy¢n-profÆtou] ÍpÚ toË
profÆtou Zaxar¤ou diå toË Kur¤ou GH || 47. ÑEn tª ≤m°r& §ke¤n˙] om. T | §p‹] ÍpÚ M || 48. tÚn] om. BuGr | tÚn xalinÚn] tÚn xalin«n M t“ xalin“ GH | Pantokrãtori]
TRANSLATION
Afterwards the emperor [Constantine] despatched his praiseworthy and God-beloved mother Helena to Jerusalem with letters and money in abundance for the bishop of Ailia, by name Makarios, in order to search for the glorious cross and erect buildings upon the holy sites, the empress herself having made the request, asserting that some divine vision appeared, commanding her to go to Jerusalem and to bring to light the holy places buried by the impious and become hid-den from sight, up to her own day. The bishop, learning of the com-ing of the empress, assemblcom-ing the bishops of his province, met her with due honor. At once she ordered the bishops to make a search for the longed-for wood. Since all were at a loss concerning the place [of its burial] and from feelings of uneasiness began describing an array of different things, the bishop of the city ordered all to affect silence and in earnest offer prayer to God on behalf of this. Upon doing so the place by the will of God was revealed to the bishop, in which was sit-uated a temple and cult statue of the unclean daimon. Then the empress, using imperial authority, gathering together a very great quantity of builders and workers, ordered the foul building to be over-thrown to its foundations and to cast away the dust far off from there. Upon this being done, there came to light the divine monument and the place of Golgotha and not far off three buried crosses. Diligently searching they also found the nails. From whence therefore despair and anxiety gripped the empress, who demanded which was the cross of the Lord. The bishop through faith resolved the problem. For there was a woman (one of the leading citizens) in ill-health and all despaired of her chances. And while she was breathing her last [the bishop], bringing each of the crosses, found the answer. For it required only the shadow of the salvific cross to approach the sickly woman for the motionless and limp patient at once through divine power to jump up, crying with a great voice and glorifying God. Empress Helena with great joy and fear having taken up the lifegiv-ing cross carried off a portion with the nails for her son. She had made for the remainder a silver casket that she gave to the bishop of the city for a remembrance to all generations. And she decreed that churches be built in the form of lifegiving remembrances on Holy Golgotha and in Bethlehem in the cave where our lord Jesus Christ submitted to a birth according to the flesh, and on the Mount of Olives where the Lord upon blessing his disciples ascended. And so after doing many other good things in Jerusalem she returned to her son. Having received her with joy, he placed the piece of the precious cross in a
29
DISCOVERY OF THE CROSS
gold box; this he gave to the bishop for safekeeping, decreeing that the appearance of the cross be celebrated with annual commemora-tions. Some of the nails he had forged for his helmet, whereas others he had added as studs to his horse bridle, in order that he might fulfill what was said by the Lord through his prophet, to wit “On that day shall there be holiness upon the horse bridle unto the all-powerful Lord” (Zachariah 14: 20).
Before we can set this text into an historical context, we must first try to fix the date at which Alexander the Monk was active.6 We begin by
not-ing that Alexander the Monk may have authored two extant texts: the Historical Treatise and an Encomium of the Apostle Barnabas. The edi-tor of the latter work, Peter van Deun, observes that in the manuscripts the text “is attributed to a certain Alexander, monk at the monastery of St. Barnabas near Salamis.”7 It was written at the urging of the priest and
“keeper-of-the-keys” of the saint’s sanctuary and was read out in the presence of the metropolitan of Salamis. In van Deun’s opinion, based upon internal references, the Encomium was written sometime about the middle of the sixth century.8 The Encomium is relatively easy to date,
the Treatise is difficult to date. And so one would like to use the Encomium to date the Treatise, but one may do so only if there is com-pelling evidence that the two texts derive from the hand of the same author. Such a pre-condition is lacking, but it is nonetheless worthwhile to note one parallel. I do not refer to the obvious fact that both works detail the invention of relics: the Encomium with the invention of the remains of St. Barnabas during the reign of Zeno (474-491) and the Treatise with the discovery of the wood and nails of the cross during the reign of Constantine the Great. I am alluding to opening statements. In the introduction to the Encomium, the author, Alexander the Monk, observes that the priest who asked him to write the Encomium was the scion of a well-educated family. In contrast Alexander is of very humble origins (“the poorest of men”) and must balance his want of education against the proposal that he compose a panegyric of Barnabas. For this reason he has been inclined to request exemption from obedience, “shrinking from this duty.” He asks, rhetorically, “How can such a sorry wretch as I, drowned by countless afflictions, swim across the apostolic sea?”9 Let us now compare these statements with the proem of the
6 For a discussion of the various dates proposed for Alexander’s career see the Introduction
to Peter van Deun’s edition of Laudatio Barnabae apostoli 16.
