Codex Sinaiticus and Constantine Simonides - Kallinikos Profile, History, Details

That view is not consistent with Hodgkin's ongoing research on Simonides, including Hermas and Sinaiticus.

So far you have not quoted anything about the Hodgkin-Farrer correspondence except a smidgen about a Hermas tracing. So you seem to be whistling in the wind.

Constantinos Simonidis in the Gennadius Library
Pasquale Massimo Pinto
https://www.academia.edu/899443/Constantinos_Simonidis_in_the_Gennadius_Library

C. – To Hodgkin is also addressed a short undated Autograph Letter from Farrer returning to him some of Simonides’ MSS and tracings, which Farrer apparently utilised in his work on Literary Forgeries.26

These two facts point to friendly and close relations between Simonides and Hodgkin, who was an eminent Lawyer, a Quaker in persuasion, and whose library shows a love and tendency to what is strange and uncommon. He had evidently befriended Simonides and purchased more than one copy of his productions. Most of these, I have met with here for the first time. They are all lithographed from Simonides’ beautiful handwriting on the one side only of very thick paper of brownish or blueish tint.

In the end, I said (which you twist at every turn), Hodgkin's rejected him.

Which is telling.

Thanks for the extra reference to the tracings.
 
You are pretending those are words or thoughts from Hodgkin.
Tacky.

I never said those were his words.

You're creating a Strawman.

And...

No one has ever found incontrovertible evidence of a real person who fits precisely Simonides' description of + [= Arch-Bishop] Kuriakos Kallinikos Keraunos the Ordained-Priest-Monk of Alexandria and/or Thessoloniki.

No one.
 
In the end, I said (which you twist at every turn), Hodgkin's rejected him.
Which is telling.
Thanks for the extra reference to the tracings.

Your welcome.

The end would be around the time he assisted Farrer.
There are letters involving Hodgkin and Sinaiticus, one we are awaiting from the Forging Antiquities project.

If you have some interesting quotes, especially about Sinaiticus and Hodgkin, you should share them, so far nothing.
 
Now compare Simonide's 1863:
"the Hiero-Monachos
Kallinikos of Alexandria"
With the name he gives for Kallinikos below (print dated 1853 but very strongly suspected to actually be printed in 1860's):

"Autographa"
(Google Translate)

"Autographs of Doctor and Knight Constantine A. F. Simonidos Extracted from his letters and other documents and containing a variety of very important archaeological material / above and autograph issued under Kallinikos Hiero-Monarchos of Thessalonica with the permission of the author and Constantius I, former Patriarch of Constantinople Andri Sofolian and ever-adorned virtue and gratitude of the godly presumption of the pious are established under this​

First you have Alexandria, then you have Thessalonica.
 
Was it not Kallinikos himself (according to Simonides) who wrote του θεσσαλονικέως "of Thessoloniki" in the Autographa Mr Avery?
 
Last edited:
Was it not, Mr Avery, Kallinikos himself, who gave specific permission for Simonides to give his name as Kallinikos Ordained-Priest-Monk:

του θεσσαλονικέως
"of Thessaloniki"

1684222155376_Cap 1a Page 1 of 58.PNG

In the Autographa?
 
Last edited:
This is about as much information that we get out of Simonide's, at any time, in one hit at least, about his Kallinikos below:

The Literary Churchman
16th of June
1863
Page 107

Letter of Simonide's


"The Kallinikos who addressed the letters to the London papers on the subject of the Codex «Sinaiticus» is a Thessalonian by birth; his ancestors spring from the town of Niaousta, in Macedonia, and are related to General Karatasus. He was born in the year 1802, and named Kyriakos. He took the name of Kallinikos on his admission to the church; and having taken an active part in the Greek Revolution [i.e. 1821 to 1829/30], received the surname of Keraunos, on account of his bravery. He then ceased (as is necessary, according to our ecclesiastical law, in cases wherein a priest has taken up arms), from the profession of public sacerdotal duties, and spent a long time [1829/1830 to 1837 = 7 years?] in a monastery of Mt. Athos, where I made his acquaintance [1837 entered the Rossico, according Simonide's]. Since this time he has been engaged in semi— political missions, and I have had continued correspondence with him. He has travelled through Europe, Asia, and part of Africa, and the whole of the Archipelago, and has published at Moscow and at Odessa a number of my letters to him upon Archaeological matters?"​
 
Last edited:
In fact, it appears that Simonide's, by his evasive manner of writing and behavior, spends more time trying to throw people off the trail, than being straight forward in saying (for example things like) he wrote to me that he's heading to such and such a place, and will be there and/or arrive there, at such and such a time, on such and such a date, on such a such a ship, and you can meet him in such and such a monastery, in such a such a city...bla bla bla...

I personally haven't read anything like that about Kallinikos in any of Simonide's letter's etc (yet).
 
Last edited:
Answer this question Steven.

Are both of the "Kallinikos (a) monk" entries specifically dated to the year 1841 by Lambros himself in his catalogue,
as the Simonides entry is dated?

Yes?

Or no?


The answer is no!

The is no date of 1841 with either, entry (6406), or entry (6407).

The facts are that entry (6406) and (6407) are both undated entries.



Cap 1b.PNG




They could have been copied in 1844, or in 1853, or in 1855, or in 1859 for all you, or anyone knows. The dates are evidently not given in the two manuscripts (entries 6406 and 6407) copied by a "Kallinikos (a) monk" that Lambros catalogued.

You, Steven, are the one falsely inventing a date for the Kallinikos entries (6406) and (6407) in the Lambros catalogue that Sypridon Lambros himself never saw, nor put into his catalogue at entries (6406) and (6407).
 
The Lampros catalogue itself, and therefore the manuscripts themselves, at Mt Athos, which Mr Lambros looked at, do not in or of themselves establish any co-temporaneousness between the young Simonide's and the "Kallinikos (a) monk" in the catalogue entries (6406) and (6407).

As can be seen clearly in the image in the previous post.
 
The Lampros catalogue itself, and therefore the manuscripts themselves, at Mt Athos, which Mr Lambros looked at, do not in or of themselves establish any co-temporaneousness between the young Simonide's and the "Kallinikos (a) monk" in the catalogue entries (6406) and (6407).
As can be seen clearly in the image in the previous post.

Except for the identical manuscript in the three entries, related to one church father, and one holy day, and the consecutive numbers.

Very simple deductive reasoning.

James Anson Farrer had the skills.
 
Questions.

  • How many letters exactly did Kallinikos write to Simonide's specifically on the subject of the Sinaiticus?
  • When is it declared he wrote these?
  • From where is it stated he wrote these letters?
 
Back
Top