Symais in 1849 and Rangavis response, the letters of credence of Anthimos, Xenophon Pappadatos and Colonel Tzami Karatassos - steampunk & Mustoxydes

Steven Avery

Administrator
We want to look closely at the three letters of recommendation mentioned by Lilia.

appealing to the authority of the issuing officials:

a) Anthimos, Archbishop of Constantinople,
b) the Greek Consul General of Southern Russia in Odessa Xenophon Pappadatos,
c) Colonel Tzami Karatassos and other Macedonian officers

PBF
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...efore-the-manuscript-movement.3081/post-12987

https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...efore-the-manuscript-movement.3081/post-12987

https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/symais-in-1849-and-rangavis-response.3128/

CARM
https://forums.carm.org/threads/cod...nthimus-and-constantinople.15019/post-1184036


Simonides Symais (1849) - (p.32 of book)

"Since even the supposedly 'real' character Simonides - rightly - had early doubts about his accurate biographical information , towards the end of the introduction and in the footnotes he adds three official letters of credence to the already widespread distrust of his person to counteract this, invoking the authority of the issuing officials : a) Anthimos, Archbishop of Constantinople, b) the Greek Consul General of Southern Russia in Odessa Xenophon Pappadatos, c) Colonel Tzami Karatassos and other Macedonian officers. Of course, the enclosed letters contribute nothing to the proof of the originality of the manuscript; they are only intended to prove the credibility of the publisher. Whether the letters are genuine or fake is unimportant here; they are nevertheless probable - and that is exactly what is at stake here, to convince the reader of the authenticity of the subsequent representation of the High School on Symi [10]

Footnote 10 Is important, I have it as:

10 Whether these letters actually existed was not researched as part of this study; however, they are similar to official letters of credence. In any case, the persons mentioned and their offices are not invented.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Ephēmeris tōn bibliophilōn: ekdidotai apax tēs ebdomados (1874)
https://books.google.com/books?id=V...=2ahUKEwin7rjOupb_AhUaGVkFHR5HCO0Q6AF6BAgIEAI

Συμαϊς ἢ ἱστορία τῆς ἐν Σύμῳ Ἀπολλωνιάδος σχολῆς ἰδίως δὲ τῆς ἁγιογραφικῆς καθέδρας καὶ πρόδρομος τῶν ἀνεκδότων ἑλληνικῶν χειρογράφων . * Αρχεται δὲ ἡ ἱστορία αὕτη τῷ τριακοστῷ ἑβδομηκοστῷ ... ̓Αθή νησι 1849 . 8ον σ . 180. δρ . 6 . 114.

Symais or history of the Apollonian school in Symos, especially the iconographic chair and precursor of the unpublished Greek manuscripts. * But this story begins on the thirty-seventh ... ̓Athi island 1849. 8th p. 180. Dr. 6. 114.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...page=30&fr=1&usg=AOvVaw29kVv6jxG00kzeWw9vlL9q

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...ternet-1.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3l0k8ps_Vn1hN7gBH5uE7b

Odysseas Gilis
https://independent.academia.edu/OdysseasGilis

https://www.academia.edu/36392408/Οδυσσέας_Γκιλής_Κωνσταντ

Scribd
https://www.scribd.com/document/376191193/Οδυσσέας-Γκιλής-Κωνσταντίνος-Σιμωνίδης-Θεσσαλονίκη-20017

Το 1849, εκδίδει στην Αθήνα τη ναυαρχίδα των πλαστογραφιών του, την «Συμαϊδα», την ιστορία της «Απολλωνιάδος Σχολής» της Σύμης, που φέρεται να είχε γράψει ο χιώτης ιερομόναχος Μελέτιος. Όπως αποδείχθηκε από την κριτική της εποχής του, η «Συμαϊς» ήταν απλώς μια προσπάθεια να προσδώσει ο Σιμωνίδης αρχαίο κλέος στον τόπο καταγωγής του, αφού, όπως φαίνεται, ουδέποτε πρέπει να υπήρξε τέτοια σχολή, τέτοιο χειρόγραφο ή τέτοιος συγγραφέας.

In 1849, he published in Athens the flagship of his forgeries, "Symaida", the history of the "Apollonia School" of Symi, which was allegedly written by the Hieromonk Meletios from Chios. As proved by the criticism of his time, "Simais" was simply an attempt by Simonides to give an ancient quality to his place of origin, since, it seems, there must never have been such a school, such a manuscript or such an author.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Ο Σιμωνίδης γεννήθηκε γύρω στα 1820 στη Σύμη. Μεταξύ 1836 και 1840 βρίσκεται στον Άθω, όπου φαίνεται πως απέκτησε πρόσβαση σε μια κρυμμένη βιβλιοθήκη της Μονής Παντελεήμονος, μια μοναδική πηγή κυλίνδρων και αρχαίων χειρογράφων. Στον Άθω αναπτύσσει ένα ασυνήθιστο ταλέντο στην καλλιγραφία και παλαιογραφία, μαθαίνει να πειραματίζεται με αρχαίους παπύρους, να κατασκευάζει μελάνη σε καθαρά οργανική βάση και ειδικούς κονδυλοφόρους, αλλά και να επεμβαίνει στα βαθύτερα στρώματα των παλιμψήστων αντιστρέφοντας τη συνηθισμένη πρακτική. Η θητεία στις επίσημες και απόκρυφες βιβλιοθήκες του Άθω οδηγεί σε μια εκπληκτική για την εποχή εγκυκλοπαιδική αρχαιογνωσία, τέτοια που αργότερα θα εντυπωσιάσει και θα παραπλανήσει κορυφαίους φιλολόγους της φωτισμένης Εσπερίας. Η καλλιγραφία, η εμμονή στη λεπτομέρεια και η φιλολογική κατάρτιση υπηρετούν ήδη ό,τι οι φιλόλογοι θεωρούν κατεξοχήν τσαρλατανισμό και απάτη: τη δημιουργία νέων κειμένων σε αρχαίες περγαμηνές. Μεταξύ 1840 και 1848 εικάζεται πως περιπλανήθηκε στο Αιγαίο, στην Κύπρο, στο Σινά, στη Βαβυλώνα και τη Δαμασκό, την Αλεξάνδρεια και αλλού. Ο ίδιος ισχυριζόταν ότι απέκτησε πτυχία φιλοσοφίας από Πανεπιστήμια στη

Μόσχα και στην Οδησσό, ότι υπήρξε προστατευόμενος μιας εύπορης κυρίας της ανώτερης δυνατής κοινωνικής τάξης και άλλα πολλά. Όμως τίποτα δεν είναι βέβαιο στη ζωή ενός ανθρώπου που φαίνεται να επινοεί τις σπουδές, τους φίλους και προστάτες, τις αυθεντίες που αργότερα εμφανίζει ως εγγυητές της γνησιότητας του έργου του. Άλλωστε, ο ίδιος ισχυριζόταν πως καταγόταν από τα Στάγειρα και ότι ήταν απόγονος του Αριστοτέλη.


Στα 1848 τον βρίσκουμε στην Αθήνα. Ο Σιμωνίδης εκδίδει ένα χαμένο έργο του 13ου αιώνα που αποδίδει σε κάποιο μοναχό Μελέτιο από τη Χίο. Ο τίτλος είναι Συμαΐς, Ιστορία της Απολλωνιάδος Σχολής και, όπως σημειώνει ο Ρύντιγκερ Σάπερ, πρόκειται για «ένα βιβλίο που δεν έχει ξαναδεί ο κόσμος» (σ. 124). Το κείμενο τεκμηριώνει την δράση μιας άγνωστης ομάδας φιλοσόφων, μαθηματικών και μηχανικών κατά την ύστερη αρχαιότητα. Είναι μια προσεκτικά φτιαγμένη ψευδοϊστορία ή εναλλακτική ιστορία με παραπομπές και επιστημονική φόρμα. Ο Σεβαστός από τη Σύμη εφηύρε το χαρτί και το τηλεσκόπιο, ο Περίστρατος ο Ρόδιος την τυπογραφία, ο μηχανικός Εύδυπος ένα ταχύπλοο. Εφευρέσεις που θυμίζουν Ντα Βίντσι και Ιούλιο Βερν συνδυάζονται με παγανιστικές τελετές και σεξουαλικά όργια. Ο Σιμωνίδης βρίσκεται μπροστά από την εποχή του: Ο συνδυασμός φανταστικής τεχνολογίας και ιστορικού μυθιστορήματος είναι τυπικός του cyberpunk, υποείδους της επιστημονικής φαντασίας με αφοσιωμένους οπαδούς στη Μεγάλη Βρετανία και τις Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες. Δεν έχω αμφιβολία ότι ο Σιμωνίδης πρέπει να θεωρηθεί πρόδρομός του, τουλάχιστον όσο ο Βερν. Ακολουθεί ένα έργο γεωγραφίας του 4ου ή 5ου αιώνα. Συγγραφέας κάποιος Εύλυρος και θέμα η Κεφαλονιά. Εδώ ο πλαστογράφος-εκδότης είναι πιο συγκρατημένος, «σε ένα σημείο όμως ξεσπά το επινοητικό του μένος. Πρόκειται για την προέλευση της (φανταστικής) πόλης με το όνομα Πικρογαμία, κυριολεκτικά: πικρός γάμος.» (σ. 129).







