Codex Sinaiticus and Constantine Simonides - arrest and imprisonment in Berlin 1856

Here is a fairly lengthy evaluation of Tischendorf's behavior in respect of the 1859 event.

Yes, for when it was written it was a superb article, noting that he does not address the 1844 abstraction theft, the Kallinikos comment on the 1859 “loan”, the report of the midnight ride of Tischendorf Revere, the chronology problem involving when and how the ms. got to Cairo, the coloring and staining, Simonides at the Russian Historical Archives, and more.
 
The other day I supplied a powerful list to TNC of corroborating evidences of the 1844 Tischendorf CFA theft.

You want me to prove the authenticity of the theft?
You mean in the Codex Sinaiticus - the Facts thread here?

There is no presently no evidence that Tischendorf "stole" anything. "Took advantage of the monk's astounding ignorance of the inherent value of the codex" - I could agree it. A key question would be "Did Tischendorf mislead the monks as to the value of the Codex?" That much is unclear. If you classify taking advantage of someone's ignorance as theft - I think the law would resolve that on whether there was a fiduciary relation between the parties. Did Tischendorf stand in a such a relation to the monks? I doubt it, as he was viewed as a vistor and a stranger and bound by the monastery's rules - which is why your allegation of theft without corroboration is untenable - mere cant. However by the moral judgement of the spiritual law of Christian charity, it might be said that Tischendorf sinned - i.e. he did something against his conscience and against the spiritual law.

But who actually owned the manuscript codex? That is something you'll need to establish. It surely wasn't the individual monks - they had no personal financial interest. Who owned St. Catherine's monastery? Both it and everything in it were gifts from others. Likely this is why the monks were so reckless with their treasures - they simply didn't know the value of their stuff.

Don't forget the world was a different place in those days. Manuscripts were not as valuable as they are today - there was a brisk trade in them - they were bought and sold all the time, seen as a commodity. But yes, I can well understand later resentment ofTischendorf's appropriation of the leaves - a bit like giving them to some mega-rich US university today. One would have expected Tischendorf to have paid something for them.

However any allegation of "theft" would have to come directly from the monks themselves, were it to be taken seriously. Where is their allegation of theft?
 
Last edited:
You mean in the Codex Sinaiticus - the Facts thread here?

There is no presently no evidence that Tischendorf "stole" anything. "Took advantage of the monk's astounding ignorance of the inherent value of the codex" - I could agree it. A key question would be "Did Tischendorf mislead the monks as to the value of the Codex?" That much is unclear. If you classify taking advantage of someone's ignorance as theft - I think the law would resolve that on whether there was a fiduciary relation between the parties. Did Tischendorf stand in a such a relation to the monks? I doubt it, as he was viewed as a vistor and a stranger and bound by the monastery's rules - which is why your allegation of theft without corroboration is untenable - mere cant. However by the moral judgement of the spiritual law of Christian charity, it might be said that Tischendorf sinned - i.e. he did something against his conscience and against the spiritual law.

But who actually owned the manuscript codex? That is something you'll need to establish. It surely wasn't the individual monks - they had no personal financial interest. Who owned St. Catherine's monastery? Both it and everything in it were gifts from others. Likely this is why the monks were so reckless with their treasures - they simply didn't know the value of their stuff.

Don't forget the world was a different place in those days. Manuscripts were not as valuable as they are today - there was a brisk trade in them - they were bought and sold all the time, seen as a commodity. But yes, I can well understand later resentment ofTischendorf's appropriation of the leaves - a bit like giving them to some mega-rich US university today. One would have expected Tischendorf to have paid something for them.

However any allegation of "theft" would have to come directly from the monks themselves, were it to be taken seriously. Where is their allegation of theft?

Nicely balanced objectivity ?
 
So...1856

  • Simonides was arrested in Leipzig
  • Simonides was imprisoned in Leipzig
  • Simonides was transferred to Berlin jail
  • Simonides was imprisoned in Berlin
  • Simonides was put on trial for theft, fraud, and forgery in Berlin

So...

Simonides was, or wasn't convicted of these charges?
 
Let's not lose sight in the midst of all this, of one of his:

  1. Previous convictions (July 7th, 1847, the Criminal Court of Athens sentenced Simonides to 15 days in prison), and
  2. ? Vengeful attitude following the conviction
  3. ? Newspaper attack strategy afterwards

See:


Greek Newspaper
"EFSYN.GR"
November 15th, 2020
"The first American intervention in Greece with frigates in Piraeus
Stavros Malagoniaris."


https://www-efsyn-gr.translate.goog...tr_sl=el&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc
https://www-efsyn-gr.translate.goog...tr_sl=el&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc

Summary of the Jonas King affair posted by Cjab quoting the above ☝️

https://forums.carm.org/threads/cod...ment-in-berlin-1856.13481/page-5#post-1116157

"on July 7, 1847, the Criminal Court of Athens sentenced Simonides to 15 days in prison, following King's lawsuit. [...] After the conviction, Simonides escalated by writing a series of texts, which were published on July 13 and 19 in the "Aion" newspaper under the general title "The orgies". In them he described outrageous images, which he allegedly witnessed at ceremonies at King's house..."

https://forums.carm.org/threads/cod...ment-in-berlin-1856.13481/page-5#post-1116159
 
Last edited:
But wait!

