B
h of the charges brought against him by the Patriarch.
V. 9. MIA LEPAFMATIKH I~TOPIA ANEYPEEHE XEIPOFPAT'ON
The people in charge in London accepted them as genuine and bought them. The list of these manuscripts is mentioned in Stewart's book by copying announcements from the buyers. There he tells us who bought them and where they are and we see their statements in authoritative journals assuring us of their authenticity. Sir Frederic Madden, in The Athe neum of 1856, p. 298, publishes a statement:
I agreed to recommend for purchase, and they were bought accordingly. These manuscripts were:
- Theophylact's commentary on the Gospels, 14th century.
- The four Gospels, missing part of Matthew, 13th century.
- The Epistles of Paul, James and Peter, incomplete, 13th century
- The Gospel of John, 13th century.
- A Sermon of John Damascene and the Chronography of Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople, 11th century.
- A treatise on geography, compiled by Strabo, Arian, Ptolemy, etc., with three badly preserved maps, 15ου century.
- Four leaves, two of which were part of a beautiful copy of the letters of James, with a commentary, from the 13th century.
These manuscripts are now numbered
19,386 to 19,392 among the additional manuscripts in the British Museum and are accessible to anyone interested in the subject. I may add that in September last, on the occasion of Mr. Simonides being first introduced to the Bodleian Library, and before any of his 'cylinders' were offered, I received a letter from one of the bibliophiles asking me about him, and replied to him expressing my unreserved opinion of the forgery of the manuscripts which I had refused to purchase."
But these manuscripts will be bought by
Sir Thomas Phillips and Baron Chammer. These two will repeatedly testify to the authenticity of the purchased manuscripts.
Stewart writes in his book: "For all the previous manuscripts, it has been argued that the parchment sheets on which they are written have been cut from ancient prayer books or from the registers of the monks. Such an opinion as this can easily be refuted,
for the leaves everywhere bear the same venerable and faded colour of archaic times, whereas if they had been cut from old service books or from other ecclesiastical writings, they should have been much cleaner on the inside and evidently younger than on the outside, because the inner part, having been isolated from outside influences for a longer time than the outer should necessarily be cleaner, and the outer, from constant friction and contact with the hands of the ana- connoisseur and especially from the atmospheric influence, it should have a more ancient and worn appearance. A brief inspection of the manuscripts shows the absurdity of such an opinion, for it is clear that all
the leaves of each individual manuscript were cut from the same leather, and that they all have the same physical texture and technique of preparation. The particular preparation of the parchments gives another strong proof of their authen- ticity. If they had been cut from old inventory books, there would have been a wide variety of skins and textures, because inventory books were written on poorly prepared skins of many different kinds. In general, they were prepared in a more modern and imperfect way.
He goes on to say, "The composition of the ink in which they are written is also quite different, and persons accustomed to it can distinguish and mark one from the other with the most unerring accuracy. Similarly, the syntax of the aforesaid manuscripts indicates their authenticity, for one is written in the form and style of Rhodes, the other in the "Alexandrian", as has already been mentioned.
The Rhodians had a peculiar way of cutting their pens, as did the Alexandrians and the Byzantines, and the professional calligraphers of different cities had their own way. For this reason a different form of writing always appears, and persons who are experienced in these matters can tell in which city the manuscript was written not only from the parchment and the manner of writing, but also from the ink itself. All these matters, to persons who are knowledgeable and informed, are evidence of the authenticity of a manuscript, but to those who do not understand - and, unfortunately, the great majority are in this position - they are extremely confusing and are taken into account rather to question the authenticity of a manuscript than to establish its antiquity and value."
V. 11. THE RABBI'S KNOWLEDGE OF PALAEOGRAPHY
membrane == parchment
Suleiman's Hatti Humayoun.