Simonidis was born around 1820 in Symi. Between 1836 and 1840 he is on Athos, where he seems to have gained access to a hidden library of the Panteleimon Monastery, a unique source of scrolls and ancient manuscripts. In Athos, he develops an unusual talent in calligraphy and palaeography, learns to experiment with ancient papyri, to manufacture ink on a purely organic basis and special tuberosities, but also to intervene in the deepest layers of palimpsests, reversing the usual practice. The term in the official and secret libraries of Athos leads to an amazing encyclopaedic antiquarian knowledge for the time, such that it will later impress and mislead leading philologists of the enlightened Hesperia. Calligraphy, attention to detail, and philological training already serve what philologists consider quackery and fraud par excellence: the creation of new texts on ancient parchments. Between 1840 and 1848 it is assumed that he wandered in the Aegean, Cyprus, Sinai, Babylon and Damascus, Alexandria and elsewhere. He claimed to have obtained degrees in philosophy from Universities in Moscow and in Odessa, that he was a protégé of a wealthy lady of the upper powerful social class and much more. But nothing is certain in the life of a man who seems to invent the studies, the friends and patrons, the authorities he later presents as guarantors of the authenticity of his work. After all, he himself claimed that he came from Stageira and that he was a descendant of Aristotle. In 1848 we find him in Athens. Simonides publishes a lost work of the 13th century that he attributes to a certain monk Meletios from Chios. The title is Symais, History of the Apollonian School and, as Rüdiger Saper notes, it is "a book the world has never seen before" (p. 124). The text documents the activity of an unknown group of philosophers, mathematicians and engineers during late antiquity. It is a carefully crafted pseudo-history or alternative history with references and scientific form. Sebastos from Symi invented paper and the telescope, Peristratos of Rhodes invented printing, the engineer Eudipos a speedboat. Inventions reminiscent of Da Vinci and Jules Verne are combined with pagan ceremonies and sexual orgies. Simonides is ahead of his time: The combination of fantasy technology and historical fiction is typical of cyberpunk, a subgenre of science fiction with a devoted following in Great Britain and the United States. I have no doubt that Simonides should be considered his forerunner, at least as much as Verne. Next is a work of geography of the 4th or 5th century. The author is a certain Elyros and the subject is Kefalonia. Here the forger-publisher is more restrained, "but at one point his inventive rage breaks out. This is the origin of the (fictional) city named Picrogamia, literally: bitter marriage." (p. 129).
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Κωνσταντίνος Σιμωνίδης, ίσως ο μεγαλύτερος πλαστογράφος του 19ου αιώνα. Γεννημένος γύρω στο 1820 στη Σύμη, έζησε στο Άγιο Όρος απ’ όπου βγήκε εξοπλισμένος με διάφορα σπανιότατα χειρόγραφα, μια πολύ καλή γνώση της αρχαίας και βυζαντινής γλώσσας και παλαιογραφίας, και το απίστευτο θράσος των είκοσι χρόνων του: τόσο ώστε να αρχίσει την καριέρα του, το 1849, με μια απίθανη δημοσίευση ενός έργου του 13ου αιώνα, σχετικού με την πατρίδα του τη Σύμη, και ψεύτικου από την αρχή ως το τέλος. Είναι η


Konstantinos Simonidis, perhaps the greatest forger of the 19th century. Born around 1820 in Symi, he lived on Mount Athos from where he came out equipped with various rare manuscripts, a very good knowledge of the ancient and Byzantine language and palaeography, and the incredible audacity of his twenty years: enough to start his career, in 1849, with an improbable publication of a work of the 13th century, related to his native Symi, and false from beginning to end. Is




Συμαϊς : ή, Ιστορία της εν Σύμηι Απολλωνιάδος Σχολής, ιδίως δε της αγιογραφικής καθέδρας και πρόδρομος των ανεκδότων ελληνικών χειρογράφων ... /... από Σιμωνίδης, Κωνσταντίνος, 1820-1867
Έκδοση 1849

Symais : or, History of the School of Apollonia in Symi, especially the hagiographic chair and precursor of the unpublished Greek manuscripts ... /... by Simonidis, Konstantinos, 1820-1867 Edition 1849
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
See also the Symais response of Andreas Moustoxydis:

Andreas Moustoxydis (1784-1860)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_Moustoxydis

CARM
https://forums.carm.org/threads/cod...e-codex-siniaticus.14468/page-16#post-1386071

Many refs in Genius book , one in English, Philosophy one

Siniossoglou, Niketas
Constantine Simonides and Philosophy - p. 055 -
https://books.google.com/books?id=go7fDgAAQBAJ&pg=PA55

This is another

"Der entlarvte Fälscher : Konstantinos Simonides in Athen (1847-1851)“, in : Müller/Diamantopoulou/Gastgeber/Katsiakiori-Rankl (Hg.), Die getäuschte Wissenschaft. Ein Genie betrügt Europa – Konstantinos Simonides, Wien 2017
https://www.academia.edu/en/3609195...trügt_Europa_Konstantinos_Simonides_Wien_2017

Lykurgos p. 66 and 48
https://books.google.com/books?id=3X2B-kaniakC&pg=PA66

https://books.google.com/books?id=6omSOUKRgjMC&pg=PA163
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
188

CHAPTER 16 TECHNOLOGIES ‘MADE IN GREECE’: KONSTANTINOS SIMONIDES’ STEAMPUNK INVENTIONS THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS
Lilia Diamantopoulou

‘The mirror’s fascination lies in its ambiguous relation to truth.’1 This is how Nikolas Calas introduces his Mirrors of the Mind (1975). In this essay he reflects on mirrors, prisms, self-reflections, narcissism, mechanical reproductions such as photography, and illusions as a part of reality from a philosophical, psychological and artistic perspective, taking into consideration examples that range from byzantine icons to Van Eyck and Picasso. Calas had already been preoccupied with mirrors in Confound the Wise; more than thirty years earlier he wrote: ‘Just as much as fire or steam or electric light or the camera, the mirror is a machine, machine meaning nothing else, as its Greek origin indicates, than invention’.2 Taking Calas’ thoughts as a starting point, my chapter deals with the relationship of mirrors and reflections to truth and reality, as well as illusion and deception in the work of Konstantinos Simonides, who vehemently advocated the Greek origin of several crucial European technological inventions of the nineteenth century. In 1849, Konstantinos Simonides, who is now known as a great forger, publishes the Symais, which is claimed by the editor to be a work of the Byzantine monk Meletios of Chios, dated back to the thirteenth century. Its subject is the ‘History of the Apollonian School of the Island of Symi’. The book is furnished with a detailed preface, footnotes and references in scientific form, as well as a glossary. Already on the title page Simonides appears as the sole editor, publishing the manuscript for the first time ‘unchanged with addition of notes and Prolegomena’.3 The text is a mélange of real and invented sources: historical characters like Stephanos Byzantios, Strabo, Eustatius of Thessalonica and Diodorus are mixed with imaginary authors and their treatises such as Eulyros and his ‘Eθνικά [National]’, or Laostefos and his ‘Ποικίλη Ιστορία [Varied History]’. As may have been expected, Simonides was preparing the way for future editions of these fictitious texts, which he announced in the footnotes and from which he had already published extracts in newspapers. The Symais is prefaced by a brief letter from the monk Meletios of Chios to his colleague Methodios. In the letter Meletios states that he now pursues his desire to provide informations about the most important painters of the Holy Mountain. The work ends with the wood print of the signature of Meletios, a note specifying that the work was completed in 1236. On page 61 we find an extended list of all teachers, pupils and inventors of the school of Symi, enriched with brief biographical information.4