There's more...


A. Lykourgos
"Enthüllungen über den Simonides-Dindorfschen Uranios"

Leipzig, 1856

Chapter III. "Biographische Skizze"

German Text

Page 49, Footnote 1


"Bei dieser Gelegenheit ist noch eines schlechten Charakterzugs des Simonides zu erwähnen. Da nämlich im Jahre 1847 zuerst Herr R. Raogabe zu Athen, einer der angesehensten Professoren, neulichst zum Minister des Aeussern ernannt, das betrügerische Treiben des Simonides durchschaut und gebrandmarkt hatte, so hegte Simonides gegen Niemand einen ärgeren Groll als gegen Rangabe. Durch diesen Groll Hess er sich dazu verleiten, die Unterschrift Rangabe's auf ein Dokument zu bringen, worin ihm derselbe 5000 Drachmen für die Vernichtung seines Panselenus antrug. Dieser Streich hatte nämlich die BeStimmung, den Herrn Rangabe als leidenschaftlichen Parteigänger der Franzosen zu verdächtigen, indem derselbe um so hohen Preis die Ehre der Erfindung der Daguerreotypie gegen die Goncurrenz des Panselenus retten wollte. Erst neulich erfuhr ich, dass Sim[onides] für diese Unterschriftsfälschung in Athen zu einer bedeutenden Gefängnisstrafe verurtheilt worden sei. Wir bedauern, die in der [Pandora] (1851. Nr. 23—25. gegen die Simonidischen Handschriften aus Rangabe's ausgezeichneter Feder erschieneneu Artikel nicht' zur Hand zu haben), um davon Gebranch zu machea."

Alexander Lykourgos
“The Exposing of the Simonades-Dindorfian Uranios”

Leipzig, 1856

Chapter: III. A Biographical Sketch

(Google Translate Modified)

Page 49, Footnote 1


"On this occasion, another bad trait of Simonides' character should be mentioned. In 1847 Mr. R. Raogabe, one of the most respected professors in Athens, who had recently been appointed Minister of Foreign Affairs, because he had seen through and denounced Simonides' fraudulent [Or: "deceitful"] activities [Or: "work's"], Simonides could not have harbored a worse resentment against anybody than what he did against Rgabe. Through this resentment he allowed himself to be misled into putting Rgabe's signature on a document in which he [i.e. Ragabe] offered him [i.e. Simonides] 5,000 drachmas for the destruction of his Panselenus. The purpose of this hoax [Or: “trick”] was to implicate Herr Rgabe as being a passionate partisan of the French, since he wanted to save the honor of the invention of the daguerreotype against the rivalry of Panselenus [i.e. Simonides forgery] at such a high price. It was only recently that I learnt that Simonides had been sentenced to a lengthy prison sentence in Athens for this forged signature. We regret that we do not have the new articles published in [Pandora] (1851, No. 23-25, against the Simonidian manuscripts from Rgabe's excellent pen) at hand in order to make use of them."


Well well well...

Another arrest...

Another prison sentence...

Another vengeance plot against his exposers...

Yep. It was time we got this out there.
 
You mean in the Codex Sinaiticus - the Facts thread here?

Post #700
https://forums.carm.org/threads/codex-sinaiticus-the-facts.12990/page-35#post-1123253

Theft.

The 1859 cover story lie about saving from fire, many details nicely organized by from Kevin McGrane, is simply one component.

Here was the conversation from 6 years back.
James changed his text in the blog as he had made a major error (he also changed a typo I pointed out.)

You confuse a statement of James as if it was mine. (Typical)

His blog otherwise is a good read, we agree that the “SAVED from FIRE” is nonsense. You should deal with that, instead of playing games.

James Snapp found some excellent material, but did not even know all the details, such as:

1) his thief’s letter to Julius, explaining that leaves just came into his posession

2) five complete intact quires, easy to steal, that we see corroborated in the 1933 video

3) fact that Tisch fabricated the story 15 years later, in 1859, (covered well by Kevin McGrane) as a cover story for the 1844 theft. Since the connection of the two ms. would come out in public sometime.

4) no monastery corroboration of his supposed right to take the 43 leaves.