PART VI
RETURN TO STANBUL V.1. THE PERSECUTION OF HIEROTHEOS
Stewart says that Simonides shortly afterwards went to
Constantinople with A. Metaxas, Lieutenant-General, representative of the Greek Court at the Ottoman Gate. As stated above, he was the leader of the Russian Party. Lycurgus accurately377: "at the end of November of 1850, where he stayed for 10 months and then went to Mount Athos". Lycurgus adds: "Here he attracted the attention of
scholars by an interpretation of hieroglyphics of the local obelisk. Indeed, he was so fortunate that he attracted for his vocation a diplomat, the ambassador of Sardinia, Baron Tecco, who was very devoted to archaeology, so much so that he hosted him in his own palace." The expression is simplistic; Simonides was not lucky. He went to Constantinople with Metaxas, who represented Greece, and he himself had a close relationship with
Zakharov, the Russian consul. Zacharoff was a disciple of Jerome.
Simultaneously with Simonides,
Michael Fotiadis arrives in Constantinople. Later, in August 1851, his other uncle, Ioannis Fotiadis, would also arrive. The reason for their arrival in Constantinople was the persecution of Ierotheos (John Fotiadis) by the Bishop of Rhodes. They forced him to present himself to apologize to the Patriarchate.
Everything else about hieroglyphics and so on is just a game. They are built into his character and he can't do without them.
We should note that the Fotiades brothers belonged to the entourage of Anthimos V, who had already died. He was in opposition to Anthimos IV, who accused Jerome. Constantine therefore left Constantinople after the departure of his uncles and the vindication of Jerome. Constantine and his family were deeply concerned about the fate of the elderly Jerome. Constantine's stay in Constantinople coincided with the stay of his uncles. It is obvious that he did all this in order to attract the attention of great men of various nationalities in defence of Jerome's uncle, John Fotiades of Simaeus (1765-1860), whom Constantine describes as 'mousotrafi', virtuous and wise.
396.
It is extremely unlikely that Simonides was in Petersburg: his friend and then accuser Alexander Lycurgos, reconstructing the man's movements between '50 and '52, ruled out the possibility that, before going to England, he had been in Petersburg "such a trip would certainly not have been suppressed by him, who spoke of all his movements in high tones. And he would say explicitly that he was very sorry, because he had not yet seen Petersburg, Vienna, Rome, and cities of that kind." "Enthüllungen über den Simonides-Dindörfischen Uranios", Leipzig 1856, p. 57, n. 2.
An opinion of his own, and certainly the
opinion of Archimandrite Porphyry, ( Uspensky ) would in this case remove any possibility of forgery or of a redemption which is not sufficiently studied."
Especially in Athens and Constantinople he left a scorched earth, with a series of deceptions.
As Simonides resides in Constantinople, where he seems to have deceived Ishmael Pasha and the French publisher Cajel,
e, I wish to inform Your Excellency that, by High Order, it has been decided not to proceed with the case of the acquisition of these manuscripts. The General and Field Marshal Prince Volkonsky". (was the czar involved?)
222
V. 4. THE EXCAVATIONS IN ISTANBUL
Simonides cannot be proven to have always lied. The only sure and self-evident thing is that he greatly exaggerated and liked to play on the ignorance of others.
This article is the narrative of the French printer Caiol, who is active in Constantinople. This narrative clarifies what exactly happened with Ibrahim Pasha and the excavations: "
But these manuscripts, though they have all the ancient characters, the membrane, ink, writing, and physiognomy of antiquity, yet they are by no means ancient, so that all the other manuscripts, which he points out to the one and to the other as ancient, and which bear the like characters of antiquity, are always, I say, certainly not genuine. Reason says, and there is no other way.
I turn now to Simonides. Mr. Simonides, thou canst no longer play the part of a cryptologist and pseudo-archaeologist, what is left for thee? What remains to you is that which nature has bestowed upon you, and that is no small thing, you are an expert in the art of reconstructing ancient manuscripts, since you have been able to imitate them perfectly, you know how to reconstruct ancient inscriptions, as I have ascertained from experience, you have a natural inclination, and the theory and acumen to reconstruct and even to make up for the corrupt and imperfect parts, such a skill is no small thing to have, though not a little in all things, and imagination, but study, study, and true experience and friction in science shall correct these aberrations of thy mind.