189

Mirrors and Mirroring

The invented authorial persona of Meletios did not want to confine himself to the icon-painters of Mount Athos, and therefore he resolved to go back to the description of the Apollonian School founded in 377 ad on Symi, from which the first major school of icon-painting emerged.5 This kind of listing important painters and artists and their works is strongly reminiscent of Pliny’s Historia Naturalis (book 35) and Vasari’s Vite and may well have been inspired by them. According to Meletios, the High School of Symi was a miraculous site: it had already anticipated all the great inventions and technological achievements of modern times, since Late Antiquity and the early Greek Middle Ages. Among other things, the printing press, copper engraving (p. 16), the paper (p. 17), the fire cannon (pp. 20–23; 140–145), the telescope (p. 19) and the diving bell were invented there. Mirrors, glasses and polished silver plates play an important role as technical components of these inventions. As for Simonides, to detect and publicize these achievements constitutes a patriotic act. He writes in his comments to Symais: A new time dawns in Greece today. Thanks to Meletios from Chios. The invention of the telescope is considered a new thing, and is attributed to the German Jansen. If Germany boasted of Jansen and his puny telescope, how well must Greece [brag] to have the much wiser, much older, the great Sevastos who has not just invented the telescope, which is described as much more important than anything ever preceeding, but also oil painting, engraving, stone and wood printing, papermaking and more or less also the divine typography for which our contemporaries brag as inventors. Above all, however, is the mercury underwater boat (as it is described) that the Europeans have yet to invent, no matter how hard the wisest and most imaginative brains in Western Europe might ever try, persistently and pointlessly investing time. The Europeans boast of it, and with them, unfortunately, many of us who have become their advocates. But let the gentlemen know that compared to our immortal, glorious ancestors, whose fame we share as their true descendants, they are merely infants. And how many more superior inventions come from this school and bring forth the greatness of the Greeks, but remain buried or unknown because the written testimonies are lost.6 With the case of the telescope, Simonides consciously selects a prestigious object of first-class scientific value. The telescope is connected to the scientific revolution of the sixteenth/seventeenth centuries and is associated with names like Galileo Galilei, Tycho Brahe or Johannes Kepler.7 Certainly, Simonides had his ‘sources of inspiration’ and it might be presumed that he extracts his information from contemporary newspapers and reports on the current technological developments of his time in order to project them to the past as alleged technological achievements of ancient and medieval Greece. The description of the diving bell, that consisted of mirrors among other things, is a good example to illustrate this point:

190

Technologies ‘Made in Greece’

Anastasios Nikolaou dived to the bottom of the sea and rode around, wearing an asbestos suit and sitting in an iron bell and an iron ship constructed by concave mirrors and skins in the middle. Before diving, he made a coal fire in the iron bell, added mercury, moved the copper machines through fire and mercury, dived, and flames and steam shot out of the pipes.8 Actually, Simonides describes methods of immersion which are reminiscent of the technological developments of his own time. The anachronistic projection of the diving bell to a distant past is not unique, unusual or unprecedented, especially if seen against the background of literary traditions. Consider, for example, the numerous representations of Alexander the Great in the miniatures of illuminated manuscripts of Alexander’s romance, depicting the Hellenistic monarch in a diving bell.9 Finally, it is not uncommon for contemporary scientific works to seek prestigious origin for new inventions in (Greek and Roman) antiquity or in myth. This can be further illustrated by the example of the burning glass (Fig. 16.1). Wilhelm Benjamin Busch (1804: 195–206) discusses the origins of concave mirrors, beginning with Hebenstreits’ theory mentioned in De speculis (1727), according to which Prometheus, presented as a Caucasian prince, was the first to use burning glasses.10 As further sources of evidence for the knowledge of fire-making mirrors Busch recalls Plutarch and Pliny and deals with the question of the destruction of Marcellus’ Roman fleet by Archimedes with the help of such mirrors.11 The sources usually cited in the contemporary technological debate are ranging from Galen, Lucian, Anthemius of Tralles (‘Περί παραδόξων μηχανημάτων [Concerning Wondrus Machines]’, fragment printed by Dupuy in 1777), and far beyond this Zonaras (who cites the burning of Vitalianus’ fleet during the siege of Constantinople as a parallel example), to Tzetztes and Eustathios of Thessalonike; the latter refers to the writings of Diodorus of Sicily, Dio Cassius, Hero, Philo and many more,12 whose complete works, however, are lost (they survived either in fragments or in Arabic or Latin translations) and therefore their historical credibility is called into question.13 Athanasius Kircher (1602–1680) was one of the most famous scientists who tested such reports through experiments.14 After him other scientists and artists tried to manufacture burning glasses and prove that wood, stone, metals and even the almost indestructible diamond could be burned or melted by bundled sunlight. In this way, more or less authentic sources triggered a scientific Renaissance and modern scholars came up with their own inventions through practical examination of ancient sources. Seen under this light Simonides appears to be a man of his time, doing nothing less than his contemporaries by adding another (albeit fictional) incident to this series of reported inventions and inventors that anticipated modern developments. More specifically he reported that the Symian inventor Evdoupos managed to scare away Arab pirates by using burning mirrors from on top of the mountains of Symi.15 Moreover, Simonides also used texts generally accepted as real sources. He refers, for example, to the above mentioned Anthemius of Tralles (ca. 474–558), best known as one of the architects of the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, and presents him – as it might have 191

Mirrors and Mirroring

Fig. 16.1 Front page of the Latin edition of Alhazen’s Book of Optics (ed. Friedrich Risner, 1572) showing the use of burning mirrors, distorted images caused by refraction in water, rainbows and other optical effects.

been expected – as a student of the school of Symi.16 In a long footnote where Anthemius is praised as the inventor of steam power, he refers to his main sources Byzantida and Konstandiada, which are both fictitious works. The passage concludes with an anecdote extracted from Agathias Scholastikos Kyrinaios in the edition of Niebuhr.17 Simonides cites it with bibliographic accuracy.18 According to this (apparently real) source, Anthemius was in dispute with his neighbour Zenon, who had built his house too high. Since Anthemius did not achieve anything by legal means, he contrived other ways to annoy Zeno: he virtually engineered a minor earthquake by sending steam through leather tubes he had fixed around Zeno’s house and by simulating thunder and lightning into Zeno’s eyes from a slightly hollowed mirror. In Anthemius’ treatise ‘On Burning Glasses’, the ancient sage intended to construct a kind of surface that would reflect sunlight to a single point, thus trying to recreate the mirror construction of Archimedes, with which the ancient Greek engineer was said to have set fire to Roman ships at the Battle of Syracuse. Unluckily, Anthemius failed. Apparently inspired by this (seemingly very imaginative) passage, Simonides reports of (the fictitious) Sevastos, who 192

Technologies ‘Made in Greece’

experimented with burning glasses in a similar way, inventing also a two weeks lasting ‘luminous ball [φωτοβόλος σφαίρα]’ and leaving behind ten books entitled ‘Michanikon’.19 Sevastos’s end, Simonides claimed, was tragic as he was hit and burned by his own invention: a jet of fire produced by a ‘huge mirror [μέγα κάτοπτρον]’ (p. 22). The significance of the reflected image, mirrors and optics is also crucial in order to comprehend another invention, the ‘heliotypia’, a forerunner of photography. As expected, Simonides attributes this invention to the Greeks. Simonides repeats the attribution of the heliotypia to the Greek legendary Athonite monk/painter Manuel Panselinos in his forged version of the ‘Painter’s Manual’.20 In Simonides’ version of the Manual we are dealing with several forms of textual counterfeiting. It should first be noted that the basis was provided by a manuscript which is not suggested as fiction. Simonides’ source, the ‘Painter’s Manual’, is supposed to have been written between 1723 and 1733 by Dionysius of Phourna (ca. 1670–1745), an Athonite monk, based on presumed older manuals. The Manual contained instructions for the production of pigments and provided instruction and iconographic guidance for the illustration of individual figures and complex compositions. Moreover, it introduced the reader to the world of the ‘anthivola’ (preparatory drawings on paper), their production and the technologies of their use for the faithful reproduction of standard iconographic types of saints and scenes either on murals or on icons. The Manual had and still has a wide circulation among painters but became public only after a French translation was edited by Adolph Didron and Paul Durand in 1845. They discovered the book in 1839, during a journey on Mount Athos.21 Konstantinos Simonides, who visited Mount Athos at about the same time as the French travellers, made a copy of his own from the original manuscript around 1840, which he later offered to the Frenchmen.22 The main concern of the Simonideian version was to falsely date the manuscript back to the year 1458. Both, title page and incorporated text, should indicate this year.23 Simonides had intended to imitate a linguistically older style by means of corrections; however, Alexandros Rangavis (1851, 553), Papadopoulos Kerameus (1909) and Stefanos Koumanoudis unmasked it as a forgery.24 Simonides announced in the newspapers that he had in his possession a more complete and more accurate version of the ‘Painter’s Manual’, and thus presented it to a circle of Greek scholars in Athens. The Ministry of Education of the ‘Bavarocracy’ appointed a specialized examination-committee in order to investigate the authenticity of Simonides’ manuscript, which was declared an original. Nevertheless, several scholars, such as Rangavis, remained sceptical.25 Simonides’ manuscript was finally edited in 1853 and it evidently contained fake passages that are not found in any other version of the ‘Painters’ Manual’.26 The most outstanding fake passage is the one referring to Manouel Panselinos. There the legendary painter is declared not only the greater Greek painter of all but also the inventor of heliotypia, a precursor of (colour!) photography.27 The procedure is described as follows: How to raise houses, trees, animals, people, and whatever else you desire, into the sunlight.
193