5) the “coincidental” remarkable notes right at the end of the supposedly random 43 leaves

6) the accurate account from Kallinikos about Tischendorf abstracting the 1844 leaves, for which you think Simonides had a network of spies at the monastery

7) Tisch’s tendency to using “Prince Regent” for monastery sneakiness

8) the Uspensky report from 1845 shows an intact manuscript

That is more than enough to know Tisch was lying in a desperate attempt to cover for the 1844 theft.

(Btw, we also have an account from 1859 that speaks of a midnight ride of Tischendorf Revere.)

Amazingly, we still have dupes.

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

James Snapp (originally):

"according to Simonides, is how its pages turned up there in a basket in 1844"

My correction to James:

“ - the basket story was a total fabrication. We know from Uspensky that the ms was whole. And the basket was not referenced by Simonides (which is what your quote says). It was created by Tischendorf in 1859, 15 years after the first theft. “

==========

“the basket story” refers to the total lie from Tisch that he saved the 43 leaves in a basket from fire.

You flunk Context 101 again.
 
Last edited:
Can anyone see the common denominators in these three Simonides arrests, and two convictions, etc?

Is a criminal profile beginning to emerge?

All before the...

The...

You guessed it...

BEFORE

THEE 1860 MASSIVE U-TURN

ON SIMONIDES STANCE ON
THE CODEX SINIATICUS
 
American Publishers Circular and Literary Gazette 1856 (taken from the Gentleman's magazine)

"Professor Dindorf allows that he advised
Simonides at first to try and sell the Uranios MS. in England, where it might be
disposed of to most advantage : but says that he afterwards withdrew
from any thought of a personal agency in the affair, and that he neither
offered the MS. for sale in England nor in any other place, except at
Berlin . We know its history there, and how Simonides was apprehended
at Leipzig, when on the point of starting afresh for England ,
with all his packages and effects ready for the journey ; how he was
transported to Berlin, put in prison there, tried , and acquitted , to the
surprise and astonishment of all. The reason assigned for this unlookedfor
escape of Simonides from merited punishment, is said to have been
his ignorance of the transaction of Professor Dindorf with the Berlin
Academy, which purchased the MS . of " Uranios " for 5000 dollars, by
the advice of Dindorf ; and in consequence of this ignorance, Simonides,
by the law of Prussia, was held not amenable to punishment.
On the
29th of March Simonides made his triumphant appearance at the Café
Français in Leipzig, boasting of his innocence, and declaring his resolution
to have satisfaction for the unjust persecution he had suffered from
the Leipzig scholars. The Professors of Berlin, he said, ( teste Lykurgos),
accompanied him as a guard of honor to the railway-station, and
Lepsius offered him money, should he have occasion for it. He was
even offered the choice, he affirmed , of receiving back his MS. , or money
in exchange for it . This state of things, however, did not last long ; for
on March 30 the police gave him notice to quit Leipzig, and to bend his
steps homewards ; and at 3 P.M. on the same day he took his departure
for Vienna, with a guard of police on this occasion to do him honor."
 
American Publishers Circular and Literary Gazette 1856 (taken from the Gentleman's magazine)

"Professor Dindorf allows that he advised
Simonides at first to try and sell the Uranios MS. in England, where it might be
disposed of to most advantage : but says that he afterwards withdrew
from any thought of a personal agency in the affair, and that he neither
offered the MS. for sale in England nor in any other place, except at
Berlin . We know its history there, and how Simonides was apprehended
at Leipzig, when on the point of starting afresh for England ,
with all his packages and effects ready for the journey ; how he was
transported to Berlin, put in prison there, tried , and acquitted , to the
surprise and astonishment of all. The reason assigned for this unlookedfor
escape of Simonides from merited punishment, is said to have been
his ignorance of the transaction of Professor Dindorf with the Berlin
Academy, which purchased the MS . of " Uranios " for 5000 dollars, by
the advice of Dindorf ; and in consequence of this ignorance, Simonides,
by the law of Prussia, was held not amenable to punishment.
On the
29th of March Simonides made his triumphant appearance at the Café
Français in Leipzig, boasting of his innocence, and declaring his resolution
to have satisfaction for the unjust persecution he had suffered from
the Leipzig scholars. The Professors of Berlin, he said, ( teste Lykurgos),
accompanied him as a guard of honor to the railway-station, and
Lepsius offered him money, should he have occasion for it. He was
even offered the choice, he affirmed , of receiving back his MS. , or money
in exchange for it . This state of things, however, did not last long ; for
on March 30 the police gave him notice to quit Leipzig, and to bend his
steps homewards ; and at 3 P.M. on the same day he took his departure
for Vienna, with a guard of police on this occasion to do him honor."

Simonides mentions his railway departure in his Biographical Memoir.

He talks about the court case as well.
 
Back
Top