One of the manuscripts which he mentions; for it is of great interest to the man's reputation.
K. Simonides,
denouncing the systems of the European Hieroglyphs as pictographs, opposes his own explanation, based on interpretations of ancient authors, of whom he has, as he says, the manuscripts. Do these manuscripts exist, or do they not exist? Mr Simonides would not dare to publicly declare a false telicuton; they exist, we suppose. But of what value they are, and how genuine, we think it is not enough for one man alone to judge, whether Simonides wanted to be him or anyone else. The opinion of many must concur in this, lest the thing be suspected, and the broadly conceived opinion should not give you suspicion, and the selfishly expressed self-conceit. Mr. Simonides certainly took these things into consideration, and, being himself and the public, he does not want to claim to have the friends of the ancients on his side.
Be that as it may, the thesis of Mr Simonides, as we suggest, is very curious and worthy of publication, it shows a great imagination of the author, it shows a competent knowledge of the matter in question, it shows the greatest envy of the day, and this alone is enough to justify the man against all insinuation and slander".
It continues in sheet 371 (of 27.1.1851) with the publication of the
study of the obelisk and notes: "And once again, Greece, in the midst of its misfortunes, has taken up the chair of the sacred language and becomes a teacher to the wise. The young Greece strangely interprets the old Egypt, the wise Egypt, and gives her today knowledge of her antiquity.
Where are now hiding those who have been vain for so many years, and what are their writings born of published interpretations that I possess? What do the vain men of the West now oppose? Let us see, the time is at hand."
What we should note is what we have said above, that Constantine went to Constantinople to help his uncle and teacher Jerome. Jerotheos was acquitted of his charge in September 1851 and on 5 December of the same year he returned to Panormitis.
VI. 6. Simonides' study of the Egyptian column 238
The study that he makes for the description of the columns of the Hippodrome, as he tells us, he copied it from pages 74-77 of the book "CONSTANTINIA OLD AND NEVER AGAIN, THE DESCRIPTION OF CONSTANTINOPOLIS", Compiled by
ANDROS PHILOLOGIST AND PHILARCHIOLOGIST (CONSTANTIN I ex-Patriarch) in 1844, who in turn copied
Peter Gillios (lat: Petrus Gyllius; French: Pierre Gilles, 1490-1555), a French traveller, surveyor and translator, who was in Constantinople between 1544 and 1547 as an envoy of King Francis I of France for the discovery and study of ancient manuscripts. C-
During his stay there he discovered a manuscript of the geographical work of Dionysius of Byzantium from the 2nd century AD, whose text he translated into Latin, while during the same period he also compiled a topographical study of the city and a description of the Bosphorus. "De Constantinopoleos topographia libri IV, pp. 120-127.
VI. 7. THE EFFORT WITH THE UNITED STATES
PART VI
PREPARATION FOR THE TRIP TO EUROPE
VI. 1. THE JOURNEY TO THE HOLY MOUNTAIN AND SMYRNA
Lycurgus even says that from the autumn of 1851 until the beginning of 1852 Constantine collected, and told him repeatedly, 40 palimpsests, which he kept in a chest in Alexandria and then began his travels410. But Lycurgus, a little further on, says that no such chest existed, and quotes Constantine's brother as a witness. When he went to Leipzig, on March 4, 1856, Stilponas showed ignorance (
"But the poor brother did not know the parami-kro")411.
Eventually, however, Lycurgus also committed suicide. One minute he tells us that he took from Athos the useless manuscripts, which he turned into palimpsests, and the next he tells us that he had nothing. He was certainly confused by Constantine's accounts.
Simonides is always watching what is written about him in the newspaper. We shall see this from a letter from London to Lycurgus (1853), who asks him: "Is the writing of Mark of Ephesus, which I published in Smyrna, one of those published, as the Constantinople Gazette wrote, or not? I desire to know this also, as well as the principles of every published treatise. By these, a memorial of the press of Constantine of Acropolis to the great Constantine, unknown to this day, is going out, and when it comes out I will give you a copy. (Lycurgus p. 61).