Mirrors and Mirroring

First set out to construct a telescope of walnut wood that can be unscrewed in the middle; then fix two rounded pieces of glass to either side. These pieces of glass are made in Constantinople by the famous Joasaph of Polycarp, whose workshop is near the church of the Three Hierarchs. Then build a stand upon which to place it. [. . .] Then take red powder, the kind that goldsmiths use for cleaning silver and gold, and sugarstone, which you must first burn in the oven and then rub until it becomes white like flour. In this powder you must add the juice from wild celery root, after having boiled it well and kneaded it, and once it dries you must rub it again. [. . .] Then [. . .] you must polish the panel [. . .] until it shines. [. . .] You must then take your instrument and point it at what you wish to bring into the light, and once you have managed to project the outlines of the objects on the back glass clearly, you must carefully place the panel in its place, and quickly uncover the piece of glass at the front, but only until you can count to ten. [. . .]. And even you will be amazed; for not only will the forms be unaltered, but the natural colours will also be the same, and I dare say, they will appear even more beautiful.28 This section did not find its way into the French edition of the Encheiridion by Didron and Durand.29 Simonides explained the omission as either an indication of the incompleteness of the manuscript used by Didron and Durand, or an indication of their malicious intentions.30 At the same time, his description is intended to challenge the invention of photography as a French invention and to present it as a Greek invention instead. At any rate, Manouel Gedeon and Konstantinos Oikonomos were the first to accept the thesis that Panselinos was the inventor of photography, although they themselves noted that Simonides’ description of the heliotypia clearly had parallels with Daguerre’s (1787–1851) Manual of Photography, while the name ‘heliotypia’ itself goes back to Joseph Nicéphore Niépces’ (1765–1833) ‘heliography’.31 In the description quoted above, chemicals that could not have existed in the sixteenth century were replaced by Simonides with natural ‘juice of wild celery’ or ‘crushed shellfish’, thus making out of Simonides an early representative of steampunk.32 The whole procedure of observing through a hole in the window the mirror-inverted projection of an image onto the opposite wall, as set out in the further course of the Simonideian painter’s manual, is much reminiscent of the techniques used by of the camera obscura (Fig. 16.2): I made this discovery as follows: one day I slept until noon, when I stayed in the monastic Skete of Saint Demetrios; suddenly I woke up from a terrible dream and I saw on the wall of my room various trees, animals, monks and similar things. First, I became ecstatic and I watched for one hour, then it went off. Then I observed that the window of my room had a hole in the size of a Konstantinato-coin, and opposite it a wall with a window, and between them was a large glass [. . .] and on that glass was drawn shadowy everything I saw, and I was amazed.33

194

Technologies ‘Made in Greece’

Most probably Simonides knew about it through his education as a painter and engraver as well as via foreign travellers who were using the camera obscura frequently.34 Furthermore, it should be noted that the first photo studios of the newly established Greek state, shortly after the invention of the new medium, beside Athens, were set up on Mount Athos.35 Simonides himself, being a person who visited several libraries worldwide and resided in the monasteries of Mount Athos and at Saint Catherine’s on Sinai – both places claiming to possess the largest reservoir of manuscripts and early printed books – he could have easily accessed fundamental sources containing theories of optics, vision, light and colour as for example basic works like The Book of Optics (printed in 1572 by Friedrich Risner, see Fig. 16.1) by the medieval Arab scholar known as Alhazen (965– 1039/40) or the popular Magiae Naturalis (1558) by Giambattista della Porta (ca. 1535– 1615). All these treatises were accessible in various editions, and they all contained similar descriptions of burning mirrors and camerae obscurae (Fig. 16.2). The attempt to cast images of the real world by optical aids led to the development of technical innovations regarding the projection, reflection and fixation of the image on a surface, either by copying the image with the technique of traditional anthivola, with the help of a camera obscura, camera lucida or with curved mirrors, or later on by capturing it with chemical photography.36

Fig. 16.2 Ink drawing of a camera obscura from an early seventeenth century illustrated Sketchbook on military art, including geometry, fortifications, artillery, mechanics, and pyrotechnics (Rosenwald Coll. ms. no. 27, p. 249; Library of Congress, Rare Books and Special Collections Division). 195

Mirrors and Mirroring

According to my understanding, Simonides is trying meticulously to sneak in the idea of a Renaissance back in Byzantine time. For the Greeks, the return to the classical principles of image-making was not a re-discovery, but a continuation process that preserved the ancient Greeks’ achievements through Byzantium. Moreover, he underlines the significance of the Byzantine link for the transmission of knowledge to the West and the development of sciences and the arts. In cases where the sources do not attest to his theoretical schema, he allows himself to help a little. In this context Simonides goes another step further in his mystification of the painter Panselinos: he publishes an engraving of the Evangelist Matthew’s portrait, a facsimile of a fresco painting allegedly preserved on Mount Athos and made by Hierotheus in the fifth century. The latter was a disciple of Manouel Panselinos (Simonides 1861 and 1862, frontispiece). The painting bears no similarities to any other painting by Panselinos or his disciples and is rendered in a clearly western, naturalistic style, which comes to confirm Didron’s declaration of Panselinos to be ‘le Raphaèl ou plutót le Giotto de l’école byzantine’.37 In a commentary to the painting, which eventually develops into a concise treatise on Byzantine art in general, Simonides concludes that garments and ornaments in this painting ‘denote the affinity between Grecian and Byzantine art’.38 It is again Rangavis who reveals the fraud: he confirms that he himself saw Simonides in the library for hours, copying an image from a large book. If we now summarize Simonides’ balancing act between fact and fiction according to what has been said above, we reach the following conclusion: his presumed philological editions are meticulously made to look like scientific editions. In an age when philology as a scientific field flourished, Simonides emulated the characteristics of widely circulating philological editions by imitating the printed image, adding footnotes and annotations, transcriptions, illustrations, engravings and facsimiles. In the footnotes, he clearly differentiates between his own words (‘editor’s notes’) and quotes (source references). In my mind, what is striking is his constant concern to advertise and confirm the originality and authenticity of the presented text. To forestall critics, Simonides denies his authorship in his editions, arguing that he never could have that much imagination. But when it comes to credibility and originality, why is the text so easily debunked as a fake? Simonides is – like almost every other counterfeiter – an incorrigible narcissist; in the end, he does not want to be remembered as the mere publisher of the discovered texts, but as their author. And if it were not for his conspicuous (in some cases unethical and criminal) intention to deceive, Simonides would have earned poetic laurels. Disillusionment leads above all to the fact that the quoted sources and names of persons, places and writers cannot be verified by other sources as they do not appear anywhere else. According to Rangavis (1851, 595), it is also the similarities in style in all discovered manuscripts that convict him as a forger. In addition to the personal motivations that drive each counterfeiter – Anthony Grafton cites social or professional ambitions, fun or hatred39 – Simonides clearly has also ideological reasons. His forgeries, as has been shown, have mainly socio-political intentions: through his ‘discoveries’ he tries to shape the image of Greece outside its tight borders, and therefore he makes an earnest effort to contribute to the process of nation196