7 Laudatio Barnabae apostoli 15. 8 Laudatio Barnabae apostoli 21.
9 In my opinion the phrase, which I have translated as “by countless afflictions” (ÑÍpÚ
30 JOHN W. NESBITT
Treatise. As in the case of the Encomium, the writer has received a request from an ecclesiastical superior to write a composition, in this case an historical essay on the finding of the life-giving cross. Upon receipt of the request the author “was exceedingly agitated...I shrank from the undertaking as it is way beyond my ability; such a work is bet-ter realized through others than through me. For we do not possess the educational grounding and lack experience of such pursuits from our training. Truthfully we are ignorant not only in language but also in knowledge on account of the lengthy hold on us of diseases (pay«n).” Although Byzantine authors were fond of self-deprecation, it seems to me that the similarity of phraseology in the two introductory statements is too close to be a matter of coincidence and may be an indication that the author of the Encomium and the author of the Treatise were one and the same person. I am suggesting that, like Mozart, Alexander the Monk plagiarized himself. It is doubtful that someone else plagiarized him, for who would want to appear as an ignorant hypochondriac?
Are there any references in the Treatise which either support or con-tradict a sixth-century date? As Father M. van Esbroeck has pointed out, one finds a terminus post quem in a passage where the author castigates Origen in terms which reproduce virtually word for word the first of fif-teen anathemas pronounced against Origen slightly before the council of 553 concerning belief in the pre-existence of souls.10In all honesty, one
can not point to another passage and say that here is the terminus ante quem. In order to establish an upper date one needs to begin by examin-ing the whole of the text which Gretser printed and determinexamin-ing which parts are to be attributed to Alexander’s pen. In his Introduction the author states that it is his intention “to compose a historical narrative on the finding of the life-giving cross, the all-holy and all-revered cross on which our lord Jesus Christ allowed himself to be stretched out, where-by he destroyed the power of the devil and the tyranny of death and bestowed on those believing in Him unknowable salvation.” I accept the
10 Esbroeck (1979) 107. The text of the anathema, published by Diekamp (1899) 90, reads:
E‡ tiw tØn muy≈dh proÊparjin t«n cux«n ka‹ tØn taÊt˙ •pom°nhn terat≈dh épokatãs-tasin presbeÊei, énãyema ¶stv. The text of the Treatise, as published by Gretser (4020A), reads: ....mani≈dhw ÉVrig°nhw §blasfÆmhsen oÈsi≈dh tinå proÊparjin cux«n ka‹ tØn taÊt˙ •pom°nhn terat≈dh épokatãstasin gravd«w... A number of manuscripts have, instead of oÈsi≈dh, muy≈dh. Cf. Cyril of Scythopolis’s Life of Euthymios (E. Schwartz,
Kyrillos von Skythopolis [Leipzig: 1939] 39-40: diemãxeto genna¤vw tØn parÉ aÈto›w
muyeuom°nhn t«n no«n proÊparjin ka‹ tØn taÊt˙ •pom°nhn terat≈dh épokatãstasin diasÊrvn panto¤vw én°trepen). Price (1991) 36 has translated this section, which deals with Cyril’s struggles with a group of Origenists in the region of Caesarea, as follows: “he [Cyril] combated courageously their myth of a preexistence of minds, he completely refuted, and with ridicule, the consequent monstrosity of a general restoration.”