These may be true, for he arrives in England on 12 Dec. 1852
Lycurgus, in connection with the titles acquired by Simonides in Petrograd, writes the following: "It is certainly wrong that someone in the Atheniensische in the "Allg. Zeitung" says that Simonides had gone to Petrograd. Surely he would not have left such a trip without reporting it to me, he who surrounded all his visits with explosive colors. However, he expressed regret that he had not yet seen Pé-tropole, Vienna, Rome and the like. "414 And Simonides himself asks the Russians to help him go to study in St. Petersburg, which does not come true.
MEPOS Vfff
ALEO THN AAEEANAPEfA ETHN LYPLILEH Vffff.1. ETHN AFFAfA
He also offered to give them a practical example to test his knowledge of Egyptian antiquities, especially hieroglyphics. He stated that Champollion's system, as well as that of Prussian Lepsius, was based on erroneous principles419.
two Commissions were appointed. One of which he was a member, with the purpose of verifying the authenticity of four Greek manuscripts. Namely, the first three libras of Homer's Iliad, Hesiod Aristeus and the Golden Verses of Pythagoras, the manuscripts which Madden had rejected. The other was charged with examining his ability to interpret hieroglyphics, to be selected by the committee.
419. The question one would ask is: how did an illiterate hieromonk know all these systems for hieroglyphic writing, even if his was not the correct one? And why did the professors agree to appoint commissions, and two specialized ones at that, to examine him?
William Sandys Wright Vaux.
. And after this the question of the hieroglyphs was dispensed with, which rather moved the curiosity of the members, who, after much explanation on the subject, decided at any rate, that I should interpret columns of two hieroglyphic letters from the sarcophagus of Alexander the Great, which is in the British Museum, and give the reasons for the interpretation of the letters.
This young man is very great and worthy of the love of the public, and his profession is so precise that no doubt remains, that he has read many hieroglyphic manuscripts and even the symbolic part of Egypt, and his interpretation of them is true and unimpeachable. By it we learned much, and especially Egyptian history through the translation of the hieroglyphics.
putting the discoloured parchment before him with great care. The scribe's eye sparkled. It was a rare manuscript and was in excellent condition. He was not long in giving his opinion. That's for sure.
427. RHODIAC NEWSPAPER. 'THE LIFE AND WORKS OF CONSTANTINE SIMONIDES'. By Mr. I. M. Hatzifotis. 21/08/1964 and later.
In October 1854, when he arrived in Paris from England, he presented himself as an expert in Greek palaeo-graphy, eager to work in large libraries. He was provided with letters of recommendation and in Paris he was warmly welcomed by various personalities431. One of them, Sainte -Beuve432, recommended him everywhere, and so he circulated in all the institutions of Paris. Sainte -Beuve gives him letters of recommendation to those in charge of manuscript matters, who hold central positions in this anti-text. These letters of recommendation are remarkable. The first is addressed to Moureau, conservator of manuscripts in the Manuscript Department, and the second to Claude, conservator of manuscripts in the Publications Department of the Imperial Library:
6/18 March, another copy of the "Fac-similes",
and one of the "Autographs" and one of the "Similes", all dedicated "in Paris".
VIII. 3. In Germany 275
It seems that in the early days he was on good terms with Tissendorf as well. Besides, as he says in a letter to England, Tissendorf was a very close friend of Lycurgus, and in the early days he published praise of Constantine in a newspaper.
437. The newspaper "ATHENS" writes that
Lycurgus is the son of the late chieftain Lycurgus Logothetos and is studying theology in Leipzig, and when he was
in Athens he wrote a thesis on Ion King. As we can see, everything is mixed up and Simonides is in the middle. It is obvious that the post-event comes from Lycurgus himself
Tissendorf then publishes that Erma's manuscript was a forgery, and in this controversy he was supported by Lycurgus. Constantine responded with a pamphlet entitled 'the sycophant Lycurgus', in which he explained the whole matter.