Technologies ‘Made in Greece’

building. At the same time, he takes advantage of the zeal of the Europeans – mostly German and French travellers and scholars – who demonstrated an increasing interest in the late antique and medieval culture of the Greek-speaking world. In Greece, the Simonides phenomenon became a national affair: the newspapers took sides either in favour or against him. In the end a committee of experts was formed to decide on the authenticity of the manuscripts, and whether the publication of his works, which would be deemed a national treasure if their authenticity was proven, should be promoted by the state or not. The committee of experts under the ‘Bavarian Reign’, resolved that a large part of the Simonideian corpus should be genuine. Patriotic motivation still plays a fundamental role in the ongoing recognition of his work. This is evident in a hitherto unpublished poetic reception of Simonides’ Symais by Kalodoukas N. Kyramarios (also Kyramaridis Polynikou Simaiou, 1862–1945). The poem, which relates the history of the island of Syme from the year 1885,40 lists the inventors and their inventions mentioned in Symais and praises Simonides himself as the ‘wise man who best told the story of the island of Syme’. Simonides’ nationalist-patriotic counterfeiting activities are undoubtedly an extreme and dazzling case. Despite this, it highlights and illuminates the interrelated processes of nineteenth-century nation-building and how the education of the nation is involved with fictional narratives. Early research on nationalism was in constant use of concepts such as ‘invented traditions’ (Eric Hobsbawm) or ‘imagined communities’ (Benedict Anderson). Simonides provides us with an idealistic and almost stereotypical example of the temptations of fiction for national narratives.41 If we come back to the subject of mirrors and mirroring we can summarize their usage in art (painting, photography) and science (technological inventions) by projecting on two figures: Narcissus and Prometheus. Although they seem to be very different figures, Narcissus and Prometheus have one thing in common: the mirror. Nikolas Calas, who was mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, had outlined the relation between Narcissus and Prometheus in an inspirational way. We can conclude with his words: ‘The doctrine of art for art’s sake makes of art the mirror of art and of Narcissus the opposite of Prometheus. The dichotomy must be overcome. Fire is produced by holding a mirror to the sun’ (Calas 1975, 9). One could argue that Simonides himself bears characteristics of both Narcissus and Prometheus: on the one hand, he possesses narcissistic selfadmiration, on the other hand he displays creative ambitions. Simonides is not writing for himself; his works are not meant to be just belles lettres. His actions are aiming at a wider audience, pursuing highly ambitious cultural-changing goals.

==========================

Chapter 16 1. The poet and art historian Nikolas Calas (1907–1988) is well-known as a key figure in the development of Surrealism in Greece, but what is less known is that he was also a great admirer of mirrors. The booklet Mirrors of the Mind accompanied a portfolio of prints and objects by renowned artists like Vincenzo Agnetti, Arakawa, Joseph Beuys, Marcel Broodthaers, Richard Hamilton, Roy Lichtenstein, Bruce Nauman, Meret Oppenheim, 242

Notes to pp. 189–193 Robert Rauschenberg, Man Ray and James Rosenquist and was presented in a number of international exhibitions (USA, Italy, Mexico, Greece) curated and compiled by himself in the years 1975–1977. 2. Calas 1942, 200. 3. Simonides 1849, frontpage. 4. The section closes again with the wood print of the signature of Meletios (p. 174) and his testament (175–178) and is followed by the biography of Eulyros written by a certain Nikephoros Daidalou from Corfu (pp. 178–180). 5. Simonides 1849, 3 Fn. 1; 61 (source in Greek). 6. Simonides 1849, 19. 7. For further reading see Van Helden/Dupré/Van Gent 2010, Edgerton 2009 and Willach 2008. 8. Simonides 1849, 93 (source in Greek). 9. This is for example the case in a miniature in a manuscript from the thirteenth century (No. 11040, Burgundy Library Brussels) printed in Beebe 1938, Fig. 6. 10. Busch 1804, 196. 11. For a thorough examination of the Archimedean mirror legend, see Simms 1977, 1–24. 12. To the list of sources mentioned by Busch Diocles should be added; see Toomer 1976. For burning glasses in Greek antiquity in general Knorr 1983 and Acerbi, 2011. 13. The Archimedian invention is discussed in Dutens 1775. Cf. also Donndorf ‘Metallspiegel’, ‘Brennspiegel’, Donndorf, 1818, 76; both could be Simonides’ sources. 14. See Ars magna lucis et umbrae, Rome 1646, 888, Tab. XXXI. 15. Simonides 1849, 104–105. 16. See Simonides 1849, 20 footnote. For more information about Anthemius see Huxley 1959. 17. Niebuhr 1828, Book E, pp. 291–294. 18. Simonides may have known the ‘Fragments’ of Anthemius through the edition of Westermann’s Παραδοξογράφοι [Marvel Writers] whose work may generally have been a source of inspiration for Simonides. Cf. specifically for mirrors and their typology in Anthemius, Westermann 1839, 149–158. 19. Simonides notes in a footnote to this invention: ‘What can one say about this ball of light? Physicists should comment on this’ (p. 23, fn. 1). 20. According to recent research, the painter Panselinos became legendary, so that the question has now been raised if he was ‘man or metaphor’; on that see Milliner 2016. 21. Didron 1845, XXI, XXIII–XXVI and Kakavas 2008, 10. Brockhaus 1891, 160 fn. 3 mentions two manuals he saw in Karyes. Kakavas 2008, 267–301 lists 69 manuscripts of the ‘Painters’ Manual’, four of which he attributes to Simonides. See also Hetherington’s list on pp. 113–115. The publication contains many comments and has a long introduction. It is interesting that Didron dedicated it to the writer Victor Hugo, ‘the immortal author of the Notre Dame de Paris [L’immortel auteur de Notre-Dame de Paris]’, Didron 1845, frontpage. The manual was printed at the expense of the French government, see Unger 1870, 292. 22. See Omont 1888, 367, No. 38 and Kakavas 2008, 11. According to Omont 1888, 367, 38 and 39 and ibid. 1890, 432–433, there were two manuscripts in the Municipal Library in Chartres that came from Paul Durand to the library. Durand No. 827 (in Omont No. 38) is a copy made by Simonides at Athos around 1840 (Pap. 268 fol. P.); Durand 828 (in Omont No. 39) is a copy made by Durand (Pap. 409 fol. P). However, the former was destroyed during a bombing in 1944, see Hetherington 1974, V Fn. 7 and Kakavas 2008, 270–271. The manuscript 243

Notes to pp. 193–195 contained a note written by Durand (Hetherington 1974, v. 7) stating it was purchased from Simonides in 1847. There was a note from Simonides, that he had found it on Mount Athos on 15 March 1840 and copied it (Omont, 1888, 3, 367, no. 38). See also PapadopoulosKerameus 1909, ε’, footnote 3 and Kakavas 2008, 11 footnote 23. For further headings of the manuscripts related to Simonides see Papadopoulos-Kerameus 1909, ιγ’-ιε’, Fn. 1. 23. Papadopoulos-Kerameus 1909, ε’-η’, ιδ’-κε’ and Kakavas 2008, 11. 24. See Lykourgos 1856, 45ff. Brockhaus 1891: 158–161 deals extensively with the question of the linguistic differences between the manuscripts. Sathas 1868, 99–100, on the other hand, is deceived by Simonides and sees in the modern Greek of the manual an important example for the vernacular of the fifteenth century, its alleged time of writing. 25. For more details on this case see Mitsou and Diamantopoulou in Müller/Diamantopoulou/ Gastgeber/Katsiakiori-Rankl 2017, 71–86 and 27–53. 26. See Kakavas 2008, 12. 27. Simonides dates the life of the inventor of the heliotype Manouil Panselinos to the sixth century and specifically in 518 ad. In the Symais a second painter called Panselinos is mentioned, who acted around 1032–1085. In his work Νικολάου επισκόπου Μεθώνης, Λόγος προς τους Λατίνους [Speech of Nikolaos, bishop of Methoni, to the Latins] (Simonides 1858) he mentions three other painters of the same name. 28. Simonides 1853, § 64, 40–41 (source in Greek). 29. For a detailed discussion of this omission and a comparison of the French and the Simonideian editions, see Rangavis 1851, 554–555. 30. ‘Aτέλειαν του εκγαλλισθέντος χειρογράφου, ή εις κακοβουλίαν του μεταφραστού’ (Simonides, Αμάλθεια Nr. 508, quoted after Rangavis 1851, 554). Rangavis points out the problems of this argument and says that such a ‘malicious concealment’ is a ‘patriotism that transcends that of Curtius, or is incredible stupidity’ (Rangavis 1851, 554). 31. Oikonomos refers to the manuscript as antique (‘χειρόγραφον αρχαίον σώζεται’ Oikonomos 1849, 4, 218, Fn. α) and recognizes in the heliotype a form of iconography which he compares to the daguerrotype. See also Papadopoulos-Kerameus 1909, στ᾽-ζ’, Rangavis 1851, 553 Fn. β and Brockhaus 1891, 160 Fn. 4. Manouil Gedeon names Panselinos as the first inventor of photography: ‘πρώτος εφευρέτης της φωτογραφίας, γράψας μάλιστα, κατά την παράδοσιν, και βιβλίον περί αυτής’, Gedeon 1876, 53–54. See also Vasilaki 1999, 45. 32. The connection of Simonides’ anachronistic technologies with the term ‘steampunk’ was first formulated by Siniosoglou 2016, 315. 33. Simonides 1853, § 64, 43 (source in Greek). In Hero of Alexandrias De Speculis, 22 occurs a similar description: Hero refers to a mirror on the ceiling of a room reflecting the view of the street through a tube that penetrates the wall of a certain building. The resident of this building was able to see, without being seen, the movement of passers-by outside. For further reading on mirrors and reflected images in Hero see Gerolemou and Bur in this volume. 34. For further reading on the camera obscura in art and science see Lefèvre (2007). For the early steps of photography in Greece see Xanthakis 1981. 35. For example, the work of the Russian art collector, amateur archaeologist and photographer Piotr Sevastianov (1811–1867) is well-known. He toured Athos at an early age, around 1851, 1852, and later more extensively from 1857–1860, and not only painted copious icons with several major Russian missions and other treasures, but also made numerous photographs; see Pyatnitsky 2011. 36. According to a theory advocated by the artist David Hockney and the physicist Charles M. Falco, art itself was revolutionized by the use of optical instruments, rather than solely due to 244

Notes to pp. 195–197 the development of artistic skills per se. In his book Secret Knowledge (2001) Hockney presented rich visual evidence to prove his theory, followed by an anthology of textual sources about vision and optics and the transcription of letters exchanged between various academics and himself during his research. It also includes pictures of Hockney’s Great Wall (2000), which organizes printed images of art history; remarkably it begins with an Italo-Byzantine mosaic of the twelfth century from Norman Sicily. Obviously, the main concern of the artist is to visualize the abrupt shift towards a more naturalistic style during the Italian Renaissance, which Hockney explains by the use of lenses and mirrors – the two basic elements of the modern camera – in painting. 37. Didron 1845, 7. 38. Simonides 1864, 51. 39. Grafton 1991, 45–47. 40. See Kladaki-Vratsanou 2009 and 2010. The manuscript is owned by his grandson Loukas Kyramarios, who made it accessible online http://kyramarios.blogspot.com (accessed 15 December 2018). 41. This aspect of counterfeiting activities (also fake news, forged letters and documents) during the first years of the Independence War and in the early Greek State is the subject of a project I am leading at the University of Hamburg, financed by the German Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF).

=============================

Chapter 16 Acerbi, F. (2011), ‘The geometry of burning mirrors in Greek antiquity: Analysis, heuristic, projections, lemmatic fragmentation’, Archive for History of Exact Sciences 65(5): 471–97. Beebe, W. (1938), 923 Meter unter dem Meerespiegel, Leipzig. Brockhaus, H. (1891), Die Kunst in den Athos-Klöstern, Leipzig.

274

Bibliography Busch, G. (1804), Handbuch der Erfindungen, Vol. 2, Eisenach. Calas, N. (1942), Confound the Wise, New York. Calas, N. (1975), Mirrors of the Mind, New York. Daguerre, L. (1839), Histoire et description des procédés de Daguerréotype et du Diorama, Paris. Della Porta, G. (1558), Magiae Naturalis, Naples. Didron, N. (1845), Manuel d’iconographie chrétienne grecque et latine, Paris. Dimaras, K. Th. (1937–1938), ‘Θεοφάνους του εξ Αγράφων βίος Διονυσίου του εκ Φουρνά’, Ελληνικά 10: 273–79. Donndorf, J. (1818), Geschichte der Erfindungen, Vol. 5, Leipzig. Dräseke, J. (1893), Vom Dionysioskloster auf dem Athos, in: Byzantinische Zeitschrift, Vol. 2.1, Jan. 1893, 79–95. Dupuy, L. (1777), Fragment d’ un ouvrage grec d’Anthémius, sur des paradoxes de mécanique, s. I. Dutens, L. (1775), Du miroir ardent d’Archimede, Paris. Edgerton, S. (2009), The Mirror, the Window, and the Telescope, Ithaca, NY. Gedeon, M. (1876), ‘Ποικίλη Στοά. Αθωνική αγιογραφία. Τοιχογραφίαι Πανσελήνου’, Πρωία vol. A´, 2, Nr. 7, 18. Oct. 1876, 53–54. Gedeon, M. (1885), Ο Άθως, Constantinople. Grafton, A. (1991), Fälscher und Kritiker: Der Betrug in der Wissenschaft, Berlin. Hetherington, P. (1974), The Painter’s Manual of Dionysius of Fourna, London. Hockney, D. (2001), The Secret Knowledge, London. Huxley, G. (1959), Anthemius of Tralles: A Study in Later Greek Geometry, Cambridge. Kakavas, G. (2008), Dionysios of Phourna (c. 1670–c. 1745). Artistic Creation and Literary Description, Leiden. Kirchner, A. (1646), Ars magna lucis et umbrae, Rome. Kladaki-Vratsanou, E. (2009), ‘Καλοδούκας Κυραμαριός του Νικολάου’, Symaikon Vima Sept.–Oct., 342: 5. Kladaki-Vratsanou, E. (2010), ‘O ηγετικός ρόλος της Σύμης’, Symaikon Vima May–June: 5. Knorr, W. R. (1983), ‘The geometry of burning-mirrors in antiquity’, Isis 74: 53–73. Lefèvre, W. (ed.) (2007), Inside the Camera Obscura: Optics and Art under the Spell of the Projected Image, preprint 333, Berlin. Lykurgos, A. (1856), Enthüllungen über den Simonides-Dindorfschen Uranios. Unter Beifügung eines Berichtes von Herrn Prof. Tischendorf, Leipzig. Millet, G. (1927), Monuments de l’ Athos, Les peintures, Paris. Milliner, M. (2016), ‘Man or metaphor? Manuel Panselinos and the Protaton frescoes’, in Johnson, Papalexandrou and Ousterhout (eds), Approaches to Byzantine Architecture and its Decoration, Burlington, Ontario, 221–35. Müller, Diamantopoulou, Gastgeber and Katsiakiori-Rankl (eds) (2017), Die getäuschte Wissenschaft. Ein Genie betrügt Europa, Vienna. Niebuhr, B. G. (1828), Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae, Pars III: Agathias, Bonn. Oikonomos, K. (1849), Περί των ερμηνευτών, Athens. Omont, H. (1888), Inventaire sommaire des manuscrits grecs de la Bibliotheque nationale et des autres bibliotèques de Paris et des Départements, III, Paris. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, A. (1909), Διονύσιου του εκ Φουρνά ερμηνεία της ζωγραφικής τέχνης, St Petersburg. Pyatnitsky, Y. (2011), ‘An imperial eye to the past: Byzantine exhibitions in the State Hermitage museum, 1861–2006’, Tyragetia, serie nouă V[XX](2): 71–98. Rangavis, A. R. (1851), ‘Σιμωνίδου χειρόγραφα’, Pandora 23 (Feb. 1851): 551–55; 24 (March 1851): 565–73; 25 (April 1851): 595–602; 26 (May 1851): 621–27.