He argued that Hermas' manuscript was genuine and that the Latin translations differed because they covered the views of the Latin translators. They put into Father Erma's mouth440 doctrinal thoughts totally incompatible with the apostolic proclamation. In this way they sought to strengthen the position of the doctrine to which the translators belonged. This manuscript is the "casus belli" with Tissendorf. But Tissendorf in 1859 would discover the Sinaitic Codex. This contains part of a copy of the Shepherd of Hermas. The text of the
- Charles Stewart.
- He was the brother of the Bishop of Rome Pius I and lived in the 2nd century AD.
276
But the Hermas he finds in the Sinaitic Codex is the same as the one Constantine gave in Leipzig.
Philip Schaff records a little known detail: 'For the Greek text of Hermas (brought from Mount Athos by Constantine Simonides, and called the Leipzig Codex) Tischendorf in 1863, because of the discovery of the Sinaitic Codex, retracted his previous a-concerns about its authenticity, of which he had expressed that it was a medieval translation from the Latin ...'. Tischendorf i.e. is forced to go through contradictions to save the dog and the pie, since he sold the Sinaitic Codex as authentic. So if the Codex was authentic, Simonides' Hermas could not have been. This is why scholars like James Farrer believed that Simonides outranked Tischendorf in knowledge and e-experience in palaeographical scholarship (see Farrer, p. 50).
The journal "Athena" of Athens, no. 2350 (12.12.1855), publishes a letter from Leipzig, which contains many details. In all likelihood it comes from Lycurgus, who seems to have begun in this way to "betray" his former close friend and play another game:
"From Leipzig they write to us that the notorious manuscript-pig441 Simonides, who is notorious in his own right, set up his workshop in this city as well. He sent to Mr. Dindorfion a copy of the apostolic Father Hermas, who was about to leave the presses. And now he negotiated to him and Agger the sale of the first three books of the first three books of Heaven, of the kings of Egypt, of the kings and governors of Ethiopia, of the kings of Caria and Lycia, and of the kings of Lycia, and of other authors, all of which he hath in old bindings. Those sold are those on the kings of Egypt, with purely Egyptian names, with corresponding Greek names interpreted by the Greek interpreters. And there is also
a treatise on the true explanation of hieroglyphics. He says, however, that he also has a Chreemon who wrote about Egyptian scripture, theology and archaeology. The letter adds that the manuscripts offered for sale by S. appeared to the sages in Leipzig to be genuine, and that the scholars in Athens were more desirable442 and perhaps condemned Simonides as a manuscript maker. In the judgment of Dindorfius we have all
- So we see specific terms being used.
- Without difficulty.
277
Let's see who is Lycurgus. Alexandros Lycurgos was born in Chora of Samos in 1827. He studied theology in Athens and Germany. He returned to Greece in 1858 and was appointed professor of theology at the University of Athens. He served as archbishop of Syros, Tinos and Milos. He died on 17 October 1875. It is obvious that in order to become a professor at the University of Bavarian-ruled and Ragavi-controlled Greece, he did not have to be a friend of Simonides with proof. Thus, while being his close friend and
helping him to 'repair' manuscripts for a fee, in early December he makes a speech before the Greek student union in Leipzig and calls Simonides a traitorous forger. In early 1856 he publishes a libretto entitled 'Enthüllungen über den Simoni-des-Dindorfschen Uranios'. Lycurgus has frequent correspondence with
Oikonomos ex Oikonomon, whom he calls a teacher. To him, he admonishes...
From all this it appears that Simonides met Lycurgus in Athens in the year 1837 through their mutual acquaintance O-conomos of Economon.