275

Bibliography Restle, M. (1995), ‘Malerbücher’, in Marcell Restle and Klaus Wessel (eds), Reallexikon zur byzantinischen Kunst V: 1222–73. Risner, F. (ed.) (1572), Opticae Thesaurus Alhazeni, Basel. Russo, L. (2005), Die vergessene Revolution oder die Wiedergeburt antiken Wissens, Berkeley, CA. Sathas, K. (1868), Νεοελληνική φιλολογία. Βιογραφίαι εν τοις γράμμασι διαλαμψάντων Ελλήνων από της καταλύσεως της βυζαντινής αυτοκρατορίας μέχρι της ελληνικής εθνεγερσίας (1453–1821), Athens. Simms, D. L. (1977), ‘Archimedes and the burning mirrors of Syracuse’, Technology and Culture 18: 1–24. Simonides, K. (1848), Περί Ηλιοτυπίας και ανεκδότων τινών αρχαίων χειρογράφων νεωστί ανακαλυφθέντων, Athens. Simonides, K. (ed. and trans.) (1864), The Periplus of Hannon, London. Simonides, K. (ed.) (1849), Συμαΐς ή Ιστορία της εν Σύμη Απολλωνιάδος Σχολής [. . .] υπό Μελετίου ιερομονάχου του εκ Χίου, Athens. Simonides, K. (ed.) (1850), Γεωγραφικά τε και Νομικά την Κεφαληνίαν αφορώντα [. . .] Ευλύρου Κεφαλλήνος του Πυλαρέως, Athens. Simonides, K. (ed.) (1853), Eρμηνεία των ζωγράφων ως προς την εκκλησιαστικήν ζωγραφιάν, Athens. Simonides, K. (ed.) (1861 and 1862), Facsimiles of Certain Portions of the Gospel of St. Matthew, London. Siniosoglou, N. (2016), Αλλόκοτος ελληνισμός, Athens. Toomer, G. (trans.) (1976), Diocles on Burning Mirrors, New York. Tsigaridas, E. (2008), Οι τοιχογραφίες του παρεκκλησίου του Αγίου Ευθυμίου (1302/03) στον Ναό του Αγίου Δημητρίου: Έργο του Μανουήλ Πανσέληνου στην Θεσσαλονίκη, Thessaloniki. Unger, Fr. W. (1870), ‘Christlich-griechische oder byzantinische Kunst’, in H. Brockhaus (ed.), Griechenland. Geographisch, geschichtlich und culturhistorisch, Bd. 5, Leipzig, 291–474. Van Helden, A., Dupré, S. and Van Gent, R. (2010), The Origins of the Telescope, Amsterdam. Vasilaki, M. (1999), Ο Μανουήλ Πανσέληνος και η εποχή του, Athens. Vlachos, K. (1903), Η χερσόνησος του Αγίου Όρους και εν αυτή μοναί και οι μοναχοί πάλαι τε και νυν, Volos. Westermann, A. (1839), Παραδοξογράφοι [Paradoxographoi], Scriptores rerum mirabilium Graeci, Braunschweig and London (= Amsterdam 1963). Willach, R. (2008), The Long Route to the Invention of the Telescope, Philadelphia. Xanthakis, A. (1991), Ιστορία της ελληνικής φωτογραφίας, Athens.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
My additions:

Helpful references.

For Lykurgos, it might be easier to use the Google books:

Enthüllungen über den Simonides-Dindorfschen Uranios (1856)
https://books.google.com/books?id=3X2B-kaniakC&pg=PA66

For
Andreas Mustoxydes (1785-1860)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_Moustoxydis

on Simonides viewed by Musoxydes you have this excellent report:

Neohellenica: An Introduction to Modern Greek in the Form of Dialogue Containing Specimens of the Language from the Third Century B.C. to the Present Day; to which is Added an Appendix Giving Examples of the Cypriot Dialect (1892)
Michael Constantinides (looking for bio)
English translation by Major-Gen. H. T. Rogers, R.E.
https://books.google.com/books?id=oCkTAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA376
https://archive.org/details/neohellenicaintr00consiala/neohellenicaintr00consiala/page/376/mode/2up

1702783807762.png


Also a review by:

A History of Classical Scholarship ...: The eighteenth century in Germany, and the nineteenth century in Europe and the United States of America (1908)
John Edwin Sandys (1844-1922)
https://books.google.com/books?id=bBBLnkP5SJkC&pg=PA369
p. 369 and p. 382

In general, Lilia's article on Steampunk, which is focused on Symais, is helpful!

The interesting article with Panselinos from Lilia is:
Technologies‘Made in Greece’: Konstantinos Simonides’ Steampunk Inventions through the Looking-Glass
Lilia Diamantopoulo

The Genius book has Andreas Mustoxydes mentioned many times, usually in German, the one English reference on p. 55 in the "Constantine Simonides and Philosophy" paper by Niketas Siniossoglou is similar and then points to Lykourgos.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
===========================
ADD

Έτσι, επικαλείται τον Μουστοξύδη ως άλλοθι επιστημονικής εγκυρότητας και αληθείας, προκαλώντας τον να πάρει θέση επί του βιβλίου.

"He thereby invokes [Or: "calls upon"] Mustoxidis as an alibi of scientific validity and truth, challenging [Or: "provoking"] him to take a stand [Or: “a position”] on the book.”

===========================
 

Steven Avery

Administrator

The forger

To Mina Petropoulou
The first book published by Konstantinos Simonides, in 1849, contains forged Christian manuscripts. It is written in the form and language, and has the discourse structure, of a Byzantine chronicle. Today, we should consider it, and evaluate it, as a leading metafictional narrative, which traverses the themes of a raging historiographical and scientific fiction.

The adventure of writing begins already from the title, since Simonides declares that he publishes the found manuscripts without change: "Symais, or history of the School of Apollonias in Symi, especially the hagiographic chair; and a precursor of the unpublished Greek manuscripts. This History begins in the three hundred and seventh year AD, from this time the School was founded, and ends in the one thousand one hundred and forty eight AD, when it was destroyed by the Crusaders. It was written under Meletios Hieromonach of Chios in the 18th century AD, and the first published by Constantinos Simonidos, without any changes, after notes and prefaces".

On the second page, the phrase "The unsigned are persecuted" is printed, and Simonides puts his handwritten signature on each copy below, confirming the authenticity of his forgery, since there was no Hieromonk Meletios, nor did the Apollonian School flourish in Symi, nor in it were made paintings and sculptures of unprecedented beauty, let alone major inventions, such as paper, printing, copper engraving, the telescope, steam propulsion, high-speed boats, or scientific discoveries in the fields of cosmography and the reading of hieroglyphs, nor of course in it alchemy progressed...

On the third page, there is a dedication to the prominent historian of the 19th century, archaeologist and expert on manuscripts, Andreas Moustoxidis: "I close Andreas Moustoxidis, I pray for Corfu, education and virtue, adorned everywhere, and an old treasurer of archaeology, the forerunner of Greek unpublished manuscripts, godly ascension". Thus, he invokes Moustoxidis as an alibi of scientific validity and truth, challenging him to take a position on the book.

Next comes the "Prolegomena", eighty-two pages long, with extensive notes and references, which refer to the history of the island of Symi, and literaryly compete with, if not surpass, the prologues of Emmanuel Roidis in "Papissa Joanna" (1866). In fact, at the end is attached a letter of recommendation (forged, of course) from the Patriarch of Constantinople, Anthimos, who affirms that Simonides studied there, for more than a year, "admired for his intelligence, and loved and applauded" by his classmates and of his teachers, and how he left for Odessa to continue his studies at the university-level seminars of the Lyceum Richelieu, a fact also confirmed by a document from the Greek Consulate, also pointing out the virtues of Simonides.


All of this is probably necessary, because objections have already been raised to some of Simonides' early publications in the Athenian press, that is, doubts about the authenticity of the evidence they contained. Presenting these certificates, and one more about his glorious family origin, signed by eight officers of the Greek army and a senator (the original of their signatures is certified by the mayor Atalantis...), Simonides answers his critics that , on the contrary, they are lying, "those unsigned columnists, who were born to slander, and to fabricate unheard of and unrecognizable falsehoods. Pudency!!!".

And the main body of the book, i.e. the manuscript of the hieromonk Meletius, "Symais, or History of the School of Apollonia in Symi", notes in the preface: in bed in old age, wetting my cheeks with the fountains of my tears. And when the first year of my idleness ceased, and the second came, thirteen days passed, but I advanced with the steps of giants. That many a time in my sleep I touched the truth, but immediately I was abandoned by it, and I became angry at the loss. But in the meantime I was preparing to leave my worm-eaten pouch and leave, slamming my door behind me.

Before the fourteenth day dawned, while the dawn was barely breaking, I was already completely exhausted, bowing my knees, prostrate to the ground septuagenarian, tearful and exhausted and helpless. But by divine power I am suddenly strengthened, and immediately I stand up, and leaving the Mount I pass through Macedonia, Thessaly, the islands, and Byzantium, pursuing the truth, like the stern of a ship opening roads on land and like the plow of a farmer crossing the sea, opposing the winds and the times of all, until he saw the truth hidden in an invisible cloud, and the dragon from the crown, returned to the divine Mount, the garden of the Immaculate Conception and Theotokos Mary.