Stewart says that "It should be noted that to date two versions of Hermas have appeared from two copies of Simonides. The correct one is the first, rediscovered in the monastery of Gregory on Mount Athos
446,written by Clement of Larissa in 1475 and first published by Anger and Dindorf in Leipzig in 1856. The second was transcribed in colloquial language by Abraham of Tilos in 1821 and was therefore paraphrased and discovered on Mount Athos in the Monastery of Dionysius in 1851. It was published in Leipzig in the series of the Apostolic Fathers by Tissendorf, while he knew it was a paraphrased text. Both, however, were incomplete, and so Simonides published the rest, in his book "the Four Theological Writings", preceded by the life of the Apostolic Father Hermas, which are important for ecclesiastical history". In such a situation it was a given that everyone had to abandon Simonides, lest they be targeted by the Churches. The history of Athens is repeating itself and magnifying itself. Once Simonides created controversy in the churches, he was a burnt card and had to be discredited.
446. Published in "PATRIKI THEOLOGY" (11). (excerpts) and the Athonite Gregory 96 of the 16th century (which contained the entire text, but part of which was left by the notorious forger K. Simonides in 1855, when he discovered this codex).
VIII. 4. THE URAN
. The controversy begins with the issue of the Sinaitic Codex and culminates with the publication of the Mayer Museum's scrolls in Liverpool. The two Codes are thus made public: the "Codex Sinaiticus" and the "Codex Mayeria-nus". Unable, as always, to talk about the manuscripts, they talk about Simonides and put on the table, among other things, the question of the Celestial. From this controversy we can learn what became of the case of the palimpsest of Uranius. So by describing what exactly happened in England, we will see what happened in Germany.
The pale yellowish dissolution of the iron, in which the forged text was written, appeared on several occasions to have spread to the strokes of the lines over the text of the manuscript
448. Lepsius is the one who devised the transliteration of the hieroglyphics that Simonides disputed. Apparently his interest had pre-personal rather than palaeography objectives.
450. Note that Simonides tells all of Europe that Lepsius does not explain hieroglyphics correctly. He is therefore interested in obtaining Simonides' manuscript and gives money and tries to get possession of it. Later he will steal all of Simonides' tools and manuscripts from his house while he is a prisoner.
6. No part of the Uranium was printed in Berlin, but the beginning of it was printed at the Bodleian printing office in Oxford in a few copies, which have been taken by Mr. Lepsius and are still in his possession.
Dindorf accused Simonides in Saxony of misappropriating the palimpsest from a Turkish library and that it was a forgery. He was therefore arrested on 1 February 1856,
the seizure against Simonides and his unjust removal to Berlin was caused by a desire to obtain his manuscripts. Some of his stolen property was in fact in the hands of Lepsius, as Simonides was informed by the Berlin court in a letter subsequently sent to him in Munich. Lepsius also stole all the essays against Simonides, which he was compiling in order to reply to them at some point
Kunik454
454. Member of the Department of History and Philology of the Academy of Russia, member of the committee that examined Simonides' catalogue.
The book on Uranium is: "UEBER DIE ECHTHEIT DES URANIUS VON CONSTANTIN SIMONIDES, MUNICH, DRUCK VON CARL ROBERT SCHURICH, 1856".
And other PUBS
VIII. 5. THE RETURN TO ENGLAND 294
eturned to England in April 1858, where he stayed until 1865
He has probably decided to stay in England now. This is the one place where he has several friends who support him in various ways. One is putting out a book of his biography, others are funding his publications and others are introducing him to various "salons". Just the fact that the Royal Society of Literature hasn't stopped accepting him and discussing him is a breath of fresh air for him, since everyone has been chasing him out and chasing him.
The fact that in 1865 he had no intention of leaving England is demonstrated by the fact that he was elected to a council (as reported in The Athenaeum, no. 1961, 27 May 1865, p. 722) of an anthropological society. This society elects on the 16th of the same month a board of directors of which Constantine is a full member. Το συμβούλιο αποτελείται από τα παρακάτω μέλη: His Royal Highness Le Comte de Paris, Messrs. J. C. Richardson, B. Quaritch, F. E. Pearse, J. Murray, T. Pritchard, J. Bischoft, W. H. Spence, E. B. Tauney, J. H. Challis, J. B. Baxter, R. M. Nunn, A. Aubert, T. B. Sprague, T. H. Hood, Dr. H. Barber, Dr. C. Simonides; Corresponding Member, M. Giraldes, Paris; Local Secretary for Paris, M. Henri Vignard; Local Secretary for Turin, Prof. Filippe Manetta. It seems that this company had some expeditions to Africa. Apparently the person who introduces him to this "salon" is J. Murray, an editor in London. At this meeting a paper was read by the Bishop of Natal457, "on missionary work in Africa". Constantine in this Society apparently takes part for some reason we do not know. This Society must have an important role in the Natal region of South Africa and Constantine is preparing for something else.
At present in England Constantine remains in the public eye on three issues. In fact, his publicity is now reaching its peak, as his case has been the focus of European attention for over 15 years. The issues he is dealing with are of a very high level from a political and religious point of view, so they are of interest to ordinary citizens. University professors, collectors and dealers of antiquities and religious figures, mainly theologians, have therefore been involved in the debate. These issues are the 'Sinaitic Codex', the 'Uranium' and Mayer's 'Codex Mayerianus' manuscripts.
Simonides published a book entitled "Fac-Similes", otherwise known as the "Codex Mayerianus" (Codex Mayerianus. London, 1861), which contains some passages from the Gospel of St. Matthew and the letters of St. John and Judas. This book copies a scroll of the 1ου century, now preserved in the Joseph Mayer Egyptian Museum, Liverpool. Almost everyone doubts the authenticity of the scroll and Simonides asks the Council of the Royal Society of Literature to rule. Simonides signs the book as an honorary member of the LANCASHIRE and CHESHIRE Historical Society. However, he includes other subjects in this book, such as the "Simaida", the Heliotype, and certain matters relating to Symi and Rhodes.
Again, it was observed that the colour of the scrolls was, with two or three exceptions, quite different from that always seen in genuine documents of the same supposed period and character, offering the strong possibility that the scrolls had been deliberately discoloured before anyone had written on them.
In addition to Mayer's manuscripts,
Simonides presented two rolls of priestly writing, the authenticity of which was not disputed
,
well-informed microscopists, Professors Ehrenberg, Dove, and Magnus, rejected it in January, 1856,
a certain phrase,
"κατ' emin ιδέαv," originally in it, which had been objected to by academics as inappropriate to the ancient Greeks
The third letter concerns the notorious case of Kallinikos, the alleged friend of Constantine, who affirmed that the Sinaitic Codex was the work of Simonides. It is the same Kallinikos who has published Simonides' books in Moscow and Odessa. But his a-opponents, in order to prove that this Calvinicus does not exist, are wise to another, who must surely not be an original. When we expound the case of the Sinaitic Codex, we shall see some details which prove that the second Calvinicus does not exist, and, if he does exist, he is lying. Of the Calvinist of Simonides we could say nothing, possibly he does not exist either, but what he says is true. We shall set forth in a subsequent chapter our opinion of Kallinikos Simonides.
I therefore send them to the Rev. W. J. Irons, D. D., Brompton,
VIII. 6. THE TWO MONKS CALYNIANS Kallinikos
We will also quote the letters of the two Kaliniki, because we need to keep them in mind in further research. They will be necessary for us to draw conclusions about what happened to the C...
This teacher and disciple of all cunning and wickedness, German Tischendorf, unexpectedly fell into your net: having found in the common library (where I found him some time ago, and where your spiritual father Callistratus put him when he went to Alexandria) the Codex, which you wrote on Athos twenty-two years ago as a gift to the late Emperor of Russia, Nicholas I, at the request of your wise and distinguished uncle Benedict, and then going to Constantinople, after his death, you gave it unfinished to your blessed patriarch Constantius, who sent it to Mount Sinai with the monk Germanos of Sinai, whom you know, and which was then given to Hieromonk Callistratus to be compared with the three old Codes of sacred writings (which you know and which are kept in the treasury) and then ignored because you did not appear in time on Mount Sinai to transcribe it, in accordance with the original wish of the patriarch, has declared it to be genuine and the oldest of all known codices in Europe of the Old and New Testament.