Now, I have this underhand, pay my wish without fail...".

Here, in addition to the declared fierce, violently erotic, desire for the truth, Simonides uses the verb "to leave" in the dialect of Chios, as "to leave", in order to certify, and emphasize, the origin of the hieromonk Meletius from the said island...

But the case of Simonides, I think, compels us to continue next Sunday as well.

KOSTAS VOULGARIS



Get a subscription to the printed Dawn
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Two complemenary accounts

Odysseas Gilis

Lilia

Wonderful 1840 confirmations of Simonides at Athos working with skill in post #7!

Between 1836 and 1840 he is on Athos, where he seems to have gained access to a hidden library of the Panteleimon Monastery, a unique source of scrolls and ancient manuscripts. In Athos, he develops an unusual talent in calligraphy and palaeography, learns to experiment with ancient papyri, to manufacture ink on a purely organic basis and special tuberosities, but also to intervene in the deepest layers of palimpsests, reversing the usual practice.

Simonides’ source, the ‘Painter’s Manual’, is supposed to have been written between 1723 and 1733 by Dionysius of Phourna (ca. 1670–1745), an Athonite monk, based on presumed older manuals. The Manual contained instructions for the production of pigments and provided instruction and iconographic guidance for the illustration of individual figures and complex compositions. Moreover, it introduced the reader to the world of the ‘anthivola’ (preparatory drawings on paper), their production and the technologies of their use for the faithful reproduction of standard iconographic types of saints and scenes either on murals or on icons. The Manual had and still has a wide circulation among painters but became public only after a French translation was edited by Adolph Didron and Paul Durand in 1845. They discovered the book in 1839, during a journey on Mount Athos.21 Konstantinos Simonides, who visited Mount Athos at about the same time as the French travellers, made a copy of his own from the original manuscript around 1840, which he later offered to the Frenchmen.22

According to Omont 1888, 367, 38 and 39 and ibid. 1890, 432–433, there were two manuscripts in the Municipal Library in Chartres that came from Paul Durand to the library. Durand No. 827 (in Omont No. 38) is a copy made by Simonides at Athos around 1840 (Pap. 268 fol. P.); Durand 828 (in Omont No. 39) is a copy made by Durand (Pap. 409 fol. P). However, the former was destroyed during a bombing in 1944, see Hetherington 1974, V Fn. 7 and Kakavas 2008, 270–271. The manuscript 243

Notes to pp. 193–195 contained a note written by Durand (Hetherington 1974, v. 7) stating it was purchased from Simonides in 1847. There was a note from Simonides, that he had found it on Mount Athos on 15 March 1840 and copied it (Omont, 1888, 3, 367, no. 38).
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Omont (1888)
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k2091353/f371.item
https://books.google.com/books?id=Rih9Fyy4d-wC&pg=PA367

1703123430010.png


Yes

Maybe
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Dionysius Fourna Phourna etc without painter’s Manual

https://www.google.com/search?q="di...gBAeIDBBgBIEGIBgE&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp

======

Luciano Canfora
http://www.siculorum.unict.it/views/home/article-detail.php?id=264
https://www.jstor.org/stable/44081202
https://www.e-periodica.ch/cntmng?pid=mhl-001:2013:70::288

======

https://archive.org/stream/1994-buc...easures of Byzantine Art and Culture_djvu.txt





https://forums.carm.org/threads/cod...his-forgeries-on-mt-athos.16526/#post-1314926
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
New? Move to 1933 collins etc

British Museum Quarterly - 1933
https://archive.org/details/dli.ministry.10609/mode/2up

. But although these ancient codices unite to preserve some good readings rejected by many later manuscripts and concur in the omission of a few important passages, as, for instance, the last twelve verses of St Mark, they were not copied from a common exemplar; so that, to borrow the words of Sir Frederic Kenyon once more, ‘the independence of their testimony is not seriously impaired’. Hardly had the Codex Sinaiticus been completed when the first of its many correctors set to work. The pages at present displayed in the show-case afford a striking illustration of the importance of these corrections for the textual criticism of the Bible. The book lies open at St Luke’s Gospel (Pl. XXIX, Frontispiece, and, on a larger scale, two columns on Pl. XXX), On the latter, in ch. xxii. 43, 44, we read of the appearance of the Angel to Christ in the Garden and of the Bloody Sweat. This passage of surpassing pathos, one universally held in deep reverence, is omitted from several of the best manuscripts. Rows of dots, a device indicative of cancellation, mark the passage in the Codex Sinaiticus, signifying that some corrector, who had failed to find the verses in the copy that lay before him, doubted their authenticity. The famous German scholar, Constantine Tischendorf, to whom the initial discovery of the manuscript was due, has maintained that the marks were the work of the first corrector, who made his collation with a very good and ancient copy, and whose testimony is entitled to grave respect. It is at such moments that the value of the original manuscript becomes most apparent. Certainly, a photographic reproduction of every extant portion of the manuscript has been made, but no facsimile, however perfect, can be of the least service to the student or critic who may wish to form his own judgement upon so delicate a matter. Nor is this all. Hampered though he needs must be by the show-case, the visitor should have little difficulty in satisfying himself that at some time an attempt has been made to erase the marks of cancellation. Whether a detailed study of the text


Page n149


holds more important surprises in store it is, of course, impossible to guess. In its relation to the New Testament, the manuscript, known to scholars as 4/eph, is summed up by Sir Frederic Kenyon thus: ‘Besides being one of the most ancient, the Codex Sinaiticus is also one of the most valuable texts.’ It has been argued from certain of the corrections that at a very early period the Codex Sinaiticus made its home in the great Christian library at Caesarea. Nothing definite can be said of its history, however, until the year 1844. In that year Tischendorf, in quest of ancient texts for a projected critical edition of the New Testament, visited the monastery of St Catherine on Mount Sinai. Among a basketful of fragments from manuscripts he was fortunate enough to find forty-three leaves from a copy of the Septuagint, which he at once recognized as being in an extremely ancient hand. Other basket-loads of similar waste material, he was told, had previously been destroyed. These forty-three leaves, containing portions of 1 Chronicles, Ezra, Tobit, Jeremiah and Lamentations, with Nehemiah and Esther complete, he was suffered to retain; but although he discovered some eighty more leaves of the Old Testament, he was denied an opportunity to study them. His travels at an end, Tischendorf presented his treasure to Frederick Augustus, King of Saxony, publishing its contents under the title of the ‘Codex Friderico-Augustanus’, At Leipzig the leaves still remain. A second visit to Sinai in 1853 proved fruitless, but in 1859 Tischendorf returned to the monastery, this time under the aegis of the Czar. Towards the end of his stay the steward produced for his inspection a pile of loose leaves which were soon to be known as the Codex Sinaiticus. Negotiations, the subject of much subsequent controversy, resulted in the dispatch of the manuscript to Cairo, where Tischendorf transcribed it, and thence to the Imperial Library at St. Petersburg. This then is the Codex Sinaiticus which now lies within our grasp. Like most famous men and objects, it has not wanted detractors. Let one be mentioned, Constantine Simonides. Tischendorf had lent his aid in the exposure of the frauds of Simonides, and the forger sought revenge by claiming that the Codex was the product of his own pen. It only remains once more to remind every friend of the British

Museum that a great sum is still required to secure this priceless
manuscript, and that all subscriptions, however small, will be
welcome. They should be sent to the Director, British Museum,
London, W.C. i. A. J. Collins.
Page 163


Codex Sinaiticus. To meet the popular demand for some account of the Mount Sinai manuscript and for reproductions of specimen pages several publications have been issued. A pamphlet, entitled The Mount Sinai Manuscript of the Bible (22 pp., with four illustrations), published at the price of sixpence, is in its second edition. It contains some account of the discovery and of the manuscript itself, rebuts the reports that the manuscript was wrongfully obtained by the Russian Government and that it is a forgery, and gives some typical instances of textually interesting passages in the New Testament. One of these passages, the Lord’s Prayer in St Luke’s version, is the subject of a leaflet (The Lord’s Prayer in St Luke’s Gospel according to the Codex Sinaiticus, 4 pp., 1 penny), which reproduces the passage, with a transliteration into modern Greek characters and the English of the Authorized and Revised Versions. A collotype facsimile, showing two pages (Luke xxiv. 23~John i. 39), full size, has been issued at a price of one shilling, and postcards showing respectively the same opening and a view of the Monastery


1703163910971.png
 
Last edited:
Top