The first one you read is - K. Simonidou hand me, and the second - K. A. F. Simonidou Macedonian εργον θεάρεστον ειμί, and the third, Simonidou the whole work.
The Codex in question, as we are now fairly certain, was taken to
St. Petersburg to be published and its antiquity
ascertained by researchers there. Now we shall see if they will support the magical discourse of Tischendorf, whom I have seen and conversed with four times and found him superficial in all things and almost ignorant of the language of our immortal ancestors. He only uses mechanical
Here's the letter that created the problems for everyone. It is still being dealt with today by those who want to prove Constantine's unreliability. Almost everyone who has dealt with Simonides tells us that there was no Cullinicus Kallinikos and that Simonides wrote it and sent it through his acquaintances in Alexandria.
Farrer and Library and Spyridon Lambrou??
This Kallinikos comes and goes from time to time in Simonides' life, either because he writes him letters or because he publishes books.
We cannot ascertain his existence. But the same has been written about Benedict, etc., and where we can prove something, we eat
Simonides may be right. Furthermore, we will see that what "Callisthenes of Simonides" writes is true and we can verify it. What J. Sylvester Davies' Calvinicus writes are not truths. In the above letter we even highlighted the background of the process of Tischendorf's acquisition of the Codex, which, as we shall see in the special chapter, coincides with the actual facts. That is, Tischendorf is not telling truths and the English are using a Cal-Lincoln to verify Tischendorf.
But how can Kallinikos be true if it is a cover story?
delivered by him to the venerable Patriarch Constantius, who sent it to the monastery of Sinai, in order to compare it with other manuscripts there of the Holy Scriptures, so that it could then be transcribed by the same Simonides and dedicated to the Emperor of Russia, the Venerable Nicholas, not on behalf of the Monastery of All Eleemos (Panteleimon) on Athos, as originally intended, but on behalf of the Holy Patriarch Constantius. Then, the holy monk Kallistratos, having put it with other codes of the same monastery, a gift of Patriarch Constantius, and having partially corrected it, left it in the library, awaiting the return of Simonides. The latter, however, not arriving in time,
466. Something else comes into play here. Namely, that Simonides had not completed the Codex in 1839 but in 1843, when he returned there and even in the same year he published Barnabas' letter to Smyrna.
Can he now, perhaps, find another Kallinikos in Cairo or Damascus or somewhere else? The name is not unusual.
Even the Archbishop of Mount Sinai is called Calvinicus - the late Patriarch of Alexandria was called Calvinicus - and there are many names of the same name on the Holy Mountain, each of whom can write him another letter assuring him that he did not write the letters to Simonides, and that 'therefore (note the logic) they have been forged by Simonides!
Tischendorf
the text of Tobiah and Judith, for example, is a quite different view-a view preserved mainly in the Old Latin and old Syriac documents.
VII.7. THE MAYOR CODE
Hodgkin
For the public, who will have forgotten the details of the present discussion in 1873, and if we were to tell them that in 1863 Simonides presented in London the manuscript of Hermippus, which is rumoured to be a forgery, would be as unduly prejudiced against him as they are likely to be by the bold statement just quoted.
The Athenaeum, Dec. 1861, p. 755, makes the following remark about Simonides, which probably has something to do with what is written in the above letter, although it is much earlier than it. When you find a donkey's shoe, you may think you will find a donkey. Weak and gentle people like to be petted by a creative genius. Lancashire is not as strict as Berlin. After a long silence, Mr. Simonides speaks unexpectedly from a Lancashire house, without the fear of Lepsius and his Myrmidons, and with the wealth, if not the intellectual world, of Liverpool to support him,-an "honorary" member of an important northern society,-who appreciate the words he uses so freely and offensively, from "those who love the Lord"."
